Vindiciæ evangelicæ or The mystery of the Gospell vindicated, and Socinianisme examined, in the consideration, and confutation of a catechisme, called A Scripture catechisme, written by J. Biddle M.A. and the catechisme of Valentinus Smalcius, commonly called the Racovian catechisme. With 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, & the fruits thereof, from the animadversions of Mr R.B. / By John Owen D.D. a servant of Jesus Christ in the work of the Gospell.

CAP. I.

M. B's first Chapter Examined. Of the Scriptures.

MR Biddle having imposed upon himselfe the task of insinuating his Abominati∣ons, * 1.1 by applying the expresse words of Scripture, in way of Answer to his capti∣ous and Sophisticall Queries, was much straitned 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 imper∣fections, which the residue of men, with whom he is in the whole Systeme of his doctrine in complyance and communion, do charge them withall. As that there are contradictions, in them, though in things of lesse a 1.2 importance: that many things are, or may be changed, and altered in them; that some of the bookes of the Old Testament are lost, & that those that remaine, 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 windings and turnings of them, so to drive them to their proper issue, but only to discover the sophistry and falsenesse of those insi∣nuations, which grosely and palpably overthrow the foundations of Christianity. I shall not force him to speake to any thing, beyond what he hath expresly delivered himselfe unto.

This first Chapter then, concerning the Scriptures, both in the greater and lesser Catechismes, without farther trouble, I shall * 1.3 passe over; seeing that the stating of the Questions, and Answers in them, may be sound, and according to the Common Faith of the Saints, in those who partake not with M. B's companions, in their low thoughts of them, which here he doth professe. Only I dare not joyne with him, in his last assertion, that such and such passages, are the most affectionate in the Booke of God; seeing we know but in part, and are not enabled, nor warranted, to make such peremptory determinatons concerning the severall passages of Scripture, set in comparison, and competition for Affectionatenesse, by our selves.

CAP. II.

Of the Nature of God.

HIS second Chapter which is concerning God, his Essence, Nature, and Propertyes, is second to none in his whole Booke, * 1.4 for Blasphemyes and Reproaches of God and his Word.

The description of God, which he labours to insinuate, is, * 1.5 that he is one Person, of a visible shape, and similitude, finite, limited to a certaine place, mutable, comprehensible, and obnoxious to turbulent passions, not knowing the things that are future, and which shall be done by the sonnes of men, whom none can love withall his heart, if he believe him to be one in three distinct Persons.

That this is punctually the Apprehension, and notion concer∣ning God, and his Being, which He labours to beget, by his * 1.6 suiting Scripture expressions to the blasphemous insinuations of his Questions, will appeare in the consideration of both Que∣stions and Answers, as they lye in the second Chapter of the greater Catechisme.

His first Question is, How many Gods of Christians are there? And * 1.7 his Answer is; One God, Eph. 4. 6. Whereunto he subjoynes, secondly, who is this one God? And Answers, The Father of whom are all things, 1. Cor. 8. 6.

That the Intendment of the connexion of these Queryes, and * 1.8

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 worke of him, that makes it his businesse to oppose it, and laugh it to scorne. With what successe this attempt is mannaged, a little consideration of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul sayes to us, there is one God: treating of the vanity and nothingnesse of the Idols of the Heathen, whom God hath threatned 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 administred unto it; as that expression of Paul, being no parcell of such a discourse, as he insists upon, sounds pleasantly towards the allowance of many Gods, though Christians have but one. Neither is M. B. so averse to Polutheisme, as not to give occasion (on other accounts) to this supposal. Jesus Christ he allowes to be a God. All his companions, in the undertaking against his truly eternall di∣vine Nature, still affirme him to be b 1.9 Homo Deificatus, and Deus Factus, and plead pro verâ deitate Jesu Christi; denying yet with him, that by Nature He is God, of the same Essence with the Fa∣ther: So indeed grossely 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 Re∣ligion which on this occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be an Eternall God, of worshiping a meere Creature, with the worship due only to the Infinitely blessed God, we shall speak after∣wards.

2. We confesse that to us, there is one God, but one God, and let all other be accursed. The Gods that have not made Heaven, and * 1.10 the Earth, let them be c 1.11 destroyed, according to the word of the Lord from under these heavens. Yet we say moreover, that there are d 1.12 Three that beare witnesse in Heaven, the Father, Word, and Spirit, and that 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 fountaine of all spirituall di∣stributions

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 * 1.13 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 Sonne also is our Lord, and our God, Ioh. 20. 28. Even God over all blessed for ever: Rom: 9. 5. The spirit also is the God which workes all in all, 1 Cor. 12. 6, 11. And in the name of that one God, who is Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, c 1.14 are we Baptized, whom we serve, who to us, is the one God o∣ver all. Neither is that Assertion, of the Fathers being the one, and only true God, any more prejudiciall to the Sonnes being so also, then 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 Catechisme, the Racovian: d 1.15 two of whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered, and intended by M. Biddle. But of these things more afterwards.

His next inquiry is after the nature of this one God: which he * 1.16 Answers, with that of our Saviour, in Ioh: 4. 24. God is a spirit; in this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great Master, Faustus Socinus, & his disciple (as to his notions a∣bout the Nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgement 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 pleri{que} omnes arbitran∣tur: Deum scilicet esse Spiritum, ne{que} enim subaudiendum esse dicit aliquis verhum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quasi vox 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, recto casu accipienda sit, sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 repe∣tendum verbum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod paulo ante praecessit, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quarto casu ac∣cipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quaerere & postulare spiritum, Vor∣stius

also followes him, Not. ad Disput. 3. p. 200. because the verbe substantive, [is,] is not in the originall expressed, (then the omis∣sion whereof, nothing being more frequent, though I have heard of one, who from the like omission 2 Cor. 5. 17. thought to have proved Christ to be the new Creature there intended) contrary to the Context, and coherence of the Words, designe of the Argument in hand, insisted on by our Saviour, (as he was a bold man) and emphaticallnesse of significancy in the expres∣sion as it lies, he will needs thrust in the word seeketh, and ren∣der the intention of Christ to be, that God seekes a spirit, that is, the spirits of men to worship him. Herein I say is M. B. more modest then his Master, (as it seemes following e 1.17 Crellius, who in the exposition of that place of Scripture is of an other mind) though in craft, and foresight, he be outgone by him, for if God be a Spirit indeed, one of a pure spirituall Essence; and Sub∣stance, the Image, shape, and similitude, which he afterwards ascribes to him, his corporall 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 mind∣full of what they have said; falshood hath no consistency in it selfe, no more then with the Truth. Smalcius in the Racovian Catechisme is utterly silent as to this Questions & Answer. But the consideration of this also, will in its due place succeed.

To his 4^th Query, about a farther description of God, by * 1.18 some of his Attributes, I shall not need to sub oyn•• any thing in way of Animadversion; for however the Texts he cites, come 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of delivering that of God, which the import of the questi∣on, to which they are annexed, doth require, yet being not wre∣sted 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 worke: in these words, Is not God, 〈…〉〈…〉 current of the Scriptures, in a certaine place, namely in * 1.19

Heaven? Whereunto he Answers by many places of Scripture, that make mention of God in Heaven.

That we may not mistake his mind, & intention in this Query, some light may be taken from some other passages in his booke. In the preface he tells you: that God hath a similitude and shape, (of which afterwards) & hath his place in the Heavens. That God is in no certain place, he reckons amongst those errors he opposesin the same Preface. Of the same kind he asserteth the beliefe to be, of Gods being infinite, & incōprehensible: & Cat. les. p. 6. That God glistereth with Glory, & is resident in a certaine 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 certaine place; That which is in a certaine place, is finite, and limited; as from the nature of a place, and the manner of any things being in a place, shall be instantly evinced. God then is finite, and limi∣ted, be it so: (that he is infinite and incomprehensible is yet Scripture Expression) yea he is so limited, as not to be exten∣ded to the the whole compasse, and limit of the Heavens; but he is in a certaine place of the Heavens, yea so circumscribed, as that a man may see from his right hand to his left: wherein M. B. comes short of Mahomet, who affirmes, that when he was taken into Heaven, to the sight of God, he found three dayes journey be∣tween his eye-browes, 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-browes. Let us see then on what Testimony, by what Authority, M. B. doth here li∣mit the Almighty, and confine him to a certaine place, shutting up his Essence and being, in some certaine part of the Hea∣vens, cutting him thereby short, as we shall see in the issue, in all those eternall perfections, whereby hitherto he hath been knowne to the sonnes of men.

The proofe of that lyes in the places of Scripture, which making mention of God, say, He is in Heaven, and that He looketh downe from * 1.20 Heaven, &c. Of which out of some Concordance, some 20, or 30. are by him repeated. Not to make long worke of a short businesse; The Scriptures say, God is in Heaven; who ever denyed it? But do the Scriptures say he is no where 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 M. B. thinks this any argument, God is in Hea∣ven, therefore his Essence is not Infinite, and immense, therefore He is not every where, we are not of his mind. He tells you in his Preface, that He asserts nothing himselfe: I presume his Reason was, least any should call upon him for a proofe of his Assertions. What he intends to insinuate, & what conceptions of God he la∣bours to insnare the minds of unlearned, & unstable soules withall, in this question under consideration, hath been from the evidence of his intendment therein, and the concurrent Testimony of o∣ther expressions of his to the same purpose, demonstrated. To propose any thing directly, in way of proofe of the truth of that which he labours insensibly to draw the minds of men unto, He was (doubtlesse) conscious to himselfe of so much dis∣ability 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 cou∣ched in his Question, to cast in some Scripture expressions, that as they lye, may seeme fitted, to the fixing of the notion be∣fore begotten in them. As to any attempt of direct proofe 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 Gods being in Heaven, are in the coherence, and de∣pendance * 1.21 of speech, wherein they lye, suited, or intended at all, to give answer to this Question, or any like it, concerning the Presence of God, or his actuall existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensations of God, and workes of his, whose fountaine and originall he would have us to consider in him∣selfe, and to come forth from him there, where in an eminent manner he manifests his Glory. God is I say in none of the pla∣ces 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 Gods Essentiall presence, and existence, in reference to all, or any places; but only by the way of eminency, in respect of manifestations of himselfe, 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 ot 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 proofe of the figment insinuated, the Argument from them would be, â non causâ pro causâ. The reason why God is said to be in Heaven, is not because his Essence is included in a certaine 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 workes, which outwardly are of him.

3. God is said to be in Heaven in an especiall manner, be∣cause * 1.22 he hath assigned that as the place of the Saints expectation of that enjoyment of eternall fruition of himselfe, which he hath promised to blesse them withall. But for the li∣miting of his essence to a certaine place in Heaven, the Scrip∣tures, as we shall see, know nothing, yea expressly, and positive∣ly affirme the contrary.

Let all then supply our catechamens, in the Rome of M. B's, with this Question, expressly leading to the things en∣quired * 1.23 after.

What sayes the Scripture concerning the Essence and presence of God, is it confined and limited to a certaine place, or is he infinitely, and equally present every where?

Ans. The Lord your God, he is God in Heaven above, and in earth beneath Josh. 2. 11.

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the Heavens, and Heaven of Heavens cannot containe thee, how much lesse the House that I have builded. 1 Kings 8. 27.

Whither shall I goe from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy pre∣sence? If I ascended up into Heaven thou art there, if I make my bed in Hell, behold thou art there, &c. Psal. 139. 7, 8, 9, 10. The Heaven is my Throne, and the Earth my footstoole. Isaiah 66. 1. Acts 7. 47, 48.

Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God, afarre of, can any hide himselfe in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord, do not I fill Heaven and Earth saith the Lord? Jerem. 23. 24.

It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God, that these places * 1.24 expresly treat; and whereas i•• was manifested before, that the ex∣pression of Gods being in Heaven, doth not at all speak to the abomination, which M. B. would insinuate thereby, the naked rehearsall of those Testimonies, so directly asserting, and ascri∣bing

to the Almighty, an Infinite, Unlimited Presence, and that in direct opposition, to the grosse apprehension of his be∣ing confined to a certain place in Heaven, is abundantly suffici∣ent, to deliver the thoughts, and minds of men, from any entan∣glements that M. B's Questions and Answers (for though it be the word of the Scripture he insists upon, yet, male dum recitas in∣cipit esse tnum) might lead them into. On that account no more need be added: but yet this occasion being administred, that Truth it selfe, concerning the Omnipresence, or Ʋbiquity of God, may be farther cleared, and confirmed.

Through the prejudices and ignorances of men, it is enqui∣red, whether God be so present in any certain place, as not to * 1.25 be also equally elsewhere, every where.

Place has been commonly defined to be, superficies corporis am∣bientis; Because of sundry inextricable difficulties, and impossi∣bility of suiting it to every place, this definition is now gene∣rally decryed. That now commonly received, is more naturall, suited to the Natures of things, and obvious to the understan∣ding. A place, is, spatium corporis susceptivum; any space wherein a body may be received, and contained. The first consideration of it, is, as to its fitnesse and aptnesse, so to receive any body: so it is in the imagination only. The second, as to its actuall 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 thereinto, by the power of God.

Presence in a place, is the actuall existence of a person in its * 1.26 place: or as Logicians speak, in its Ʋbi; that is, answering the enquiry 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 doe not say, they are pre∣sent in, or to their places. This being the generall description of a place, and the presence of any therein, it is evident, that pro∣perly 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 sence, it would deprive him of all his infinite Perfections.

It is farther said, that there be three wayes of the Presence of any, in reference to a place, or places; some are so in a place, as * 1.27 to be circumscribed therein, in respect of their parts, and dimensi∣ons, 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 armes 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 any where else, though they have not parts, and dimensions filling the place wherein they are, nor are punctually circumscribed with a locall space; such is the presence of Angells, 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 else∣where, or in any other place: And this is proper to all finite, immateriall 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 lesse, as it seemeth good to him.

Of this Omnipresence of God, two things are usually enqui∣red after. 1. The thing it selfe, or the Demonstration, that he * 1.28 is so Omnipresent. 2. The manner of it, or the Manifestation, and declaring how he is so present. Of this latter perhaps sun∣dry things have been over curiously, and nicely, by some dis∣puted: though upon a through search, their disputes may not ap∣peare altogether uselesse. The Schoolemens distinctions of Gods being in a place, repletivè, immensivè, impletivè, superexcedentèr, conser∣vativè, attinctivè, manifestative, &c. Have, some of them at least, foundation in the Scriptures, and right Reason. That which seemes most obnoxious to exception, is their assertion, of God to be every where present, instar puncti: but the sence of that, and its intendment, is to expresse, how God is not in a place, rather then how he is. He is not in a place as quantative bodyes, that have

the dimensions attending them: Neither could his presence in Heaven, by those who shut Him up there, be any otherwise con∣ceived, untill they were relieved by the rare notions of M. B. concerning the distinct places of His right hand and left. But it is not at all about the manner of Gods presence, that I am occasioned to speake, but only of the thing it selfe. They who say, He is in Heaven only, speake 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 Pre∣sence being purely of a Philosophicall consideration: His Pre∣sence it selfe divinely revealed, and necessarily attending his Di∣vine perfections; Yea it is an Essentiall property of God. The propertyes of God, are either absolute, or relative. The absolute propertyes 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 egresse and exercise, respect some things in the Creatures, though they naturally and eternally reside in God. Of the first sort is Gods Immensity; it is an absolute property of his na∣ture and Being; for God to be immense, infinite, unbounded, unlimi∣ted, is as necessary to him, as to be God; that is, it is of his Essentiall perfection, so to be. The Ʋbiquity of God, or his pre∣sence 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 Habi∣tude of his Immensity to the Creation; supposing the Creatures, the world that is, God is by reason of his Immensity, indist•••• to them all: or if more worlds be supposed, (as all things possi∣ble to the power of God, without any absurdity may be sup∣posed) on the same account as he is Omnipresent, in reference to the present world, he would be so to them & all that is in them.

Of that which we affirme in this matter, this is the summe; * 1.29 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 o∣ther things, Heaven or Earth; in, or upon them, but by an in∣conceivable indistancy of Essence to all things, though he exert his power, and manifest his Glory, in one place more then another: as in Heaven, in Sion, at the Arke, &c.

1. That this is the Doctrine of the Scriptures, in the places * 1.30 before mentioned, needs no great pains to evince. In that 1 Kings 8. 27. the designe of Solomon in the words, gives light to the substance of what he asserted, he had newly with labour, cost, charge, and wisdome, none of them to be parallel'd 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 worke he had in hand,) concerning the Nature, and Being of God, being grosse, carnall, and superstititous, themselves an∣swerably, worshipping those, who by nature were not God, & his own people of Israel, exceedingly prone to the same abominations, least any should suppose, that he had thoughts of including the Essence of God in the house that he had bulit; he cleares himselfe in this confession of his Faith, from all such imaginations; affirming that though indeed God would dwell on the Earth, yet he was so farre 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 containe Him, so far is he from having a cer∣taine 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. 2. 11. That which the Temple of God was bulit unto, that the Heaven & the Heaven of Heavens cannot containe: Now the Temple was built to the Being of God, to God as God. so Acts. 7. 47. But Solomon built him an House Him v. 48. that is, the most High, who dwelleth not, (is not circumscribed) in Temples made with hands.

That of the 139. Psalme is no lesse evident; The presence, or * 1.31 face of God, is expressly affirmed to be every where: Whether shall I goe from thy face, if I ascend up into Heaven 〈◊〉〈◊〉 art there, if I goe 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 nor questioned.

Neither can that of the Prophet Isa. 66. 1. be otherwise un∣derstood, * 1.32 but as ••o ascribing an Ʋliquity to God, and a pres••nce in Heaven and Earth: Heaven is my throne, and the Earth is my foot∣stoole; the words are Metaphoricall, 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 foote-stoole, and yet him∣selfe be so inconceivably distinct frō it, as the Heaven is from the Earth (an expression chosen by himselfe, to set out the greatest distance imaginable) is not readily to be apprehended. He is not farre from any one of us, for in him we live, and move, and have our being. Acts 17. 27, 28,

The Testimony which God gives to this his perfection in Jerem. 23. 23, 24. is not to be avoided; more then what is here spoken by God himselfe, as to his omnipresence, we can∣not, we desire not, to speake; can any one lye hid from me? doe 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 afarre of, or neere, being equally present every where, in the hidden places, as in Heaven; that is, He is not disti•••• from any thing or place; though he take up no place, but is nigh all things, by the infi∣nitenesse, and existence of his being.

From what is also known of the Nature of God, His Attri∣butes, * 1.33 and perfections; The Truth delivered may be farther ar∣gued, and confirmed. As

1. God is absolutely perfect; whatever is of perfection, is to be ascribed to him; otherwise he could neither be absolutely selfe-sufficient, all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in himselfe; He is absolutely perfect, in as much as no perfection is wanting to hi; and comparatively above all that we can conceive, or ap∣prehend of Perfection. If then Ʋbiquity or omnipresence be a perfection, it no lesse necessarily belongs to God, then it does to be perfectly good and blessed. That this is a perfection, is evident from its contrary. To be limited, to be circumscri∣bed, is an imperfection and argues weakenesse. We commonly say, we would do such a thing in such a place, could we be pre∣sent unto it; and are grieved and troubled that we cannot be so; that it should be so, is an imperfection attending the limitednesse of our natures. Unlesse 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 denyed by Him.

2. Againe: If God be now in a certaine place in Heaven, * 1.34

I aske where he was before these Heavens were made: These Heavens have not alwaies 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 H••mselfe, exi∣sting in his owne Infinite Essence, and remove into the New place made for him? Or is not Gods removall out of his exi∣stence in Himselfe, into a certain place, a blasphemous imagi∣nation? Ante omnia Deus erat, solus ipse sibi, & locus, & mundus, & 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 possesse another? And are such apprehensions suited to the in∣finite perfections of God? Yea may we not suppose, that he may create another Heaven? Can be not doe it? How should he be present there? Or must it stand empty? Or must he move himselfe thither? Or make himselfe bigger then he was, to fill that Heaven also?

3. The Omnipresence of God is grounded on the Infinite∣nesse * 1.35 of his Essence. If God be Infinite, he is Omnipresent; sup∣pose him Infinite, and then suppose there is any thing besides himselfe, and his Presence with that Thing, where ever 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 Essence, denies him to be Infinite, or Unlimited in any of his Perfections or Properties; and there∣fore indeed upon the matter Socinus denies Gods Power to be Infinite, because he will not grant his Essence to be. (Catech: cap: 11. part. 1.) That which is absolutely Infinite, canot have its residence in that which is finite and limited; so that if the Essence of God be not Immense, and Infinite, his Power, Good∣nesse, &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 & common notions of Mankind, con∣cerning the Nature of God, this is, will bee aside known. It is yet the cōmon Faith of Christians, that God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

4. Let Reason (which the Author of these Catechisms, pretends to advance and honour, (as some think above its due) & there∣fore cannot decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this * 1.36 grosse apprehension concerning the confinement of God is the Hea∣vens, yea a certaine place in the Heavens, though He glister never so much in Glory, there where he is. For first, he must be exten∣ded as a body is, that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be circumscribed in a certain place; which though our Author think no absurdity, yet as we shall afterwards manifest, it is as bold an attempt to make an Idoll of the living God, as ever any of the Sonnes of men engaged into. 2. Then Gods Greatnesse & ours as to Essence, & Substance, differ only gradually, but are still of the same kind God is bigger then a man it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatnesse, differing from us as one man differs from another. A man is in a cer∣taine place of the Earth, which he fills and takes up: and God is in a certaine place of the Heavens, which He fills and takes up; only some graduall difference there is; but how great or little that difference is, as yet we are not taught. 3. I desire to know of M. B what the Throne is made of that God sits on in the Heavens and how farre the Glistering of his Glory doth extend, and whi∣ther that Glistering of Glory doth naturally attend his person, as beames doe the sunne, or shining doth fire, or can He make it more or lesse as He pleaseth. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Doth God fill the whole Hea∣vens, or only some part of them? If the Whole, being of such substance as is imagined, What roome 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 lesse or grea∣ter? If he be only in a f 1.37 part of Heaven, as is more then insinua∣ted in the expression, that He is in a certaine place in the Heavens: I aske why he dwells in one part of the Heavens rather then another? Or whether he ever removes, or takes a journey, as Elijah speakes of Baal 1 Kings 18. or is eternally, as limited in, so confined unto, the certaine place wherein He is? Againe how doth he work out those 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 power: at the Resurrection of the dead, &c. The Power of

God doubtlesse followes 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 Re∣proach, which His own Word is wrested to cast upon Him, this that hath been spoken is some what, that to my pres••nt thoughts doth occure.

I suppose that M. B. knowes, that in this his circumscription of God to a certain place, he transgresses against the common * 1.38 consent of Mankind; if not, a few instances of severall sorts, may I hope, suffice for his conviction; I shall promiscuously propose them, as they lye at hand, or occurre to my remem∣brance. For the Jewes, g 1.39 Philo gives their judgement Heare (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 containe. And it is the observation of h 1.40 another of them, that so often as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a place, is said of God, the exalta∣tion of his Immense, and Incomparable essence, (as to its ma∣nifestation) is to be understood. And the Learned i 1.41 Buxtorfe tells us, that when that word is used of God, it is by an Anti∣phrasis, to signify that he is Infinite, Illocall, received in no place, giving place to all. That know saying of Empedocles passed a∣mong the ^k Heathen, Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubi{que}, circumfe∣rentia nusquam. And of Seneca: Turne which way thou wilt, thou shalt see God meeting thee; nothing is empty of him, he fills his own worke. All things are full of God, saies the l 1.42 Poet: and m 1.43 another of them,

Est{que} Dei sedes nisi Terra, & Pontus, & Aer, Est Coelum, & versus superos, quid quaerimus ultra: Jupiter est quodcun{que} vides, quocun{que} moveris.

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 terme him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. a mind fra∣ming the Universe: and affirmed him to be Infinite: Primus omni∣um rerum descriptionem & modum, mentis Infinitae in ratione designari * 1.44 & confici voluit. saies Cicero of Anaxagoras: Tull: de nat Deor. lib. 1. all things are disposed of, by the vertue of our Infinite mind:

and Plutarch expressing the same thing, saies he is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a pure & sincere mind, mixing it selfe, 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 17. 25, 28. 29. and saies Lactantius, Convicti de uno Deo, cum id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere affirmant, verùm hoc sibi placere, ut Jupiter nominetur. lib. 1. c. 2) Which as Servius on the place observes, he had taken frō Aratus, whose words are. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; giving a full description, in his way, of the Omnipresence and Ubiquity of God. The same Virgil, from the Platonicks, tells us in another place.

Spiritus intus alit, totamq infusa per artus Mens agitat molem.

And much more of this kind might easily be added. The I ear∣ned know where to find more for their satisfaction: and for those that are otherwise, the cleare Texts of Scripture, cited be∣fore, may suffice.

Of those on the other hand, who have no lesse grossely, and carnally, then he of whom we speake, imagined a n 1.45 diffusion of * 1.46 the substance of God through the whole Creation, and a mix∣ture of it with the Creatures, so as to o 1.47 animate, and enliven them in their severall formes, making God an Essentiall part of each creature, or dreame of an assumption of Creatures, into an unity of Essence with God, I am not now to speake.

CAP. III.

Of the Shape, and Bodily visible-figure of God.

M. Biddles Question.

IS God in the Scripture said to have any * 1.48

• ...Likenesse,
• ...Similitude,
• ...Person,
• ...Shape.

The Proposition which he would have to be the Conclusion of * 1.49 the Answers to these Questions, is this, That according to the Do∣ctrine of the Scriptures, God is a person shaped: like a man. A conclusi∣on so grossely absurd, that it is refused as ridiculous, by Tully an Heathen, in the person of Cotta (de Na•• Deorum) against Velleius the Epicurean; the Epicureans only amongst the Philosophers, being so soctish, as to admit that conceipt. And M. B. charging that upon the Scripture, which hath been renounced by all the a 1.50 Heathens, who set themselves studiously to fol∣low 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 inclu∣ded imperfection, hath manifested his pretext of meere Christianity, to be little better then a cover for downe right Atheisme, or at best, of most vile, and unworthy thoughts of the divine Be∣ing. And here also doth M. B. forsake his b 1.51 Masters. Some of them have had more reverence of the Deity, and expresse them∣selves accordingly, in expresse opposition to this grosse figmena.

According to the Method I proceeded in, in consideration of the * 1.52 precedent Questions, shall I deale with this; and first, consider briefe∣ly the Scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid Assertion. The places urged & insisted on of old, by the c 1.53 Anthro∣pomorphites, were such as partly ascribed a shape in generall to God; partly such as mention the parts and Members of God, in that shape: His Eyes, his Armes, his Hands &c. from all which they looked on him, as an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne. A conception that M. B. is no stranger to. The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by M. B. and the attribution of a Likenes, Image, Similitude, Person, & Sh••pe unto God, is his war∣rant to conclude that he hath a Visible, Corpore all Image, & Shope, like that of a man, which is the plaine intendment of his Que∣stion, Now if the Image, Likenesse, or Similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the summe 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 Corporeall, visible Shape in God, as he would Insinuate, but are pro∣perly expressive of some other thing, that properly belong to him, I suppose it will not be questioned, but that a little matter will prevaile with a person, desiring to emerge in the world by noveliyes, and on that account casting off that Reverence of God, which the first and most Common nations of mankind would instruct him into, to make bold with God and the Scripture, for his own ends & purposes.

I say then first in generall, if the Scripture may be allowed * 1.54 to expound it selfe, it gives us a faire and cleare account of its own intendment, in mentioning the Image and Shape of God, which man was created in; and ownes it to be his Righteousnesse and Holinesse, in a state whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man being created, is said to be created in the Image, & Likenes of God; in a kind of resemblance unto that Holines & Righteousnes which is in him Eph. 4. 23, 24, &c. what can hence be concluded, for a Corporall Image, or Shape, to be ascribed un∣to God, is too easily discernable: From a likenes in some vertue on Property, to conclude to a Likenes in a bodily shape, may well befit a man, that cares not what he saies, so He may speak to the dero∣gation of the Glory of God.

2. For the particular places by M. B. insisted on, and the * 1.55 words used in them, which he layes the stresse of this propositi∣on upon: The two first words, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both of which are used in the 1. Gen. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used Gen. 5. 1. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 9. 7. but whither of these words do in their genuine signification, imply any Corporerty or Figure, The most learned of all the Rabbins, and most critically skilfull in their Language, hath observed and proved, that the proper hebrew word, for that kind of outward forme or similitude, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and if these be ever so used, it is in a metaphoricall and borrowed sence, or at least, there is an Amphiboly in the words; the Scripture some∣times using them in such subjects, where this grosse Corporeall sence cannot possibly be admitted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 like the Serpent Psal. 58. 4. here is indeed some Imaginable, or rather rationall re∣semblance in the properties there mentioned, but noe corpore∣all similitude. vide ••ze. 1. 28. and 23. 15. To which may be ad∣ded many more places, where if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be interpreted of

a bodily similitude, it will afford no tollerable sence. The same likewise may be said of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: It is used in the Hebrew for the essen∣tiall forme, rather then the figure or shape: & being spoken of men, signifies rather their soules, then body; so it is used Psal. 73. 20. which is better translated, thou shalt despise their soule, then their Image: so where it is said Psal. 39. 6. every man walketh in a vaine shew; (the same word againe) however it ought so to be inter∣preted, it cannot be understood of a corporeall similitude; so that these testimonys are not at all to his purpose. What indeed is the Image of God, or that likenesse to him, wherein man was made, I have partly mentioned already, and shall farther manifest (chap. 2.) 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 pro∣per place.

The summe of M. B's reasoning from these places is, God in the creation of the lower world, and the inhabitancy thereof, * 1.56 making man, enduing him with a mind and soule, capable of knowing him, serving him, yeilding him voluntary and ratio∣nall Obedience, creating him in a condition of Holinesse and Righteousnesse, in a resemblance to those blessed perfections in him∣selfe, requiring still of him to be holy as he is holy, to continue & abide in that likenes of his, giving him in that estate, Dominion over the rest of his workes here below, is said to create him in his own Image, and Likenesse, He being the Soveraigne Lord over all his Creatures, Infinitely wise, knowing, Just, and Holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and Image, and is therein like un∣to a man, quod erat demonstrandum.

The next quotation is, from Numb. 12. 7, 8. where it is said of * 1.57 Moses, that he shall behold the Similitude of the Lord, the word is Themunah which as it is sometime taken for a Corporeall Simi∣litude, so it is at other times for that Idea, whereby things are Intellectually represented; in the former sence is it frequently denyed of God, as Deut. 4. 16. you saw no simillitude, &c. But it is frequently taken in the other sence, for that Object, or rather impression, whereby our intellectuall apprehension is made: as in Job 4. 16. an Image was before mine, eyes viz in his dreame: which is not any Carpereall shape, but that Idea, or objective re∣presentation,

whereby the mind of man understands its object: that which is in the Schooles commonly called Phantasme, or else an intellectuall species, about the notion of which it is here im∣proper to contend. It is manifest, that in the place here allead∣ged, it is put to signify the cleare manifestation of Gods Pre∣sence to Moses, with some such glorious Appearance thereof, as he was pleased to represent unto him, Therefore doubtlesse God hath a bodily shape.

His next quotation is taken from Ja. 3. 9. made after the Similitude * 1.58 of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Certainely M. B. can∣not be so ignorant, as to think the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to include in its signification a Corporeall 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 com∣paring severall objects together, as those other outward con∣formities of figure and shape, which are the the objects of our car∣nall eyes. It is the word by which the Septuagint use to render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which we have soken before. And the exam∣ples are inuumerable in the Septuagints Translation, & in Authours of all sorts, written in the Greeke Language, where that word is taken at large, & cannot signify a Corporeall Similitude, so as it is in vaine to insist upon particulars; and this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former, viz. what likenesse of God it was, that man was created in, whether of Eyes, Eares, Nose, &c. or of Holinesse, &c.

His next Allegation is from Job. 13. 7, 8. will yee accept his Per∣son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. An allegation so frivolous, that to stand to answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an Interrogation, and doth not assert any thing. 2. The thing spoken against is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which hath in it no regard to shape or Corporeall Personality, but to the partiality, which is used in preferring one before another in Justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivative, is used in as great, or greater, variety of metaphoricall Translations, then any other Hebrew word; and is by no meanes determined to be a signification of that bulbey substance, which with the soule concurres to make up the person of man. It is so used Gen. 33. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jacob pitched his Tent before (or in the face of) the City. It is confessed,

that it is very frequently translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Seventy; as it, is very variously Translated by them sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, see Jer, 38 26. Neh. 2. 13. Joh. 16. 16. Deut. 2. 36. Prov. 27. 23. Be∣sides that, it is used in many other places for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and in many moresences; so that to draw an Argument concerning the nature of God, from a Word so amphibologicall, or of such frequent Translation in me∣taphoricall speech, is very unreasonable.

Of what may be hence deduced this is the summe, in every * 1.59 plea or contest about the wayes, dispensations, and judgements of God, that which is right, exact, and according tot he thing it selfe, 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 Joh. 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it argues a very great ignorance in all Philosophicall, and accu∣rate writings, to appropriate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to a Corporeall shape, it being very seldome used, either in Scripture, or else where, in that no∣tion. The Scripture having used it, when that sence cannot be fa∣stened on it, as in the 1 Th. 5. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which may be rendered; Abstaine from every kind, or every appearance, but not from every shape of evill: and all other Greeke Authors, who have spoken accurately, and not figuratively of things, use it perpetually almost in one of those two sences, & very seldome, if at all, in the other.

How improperly, & with what little Reason, these places are Interpreted of a corporeall similitude, or shape, hath been shew∣ed: * 1.60 wherein the Image of God consists, the a 1.61 Apostle shewes, as was declared, determining it to be in the Intellectuall part, not in the Bodily Col. 3. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is of a grosser signification then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which hath its originall from the Intellectuall operation of the mind yet this the Apostle determines to relate to the mind, and Spirituall excellencies, so that it cannot from the places he hath mentioned, with the least Colour of

Reason be Concluded, that God hath a Corporeall a 1.62 Similitude, Likenesse, 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 removall of those Imperfections from him, which necessarily attend that Assig∣nation of a bodily Shape to him, which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of dayes, is not really, one in the shape of an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne, Glistering with a Corporeall Glory, his haire being white, and his Raiment beautifull, is Suffi∣ciently 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 Idola••••y; that never any b 1.63 Idolater was so silly, as to think that an Idoll of wood, stone, or mettall, was a God that made the Heavens & Earth, but that through thē, all Idolaters intend to worship God. Now to fancy a Corporeity in God, or that he is like a Creature, is greater, and more irrationall dishonour to him, then Idolatry. To whom will yee liken God, or what likenesse will yee compare to Him? Isa. 40. 18. Have yee not known, have ye not heard, hath it not beene told you from the beginning, have yee not understood from the foundation of the Earth? v. 22. it is He that sitteth &c. to whō then will ye liken me, or shall I be equall saith the holy one? Because the Scripture speakes of the Eyes, and Eares, Nostrells, and Armes of the Lord, and of mans being made after his likeness, if any one shall c 1.64 conclude, that he sees, heares, 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, & so of necessity make a monster of Him, and worship a Chimera.

Nay the Scripture plainly interprets it selfe, as to these At∣tributions unto God; his arme is not an arme of flesh, 2 Chro. 32. 8. Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth Job. 10. 4. Nay the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of understan∣ding,) though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it Infinitely short of a likenesse, or equality with Him. And the Holy Ghost himselfe gives a plaine interpretation of his own intendment in such expressions. For whereas Luk. 11. 20. our Saviour sayes, that he with the finger of God casts out Divells, Math. 12. 28. He affirmes, 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 affirming, that God hath no Shape, nor Hands, nor Eyes as we have, no more then it is, that He is no Lyon or Eagle: it is enough that there is that delivered of him abundantly, which is altogether inconsistent with any such Shape, as by M. B. is fancied: and that so eminent a difference, as that now mentioned, is put between his armes, & eyes, or ours, as manifests them to agree in some Analogy of the thing signifyed by them, and not in an Answerblenesse in the same kind; wherefore I say, that

The Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends * 1.65 to the nature and capacityes of men, and speakes for the most part to the Imagination (farther then which, few among the Sonnes of men were ever able to raise their cogitations,) yet hath it clearely delivered to us such Attributes of God, as will not consist with that grosse notion which this man would put upon the Godhead. The Infinity, and Immutability of God, do mani∣festly overthrow the Conceipt of a Shape and forme of God. * 1.66 Were it not a contradiction that a body should be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such an one as He imagines. The shape of any thing, is the figuration of it: the figuration is the determination of its extension towards severall 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 sup∣posed

to be Infinite; which is a manifest contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainely shew that God is Infinite and Immense, not in magnitude (that were a contradiction, as will appeare anone) but in Essence: speaking to our fancy, it saith, that he is higher then Heaven, deeper then Hell, Job 11. 8. that He fills Heaven and Earth, Ierem. 23. 24. That the Heaven of Heavens cannot containe God, 1 King 8 27. And hath many expressions to shaddow out the Immensity of God, as was manifest in our consideration of the last Query. But not content to have yeilded thus to our Infir∣mity, it delivers likewise in plaine and literall termes, the Infi∣nitenesse of God. His understanding is infinite Ps. 147. 5. And there∣fore his Essence is necessarily so: this is a consequence that none can deny, who will consider it, till he understands the termes of it, as hath been declared. Yet least any should hastily apprehend, that the Essence of God were not therefore necessarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. 135. 3. That his greatnesse hath no end, or is unconceivable, which is Infinite. For seeing we can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum, (that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater and greater numbers (as they say) in infinitum: it is evident, that there is no greatnesse, either of magnitude or Essence, which is un∣searcheable or unconceivable, beside that which is actually Infinite: such therefore is the greatnesse of God, in the strict and literall meaning of the Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and therefore that he should have a shape implyes a contradiction. But of this so much before, as I presume we may now take it for granted.

Now this Attribute of Infinity, doth immediately and de∣monstratively * 1.67 overthrow that grosse conception of an humane shape we are in the consideration of, and so it doth by conse∣quence overthrow the conceipt of any other, through a Sphaericall shape. Againe,

Whatever is incorporeall is destitute of shape; what ever is In∣finite is Incorporeall, therefore what is Infinite, is destitute of Shape.

All the Question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore sup∣pose an Infinite body, or line, and let it be bisected; either then, each halfe is equall to the whole, or lesse. If equall, the whole is equall to the part; if lesse, then that halfe is limited within certaine

bounds: and consequently is finite, and so is the other halfe 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 followes also, that he is Incorporeall, & that he is without Shape.

The former Argument proved him to be without such a shape, as this Catechist would Insinuate: this, that he * 1.68 is without any shape at all. The same will be proved from the Immutability or impassibility of Gods Essence, which the Scripture assignes to him. Mal. 3. 6. I am the Lord I change not. The Heavens are the worke of thy hand, they shall per∣rish, but thou endurest, they shall be changed, but thou art the same Psal. 102. 26.

If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeall, and consequently without Shape.

The former consequence is manifest, for every body is ex∣tended, and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation; wherefore being immutable he hath no Shape.

M. Biddle's great plea for the considering his Catechisme, & insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himselfe, is from * 1.69 the successe, which himselfe hath found in the discovery of sun∣dry Truths, of which he gives an account in his booke, to the Reader. That among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume M. B. knoweth For this discovery, the world is beholding to one Audaeus a Monke, of whom you have a large account in Epiphanius Tom. 1. lib. 3. Haeres. 70. as also in Theodoret. lib. 4. Ecles. 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 Haeres cap. 50. He that thinks it worth while to know, that we are not beholding to M. B. but to this Audaeus for all the Arguments, whither taken from the creation of man in the Image of God, or the attibution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible Shape, may at his leasure consult the Authors above mentio∣ned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise of this dis∣covery to M. B.'s ingenious inquiryes. How the same figment was also entertained by a company of stupid Monkes in Aegypt, who in pursuit of their opinion came in a great drove to Alexan∣dria,

to knock Theophilus the Bishop on the head, who had spo∣ken against them, and how that crafty companion deluded them with an ambiguity d 1.70 of expression, with what learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 7.

As this madnesse of brainsick men, was alwayes rejected by all ^e Persons of sobriety, professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jewes, or the wiser sort of Hea∣thens, who retained any impression of those common notions of God, which remaine in the hearts of men. The Jewes to this day do solemnely confesse in their publicke worship, that God is not corporeall, that he hath no corporeall propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Phil. de opificio mundi. Neither hath God an humane forme, nor does an humane body resemble him. And in Sacrifi. Abel. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had the same apprehēsions of him: thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobaeus: serum: 78. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Calicratides apud Stob. Serm. 83. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Of the like import is that Distick of Xenophones in Clemens A∣lexan: Storm. 5.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There is one Great God, among Gods and men, who is like to mortalls neither as to body nor mind.

Whereunto answers that in Cato,

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

And Aeschylus in the same place of Clemens Strom. 5.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Seperate God from mortalls, and think not thy selfe of flesh, like him.

And Posidonius plainly in Stobaeus as above, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, & quod non vides totum. Sic demum magnitudo sua illi redditur, quâ nihil majus excogitari potest. Si solus est omnia, opus suū extra & intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter naturam Dei & nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra animum. Natural. Quaest. lib. 1. Praefat. It would be burdensome, if not endlesse, to insist on the Testimonyes, that to this purpose might be produced, out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Julisu Firmicus, and others of the same order. I shall close with one of Alcinous de Doctrina Platon. cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is absurd to say that God is of matter and forme: for if so, he could neither be simple, nor the principall cause.

The thing is so cleare, and the contrary even by the Heathen Philosophers accounted so absurd, that I shall not stand to persue * 1.71 the arguments flowing from the other Attributes of God, but proceed to what followes.

CAP. IV.

Of the Attribution of Passions, and Affections, Anger, Feare, Repentance unto God: in what sence it is done in the Scripture.

HIS next inquiry about the Nature of God, respects the * 1.72 Attribution of severall Affections and Passions unto him in

the Scripture, of whose sence and meaning he thus expresseth his apprehension.

Quest. Are there not according to the perpetuall tenor of the Scriptures, * 1.73 affections and passions in God, as Anger, Fury, Zeale, Wrath, Love, Hatred, Mercy, Grace, Jealousy, Repentance, Grief, Ioy, Feare? Concerning which he labours to make the Scriptures determine in the affirmative.

The maine of M. B's designe in his Questions about the Na∣ture * 1.74 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 recompence for all that losse, by ascribing to him in the foregoing Query, a Humane visible shope, and in this, Humane, turbulent affections, and passions; common∣ly where men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, a 1.75 He gives them up to assigne that unto Him, which he doth ab∣horre. 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 M. B's sad employment: The Lord lay it not to his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Sathan, wherein he is b 1.76 taken alive at his pleasure.

2. The things here assigned to God are ill assotiated, if to be und••rstood after the same manner Mercy, and Grace, we ac∣knowledge to be Attributes of God; the rest mentio∣ned, are by none of M. B's ^c Companions, esteemed any other, then Acts of his will: and those Metaphorically assigned to him.

3. To the whole I aske. whither these things are in the * 1.77 Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections & passion, in him as those in us are, which are so termed, or whither they are aisigned to Him, & spoken of him Metaphorically, only in reference to his outward workes and dispensations, correspon∣dent and answering to the actings of men, in whom such affe∣ctions 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 Infibite Perfections, and Blessednesse, so there can be no difference a∣bout this Question, and the answers given thereunto; all men readily acknowledging, that in this sence the Scripture doth as∣cribe all the affections mentioned unto God; of which we say as He of old, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But this I feare will not serve M. B's turne: the very Phraise and manner of expre••lion, used in this question; the plaine intimation that is in the forehead thereof, of its Authors going off frō the cōmon received interpretation of these Attributions unto God, do abundantly manifest, that it is their proper signi∣ficancy which he cōtends to fasten on God, & that the affections mentioned are really and properly in Him, as they are in us. This being evident to be his mind and intendment, as we think his anthropopathisme in this Query, not to come short in folly and madnesse of his anthropomorphisme in that foregoing: so I shall proceed to the removall of this insinuation in the way and me∣thod formerly insisted on.

M. Biddle's Masters tell us, that d 1.78 These affections are vehement * 1.79 commotions of the will of God, whereby He is carryed out earnestly to the object of his desires, or earnestly declines, and abhors, what falls non out gratefully, or acceptably to him. I shall first speake of them in generall, and then to the particulars, (some or all) mentioned by M. Biddle.

1. In Generall, that God is perfect and perfectly Blessed, e 1.80 I suppose will not be denyed; it cannot be, but by denying that he is God. He that is not perfect in himselfe, and perfectly Blessed, is not God. To that which is perfect in any kind, no∣thing is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely per∣fect, nothing is wanting at all. He who is blessed, is perfectly sa∣tisfied, & filled, & hath no farther desire for supply. he who is blessed in himself, is Alsufficient for himself. If God want, or de∣sire any thing for himselfe, he is neither perfect nor blessed. To ascribe then affections to God properly, (such as before mentio∣ned) is to deprive him of his perfection and blessednesse. The Consideration of the nature of these, and the like Affections, will make this evident.

1. Affections considered in themselves, have alwayes an in∣compleat, imperfect act of the will, or volition joyned with * 1.81 them. They are f 1.82 something that lyes between the firme pur∣pose of the soule, and the execution of that purpose: The pro∣per actings of affections lye between these two; that is, in an

incōpleat, tumultuary volition. That God is not obnoxions to such volitions, & incompleat actings of the will, besides the gene∣rall consideration of his perfections, & blessednes premised, is evi∣dent frō that manner of procedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his workes comprise all his actings. As the Lord hath g 1.83 purposed so hath he done. He worketh all things according to the Counsell of his will. Who hath known his mind, and who hath been his Councellour. Of him, and from him are all things.

2. They have their dependance on that, wherewith he, in whom * 1.84 they are, is affected; that is, they owe their rise & continuance to some thing without him, in whom they are. A mans feare ari∣seth from that, or them, of whom he is afraid; by them it is occasi∣oned, on them it depends; what ever affects any man, (that is the stirring of a suitable Affection) in all that frame of mind, and soule, in all the volitions and commotions of will, which so arise from thence, he depends on something without him. Yea our being affected with something without, lyes at the bottome of most of our purposes and resolves; Is it thus with God? With Him, who is h 1.85 I Am? is he in dependance upon any thing without him? Is it not a most eminent contradiction, to speake of God, in dependance on any other thing? Must not that thing either be God, or reduced to some other, without, and be∣sides him, who is God? As the causes of all our affections are. God is of one mind, and who can turne him: whatever he pleaseth that he * 1.86 doth.

3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and * 1.87 mutability. Yea he who is affected properly, is really changed: yea there is no more unworthy change or alteration, then that which is accompanied with passion, as is the change, that is wrought by the affections, ascribed to God. A i 1.88 sedate, quiet, considerate alteration, is farre lesse inglorious, and unworthy, then that which is done in and with passion: Hitherto we have taken God upon his Testimony, That He is the k 1.89 Lord, and he changeth not: that with him there is neither change nor shaddow of tur∣ning: it seemes like the wormes of the earth, He varieth every Day.

4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God, do eminently * 1.90

denote impotence, which indeed on this account, both by Socini∣ans and Arminians is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him affectionately, and with Com••notion of will, to desire ma∣ny things, in their own Nature not impossible, which yet the cannot accomplish nor bring about; of which I have elsewhere spoken. Yea it will appeare, that the most of the Affections a∣scribed to God by M. Biddle, taken in a proper fence, are such as are actually ineffectuall, or commotions through disap∣pointments, upon the account of impotency, or defect of power.

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

2. Let a short view be taken of the particulars, some or all of them, that M. Biddle choseth to instance in; Anger, Fury, wrath, * 1.91 Zeale, (the same in kind, only differing in degree and cir∣cumstances,) are the first he instances in; and the places produ∣ced to make good this Attribution to God, are, Numb. 25. 3, 4. Ezek. 5. 13. Exod. 32. 11, 12. Rom. 1. 18.

1. That mention is made of the Anger, Wrath, and Fury of God, in the Scripture, is not questioned, Numb. 25. 4. Deut. 13. 11. Josh. 1. 26. Psal. 18. 29. Isa. 13. 9. Deut. 29. 24. Judg. 2. 14. Psal. 14. 1. Psal. 69. 24. Isa. 30. 30. Lament. 2. 6. Ezek. 5. 15. Psal. 18. 49. Isa. 34. 2. 2 Chron. 28. 11. Ezra. 10. 14. Hab. 3. 8. 12. are farther Testimonies thereof. The words al∣so in the Originall, in all the places mentioned, expresse or intimate perturbation of mind, Commotion of Spirit, corpo∣rall mutation of the parts of the body, & the like distempers of men, acting under the power of that passion. The whole diffe∣rence is about the intendment, of the Holy Ghost in these Attri∣butions, and whether they are properly spoken of God, assert∣ting this passion to be in him, in the proper significancy of the words, or whether these things be not taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in such a sence, as may answer the meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them their truth to the utmost, and yet be interpreted in a suitablenesse to di∣vine perfection and blessednesse.

2. The Anger then which in the Scripture is a signed to * 1.92 God, we say denotes two things.

1. His Vindictive Justice, or constant and immutable will of rendering vengeance for sinne: so Gods purpose of the * 1.93 demonstration of his Justice, is called his being willing to shew his wrath or anger Rom. 9. 22. so Gods Anger and his Judgments are placed together Psal. 1. 6. and in that anger he judgeth, v. 8. and in this sence is the wrath of God said to be revealed from Heaven, Rom. 1. 18. that is, The Vindictive Justice of God against sinne, to be manifested in the effects of it, or the Judgments sent, and punishments inflicted on, & throughout the world.

2. By Anger Wrath, Zeale, Fury, the effects of Anger are deno∣ted. Rom. 3. 5. Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? The words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who inflicteth, or bringeth anger on man: that is, sore punishments, such as proceed from An∣ger, that is, Gods Vindictive Justice. And Eph. 5. 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 M. Biddle talkes of, that comes upon the Children of Disobedience? Or is it indeed the a 1.94 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. 2. 5. After thy hardnesse &c. In the place of Ezekiel, chap. 5. 13. men∣tioned by M. B. The Lord tells them, he will cause his fury to rest upon men; and accomplish it upon them. I aske whether he in∣tends 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 vindi∣ctive Justice whence all punishments flow, partly the effects of it in the punishments themselves, either threatned, or inflicted, in their terrour and bitternesse, upon the account of what is Analogous therein to our proceeding, under the power of that passion; and so is to be taken in all the places mentioned by M. Biddle. For

3. Properly, in the sence by him pointed to, anger, wrath, &c. are not in God. Anger is defined by the Philosopher to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Desire joyned with

griefe of that which appeares to be revenge, for an appearing neglect, or contempt. To this l 1.95 griefe he tells you there is a kind of pleasure annexed, arising frō the vehement fancy, which an angry person hath of the revenge he apprehends as future; which saith he, is m 1.96 like the fancy of them that dreame: and ascribes this passion mostly to weake impotent Persons; Ascribe this to God, and you leave him nothing else; There is not one Property of his nature wherewith it is confistent. If he be Properly, and litterally angry, and Furious, and wrathfull, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires re∣venge, and is neither blessed, nor perfect; but of these things in our generall Reasons against the property of these Attributions afterwards.

4. M. Biddle hath given us a rule in his preface, that when any thing is ascribed to God in one place, which is denyed of him in another, then it is not properly ascribed to him: Now God sayes expressly, that fury, or anger is not in him, Isa. 27. 4. and therefore it is not properly ascribed to him.

5. Of all the places where mention is made of Gods repen∣tings or his Repentance, there is the same Reason. Exod. 32. 14. * 1.97 Gen. 6. 6, 7. Judges 10. 16. Deut. 30. 9. are produced by M. B. That one place of the 1 Sam. 15. 29. where God affirmes, that he knoweth no Repentance, casts all the rest under a necessity of an in∣terpretation suitable unto it. Of all the affections or passions, which we are obnoxious to, there is none that more eminently proclaimes imperfection, weakenesse, and want in sundry kinds, then this of Repentance. If not sinnes, mistakes, and mi∣scarriages, (as for the most part they are,) yet disapointment, griefe, & trouble are alwayes included in it. So is it in that ex∣pression Gen. 6. 6. It a 1.98

Earth, and it grieved him at the heart. What but his mistake, and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdome, foresight, and power, can give propriety to these Attributions unto God? The Change God was going then to worke 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 they had for∣merly done. So are these things spokē of God, to denote the kind of the things which he doth, not the nature of God himselfe; other∣wise such expressions as these would suit him, whose frame of spirit & heart is so described: Had I seen what would have bin 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 businesse. What have I now got by my rashnesse? nothing but sorrow and griefe of heart redounds to me. And do these become the Infinitely blessed God?

6. Feare is added, from Deut. 32. 26, 27. Feare, saith the * 1.99 Wise man, is a betraying of those succours which reason offereth: natures avoidance of an impedent evill. n 1.100 Its contrivance to fly and prevent what it abhors, being in a probabillity of coming upon it: a turbulent weakenesse. This God forbids in us, upon the account of his being our God, Isa. 35. 4. Feare not O worme Jacob &c. Every where he asserts feare to be unfit for them, who depend on him, and his helpe, who is able, in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and reduce to nothing, all the causes of their feare. And if there ought to be no feare, where such succour is ready at hand, sure there is none in him who gives it. Doubt∣lesse it were much better to exclude the Providence of God out of the world, then to assert him afraid properly, & directly of fu∣ture events. The Schooles say truly Quod res sunt futurae, a voluntate Dei est, (effectiva vel permissiva) How then can God be affraid of what he knowes will, and purposeth shall come to passe? He doth, he will do things in some likenesse 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 (unlesse 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 passe, who o 1.101 knowes frō 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, alsufficient, and the soveraigne disposer of the lives, breath, and wayes, of all the sons of men, is fit for M. B. and no man else to affirme. All the Nations are before him, as the drop of the bucket, and the dust of the ballance, as vanity, as nothing; he upholds them by the word of his power, in him all men live, & move, & have their being, & can neither live, nor act, nor be without him: their life, & breath, and all their wayes, are in his hands, he brings them to destruction, and sayes returne yee children of men; and must he needs be properly afraid of what they will doe to him, and a∣gainst him?

7. Of Gods Jealousy, and hatred, mentioned, from Psal. 5. 4, 5. Exod. 20. 5. Deut. 32. 21. There is the same reason. Such effects as these things in us produce, shall they meet withall, who provoke him by their blasphemies and abominations. Of Love, Mercy, and Grace, the condition is something otherwise, principally they denote Gods Essentiall goodnesse & kindnesse, which is eminent amongst his Infinite perfections: and secunda∣rily, 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 commotions of will, are properly attributed to God, unto what hath been spoken allready, these ensuing Con∣siderations may be subjoyned.

1. Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions can * 1.102 have place, or be admitted, there no affections are to be admit∣ted: 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 accesse of some good desired, whence Joy, Hope, Desire, &c. have their spring; or the approach of some evill to be avoided, which occasions Feare, Sorrow, Angen, 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 evill can befall him, in himselfe, or a∣ny of his concernments, whence should he have Feare, Sorrow, or Repentance. p 1.103 Our goodnesse 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 himselfe. Is it any pleasure to the Almigh∣ty that thou art Righteous, or is it gaine to him that thou makest thy wayes perfect?

2. The Apostle tells us, that God is blessed for ever, Ro. 9. 5. He is * 1.104 the blessed & only potentate, 1 Tim. 6. 15. God Alsufficient, Gen. 17. 1. That which is inconsistent with absolute Blessednes, & Alsuffi∣ciency is not to be ascribed to God; to do so, casts him down frō his excellency. But can he be blessed, is he Alsufficient, who is tossed up and down with Hope, Joy, Feare, Sorrow, Repentance, Anger, and the like? doth not Feare take off from absolute Blessednesse? Grant that Gods feare doth not long abide, yet whilst it doth so, He is lesse blessed then he was before, and then he is, after his feare ceaseth. When He Hopes, is He not short in happinesse of that condition, which he attaines in the enjoy∣ment of what he hoped for? And is He not lower, when He is disappointed, and falls short of his expectation? Did ever the Heathens speak with more contempt of what they worshipped? Formerly the pride of some men heightned them to fancy thē∣selves to be like God, without passions or affections; being not able to abide in their attempt against their own sence and expe∣rience; it is now endeavoured to make God like to us, in * 1.105 having such passions & affections. My ayme is brevity, having many heads to speake unto; Those who have written on the Attributes of God, his Selfe-sufficiency, & Blessednesse, Sim∣plicity, Immutability, &c. are ready to tender farther satisfacti∣on, to them who shall desire it.

CAP. V.

Of Gods Prescience or Fore-knowledge.

HIS next attempt is to overthrow, and remove the Presci∣ence, * 1.106 or fore-knowledge of God; with what successe, the farther consideration of the way whereby he endeavours it, will manifest. His Question! (the engine whereby he workes) is thus framed.

As for our free Actions, which are neither past, nor present, but may af∣terwards

either be or not be, what are the chiefe passages of Scripture from whence it is wont to be gathered, that God knoweth not such actions untill they come to passe, yea that there are such actions?

That we might have had a clearer acquaintance with the in∣tendment of this interrogation, it is desirable M. B. had given us his sence on some particulars, which at first view present them∣selves; to the trouble of every ordinary Read r. As

1. How we may reconcile the words of Scripture given in answer to his preceding Querie, with the designe of this. There it is asserted, that God understands our thoughts (which cer∣tainely are of our free actions, if any such there are) afarre off; Here, that he knowes 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 * 1.107 Scriptures, that God knoweth not our free actions untill they come to passe: Why doth not this meere 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 farre from a meere 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 1.108 Christian unto.

3. What he intends by the close of his Querie, yea that there are such actions; An advance is evident in the words towards a farther negation of the knowledge of God, then what was before expressed. Before he sayes, God knowes not our actions that are future contingent: Here, he knowes not that there are such actions. The sence of this must be, either that God knowes not that there any such actions, as may, or may not be, which would render him lesse knowing then M. B. who hath alrea∣dy told us, that such there be, or else that he knowes not such actions when they are, at least without farther enquiring after them, and knowledge obtained, beyond what from his owne in•••• perfections, and Eternall purpose he is furnished with∣all In M Biddles next booke or Catechisme, I desire he would answer these questions also.

Now in this eudeavour of his, M. B. doth but follow his leaders. b 1.109 Socinus in his his Prelections, where the maine of his designe, is to vindicate mans free-will, into that latitude and absolutenesse, as none before him had once aymed at, in his 8^th Chapter objects to himselfe this fore-knowledge of God, as that which seemes to abridge, and cut short the liberty con∣tended for; He Answers, that he grants not the fore-knowledge pretended, and proceeds, in that and the two following Chap∣ters, labouring to answer all the Testimonyes, and Arguments which are insisted on for the proofe and demonstration of it; giving his owne Arguments against it, Chapter 11. c 1.110 Crellius is something more candid as he pretends, but indeed infected with the same venome with the other; for after he hath dis∣puted for sundry pages, to prove the fore knowledge of God, he cōcludes at last, that for those things that are future contingent, he knowes only, that they are so, & that possibly they may come to passe, possibly they may not. Of the rest of their Associates few have spoken expressly to this thing. d 1.111 Smalcius once and againe manifests himselfe 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 himselfe, yea disputing eagery for the same opinion with him.

For the vindication of Gods fore-knowledge, I shall proceed in * 1.112 the same order as before, in reference to the other Attributes of God, insisted on: viz. 1. What M. B. hath done, how he hath disposed of sundry places of Scripture for the proofe of his as∣sertion, with the sence of the places, by him so produced, is to be considered. 2. Another Question and Answer is to be

supplied in the roomeof his. 3. The Truth vindicated, to be farther confirmed.

For the First.

In the proofe of the Assertion proposed, Mr B. finds himselfe entangled more then ordinarily; though I confesse his taske in * 1.113 generall be such, as no man, not made desperate by the losse of all, in a shipwrack of Faith, would once have undertaken. To have made good his proceeding according to his ingagement, he was at least to have given us Texts of Scripture, expresse in the letter, as by him cut off from the state, condition, and co∣••erence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they are placed, for the countenancing of his assertion. But here, being not able to make any work in his method proposed, and boasted in, as sig∣nall and uncontroleable; no apex, or tittle in the Scripture, be∣ing pointed towards the deniall of Gods knowing any thing, or all things, past, present, & to come: He moulds his Question into a peculiar fashion, and askes, whence, or from what place of Scrip∣ture may such a thing as he there averrs, be gathered? At once plainly declining the triall he had put himselfe upon, of infi∣sting upon expresse Texts of Scripture only; not one, of the ma∣ny quoted by him, speaking one word expressly to the busi∣nesse in hand, and laying himselfe naked to all consequences, rightly deduced from the Scripture, and expositions, given to the letter of some places, suitable to the e 1.114 proportion of Faith. That then which he would have, he tells you, is gathered from the places of Scripture subjoyned; 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 grosse conceptions of the nature of the Deity, as M. B. hath la∣boured 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 repenteth, altereth, and changeth his mind to and fro; but of his knowledge, or sore-knowledge of things, whether he have any such thing or not, there is not the least intimation; unlesse it be in this, that if he had any such fore-knowledge, he need not put himselfe 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 wantonnesse of the

minds, and lives of men, by f 1.115 giving them up to strong delusurs, and vaine Imaginations, in the darknes of their foolish hearts, so far, g 1.116 as to change the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likenesse of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinfull man) are we now to deale.

But let the places themselves be considered. To these heads * 1.117 they may be referred, (1.) such as ascribe unto God feare, and be∣ing afraid. Deut. 32. 26, 27. Exod. 13. 17. Gen. 3. 22. 23. are of this sort. (2.) Repentance: 1 Sam. 15. 10, 11, ult. (3.) Change, or alteration of mind: Numb. 14. 27, 30. 1 Sam. 2. 30. (4.) Expectation, whether a thing will answer his desire or no: Isa. 5. 4. Conjectu∣ring, Jerem. 36. 1, 2, 3. Ezek. 12. 1, 2. (5.) Trying of experiments, Judg. 3. 1, 4. Dan. 8. 2. 2 Chron. 32. 31. From all which and the like, it may, by M. B's direction and helpe, be thus gathered: If God be afraid of what is to come to passe, and repenteth him of what he hath done, when he finds it not to answer his expectation, if he sits divi∣ning, and onjecturing at events, being often deceived therein, and therefore tryes and makes experiments, that he may be enformed of the true state of things, then certainely he knowes not the free actions of men, that are not yet come to passe. The Antecedent M. B. hath proved undeniably from ten texts of Scripture; and doubtlesse the consequent is easily to be gathered by any of his Disciples. Doubtlesse it is high time, that the old musty Catechisms or prejudicate per∣sons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the Scripture in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were removed out of the way, and burned, that this meere Christian, may have liberty to blesse the growing Generation, with such notions of God, as the Idolatrous Pagans of old, would have scorned to have received.

But doe not the Scriptures ascribe all the particulars mentio∣ned * 1.118 unto God? Can you blame M. Biddle without reflection on them? If only what the Scripture affirmes in the letter, and not the sence wherein, and the manner how it affirmes it, (which considerations are allowed to all the writings, and speakings of the sonnes of men,) is to be considered, the End seeming to be aimed at in such undertakings, as this of M. B. namely, to induce the Atheistical spirits of the sonnes of men, to a contempt and scorne of them, and their Authority, will probably be sooner attained, then by the efficacy of any one engine raised against them in the worldbesides.

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

1. Then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned, as Feare, Griefe, h 1.119 Repentance, Trouble, Conjecturings, making trialls of men for his owne information, are ascribed properly to God, as they are unto men, or tropically and figuratively, with a condescention to us, to expresse 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 Querie, I shall freely adde, for mine owne part, I will not own, nor worship him for my God, who is truly and properly affraid 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 pro∣perly repent himselfe, with sorrow and griefe for his mistake; or that sits in Heaven divining, and con∣jecturing at what men will doe here below: and do know, that He whom I serve in my spirit, will famish and starve all such Gods out of the world. But of this before. If these things are ascribed to God figuratively, & improperly, discovering the kind of his workes, and dispensations, not his own Nature or Propertyes; I would faine 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 passe thereupon, if this Repentance in God, be not pro∣perly ascribed to him (as by M. B's owne rule it is not) but de∣notes only an alteration & change in the works, that outwardly are of him, in an orderly subserviency to the in mutable ••••posi∣ of his will, what can thence be gathered to prove, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 scre∣seeth not the free actions of men? And this is the Issue of M. Biddles 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 * 1.120 he hath given us in his Preface, viz That where a thing is im∣properly ascribed to God, in some other place it is denyed of him; as he in∣stances in that of his being weary: so that what ever is denyed of him in any one place, is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though God be said in some of the places by him produced, to repent; yet it is in another expressly said, that he doth not do so, and that upon such a generall ground and Reason, as is equally exclusive of all those other passions, and affections, upon whose assignement unto God, the whole strength of M. Biddles plea against the Prescience of God doth depend. 1 Sam. 15. 29. Also the strength of Israell will not lye, no repent, for he is not a man that he should repent. The immutability of his nature, & unlikenesse to men in obnoxiousnesse to alterations, is asserted as the reason of his not repenting; which will equally extend its force and efficacy, to the removall from him, of all the o∣ther humane affections mentioned. And this second generall con∣sideration of the foundation of M. B's plea, is sufficient: for the removall of the whole.

3. I desire to know, whether indeed it is only the free acti∣ons of men that are not yet done, that M. B. denyes to be knowne of * 1.121 God? Or whether he exclude him not also from the know∣ledge 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 & evill actions of men, so farre as they are manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affected to them, their Rule Go∣verment, and Authority, they know not. To make this enquiry, I have not only the observation premised, from the words of the close of M. Biddles Query, being of a negative importance, (yea that there are such actions) but also from some of the proofes by him produced, of his former assertion, being interpreted ac∣cording to the literiall significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. 22. 12, 10, 11, 12. i 1.122 where God is said to tempt Abraham, and upon

the Issue of that tryall sayes to him, (which words M. B. by put∣ting them in a different character, points to, as comrehensive of what he intends to gather, & conclude from them) NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with-held thy sonne, thine only sonne from me. The collection which M. B. guides unto from hence, is, that God knew not that which he enquired after, and therefore tempted Abraham that he might so do, and upon the issue of that tryall saies, now I know. But what was it that God affirmes, that now he knew? Not any thing future; not any free action, that was not as yet done; but something of the pre∣sent condition and frame of his heart towards God: viz. His feare of God; not whether he would feare him, but whether he did feare him then. If this then be properly spoken of God, & really, as to the nature of the thing it selfe, then is he ignorant no lesse of things present, then of those that are for to come. He knowes now who feares him, nor who hates him, unlesse he have opportu∣nity 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 dunghil Deities of the Heathen who speake after this rate. k 1.123 Doubtlesse the description that Elijah gave of Baal, would better suite him, then a∣ny of those divine Perfections, which the living, alseeing God, hath described himselfe by. But now if M. B. will confesse, that God knowes all the things that are present, & that this enquiry 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 finde out what we doe not know; then I would only aske of him, why those other expressons which he mentions, looking to what is to come, being of the same nature & kind with this, doe not ad∣mit of yea call for the same kind of exposition and interpreta∣tion.

Neither is this the only place insisted on by M. B. where the * 1.124 inquiries ascribed unto God, & the tyall that he makes, is not in reference to things to come, but punctually to what is present. Deut. 8. 2. chap. 13. 3. The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soule.

2 Chron. 32. 31. God left him to try him, that he might know what was in his heart; and Phil. 4. 6. In every thing let your request be made know to God. Let M. Biddle tell us now plainely, whether he suppose all these things to be spoken properly of God, and that indeed God knowes not our hearts, the frame of them, nor what in them we desire and aime at, without some eminent tryall & inquiry, or untill we our selves do make knowne what is in them unto him. If this be the mans mind (as it must be, if he be at any agreement with himselfe in his principles, concerning these scripturall Attributions unto God,) for my part, I shall be so farre from esteeming him eminent, as a meere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him comparable, as to his apprehensions of God, unto many that lived and dyed meere Pagans. To this sence also is applyed that Property of God, that he tryeth the hearts, as it is urged by M. Biddle from 1 Thes. 2. 4, that is, he maketh inquiry after what is in them, which but upon search and tryall, he knoweth not. By what wayes and meanes God accomplisheth this search, and whether hereupon he comes to a perfect understanding of our hearts, or no, is not expressed. John tells us, that God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things; and we have thought on that ac∣count, (with that of such farther discoveryes as he hath made of himselfe, and his Perfections unto us) that he had been said to search our hearts, not that himselfe, for his own information, needs any such formall processe by way of tryall and enquiry, but because really and indeed he doth that in himselfe, which men aime at in the accomplishment of their most diligent searches, and exactest tryalls.

And we may by the way see a little of this mans consistency with himselfe. Christ he denyes to be God. A great part of * 1.125 his Religion consists in that negative. Yet of Christ it is said, that he knew all men, and needed not that any should testifyin of man, for he knew what was inman, John 2. 24, 25. and this is spoken in refe∣rence to that very thing in the hearts of men, which he would perswade us, that God knowes not without inquiry. That is, upon the account of his not committing himselfe to those, as true Believers, whom yet upon the account of the profession they made, the Scripture calls so, and sayes, they believed in his name when they saw the miracels that he did, v. 23. Though they had such

a vaile of profession upon them, that the Holy Ghost would have us esteeme them as Believers, yet Christ could looke through it, into their hearts, and discover & know their frame, and whether in sincerity they loved him, and believed in his name or no; but this God cannot do, without enquiry and yet Christ (if we believe M. B.) was but a meere man, as he is a meere Christian. Further, it seemes by this Gentleman, that unlesse we make knowne our requests to God; he knowes not what we will aske. Yet we aske nothing but what is in our thoughts: and in the last querie he instructs us, that God knowes our thoughts, and doubtlesse knowes M. Biddles to be but folly. Further yet, if God must be concluded ignorant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests, knowne to him, He may be as well concluded forgetfull of what himselfe hath spoken, because he bids us, put him in remembrance, and appoints some to be his Remembrancers: But to returne.

This is the aspect of almost one halfe of the places produced * 1.126 by M. Biddle, towards the businesse in hand; if they are properly spoken of God, in the same sence 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 himselfe, and his feare, nay the outward, open, notorious actions of men. So it is in that place of Gen. 18. 21. insi∣sted on by l 1.127 Crellius, one of M. B's great Masters. I will goe downe 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 & outward appearance seeme to ascribe that ignorance of things present unto God, are farre more expresse and numerous, then those that in the least looke forward to what is yet for to come, or was so, at their delivery. This progresse then have we made under our Catechist, if we may believe him, as he insinvates his notions concerning God: God, sits in Heaven (glistering on a throne) where∣unto he is limited, yea to a certaine place therein, so as not to be elsewhere, being grieved, troubled, and perplexed, at the affaires done below which he doth know, making inquiry after what he doth not know,

and many things, (things future) he knoweth not at all.

Before I proceed to the farther Consideration of that which * 1.128 is eminently, and expressly denyed by M. Biddle. viz. Gods fore∣knowledge of our free actions that are future, because many of his proofes, in the sence by him urged, seeme to exclude him from an acquaintance with many things present, as in particular, the frame and condition of the hearts men, towards himselfe, as was observed; it may not be amisse, a little to confirme that Per∣fection of the knowledge of God as to those things, from the Scripture, which will abundantly also manifest, that the ex∣pressions insisted on by our Catechist, are metaphoricall, and im∣properly ascribed to God. Of the eminent predictions in the Scripture, which relate unto things future, I shall speake af∣terwards. He knew, for he foretold the Flood, the destruction of Sodome and Gomorrah, the Famine in Aegypt, the selling and ex∣altation of Joseph. the Raigne of David, the division of his Kingdome, the Babylonish captivity, the Kingdome of Cyrus, the returne of his people, the state and ruine of the foure great Empires of the world, the Warres, Plagues, Famines, Earth∣quakes, Divisions, which he manifestly foretold. But far∣ther, he knowes the frame of the hearts of men. He knew that the Keilites would deliver up David to Saul if he staid amongst them, which probably they knew not themselves, 1 Sam. 23. He knew that Hazael would murther women and infants, which he knew not himselfe. He knew that the Aegyptians would afflict his People, though at first they entertained them with Honour, Gen. 15. 13. He knew Abraham, that he would instruct his houshold. Gen. 18. 19. He knew that some were obstinate, their neck an iron sinew, and their brow brasse Isa. 48. 4. He knew the imagination, or figment of the heart of his People, Deut. 31. 21. That the Church of Laodicea (notwithstanding her profession) was lukewarme, neither hot nor cold, Rev. 3. 15. Man looketh on the outward appearance, God looketh on the heart, 1 Sam. 16. 7. He only knowes the hearts of all the children of men, 1 Kings 8. 39. Hell and destruction are before the Lord, how much more then the hearts of the Sonnes of men. Prov. 15. 11. so also Prov. 24. 12. Jerem. 1. 9, 10. Ezek. 11. 5. Ps. 38. 9. Psal. 94. 11. Job. 31. 4. Math. 6. 4, 6, 8. Luk. 16. 15. Act. 1. 24. &c. Innumerable other places to this purpose may be insi∣sted

on: though it is a superisall to be put to prove, that God knowes the hearts of the Sonnes of men. But to proceed to that which is more directly under consideration.

3. The sole foundation of M. Biddles insinuation, that * 1.129 God knowes not our free actions that are future, being laid (as was observed,) on the assignation of Feare, Repentance, Expectation, & Conjecturing unto God, the consideration which hath already been had of those Attributions in the Scripture, and the causes of them, is abundanly sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to let his inference sinke thither, whence it came. Doubt∣lesse 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 himselfe, whether he should sell it for an emblem of winter, and then set it out as a representaton of God the Fa∣ther, as this man is, in snatching Gods own pencil out of his hand, & by it presenting him to the world in a grosse, carnall, deformed shape. Plato would not suffer Homer in his Common∣wealth, for entrenching upon the i∣maginary blessedness of their dunghill Deities; making a 1.130 Jupiter to grieve for the death of Sarpedon, Mars b 1.131 to be wounded by Diomedes, and to roare thereupon, with disputes & c 1.132 conje∣cturs in heaven among thēselves about the issue of the Trojan warre: though he endeavours to salve all his heavenly solecismes, by many noble expressions, concerning purposes not unmeet for a Deity; telling us in the close and Issue of a most contingent affaire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let that man think of how much sorer punishment he shall be thought worthy (I speake 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 incomprehen∣sible God unto the world, trembling with feare, pale with anger, sordid with griefe, and Repentance, perplexed with conjectures, and

various expectations of events, and making a diligent enquiry after the things he knowes not, that is altogether such an one as himselfe; let all who have the least reverence of and acquain∣tance 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 roome of that removed, with a Scripturall resolution thereof, in or∣der * 1.133 to a discovery of what God himselfe hath revealed, concer∣ning his knowledge of all things, is the next part of our em∣ployment. Thus then it may be framed.

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

Ans. God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things, 1 John 3. 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. 4. 12. He is a God of knowledge, 1 Sam. 2. 3. Thou knowest my downsitting, and mine uprising, thou understandest my thoughts a farre off. Thou compassest my paths, and my lying downe, and art acquainted with all my wayes, for there is not a word in my tongue but O Lord thou knowest it altogether: Psal. 139. 2, 3, 4, 5. Great is our Lord, and of great power his understanding is Infinite, Psal. 141. 5. Who hath directed the spi∣rit of the Lord, or being his Councellour hath taught him? With whom tooke he Councell, or who instructed him, and taught him in the paths of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Isa. 40. 13, 14. There is no searching of his understanding v. 28. Ro. 11. 34, 35, 36. of him are all things; And Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the World, Act. 15. 18, &c.

Of the Undeniable evidence and conviction of Gods Prescience * 1.134 or Foreknowledge of future contingents, from His predictions of their comming to pass, with other demonstrations of the Truth under consideration, attended with their several testimonies from Scripture, the close of this discourse will give a further Account.

It remaines only, that according to the way and method formerly insisted on, I give some farther Account of the Per∣fection of God pleaded for, with the Arguments wherewith it is

farther evidenced to us, and so to proceed to what followeth.

1. That Knowledge is proper to God, that testimony of the * 1.135 Scripture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing it selfe, doth sufficiently evince. o 1.136 I cannot tell (saies the Apostle) God knoweth 2 Cor. 12. 2, 3. It is the Generall voice of Nature, up∣on relation of any thing that to us is hid, and unknowne, that the Apostle there makes mention of; GOD KNOWETH. That he knowes the things that are past, M. B. doth not question. That at least also somethings that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts are known to him, eh doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in any curious Scholasticall discourse about the understanding, science, knowledge, or Wisdome of God; nor of the way of Gods knowing things, in, and by, his own Essence through simple intuition. That which directly is op∣posed, is his knowledg of our free actions, which in respect of their second & immediate caudses, may, or may not be. This therefore I shall briefly explain, and confirme the truth of it, by Scripture Testimonyes, and Arguments from right Reason, not to be evaded, without making head against all Gods infinite perfecti∣ons; having already demonstrated, that all that which is insisted on by M. B. to oppose it, is spoken metaphorically, and impro∣perly to God.

That God doth fore-see all future things was amongst meere p 1.137 Pagans so acknowledged, as to be looked on as a common * 1.138

notion of mankind: So q 1.139 Zenophon tells us; That both Grecians and Barbarians consented in this, that the Gods knew all things present, and to Come. And it may be worth our observation, that whereas r 1.140 Crel∣lius, one of the most learned of this Gentle∣mans Masters, distinguisheth between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, affirming; that God knowes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which though future are necessarily so, yet he knowes not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are only (saies he) likely sto to be; Zenophon plainely affirmes, that all Nations consent, that he knowes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 evill. Now that one calling himselfe a meere Christian, should op∣pose a perfection of God, that a meere Pagan affirmes all the world to acknowledge to be in him, would seeme somewhat strange, but that we know all things do not answer, or make good, the names whereby they are called.

For the clearer handling of the matter under consider∣ration, the Termes wherein it is proposed are a little to be ex∣plained. * 1.141

1. That Prescience, of Fore-knowledge is attributed to God, the Scripture testifieth. Act. 2. 23. Rom. 8. 29. chap. 11. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 2. are proofes hereof. The terme indeed (Fore∣knowing) rather relates to the things known, and the order wherein they stand one to another, and among themselves, then is properly expressive of Gods knowledge. God knowes all things as they are; and in that order wherein they

stand. s 1.142 Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures, which he hath appointed to them, and the workes of Providence, which outwardly are of him, he knowes 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 were. Their existence in time, and being cast by the successive motion of things, into the num∣ber of the things that are past, denote an alterati∣on in them, but not at all in the knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things future. God knowes them in that esse intelligibile which they have, as they may be knowne and understood; and how that is, shall afterwards be declared. He sees and knowes them as they are, when they have that respect upon them of being futures when they loose this respect by their actuall exi∣stence, he knowes them still as before. They are altered, his knowledge, his understanding it infinite, and changeth not.

2. t 1.143 Gods knowledge of things is either of Simple intelligence * 1.144 (as usually it is phrased) or of vision The first is his knowledge of all possible things; that is, of all that he himselfe can doe. That God knows himselfe, I suppose will not be denyed. An In∣finite Understanding knows throughly all Infinite Perfections. God then knowes his own power, or Omnipotency, and there∣by knowes all that he can do. Infinite science must know (as I said) what Infinite p••wer can extend unto. Now what ever God can do is possible to be done; that is, whatever hath not in it∣selfe 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 denyed. Might he not make a new world? Hence ariseth the Attribution of the knowledge of simple intelligence, before mentioned, unto God. In his owne infinite understanding he sees, and knowes all things, that are

possible to be done by his power, would his good pleasure concurre to their production.

Of the world of things possible which God can do, some things, even all that he pleaseth, are u 1.145 future. The creation it * 1.146 selfe, 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. What ever 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 briefely mentioned. These things God 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 actuall being. 2. The measure of this knowledge is his will: because he will, & decree of God one∣ly make those things future, which were but possible be fore, therefore we say scientia visionis fundatur in voluntate. 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 of it is, possible, the measure of it, Omnipotency; for by it he knowes all he can do; & for the manner of it, 'tis scientia necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, sed potestate; (say the Schoolemen) seeing by it he knowes 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 intelli∣gence, 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 fore known, 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 know∣ledge of God being simply one and the same) is it, that we affirme him to know the things that are future, of what sort soever, or all things before they come to passe.

3. The things enquired after are commonly called contin∣gent. * 1.147 Contingencyes 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 an house, and the killing of a man thereby. The Effect it selfe 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 Souldiers piercing of the side of Christ. The ef∣fect was contingent, such a thing might have been done, or not: and the cause also, for they chose to doe 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 speake to another person to morrow, the Agent being free, is contingent, both as to the cause, and to the effect. About these is our principall enquiry; and to the knowledge of God, which he is said to have of them, is the opposition most expressely made by M. B. Let this then be our conclusion.

God * 1.148 perfectly knowes all the free actions of men, before they are * 1.149 wrought by them; all things that will be done, or shall be to all Eternity, though in their owne natures contingent, and wrought by agents free in their working, are known to him from Eternity.

Some previous observations will make way for the cleare * 1.150 proofe and demonstration of this truth. Then

1. God certainly knowes 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 if he knowes it nor. 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 himselfe, can never make the fruition of himselfe the blessednesse of others.

2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is scibile, may be * 1.151 known, though future, by him that perfectly knowes that cause, which doth so determine the thing to be knwn unto existence. Now Contingem 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 mentio∣ned. It is true, in respect of their immediate 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 what ever 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 pre∣sent existence is sufficient demonstration of the futurition it had before. I aske then, whence it came to be future; that that action was rather to be, then a thousand others, that were as possible as it? For instance, that the side of Christ should be pierced with a speare, when it was as possible in the nature of the thing it selfe, and of all secundary causes, that his head should be cut off. That then which gives any action a futurition, is that determinate cause wherein it may be known, whereof we speake. Thus it may be said of the same thing, that it is contin∣gent, and determined, without the least appearance of contradi∣ction, because it is not spoken with respect to the same things, or causes.

3. The determinate cause of contingent things, that is, things * 1.152 that are future, (for a 1.153 every thing when it is, and as it is, is necessary) is the Will of b 1.154 God himselfe 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 sence, all the actions of men, as actions, are so or by his permission, which is the condition of things Morally evill, or of the irregularity and obliquity attending those actions, upon the account of their relation to a Law, which in themselves are Entitative and Physi∣cally

good, as the things were which God at first created. Whe∣ther any thing come to passe, besides the x 1.155 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 rationall creatures. So the accom∣plishment of his determinate councell, is affirmed by the Apostle, in the issue of that mysterious dis∣pensation, of the crucifying of his Sonne. That of Jam. 4. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intimats Gods 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 then the making of the world, nothing was * 1.156 more free or contingent. God is not a necessary Agent, as to any of the workes, that outwardly are of him: whence then did God know this? Was it not from his own decree, and eternall purpose, that such a world there should be? And if the knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all? In briefe, these future contingencyes 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 worke with contingent causes, for the accom∣plishment * 1.157 of his own will, and purposes, without the least pre∣judice to them, either as causes, or as free, and contingent. God moves not, workes 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 ope∣ration 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-de∣pendance, is Atheisme. The purpose of God, the councell of his will concerning any thing, as to its existence, gives a d 1.158 necessity

of infa••libillity to the event, but changes not the manner of the second causes operation, be it what it will. That God can∣not accomplish and bring about his own purposes by free and contingent agents, without the destruction of the natures he hath endued them withall, is a figment, unworthy the thoughts of any, who indeed acknowledge his Soveraignty and power.

5. The Reason why M. B's companions in his undertakings, * 1.159 as others that went before him of the same mind, do deny this fore-knowledge of God, they expresse on all occasions to be, that the granting of it is prejudiciall to that absolute indepen∣dent liberty of will, which God assignes to men; so Socinus pleads Praelect. Theol. c. 8. y 1.160 Thus farre I confesse more accurately then 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 Prejudiciall∣nesse to the free will of man. Socinus discourses, (wich was no difficult task) that the fore-knowledge of God is as inconsistent with that independent liberty of will, and contingency, which he, and they had fancyed, as the predetermination of his will; and therefore rejects the former as well as the latter. It was z 1.161 Augu∣stines complaint of old concerning Cicero, that ita fecit homines

liberos, ut fecit etiam sacrilegos. Cicero was a meere Pagan; and surely our complaint against any that shall close with him in this at∣tempt, under the name of a meere Christian, will not be lesse just then that of Augustine. For mine own part, I am fully re∣solved, that all the liberty and freedome, that as creatures we are capable of, is eminently consistent with Gods absolute decrees, and infallible fore-knowledge. And if I should hesitate in the apprehension thereof, I had rather ten thousand times deny our wills to be free, then God to be omniscient, the soveraigne disposer of all men, their actions, and concern∣ments, or to say that any thing comes to passe, without, against, or contrary to the counsell of his will. But we know through the godnesse of God, that these things have their consistency, and that God may have preserved to him the glory of his in∣finite Perfection, and the will of man not at all abridged of its due and proper liberty.

These things being premised, the proof & demonstration of the truth proposed lyes ready at hand, in the ensuing particulars; * 1.162

1. He who knowes a 1.163 all things, knowes 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 knowes all things, hath allready been abundantly confirmed out of Scriptures. Let the Reader looke back on some of the many texts and places, by which I gave answer to the Querie, about the Fore-knowledge of God, and he will find abundant∣ly enough for his satisfaction, if he be of those that would 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 3. 20. God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things. Even we know things past and present: If God knoes only things of the same kind, his knowledge may be greater then ours by many degrees, but you cannot say his understanding is infinite; there is not on that supposition an infinite distance be∣tween his knowledge and ours, but they stand in some mea∣surable proportion. Heb. 4. 13. All things are open and naked be∣fore him with whom we have to do. Not that which is to come, not the free actions of men that are future, saith M. 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 15. 18. Known unto God are all his workes from the foundation of the world. I aske, 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 Aegypt, his exaltation there, and the entertainment of his Fathers houshold afterwards by him in his greatnesse and power? All which were brought about by innumerable contingencyes, and free actions of men: if he had not, why should we any longer depend on him, or regard him in the severall transactions, & concernements of our lives?

Nullum numen abest, si sit prudentia: nos te, Nos facimus fortuna Deum.

If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he affirmed plainely, that God sent him thither, and made him a Father to Pharaoh, and his house, then the whole was known to God be∣fore; * 1.164 for known unto God are all his workes from the foundation of the world. And if God may know any one free action before hand, 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 con∣tingent, is equally interested therein: a quatenus ad omne valet argumentum. That place of the Psalme before recited Psal. 139. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. is expresse, 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 M. B. doth more then insinuate in the application of the texts of Scrip∣ture, which he mentioneth, that God knoweth them not when present, without search and inquiry. But these (saith the Psal∣mist,) God knowes afarre off, before we think them; before they enter into our hearts. And truly I marvell, that any man, not wholly given up to a spirit of giddinesse, after he had produced this Text of Scripture, to prove that God knowes our thoughts, should instantly subjoyne a Question, leading men to a perswa∣sion, that God knowes not our free actions, that are future: unlesse it was with a Julian designe, to impaire the credit of the Word of God, by pretending it lyable to selfe-contradi∣ction; or with Lucian to deride God, as bearing contrary Testi∣monies concerning himselfe.

2. God hath by himselfe and his Holy b 1.165 Prophets, which have been from the foundation of the world, fore-told many * 1.166 of the free actions of men, what they would do, what they should doe, long before they were borne who were to do them. To give a little light to this Argument, which of it selfe will easily overwhelme all that stands before it, I shall handle it under these propositions.

1. That God hath so fore-told the free actions of men.

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

3. That he proves himselfe to be God by these his pre∣dictions.

4. That he foretells them as the meanes of executing many of his Judgements, which he hath purposed and threatned, and the accomplishment of many mercyes, which he hath promised; so that the denyall of his foresight of them, so exempts them from under his Providence, as to inferre, 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 confirme the truth of it; the Scripture is full of such pre∣dictions * 1.167 from one end to the other: some few instances shall suffice: Gen. 18. 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 houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do Justice and Judgment; that the Lord may bring upon 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 na∣tion: that the nations of the Earth should be Blessed in him: that he would command his Children, and houshold after him to keepe the wayes 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 tryall of Abra∣ham was not to satisfy himselfe whether he feared him or no, as is pretended.

So also Gen. 15. 13, 14. And he said unto Abraham, know of a surety * 1.168 that they seed shall be a stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them foure hundred yeares: And also that Nation which they shall seive will I Judge: and they shall come out with great substance. The Aegyptians 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 doubtlesse if any, mens sinfull actions are free; yet these doth God here fore tell; they shall afflict them.

Deut. 31. 16, 17, 18. you have an instance beyond all possible * 1.169 exception. And the Lord said unto Moses, behold thou shalt s••••pe with thy Fathers, & this People will rise up, and go a whoring after the Gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be amongst them, and will forsake me, and breake my commandements. Then my anger shall be kindled a∣gainst them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evills and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, are not these evills come upon us, because our God is not amongst us? &c. The summe of a good part of what is recorded in the book of Judges, is here foretold by God. The peoples 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, & their expressions, upon the consideration of the evills and afflictions that should befall them, were of their free actions: but now all these doth God here foretell; and thereby engages the honour of his Truth, unto the certainty of their comming to passe.

1 Kings 13. 2. is signall to the same purpose: Behold a child shall be * 1.170 borne unto the house of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer the Priests of the High places, that burne incense upon thee, and mens bones shall be burnt on thee. This prediction is given out 300 yeares before the birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it you have in the story 2 Kings 23. 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) fore scen.

1 Kings 22. 28. The Prophet-Micaiah in the name * 1.171 of the Lord, having fore told a thing that was contin∣gent, and which was accomplished by a man acting at a

venture, lays the credit of his Prophesy, and therein his life, (For if he had proved false as to the event, he was to have suf∣fered death by the Law,) at stake before all the people, upon the certainty of the Issue fore-told. And Micaiah said, if then returne at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken at all by me. And he said, heare all yee people.

Of these predictions the Scripture is full. The Prophesyes of Cyrus in Isaiah; of the issue of the Babylonish Warre, and Kingdome, in Jeremiah; of the severall great alterations and changes in the Empires of the world, in Daniel, of the Kingdome of Christ in them all, are too long to be insisted on. The Reader may also consult Math. 24. 5. Mark, 13. 6. Mark. 14. 30. Act. 20. 29. 2 Thes. 2. 3, 4. &c. 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 3. 1. 2 Pet. 2. 1. And the Revelation almost throughout. Our first proposition then is undenyably evident, that God by himselfe, and by his Prophets, hath fore-told things future, even the free-actions of men.

2. The second Proposition mentioned is manifest, and evi∣dent in its own Light. What God fore-telleth, that he perfectly * 1.172 fore-knowes. The honour and repute of his Veracity, and Truth, yea of his Being, depend on the certaine accomplish∣ment of what he absolutely fore-tells. If his predictions of things future are not bottomed on his certaine Prescience of them, they are all but like Sathans 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 certaine predictions, in reference * 1.173 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 falsenesse of the Prophets that pretend to speake in his name. Isa. 41. 21, 22, 23, 24. Produce your cause, saith the Lord, bring forth, your strong Reasons, saith the King of Jacob: let them bring then forth, and shew us what shall happen, let them shew the former things what they be, or delare us things for to come: Show the things which are to cme hereafter, that we may know ye are Gods. Behold you are of nothing. The Lord calling forth the Idols of the Gentiles, Divels, Stocks, and Stones, to plead for themselves, before the denuntiation of the solemne sentence ensuing, v. 24. He puts them to the plea of fore-knowledge for the proofe of their Deity. If they can

fore-tell things to come certainely and infallibly, on the account of their own knowledge of them, Gods they are, and Gods they shall be esteemed. If not (saith he) you are nothing, worse then nothing, and your worke is of nought, and he is an Abomination that chuseth you. And it may particularly be remar∣ked, that the Idolls, of whom he speaketh, are in especiall those of the Caldeans, whose worshippers pretended above all men in the world to Divination, and Predictions. Now this issue doth the Lord drive things to betwixt himselfe, and the Idolls of the world; If they can fore-tell things to come, that is, not this, or that thing, (for so by conjecture, upon considera∣tion of second causes, and the generall dispositions of things, they may do, and the Divell hath one) 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 interro∣gation, they perish before the Judgment mentioned. But now if it may be replyed to the Living God himselfe, that this is a most une∣quall way of proceeding, to lay that burthen upon the shoulders of others, which himselfe will not beare; bring others to that tryall, which himselfe cannot undergoe, for he himselfe can∣not fore-tell the free-actions of men, because he doth not fore∣know them, would not his plea render him like to the Idolls, whom he adjudgeth to shame and confusion? God himselfe there concluding, that they are vanity and nothing, who are pretended to be Gods, but are not able to fore-tell 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 himselfe, what not, in the Predictions of any, from the certainty of the event. Deut. 18. 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 passe, 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 fore telleth,) doth fulfill his own * 1.174 counsell as to Judgements, and Mercyes, Rewards, and Punish∣ments,

needs no farther proofe nor confirmation, but what will arise from a meere 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 evill of the inhabitants thereof; & in whose accomplishment as much of the Wisdome, Power, Righteousnesse, and Mercy of God was mani∣fest, as in any of the workes of his Providence what ever. 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 Ioseph, the crucyfying of his Son, the destruction of Antichrist, are things of greater concernment, then that God should only conjecture at their event. And indeed the taking away of Gods fore-knowledge of things contingent, renders his Providence uselesse, 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 Judg, or rule the world, who every moment is surprized with new emergencyes, which he foresaw not, which must necessitate him to new counsells and determinations? On the consideration of this Argument doth Episcopius conclude for the Prescience of God, Epist. 2. ad Beverovicium de termino vitae, which he had allowed to be questioned in his c 1.175 private Theologicall Disputations, d 1.176 though in his publike afterwards he plead for it. The summe of the Argument insisted on, amounts to this,

Those things which God foretells, that they shall certainly and infallibly come to passe; before they so doe, those he cer∣tainly and infallibly knoweth, whilest they are future, and that they will come to passe.

But God foretells, and hath foretold all manner of future contingencies, and free Actions of men, good and evill, duties, and sinnes, therefore he certainly and infallibly knowes them, whilest they are yet future.

The Proposition stands and falls unto the honour of Gods Truth, Veracity, and Power.

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

He foretold, that the Aegyptians should afflict his People 400 yeares, that in so doing they would sin, and that for it he would punish them, Gen: 15. 13, 14, 15, 16. And surely the Ae∣gyptians sinning therein, was their own free action. The incre∣dulity of the Jewes, treachery of Judas, calling of the Gentiles, all that happened to Christ in the daies of his flesh, the coming of Antichrist, the rise of false teachers, were all fore-told, 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 dis∣course; * 1.177 All perfections are to be ascribed to God, they are all in him. To know is an excellency: He that knowes any thing, is therein better then he that knowes it not. The more any one knowes, the more excellent is he. To know all things is an absolute perfection in the good of know∣ledge: to know them in, and by himselfe, who so knowes them, & not from any discourses, made to him from without, is an ab∣solute perfection in it selfe, and is required where there is Infi∣nite Wisdome and Understanding. This we ascribe to God, as worthy of him, as by himselfe ascribed to himselfe. To affirme on the other side (1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and so is taught Wisdome and Un∣derstanding, as we are, from the events of things, for the more any one knowes 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 hourely change, and alterati••n 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 lyeth, who so assert

them, to shut his Providence out of the World, and to devest him of all his Blessednesse, selfe sufficiency, and infinite Perfecti∣ons. And in deed if M. B. believe his own principles, and would speake out, he must assert these things, how desperate soever; for having granted the premises, 'tis stupidity to stick at the conclusion. And therefore some of those whom M. B. is pleased to follow in these wild vagaries, speake out, and say, (though with as much blasphemy as confidence) that God doth only conjecture, and guesse at future contingents. For when this Argument is brought, Gen. 18. 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 a 1.178 consequence, and granting that he may be said to know them, yet say 'tis only by guesse, and conjecture, as we do. And for the present vindication of the Attributes of God this may suf∣fice.

Before I close this discourse, it may not be impertinent to di∣vert * 1.179 a little to that, which alone seemes to be of any difficulty, lying in our way, in the assertion of this Prescience of God, though no occasion of its consideration be administred 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 Gods certaine Fore-knowledge of them: and therefore say they, doth the e 1.180 Philosopher affirme, that pro∣positions concerning them, are neither true nor false. But

1. That there is, or may be, that there hath been, a certaine 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 certaine predictions of future contingents in the Scripture, and therefore they have a determinate truth: Then on the contrary, they have no deter∣minate Truth, therefore there are no certaine predictions of them: Let God be true, and every man a lyer.

2. As to the falsity of that pretended Axiome: This propo∣sition, Such a Souldier shall pierce the side of Christ, with a Speare, or he shall not pierce him, is determinately true, and necessary, on the one side or the other, the parts of it being con∣tradictory, which cannot be together. Therefore if a man be∣fore the Flood had used this Proposition in the affirmative, it had been certainely and determinately true; for that Propositi∣on, which was once not true, cannot be true afterward upon the same account.

3. If no affirmative f 1.181Proposition, 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 indifferent, his affirmation is false; which is con∣trary to Aristotle, whom in this they rely upon, who affirmes, that such Propositions are neither true nor false. The Truth is, of propositions that they are true or false, is certaine. Truth, or Falseness are their proper & necessary affections, as even and odde 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, Petrus or at, is determinately true de pre∣senti, * 1.182 when Peter doth actually pray: (for quiequid est, dum est, determinatè 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 'tis true de presenti, Petrus orat, Ergo, This (de futuro) Petrus orabit, was ab aeterno true (ex parte 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.

M. B. having made a sad complaint of the ignorance and darkenesse that men were bred up in, by being led from the Scripture, and imposing himselfe upon them for a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkenes, an instructer of the foolish, and a teacher of the babes, doth in persuit of his great undertakinge, in this Chapter instruct them, what the Scripture speakes con∣cerning the Being, Nature, and Prope••tyes of God. Of his Goodnesse, Wisdome, Power, Truth, Righteousnesse, Faith∣fullnesse,

Mercy, Independency, Soveraignty, Infinitenesse, men had before been informed, by Bookes, Tracts, and Cate∣chismes, composed according to the fancyes and interests of men, the Scripture being utterly justled out of the way: Alas of these things the Scriptures speakes not at all: but the descrip∣tion wherein that abounds of God, and which is necessary that men should know, (whatever become of those other in∣considerable things, wherewith other poore Catechismes are stuffed) is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to Passi∣ons, &c. Thou that abhorrest Idolls, dost thou commit Sacriledge.

CAP. VI.

Of the Creation, and Condition of man before, and after the fall.

Mr BIDDLE'S 3d Chapter.

Qu. WEre the Heaven and Earth from all eternity, or created at a * 1.183 certain time? And by whom?

A. Gen. 1. 1.

Q. How long was God a making them?

A. Exod. 20. 11.

Q. How did God create man?

A. Gen. 2. 7

Q. How did he create Woman?

A. Gen. 2. 21, 22.

Q. Why was she called Woman?

A. Gen. 2. 23.

Q. What doth Moses inferre from her being made a woman, and brought unto the man?

A. Gen 2. 24.

Q. Where did God put man, after he was created?

A. Gen 2. 8.

Q What commandment gave he to the man, when he put him into the Garden?

A. Gen. 2. 16, 17.

Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit?

A. 1 Tim. 2. 14.

Q. By whom was the woman deceived?

A. 2 Cor. 11. 3.

Q. How was the Woman induced to eat of the forbidden fruit? And how the Man?

A. Gen. 3. 6.

Q. What effect followed upon their eating?

A. Gen. 3. 7.

Q. Did the sinne 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. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.

EXAMINATION.

HAving delivered his thoughts concerning God Himselfe, His Nature, and Propertyes, in the foregoing Chapters; * 1.184 in this our Catechist proceeds to the consideration of his Workes, ascribing to God the Creation of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now although many questions might be proposed, from which M, B. would (I suppose) be scarcely able to extricate himselfe, relating to the impossi∣bility of the proceeding of such a Worke, as the Creation of all things, from such an Agent as he hath described God to be, so limited both in his Essence and Propertyes; Yet, it being no part of my businesse, to dispute, or perplexe any thing, that is simply in its selfe true, and unquestionable, with the atten∣dencyes of it from other corrupt notions of him, or them, by whom it is received, and proposed, I shall wholly omit all con∣siderations of that nature, and apply my selfe meerly to what is by him expressed. That He who is limited & finite in Essence, and consequently in Propertyes, should by his power, without the helpe of any intervening instrument, out of nothing produce, at such a vast distance from him, as his hands can by no meanes reach unto, such mighty effects, as the earth it selfe, and the fulnesse thereof, is not of an easy proofe or resolu∣tion. But on these things at present I shall not insist: Cer∣taine it is, that on this apprehension of God, the a 1.185 Epicureans dis∣puted for the impossibility of the Creation of the world.

His first question then is, * 1.186

Were the Heavens and Earth from all eternity, or Created at a certaine time? And by whom?

To which he answers with Gen. 1. 1. In the Beginning God cre∣ated Heaven and Earth.

Right! only in the Exposition of this verse, as it discovers the principall efficient cause of the Creation of all things, or the Author of this great worke, M. B. afterwards expounds himselfe to differ from us, and the Word of God, in other places. By (God) he intends the Father only, and exclusively; the Scrip∣ture plentifully ascribing this Worke also to the Sonne, and Holy Ghost, manifesting their concurrence in the indivisible Deity unto this great worke; though by the way of Eminency, this worke be attributed to the Father, as that of Redemption is to the Sonne, and that of Regeneration to the Holy Ghost; from neither of which notwithstanding is the Father exclu∣ded.

Perhaps b 1.187 the using of the name of God in the plurall number, * 1.188 where mention is made of the Creation, in con∣junction with a Verb singular, Gen. 1. 1. and the ex∣presse calling of God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. 12. 1. Psal. 149. 2. Job. 35. 10. wants not a significancy to this thing. And indeed, he that shall consider the miserable evasions, that the c 1.189 Adversaries have invented, to escape the Argu∣ment thence commonly insisted on, must needs be confirmed in the perswasion of the force of it, M. Biddle may hapily close with Plato in this busi∣nesse; Who in his Timaeus brings in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speaking to his Genii about the making of man; telling them that they were mortall, but incou∣raging them to obey him, in the making of other creatures upon the promise of immortallity. d 1.190 Turne you (saith he) according to the Law of nature to the making of living Creatures, and imitate my power, which I used in your Generation, or birth. A speech fit

enough for M. B's God, who is shut up in Heaven, and not able of himselfe to attend his whole businesse. But what a sad successe this Demiurgus had, by his want of Prescience, or fore-sight of what his Daemons would do, (wherein also M. Biddle likens God unto him) is farther declared: for they im∣prudently, 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 1. 3. and by him are all things, 1 Cor. 8. 6. Revel. 4. 11. Of the Holy Ghost the same is affirmed, Gen. 1. 2. Job. 26. 13. Psal. 33. 6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of Principall efficient cause in this Worke, to a condition of instrumentallity only, which is ur∣ged, (especially in reference to the Spirit) unlesse we shall sup∣pose them to have been created before any creation, and to have been instrumentall of their own production. But of these things in their proper place.

Q. His second question is, How long was God a making them? And he answers from Exod. 20. 11. In six dayes the Lord made Hea∣ven * 1.191 and Earth, the Sea, and all that is in them.

The rule formerly I prescribed to my selfe of dealing with M. B. causes me to passe this Question also, without farther inquiry; although having already considered what his notions are, concerning the Nature and Propertyes of God, I can scarse avoid conjecturing, that by this crude proposall of the Time, wherein the worke of Gods Creation was finished, there is an intendment, to insinuate such a grosse conception of the working of God, as will by no meanes be suited to his omnipotent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther then enforced, I shall not insist on this Query.

Q. His third is, How did God Create man? And the Answer is, Gen. 2. 7. To which he adds a fourth, How did He Create Woman? * 1.192 which he resolves from Gen. 2. 21, 22.

M. Biddle undertaking to give all the grounds of Religion in his Catechismes, 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 matter whereof Man and Woman were made, M. Biddles Answers do expresse it; but as to

the condition and state, wherein they were made, that he is silent; though he knowes the Scripture doth much more a∣bound in delivering the one then the other. Neither can his silence in this thing be imputed to oversight, or forgetfull∣nesse, considering how subservient it is to his intendment, in his two last questions, for the subverting of the Doctrine of Originel sinne, and the denyall of all those effects, and cons••quents of the first breach of Covenant, whereof he speakes. He can upon an∣other account take notice, that man was made in the Image of God. But whereas hitherto Christians have supposed, that that denoted some Spirituall perfection bestowed on man, where∣in he resembles God, M. B. hath discovered, that it is only an expression of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man: which yet he will as hardly perswade 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 likenesse un-God, in that immortall substance breathed into his nostrills, Gen. 2. 7. in the excellent rationall faculties thereof; the do∣minion he was intrusted withall over a great part of Gods Cre∣ation, but especially in the integrity and uprightnesse of his per∣son, Eccl. 7. 29. wherein he stood before God, in reference to the obedience required at his hands; which condition, by the im∣planting of new qualities in our soule, we are through Christ in some measure renewed unto, Coll. 3. 10, 12. Eph. 4. 24. the Scrip∣ture is cleare, evident, and full in the discovery of; but hereof M. B. conceives not himselfe bound to take notice. But what is farther needfull to be spoken, as to the state of man before the Fall, will fall under the consideration of the last Question of this Chapter.

M. B's proces in the following questions, is to expres the story * 1.193 of mans outward condition, unto the eighth, where he enquires after the Commandement given of God, to man, when he put him into the Garden, in these words.

Q. What commandement gave he to the man, when he put him into the Garden? This he resolves from Gen. 2. 16, 17. That God gave our first Parents the command expressed, is undeniable. That the matter chiefely expressed in that command, was all, or the principall part of what he required of them, M B. doth not go about to prove. I shall only desire to know of him, whether

God did not in that estate require of them, that they should love him, feare him, believe him, acknowledge their dependance on him, in universall obedience to his will? And whether a sui∣tablenesse 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 evill; I de∣sire to know, whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Sathan, and yet been free from the threatning here mentioned, if they had only forbore the outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted, I hope I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred? Nor to shew how im∣possible this is, e 1.194 God continuing God, and man a rationall creature? If he shall say, that certainly God did require, that they should own him for God, that is, believe him, love him, feare him, and worship him, according to all that he should reveale to them, and require of them, I desire to know, whether this par∣ticular command, could be any other then Sacramentall, and Symbolicall, as to the matter of it, being a thing of so small im∣importance in its own nature, in comparison of those morall acknowledgements of God before mentioned. And to that question I shall not need to adde more.

Although it may justly be supposed, that M. B. is not without * 1.195 some thoughts of deviation from the truth, in the following Questions, yet the last being of most importance, and he being express therein, in denying all the effects of the first sinne, 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 sinne of our first Parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, * 1.196 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 of∣fence.

To this he answers from Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.

What the sinne of our first Parents was, may easily be dis∣covered * 1.197 from what was said before, concerning the comman∣dement given to them. If universall obedience was required of them unto God, according to the tenour of the law of their

Creation, their sinne was an universall Rebellion against, and Apostacy from him; which though it expressed it selfe, in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet it is farre from being reducible to any one kind of sinne, whole whole nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sinne, commonly assigned, M. B. annumerates, and rejects Six: sundry whereof are coincident, and all but one, redu∣cible to that generall head of losse of the image of God. But for the exclusion of them all at once from being any effects of the first sinne, M. Biddle thus argues; If there were no effects, not consequences of the first sinne, but what are expressly mentioned Gen. 3. 16, 17. &c. then those now mentioned are no effects of it; but there are no effects, or consequences of that first sinne, but what are mentioned in that place; therefore those recounted in his Querie, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashired from any such place in the thoughts of men.

Ans. The words insisted on by M. Biddle, being expressive of the Curse of God for sinne, on man, and the whole crea∣tion here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him to e∣vince, that none of the things he rejects, are not eminently en∣wrapped 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 himselfe, 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 universall 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, Spirituall and Temporall.

But is this indeed the only place of Scripture, where the effects * 1.198 of our Apostacy from God, in the sinne of our first Parents, are described? M. Biddle may as well tell us, that Gen. 3. 15. is the only place, where mention is made of Jesus Christ; for there he is mentioned. But a little to cleare this whole matter in our passage, though what hath been spoken may suffice, to make naked M. B's Sophistry.

1. By the effects of the first sinne, we understand every thing * 1.199 of evill, 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 good∣ness from God, which is come upon mankind, by the just or∣dination & appointment of God, whereunto man was not ob∣noxious in his Primitive state and condition. I am not at pre∣sent at all engaged to speak de modo, of what is privative, what positive in originall sinne, of the way of the Traduction, or pro∣pagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sinne, and adhesion of the pollution of our nature, defiled there∣by, or any other questions, that are coincident with these, in the usuall inquest made into, and after the sinne of Adam, and the fruits of it, but only as to the things themselves, which are here wholly denyed. Now

2. That what soever is evill in man by nature, whatever he is obnoxious and lyable unto, that is hurtfull, and destru∣ctive * 1.200 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 sinne, and is in solidum to be ascribed thereunto, is easily de∣monstrated. 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 * 1.201 common cause equally respecting the whole kind: but now of the evills 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 concernes them all, which by the Testimony of God himselfe, was this fall of A∣dam, Rom. 5. 15, 18.

2. The evills that are now incumbent upon men in their Naturall condition, (which what they are, shall be afterward * 1.202 considered) were either incumbent on them at their first crea∣tion, before the sinne 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 evills, 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 up∣right in the sight of God, in his favour and Aceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger and wrath,) is evident, by the light of

this one consideration, viz. That there was nothing in man, nor belonging to him, no Respect, no Regard, or Relation, but what was purely, and immediately of the holy Gods cre∣ation, and institution. Now it is contrary to all that he hath revealed, or made known to us of himselfe, that he should be the immediate Author of so much evill, 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, di∣rectly thwarting the Testimony which he gave of all the Workes of his hands, that they were exceeding good: it being evi∣dent, that man in the condition whereof we speake, is excee∣ding evill.

3. If all the evill mentioned, hath since befallen mankind, * 1.203 then it hath done so by some chance and Accident, whereof God was not aware, or by his righteous Judgment and Ap∣pointment, in reference to some procuring, and justly deser∣ving Cause of such a punishment. To affirme the first, is up∣on the matter to deny him to be God: And I doubt not, but that men, at as easy and cheape a rate of sinne, may deny that there is a God, as confessing his Divine Essence, to turne it into an Idol; and by making thick clouds, as Job speakes, to in∣terpose between him & the affaires of the World, to exclude his Energeticall Providence in the disposall of all the workes of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I aske as before, what other common cause, wherein all and every one of mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evills mentioned, as the procurement of the Wrath and Vengeance of God, from whence they are, but only the fall of Adam, the sinne of * 1.204 our first Parents; especially considering, that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain, and sourse of the evills insisted on, Rom. 5.

4. These things then being premised, it will quickly appeare, * 1.205 that every one of the particulars, rejected by M. B. from being fruits or effects of the first sinne, are indeed the proper issues of it: and though M. B. cut the Roll of the Abominations, and cor∣ruptions of the Nature of man by sinne, and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it againe, and adde many more Words of the like importance.

1. The first Effect or fruit of the first sinne, rejected by M. B. * 1.206

is, its rendering men guilty of Hell fire; but the Scripture seems to be of another mind Rom. 5. 12. Wherefore as by one man sinne en∣tred into the world, and death by sinne, and so death 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 entred by sinne, the holy Ghost is expresse in. The death here mentioned is, that which God threatned to Adam, if he did transgresse, Gen. 2. which that it was not death Tempo∣rall only, yea not at all, M. B. contends, by denying Mor∣tallity to be a fruit of this sinne: as also excluding in this very Query all roome for death spirituall, which consists in the defacing of the Image of God in us, which he with this rejects; And what death remaines, but that which hath Hell following after it, we shall afterwards consider.

Besides, that death which Christ dyed to deliver us from, * 1.207 was that which we were obnoxious to, upon the account of the first sinne: for he came to save that which was lost: and ta∣sted death to deliver us from death; dying to deliver them, who for feare of death were in bondage all their lives, Heb. 2, 13. But that this was such a death, as hath Hell-fire attending it, he manifests, by af∣firming, that he delivers us from the wrath to come; By Hell fire we understand nothing but the wrath of God for sinne, into whose hand it is a fearefull thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the guilt of every sinne is this death whereof we speake, that hath both Curse and Wrath attending it, and that it is the proper wages of sinne, the Testimony of God is evident. * 1.208 What other death men are obnoxious to, on the account of the first sinne, that hath not these concomitants, M. B. hath not as yet revealed. By nature also we are children of wrath; * 1.209 and on what foot of account our obnoxiousnesse now by na∣ture 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 sinne, as it is usu∣ally asserted, is in the next place denyed. That man was * 1.210 created in the Image of God, and wherein that image of God doth consist, was before declared. That we are now borne 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 sinne, is to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done, hath been alrea∣dy declared. He that shall undertake to make good the former, must engage in a more difficult worke, then M. B. in the midst of his other employments, is willing to undertake. To in∣sist on all particulars relating to the Image of God in man, how farre it is defaced, whether any thing properly and direct∣ly thereunto belonging, be yet left remaining in us; to de∣clare how farre our soules, in respect of their immortall sub∣stance, faculties, and Consciences, our Persons, in respect of that dominion over the Creatures, which yet by Gods gracious and mercifull Providence we retaine, may be said to bare the Image of God, is a worke of another nature, then what I am now engaged in. For the asserting of what is here denyed by M. B. concerning the defacing of the Image of God in us by sinne, no more is required, but only the tender of some demonstrations to the maine of our intendment in the Asser∣tion, touching the losse by the first sin, & our present want in the state of nature, of that Righteousnesse and Holinesse, where∣in man at his first Creation stood before God, (in reference un∣to the End whereunto he was Created,) in uprightnesse, and ability of walking unto all well pleasing. And as this will be fully manifested in the consideration of the ensuing parti∣culars instanced in by M. B. so it is sufficiently cleare and evi∣dent, from the renovation of that Image, which we have by Jesus Christ, & that expressed both in generall, & in all the par∣ticulars wherein we affirme that image to be defaced. The new man, which we put on in Jesus Christ, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that treated him, Coll. 3. 10. is that which we want, by sinnes defacing (s••o more) of that Image of God in us, which we had in knowledge; so Ephes. 4. 23, 24. That new man is said to consist in the Renewing of our mind, whereby after God we are Created in Righteousnesse and Holinesse. So that whereas we were created in the image of God, in Righte∣ousnesse and Holinesse, and are to be renewed again by Christ, unto the same condition of his Image in Righteousnesse and Holinesse, we doubt not to affirme, that by the first same

(the only interposition, of generall concernement to all the sons of men,) the Image of God in us was exceedingly defaced. In summe, that which made us sinners, brought sinne and death upon us, that which made us lyable to condemnation, that defaced the image of God in us; that all this was done by the first sinne, the Apostle plainly asserts, Rom. 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, &c.

To the next particular effect of sinne, by M. B. rejected, (the darkning of our under standings,) I shall only enquire of him, whether * 1.211 God made us at first with our understandings darke, and igno∣rant, as to those things which are of absolute necessity that we should be acquainted withall, for the attainment of the End whereunto he made us? For once, I will suppose he will not affirme it; and shall therefore proceed one stop farther, and aske him; whether there be not such a darkenesse now upon us by nature, opposed unto that light, that spirituall and saving Knowledge, which is of absolute necessity for every one to have, and be furnished withall, that will againe attaine that glory of God, which we are borne short of: Now because this is that which will most probably be denyed, 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 * 1.212 darke and blind, and darkenesse it selfe in the things of God: and then,

2. All those where it is no lesse punctually, and positively * 1.213 asserted, that Christ gives us Light, Knowledge, Ʋnderstanding, which of our selves we have not. And if he be not able to doe so, then

3. To tell me, whether the darkenesse mentioned in the for∣mer * 1.214 places, and innumerable others, and as to the manner and cause of its removall and taking away, in the latter, be part of that death which passed on all men, by the of∣fence 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 * 1.215 not my purpose to handle the common place of the corruption of

nature by sinne; nor can I say, that it is well for M. Biddle, that he finds none of those effects of sinne in himselfe; ••n thing, of Darkenesse, Bondage, or Disabillity; or if he do, that he knowes where to charge it, and not on himselfe, and the de∣pravednesse of his own nature? and that because I know none who are more desperately sick, then those who by a fever of pride, have lost the sense of their own miserable condition: On∣ly to stop him in his hast from rejecting the evills mentioned, from being effects or consequences of the first sinne, I desire him to peruse a little the ensuing Scriptures: And take them as they come to minde, Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 5. Joh. 5. 25. Math 8. 22. Ephes. 5. 8. Luk. 4. 18. 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Joh. 8. 34. Rom. 6, 16. Gen. 6. 5. Rom. 7. 5. Joh: 3. 6. 1 Cor. 2 14. Rom. 3. 12. Acts 8. 31. Joh. 5. 41. Rom. 8. 7. Jerem. 13. 23 &c.

The last thing denyed is, its causing Mortallity. God threat∣ning * 1.216 man with death if he sinned, Gen. 2. 17. seems to in∣struct us, that if he had not sinned, he should not have dy∣ed; And upon his sinne, affirming, that on that account he should be dissolved, and returne to his dust, Gen. 3. 18, 19. no lesse evidently convinces us, that his sinne caused morta∣lity actually, and in the event. The Apostle also affirming, that death entred by sinne, and passed upon all, in as much 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, mortall, or eventually have dyed. M. Biddle it seemes is of another perswasion. And for the confir∣mation of his judgment, gives you the words of the Curse of God to man upon his sinning; dust thou art, and unto dust then shalt returne; The strength of his reason therein lying in this, that if God denounced the sentence of mortallity on man after his sinning, and for his sin, then mortallity was not an effect of sinne, but man was mortall before in the state of innocency, who doubts but that at this rate he may be able to prove what he pleases.

A briefe declaration of our sence, in ascribing Immor∣tallity * 1.217 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 f 1.218 Being, as also of all outward and extrinsecall causes, God alone is eminently and perfectly immortall; He only in that sence hath life and immortality. Angells and soules of men, in materiall substances, are im∣mortall as to their intrinsecall Essence, free from principles of corruption and mortallity; But yet are obnoxious to it, in respect of that outward cause, (or the power of God) which can at any time reduce them into nothing. The immortallity we ascribe to man in inno∣cency, is only an assured preservation, by the power of God, from actuall dying; notwithstanding the possibility thereof, which he was in, upon the account of the constitution of his person, and the principles there unto concurring: So that though from his own nature, he had a possibillity of dying, and in that sence was mortall, yet from g 1.219 Gods institution, assigning him life in the way of obedience, he had a possibillity of not dying, and was in that sence immortall, as hath been declared. If any desire farther satisfaction herein, let him con∣sult Johannes Junius his Answer to Socinus his Prelections, in the first Chapter whereof he pretends to answer in proofe the assertion in title, Primus homo unte lapsum natura mortalis fuit: wherein he partly mistakes the thing in question, which respects not the constitution of mans nature, but the event of the condition wherein he was created. h 1.220 And himselfe in another place states it i 1.221 better.

The summe of the whole may be reduced to what follows. * 1.222 Simply immortal and absolutely is God only: He only hath immor∣tallity. 1 Tim. 6 16. Immortall in respect of its whole substance or Essence, is that which is separated from all matter, which is

the principle of Corruption, as Angells, or is not educed from the power of it, whither of its own accord it should a∣gain resolve, as the soules of men. The bodyes also of the Saints in Heaven, yea, and of the wicked in Hell, shall be immortall, though in their own natures corruptible, being changed, and pre∣served by the power of God. Adam was mortall, as to the consti∣tution of his body, which was apt to dye; immortall in respect of his soule, in its own substance; immortall in their union by Gods ap∣pointment, and from his preservation, upon his continuance in obedience. By the composition of his body, before his fall, he had a posse mori; by the appointment of God, a posse non mori; by his fall, a non posse non mori.

In this estate, on his disobedience, He was threatned with death: and therefore was Obedience the tenure whereby he held his grant of immortallity, which on his neglect, he was pe∣nally to be deprived of. In that estate he had (I.) The im∣mortallity mentioned or a power of not dying from the appoint∣ment of God. (2.) An uprightenesse and integrity of his person before God, with an ability to walke with him in all the Obe∣dience he required, being made in the Image of God, & upright: (3.) A Right, upon his abode in that condition, to an Eter∣nally blessed life, which he should (4.) Actually have enjoy∣ed. For he had a pledge of it in the Tree of Life. He lost it for himselfe & us, which if he never had it, he could not do. The Death, wherewith he was threatned, stood in opposition to all these. It being most ridiculous to suppose, that any thing penall in the Scripture comes under the name of death, that was not here threatned to Adam. Death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortallity spoken of; of the soule, spritually in sin, by the losse of his righteousnesse, and integrity; of both, in their obnoxiousnesse to death eternall, 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 penall, 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, * 1.223

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 cre∣ated?

A. God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him, Male and Female Created he them. Gen. 1. 27.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good. v. 31.

In the Image God made he man. Gen. 9. 6.

Lo! this only have I found, that God hath made man UPRIGHT, Eccles. 7. 29.

Put on the new man, which after God, is created in righteousnesse and Holinesse, Eccles. 4. 24.

Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the Image of him that Created him, Col. 3. 10.

Q. 2. Should our First parents have dyed, had they not sinned, or were they obnoxious to death in the state of inno∣cency? * 1.224

A. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every Tree of the Garden thou mayst freely eat.

But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evill, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou earest thereof, thou shalt surely dye, Gen. 2. 16, 17.

By one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12.

For the Wages of sinne is death, Rom. 6. 23.

Q. 3. Are we now since the Fall, borne with the Image of God so enstamped on us, as at our first Creation in Adam? * 1.225

A. All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God, Rom. 3. 23.

Lo! this only have I found, that God hath made man Upright, but he hath found out many inventions. Eccles. 7. 29.

So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God, Rom. 8. 8.

And you who were dead in trespasses and sinnes, Ephes. 2. 1.

For we our selves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts, and pleasures, living in Malice, and envy, hatefull, and hating one another, Titus 3. 3.

The old man is corrupt according to deceitfull lusts Ephes. 4. 22.

Q. 4. Are we now borne approved of God, and accep∣ted with him, as when we were first created, or what is our * 1.226 condition now by nature, what say the Scriptures here∣unto?

A. We were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others, Ephes 3. 3.

Excepta man be borne againe, he cannot see the Kingdome of God. Joh. 3. 3.

He that believeth not the Sonne, the wrath of God abideth on him v. 36.

That which is borne of the flesh is flesh, Joh. 4. 6.

Q. 4. Are our understandings by nature able to discerne the things of God, or are they darkened, and blind. * 1.227

A. The naturall man receiveth not the things that are of the spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse unto him, neither can he know them, be∣cause they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2. 14.

The light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not, Joh. 1. 5.

—To preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind. Luk. 4. 18.

Having their Ʋnderstandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindnesse of their heart, Ephes. 4. 18.

Ye were sometimes darkenesse, but now are ye light in the Lord. Ephes. 5. 8.

For God who commanded the light to shine out of darknesse, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 4. 6.

And we know that the Sonne of God is come, and hath given us an Ʋnderstanding, that we may know him that is true, 1 John 5. 20.

Q: 5. Are we able to doe those things now in the state of nature, which are spiritually good, and acceptable to * 1.228 God?

A. The carnall mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be Rom. 8. 7.

You were dead in trespasses and sinnes, Ephes. 2. 1.

The imagination of mans heart is evill from his youth, Gen. 8. 21.

Can the Aethiopian change his skin, or the Leopard his spots, then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evill, Jerem. 13. 23.

For without me yee can do nothing, Joh. 15. 5.

Not that we are sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves our sufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. 3. 5.

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing, Rom 7. 18.

Q. 6. How came we into this miserable state and con∣dition? * 1.229

A. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sinne did my mother conceive me, Psal. 51. 5.

Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane? Not one, Job. 14. 4.

That which is borne of the flesh is flesh. Joh. 3. 6.

Wherefore as by one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12.

Q. 7. Is then the guilt of the first sinne of our first Parents reckoned unto us? * 1.230

A. But not as the offence so also is the free gift, for if through the offence of one many be dead, v. 15.

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: For the judgement was by one to condemnation, v. 16.

For by one mans offence death raigned, v. 17.

Therefore by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condem∣na••••on, v. 18.

By one mans disobedience many were made sinners, v. 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, lyes in the Revelation made of the exceeding Efficacy of that power & Grace, which God in Christ puts forth for our conversion, and delivery from that state and condition, be∣fore described, yet so much is spoken of this darke side of it, as will render vaine the attempts of any, who shall endeavour to plead the cause of corrupted nature, or alleviate the Guilt of the first sinne.

It may not be amisse in the winding up of the whole, to

give the Reader a briefe account, of what sleight thoughts this Gentleman and his Companions have concerning this whole matter, of the state and condition of the first man, his fall or sinne, and the interest of all his Posterity therein, which con∣fessedly lye at the bottome of that whole dispensation of Grace in Jesus Christ, which is revealed in the Gospell.

1. For Adam himselfe, they are so remote from assig∣ning to him any eminency of Knowledge, Righteousnesse, or Holinesse, in the State wherein he was created: That

1. For his Knowledge, they say he a 1.231 was a meere great baby, that knew not that he was naked. So also taking away the difference between the simple knowledge of nakednesse in innocency, and the knowledge joyned with shame, that followed sinne. b 1.232 Of his Wife he knew no more but what occur'd to his senses. Though the expression which he used at first view and sight of her, do plainely argue another manner of Apprehension. Gen. 2. 23, 24. For c 1.233 the tree of the knowledg of good and evill, he knew not the vertue of it. Which yet I know not how well it agrees with another place of the d 1.234 same Author, where he concludes, that in the state of innocency, there was in Adam a predominancy of the natu∣rall appetite, which conquer'd or prevailed to the eating of the Fruit of that tree. Also that e 1.235 being mortall, he knew not himselfe to be so: The summe is, he was even a very beast, that knew neither himselfe, his duty, nor the will of God concerning him.

2. For his Righteousnesse and Holinesse, which, as was said * 1.236 before, because he was made upright, in the image of God, we ascribe unto him, f 1.237 Socinus contend's in one whole chapter, in his Prelections, That he was neither Just, nor Holy, nor ought to be so esteemed or called.

And g 1.238 Smalcius in his confutation of Franzius his Theses de pecca∣to Originali, all along derides, and laughs to scorne, the appre∣hension or perswasion, that Adam was created in Righteous∣nesse and Holinesse, or that ever he lost any thing of the Image of God, or that ever he had any thing of the Image of God, beyond or besides that Dominion over the Creatures which God gave him.

h 1.239 Most of the residue of the Heard, describing the estate and condition of man, in his creation, do wholly omit any menti∣on of any morrall uprightnesse in him.

And this is the account these Gentlemen give us, concerning * 1.240 the condition and state, wherein the First man was of God crea∣ted. An heavy burthen of the earth, it seemes he was, that had neither Righteousnesse, nor Holinesse, whereby he might be enabled to walke before God, in reference to that great end, whereunto he was created; nor any knowledge of God, him∣selfe, or his Duty.

2. For his sin, the great h 1.241 Master of their Family disputes, * 1.242 that it was a bare transgression of that precept, of not eating the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evill. And that i 1.243 His nature was not viriated, or corrupted thereby. Wherein he is punctually followed by the Raccovian Catechisme; which also giveth this Reason, why his nature was not depraved by it, name∣ly,

because it was but one Act; so light are their thoughts, and expressions of that great transgression.

3. For his state and condition, k 1.244 they all with open * 1.245 mouth cry out, that he was Mortall, and obnoxious to death, which should in a Naturall way have come upon him, though he had not sinned. But of this before.

4. Farther, that the l 1.246 Posterity of Adam were no way con∣cerned, * 1.247 as to their spirituall prejudice, in that sinne 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 Originall sinne, is a figment of Austine, and the Schoole∣men 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 efficacy of Grace, and the power of the Spirit in conversion, decryed. On this account, is Salvation granted by them, without Christ; a power of keeping all the Commandements asserted; and Justification up∣on our Obedience; of which, in the processe of our Dis∣course.

Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions of M. B.'s * 1.248 Masters, concerning this whole matter. m 1.249 Such was Adam, in their esteem; Such was his Fall; and such our concernment therein. He had no Righteousnesse, no Holinesse, (yea n 1.250 Soci∣nus as length confesses, that he did not believe his soule was immortall.) 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 soule descend.

Least the weakest, or meanest Reader should be startled wich * 1.251 the mention of these things, not finding himselfe ready fur∣nished with Arguments from Scripture, to disprove the bold∣nesse and folly of these men in their Assertions, I shall adde some few Arguments, whereby the severalls, by them denyed, and opposed, are confirmed from Scriptures; the places before mentioned, being in them cast into that forme and Method, wherein they are readily subservient to the purpose in hand.

1. That man was Created in the Image of God, in Know∣ledge, Righteousnesse, and Holinesse, is evident on the ensuing * 1.252 considerations.

I. He who was made very good and upright, in a morall confide∣ration, had the Originall Righteousnesse pleaded for: for morall goodnesse, integrity, and uprightnesse, is equivalent unto Righ∣teousnesse; so are the words used in the description of Job. cap. 1. v. 1. And Righteous and Ʋpright are termes equivalent. Psal. 33. 1. Now that man was made thus good and upright, was mani∣fested in the Scriptures, cited in answer to the question before proposed, concerning the condition wherein our first Parents were created. And indeed this Uprightnesse of man, this morall rectitude, was his formall aptitude, and fitnesse, 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 * 1.253 with the Originall Righteousnesse pleaded for. This is evident from

hence, because Righteousnesse and Holinesse is a perfection of a Rationall being, made for the service of God. This in An∣gells is called the Truth, or that originall Holinesse and recti∣tude, which the Divells abode not in, Joh. 8. 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 * 1.254 in a state of Righteousnesse, Holinesse, and Knowledge. That Adam was created in the Image of God, is plainely affirmed in Scripture, and is not denyed. That by the Image of God is especially intended the qualitys 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 esteeme 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 n 1.255 Heathens could conclude, that he was very wise indeed, who first gave names to things.

II. For the disproving of that Mortallity, which they ascribe * 1.256 to man in innocency. The ensuing Arguments may suffice.

1. He that was created in the Image of God in Righteous∣nesse and Holinesse, whilst he continued in that state and con∣dition, was immortall. That man was so created, lyes under the demonstration of the foregoing Arguments, and Testimonyes. The Assertion thereupon, or the inference of Immortallity from the Image of God, appeares on this double consideration. 1. In our Renovation by Christ, unto the image of God, we are renewed to a blessed Immortallity: and our likenesse to God consisted no lesse in that, then in any other communi∣nicable property of his Nature. 2. Where ever is naturally perfect Righteousnesse, there is naturally perfect life, that is, Immortallity: this is included in the very tenour of the pro∣mise

of the Law. If a man keep mystatutes he shall live in them, Levit. 18. 5.

2. That which the first man Contracted, & drew upon himselfe * 1.257 by sinne, was not naturall to him before he sinned: But that man contracted, and drew death upon himselfe, or made him∣selfe liable and obnoxious unto it by sinne, is proved by all the Texts of Scripture, that were produced above, in answer to our second Question. As Gen. 2. 17, 19. Rom. 5. 12, 14. chap. 6. 23. &c.

3. That which is besides, and contrary to nature, was not * 1.258 naturall to the first man: but death is besides, and contrary to nature, as the voyce of nature abundantly testifieth; there∣fore to man in his primitive condition it was not natu∣rall.

Unto these may sundry other Arguments be added, from the Promise of the Law, the End of mans Obedience, His consti∣tution and state, denying all proximate causes of death, &c. But these may suffice.

III. That the sinne of Adam is not to be consined to the * 1.259 meere eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evill, but had its rise in Infidelity, and comprised universall Apostacy from God, in disobedience to the law of his creation, and de∣pendance on God, I have elsewhere demonstrated, and shall * 1.260 not need here againe to insist upon it. That it began in Infi∣delity, is evident from the beginning of the Temptation, where∣with he was overcome. It was to doubt of the Truth, and ve∣racity of God, to which the woman was at first sollicited by Sathan. Gen: 3. 4. Hath God said so? pressing that it should be otherwise, then they seemed to have cause to apprehend from what God said: And their acquiescence in that reply of Sathan, without revolving to the truth, and faithfullnesse of God, was plaine Ʋnbeliefe. Now as Faith is the root of all Righteousnesse and Obedience, so is Infidelity of all disobedi∣ence. Being overtaken, conquered, deceived into infidelity, man gave up himselfe to act contrary to God, and his will, shooke off his soveraignty, rose up against his Law, and ma∣nifested the frame of his heart, in the pledge of his diso∣bedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally forbidden him.

IV. That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sinne is imputed to all his Posterity, is by them denyed, but is easily * 1.261 evinced. For

1. By whom sinne entred into the world, so that all sinned in him, and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sinne is called the sinne of the world, in him all mankind sinned, and his sinne is imputed to them. But that this was the condition, and state of the first sinne of Adam, the Scriptures before men∣tioned, in answer to our seventh question, do abundantly manifest; and thence also is his sinne called the sinne of the world: John 1. 29,

2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have contra∣cted the guilt of death and condemnation, in him they have all * 1.262 sinned, and have his sinne imputed to them. But in Adam all are dead: 1 Cor: 15. 22. as also Rom: 5. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. And death is the wages of sinne only, Rom: 6. 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 * 1.263 expressly, Rom: 5. but we are made Righteous by the Obedience of Christ, by the imputation of it to us, as if we had perfor∣med it: 1 Cor: 1. 30. Phil: 3. 9. Therefore are we sinners, by the imputation of the sinne of Adam to us, as though we had committed it: which the Apostle also affirmes. To what hath been spoken, from the consideration of that state and conditi∣on, wherein by Gods appointment, in reference to all mankind, Adam was placed, namely, of a naturall, and politicall, or Faederall Head, (of which the Apostle treats, 1 Cor. 15.) from the losse of that Image, wherein he was created, whereunto by Christ we are renewed, many more words like these might be ad∣ded.

To what hath been spoken, there is no need that much should be added, for the removall of any thing insisted on, to * 1.264 the same purpose with M. B's intimations, in the Raccovian Cate∣chisme. But yet seeing that that task also is undertaken, that which may seeme necessary for the discharging of what may thence be expected, shall briefely be submitted to the Reader. To this Head they speake, in the first Chapter, of the way Salvation; the first Question whereof, is of the import en∣suing.

Q. a 1.265 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?

A. Because, as man by nature hath nothing to do with immortality (or hath no interest in it) so by himselfe he could by no means know the way which leadeth to immortality.

Propterea, quia ut homo naturâ nihil habet commune cum immortalitate, ita eam ipse viam, quae nos ad immortalitatem duceret, nulla ratione per se cognoseere potuit. Catech. Raccov. de via Salut cap. 1.

Both Question and Answer being sophistical and ambiguous, the sence and intendment of them, as to their application to the matter in hand, and by them aymed at, is first to be recti∣fyed 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 im∣mortallity, (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 bloud of the Sonne of God: For he that believeth shall be Saved.

2. Man by nature may be considered two wayes, (1.) As he was in his created condition, not tainted, corrupted, weake∣ned, nor lost by sinne, (2.) As fallen, dead, polluted, and guil∣ty.

3. Immortallity is taken either (1.) Nakedly, and purely in its selfe, for an eternall abiding of that which is said to be immortall. (2.) For a blessed condition, and state, in that abiding and continuance.

4. That expression (by nature) referring to man in his crea∣ted condition, not fallen by sinne, may be taken two wayes (1.) Strictly, for the consequences of the naturall principles whereof man was constituted, or (2.) More largely it compri∣zes Gods 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 trunke will fall to the ground.

I say then, man by nature, in his primitive created condition,

was by the appointment and constitution of God, immortall, * 1.266 as to the continuance of his life, and knew the way of perfect legall Obedience, tending to a blessed Immortallity, and that by himselfe, or by vertue of the Law of his Creation, which was concreated with him: But fallen man in his naturall condition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death temporall and eternall, doth by no meanes know of himselfe, nor can know, the way of Faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immor∣tallity and Glory.

It is not then our want of interest in immortallity, upon the account whereof we know not of our selves the way to immor∣tallity * 1.267 by the bloud of Christ; but there are two other rea∣sons that enforce the Truth of it.

1. Because it is a way of meere Grace and mercy, hidden from all eternity in the treasures of Gods infinite Wisdome, and * 1.268 soveraigne Will, which he neither prepared for man in his cre∣ated condition, nor had man any need of; nor is it in the least discovered by any of the Workes of God, or the Law written in the heart; but is solely revealed from the bosome of the Father, by the only begotten Sonne, neither Angells, nor men, being able to discover the least glimpse of that Mystery, with∣out that Revelation.

2. Because man in his fallen condition, though there be re∣tained in his heart some weake and faint expressions of Good and Evill, reward and punishment, Rom. 2. 14, 15. yet is spiritually dead, blind, clienated from God, ignorant, darke, stub••orne, * 1.269 so far from being able of himselfe to find out the way of Grace unto blessed immortallity, that he is not able upon the Reve∣lation of it, savingly, and to the great end of its proposall, to receive, apprehend, believe, and wa••ke in it, without a new Spi∣rituall Creation, Resurrection from the dead, or new ••uth, wrought by the exceeding greatnesse 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 briefe removall of the covering, is the weaknesse, and na∣kednesse of their whole ensuing Discourse so discovered, as that I shall speedily take it, with its offence, out of the way. They proceed.

Q. b 1.270 But why hath man nothing to do with (or no interest in) im∣mortallity?

A. Therefore, because from the beginning he was formed of the ground, and so was created mortall: 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 eternall death? * 1.271

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 brea∣thed into him the breath of life, whereby he became a living soule; & in that immediate constitution, & framing from the hand of God, was free from all nextly disposing causes unto dissolution: but his immortallity 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 Eternall Death, in the judgment of our Catechists, whereunto man was subject by sinne, was only an eternall disso∣lution or annihilation, (or rather an abode under dissolution, dissolution it selfe being not penall) and not any abiding punishment, as will afterwards be farther manifest. They goe on.

Q. c 1.272 But how doth this agree with those places of Scripture, wherein * 1.273 it is written, that man was created in the Image of God, and created un∣to immortallity, and that death entred into the world by sinne. Gen. 1. 26. Wisd. 2. 23. Rom. 5. 12.

A. As to the Testimony, which declareth that man was created in the * 1.274 Image of God, it is to be known, that the Image of God doth not signify immortallity; (which is evident from hence, because at that time, when man was subject to eternall death, the Scripture acknowledgeth in him that Image, Gen. 9. 6. Jam. 3. 9.) but it denoteth the power dominion over all things, made of God on the Earth: as the same place, where this Image is treated of, clearely sheweth: Gen. 1, 26.

The Argument for that state and Condition, wherein we af∣firme man to have been created, from the consideration of the Image of God, wherein he was made, and whereunto in part we are renewed, was formerly insisted on. Let the Reader looke back unto it, and he will quickly discerne, how little is here offered to enervate it in the least. For

1. They cannot prove, that man in the condition and state of sinne, doth retaine any thing of the Image of God; the places mentioned, as Gen. 9, 6. and Jam. 3. 9. testify only, that he was made in the Image of God at first, but that he doth still retaine 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 ex∣cellency, hath been above declared: So that the Argument to prove that it did not consist in immortallity, because it did con∣sist in the dominion over the Creatures, is no better then 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 maine of it, in refe∣rence to the end of everlasting communion with God, (whereunto we were created) was utterly lost by sinne, or else we could not be renewed unto it againe by Jesus Christ, yet as to some footsteps of it, in reference to our fellow Crea∣tures, 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. 1. 26. Let us make man in our Image, and let him have dominion over the fish of the Sea, &c. Is so farre from pro∣ving, 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, then a description of that Image wherein they were made.

It is evident then, notwithstanding any thing here excepted to the contrary, that the Immortallity pleaded for, belonged to the Image of God, and from mans being created therein, is rightly inferred, as above was made more evident.

Upon the Testimony of the Book of Wisdome, it being confessedly * 1.275 Apocriphall, I shall not insist. Neither do I think, that in the Ori∣nall any new Argument, to that before mentioned, of the image God, is added: but that is evidently pressed, & the nature of the Image of God somewhat explained. The words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The opposition that is put between the creation of man in integrity, and the Image of God, in one verse, and the entrance of sinne, by the envy of the Divell, in the next, plainely evinces, that the mind of the Authour of that book was, that man, by reason of his being cre∣ated in the image of God, was immortall in his primitive con∣dition. That which followes, is of an other nature, concerning which they thus enquire and Answer. * 1.276

d 1.277 What moreover wilt thou answer to the third Testimony?

A. The Apostle in that place treateth not of immortallity, but of death it selfe. But mortallity differeth much from death: for a man may be mortall and yet never dye. But

1. The Apostle eminently treats of mans becomming obnox∣ious to death, which untill he was, he was immortall. For he

sayes, that death entred the world by sinne, and passed on all men, not actually, but in the guilt of it, and obnoxiousnesse to it. By what means death entred into the world, or had a right so to do, by that meanes man lost the immortallity, which be∣fore he had.

2. It is true, a man may be mortall as to state and condi∣tion, and yet by Almighty power be preserved, and delive∣red from actuall dying, as it was with Enoch and Elijah, but in an ordinary course he that is mortall must dye, & is directly obnoxious to death: but that which we plead for from those words of the Apostle is, that man by Gods constitution and ap∣pointment, was so immortall, as not to be lyable, nor obnoxious to death, untill he sinned. But they will prove their assertion in their progresse. * 1.278

Q. e 1.279 What therefore is the sence of these words, that death entred into the world by sinne?

This, that Adam for sin by the decree and sentence of God, was subject to eternall death; and therefore all men, because, or in as much as they are borne of him, are subject to the same eternall death. And that this is so, the compa∣rison of Christ with Adam, which the Apostle institu••••th, from v. 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 obnoxi∣ous to death, but upon the account of the commination of God annexed to the law he gave him. And this is the whole of what we affirme: namely, that by Gods appointment man was im∣mortall, and the tenure of his immortallity was his obedience; And thereupon, his Right thereunto he lost by his Trangressi∣on.

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 righteousnesse, and have not the l••••st right to life, or a blessed immortallity; so antecedently to the consideration of Adam, & his disobedience, we were not in the least

obnoxious unto death, or any way lyable to it, in our pri∣mitive condition.

And this is all that our Cat••chists have to plead for them∣selves, or to except against our Arguments, and Testimonys to * 1.280 the cause in hand. Which how weake it is in it selfe, and how short it comes of reaching to the strength we insist on, as little comparison of it, with what went before, will satisfie the pious Reader.

What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depravation of two or three Texts of Scripture, to another purpose then that in hand, I shall not divert to the consideration of; see∣ing it will more orderly fall under debate in another place.

What our Catechists adde elsewere about originall sinne, or their attempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a * 1.281 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 meanes, lost that liberty ••ri••er: Their second Question is.

f 1.282 Is not this f•••••• will corrupted by Originall sinne?

A. There is no such thing as Originall sinne: 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 cor∣rupt his own nature, much lesse 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 fountaine of all goodnesse, would so do.

1. This is yet plaine dealing. And it is, well that men who * 1.283 know neither God nor themselves, have yet so much honesty left, as to speake down right what they intend. Quickly dis∣patched; there is no such thing as originall sinne. To us the

denying of it, is one Argument to prove it. Were not men blind, and dead in sinne, they could not but be sensible of it. But men swimming with the waters, feele not the strength of the streame.

2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing? Doth it no∣where * 1.284 teach, that we who were created upright, in the image of God, are now dead intrespasses and sinnes, by nature children of wrath, having the wrath 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 carnall minds being enmity to God, not subject to his Law, nor can be. That our hearts are stony, our affections sensuall, that we are wholly come short of the Glory of God. That every figment of our heart is evil, so that we can nei∣ther think nor speak, nor do, that which is spiritually good, or acceptable to God; that being borne of the flesh we are flesh, and unlesse we are borne againe, can by no meanes enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. That all this is come upon us by the sinne of one man, whence also Judgment passed on all men to con∣demnation? Can nothing of all this be proved from the Scrip∣ture? These Gentlemen know, that we contend not about words or expressions; let them grant this heriditary corruption of our natures, alienation from God, impotency to good, deadnesse and obstinacy in sinne, want of the Spirit, Image, and Grace of God, with obnoxiousnesse thereon to eternall condemnation; and give us a fitter expression to declare this state and con∣dition by, in respect of every ones personall interest therein, and we will, so it may please them, call it originall sinne no more.

3. It is not impossible, that one act should be so high, and in∣tense * 1.285 in its kind, as to induce an habit into the subject, and so Adams nature be vitiated by it; and he begot a Sonne in his own likenesse. The Divells upon one sinne, became obstinate in all the wickednesse, that their nature is capable of. 2. This one act was a breach of Covenant with God, upon the tenour and observation whereof, depended the enjoyment of all that strength, and Rectitude with God, wherewith by the law of his creation, man was endued withall. 3. All mans Covenant Good, for that eternall end, to which he was created, de∣pending upon his conformity to God, his subjection to him,

him, and dependance on him, all which by that one sinned he wilfully cast away, for himselfe and posterity, (whose com∣mon, naturall, and faederall 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. 5. 15, 16, &c. as hath been declared.

4. What is credible concerning God & his goodnesse with these Gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only in it selfe * 1.286 credible, which he hath revealed concerning himselfe, but of necessity to be believed. That he gave man a Law, threatning him, and all his Posterity in him and with him, with eternall death upon the breach of it, that upon that sinne, he cast all man; kind judicially out of Covenant, imputing that sinne unto them all, unto the guilt of condemnation, seeing it is his Judgement that they who commit sinne are worthy of death, and that he is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, is to us credible, yea (as was said) of necessity to be believed. But they will answer the proofes that are produced from Scripture, in the asserting of this Originall sinne. * 1.287

g 1.288 But that there is Originall sinne, Those Testimonyes seeme to prove Gen. 6. 5. Every cogitation of the heart of man is only evill every day. And Gen. 8. 21. The cogitation of m••ns heart is evill from his youth.

A. These Testimonyes deale concerning voluntary sinne: from them therefore Originall sinne cannot be proved. As for the first, Moses sheweth it to be such a sinne for whose sake God repented him that he had made man and decreed to destroy him with a flood: which certainly can by no meanes be affirmed concerning a sinne which should be in no man by nature, such as they think Originall sinne to be. In the other he sheweth, that the sinne of man shall not have that efficacy, that God should punnish the would for it with a flood; which by no means agreeth to Originall sinne.

That this attempt of our Catechists is most vaine and fri∣volous, * 1.289 will quickly appeare, for 1. Suppose Originall sinne

be not asserted in those places, doth it follow there is no Ori∣ginall sin? do they not know, that we affirme it to be revealed in, and proved by an hundred places besides? And doe 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 rendred, loose much of the efficacy for the confirmation of what they oppose, which in the Ori∣ginall they have. In the first place, it is not every thought of mans heart, but every imagination or figment of the thoughts of his heart. The motus primo primi, the very naturall frame and tem∣per of the heart of man, as to its first motions towards good or evill, are doubtlesse expressed in these words: so also is it in the latter place.

We say then, that Originall sin is taught & proved in these pla∣ces: Not singly or exclusively to actuall sinnes, not a parte * 1.290 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 individuall of them, as that it is ever, always, or continu∣ally casting, coyning, and devising evill, and that only, without the intermixture of any thing of another kind, that is truly and spiriritually good, is taught in these places; and this is Originall sinne. Nor is this disproved by our Catechists.

For

1. Because the sinne spoken of is voluntary, therefore it i•• not Originall, will not be granted. Originall sin, as it is ta∣ken * 1.291 for peccatum Originans, was voluntary in Adam; and as it is Originatum in us, is in our wills habitually, and not against them, in any actings of it, or them. (2.) The Effects of it in the coyning of sinne, and in the thoughts of mens hearts, are all voluntary; which are here mentioned to demonstrate, and manifest that roote from whence they spring, that prevailing principle, and predominant habit, from whence they so uni∣formely proceed.

2. Why it doth not agree to Originall sin, that the account men∣tioned, v. 6. of Gods repenting that He made man, and his reso∣lution to destroy him, these Gentlemen offer not one word of Reason to manifest. We say, that it can agree to no other, but this originall sinne, with its infallible effects, wherein all mankind are equally concerned, and so became

equally lyable to the just Judgment of God; though some from the same Principle had acted much more boldly against his Holy Majesty then others: (2.) Its being in men by nature doth not at all l••ssen 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 per∣son of every one; which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its advantage for provocation.

3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to Originall sinne, they informe us not. The words joyned with it, are an expression of that patience, and forbearance which God re∣solved, 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 actuall sinnes are excluded we say not; but that Originall sinne 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 Originall sin, might be much improved; but that is not my present businesse; Our Catechists administring no occasion to such a Discourse. But they take some other texts into considera∣tion.

What thinkest thou of that which David speakes Psal. 51. 7. Behold, * 1.292 I was shapen in iniquity, and in sinne did my mother conceive me. * 1.293

It is to be observed, that David doth not here speake of any men but himselfe alome nor that simply, but with respect to his fall: and uses that forme of speaking, which you have in him againe, Psal. 58. 4. Wherefore Originall sinne cannot be evinced by this Testi∣mony.

But

1. Though David speake of himselfe, yet he speakes of himselfe, in respect of that which was common to▪ himselfe with all mankind, being a child of wrath as well as others. Nor can these Gentlemen intimate any thing of sinne and ini∣quity, in the conception and birth of David, that was not common

to all others with him. Any mans confession for himselfe of a particular guilt in a common sinne, 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 roote of his sinne, and transgression thereby; yet it was no part of his fall, nor was he ever the more or lesse con∣ceived in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 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 sinne wherewith he was borne, James 1. 14, 15. but was equally guilty of it before his fall and after.

3. The expression here used, and that of Psal. 58. 3. The wicked are enstranged from the wombe, they goe astray as soon as they be borne spea∣king lyes; exceedingly differ. Here David expresses what was his infection in the womb, there what is wicked mens constant practise from the womb. In himselfe he mentions the roote of all actuall sin; in them the constant fruit that springs from that root in imregenerate men. So that by the favour of these Cate∣chists, I yet say, that David doth here acknowledge a sin of na∣ture, a sin wherewith he was defiled from his conception, and polluted when he was warmed, and so somented in his Mothers womb, and therefore this place doth prove Originall sinne.

One place more they call to an account, in these words. But Paulsaith, that in Adam all sinned. Rom. 5. 12. * 1.294

It is not in that place, in Adam all sinned. But in the Greeke * 1.295 the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Interpreters do frequently render in Latine in quo, in whom, which yet may be rendred by the particles quoniam or quatenus, because, or in as much, as in like places Rom. 83. Phil. 3. 12. Heb. 2. 18. 2. Cor. 5. 4. It appeareth therefore that neither can Originall sinne be built up out of this place.

1. Stop these men from this shifting hole, and you may with much ease entangle and catch them 20 times a day. This word may be rendred otherwise, for it is so in another place. A course of proceedure that leaves nothing certaine in the Booke of God. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. In two of the places cited, the words are not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 5. 3. Heb. 2. 18. 3. The places are none of them parallel to this; for here the Apostle speakes of persons, or a person in an immediate precedency, in them of things. But 4. render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by quoniam, because, or for that, as our English translation doth: The Argument is no lesse evident for Originall sinne, then if they were rendred by, in whom. In the beginning of the verse the Apostle tels us, that death entred the world by the sinne 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 sinne of that one man, whereby death entred 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 proofe of all mens guilt of the first sinne; seeing the conviction of it, is no lesse evident from the words, if rendred according to their desire.

And this is the summe of what they have to offer, for the * 1.296 acquitment of themselves from the guilt and staine of Originall sinne, and for answer to the three Testimonyes on its behalfe, 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 ut∣terly discarded from the thoughts of their Catechumens: what Reason or ground they have for their confidence, the Reader will judge. In the meane time, it is sufficiently knowne, that they have touched very little of the strength of our cause; nor once mentioned the Testimonyes and Arguments, on whose evidence and strength in this businesse we rely. And for them∣selves who write and teach these things, I should much admire their happinesse, did I not so much as I do pitty them in their pride and distemper, keeping them from an acquain∣tance with their own miserable condition.

CHAP. VII.

Of the Person of Jesus Christ, and on what account He is the Sonne of God.

M. BIDDLE'S fourth Chapter Examined

Q. HOW many Lords of Christians are there, by way of distinction from the one God?

A. Eph. 4. 5.

Q. Who is that one Lord?

A 1 Cor. 8. 6.

Q. How was Jesus Christ borne?

A Mat. 1. 18. Luk. 1. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35

Q. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord, according to the opinion of the Apostle Paul?

A Rom. 14. 9.

Q What saith the Apostle Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord?

A Act. 2. 32, 33, 36.

Q Did not Jesus Christ approve himselfe to be God by his miracles? And did he not those Miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himselfe? What is the determination of the Apostle Peter in this behalfe?

A Act. 2. 22. Act 10. 38.

Q Could not Christ doe all things of himselfe? And was it not an Eternall Sonne of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the humane nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all his works? Answer me to these things in the words of the Sonne himselfe?

A John 5. 19, 20, 30. John 14. 10.

Q What reason doth the Sonne 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 ceasen love him?

A John 8. 28, 29, John 15 9, 10.

Q Doth the Scripture avouch Christ to be the Sonne of God, because he was eternally begootten out of the divine Essence, or for other reasons agreeing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

A Luke 1. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35. John 10. 36. Act. 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. Heb. 1. 4, 5. Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29.

Q What saith the Sonne himselfe concerning the prerogative of God the Father above him?

A John 14. 28. Mark. 13. 32. Math. 24. 36.

Q What saith the Apostle Paul?

A 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28. 1 Cor. 11. 3. 1 Cor. 3. 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 20. 28.

Q Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himselfe in the meane time did not acknowledge another to be his God?

A Joh. 20. 17. Revel. 3. 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. 1. 8, 9.

EXAMINATION.

THE aime and designe of our Catechist in this Chapter, being to despoile our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his * 1.297 Eternall Deity, and to substitute an imaginary God-head, made, and feigned in the vaine hearts of himselfe & his Masters, into the roome thereof, I hope the discovery of the wickednesse 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, & vindication from the vaine Sophismes, wherewith by others, as well as by M. B. it hath been 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 Raccovians. The removall of M. B's Sophistry, & the disintangling of weaker soules, who may in any thing be intricated by his Queries, is my present intendment. To make our way cleare and plaine, that every one that runnes may read the vanity of M. B's underta∣king against the Lord Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks therein, I desire to premise these few observations.

1. Distinction of persons (it being in an Infinite substance) doth no way prove difference of Essence between the Father * 1.298 and the Sonne. Where Christ as Mediatour 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 per∣son, may be true where the Substance is Finite, and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.

2. Distinction and inequallity in respect of office, in Christ, * 1.299 doth not in the least take away Equallity and samenesse with the Father in respect of nature and Essence. A Sonne of the same nature with his Father, and therein equall to him, may in office be his inferiour, his Subject.

3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ, as Medi∣atour, * 1.300 to any dignity whatever, upon, or in reference to the worke of our Redemption and Salvation, is not at all incon∣sistent with that Essentiall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Honour, Dignity and Worth, which he hath in himselfe, as God blessed for ever. Though he humbled himselfe and was exalted, yet in nature he was one and the same, he changed not.

4. The Scriptures asserting the Humanity of Christ with * 1.301 the concernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby deny his Deity, then by asserting his Deity, with the Essentiall Propertyes thereof, Eternity, Omniscience, and the like, it denyes his Humanity.

5. God's working any thing in and by Christ as he was * 1.302 Mediatour, denotes the Fathers soveraigne Appointment of the things mentioned to be done, not his immediate Efficiency in the doing of the things themselves.

The consideration of these few things being added to what I have said before in generall, about the way of dealing with our Adversaries in these great and weighty things of the know∣ledge of God, will easily deliver us from any great trouble, in the Examination of M. B's Arguments, and insinuations against the Deity of Christ, which is the businesse of the present Chap∣ter.

His first Question is, * 1.303

How many Lords of Christians are there by way of distinction from that one God. And he Answers Ephes. 4. 5. One Lord.

That of these two words there is not one that lookes to∣wards the confirmation of what M. Biddle chiefely aymes at, in the Question proposed, is I presume sufficiently cleare in the light of the thing it selfe enquired after. Christ it is true, is

the one Lord of Christians; and therefore God equall with the Father. He is also one Lord, in distinction from his Father, as his Father, in respect of his personallity; in which regard, there are three that beare witnesse in Heaven, of which he is one; but in respect of Essence and Nature He and his Father are one. Farther, unlesse 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 sence intended, whom we ought to invocate and worship, unlesse also he were our God, shall be af∣terwards declared. And although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he is also our Mediatour, yet he is the same God with him which worketh all in all, 1 Cor. 12 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 soveraigne Lordship, but of his Lordship over the Church to whō the whole Church is spiritually subject, (as he is elsewere also so called on the same account, as Joh. 13. 13. Act. 7. 59. Rev. 22. 20.) yet were he not Lord in that sence 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 witnesse against the impossibillity of Polytheisme, and partly to manifest the onenesse of them who are worship∣ped as God, the Father, Word, and Spirit, all which things are also severally testifyed unto.

His second Question is an enquiry after this Lord who he is, * 1.304 in these words, Who is this Lord? And the Answer is from 1 Cer. 8. 6. Jesus Christ by whom are all things. The close of this second answer might have caused M. B. a little to recoyle upon his insinuation in the first, concerning the distinction of this one Lord from that one God, in the sence by him insisted o•• Who is he by whom are all things (in the same sence as they are said to be of the Father) who is that God? He that made all things is God, Heb. 3. 4. And it is manifest that he himselfe was not made, by whō all things were made. For he made not himselfe; not could so do, unles be were both before & after himself; nor was he made without his own concurrence by another, fo•• by himselfe are all things. Thus M. B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak against the Lord Jesus Christ, but by the just

Judgement of God, he stops it himselfe with a testimony of God against himselfe, which he shall never be able to rise up a∣gainst unto Eternity.

And it is a manifest perverting & corrupting of the Text which we have in Grotius his Glosse upon the place, who interprets the * 1.305 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, referred to the Father, of all things simply, but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, referred to Christ, of the things only of the new Cre∣ation; There being not the least colour for any such variation, the frame and structure of the words requiring them to be ex∣pounded uniformely throughout. But to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus * 1.306 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 followes Enjedinus, in this as well as other things.

His enquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus Christ, In answer whereunto the Story is reported from Mathew and * 1.307 Luke; which relating to his humane nature, and no otherwise to the person of the Sonne of God, but as he was therein made flesh, or assumed the Holy Thing, so borne of the Virgin, into personall subsistence with himselfe, I shall let passe, with an∣nexing * 1.308 unto it the observation before mentioned, viz. That what is affirmed of the Humane 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 * 1.309 whereunto himselfe said, before Abraham was I am. God possessed him in the beginning of his ways, being then his only begotten Sonne, full of Grace and Truth. M. B. indeed hath small hopes of dispoyling Christ of his Eternall Glory by his Queries, if they spend them∣selves in such fruitlesse sophistry as this.

Qu. 4, 5. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord according to the opi∣nion of the Apostle Paul? The Answer is Rom. 14. 19. * 1.310

What saith Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord? Answer Acts 2. 32, 33, 36.

1. R. That Jesus Christ as Mediatour, and in respect of the worke 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 plentifull

Testimony of the Holy Ghost unto. He was no lesse made a Lord, then a Priest, and Prophet of his Father; but that the Eter∣nall Lordship of Christ, as he is one with his Father, God blessed for ever more, is any way denyed by the asserting of this Lordship given him of his Father as Mediatour, M. B. wholly beggs of * 1.311 men to apprehend & grant, but doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The summe of what M. Biddle intends to Argue hence is, Christs submitting himselfe to the forme & worke of a servant unto the Father, was exalted by him, and had a name given him above every name, Therefore he was not the Sonne of God, and equall to him. That his condescention into Office, is inconsistent with his divine Essence, is yet to be proved. But may we not begge of our Catechist at this le••sure to looke a little farther into the Chapter, from whome be 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 perswade Believers to a mutuall for bearance, as to judging of one another, he addes v. 10. We shall all stand before the Iudgement seat of Christ. And this v. 11. The Apostle proves from that Testimony of the Prophet Isa. 45. 23. as he renders the sense of the Holy Ghost. As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall ••ow to me, and every tongue shall confesse to God. So that Jesus Christ our Lord, is that I••hovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due, and in particulars, that of standing before his Judgement Seat. but this is over looked by Grotius, and not answered to any pur∣pose by Enjedinus, and why should M. B. trouble himselfe with it.

2. For the time assigned by him of his being * 1.312 made Lord, specifyed by the Apostle, it doth not denote his first inve••••ture with that Office and Power, but the so∣lemne admission into the glorious execution of that Lordy power, which was given him as Mediatour. At his incar∣nation and Birth, God affirmes by the Angell, that he was then Christ the Lord, Luke 2. 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 M. B. will not say they could have done. Yea, & as he was both believed in, & worshipped before his death and Resurrection, Joh. 9. 38. Iohn 14. 1. which is to be per∣formed

only to the Lord our God, Math. 4. 10. so he actually in some measure exercised his Lordship towards, and over Angells, Men, Divels, and the residue of the Creation, as is known from the very story of the Gospell; not denying himselfe to be a King, yea witnessing thereunto when he was to be put to death. Luk. 23. 3. Ioh. 18. 37. As he was from his first shewing unto men, Ich. 1. 49.

Q. 6. Did not Iesus approve himselfe to be God by his miracles? And did he not these miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was * 1.313 God of himselfe, what is the determination of the Apostle Peter in this be∣halfe? Aris Act. 2. 2••. Act. 10. 38.

The intendment of M. 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 himselfe,] is to dis∣prove, or insinuate an answer unto the Argument, taken from the Miracles that Christ did, to confirme his Deity. The naked working of Miracles, I confesse, without the influence of such other Considerations, as this Argument is attended withall, in relation to Jesus Christ, will not alone of itselfe assert a divine nature in him, who is the instrument of their working or pro∣duction. Though they are from divine power, or they are not miracles, yet it is not necessary, that he by whō they are wrought, should be possessour of that divine Power, as by whom may de∣note the instrumentall, and not the principall 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 doe them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby gave Testimony to the Truth of the Doctrine he preached from his bosome, as also because he was with him, not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in the Sonne, Ioh. 10. 38. So he working these miracles by his own power; and at his own will, even as his Father doth, Iob 5. 21. and himselfe giving power and Au∣thority to others to worke miracles by his strength, and in his name, Mat. 10. 8. Mark. 16. 17, 18 Luk. 10. 19. There is that emi∣nent evidence of his Deity in his working of miracles, as M. B. can by no meanes darken or obscure, by pointing to that which is of a cleare consistency therewithall: as is his Fathers appointment of him to do them whereby he is said to do them in his name, &c. as in the place cited; of which afterwards.

Act 2. 22. The intendment of Peter is to prove that he was the Messias of whom he spake; and therefore he calls him Iesus of Nazareth, as pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom seven or eight weekes before they had cru∣cifyed and rejected. That this man was * 1.314 approved of Ged, He con∣vinces 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 Grotius expound those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For God was with Him, God alwayes loved him, and alwayes heard him, according to Mat. 3 17. (where yet there is a peculiar Testimony given to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ) and Joh. 11. 42. Yet the words of our Savious himselfe, about the same businesse, give us an∣other interpretation, and sence of them. This I say he does, Ioh. 10. 37, 38. If I doe not the workes of my Father believe me not. But if I doe, though ye believe not me, believe the workes, that you may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. In the doing of these workes, the Father was so with him, as that he was in Him, and He in the Father. Not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but by that divine Indwelling, which onenesse of nature gives to Father and Sonne.

His 7. Question is exceeding implicate and involved: a great deale is expressed that M. B. would deny, but by what * 1.315 inference from the Scriptures he produceth, doth not at all appeare, the words of it are, Could not Christ do all things of himselfe, and was it not an Eternall Sonne of God that tooke flesh upon him, and to whom the humane nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all these workes? Answer me to these things in the words of the Sonne himselfe.

Ans. Joh 5. 19, 20, 30. Joh. 14. 10.

The Inference which alone appeares from hence, is of the same nature with them that are gone before. That Christ could not do all things of himselfe, that He was not the Eternall Sonne of God, that He tooke not flesh, is that which is asserted; but the proofe of all this doth disprove. Christ being accused by the Jewes, 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 afterwards) v. 17, 18. He lets them know, that in the discharge of the office committed to Him,

He did nothing but according to the Will, Commandement and appointment of his Father, with whom he is Equall, and doth of his own Wall also the things that he doth; so that they had no more to plead against him, for doing what he did, then they had against him, whom they acknowledged to be God. Wherein he is so farre from declining the Assertion of his own Deity (which that he maintained, the Jewes apprehended, affir∣ming, that he made himselfe equall with God, whith none but God is, or can be, for between God, and that which is not God, there is no proportion, much lesse Equallity) as that he farther confirmes it, by affirming, that he doth whatever the Father doth, and that as the Father quickneth whom he will, so He quickneth whom he will. That redoubled assertion then of Christ, that he can do nothing of himselfe, is to be applied to the matter under consideration. He had not done, nor could do any worke, but such as his Father did also: It was impossible he should; Not only because he would not, in which sense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is one kind of those things which are impossible, but also because of the onenesse in Will, Nature, and power of himselfe, 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 re∣move the charge that he made a man equall to the Father, as Grotius vainly imagines: for although as man he acknowledges * 1.316 his subjection to the Father, yea as Mediatour in the worke he had in hand, & his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all things from him by divine & Eternall communication, yet the Action or worke that gave occasion to that discourse, being an action of his person, wherein he was God, He all along asserts his own Equaility therein with the Father, as shall afterwards be more fully manifested.

So that though in regard of his divine Personallity, as the Son, he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as Mediatour, doth all things by his appointment, and in his name, yet he in himselfe is still one with the Father, as to nature and Essence, God to be blessed for ever more. And that it was an Eternall Sonne of God that tooke flesh upon him, &c. hath M. 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 Sonne, made of a woman, made un∣der

the Law? Of which places afterward, in their vindication from the exception of his Masters.

His 8^th Question is of the very same import with that going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the * 1.317 Unity of Essence with his Father, by his Obedience to him, and his Fathers Acceptation of him in the worke of Mediation; which being a most ridiculous beggin of the thing in Questi∣on, as to what he pretends in the Query to be Argumentative, that I shall not farther insist upon it.

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this Discourse, and of * 1.318 M. B's designe in this Chapter; and indeed of the greatest de∣signe that he drives in Religion, viz. The denyall of the Eter∣nall Deity of the Sonne of God, which not only in this place directly, but in sundry others covertly he doth invade and oppose. His Question is, Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Sonne 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 Luk. 1 31, 32, 34, 35. John 10. 36. Acts * 1.319 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. Heb. 1-4, 5. Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29. most of which places are expressly contrary to him in his de∣signe, as the progresse of our Discourse will discover.

This I say being the head of the difference between us in this Chapter, after I have rectifyed one mistake in M. B's Que∣stion, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther la∣bour and trouble, about sundry other ensuing Queries. For M. B's Question then, we say not, that the Sonne is begotten Eternally out of the divine Essence, but in it, not by an Eternall act of the divine Being, but of the Person of the Father; which be∣ing premised I shall proc••ed.

The question that lyes before us is. * 1.320

Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Sonne of God, because he was Eternally beggotten out of the Divine Essence, or for other Reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rebearse the passages to this pur∣pose.

The Reasons as farre as I can gather which M. B. layes at the bottome of this appellation, are 1. His birth of the Virgin from Joh. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 2. His Mission, or sending into

the world by the Father, Joh. 10. 36. 3. His Resurrection with power, Act. 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. 4. His Exaltation, Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29.

For the removeal of all this, from prejudicing the eternall Son∣ship 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 Sonne of God: but that he is so called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly manifest. Yet a little farther pro∣cesse in this businesse, as to the particulars intimated, may not be unseasonable.

1. Then I shall propose the causes, on the account whereof * 1.321 alone these men affirme that Jesus Christ is called the Sonne of God. Of these the first and chiefest they insist upon is, His Birth of the Virgin: viz. that he was called the Sonne 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 Recovlans in answer to that question.

Is therefore the Lord Jesus a meere man? * 1.322

Ans.

By no meanes, for he was conceived by the [Ans.] * 1.323 Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin, and therefore from his Birth and Conception was the Sonne of God, as we read in Luk. 1. 35.

the place insi∣sted on by the Gentleman we are dealing with∣all.

Of the same mind are the residue of their Companions. So doe 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 chiefely in Poland.

They teach (say they) * 1.324

Jesus Christ to be that man, that was conceived of the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin, besides and before whom they ac∣knowledge no only begotten Sonne of God truly existing. Moreover they teach him to be God, and the only begotten Sonne of God, by reason of his conception of the Holy Ghost, &c.

Smakius hath written a whole booke of the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein he hath gathered together whatever excellencys they will allow to be ascribed unto Him, making his Deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore is he God, & the son of God, because the things he there treates••of, are ascribed unto him. Among these in his 3^d Chap. which is of the Conception and Nativity of Jesus Christ, he gives this principall Account why he is called the Sonne of God, even from his Concepi∣tion and Nativity.

He was (saith he) Conceived of the Holy * 1.325 Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary, because of which man∣ner of Conception and Nativity, he was by the Angell called the Sonne of God: And may so really be called the naturall Sonne of God, because he was borne such: only Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God his Father, without the helpe of man.

The great Master of the Herd himselfe, from whom indeed * 1.326 the rest do gleane, and gather almost all that they take so much paines to scatter about the world, gives continually this Rea∣son of Christs being called the Sonne of God, and his naturall Sonne.

I say (saith he) that Christ is deservedly called * 1.327 the Naturall Sonne of God, because he was borne the Sonne of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of God. And that He was borne the Sonne of God another way, and not by generation of the Substance of God, the words of the Angell prove, Luk. 1. 35. Therefore

because that man Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the helpe of any man, but by the opera∣tion of the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, he is therefore, or for that cause, called the Sonne of God:

So He against Weick the Iesuire. He is followed by Volkelius, (Lib. 5. Cap. 11. P. 468.) whose booke indeed is a meere 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 Epistopius: Ionas Schlictingius amongst them all seemes to do most of himselfe, I shall therefore adde his Testi∣mony, to shew their consent in the assignation of this cause of the Appellation of the Sonne of God, ascribed to our blessed Sa∣viour.

There are (saith he) many sayings (of Scripture) which shew, that Christ is in a peculiar manner, & on an ac∣count * 1.328 not common to any other, the Sonne of God; but yet we may not hence conclude, that he is a Son on a naturall account, when besides this, and that more common, another reason may be given, which hath place in Christ. Is he not the Sonne of God on a singular account, and that which is com∣mon to no other, if of God himselfe, by the virtue and effi∣cacy of the Holy Sprit, he was Conceived, and begotten in the womb of his Mother?

And this is the only Buckler which they have to keep off the * 1.329 sword of that Argument for the Deity of Christ, from his being the proper Sonne 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 M A Y another reason be given. Which is the general Evasion of them all, from any expresse Testimony of Scripture. The words MAY have another sence, therefore nothing from them can be concluded; whereby they have left nothing stable, or unshaken in Christian Reli∣gion; and yet wipe their mouths, and say they have done no evill.

But now least any one should say, that they can see no reason * 1.330 why Christ should be called the Sonne of God, because he was so conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a peculiar manner, and more eminently, then in respect of any other, be called the Father of Christ, to prevent any objection that on this hand might arise, Smalcius gives an account whence this is, & why God is called the Father of Christ, and what he did in his Conception; which, for the Abomina∣tion of it, I had rather you should heare in his words then 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 Sonne 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 Sonne of God, &c. Rom. 1. 3, 4. He sayes then cap. 18. p. 156. Socinus affirmat Deum in genera∣tione Christi vices patris supplevisse.—but how I pray? why! Satis est ad ostendendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supple∣visse, 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 affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione & nativitate proprie non fuisset. cap. 17. pag. 150. Very good, unlesse this abominable sigment may passe current, Christ was not the Sonne of God. Let the Reader observe by the way, that they cannot but acknowledge Christ to have been, and to have been called the Sonne 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 booke of God; yea which is expressly con∣trary to the Testimony thereof; & unlesse this be granted they affirme that Christ cannot be called the Son of God. But let us heare this great Rabbi of M. B's religion a little farther clearing up this mistery. Necessitas magna fuit, ut Christus ab initio vitae suae esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non suisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatū suisset, quod ad constituendū Christi corpus, una cū Mariae Sanguine concurrit. Man∣sit

sit autem nihilominus sanguis Mariae Virginis purissimus; etiamsi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo purius se∣men, a Deo creari, & proculdubis creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis Ma∣riae. Communis deni•• sensus, & fides Christianorum omnium, quod Chri∣stus non ex virili semine conceptus sit; primum, communis error censendus est, si sacris literis repugnet: Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt, factle cum ipsa a veritate conciliari potest, ut scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, & cum semine Mariae conjunctum fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro profectum sit, vel ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam opinan∣tur, qui semen Josephi translatum in Virginis uterum credunt. cap. 18. pag. 158. And thus farre are men arrived. Unlesse this horrible sigment may be admitted, Christ is not the Sonne of God. He who is the true God and eternall Life, will one day plead the cause of his own glory against these men.

I insist somewat the more on these things, that men may judge * 1.331 the better, whether in all probability M. Biddle in his impartiall search into the Scripture, did not use the helpe of some of them that went before him, in the discovery of the same things, which He boasts Himselfe to have found out.

And this is the first reason which our Catechist hath taken * 1.332 from his Masters, to communicate to his Schollers, why Jesus Christ is called the Sonne of God. This He and they insist on, exclusively to his Eternall Sonship, or being the Sonne of God, in respect of his Eternall generation of the substance of his Fa∣ther.

The other causes which they assigne, why he is called the * 1.333 Sonne of God, I shall very briefely point unto. By the way that hath been spoken of, they say he was the Sonne of God; the naturall Sonne of God. But they say he was the Sonne of God, before he was God. He grew afterward to be a God by degrees as he had those Graces, and excellencyes, and that power given him, wherein his God-head doth consist. So that He was the Sonne of God, but not God (in their own sence) untill a while after. And then when he was so made a God, He came thereby to be more the Sonne of God. But by this addition to his Sonship he became the adopted Sonne of God: as by being begotten, as was before revealed, he was the na∣turall Son of God. Let us heare Smalcius a little opening these

misteries;

Neither (saith he) was Christ God, all the while * 1.334 He was the Sonne of God. To be the Sonne of God, is refer'd, to his birth, and all understand how one may be call'd the Sonne of God, for his birth or originall But God none can be (besides that one God) but for his likenesse to God, So that when Christ was made like God, by the divine. Qualities which were in him, he was most rightly so farre the Sonne of God, as he was God, and so farre God, as he was the Sonne of God. But before he had obtained that likenesse to God, pro∣perly he could not be said to be God.

And these are some of those monstrous sigments which un∣der * 1.335 pretence of bare adherence to the Scripture, our Catechist would obtrude upon us. First Christ is the Sonne of God. Then growing like God in divine Qualities, he is made a God, and so becomes more the Sonne of God. And this, if the 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 M. B's conceit, being all made in the Image and like∣nesse of God, which (sayes he) by sinne we have not lost.

But what kind of Sonship is added to Christ by all these ex∣cellencyes, * 1.336 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 Sonne of God.

If (saith he) what is the signification of this word [adoptivus] may be considered * 1.337 the signification of this word [adoptivus] may be considered from the Scripture, we deny not but that Christ in this man∣ner may be called the adopted Sonne of God. Seeing that such is the property and condition of an adopted Sonne

that he is not borne such as he is afterward made by adopti∣on; certainely seeing that Christ was not such by nature, or in his conception and nativity as he was afterward in hs suc∣ceeding age, he may justly on that account be called the a∣dopted Son of God.

Such miserable plunges doth Sathan drive men into, whose eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the Gospell should not shine into them. And by this we may understand whatever they adde farther concerning the Sonship of Christ: That all belongs to this Adoptive Sonship, whereof there is not one tittle in the whole booke of God.

The reasons they commonly adde, why in this sence Christ * 1.338 is called the Sonne of God, are the same which they give, why He is called God.

He is the only begotten Sonne of God, * 1.339 (say the Authors of the Compendium of the Religion before men∣tioned) because God Sanctifyed 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 heare them speak in their own words, let him consult Smalcius de vera Divinit. Jes. Christ. cap. 7. &c. Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum quatuor antecedent. Resut. Disput. de Christi natur a pag. 14, 15. Adversus Weickum p. 224, 245. & passim. Volkel. devera Religi. lib. 5. cap. 10, 11, 12. Jonas Schlict. ad Meisner. p. 192, 193. &c. Especially the same person, fully and distinctly opening and declaring the minds of his Compani∣ons, and the severall accounts on which they affirme Christ to be and to have been called the Sonne of God, in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrewes p. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. as also his notes upon Vechnerus his Sermon on Joh. 1. pag. 14. &c. Anonym. Respon. ad centum argumenta Cichorii Jesuitae pag. 8, 9. 10. Confessio Fidei Christianae, edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polonia. pag. 24, 25.

Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of Christs Filiation under foure heads.

The first way (saith he) whereby Christ is in the Scriptures * 1.340 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called the Sonne of God, is in that as man he was conceived of the Holy Ghost and borne of a Virgin. And I doubt not (saith he) but that God is on this ground called emi∣nently 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 Sonne of God.

3.

Because he was raised up by the Father to an immor∣tall life, and as it were borne againe from the wombe of the Earth, without the helpe of any Mother.

4.

Because being so raised from death, he is made com∣pleate heire of his Fathers house, & 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 plainely from the Persons before na∣med. * 1.341 But yet after all this, he askes another Question, whe∣ther all this being granted, there do not yet moreover remaine a more eminent and peculiar reason, why Christ is called the Sonne of God. He answers himselfe: there is, namely, his Eternall Generation of the Father; His being God of God from all Eterni∣ty, * 1.342 which he pursues with sundry Arguments; And yet in the close disputes, that the acknowledgement of this Truth is not Fundamentall, or the denyall of it exclusive of Salvation. So this great reconciler of the Arminian and Socinian Religions, whole composition and unity, into an opposition to them whom he calls Galvinists, is the great designe of his Theologicall, institutions, and such at this day is the ayme of Curcullaeus, & some others. By the way I shall desire, (before I answer what he offers to confirme his Assignation of this foure fold manner of Filiation to Jesus Christ) to aske this learned Gentleman (or

these 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 Sonne of God, by their own confessions, what tittle he or they can find in the Scripture of a manifold Filiation of Jesus Christ, in respect of God his Father, or whe∣ther it be not a diminution of his glory, to be called the Sonne of God upon any lower account, as by a new addition to him, who was eternally his only begotten Sonne, by vertue of his Eternall Generation of his own substance?

Having thus discovered the minde of them with whom we * 1.343 have to doe, and from whom our Catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I shall briefely do these two things.

1. Shew that the Filiation of Christ consists in his generati∣on of the substance of his Father from Eternity; or that he is the Sonne of God upon the account of his Divine Nature, and sub∣sistence therein, antecedent to his Incarnation.

2. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was called the Sonne of God upon any other account, but that mentioned; and therein answer what by M. B. or others is objected to the contrary.

3. To which I shall adde Testimonies & Arguments for the Deity of Christ, whose opposition is the maine businesse of that new Religion, which M. Biddle would Catechise poore unstable soules into, in the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.

For the demonstration of the first Assertion, I shall insist on some few of the Testimonies and Arguments, that might be pro∣duced * 1.344 for the same purpose.

1. He who is the True, Proper, only begotten Sonne of God, of the * 1.345 Living God, He is begotten of the Essence of God his Father, and is his Sonne by vertue of that Generation. But Jesus Christ was thus the only, true, proper, only begotten Sonne of God: and there∣fore is the Son of God upon the account before mentioned: That Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly testifieth, Lo a voyce from Heaven, saving, this is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased, Math. 3. 17. Thou, art Christ the Sonne of the Living God, Math. 16. 16. & John 6. 6.

Which place in Mathew is the rather remarkable, because it is * 1.346 the Confession of the Faith of the Apostle, given in in answer to that question, who do you say that I the Sonne of man am? They answer, the Sonne of the Living God. And this in opposition to them, who said he was a Prophet, or as one of the Prophets, as Marke expresses it, cap. 6. 15. that is, only so. And the whole Con∣fession manifests, that they did in it acknowledge both his Office of being the Mediatour, and his divine nature, or person also. Thou art the Christ, those words comprize all the causes of Filiation, insisted on by them with whom we have to doe, and the whole office of the Mediation of Christ, but yet hereunto they adde, the Sonne of the Living God: expressing his divine na∣ture, and Sonship on that account.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given is an un∣derstanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Iesus Christ, this is the true God, & eternall Life, Ioh. 5. 20. He spared not his own Sonne, Rom. 8. 32. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten Sonne of God. Ioh. 1. 14. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Sonne, who is in the bosome of the Father, he hath revealed him, v. 18.—Said also, That God was his Father, making himselfe equall with God 1 Ioh. 5. 18. So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Sonne, Ioh. 3. 16. In this was manifest the Love of God, that he sent his only begotten Sonne into the world, 1 Ioh. 4. 9. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. &c. All which places will be afterwards vindicated at large.

To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two * 1.347 of these instances.

1. He who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the proper Sonne of any, is begotten of the substance of his Father 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ is; the proper. Sonne of God: and God he called of ten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby Christ is distinguished, from that kind of Sonship, * 1.348 which the Jewes laid claime unto. Now the Sonship they laid claime unto, and enjoyed so many of them, as were truly so, was by Adoption. For to them pertained the Adoption, Rom. 9. 4.

wherein this emphasis then, & specially of Christs Sonship should consist, but in what we assert of his naturall Sonship, cannot be made to appeare. Grotius says it is, because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah. True, but on what account? Not that com∣mon of Adoption, but this of Nature, as shall afterwards appeare.

Againe, he who is properly a Sonne, is distinguished from him who is metaphorically so only. For any thing what ever * 1.349 is metaphorically said to be, what it is said to be, by a Trans∣lation, and likenesse to that which is true. Now if Christ be not begotten of the Essence of his Father, he is only a metaphoricall Sonne of God, by way of Allusion, and cannot be called the proper Sonne of God, being only one who hath but a similitude to a proper Sonne. So that it is a plaine contradiction, that Christ should be the proper Sonne of God, and yet not be begotten of his Fathers Essence. Besides, in that 8^th of the Romans, the Apostle had before mentioned other Sonnes of God, who became so by Adoption, v. 15, 16. but when he comes to speake of Christ, in op∣position to them, he calls Him Gods own, or proper Sonne, that is, his naturall Sonne, 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 sence he is called the proper Sonne of God. He that spared not his own Son, how shall he not with him give us all things?

2. The only begotten Sonne of God, is his naturall Sonne, begot∣ten of his Essence, and there is noe other Reason of * 1.350 this Appellation. And this is farther cleare 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 begot∣ten, who alone is begotten of the substance of his Father. Neither can any other reason be assigned, why Christ should so constant∣ly, in way of distinction from all others, be called the only be∣gotten Sonne of God. It were even ridiculous to say, that Christ were the only begotten Sonne of God, and his proper Sonne, if He were His Sonne only metaphorically and improperly. That Christ is the proper, only begotten Sonne of God, improperly and metaphorically, is that which is asserted to evade these Testimonies of Scrip∣ture. Adde hereunto, the Emphaticall discriminating significancy of that voice from Heaven, this is He, that well beloved Sonne of ••ine; and that Testimony which in the same manner Peter gave

to this sonship of Christ in his Confession, thou art the Sonne of the Living God, and the ground of Christs Filiation will be yet more evident. Why the Sonne of the living God, unlesse as be∣gotten of God, as the living God, as living things beget of their own substance? but of that place before. Christ then, be∣ing the true, proper, beloved, only begotten Sonne of the living God, is his Naturall Sonne, of his own substance and Essence.

2. The same Truth may have farther evidence given unto * 1.351 it, from the consideration of what kind of Sonne of God Jesus Christ is. He who is such a Sonne as is equall to his Father in Essence and properties; He is a Sonne 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 Dig∣nity, 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 lesse Equality, as shall be eviden∣ced at large afterwards. And this is the sole Reason, why a Sonne is equall 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 Sonne, as hath been mentioned, the Scripture abundantly testifies. My Father (saith Christ) worketh hitherto, and I worke: therefore the Jewes sought the more to kill him, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himselfe equall with God, Joh. 5. 17, 18. v. 17. having called God his Father, in the particular manner before mentioned, and affirmed to him∣selfe an equall nature, and power for operation with his Father, the Iewes thence inferre, that he testifyed of himselfe, that he was such a Sonne of God, as that he was equall with God.

The full opening of this place at large is not my present busines. The Learned Readers know where to find that done to their * 1.352 hand. The intendment of those words is plaine & evident. Grotius expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by, it was lawfull for him to do what was so to God, and that he was no more bound to the Sabbath then he Which (saith he) was a grosse calumn). So v. 19. * 1.353 those words of our Savi∣our;

The Sonne can doe nothing of himselfe, but what he sees the Father do (wherein the emphasis lyes evidently in the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the Sonne can do nothing of himselfe, 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 Schollar: as the schollar hoo••es diligently to what his master doth, and strives to imi∣•••••• him: so was it with Christ and God; which exposition was the very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place, as Maldona•• upon the place makes appeare. That it is not an equall licence with the Father, to worke on the Sabbath, but an Equallity of Essence, Nature, and Power between Father and Sonne, that the Jewes concluded from the saying of Christ, is evident on this consideration; that there was no strength in that plea of our Saviour, of working on the Sabbath day, be∣cause his Father did so, without the violation of the Sabbath, unlesse there had been an Equallity between the Persons working. That the Iewes did herein caldmnidie Christ, or accused him falsely, the Tritheits said indeed, as Zanchius testifyes; and Socinus * 1.354 is of the same mind; whose Interest G••o••i•••• chiefely serves in his Annotations. But the whole context and carriage of the businesse, with the whole Reply of our Saviour, doe abundanly manifest, that the Iewes, as to their collection, were in the Bight, that he made himselfe such a Sonne of God, as was equall to him.

For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken, & so had ca∣••uniniated * 1.355 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 scandall they might take at what he had spoken, apprehen∣ding * 1.356 that to be the sence 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 witnesse to that which was not true. They se••g••t to kill Him, be∣cause He made Himselfe such a Sonne of God, as by that son∣ship He was equall to God; which if it were not so, there was

a necessity incumbent on him, to have cleared himselfe of that aspersion: which yet he is so farre from, as that in the follow∣ing verses, he farther confirmes the same thing.

So he thought it not Robbery to be equall with God, Phil. 2. 6. * 1.357 It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as the Father; as it appeares in the winding up of that Discourse, v. 1. That every tongue should confesse, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And to him is Christ equall, and therefore begotten of his own Essence.

Yea he is such a Son as is one with his Father. I and my Father are * 1.358 one. Ioh. 10. 30 Which the Iewes again instantly interpret with∣out the least reproofe from him, that he being man, did yet aver himselfe to be God, v. 33.

This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands by Grotius, though with no better successe then the former. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.359 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He joyneth what he had spoken, with what went before: (saith he) if they cannot be taken from my Fathers power, they cannot be taken from mine; For I have my power of my Father, so that it is all to be kept of me, as of my Father: which he intends (as I suppose) to illustrate by the example of the power that Ioseph had under Pharoah, Gen. 41. though the verse he intend be false printed. But that it is an Unity of Essence, and Nature, as well as an a like Prevalency of power that our Sa∣viour intends, not only from that apprehension which the Jewes had concerning the sence of those words, who immedi∣ately tooke up stones to kill him for blasphemy, from which ap∣prehension 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 Saviours following discourse. For v. 16. He tels us, this is as much as if he had said, I am the Sonne of God. Now the unity between Father and Sonne, is in Essence, and Nature princi∣pally: & then that he doth the workes of the Father, the same workes that his Father doth, v. 37, 38. which were he not of the same nature with him he could not doe: which he closes with this, that the Father is in him, and he in the Father, v. 38. of which words before, and afterwards.

He then (that we may proceed) who is so the Sonne of God, * 1.360 as that he is one with God, and therefore God, is the Naturall and Eternall Sonne of God; but that such a Sonne is Jesus

Christ, is thus plentifully testifyed unto, in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on sundry other places to prove the Deity of Christ, which also all confirme the Truth under demonstrati∣on, I shall here passe 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 com∣monly insisted on to this purpose. Then

3. He who is the Sonne of God, begotten of his Father, * 1.361 by an Eternall communication of his divine Essence, He is the Sonne begotten of the Essence of the Father. For these termes are the same, and of the same importance. But this is the de∣scription 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 Sonne this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. And he is the only begotten Son of God, Joh. 1. 14, And that he is so begotten by a communication of Essence, we have His own Testimony, when there were no hills I was brought forth, Prov. 8. 28. He was begotten and brought forth from Eternity. And how He tells you farther. Ioh. 5. 26. The Father hath given unto the Son to have life in himselfe. It was by the Fathers 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, be∣fore his workes of old; I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was, when there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountaines abounding with water: before the Moun∣taines were setled, before the Hills were brought forth, &c. Prov. 8. 22. &c. to the end of v. 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. 5. 2. In the be∣ginning was the Word Joh. 1. 1. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own selfe, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was, Joh. 17. 5. And againe, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world he saith, &c. Heb. 1. 6, &c.

4. The farther description which we have given us of this Sonne, makes it yet more evident. He is the brightnesse of his * 1.362 Fathers Glory, and the expresse image of his person. Heb. 1. 3. The image of the invisible God. Col. 1. 15. That Christ is the Essentiall Image of his Father, & not an accidentall 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 glosse of Grotius is also remitted.

And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more * 1.363 might be added) for the demonstration of the first Assertion; that Christs Filiation ariseth from his eternall Generation; or He is the Sonne of God, upon the account of his being begot∣ten of the Essence of his Father from Eternity.

2. That he is, and is termed the Sonne of God, solely on * 1.364 this account, and not upon the Reasons mentioned by M. B. and explained from his companions, is with equall clearenesse evinced: nay I see not how any thing may seeme necessary for this purpose to be added to what hath been spoken; but for the farther satisfaction of them who oppose themselves, the ensu∣ing considerations, through the Grace and patience of God, may be of use.

1. If for the Reasons and causes above insisted on from * 1.365 the Socinians, Christ be the Sonne of God, then Christ is the Sonne of God according to the flesh, or according to his humane nature. So he must needs be, if God be called his Father, be∣cause he supplyed the roome 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 Humane nature, &c. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and decla∣red to be Son of God with Power, Ro. 1. 2, 3. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. The same distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. 13. 4. 1 Pet. 3. 18. If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Sonne of David, in Contradistinction to the Sonne of God, then doubt∣lesse he is not called the Sonne of God according to the flesh: but this is the plaine assertion of the Scripture in the places be∣fore named. Besides, on the same reason that Christ is the Sonne of man, on the same He is not the Sonne of God. But Christ was, and was called the Sonne of man, upon the account of his Conception of the substance of his Mother, and particularly the Sonne of David; and so is not on that account the Sonne of God.

Farther, That place of Rom. 1. 3, 4. passing not without some Exceptions, as to the sence insisted on, may be farther clea∣red, * 1.366 and vindicated. Jesus Christ is called the Sonne of God, v. 1, 3. The Gospell of God, concerning his Sonne Iesus Christ: This Sonne is farther described, 1. by his humane 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 Sonne of God, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in power or existing in the power of God: For so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 put absolutely doth often signify; as Rom. 1. 20. Math. 6. 13. and chap. 26. 64. Luk. 4. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) according to, or in respect of his di∣vine 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Him∣selfe is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dan. 9. 24. sanctitas sanctitatum: as here spiritus sanctitatis. And all this saith the Apostle, was de∣clared so to be, or Christ was declared to be thus the Sonne of God, in respect of his Divine, Holy, spirituall being, which is op∣posed to the flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the (〈◊〉〈◊〉 his) Resur∣rection from the dead, whereby an eminent Testimony was given unto His Deity: He was declared to be the Sonne of God thereby, according to the sence insisted on.

To weaken this Interpretation, Grotius moves (as they say) * 1.367 every stone, and heaves at every word; but in vaine (1.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He tells is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as by the vulgar latine it is translated, praedestinatus. So he pleads it was interpre∣ted 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 Judgement therein, and cites others to the con∣trary. Luk. 22. 22. Acts 10. 42. Act. 17. 31. are also urged by him to evince this sence of the word: in each of which places it may be rendred declared, or to declare; and in neither of them ought to be by predestinated. Though the word may sometimes signify so, swhich is not proved) yet that it here doth so will not follow: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a definition (from whence that word comes) declares what a thing is, makes it known. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may best be rendred to declare Heb. 4. 7. So in this place:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; sayes Chry••ostome on the place. And so doth the subject matter require. The Apostle treating of the way whereby Christ was mani∣fested eminently to be the Sonne of God.

But the most Learned mans Exposition of this place is admirable. * 1.368 Jesus (saith he) is many wayes said to be the Sonne of God. [This is begged in the beginning, because it * 1.369 will not be proved in the end. If this be granted it matters not much what followes.] But (most commonly or) most in a popular way, because he was raised unto a kingdome by God. [Not once in the whole Booke of God. Let him, or any one for him, prove this by any one cleare Testimony from Scripture, and take his whole interpreta∣tion. The Sonne of God, as Mediatour, was exal∣ted to a Kingdome, and made a Prince and Saviour. But that, by that Exaltation, he was made the Sonne of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved: yea, it is most false.] He goes on: In that sence the words of the second Psalme were spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdome, which are applyed to Christ, Act. 13. 33. Heb. 1. 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 v. 7. to the end of the Psalme. If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the manifestation, not constitution of him: and so they are applyed to our Saviour when they relate to his Resurrection, as one who was thereby manifested to be the Sonne of God, according as God had spo∣ken of him.] But now how was Christ Predestina∣ted to this sonship? This Kingly dignity, or the dignity of a Sonne, of Iesus, was predestinated and prefigured, when leading a mortall life, he wrought signes and wonders which is the sence of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [The first sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here insensibly slipped from. Predestinated and prefigured are ill conjoyned, as words of a neighbouring significancy. To Predestinate is constantly ascribed to God, as an act of his, foreappointing 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be presigured. Is there the least colour for such a sence? Predestinated to be the Sonne of God with power: that is, The signe he wrought pre∣sigured that he should be exalted to a Kingdome. He was by them in a good towardlinesse for it. It is true, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being in construction with some transitive verbe, do sig∣nify great or marveilous workes: but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, spoken of one declared to be so, hath the same signification is not pro∣ved. He addes, These signes Iesus did by the spirit of Holinesse, that is, that divine efficacy wherewith he was sanctifyed from the beginning of his Conception Luk. 1. 35. Mark. 2. 8. Joh. 9. 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 afterwards 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 sanctifyed, is ridiculous. If by the Spirit is understood his spirituall divine naure; This whole interpretation falls to the ground.] To make out the sence of the words he proceeds, Iesus therefore is shewed to be noble on the mothers side, as comming of an earthly King, but more noble on his Fathers part; being made a heavenly King of God after his Resurection. Heb. 5. 9. Act. 2. 30. & 26. 23, [And thus is this most evident Testimony of the Deity of Christ cluded, or endeavoured to be so. Christ on the Mothers side was the Sonne of David, that is, according to the flesh, of the same nature with her and him. On the Fathers side, He was the Sonne of God, of the same nature with him. That God was his Father, and he the son of God, because after his Re∣surrection he was made an heavenly King, is an hellish sigment. Neither is there any one word or tittle in the Texts cited to prove it: that it is a marvell to what end they are mentioned, one of them expressly affirming, that He was the Son of God before his Resurrection Heb. 5. 8, 9.

2. He who was actually the Son of God, before his Conception, * 1.370 Nativity, Endowment with power, or exaltation, is not the Son of God on those accounts, but on that only, which is ante∣cedent to them. Now by vertue of all the Arguments & Testi∣monies before recited, as also of all those that shall be produced

for the proofe and evincing of the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God, the proposition is unmoveably established, and the infe∣rence evidently followes thereupon.

But yet the proposition as layd down may admit of farther * 1.371 confirmation at present. It is then testified to, Prov. 30. 4. What is his name, and what is his Sonnes name, if thou canst tell? He was therefore the Sonne of God, and he was incomprehensible, even then before his Incarnation. Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee. Isa. 9. 6. Ʋnto us a Sonne is borne, unto us a Child is given, and the Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderfull, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. He is a Sonne, as he is the everlasting Father. And to this head of Testimonyes belongs what we urged before from Prov. 8. 24. &c. He is the Image of the invisible God, the first borne of every Creature, Col. 1. Which surely as to his Incarnation he was not, Before Abraham was I am. Joh. 8. 58. But of these pla∣ces in the following Chapter I shall speake at large.

3. Christ was so the Son of God, that he that was made like * 1.372 Him was to be without Father, Mother, or Genealogy, Heb. 7. 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 re∣spect of his Conception & nativity, had a Mother, & one (they say) that supplyed the roome of Father, had a Genealogy that is up∣on record, and beginning of life, &c. So that upon these ac∣counts He was not the Sonne of God, but on that, wherein he had none of all these things, in the want whereof, Melchi∣sedec was made like to him. I shall only adde,

4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ, is not the * 1.373 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 the things insisted on, as the causes of Christs Filiation, by them with whom we have to do, did only declare & 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 the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing, which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God. Luk. 1. 35. He shall be called so being thereby declared to be so. And great is the Mystery of God∣linesse, God was manifested in the flesh, justifyed in the spirit, seene of Angells, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received

up into glory 1 Tim. 3 16. All the causes of Christs Filiation, assig∣ned by our Adversaries, are evidently placed as manifestations of God in him; or his being the Sonne of God: Declared to be the Sonne of God with power, according to the spirit of Holinesse, by the Resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 3. The Absurdity of assigning distinct, & so farre different causes of the same Effect of fili∣ation, whether you make them totall, or partiall, need not be insisted on.

Farther (to adde one consideration more) sayes Socinus, Christ was the sonne of God, upon the account of his Holinesse, * 1.374 and Righteousnesse, and therein his likenesse 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 inno∣cency, because he had yielded actuall obedience to no Law. No * 1.375 more had Christ done in his Infancy. Therefore (1.) He was not the sonne of God upon the account of his Nativity. Nor (2.) did he become the sonne of God any otherwise then we do, viz. by hearing the Word, learning the Mind, and doing the Will of God. (3.) God did not give his only begotten sonne for us, but gave the sonne of Mary, that he might (by all that which we supposed he had done for us) be made the sonne 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 dye & rise, that he might be made God, & the son of God. Neither (5.) can any eximious love to us of Christ, be seen in what he did & suffered; for had he not done and suffered what he did, he had not been the sonne of God. And also (6.) if Christ be on the account of his Excellencyes, Groces, and Gifts, the Sonne of God, which is one way of his Filiation insisted on, and to be God, and the Sonne 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 Sonnes of God (as are all believers) are Gods also.

And this that hath been spoken, may suffice for the confir∣mation 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, * 1.376 before mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians,

that Christ is called the sonne of God, both on the account of his Eternall sonship, and also of those other particulars mentioned from him above. 2. To consider the texts of Scripture produ∣ced by M. B. for the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the Son of God, because of his eternall 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 * 1.377 renued. For if Christ be the Sonne of God, partly upon the account of his Eternall Generation, and so he is Gods proper and naturall Sonne, and partly upon the other accounts men∣tioned. Then

1. He is partly Gods naturall Son, and partly his adopted Son; partly his eternall Son, partly a temporary Son; partly a begotten Son, partly a ma••e Son. Of which distinction in reference to Christ, there is not one Iota in the whole Book of God.

2. He is made the sonne of God, by that which only mani∣fests Him to be the sonne 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 equivocall causes, as Eternall generation, actuall Incarnation, and Exaltation, he hath an equivocall Filiation: which whether it be consistent with the scripture, which calls him the proper Sonne of God, needs no great paines to determine.

2. The scripture never conjoynes these causes of Christs Filiation, as causes in, and of the same kind; but expressly * 1.378 makes the one the sole cause constituting, & the rest, causes mani∣festing only; as hath been declared. And to shut up this dis∣course; if Christ be the Sonne of man only, because he was con∣ceived of the substance of his Mother, He is the Sonne of God only, upon the account of his being begotten of the substance of his Father.

There remaineth only the consideration of those Texts of scripture, which M. Biddle produceth to insinuate the Filiation * 1.379 of Christ to depend on other causes, and not his Eternall Ge∣neration of the Essence of his Father, which on the principles

lay'd down and proved, will receive a quick and speedy dis∣patch.

The first place named by him, and universally insisted on by the whole tribe, is Luk. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. It is the last * 1.380 verse only that I suppose weight is lay'd upon. Though M. B. name the others, his Masters never do so. That of v. 33. seemes to deserve our notice in M. Biddles judgement, who changes the character of the words of it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are: Thou shalt conceive in thy wombe, and bring forth a Sonne and shalt call his name Jesus; He shall be great, and shall be called the Sonne, of the Highest. What M. B. supposes may be proved from hence, at least how he would prove what he aimes at, I know not. That Jesus Christ, who was borne of the Virgin, was the Sonne 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 de∣clared.

The words of v. 35. are more generally managed by them. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall * 1.381 overshadow thee; therefore also the holy Thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God. But neither doe these particles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, render a reason of Christs Filiation, nor are a note of the Consequen••, but only of an inference or consequence, that ensues from what he spake before. It being so as I have spo∣ken, even that holy Thing that shall be borne of thee shall be called the Sonne of God. There is weight also in that Expression: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that Holy Thing, that shall be borne of thee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not spoken in the concrete, or as an Adjective, but substantively, and points out the naturall Essence of Christ, whence he was that Holy thing. Besides, if this be the cause of Christs Filiation which is assigned, it must be demonstrated, that Christ was on that ac∣count 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 Sonne of God; nor can the Adversaries produce any such in∣stance.

2. It is evident, that the Angell in these words acquaints the blessed Virgin, that in, and by her conception, the Prophesy * 1.382

of Isaiah should be accomplished, which you have Chap. 7. 14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and beare a Sonne, and shall call his name Immanuell: as the expresse words of v. 31. in Luke declare; being the same with these of the Prophesy, Behold thou shalt con∣ceive in thy wombe, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call &c. v. 31, 32. And Mat. 1. 21. this very thing being related, it is said ex∣pressly to be done according to what was foretold by the Prophet, v. 33. repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah foretelleth two things. First, that a Virgin should conceive. 2. That he that was so conceived should be Immanuel, God with us: or the Sonne of God, as Luke here expresses it. And this is that which the Angel here acquaints the blessed Virgin withall upon her en∣quiry v. 34. even that according to the prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive, and bare a Sonne, though a Virgin, and that that Sonne of hers should be called the Sonne of God.

By the way, Grotius his dealing with this Text, both in his Annotations on Isa. 8. as also in his large discourse on Math. 1. 21, 22, 23. is intollerable, and full of offence, to••all that seri∣ously weight it. It is too large here to be insited on. His maine designe is to prove, that this is not spoken directly of Christ, but only aplyed to him by a certain general Accommodation. God may give time & leasure, farther to lay open the heape of Abo∣minations, which are couched in those Learned Anotations throughout. Which also appeares,

3. From the Emphaticallnesse of the expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even * 1.383 also, that holy Thing which is borne of thee, even that shall be called the Sonne of God; and not only that Eternall Word that is incarnate. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being in it selfe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be called the Sonne of God: shall be called so, that is, appeare to be so, and be declared to be so with power. It is evident then that the cause of Christs Filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the Virgins Conception de∣clared; that which was borne of her should be called the Son of God.

And this Socinus is so sensible of, that he dares not say, that * 1.384 Christ was compleately the Sonne 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 * 1.385 his Resurrection was not fully and compleatly the Sonne of God: being like God before in immortallity and absolute rule.

M. Biddles next place, whereby the Sonship of Christ is pla∣ced * 1.386 on another account, as he supposes, is Joh. 10. 36. Say you of him whom the Father hath sanctifyed, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God.

That this Scripture is called to remembrance not at all to M. B's advantage will speedily appeare. For

1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or * 1.387 for What cause it is, that Christ is the Sonne of God: but only that He is so; He being expressed and spoken of, under that description which is used of him 20 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 sanctifyed, and sent into the world, counted it no Robery to be equall with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himselfe his Sonne.

2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himselfe to be * 1.388 such a Sonne of God, as the Jewes charged him with blasphe∣my, for affirming of himselfe that he was. For He justifies himselfe aginst their accusation; Not denying in the least, that they rightly apprehended and understood him, but maintai∣ning what He had spoken to be most true. Now this was that which the Jewes charged him withall, v. 33. that He being man, blasphemed in making himselfe 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 Sonne of God, as is God also. Yea he makes good what he had said, v. 30. which was the foundation of all the following discourse about his blasphemy: I and my Father are one. So that

3. An invinsible Argument for the Sonship of Christ, to * 1.389 be placed only upon the account of his eternall Generation, ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose it. He who is the Sonne of God, because he is one with the Father, and God equall to him, is the the Sonne of God, upon the ac∣count

of his Eternall Relation to the Father: but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himselfe here beares wit••∣nesse to the Jewes, although they are ready to stone him for it. And of his not biaspheming in this Assertion, be convin∣ces his Adversaries by an Argument a minori, vers. 34, 35.

A briefe Analysis of this place will give evidence to this In∣terpretation of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given * 1.390 the Reason, why the Jewes believed not on him, namely be∣cause they were not of his sheep, v. 26. describes thereupon both the nature of those Sheep of his v. 27. And their condition of safety v. 28. This he faerther confirmes from the Consideration of his Fathers greatnesse and power, which is amplifyed by the comparison of it with others, who are all lesse them He, v. 29. As also from his own Power and Will, which appeares to be sufficient for that end and purpose from his Essentiall unity with his Father, v. 30. The Effect of this discourse of Christ by Accident, is the Jewes taking up of stones, which is am∣plifyed by this, that it was the second time they did so and that to this purpose, that they might stone him, v. 31. Their folly and madnesse herein Christ disproves with an Argument ab absurds; telling them, that it must be for some good worke that they stoned him, for evill he had done 〈◊〉〈◊〉. v. 32. This the Jews attempt to disprove, by a new Argument a disparati••, telling him that it was not for a good work, but for blasphemy, that he made himselfe to be God, whom they would prove to be but a man, v. 33. This pretence of Blasphemy Christ disproves (as I said before) by an Argment a mimori v. 35, 36. And with ano∣ther from the Effects, or the workes which he did, which suffici∣ently proved him to be God, v. 27, 38. Still maintaining what he said and what they thought to be Blasphemy, so that they attempt againe to kill him, v. 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 Gods sending his Sonne into the world, and that he * 1.391 came down from Heaven, and came into the world, J••••. 3. 13. God. 4. 4. All evincing his being the Sonne of God, antecedently to that Mission, or Sanctification, whereby in the world he was de∣clared

so to be. Otherwise not the Sonne of God was sent, but one to be his Sonne.

Act. 13. 32, 33. is also insisted on: We declare unto you glad * 1.392 tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fullfilled the same unto us, their Children, in that he hath raised up Jesus againe, as it is also written in the second Psalme, thou art my Sonne, 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 confesse is sharper sighted then I. This I know, that if Christ were made the Sonne of God by his Resurrection from the dead, He was not the Son of God who dyed, for that preceded this his making to be the Sonne of God. But that God gave his only begotten Son to dye, that he spared not his only Sonne, but gave him up to death, I think is cleare in Scripture, if any thing be so.

2. Paul seemes to interpret this place to me, when he in∣formes * 1.393 us, that Christ was declared to be the Son of God with Power, by the Resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 3. Not that he was made so, but he was declared, or made known to be so. When be∣ing crucifyed through weaknesse, he lived by the Power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4. Which power also was his own, Joh. 10. 18.

According as was before intimated, Grotius interprets these * 1.394 words, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: I have made thee a King; which (he says) was fullfilled in that, when all power was given him in Heaven and Earth Math. 28. 18. as Justin in his Colloquie with Trypho. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But then he was not the Son of God before his Resurrection: for he was the Sonne of God by his being begotten of him: which as it is false, so contrary to his own Glosse on Luk. 1. 35. (2.) Christ was a King before his Resurrection, and owned himselfe so to be, as hath been shewed. (3.) Iustins 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 Sonne of God. (4.) That these words are not ap∣plyed to Christ in their first sence, in respect of Resurrecti∣on, from the preheminence assigned unto him above Angells by vertue of this expression, Heb. 1. 5. which he had before his death, Heb. 1. 6. Nor (5.) Are the words here used to prove

the Resurrection, which is done in the verses following out of Isaiah, and another Psalme; And as concerning that he raised him from the dead &c. v. 34. but then

3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that passage in the Psalme, which Paul Act. 13. insists on; but the proving that Christ was the Son of God, as in that Psalme he was called, by his Resurrection from the dead: which was the great manife∣sting cause of his Deity in the world.

What M. B. intends by the next place mentioned by him, I know not. It is Rev. 1. 5. And from Jesus Christ who is the faithfull witnesse, and the first begotten of the dead. That Christ was the first who was raised from the dead, to a blessed and glorious immorta∣lity, and is thence called the first begotten of them, or from the dead, and that all that rise to such an immortallity, riseafter him, and by vertue of his Resurrection, is most certaine 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. 1. 18. where the same words are used againe. He is the head of the Church, who is the beginning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the first borne 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first borne of all the Creation; so that he must surely be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before his Resurrection: nay he is so the first borne of every creature, as to be * 1.395 none of them: for by him they were all created, v. 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 M. Biddle next urgeth from Heb. 1. 4, 5. only it hath this further disadvantage, that both the verses going immediately before, and that immediately fol∣lowing after, do inevitably evince, that the Constitutive cause of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, a priori, is in his participatin of the divine nature, and that it is only manifested by any ensuing Con∣sideration, v. 2, 3. The Holy Ghost tells us, that by him God made the world, who is the brightnesse of his glory and the expresse image

of his person, and this as the Son of God, antecedent to any ex∣altation as Mediatour: & v. 6. He brings in the first begotten into the world, and say's, let all the Angells 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 afterwards demonstra∣ted. Between both these, much is not like to be spoken against the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Nor is the Apostle only declaring his preheminence above the Angells, 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 appellatio•• he had before declared.

The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import. * 1.396 It is Heb. 5. 5. So Christ also glorifyed not himselfe, to be made an high Priest; but he that said unto him, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. When M. B. proves any thing more towards his purpose frō this place, but only that Christ did not of his own accord un∣dertake the office of a Mediatour, but was designed to it of God his Father, who said unto him, Thou art my Sonne 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, then as yet I am convinced he is pos∣sessed of.

And thus have I cleared the Eternall Sonship of Jesus * 1.397 Christ, and evidenced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein upon any other account: nor doubting; but that all who love him in sincerity, will be zealous of his glo∣ry herein. For his growing up to be the Sonne of God by de∣grees, to be made a God in processe of time, to be the adopted Sonne of God; to be the Sonne of God upon various accounts of diverse ••ind•• inconsistent with one-another, to have had such a Conception & Generation, as modesty forbids to think, or ex∣presse; not to have been the Sonne of God, untill after his death, and the like monstrous figments, I hope He will himselfe keep his own in an everlasting abhorring of.

The farther confirmation of the Deity Christ, whereby M▪ Biddles whole designe will be obviated, and the vindication of the Testimonyes where••ewith it is so confirmed from his Masters, is the worke designed for the next Chap∣ter.

There are yet remaining of this Chapter two or three Que∣stions, looking the same way with those already considered, and will upon the principles already laid down, & insisted on. easily, and in very few words be t••rned aside from prejudi∣cing the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God. His 10^th then is,

What saith the Sonne concerning the prerogative of the Father above him? And answer is given, Joh. 14. 28. Mark. 13. 22. Math. 24. 36. Whereunto is subjoyned another of the same; What saith the Apostle Paul? Answ. 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28. 1 Cor. 11. 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 adivine Nature therein, the whole of M Biddles ayme in them is sufficiently already disapointed. It is true, there is an Order, yea a Subordination in the Persons of the Trinity themselves; whereby the Sonne, as to his Personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him; but that is not the Subordi∣nation here aimed at by M. B. but that which he underwent by dispensation as Med••atour, or which attends him in respect of his Humane 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. 2. 7••8, 9. He who was in the forme of God, and equall to him, was in the forme of a servant, whereunto ••he humbled himselfe, his servant, and lesse then he. And there is no more difficulty in the Questi∣ons wherewith M. B. amuses himselfe and his Disciples, then there was in that, wherewith our Saviour stopt the mouth of the Pharisees, viz. how Christ could be the Sonne of David, and yet his Lord, whom he worshipped? For the places of Scrip∣ture in particular urged by M. Biddle Job. 14. 28. Sayes our Savi∣our, my Father is greater then I (mittens misso, says Grotius himselfe referring the words to Office not Nature) which he was, and is in respect of that worke of Mediation; which he had undertaken; * 1.398

but inaequalitas officii non tollit aequalitatem naturae. A Kings Son is of the same nature with his Father, though he may be im∣ployed by him in an inferiour office. He that was lesse then his Father, as to the worke of Mediation, being the Fathers ser∣vant therein, is equall to him as his Sonne, as God to be blessed for ever, Mark. 13. 32. Math. 24. 36. affirme, that the Father only knowes the times and seasons mentioned, not the Angells, nor the Sonne. And yet notwithstanding it was very truely said of Peter to Christ, Lord thou knowest all things, Joh. 22. 17. He that in, and of the knowledge & wisdome, which as man he had, and where∣in 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 M. Biddle acknowledge, that his knowing all things proves him to be God, and we will not deny, but his not knowing the day of Judgement, proves him to have another ca∣pacity, and to be truely man.

* 1.399 As man he took on him those Affections, which we call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; amongst which, or consequently unto which, he might be ignorant of some things. In the meane time he who made all times, as Christ did Heb. 1. 2. knew their end, as well as their beginning. He knew the Father, and the day by him appointed; yea all things that the Father hath were his: and in Him were all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge hid, Col. 2. 3.

Paul speaks to the same purpose, 1 Cor: 15. 24, 28. The King∣dome * 1.400 that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise, is his Oeconomicall mediatory Kingdome, 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 universall Monarchy, which, as God by nature, he hath o∣ver all, this doth not at all prove. All the Argument from this place is but this; Christ shall cease to be Mediatour, therefore he is not God. And that no more is here intended, is evident from the expression of it: Then shall the Sonne himselfe be subject; which if it intend any thing, but the ceasing from the Administration

of the mediatory Kingdome, wherein the humane nature is a sharer, it would prove, that as Jesus Christ is Mediatour, he is not in sub∣jection to his Father, which himselfe abundantly hath manife∣sted to be otherwise. Of 1 Cor. 11. 3. & 3. 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 de∣clared.

He Adds 12^th Q. Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as with the * 1.401 title of Lord, so with the title of God in the Scripture? Ans. Thomas saith my Lord, and my God. Verily, if Thomas said, that Christ was his God, and said true, M. B. is to blame, who denyes him to be God at all. With this one blast of the spirit of the Lord is his fine Fabrick of Religion blown to the ground. And it may be supposed, that M. B. made mention of this portion of Scrip∣ture, that he might have the honour of cutting his own throat, and destroying his own cause; or rather, that God in his Righte∣ous judgement hath forced him to open his mouth to his own shame. What ever be the cause of it, M. B. is very farre from escaping this sword of the Lord, either by his insinuation in the present Quere, or diversion in the following: For the present: it was not the intent of Thomas to dignify Christ with Titles, but to make a plaine 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 doubtlesse was a Christian; and M. B. tells us that Christians have but one God, 1. Chap: Qu. 1. Eph. 4. 6. Jesus Christ then being the God of Thomas, he is the Christians one God: if M^r 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 Believers Faith, that in these words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a Believer; Ergo, the only true God; as 1 Joh: 5. 19. M. B. perhaps will tell you, he was made a God; so one Abomination begets another, Infideli∣ty Idolatry: of this afterward. But yet he was not according to his Companions made a God before his Ascention; which was not yet, when Thomas made his solemne Confessi∣on.

Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. * 1.402 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here first (saith he) in the story of the Gospell is this

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

word sound ascribed by the Apostle unto Jesus Christ (which Maldonat before him observed for another purpose) to wit, after he had by his Resurrection proved himselfe to be him, from whom life and that Eternall, ought to be expected. And this custome * 1.403 abode in the Church, as appeares not only in the Aposto∣licall writings, Rom. 9. 5. and of the Ancient Christians, as may be seen in Just in Martyr against Trypho, but in the Epistle also of Plinie unto Trajane, where he sayes, that the Christians sang verses to Christ, as to God: or as the words are in the Author, Carmen Christo, quasi Beo, ••icere se••ù invitē. What the intendment of this dis∣course is, is evident to al those, who are a little ex∣ercised in the writings of them, whom out Author al along in his Annototions takes care of. That Christ was now made a God at his Resurrection, & is so call∣ed from the power wherewith he was entrusted at his Ascention, is the aime of this discourse. Hence he tells us, it became a custome to call him God among the Christians, which also abode amongst them. And to prove this custome, wrests that of the Apostle Rom. 9. 5. where the Deity of Christ is spoken of, in opposition to his humane nature, or his flesh, that he had of the Jewes, plainely asserting a divine nature in him, calling him God subjectively, and not only by way of Attribution. But this is it seemes a custome taken up after Christs Resurrection to call him God, and ••o continued; though Iohn testify expressly, that he was God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the beginning. It is true indeed, much is not to be argued from the expression of the A∣postles, before the pow••ing out of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance with Spirituall things: Yet they had before made this solemne Confession, that Christ was the Sonne of the Living God, Math. 16. 16, 17, 18. which is to the full as much as what is hereby 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 Eternall life, we have better Testimonys then that of a blind Pagan, who knew nothing of them, nor their ways, but by the report of Apostates, as himselfe confesseth. But Learned men must have leave to make knowne their Readings, and observations, what∣ever become of the simplicity of the Scripture.

To escape the dint of this sword M. Biddle nextly * 1.404 Queries.

Was he so the God of Thomas, as that He himselfe in the moane time, did not acknowledge another to be his God? Ans. Joh. 20. 17. Revel. 3. 12.

True, He who being partaker of the divine Essence, in the forme of God, was Thomas his God; as he was Mediatour, 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 re∣gard he hath his Deity of his Father, and is God of God. Not that he is a secundary, lesser, made God, a Hero, Semideus, as M. B. fancies him: but God blessed for ever, in order of subsistence depen∣ding 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 * 1.405 of God given to him, and is said to have a God? Ans. Heb. 1. 8, 9.

By M. B's favour, Christ is not said to have a God, thought God be said to be his God, 2. v. 8. Christ by M. Biddles Con∣fession 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 & indeed such is the Christ that M. B. worshippeth. Whither this will be waved by the helpe of that expression v. 9. God thy God; where it is expressly spoken of him, in respect of his underta∣king the office of mediation, wherein he was annointed of God with the oyle of gladnesse above his fellowes, God and his Saints will judge.

Thus the close of this Chapter, through the good wise hand of the providence of God, leaving himselfe and his Truth not * 1.406 without witnesse, hath produced instances, and evidences of the Truth opposed, abundantly sufficient, without farther enquiry and labour, to discover the sophistry and vanity of all M. Biddles former Queries, and insinuations; for which let him have the praise.

CHAP. VIII.

An entrance into the examination of the R••covian Catechisme, in the businesse of the Deity of Christ: their Arguments against it Answe∣red: and testimonys of the Eternity of Christ vindicated.

ALthough the Testimonies & Arguments for the Deity of * 1.407 Christ might be urged, and handled to a better advan∣tage, if liberty might be used to insist upon them, in the method that seemes most naturall for the clearing and confirmation of this important Truth, yet that I may do two workes at once, I shall insist chiefely, if not only, on those texts of Scripture, which are proposed to be handled, and answered by the Au∣thor, or Authors of the Racovian Catechisme, which worke takes up neare one fourth part of their Book, and (and as it is well known) there is no part of it, wherein so much dilligence, paines, sophistry, and cunning are imployed, as in that Chapter of the Person of Christ, which by Gods assistance we are entring upon the consideration of.

Those who have considered their writings know, that the very * 1.408 substance of al they have to say, for the evading of the force of our Testimonys, for the Eternall Deity of Christ, is comprized in that Chapter, there being not any thing materiall, that any of them have elswhere written, there omitted. And those who are acquainted with them, their Persons, and Abili••ys, doe also know, that their great strength and ability for disputation, lys in giving plausible Answers, and making exceptions against Testimonys, caveling at every word and letter, being in proofe and Argument for the most part weake and contemptible. And therefore in this long Chapter of neare an 100^d 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 wholy 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 * 1.409 Apollogize for, as unbecoming Catechists.

I shall then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole Chapter of theirs, in both parts of it; as to what they have 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 * 1.410 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 informe the Reader, that this is a businesse quite * 1.411 beyond my first intention in this Treatise, to whose undertaking I have been prevailed on, by the desires and intreaties of some, who knew that I had this other worke imposed on me.

Their first Question and Answer are, * 1.412

a 1.413 Declare now to me, what I ought to know concer∣ning Jesus Christ?

A. Thou must know, that of the things which thou * 1.414 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? * 1.415

A. That only, that by nature he is a true man, even as the Scriptures doe often witnesse: amongst others, * 1.416 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 21. Such an one as God of old promised by the Prophets, and such as the ••reed, com∣monly called the Apostles, witnesseth him to be, which with us all Christians imbrace.

Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature like * 1.417 unto us, sinne only excepted, we believe: and doe abhorre the abominations of Paracelsus, Wig••lius, &c. and the Pamelists a∣mongst our selves, who destroy the verity of his humane Na∣ture. But that the Socinians believe the same, that he is a man in Heaven, whatever he was upon the Earth, I presume the Rea∣der will judge, that it may be justly questioned, from what I have to offer (and shall doe it in its place) on that account. But that this is all that we ought to know concerning the Per∣son of Christ, is a thing of whose ••olly and vanity our

Catechists will be one day convinced. The present tryall of it be∣tween us depends in part, on the consideration of the Scrip∣tures, 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 dyed 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 Sonne of God, begotten of him Psal. 2. 7. the mighty God, Isa. 9. 6, 7. Jehovah Jerem. 23. 6. The Lord of Hosts, Zech. 2 8, 9. And the Apostles Creed also (as it is unjustly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord, and re∣quires us to believe in him, as we doe in God the Father; which if he were not God, were an accursed thing, Jerem. 17. 5. * 1.418

Q. 3.

Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or meere) man?

* 1.419

A.

By no meanes! for he was con∣ceived * 1.420 of the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God: as we read Luk. 1. 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 meanes be esteemed a pure (or meer) man.

1. Ans. But 1. 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 meerely and solely, on that of his Eternall Gene∣ration of the Essence of his Father.

2. The inquiry is after the Essence of Christ, which receives not any Alteration by any kind of eminency, or dignity that be∣longs to his Person. If Christ be by Essence only man, let him have what Dignity or Honour he can have possibly conferred, up∣on him, let him be borne by what meanes soever, as to his Es∣sence and nature, he is a man still; but a man, and not more then a man; that is, purus hom••, A meere man, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

God by nature; but such a God as the Gentiles worshipped Gal: 4. 8. His being made God, and the Son of God, afterward, which our Catechists pretend, relating to Office and Dignity, not to his Nature; exempts him not at all from being a meere man. This then is but a flourish to delude poor simple soules, into a beliefe of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of, then the Turkes do of Mahomet; nor be∣lieve he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, then as Moses to the Jewes. That which Paul speaks of the Idolls of the hea∣then, that they were not Gods by nature, may according to the ap∣prehension of these Catechists be spoken of Christ; notwithstan∣ding any Exaltation or Deification that he hath received; He is by nature no God. Yea the apprehensions of these Gentlemen concerning Christ, and his Diety, are the same upon the matter with those of the Heathen, concerning their Worthies and Heroes, who by an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 pro∣perly there was but one God, but that these men were honoured, as being upon their great Worth, and Noble Atchievements, taken up to blessednesse and power. Such an Hero, an Hermes, or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ; who for his faithfull declaring the will of God, was Deifyed; But, in respect of Es∣sence and nature, which here is inquired after, if he be any thing according to their principles, (of making which supposall I shall give the Reader a faire account) he was, he is, and will be a meer man to all Eternity, and no more. They allow him no more, as to his Essence, then that, wherein he was like us in all things, sin only excepted. Heb. 2. * 1.421

Q. c 1.422 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, * 1.423 but also to the Scriptures.

But this is that which is now to be put to the triall; whether the Asserting of the Diety of Christ be repugnant to 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 then an hundred, that are produ∣ced for the confirmation of the Truth of his Eternall 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 Rea∣son, which in this matter of meer divine Revelation they boast of, and give it the preheminence in their disputes against the Per∣son of Christ, above the Scripture, unlesse they discover the consonancy of it to the Word, to the Law, and Testimonies, what ever 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 farre captivated to the obedience of Faith, as to acquiesse in what ever God hath revealed, and to receive it as Truth, then which duty, there is not any more e∣minent dictate of Right Reason indeed: We for ever deny the first part of this Assertion, and shall now attend to the proofe of it; nor do we here plead, that Reason is blind and corrupted, and that the naturall man cannot disceone 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 de∣bate, which though necessary for them, who would know the Gospell for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the Grammaticall and literall sence of Propositions, as laid downe in the Word of the Scripture, that we 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 compell them to) what e∣ver 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. * 1.424

Q. 1. d 1.425 Declare how it is contrary to Right Reason.

A.

First in this regard, that two substances ha∣ving contrary properties cannot meet in one per∣son; such as are, to be mortall and immortall, to have a beginning, and to want a beginning, to be changeable and unchangeable.

2.

Because two natures, each of them consti∣tuting * 1.426 a Person, cannot likewise agree, or meet in one Person: for insteed of one, there must (then) be two Persons, and so also two Christs would exist: whom all without controversy acknow∣ledge to be one, and his person one.

And this is all which these Gentlemen offer to make good their Assertion, that the Diety of Christ is repugnant to Right Rea∣son; which therefore upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appeare.

1. It is true, that there cannot be such a personall uniting of two substances with such diverse Properties, so as by that Union to make an Exequation, or an equalling of those diverse proper∣ties; but that there may not be such a concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in one Person, both of them pre∣serving entire to themselves their essentiall Properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to sup∣pose that there cannot be such an union, is to begge the thing in Question, against evidence of many expresse Testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their Requests.

2. In calling these Properties of the severall natures in Christ, adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a considera∣tion of them as of Qualities in a subject, whose mutuall contrarie∣ty should prove destructive to the one, if not both; or by amix∣ture cause an Exurgency of Qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such Qualities, nor are they in∣herent in any common sub••ect, 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 pro∣perties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the Person, wherein both the na∣tures do subsist. So that insteed of pleading Reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing in this first part of their Answer, but begge the thing in Question; which being of so much importance, and concernment to our Soules, is never like to be granted them on any such termes. Will, Christ on their entreaties, cease to be God?

Neither is their Second pretended Argument of any other kind. We deny, that the Humane Nature of Christ had any * 1.427 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 expresse Texts of Scripture, Isa: 7. 14. Chap: 9. 6. Ioh. 1. 14. Rom: 1. 3. Chap. 9. 5. Heb. 2. 15. Luk. 1. 35. Heb. 9. 14. Act. 3. 15. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 2. 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 meane those, who * 1.428 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 Per∣son; then, as before, they only begge of us, that we would not believe, that the Person of the Word did assume the humane nature of Christ, that holy thing, that was borne of the Virgin, into subsistence with it selfe; 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 * 1.429 make a noyse with in the world, in an opposition to the Eter∣nall Deity of the Sonne of God. This Pretence of Reason, (which evidently comes short of being any thing else) is their shield & buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christs being hungry, and dying, we say, it was in the humane nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no lesse then we, being therein made like unto us in all things, sinne only excepted. When of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the Office of Mediatour, which he willingly undertook; and that his Inequality unto him, as to that Office, doth noe way prejudice his Equality with him, in respect of his nature and Being. But when with Scriptures, and Arguments from thence, as cleare and convincing, as if they were written with the beames of the Sunne,

we prove our deare 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 tryed: but let us heare them out. * 1.430

e 1.431 But whereas they shew, that Christ consisteth of a Divine and humane nature, as a man consi∣steth of soule and body, what is to be answered them?

A.

That here is a very great diffe∣rence. For they say, that the two natures * 1.432 in Christ are so united, that Christ is both God and Man. But the soule and body are in that manner conjoyned in man, that a man is neither soule nor body, nor neither soule nor body do singly of themselves constitute a person. But as the divine nature by its selfe constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the hu∣mane nature should do.

1. R. In what sence it may be said, that Christ, that is, the Person of Christ, consisteth of a divine & humane nature, was be∣fore declared. The Person of the Sonne of God assumed the Hu∣mane Nature into subsistence with it selfe, 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 soule and body in one humane person, but that there is a great difference in something btween them, they doe but filch away the graines that are allowed to every similitude; and shew wherein the compara••s 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 losse of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides the Ʋnion that is in Physicall Generation by mixture, whereby, and from whence, some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantiall union,

whereby one thing is not turned into another, nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude, (which to please our Cate∣chists we can forbeare, acknowledging, that there is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which we confesse without controversy to be a great mystery) is only to mani∣fest the folly of that assertion of their Master on Joh. 1. that if the word be made flesh in our sence, 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 substantiall union of soule 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 soule is not said to be made the body, nor the body said to be made the soule, as the word is said to be made flesh; for the union of soule and body, is not an union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, wherereof the one is the forme 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 whereunto the flesh, or humane nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to them both. And so it is in accidentall 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 whitenesse &c. but that he who is a man, is also become white.

5. It is true that the soule 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 uni∣on: nor is the union of his Person, the union of severall parts of the same nature, but the Concurrence of severall natures in one subsistence.

6. That 'tis of necessity that Christs humane nature should of its selfe constitute a person, is urged upon the old account of begg∣ing the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we deny; & produce all the proofes before mentioned to make evident the Reason of our deny all. But our great Masters

here, say the contrary; and our under-Catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a true man, because he had the true Es∣sence of a man, soule and body, with all their essentiall proper∣ties. A peculiar personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we de∣ny Christ to have a person, as a Man, but an humane Person. For the humane nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which thought it be in it selfe divine, yet as to that act of sustentation, which it gives the humane nature, it is the subsistence of a man. On which account the subsistence of the humane nature of Christ is made more noble and excellent, then that of any other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our Catechists from Reason, that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the prehe∣minence unto, in their attempts against the Deity of Christ, as the chiefe, if not the only, engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weake in the maine body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from Scripture, whereof in∣deed they have the meanest pretence and shew, that ever any of the sonnes 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 disappeare. Thus then they proceed.

Q. f 1.433 Declare also how it is repugnant to Scripture, that Christ hath a divine nature.

A.

First, because that the Scripture propo∣seth to us, one only God by nature, whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, the same Scripture testifieth, that Je∣sus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it ta∣keth from him any divine nature. 3. Because what ever divine thing Christ hath, the Scrip∣ture plainly teacheth that he had it by a gift of the Father; Mat: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 27. Ioh. 5. 19. 10. 25. Lastly, because the same Scrip∣ture most evidently shewing, that Jesus Christ did not vindicate and ascribe all his divine works to himselfe, or to any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes it plaine, that

that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vaine, and would have been without any cause.

And this is that which our Catechists have to pretend from Scripture against the Diety of Christ, concluding, that any such divine nature in him would be superfluous and needlesse, themselves being Judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set themselves to evade the Evidence of neare fifty expresse 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 * 1.434 nature, and we confesse, that that only true God, is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we say, that the Sonne is partaker of the Fathers nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper Sonne, and by his own Testimony one with him. He is such a Son, (as hath been declared) as is begotten of the Essence of his Fa∣ther, and is therefore God blessed for ever. If the Father be God by nature, so is the Sonne, 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 begge the thing in Question. We evi∣dently demonstrate in the person of Christ, Properties that are inseperable Adjuncts of a divine nature, and such also, as no lesse properly belong to an humane nature: from the asserting of the one of these, to conclude to a deniall of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to digge for.

3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the Sonne; 1. By Eternall Generation, so the Sonne receives his perso∣nality, and therein his Divine nature, from him, who said unto him, Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee: and this is so farre from disproving the Deity of Christ, that it abundantly confirmes it: and this is mentioned, Ioh: 5. 19, 20, 21, 22. This Christ hath by nature. 2. By Collation of Gifts, Honour and Dignity, Exaltation, and Glory upon him as Mediatour, or in respect of that Office, which he humbled himselfe to undergoe,

and for the full execution whereof, an investiture with Glory, Honour, and Power, was needfull, which is mentioned, Math: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 27. which is by no means derogatory to the Deity of the Sonne; for inequality in respect of Office is well consistent with Equality in respect of nature. This Christ hath by Grace. Mat. 28. 18. Christ speaks of himselfe as throughly furnished with Authority, for the accomplishing of the worke of Mediation, which he had undertaken. It is of his Office, not of his Nature, or Essence that he speaks. Phil: 2. 9. Christ is said to be exalted, which he was in respect of the Reall Exaltation given to his Humane 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: 15. 27. re∣lates to the same Exaltation of Christ as before.

4. It is false, that Christ doth not ascribe the divine workes which he wrought, to himselfe, and his own divine Power, al∣though that he often also make mention of the Father, as by whose Appointment he wrought those workes, as Mediator. Ioh. 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I worke; v. 19. For whatsoever things the Father doth, these also doth the Sonne: v. 21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickneth them, even so the Sonne quickneth whom he will. Himselfe wrought the workes that he did, though as to the End of his working them, which belonged to his Office of Mediation, He still relates to his Fathers designation and appoint∣ment. And this is the whole of our Catechists plea from Reason, and Scripture against the Deity of Christ. For the conclusion of the superfluousnesse, and needlesnesse of such a Divine Nature in the Me∣diator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scripture, and of the Righteousnesse of God, and the nature of sinne, so it might administer occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the ne∣cessity which there was, that he who was to be Mediatour between God and man, should be both God and Man; but that I aime at bre∣vity, and the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon ano∣ther account; so that here I shall not insist thereon.

Nextly then, they addresse themselves to that which is their * 1.435 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.

g 1.436 But they endeavour to assert the Divine Nature of Christ from the Scriptures.

A. They endeavour it indeed diverse waies; and that whilest they study, either to evince out of certain Scriptures what is not in them, or whilest they argue perversely from these things which are in the Scriptures, and so evilly bring their businesse to passe.

These it seemes 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, * 1.437

h 1.438 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 speake) his preeternity, which they endeavour to confirme with two sorts of Scriptures. 1. Such as wherein they suppose this pre∣eternity is expressed. 2. Such as where∣in 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 Assu∣rance as the plaine, 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 expresse thereunto; for in this matter we shall very little trouble the Reader with col∣lections and arguings, the matter enquired after being expresse and evident in the words, and termes of the Holy Ghost him∣selfe. They say then. * 1.439

Q. Which are those Testimonies of Scripture * 1.440 which seeme to them to expresse his preeternity?

A.

They are these, in which the Scrip∣ture witnesseth of Christ, that he was in

the beginning, that he was in Heaven, that he was before Abraham, Ioh. 1. 1. Ioh. 6. 62. Ioh. 8. 58.

Before I 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 proofe of his Eternity or no. That which they have undertaken to maintaine, 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 preexisting creature, (which was the Arians madnesse) they disavow, and oppose it.

2. That these three places mentioned, are very farre from being all, wherein there is expresse confirmation of the Eternity of Christ: and therefore when I have gone through the conside∣ration of them, I shall adde some others also, which are of no lesse evidence and perspicuity then these, whose vindication we are by them called unto.

To the first place mentioned they thus proceed. * 1.441

i What dost thou answer to the first?

In the place cited, there is nothing a∣bout * 1.442 that preeternity, seeing here is menti∣on of the beginning, which is opposed to Eternity. But the word beginning is almost alwayes in the Scripture referred to the subject matter, as may be seen, Dan. 8. 1. Joh. 15. 27. 16. 4. Act. 11. 15. And there∣fore seeing the subject matter here, is the Gospell, whose description John under∣takes, without doubt, by this word be∣ginning, John understood the beginning of the Gospell.

This place being expresse to our purpose, and the matter of great importance, I shall first confirme the truth contended for,

from thence, and then remove the miserable subterfuge, which our Catechists have received from their great Apostles, Ʋncle and Nephew.

1. That Iohn thus expressly insisting on the Deity of Christ, * 1.443 in the beginning of his Gospell, intended to disprove and con∣demne sundry that were risen up in those dayes, denying it, or asserting the Creation, or making of the world to another Demiur∣gus, we have the unquestionable Testimony of the first Professors of the Religion of Jesus Christ, with as much evidence and clearenesse of Truth as any thing can be tendred on uncontro∣led Tradition: which at least will give some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.

2. That by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, howsoever rendred, verbum or sermo, or on what account soever he be so called, either of being the eternall Word and Wisdome of the Father, or as the great Revealer of his will unto us, (which yet of it selfe is not a sufficient cause of that Appellation, for others also reveale the will of God unto us, Act. 20. 27. Heb. 1. 1.) Jesus Christ is intended, is on all hands confessed, and may be undenyably evinced from the Context. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, came into the world, and was rejected by his own v. 11: yea expressly he was made flesh, and was the only begotten Sonne of God, v. 14.

3. That the whole of our Argument from this place, is very farre from consisting in that Expression, in the beginning, though that, relating to the matter whereof the Apostle treates, doth evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our Catechists trade, so to divide the words of Scripture, that their maine import and tendence, may not be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, in the beginning: in ano∣ther 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 Ho∣ly Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our Faith,

without such a bold mangling of the Text, as that instanced in.

4. I shall then insist upon the whole of this Testimony, as * 1.444 the words are placed in their Contexture by the Holy Ghost, * 1.445 and vindicate them from what in severall places they have ex∣cepted against severall parcels of them. Thus then from these words, (these divine words (whose very reading reclaimed as eminent a Schollar as the world enjoyed any in his dayes, from Atheisme) 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 with∣out 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 Workes, then here is given of him concerning whom all these things are spoken; but now all this is expressly affir∣med of the Word that was made flesh, that is confessedly of Iesus Christ, therefore he is God by nature blessed for ever. Unto the severall parts of this plaine and evident Testimony, in severall places they except severall things, thinking thereby to evade that strength and Light, which each part yeilds to other, as they lye, 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 * 1.446 the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify preeternity, which hath no beginning. But

1. This imped's not at all the Existence of Jesus Christ before the Creation, although it denys, that his Eternity is expressly asserted. Now to affirme, that Christ did exist before the whole Creation, and made all things, doth no lesse prove him to be no more a Creature, but the Eternall God, then the most expresse Testimony of his Eternity doth, or can do.

2. Though Eternity have no beginning, and the sence of these words cannot be, in the beginning of Eternity, yet Eternity is before all things, and in the beginning may be the description of Eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. 8. 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, * 1.447 doth as evidently expresse Eternity, as it doth in those other phrases, of, before the world was, or before the foundation of the world, which more then once it insists on.

3. By in the beginning, is intended before the Creation of all things. What will it availe our Catechists, if it doth not expressly denote Eternity? Why, the word beginning is to be interpreted vari∣ously, according to the subject matter spoken of, as Gen. 1. 1. which being here the Gospell, it is the beginning of the Gospell that is intended. But

1. Be it agreed, that the word beginning is to be understood according to the subject matter, whereunto it is applyed; that the Apostle doth firstly, and nextly treat of the Gospell, as to the season of its preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and pro∣fessedly of the Person of the Author of the Gospell, of the Word that was God, and was made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sence intended, is cleare; For 1. the Apostle evidently alludes to the first words of Genesis: in the beginning God created Heaven and earth: and the Syriack Translatour from the Hebrew, here places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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 glosse: take his being God in their sence, yet they deny, that he was God in the beginning of the Gospell, or before his suffering, as hath been shewed. 4. The sence given by the Socinians to this place is indeed senselesse. In the beginning (say they) that is, when the Gospell 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 afterwards said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him, as the Word) was wi••h 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) and the word was God, that is, God appointed, that he should be so afterwards, or made God (though it be said, he was God, then, when he was with God) and all things were made by him; the 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 supplyed withall 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 he was: egregiam vero laudem! He was, when he was. The word was in the beginning: that is, Jesus was flesh and bloud, and then was afterwards made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, when he had dwelt amongst us. And this is that interpretation which Faustus Soci∣nus receiving from his Uncle Laelius first set up upon; in the strength whereof he went forth unto all the Abominations which afterwards he so studiously vented.

Passing by those two weighty & most material passages of this * 1.448 Testimony, the word was God, and the word was with God, the one evidencing his onenesse of nature with, and the other his distinctnesse of Personality from his Father, our Catechists after an inter∣position of neare 20 pages, fix upon the 3. verse, and attempt to pervert the expresse words and intendment of it, having cut it off from its dependance on what went before, that evidently gives light into the aime of the Holy Ghost therein: their words concerning this verse are;

b 1.449 Declare to me with what Testimonies they contend to prove, that Christ created the Heavens and the Earth?

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:

Joh. 1. 3, 10. as also Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 2. and 10, 11, 12. verses.

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. Iohn saies, they were made by him; which manner of speaking doth not expresse him, who is the first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause. Lastly, the word al things, is

not taken for all things universally, but is al∣together related to the subject matter, which is most frequent in the Scriptures, especially of the new Testament, whereof there is a singular example, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to this, whereof Iohn treates, where it is said; all things are made new; whenas it is certaine, that there are many things which are not made new: Now whereas the subject matter in Iohn is the Gospell, it appeareth, that this word all things, is to be received only of all those things which belong to the Gospell?

But why doth Iohn adde, that without him nothing was made, that was made?

Iohn added these words, that he might the better illustrate those before spoken, all things were made by him; which seeme to import, that all those things were made by the word, or Sonne 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 Legall ceremonies. For although these things had their originall from the preaching, and workes of the Lord Jesus, yet they were not perfected by Christ himselfe, but by his Apostles; but yet not without him. For the Apostles administred all things in his name, & authority, as the Lord himselfe said, with∣out me ye can do nothing, Ioh. 15. 5.

Thus to the 3. verse, of which afterwards. We shall quickly * 1.450 see how these men are put to their shifts, to escape the sword of this witnesse, which stands in the way to cut them off in their jour∣nying 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 his divine power and workes: He was God, and he made all things. He that made all things is God: Heb. 3. 4. The Word made all things, Ioh. 1. 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 * 1.451 here used by Iohn, is the same, that in sundry places the Septuagint (whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the creation. As Gen. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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' terme from whence of their production. But

2. They are said to be made by him: its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which denotes not the principall, but mediate, or instrumentall cause.

But it is most evident, that these men care not what they say, so they may say something, that they think will trouble them whom they oppose.

1. This might helpe the Arians, who fancyed Christ to be created, or made before all other things; and to have been the instrumentall cause, whereby God created all other things; but how this concernes them to insist on, who deny that Christ had any Existence at all, before the world was some thousands of yeares old, is not easy to be apprehended.

2. In their own sence this is not to the purpose, but express∣ly 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 principall efficient cause, but the second, and mediate: there, that all things were either done by him, or in his Name, & Autho∣rity: which certainly denotes the principall cause of the thing done. But

3. This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the Father himselfe, whom our Catechists will not therefore deny to have been the principall efficient cause of the things ascribed to him: Rom. 11. 36. from him, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by him are all things 1 Cor. 1. 9. God is faithfull 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by whom you are called: Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Iesus Christ, and God the Father Ephes. 1. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the will of God: So that this also is frivolous: thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But

4. Al things, are to be referred to the Gospell; all things of the Gos∣pell whereof Iohn treats: so are the words to be restrained by the subject matter: but

1. This is meerely begged: Iohn speakes not one word of the Gospell, as such; gives no description of it, its nature, or Effects: but evidently, plainly, and directly speakes of the Word, that was God, and that made all things, describing him in his Eternity, his Workes, his Incarnation, his Imployment, his Comming into the World and his businesse: and treats of the Gospell, or the declaration, of the Will of God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterwards, from verse 14. and forwards.

2. For the expression, 2 Cor. 5. 17. all things are become new: it * 1.452 is expressely restrained to the new Creature, to them that are in Je∣sus Christ; but as to this generall expression here, there is no co∣lour why it should be so restrained. The Expression it selfe e∣very where signifying the Creation of all things; see Gen. 2. 1, 2. Psal. 33. 6. Psal. 121. 2. Isa. 37. 16. Chap. 44. 19. & 62. 2. Jen 32. 17. Acts 14. 15. Act. 17. 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 * 1.453 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of referring the whole passage to the description of the Gospell, whereof there is not the least tit∣tle, nor intimation in the Text, being removed out of the way, this following figment falls of it selfe.

2. This Glosse is expressely contrary to the Text. The all things here mentioned, are the all things that were made in the Beginning of the World; but this Glosse referres it to the things made in the End of the World.

3. It is contradictory to its selfe; for by the beginning, they un∣derstand the beginning of the Gospell, at the first preaching of it; but the things, that they say here were made by Christ, are things that were done after his Assension.

4. It is true, the Apostles wrought not any miracles, effected

no mighty workes, but by the presence of Christ with them, (though the Text cited to prove it Ioh: 15. 5. be quite of ano∣ther importance, as speaking of Gospell obedience, not Workes of Miracles, or Conversions) but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offer'd to proof by our Cate∣chists. And this is the sence of the words they give; Christ, in the beginning of the Gospell, made all things; or all things were made by him; even those, which he made by others, after his Assension into heaven: or thus: (All things) that is, some things, (were made) that is, mended, (by him) that is, the Apostles, (in the beginning of the Gospell) that is, after his Assension.

5. Our sence of the words is plaine and obvious: saies the A∣postle, * 1.454 He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things; which he first expresseth positively; and then by an universall nega∣tive confirmes, and explaines what was before asserted in an uni∣versall affirmative, (without him was nothing made, that was made.) And this is the summe of what they have to except against this part of our Testimony, then which nothing can be more vaine and frivolous.

2. The 10^th verse is by them taken under consideration, and * 1.455 these words therein: The World was made by him: against which this is their proceedure.

m 1.456 What dost thou answer to the second?

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 mun∣dus, the World, as others of the same im∣port, doe not only denote Heaven and Earth, but besides other significations, it ei∣ther signifieth humane kind, as the present place manifesteth, he was in the World, and the World knew him not: and Ioh. 12. 19. or also future immortality, as Heb: 1. 6. which is to be understood of the World to come, as it appears from Chap: 2. where he saith, he hath not put the world to come into sub∣jection

to the Angells, of which we speake: but he had no where spoken of it, but Chap. 1. 6. Furthermore you have a place, Chap: 10. 5. where speaking of Christ he saith: wherefore comming into the World, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body &c. Where seeing it is evi∣dent, that he speaks of that world, into which Jesus being entred, 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. 8. v. 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 va∣rious 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 imagined.

2. Heb. 1. 6. speaks not of the World to come; nor is there any place in the Scripture, where the word World doth signify im∣mortality, or the World to come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. 2. 5. mention is made not simply of the World, but of the World to come; nor doth that expression of the Apostle relate un∣to that of Chap. 1. 6. where the word World is used, but to what goes before, and after in the same Chapter, where the thing it selfe is insisted on, in other termes. 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 Jewes, which was past, in that use of speech, whereby it was expressed before it came; as also Chap. 6. 5. Nor is the world to come, Life eternall, 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 Math. 12. 32. Luk. 18. 30. Luk. 20. 35. Eph. 1. 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 untill after his Resurrection; nor is the world to come, that where∣of it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, he came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to his own, for then, his own, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 with all.

3. Those words Heb. 11. 5. coming into the world he said, &c. do not in the least intimate any thing of the world to come, but ex∣presse the present world, into which Christ came, when God pre∣pared a body for him, at his Incarnation, and Birth, which was in or∣der to the sacrifice, which he afterwards offered in this world, as shall be evidently manifested, when we come to the conside∣ration of the Priesthood of Christ.

It remaines only that we heare their sence of these words, which they give as followeth. * 1.457

n 1.458 But what dost thou understand by these words, the World was made by him?

A twofold sence may be given of them; 1. That humane kind was reformed by Christ, and as it were made againe, because he brought life, and that eternall to humane kind, which was lost, and was subject to e∣ternall death; (which also John upbraideth the World withall, which being vindicated by Christ from destruction, acknowledged him not, but contemn'd and rejected him) for that is the manner of the Hebrew speech, that in such termes of speaking, the words, to make, and create, are as much as to make againe, or to create againe, because that tongue wants those words, that are call∣ed compounds. The latter sence is, that that immortality which we expect, is, as to us,

made by Christ; as the same is called the world to come, in respect of us, although it be present to Christ, and the Angells.

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 no∣thing to offer in the roome of what they endeavour to de∣stroy.

2. That the latter sence is not intended, was before evin∣ced. 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 immortallity, or life eternall; nor is there any thing in the Context, that should in the least give counte∣nance to such an absurd glosse.

3. Much lesse is the first sence 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, unlesse it be joyned with other expressions, restrai∣ning 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.

4. The Hebraisme of making, for reforming, is commonly pre∣tended; without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in Greeke, which language abounds 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 Testi∣mony * 1.459 insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine nature, antecedently to his Incarnation, and that is v. 14. The word was made flesh. Who the Word is, and what, we have heard.

He who was 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 considera∣tion of his eternall Sonship, and shall not againe insist thereon. This after the interposition of sundry Questions our Catechists take thus into consideration.

How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate?

From those Testimonyes, where according * 1.460 to their translation it is read, the Word was made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. &c.

How dost thou answer it?

On this account, because in that Testimony, it is not said (as they speake) God was incar∣nate, or the divine nature assumed the humane. The Word was made flesh, is one thing, and God was Incarnate, or the divine nature assu∣med the humane, another. Besides, these words, the word was made flesh, or rather, the speech was made flesh, may, and ought to be rendred, the word was Flesh. That it may be so rendred, appeares from the Testimonyes, in which the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is here translated) was made, is found rendred by the word, was: as in this chap. v. 6. and Luk. 24. 19. &c. Also that it ought to be so rendred, the order of Iohns words teacheth, who should have spoken very incon∣veniently, the word was made Flesh, that is, as our Adversaries interpret it, the Divine nature as∣sumed the Humane, after he had spoken those things of the word, which followed the nati∣vity of the man Christ Jesus, such as are these: Iohn beare witnesse 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 Sonnes of God.

This is the last plea they use in this case; the dying groanes of their perishing cause are in it: which will provide them nei∣ther with succour, nor reliefe. 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 de∣livered. By the Incarnation of the Son of God, and by the Divine nature assuming the humane, we intend no more then 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 availe them? He that was a man, was made a man. In that sence it ex∣presses what he was, but withall 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 ob∣taine something. But

2. How will they prove, that so much as it MAY be rendred 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 rendred here? The proper sence, and common usage of it, is, was made; and because it is once or twice used in a pecu∣liar sence, may it be so rendred here, where nothing requires, that it be turned aside from its most usuall acceptation; yea much enforcing it thereunto,

3. That it ought to be rendered by fuit, was, they plead the mentioning before of things done after Christs Incarnation (as we call it,) so that it cannot be, he was made flesh: but

1. Will they 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 Humilia∣tion; and yet how much is that, which in their sence 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 sence. Or what conscience have these men, that in their disputes will ob∣ject that to the interpretation of others, which they must re∣ceive, and imbrace for the establishing of their own?

2. The Order of the words is most proper; Iohn having * 1.461 asserted the Deity of Christ, with some generall concomitants and consequences of the dispensation, wherein he undertakes to be a Mediatour; in his 14. verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance upon his Employment, and his car∣rying it on in, by the Revelation of the Will of God; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sence and intend∣ment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearely in the words.

3. It it is evident, that the Word neither may, nor ought to to be translated according to their desire. For

1. It being so often said before, that the Word was, the Word is still 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God: The same was; he was in the world, he was the light; still the same word; so that if no more were intended, but what was before expressed, the termes would not be changed without excee∣dingly obscuring the sence; and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must signify somewhat more then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

2. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 applyed to other things in this very place, denotes their making, or their Originall, which our Catechists did not question in the Consideration of the places where it is so used; as v. 3. all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and v. 10. the world was made by him.

3. This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places; as Rom. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made of the seed of David according to the Flesh. and Gal. 4. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made of a woman; but they think to salve all by the ensuing exposition of these words.

How is that to be understood the word was * 1.462 * 1.463 Flesh?

That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, * 1.464 who is therefore called sermo by Iohn, was a man subject to all miseries, and afflictions, and lastly to death it selfe. For the Scripture useth the word Flesh in that sence, as is cleare from those places, where God speakes, my Spirit shall not alwayes contend with man, seeing he is Flesh, Gen. 6. 3. and Peter, all Flesh is grasse. 1 Pet. 1. 24.

This is the upshot of our Catechists exposition of this first Chapter of Iohn, as to the Person of Christ. Which is

1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions, for the Testimonies produced affirme 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, in as much 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 a∣mongst us; which immediately followes in the Text: Nor is his being made flesh suited to any thing in this place, but his con∣versation with men, which answers his Incarnation, not his mediation; neither is this Exposition confirmed by any in∣stance from the Scriptures, of the like expression used concer∣ning Jesus Christ; as that we urge is, Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. and other places. The place evidently affirmes, 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 sence he was alwayes obnoxious to miseries and death.

And this is all which our Catechists in severall places have * 1.465 thought meet to insist on, by way of Exception, or opposition to our undeniable, & manifest Testimonies from this first Chap. of John, unto the great & sacred truth contended for; which I have at large insisted on, that the Reader from this one instance, may take a tast of their dealing in the rest; and of the despe∣ratenesse 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 briefe.

Joh. 6. 62. is in the next place taken into consideration. The * 1.466 words are, What and if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend up where

he was before. What we intend from hence, and the force of the Argument from this Testimony insisted on, will the better ap∣peare, if we adde unto it those other places of Scripture, where∣in the same thing is more expresly, 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 dealt with what we plead from John the first: the places I intend are

Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath assended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Sonne of man, who is in Hea∣ven,

Vers. 31. He that cometh from above, is above all. He that cometh from Heaven, is above all.

John 8. 23. Ye are from beneath, I am am from above.

Joh. 16. 28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; and againe I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Hence we thus argue. He that was in Heaven before he was on the earth, & who was also in Heaven, whilst he was on the earth, is the Eternall God. But this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirme concerning himselfe; therefore he is the Eternall God blessed for ever.

In answer to the first place our Catechists thus proceed. * 1.467

g 1.468 What answerest thou to the second Testimony, Joh. 6. 62.

Neither is here any mention made expressly of preeter∣nity; for in this place the Scripture witnesseth, that the Sonne of man, that is, a man, was in Heaven, who with∣out all controversy was not eternally preexistent. So they.

1. It is expressly affirmed, that Christ was in Heaven, before his coming into the world. And if we evince his preexistence to his Incarnation, against the Socinians, the taske will not be diffi∣cult to prove that preexistence to be in an eternall divine nature against the Arians. It is sufficient as to our intendment in pro∣ducing this Testimony, that it is affirmed, that Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Heaven, before his coming forth into the world; in what nature we elsewhere prove.

2. It is said indeed that the Sonne of man was in Heaven, which makes it evident, that he who is the Sonne of man, hath another nature, besides that wherein he is the Sonne of man, wherein he is the Sonne of God. And by affirming that the Sonne of man was in Heaven before, it doth no more assert that he was Eter∣nall, and in Heaven in that Nature, wherein he is the Sonne of man, then 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 Eternall, and in Heaven, as he was God. So that the Answer doth meerely begge the thing in question; viz. that Christ is not God and man in one person.

3. The insinuation here of Christs being in Heaven as man, before his assention, mentioned in the Scripture, shall be consi∣dered, when we come to the proposall made of that figment by M. Biddle in his Chapter of the Propheticall office of Christ. In answer to the other Testimonyes recited, they thus proceed to∣wards the later end of their Chapter, concerning the Person of Christ.

r 1.469 What answerest thou to Joh. 3. 13. chap. 10. 36. chap. 16. 28. chap. 17. 18.

That a Divine nature is not here proved, ap∣peareth, because the words of the first Testi∣mony, he came down from Heaven, may be re∣ceived figuratively, as Jam. 1. 17. every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights: and Revel. 21. 2, 10. I saw the holy City Hierusa∣lem coming down from God. But if the words be taken properly, which we willingly admit, it appeares, that they are not spoken of any o∣ther then the Sonne of man, who seeing he hath necessarily an humane 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 alleadged: Joh. 17. 18. as thou hast sent me in∣to

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 descen∣ded from Heaven. To come into the world is of that sort, as the Scripture manifests to have been after the Nativity of Christ. Joh. 18. 37. where the Lord himselfe sayes: for this I am borne, and come into the world, that I might beare witnesse to the Truth: and 1 Joh. 4. 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 originall of the office of Christ, is described.

1. That these expressions are meerely figuratively to be ex∣pounded, * 1.470 they dare not assert; nor is there any colour given that they may be so received from the instances produced from James 1. 17. and Revel. 21. 2. for there is only mention made of descending, or comming down, which word we insist not on by it selfe, but as it is conjoyned with the Testimony of his being in Hea∣ven before his descending; which takes off all pretence of a parity of Reason in the places compared.

2. All that followes is a perfect begging of the thing in que∣stion; because Christ is the Sonne of man, it followes that he is a true man; but not, that he hath the personality of a man, or an humane personality. Personality belongs not to the Essence, but the Existence of a man. So that here they do but repeat their own Hypothesis, in answer to an expresse 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 sayes, 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 be∣fore; but merely insist on the word descending, or comming down, and yet they can no other way deale with that neither, but by begging the thing in question.

4. We do not argue meerely from the words of Christs be∣ing 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 Hea∣ven before his comming forth, and this our Catechists thought good to oversee.

5. The difference of Christs being sent into the world, and the Apostles by him, which they paralell, as to the purpose in hand, lyes 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, then that wherein he was sent: the similitude alleadged consists quite in other things. Neither

6. Doth the Scripture in Joh. 18. 37. testify, that Christs sending into the world was after his Nativity, but only that the end of them both, was to beare witnesse to the truth; And in∣deed, I was borne, and came into the world, are but the same, the one being exegeticall of the other. But his being borne, & his com∣ing into the world, is in the Testimonies cited, plainely 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, name∣ly, that Christ was in his humane nature taken up into Heaven, and instructed in the will of God, before his entrance upon his Propheticall 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was in Heaven, when he was in the Earth, and at his Assen∣sion returned thither where he was before. And so much for the vindication of this second Testimony.

Ioh. 6. 62. is the second place I can meet with in all the An∣notations of Grotius, wherein he seemes to assert the union of

the humane nature of Christ with the eternall 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 Judgement; I only take li∣berty, having so great cause given, to discusse his Annotations.

There remaines one more of the first ranke, as they are sorted * 1.471 by our Catechists, for the proofe of the Eternity of Christ, which is also from John Chap. 8. 58. Before Abraham was I am, That they insist on.

s 1.472

In this place the preeternity of Christ is not only not expressed, being it is one thing to be before Abraham, and another to be eternall, but also it is not so much as expressed, that he was before the Virgin Mary. 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 u∣sed, Chap. 13. 19. & 14. 29.

What then would be the sence of this rea∣ding? Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jewes, who would have ensnared him in his speech, that whilest 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 himselfe had added to them, I am the light of the World, appears, because that in the be∣ginning of his speech, v: 12. he had twice in those words, I am, called himselfe the light of the World. v: 24, 25. and that these words, be∣fore Abraham be, do signify that which we have said, may be perceived from the notati∣on of that word Abraham; for it is evident, that Abraham notes the Father of many Nations: seeing then, that Abram was not made Abra∣ham, before the grace of God, manifested in Christ, redounded to many Nations, for Abra∣ham

before was the Father of one Nation on∣ly, it appears, that that is the very sence 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 triall. And if they meet with Judges so partially addicted to them, and their cause, as to accept of such manifest jugling, and perverting of the Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for. Especially, seeing how they exult, and triumph in this invention; as may be seen in the words of Soci∣nus himselfe, in his Answer to Erasmus Johannes p. 67. For whereas Erasmus saies,

I confesse in my whole life, I never * 1.473 met with any Interpretation of Scripture more wrested, or violently perverting the sence of it. The other replyes. I hoped rather that thou wouldest confesse; that in thy whole life thou had'st never heard an interpretation more acute, and true, then this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced 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 renew∣ed the opinion of the Originall of Christ, which I constantly defend) (that is, his Ʋncle Laelius) obtained it of Christ by many Prayers. This truly I dare affirme, 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 seeme more divine, then this interpreta∣tion.

Of this esteeme is this Interpretation of these words with * 1.474 them. They professe 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 withall, I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture, & corrupting of the word of God, as the World can beare witnesse to.

1. Let the Christian Reader, without the least prejudiciall 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 himselfe, lyes e∣vidently and undeniably in v. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death: upon this, the Jewes rise up against him, as one that boasted of himselfe above mea∣sure, and preferred himselfe before his betters: v. 52. Then said the Iewes unto him, now we know that thou hast a Divell; Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest, if a man keep my sayings he shall never tast of death. and v. 53. Art thou greater then our Father Abra∣ham, who is dead, and the Prophets are dead, whom makest thou thy selfe to be. Two things are here charged on him by the Jewes. First in generall, that he preferred, exalted, and honoured himselfe. 2. In particular, that he made himselfe better then Abraham their Father. To both which charges Christ answers in order in the following words: To the First, or generall charge of honouring himselfe. v. 54, 55. Iesus answered, if I honour my selfe, 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 I should say I know him not, I shall be a Lyar like unto you; but I know him, and keep his say∣ing. His honour he had from God, whom they professed, but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, v. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Though Abraham was so truly great, & the Friend of God, yet his great joy was from his beliefe in me; whereby he saw my day. To this the Jewes reply, labouring to convince him of falsehood, from the impossibility of the things that he had asserted, v. 57. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Abraham was dead so many hundred years before thou wast borne; how couldest thou see him, or he thee? To this in the last place our Saviour replyes, v. 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, v: 59. as was their perpetuall manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his Deity, as Joh. 5. 18. Therefore thought the Jewes the more to kill him,—because he said, that God was his Father, making himselfe equall with God.

This naked, and unprejudicate view of the Text, is sufficient * 1.475 to obviate all the operous and sophisticall exceptions of our Catechists, so that I shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we have asserted may be thus proposed. He who in respect of his humane nature, was many hundred years after Abra∣ham, yet was in another respect existing before him; He had an existence before his birth, as to his divine nature. Now this doth Christ expressely affirme concerning himselfe. And no∣thing else is pretended but only his divine nature, wherein he should so exist. They say then,

1. That these words do not signify preeternity, but only something be∣fore * 1.476 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 eternall, as be before Abraham. But

2. The words may be rendred, prinsquam Abraham fiat, ego sum; be∣fore Abraham be made. But 1. They may be so rendred, is no proof at all that they ought to be so: and, as was before ob∣served, if this be sufficient to evade the sence of a place, that any word in it may otherwise be rendred, because it is, or may be so in some other place, nothing certain can be concluded from a∣ny Testimony of the Scriptures whatever. But that they may not be so rendred, is evident. 1. From the Context, as before declared. 2. From the opposition between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I am, and Abraham was, which evidently denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison with what Christ saies of himselfe. And 3. The words in such a construction as this, requires an Interpretation as to the time past. And 4. because this Interpretation of the words corrupts the whole sence of the place, and wrests it con∣trary to the designe, and intendment of our Saviour. But then they say,

3. The sence is excellent: for before Abraham be made, is as much as * 1.477 before he be Abraham, or the Father of many Nations, which he was when the Gospell was Preached to the conversion of the Gentiles. I am, that is, I am the light of the world, which you should do well to walke in, and attend unto.

1. That this Interpretation in generall 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. Be∣cause Abraham was the Father of many Nations, Jewes, and Pro∣selites, before the Preaching of the Gospell, as Gen. 15. 5. 2. It is false, that Abraham was not Abraham, untill after the assension of Christ, and Preaching of the Gospell to the Gentiles. He was made Abraham, from his first enjoyment of his name, and seed in Isaack, 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 sence in the words: nor then neither, unlesse Abra∣ham be taken as a common Appellative for the Father of many Na∣tions, 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, Elipticall; whereas there is neither need of, nor colour for such a pretence. 2. In supplying the feigned Eclipsis with a word at such a distance, as from v. 12. to v. 58. 3. In making Christ to say, he is the Light of the world, before the Preaching of the Gospell to the Gentiles, when the World is every where in the Gospell taken quite in another sence, for the Jewes, and Gentiles, and not for the Jewes only, which according to this Interpre∣tation it must be. 4. It leaves no reason of the following at∣tempt of the Jewes to stone him, upon the particular provoca∣tion of this Assertion, he having before affirmed himselfe 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 per∣verting, and corrupting of the word of God.

For the Grammaticall vindication of the words, and the Translation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in a sence of that which is past, there is no occasion administred by our Catechists, and there∣fore I shall not trouble the Reader therewith.

And of the first sort of Testimonies, which they except a∣gainst, and their exceptions, thus farre.

A little Animadversion upon the Catechists good friend Groti∣us, * 1.478 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 it selfe, and so abhorrent from the common sence of all men, that ever professed the name of Christ. He takes then another course, yet no lesse aiming then they, to disappoint this evidence of the preexistence of Christ before his Nativity: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. An∣tequam esset, (saith he) before he was: and gives many instances to prove the propriety of so translating that expression. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: praesens pro imperfecto: eram: Syrus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nonnus: sit in Graeco Psal: 90. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. very good•• before Abraham was, or was borne, Christ was, as in that of the Psalme, before the Mountaines were made, thou art. And a little to helpe a friend at so good a work: It is no new thing for this Evangelist to use the present for the praeterimperfect tense: as Chap. 14. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I am so long, for I was, or I have been so long with you: &c. And Chap: 15. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: because you have been with me from the beginning: Thus farre then we are agreed: but how should this be, that Christ thus was, before Abraham was, Fuerat (saith he) autem ante A∣brahamum Iesus, divina constitutione. In Gods appointment Iesus was before Abraham was borne: 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 priviledge in seems, that our Saviour vindicates to himselfe, without any oc∣casion, to no purpose, insisting on that, which is common to him with all the Elect of God in the best sence of the words. Of that other Text of Scripture Ioh: 17. 5. which together with this he labours to corrupt, I shall speak afterwards. I shall only adde that our great Doctours do not in this businesse agree. Grotius here makes no mention of Socinus his Glosse: and Socinus before hand rejects this of Grotius, as absurd and fond; and as such let it passe; as having no occasion given from the words foregoing, nor colour from the matter, nor phrase of words, no significancy to the businesse in hand.

CHAP. IX.

The Preeternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture vindicated.

IN the consideration of the ensuing Testimonies I shall con∣tent * 1.479 my selfe with more briefe observations upon, and disco∣veries of the corruption of our Adversaries, having given a large Testimony thereof in the Chapter foregoing. Thus then they proceed. * 1.480

What are the Testimonies of Scripture wherein they think, that this Preeternity of Christ is not indeed express∣ed, * 1.481 but yet may thence be proved?

Those which seeme to attribute to the Lord Iesus some things from Eternity, and some things in a certaine and de∣terminate 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 climbe over. * 1.482

What are the Testimonies which seeme to attribute some * 1.483 things to the Lord Iesus from Eternity?

They are those, from which they endeavour to confirme that Christ was begotten from Eternity of the Essence of his Father.

These are some of the places wherein this Property of the God-head, Eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour; it is con∣fessed.

But from what places do they endeavour to prove, that * 1.484 Christ was from Eternity begotten of the Essence of his Father?

From these chiefely, Mic. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7. and 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.

These are only some of the Testimonies that are used to this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ Eternall, 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. * 1.485

But how must we answer these Testimonies? * 1.486

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 tooke 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 Spirituall things by carnall; infinite by finite; God by our selves; the object of Faith, by corrupted Rules of corrupted Reason. But 1. that which God hath * 1.487 revealed to be so, is not impossible to be so; let God be true & all men lyers: that this is revealed, hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite, limited Essences, may be possible & convenient to that which is infinite & unlimited; as is that whereof we speake. 3. It is not imposible, in the sence 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 inconssistent with it; this is denyed, for God hath revealed the contrary. 4. For the parting of the di∣vine Essence, or receiving a part of the divine essence, our Cate∣chists might have left out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way of that horne of their Dilemma. 5. We say then, that in the Eternall Generation of the Son, the whole Essence of the Father is communicated to the Sonne, as to a personall 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 lye against it, being taken

from the Propertys and attendencys of that which is finite.

Come we to the particular testimonys: The first is Mic. 5. 2. * 1.488 But thou Bethlem-Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Iudah, 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 dayes of Eternity.

How must this first testimony of the Scripture be answe∣red? * 1.489

This Testimony hath nothing at all of his Generation of the Essence of his Father: and a preeternall Generation it no way proves. For here is mention of beginning and dayes, which in Eternity have no place. And these words which in the vulgar are from the dayes of Eter∣nity, in the Hebrew are from the dayes of seculi the dayes of an age. And Dies seculi are the same with dies antiqui, as Isa. 63. 9, 11. Mal. 3. 4. The sence of this place is, that Christ should have the originall of his Nativity from the beginning, and from the ancient yeares, 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.

R. 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 Eternall: the thing it selfe 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 * 1.490 that our Adversaries can assigne: That it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced.

2. Here is no mention of the * Beginning; and those who * 1.491 in the latter words reject the vulgar edition, cannot honestly insist on the former from thence, because it serves their turne. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what sence it may

be so, where Eternity is intended, hath been declared in the last Chapter.

3. That dayes are not used with, & to expresse Eternity in Scrip∣ture, though strictly there be no dayes, nor Time in Eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirme, Iob. 10. 5. Are thy dayes as the dayes of man? Are thy yeares as mans dayes? Hence God is called the Ancient of dayes Dan. 7. 9. Thou art the same, and thy yeares shall not faile Heb. 1. 12.

4. For the word Gnolam, translated seculi: it hath in the Scripture various significations. It comes from a * word sig∣nifying * 1.492 to hide; and denotes an unknown hidden duration. Prin∣cipally perpetuum, aeternum, sempiternum: That which is preeternall and eternall. Sometimes a very long time. Gen. 9. 12. & v. 16. that is perpetuall: so Gen. 17. 13. and in other places, with a re∣ference to the soveraignty of God. Gen. 21. 33. It is ascribed to God as a property of his, and signifies eternall: Jehova Gnolam: so Psal. 89. 2. as also Isa. 45. 17. Let all places where the word in Scripture, in this sence is used, be reckoned up, (which are a∣bove 300) and it will appeare, that in farre the greatest num∣ber of them, it signifies absolutely Eternity. In the places of Isa. 63. 9, 11. and Mal. 3. 4. a long time indeed is signified; but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing, or matter trea∣ted of. And upon the same Rule where it is put absolutely it sig∣nifies Eternity. So doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament, by which the Septuagint often render Gnolam; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be from Eternity, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 1. 2. Wherein also with a like expression to that under consideration, the times of Eternity are mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to some∣thing at the beginning of the World. This then is here expressed. He that was in the fulnesse of time borne at Bethlehem, had his goings forth from the Father from Eternity.

5. The pretended sence of our Adversaries is a bold corrup∣tion * 1.493 of the Text. For 1. it applies that to David, and his being borne at Bethlehem, which the Holy Ghost expresly applies to Ie∣sus Christ, Mat. 2. 6. and Joh. 1. 46. 2. The goings forth of Christ in this sence, are no more from Everlasting, then every other mans, who is from Adam: when 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 originall from an ancient stock. 4. If only Christs originall of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house of David were intended, why was not that expressed in plaine termes, 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 institut. Chap. 7. with the rest of them. He then, who was borne at Bethlehem in the fullnesse of time, of the House of David as concerning the flesh, had also his goings forth, * 1.494 his Birth, or Generation of the Father, of old, from the dayes of Eternity; which is that which this Testimony con∣firmes.

Grotius on this place (according to his wont) outgoes his * 1.495 Companions one step at least, (as he was a bold man at con∣jectures) & applyes this Prophesy to Zorobabell-Natus ex Bethlehem•• Zorobabel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis Familia esset, quae orta Beth∣lehemo. Zorobabell is rightly said to be borne at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its originall from Bethlehem.

That Zorobabell is here at all intended, he doth not at∣tempt * 1.496 to prove, either from the Text, context, circumstances of the place, designe of the Prophesy, 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 then Grotius, or any of his Rabbins, Math. 2. 5. I know that in his Annotations on that place he allows the Accommodation 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 Zorobabell, who was borne at Babylon, may be said to be borne at Bethlehem, because David, from whom he descended, was borne there; what need all that labour and trouble, that our Saviour might be borne at Bethelehem? If it could not be said of Christ, that he was borne at Bethelehem, though he were of the linage of David ••nles he had actually been borne there indeed: certainely Zoro∣babell, who was borne at Babylon, could not be said on the ac∣count of his Progenitour five hundred yeares before, to be borne there.

For the second part of this Text, or the words we insist on * 1.497

for the proofe 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 antiquitus, & per quingen∣tos annos regnatrice. His originall is from of old, from a long time: that is, he hath his originall from an ancient illustrious house, that had reigned 500. yeares.

Of the sence of the words I have spoken before. I shall only adde, that the use of this note is to confute the other. F or if his being borne at Bethlehem signify his being of the Family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed borne there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before? Yea and herein the learned man for∣saketh 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 My∣stically interpret hedem of the mind of God, from whence the word, or wisdome 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 signifyes his Essence.

The second is Psal. 2. 7. The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son * 1.498 this day have I begotten thee.

To this second what is to be answered? * 1.499

Neither in that is there any thing of Genera∣tion of the Essence of the Father, nor of a Pre∣eternall generation. For the word [to day] signifying a certaine time, cannot denote pre∣eternity. But that God begot him, doth not evince that he was begotten of his Essence; which appeares from hence, that the same words, this day have I begotten thee, are in the first sence 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. Act. 13. 33. And the Author to the Hebrewes cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. 1. 5. and 5. 5. And lastly from hence, that it is manifest that God otherwise begets then by his Essence,

seeing the Scripture declares Believers to be be∣gotten of God: as is to be seen Joh. 1. 13. 1 Ioh. 3. 9. Iam. 1. 18.

1. There is mention in these words of Christs Generation of his * 1.500 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 considera∣tion we urge it to prove, is only to begge the thing in Questi∣on.

2. To day, being spoken of God, of him who is Eternall, to whom all time is so present, as that nothing is properly yester∣day, nor to day, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time, as is intimated. But is expressive of an Act eternally pre∣sent, nor past, nor future.

3. It cannot be proved that the words are spoken at all of David, so much as Typically: nor any thing else in that Psalme from v. 7. to the end. Yea the contrary is evident from every verse following; especially the 12. where Kings and Rulers are called to worship him, of whom he speakes, and threatned 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. 17. 5, 6, 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 Sonne of God: his Resurrection and Ex∣altation 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 appeare.

5. True, God hath other Sons, and Believers are said to be begotten of God, but how? by Regeneration, & 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 Sonne of the Father, so that no other is begotten with a gene∣ration of the same kind with him. It is evident then by this Te∣stimony, and from these words, that Christ is so the Son of God

as no Angels are his Sonnes in the same kind: for that the Apostle produceth these words to prove, Heb. 1. 5. For unto which of the Angells said he at any time, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee; and againe, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Sonne. Now the Angells are the Sonnes of God by Creation, Job. 1. 6. and 38. 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 Sonne of God in another kind, then Angells and Men, who are so by Creation, Regeneration, and Adoption, is the naturall Sonne of God by Eternall Generation; which is also proved from this place.

In this whole Psalme Grotius takes no notice of Jesus Christ: * 1.501 indeed in the entrance he tels us, that a mysticall and abstruse * 1.502 sence of it may belong to Christ, & so the Rabbins acknowledge, & so the Apostle took it. But throughout the whole doth he not make the least application of it to Christ, but meerely 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 Sonne, this day have I begotten thee, he sayes may be thus rendred 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 rendred by the Apostle (Heb. 1. 5.) He knew well enough. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is filius meus tu, not fili mi: nor doth the rendring of it by the voca••ive, 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, re∣lating to any certain time of Davids raigne, cannot be reconci∣led to the Apostles Application of that expression on sundry occasions, as hath been manifest. 3. I have given thee a new, or a Regall life, is somewhat an uncouth exposition of genui ••e; without warrant, without Reason, or Argument; and it is in∣consistent with the time of the Psalmes writing, according to Grotius himselfe: He referrs it to 2 Sam. 8. when David had been King over Israel many years.

To serve his Hypothesis, the two last verses are miserably wre∣sted. * 1.503 The command of worshipping Christ, v. 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, meae) se permittunt. They are blessed (sayes David) who commit themselves to my faith and care: doubtlesse the thought of any such thing was as remote from the heart of the holy man, as this Glosse is from the sence of the place. That they are blessed who trust in the Lord, that is, commit themselves to his care, he every where declareth; yea this he makes alwayes the pro∣perty 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to repaire to any one for protecti∣on; and it is used to expresse our trusting in God. Psal. 18. 30. as also Psal. 31. 19. on which men are frequently pronounced blessed; but that it should be apply'd to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were to learne.

The third Testimony of Psal. 110. 10. we passe over with our * 1.504 Adversaries, as not to the purpose in hand; being a mistake of the vulgar Latine.

The 4th is Prov. 8. 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the be∣ginning, or ever the earth was.

What-dost thou answer to this Testimony?

* 1.505

That thou maist understand the matter the better, know, that from this place they thus dispute; The Wisdome of God is begotten from Eternity; Christ is the Wisdome of God; therefore he is begotten from Eternity, 1 Cor. 1. 24. That this Argument is not firme appears from hence, that Solomon treats of Wisdome simply, and absolutely considered, without the addition of the Word, God; Paul not sim∣ply and absolutely, but with the addition of the word, God. 2. Solomon treats of Wisdome, which neither is a Person, nor can be, as ap∣pears from the diverse effects ascribed to this Wisdome, Chap. 7, 8, 9. amongst which are these words; By me Kings rule, and Princes decree Righteousnesse; and in the beginning of the Chapter, he brings in Wisdome sending her maidens, and inviting all to her: But Paul

treateth of that Wisdome which is a Person, 3. The words which are rendred from ever∣lasting, in the Hebrew are à seculo; but that from everlasting, and à seculo, are diverse, Isa. 64. 4. Jer. 2. 20. Luk. 1. 70. with many like places do declare.

1. Our Argument hence is: Christ the second Person of * 1.506 the Trinity is spoken of, Prov. 8. 22. under the name of Wisdome. Now it is said expresly there of Wisdome, that it was begotten from everlasting, and therefore the Eternall Generation of Christ is hence confirmed. Our Reasons are, 1. Because the things here spoken of can be applied to no other. 2. Because the very same things are affirmed of Christ, Joh. 1. 1. 3. Because Christ is the Wisdome of God, and so called in the Scripture; not only in the expression of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2: That by Wisdome, Solomon intended the Wisdome 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 Wis∣dome of God, but also Wisdome, absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. 1. 20. but Math. 11. 19. 4. The Wisdome 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 v: 30, 31. I was by him, one brought up with him, I was daily his de∣light, rejoycing alwaies before him, rejoycing in the habitable part of the Earth, &c. That it is the same Wisdome spoken of Chap: 7. and here, is not evident. Yet is there not any thing in that, attribu∣ted to it, but what suits well unto a Person. Much lesse in the beginning of the 9 Chapter, the Invitation there being such as may be made by a Person only: It is a Person who sends out Mes∣sengers to invite to a banquet, as Christ doth in the Gospell. Kings rule, and Princes decree judgement by the Authority of a Per∣son; and without him they can do nothing.

3. The word translated, from everlasting, is the same with that * 1.507 considered before Mich: 5. 2. 2. The words following do so evidently confirme the meaning of the word to be as expressed, that it is marvelous the Gentlemen durst venture upon the excep∣tion in this place. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,

before his workes of old: that is, before the Creation, as is at large expounded, v. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.

And this is all, the whole summe of what any of our Adver∣saries, or rather the Adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to object in their cause against these Testimonies: whence we thus ar∣gue.

He who was begotten of God the Father with an Eternall Generation, is Eternall; and so consequently God: but so is Jesus Christ begotten of God the Father, with an Eternall Ge∣neration; Therefore he is Eternall, and God blessed for ever.

To cleare what hath been spoken, I shall close my conside∣rations * 1.508 of this Text of Scripture with a briefe paralell, between what is spoken in this place of Wisdome, and what is asserted of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

1. It is Wisdome that is spoken of; so is Christ, Math. 11. 19. * 1.509 1 Cor. 1. 24. Col. 2. 3. 2. Wisdome was set up from everlasting v. 23. Grace is given in Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from everlasting, 2 Tim. 1. 9. He is the beginning, Col. 1. 5. the first and last. Rev. 1. 17. 3. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, saies Wisdome v. 23. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, Ioh. 1. 1, 2. 4. Before the Mountaines were setled, before the hills were brought forth, v. 25. He is the First borne of every Creature, Col. 1. 15. He is before all, v. 17. 5. I was daily his delight, rejoycing alwaies be∣fore him, v. 30. This is my beloved Sonne, in whom I am well pleased, Matth. 3. 17. The only begotten Sonne is in the bosome of the Father, Ioh. 1. 18. 6. By me Kings reigne, and Princes &c. v. 15, 16. He is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 1. 5. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Revel. 19. 16. 7. Rejoycing in the habitable part of the Earth, and my delights were with the Sonnes of Men, v. 31. For the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Sonne of God. 8. Compare also v. 34. with Ioh. 13. 17. Luk. 11. 28. Ioh. 10. 9. And v. 35, and 36. with Ioh. 6. 44, 47. and many the like instances might be given.

Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea he seemes * 1.510 evidently to exclude him from being here intended; his first note on v. 1. is, Haec de ea sapientia, quae in lege apparet, exponunt Hae∣braei; & sane ei, si non soli, at praecipuè haec attributa conveniunt. The Hebrews expound these things of that Wisdome 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 Moderne Rabbins in the exposition of those places of Scripture, which concerne the Messiah, is of no value. They do not only as their forefathers, erre, not knowing the Scriptures; but malitiously corrupt them, out of hatred to Jesus Christ. In the meane time one no lesse versed in the Hebrew Authors, than our Annotatour, expounding this place, from them concludes, nec dubito, hinc * 1.511 Iohannem augustum illud & magnificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse. In principio erat verbum: nam verbum & sapientia idem sunt, & secun∣dam Trinitatis personam indicant. I doubt not, but that Iohn took that reverend and lofty entrance of his Gospell, In the beginning was the word, from hence: For the Word, and Wisdome are the same; and denote the se∣cond Person of the Trinity.

Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall adde some of * 1.512 them which are produced, and insisted on usually for the same end and purpose with those mentioned before, and which in o∣ther places are excepted against by the Catechists, with whom we have to do; but properly belong to this head.

Of those is Joh. 17. 5. And now O Father glorify me with thine own * 1.513 selfe, with the glory which I had with thee, before the World was. To this they put in their exceptions towards the end of the Chap∣ter under consideration; saying.

What answerest thou to this? * 1.514

Neither is here a Divine nature proved. For that one may have glory with the Father, be∣fore the World was made, and yet not be God, appeareth from that of 2 Tim. 1. 9. where the Apostle sayes of Believers that grace was given unto them before the World began. Be∣sides it is here written, that Jesus asked this Glory, which is repugnant to the Divine Na∣ture. But the sence of the place is, that Christ asked God, that he would really give him that Glory, which he had with God in his de∣cree before the World was.

A Divine Glory proves a Divine Nature. This Christ had * 1.515 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 celipsed, and layd aside for a season, that here he desires of God. Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11, 12. He Glorifyed his Father, by manifesting the Glory of his Deity, his Name, to others; and He prayes the Father to Glorify him, as he had glorifyed him on the earth. 2. There is not the same Reason of what is here asser∣ted of Christ, and what is said of the Elect, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Christ here positively sayes, he HAD Glory with his Father before the * 1.516 world was; nor is this any where, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded, to be any otherwise, but in a reall HAVING of that Glory. The grace that is given to Believers, is not said to be, before the world was, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may denote the first promise, Gen. 3. 15. as it doth Tit. 1. 2. and if it be intended of the purpose of God, which was from Eternity (as the words will beare) it is so expounded in 20. places. 3. Though the Divine Nature pray not, yet he who was in the forme of God, and humbled himselfe to take upon him the forme, and Employment of a Servant, might, and did pray: the Godhead prayed not, but he who was God prayed. 4. For the sence assigned, let them once shew us in the whole Book of God, where this Expression I had (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) may be possibly in∣terpreted, 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 meane time they doe but corrupt the word of God, (as many do) by this pretended interpretation of it. 5. If Pre∣destination only be intended, here is nothing singular spoken of Christ, but what is common to him with all Believers; when evidently Christ speakes of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The very expresse tenour of the words will not admit of this Glosse, (let what violence can be used:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Glory that I had with thee, let me have it manifested with thee, now my work is done.

Grotius falls in with our Catechists: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, destinatione * 1.517 tua; ut 1 Pet. 1. 20. Rev. 13. 8. sicut Ephes. 1. 3, 4. & infra v. 24. Simile legendi genus: sic legem fuisse ante mundum dicunt Haebraei,

Againe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; refer ad illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & intellige ut diximus in decreto tuo.

But what intends the Learned man by those places of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Revel. 13. 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 beggs that to be the sence of this place, which is the sence of them, though neither the scope of the places, nor the sence of the Words themselves, will beare it. If the latter, it is most false; there is not one word, Phrase, nor expression, in any of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different sences; the one speaking of Gods purpose, appointing Christ to be a Mediator; the other of the Promise givē presently after the fall. 2. We grant, that Christ in respect of his humane nature was predestinated unto Glory; but that he calls Gods purpose, his Glory, the glory which he had, which he had with God, wherewith he desires to be Glori∣fyed with him againe, is to be proved from the Text, or Con∣text, or phrase of speech, or paralell place, or Analogie of Faith or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. 8. 22, 30. Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. be consulted, as paralell to this place. Eph. 1. 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 speakes not. Yea v. 3. we are said to be actually blessed, or to have the Heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, v. 4. What the Jewes 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 sence of the Scripture be insensibly darkned thereby.

To the same purpose is that of Peter 1 Ep. 1. v. 10, 11. Of which * 1.518 salvation the Prophets have enquired, and searched diligently, who Prophe∣sied 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 testifyed before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. To which adde that more cleare place, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19, 20. quickned by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the Spirits that were in prison, which sometime were disobedient—in the dayes of Noah. He who was in the dayes of the Prophets of old, and in the dayes of Noah, so long before his being borne according to

the flesh, he was from everlasting; or had an Existence antece∣dent 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, no∣thing can be affirmed. He preached by his Spirit in the dayes of Noah, to the Spirits that are in prison.

Of this latter place our Catechists take no notice; about the * 1.519 first they enquire. What answerest thou to this?

Neither is a Divine nature proved from hence. * 1.520 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 foredeclared the things of Christ, as Peter there speakes; he testi∣fyed before hand of the sufferings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow. Which manner of speaking we have 1 Joh 4. 6. Hence know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of errour. Where it is not called the Spirit of Truth & Errour, be∣cause truth & errour as persons do bestow the spi∣rit but because the spirit of truth speakes the things of truth, & the Spirit of errour the things of errour.

1. It is confessed, that if the Spirit that was in the Prophets, was * 1.521 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 followes. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 Joh. 4. 6. there is no colour, nor pretence. Christ is a Person; He was so, when Peter wrote. Truth and Errour 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 sence as he is called the Spirit of God Ro. 8. 9. Gal. 4. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ, is said directly, to take of him, & shew it to his Apostles, Joh. 16. 15. & so he did to the Prophets. They may as well on the pretence of 1 Joh. 4. 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 farre of the Testimonies proving the preexistence of Christ unto his incarnation, and so consequently his Eternity;

whence it followes, that he is God over all blessed for ever, having this evidence of his eternall power and God-head. Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under consideration in our progresse.

CHAP. X.

Of the names of God given unto Christ.

IN the next place, as a third Head, our Catechists consider the * 1.522 Scripturall 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. There∣fore he is God properly by nature.

The proposition is cleare in it selfe; of the innumerable Testimonies which are, or may be produced to confirme the As∣sumption, our Catechists fix upon a very few, namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Weicke the Jesuite, whence most of their exceptions to these Witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed. * 1.523

What are those places of Scripture, which seeme to attri∣bute * 1.524 something to Christ in a certaine and definite time?

They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the Names, other the Workes which they sup∣pose in the Scriptures to be Attributed to Christ.

Which are they that respect the names of Christ?

Those, where they suppose in the Scripture * 1.525 that Christ is called Jehovah, &c.

Jerem: 23. 6. Zach. 2. 8. 1 John 5. 20. Jude 4. Titus 2. 13. Revel. 1. 18. and 4. 8. Acts 20. 28. 1 Iohn 3. 16.

The first Testimony is Jerem: 23. 6. in these words: In his dayes Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousnesse. To which adde the next, Zech. 2. 8.

Before I come to consider their Exceptions to these Texts in particular, some things in Generall may be premised, for the better understanding of what we are about; and what from these places we intend to prove and confirme.

1. The end of citing these two places, is to prove, that Jesus * 1.526 Christ is in the Old Testament called Iehovah; which is by them denyed; the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.

2. It is granted, that Iehovah is the proper and peculiar name of the one only true God of Israel: a name as farre sig∣nificant of his Nature and Being, as possibly we are enabled to understand: yea so farre expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it, is incomprehensible, so many have thought the very word it selfe to be ineffable, or (at least) not lawfull to be utte∣red. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himselfe, in an eminent manner, Exod: 6. 2, 9. So that this is taken for gran∣ted on all hands, that he whose name is Iehovah, is the only true God, the God of Israel; when ever that name is used properly, without a Trope or figure, it is used of him only. What the Ad∣versaries of Christ except against this, shall be vindicated in its proper place.

3. Our Catechists have very faintly brought forth the Testi∣monies, that are usually insisted on in this cause; naming but * 1.527 two of them; wherefore I shall take liberty to adde a few more to them, out of the many that are ready at hand. Isa. 40. 3. The voyce of him that cryeth in the Wildernesse, prepare ye the way of Iehovah, make straight in the desert an high way for our God. That it is Christ who is here called Iehovah, is cleare from that farther expressi∣on in Mal. 3. 1. and the execution of the thing it selfe, Ioh. 1. 23. Matth. 3. 3. Mark. 1. 2, 3. Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 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 sworne by my selfe, the word is gone out of my mouth in Righteous∣nesse, and shall not returne, that unto mee every knee shall ••ow, every tongue shall sweare: surely, shall one say, in the Lord Iehovah have I Righteousnesse 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 Is∣rael be justified, and Glory. The Apostle expresly affirmes all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. 14. 11, 12, &c. Hos. 13. 14. is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 54, 55. He that would at once con∣sider 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.

Let us now see what our Catechists except against the first * 1.528 Testimony.

What dost thou Answer to the first Testimony?

First, that hence it cannot be necessarily e∣vinced, * 1.529 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 Righteousnesse, may be referred to Israel, of whom he spake a little before; In his daies shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, &c. as from a like place may be seen in the same Prophet, Chap. 33. 15, 16. where he saith, In those daies, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of Righteousnesse to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgement and Righteousnesse in the Land: In those daies shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our Righteous∣nesse; for in the Hebrew it is expresly read, they shall call her; which last words are re∣ferred of necessity to Jerusalem; and in this place answereth to Israel, which is put in the first place: It seemes therefore likely, that al∣so 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 o∣ther 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 un∣derstood of Christ, or of Israel, their sence is, thou Jehovah our one God wilt justify us; for at that time when Christ was to appeare, God would doe that in Israel.

The summe 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 sence is, that God will ju∣stify us in the daies of Christ. Of each briefly.

1. The Subject spoken of all along is Christ; He is the subject * 1.530 matter of what ever here is affirmed. I will raise up a Righteous branch to David, He shall be a King, and he shall raigne, and his name shall be called the Lord our Righteousnesse. 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 up∣on the same account, (yea and Judah hath the preheminence, 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 Righteousnesse, but Christ is called so upon the matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so; 1 Cor. 1. 30. so that without departing from the propriety of the Words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing it selfe, these words cannot be so perverted. The vio∣lence used to them is notoriously manifest.

2 The expression is not the same in both places. Neither is * 1.531 Jerusalem there called the Lord our Righteousnesse; but He who calls her, is, the Lord our Righteousnesse; and so are the words ren∣dred 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 meerly by a Metonymy, upon the account of the pre∣sence of Christ in her; As the Church is called Christ improper∣ly, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be rendred, this is the name whereby she shall be called, but this is the name whereby he shall call her, the Lord our Righteous∣nesse; that is, he who is the Lord our Righteousnesse shall call her to

peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our Righteousnesse, Jerusalem is not.

3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in * 1.532 this, as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more. And it thence evidently followes, that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply saies, his name is Jehovah, we believe him: and where he saies, the name of the Branch of the house of David is Iehovah, we believe him also. And we say hence, that Christ is Iehovah, or the words have not a tolerable sence: of this againe afterwards.

4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse, * 1.533 and opposite to the meaning of them. The Prophet saies not, that Iehovah the one God shall be our Righteousnesse, but the Branch of David shall be the Lord our Righteousnesse. The subject is the Branch of David, not Jehovah. The Branch of David shall be called the Lord our Righteousnesse; that is, the Lord shall justify us, when the Branch of David shall be brought forth: Who could have disco∣vered this sence, but our Catechists and their Masters, whose words these are. It remaineth then, that the Branch of David, who Ruleth in Righteousnesse, is Jehovah our Righteousnesse: our Righteousnesse, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as being so in him∣selfe.

Grotius expounds this place, as that of Micha. 5. 2. of Zorubbabel, * 1.534 helping on his friends with a new diversion, which they knew * 1.535 not of. Socinus as he professes being not acquainted with the Iewish Doctors, though some believe him not. And yet the lear∣ned Annotatour cannot hold out, as he begins, but is forced to put out the name of Zerubbabell, and to put in that of the People, when he comes to the name insisted on: so leaving no certain designe in the whole words, from the beginning to the en∣ding.

Two things doth he here oppose himselfe in, to the received * 1.536 Interpretation of Christians. 1. That it is Zorubbabell who is here intended. 2. That it is the People who is called the Lord our Righteousnesse.

For the first, thus he on v. 5. Germen justum, a Righteous Branch: Zorubbabelem qui 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ut hic appellatur, ita & Zechariae 6. 12. nimi∣rum quod velut surculus renatus esset ex Arbore Davidis quasi ••raecisa.

Iustitiae nomine commendatur Zorubbabel etiam apud Zechariam, 9. 9. Zorubbabel who is here called the Branch, as also Zech. 6. 12. be∣cause as a Branch he arose from the Tree of David which was as cut off. Also Zorubbabel is commended for justice or Righteousnesse, Zech. 9. 9.

That this is a Prophesy of Christ, the circumstances of the * 1.537 place evince: The Rabbins were also of the same mind, as plen∣tifull collections from them are made to demonstrate it, by Io∣seph de Voysin, pug. fid. par. 3. dist. 1. cap. 4. And the matter spo∣ken of, can be accommodated to no other, as hath been decla∣red. Grotius his proofes that Zorubbabell is intended, are worse then the opinion it selfe. That he is called the Branch, Zech. 6. 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 Zorubbabell was not; nor had any thing to doe with the Priestly office, which in his daies was administred by Iehoshua, more evidently false is it, that he is spoken of Zech. 9. 9. which place is precisely interpreted of Christ, and the accomplish∣ment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded, Math. 21. 5. The words are, Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion, shout O Daughter of Ierusalem, behold thy King cometh to thee, he is just, and ha∣ving Salvation, lowly, and riding upon an Asse, and upon a Colt the foale of an Asse. That a man professing Christian Religion, should af∣ffirme any one but Iesus Christ to be here intended, is some∣what strange.

Upon the Accommodation of the next words to Zorubbabell, A King shall raigne and prosper, &c. I shall not insist; they contain not the matter of our present contest, though they are pittiful∣ly wrested by the Annotatour, and do no wayes serve his de∣signe.

For the particular words about which our contest is, this is * 1.538 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 daies Iudah shall be saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, that is, the People shall be called, he shewes 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 a∣bout the intimation of goodnes that is in the Words; but of the

signification of the name given to Iesus Christ, that here we plead. In what sence Christ is the Lord our Righteousnesse appears, Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 25. 1 Cor. 1. 30.

The second Testimony is Zech. 2. 8. in these words: For thus * 1.539 saith the Lord of Hosts, after the Glory, hath he sent me unto the Nations which spoyled you: for be that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: for behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, &c. v. 9, 10, 11, 12.

Briefely to declare what this witnesse speakes 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 fol∣lowing; 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 v. 11. it shall be known by the conversion of the Nations: Many Nati∣ons shall be joyned 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 middest 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. * 1.540

What dost thou answer to this second Testimony? * 1.541

The place of Zechary they thus cite. This saith the Lord of Hosts; after the Glory hath he sent me to the Nations which spoyled 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 sent me, are spoken of another, namely of the Angell, who spake with Zechariah, and the other Angell; the

same is evident in the same Chapter a little be∣fore, beginning at the 4. v. where the Angell 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 said 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 * 1.542 thereupon undertaking to answer any thing in the world, doe not lightly acquit themselves more weakely, and jejunely in any place then in this. For

1. We contend not with them about the translation of the words, their exceptions being to the vulgar Latine only: We take them as they have rendred them. To omit that there∣fore.

2. That these words are spoken by him, who is called the * 1.543 Angell, we grant; but the only question is, who is this Angell that speakes them: It is evident from the former Chapter, and this, that it is the man, who was upon the red horse, 1. Chap. 8. v. who is called Angelus Jehovae, v. 11. and makes Intercession for the Church v. 12. which is the proper Office of Jesus Christ; and that he is no created Angell, but Iehovah himselfe, the second per∣son of the Trinity, we prove, because he calls himselfe the Lord of Hosts; saies 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 confesse 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 Angell, and names him * 1.544 to boote. Michael it is; but who that Mitchaell is, and whither he be no more then an Angell, that is, a Messenger, He enquires not.

That the ancient * Iewish Doctors interpreted this place of the * 1.545 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 meer Creature that is here intended, but the Lord of Hosts, who is sent by the Lord of Hosts, I shall only adde my desire, that the friends and Apollogizers for this learned Annota∣tour would reconcile this exposition of this place to its selfe, in those things which at first view present themselves to every or∣dinary observer. Take one instance. Ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me, that is, Michaell. And I will dwell in the middest of thee; Templū meū ibi habebo. I will have my temple there. If he who speakes be Michael, a Created Angell, how comes the Temple of Jehovah to be his? and such let the attempts of all appeare to be, who mannage any designe against the eternall glory of the Sonne of God.

The 3 Testimony is 1 Joh. 5. 20. And we know that the Sonne of God * 1.546 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 Sonne Iesus Christ; This is the true God and eternall life.

What dost thou answer to this? * 1.547

These words, this is the True God, I deny to be referred to the Sonne of God. Not that I deny Christ to be true God: but that that place will not admit those words to be understood of Christ: for here he treats not only of the the true God, but of the only true God, as the article added in the Greeke doth declare. But Christ, al∣though he be true God, he is not yet of himselfe that one God, who by himselfe, and upon the most excellent account is God, seeing that is only God the Father. Nor doth it availe the Adversaries, who would have those words re∣ferred to Christ, because the mention of Christ doth immediately goe before those words, this is the true God. For pronounce relatives as this and the like, are not alwayes referred to the next Antecedents, but often to that which is chiefely spoken of, as Acts 7. 19, 20. John 2. 7.

from which places it appeares, that the pro∣noune 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 * 1.548 here intended; and that this is proved by the prefixed Article, this may be of use afterward.

2. In what sence these men grant Christ to be a true God, we know: a made God, a God by office, not nature: a man Deifyed with Authority; so making two true Gods, contrary to innume∣rarable expresse Texts of Scripture, and the Nature of the Deity.

3. That those words are not meant of Christ, they prove, be∣cause * 1.549 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, there∣fore He is the only true God.

4. Their instances prove, that in some cases a Relative may * 1.550 relate to the more remote Antecedent, but that in this place, that mentioned ought to do so, they pretend not once to urge: yea their Reason they give is against themselves; namely, that it re∣fers to him chiefely spoken of, which here is eminently, and in∣disputably Iesus 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 straine them into an Incoherence, and transgresse all rules of constructi∣on, (nothing enforcing to such a proceedure) is not pro∣ved.

5 In the beginning of the 20. verse it is said, the Sonne of God * 1.551 is come, and hath given us an understanding: and we are said to be in him, even in Iesus Christ, on which it immediately followes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this, this Iesus Christ is the true God and eternall Life.

6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called Life, and * 1.552 Life Eternall, is evident both from his Gospell, and this Epistle;

and without doubt, by the same terme, in his usuall manner. He expresses here the same person; Chap. 1. v. 2. The Sonne of God is Life, eternall Life, He that hath the Sonne, hath life; we are in him, the Sonne Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and Eternall Life: so he began, and so he ends his Epistle.

And this is all our Adversaries have to say against this most ex∣presse * 1.553 Testimony of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ; in their entrance whereunto they cry haile Master, as one before them did, (he is a true God,) but in the close betray him (as farre as lyes in them) by denying his divine nature.

Even at the light of this most evident Testimony the eyes of * 1.554 Grotius dazled, that he could not see the Truth: His note is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. is nempe quem Iesus monstravit, colendum{que} d••cuit, non alius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saepe refertur ad aliquid praecedens non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 8. 19. 10. 6. The very same plea with the former: only Acts 8. 19. is mistaken for Acts 7. 19. the place urged by our Catechists, & be fore them by Socinus against Wieke, to whom not only they, but Grotius is beholding. That citation of Acts 10. 6. helps not the businesse at all: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is twice used, once immedi∣ately 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 cir∣cumstance to cause us, to put any force upon the Con∣structure 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 Iude, * 1.555 denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Iesus Christ, v. 4. (not to in∣crease words) this is the summe. There being but one Article prefixed to all the words, it seemes to carry the sence, that it is wholy spoken of Christ. The Catechists reckon some places, where one Article serves to sundry things, as Math. 21. 12. but it is evident, that they are utterly things of another kind, and another manner of speaking, then what is here: but the judg∣ment hereof is left to the Reader; it being not indeed cleare to me, whether Christ be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any where in the New Testament, though he be Lord and God, and the true God, full often.

The 2 of Titus 13. must be more fully insisted on: Looking for * 1.556

the blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

What ••ost thou Answer to this? * 1.557

In this place they strive to evince by two Reasons, that the Epithite of the Great God is * 1.558 referred to Christ. The first is the rule fore∣mentioned, of one Article prefixed to all the words: the other, that we doe not expect that coming of the Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an Answer already, in the An∣swer to the Fourth Testimony; To the other I Answer, Paul doth not say, expecting the com∣ing of the Great God, but expecting the ap∣pearance 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 illustra∣ted, when Christ comes to judgement; where∣as he saith, that he shall come in Glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Math. 16. 27. Mark. 8. 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 vul∣gar) when the Son comes to judge the World? shall not Christ sustaine the Person of the Fa∣ther, as of him from whom he hath received this office of judging?

About the Reading of the words, with them we shall not con∣tend; * 1.559 It is the Originall we are to be tryed by, and there is in that no ambiguity. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Appearance of the Glory, is an Hebraisme, for the Glorious Appearance, cannot be questioned. An hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament, may be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed Hepe looked for, is the thing hoped for, the Resurrection to life and immortality, is not denyed. Neither is it disputed whether the subject spoken of be Iesus Christ, and his coming to judgment. The subject is one; his Epithites here two. 1. That belonging to

his Essence in himselfe, He is the Great God. 2. That of Office un∣to us: He is our Saviour. That it is Christ which is spoken of, ap∣pears. 1. From the single Article that is assigned to all the words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which no lesse signifies one person, then that other expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the God and Father of Iesus 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 prefix∣ed, where sundry Persons are after spoken of. But is it not evi∣dent in those places from the subject matter, that they are sun∣dry Persons, as also from the severall conditions of them men∣tioned, as in that of Math: 21. 12. he cast out the sellers and buyers. The proper force then of the expression enforces this Attribu∣tion to Iesus Christ. 2. Mention is made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the glorious appearance of him, of whom the Apostle speaks. That Christ is the Person spoken of, and his Employment of coming to judgement, primarily and directly, is confessed. This word is ne∣ver 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, scorne, and reproach, 1 Tim. 6. 14. Keep this commandement 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 2 Tim. 4. 18. which the Lord the Righteous judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to them that love 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Neither (as was said) is it ever used of the Father, but is the Word continually used to expresse the second coming of Iesus Christ; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same signification, and is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what MAY 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, Math. 16. 21. Mark. 8. 38. but it is no where said, that the Glory of the Father shall come or appeare. 5. Their whole Interpretation of the words will scarce admit of any good sence; 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 owne Name, and by the Laws, which as Lord he hath gi∣ven. 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 doubtlesse they both come.

Grotius agrees with our Catechists, but saies not one word more * 1.560 for the proof of his Interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, then they say: as they say no more then Socinus against Bellarmine; nor He much more then 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, himselfe having proved that comment under the name of Am∣brose, to be a Paltry, corrupted, depraved, foysted piece; but Gro∣tius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.

The next Testimony mentioned is Revel. 1. 8. I am ••••••ha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and which * 1.561 was, and which is to come, the Almighty. To which is added that of Chap. 4. 8. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

What saist thou to this? * 1.562

This place, they say, referres to Christ, be∣cause * 1.563 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 rendred, is to be, as Ioh. 16. 13. Where the Lord saies of the Spirit, which he promised to the Apostles, that he should shew them things to come; and Act. 18. 21. we read, that the Feast day was to be, in which place the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lastly, who is there that knowes not, that seeing it is said be∣fore, which was and is, this last which is added, may be rendred 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 * 1.564 God is here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this grosse errour, is that, Re∣vel. 1. 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 seaven Spirits which are before His Throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithfull witnesse. 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, * 1.565 wherein the word here used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 perswading them, that we have no other Argument to prove these words to be spoken of Christ, but only because he is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which yet in conjuncti∣on with other things is not without its weight, being as it were a * 1.566 name of the Messiah, Math. 11. 3. from Gen. 49. 10. though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no lesse triumphant doubtlesse 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 Eternall? 4. And they are upon the same pin still, in their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father, v. 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 equall with him. Their Answer is, this name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is ascribed to the Fa∣ther. Men must begge, when they can make no earnings at work. 5. We confesse Christ to be alius, another, another Person from

the Father; not another God, as our Catechists pretend.

Having stopt the mouthes of our Catechists, we may briefly * 1.567 consider the Text it selfe. That by this expression, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh, Exod. 3. 14. which as the Rabbins say, is of all sea∣sons, and expressive of all times, is evident. To which adde that other name of God, Almighty, and it cannot at all be que∣stioned, 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: v. 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 waile be∣cause of him: whereupon himselfe immediately addes 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 Iesus Christ: v. 1. 2. They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Iesus Christ, v. 18. 3. Iesus Christ twice in this Chapter afterwards gives himselfe the same title, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega; and v. 17. I am the first and the last; But who was He? I am he that liveth, and was dead; and be∣hold I live for evermore, Amen: and have the keys of Hell and death, v. 18. He gave the Revelation; He is described; He speaks all all∣waies; He gives himselfe the same Titles twice againe in this Chapter.

But our Catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the * 1.568 words, as they are placed, Chap. 1. v. 8. considering the same words in Chap. 4. 8. where they want some of the circum∣stances, which in this place give light to their Application. They are not there spoken by any that ascribes them to himselfe, but by others are ascribed to him that sits on the Throne, who cry (as the Seraphims Isa. 6. 3) Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, which was, and which is to come. But yet there wants not evi∣dence to evince, that these words belong immediately in this place also to Iesus Christ. For 1. They are the name (as we have seen) whereby not long before he reveals himselfe. 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 in∣tended

in these words, there is no mention of his presence in his Church, in that solemne Representation of its Assembly, al∣though he promised to be in the middest of his, to the end of the World. 3. The honour that is here ascribed to him that is spo∣ken of, is because he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worthy, as the same is assigned to the Lamb, by the same persons, in the same words, Chap. 5. 12. So that in both these places it is Iesus 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 adde any thing to what Grotius hath ob∣served * 1.569 on these places. He holds with our Catechists, and as∣cribes these Titles, and Expressions to God, in contradistincti∣on 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so that I have nothing to do, but to reject his Authority; which upon the experience I have of his designe, I can most freely doe.

Proceed we to the next Testimony, which is Act. 20. 28. * 1.570 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: Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. Tit. 2. 14. Heb. 9. 14. Therefore He is God.

What dost thou answer to this? * 1.571

I answer, the name of God is not necessarily in this place referred to Christ, but it may be * 1.572 referred to God the Father: whose blood the Apostles call that which Christ shed, in that kind of speaking, and for that cause, with which God, and for which cause the Prophet sayes, he who toucheth you, toucheth the apple of the eye of God himselfe. For the great conjunction that is between Father and Sonne, although in Essence they are altogether diverse, is the reason, why the blood of Christ is called the blood of God the Father himselfe, especially if it be con∣sidered as shed for us. For Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sinnes of the world. Whence the blood shed to that purpose may be

called the blood of God himselfe. Nor is it to * 1.573 be passed by in silence, that in the Syriach edi∣tion, in the place of God, Christ is read.

There is scarce any place, in returning an answer whereunto, the Adversaries of the Deity of Christ do lesse agree among * 1.574 themselves, then 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. & Wieek. pag. 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 Laelius Socinus, whom Zanchius Answers: de tribus Elo∣him. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 456.

Some fly to the Syriach Translation, contrary to the constant * 1.575 consenting Testimony of all famous copyes of the Originall, all agreeing in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so Grotius would have it; affirming that the manuscript he used had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; not telling them that it added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the same with what we affirme. And therefore he ventures at asserting the Text to be corrupted, and in short writing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be crept in for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 ones blood was shed, when it was not shed, but anothers, and no mention that that others blood was shed? 3. If the Fathers blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because Christs blood was shed; Then you may say, that God the Father dyed, and was crucifyed under Pontius Pilate, and God the Father rose from the dead, that he was dead, and is alive: That that blood that was shed, was not Christs, but some bodyes else, that he loved & was neere unto him. 4. There is no Analogy between that of the Prophet, of the Apple of Gods eye, and this here spoken of. Un∣controlably a Metaphor must there be allowed; here is no meta∣phor insisted on; but that which is the blood of Christ, is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that God is their inter∣pretation.

There diverse persons are spoken of, God and Be∣lievers: here one only, that did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lyes in this, there is a figurative ex∣pression 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 worke of redeeming the Church with his blood, is ever ascribed to Christ, as peculiar to him, constantly without exception; and never to God the Fa∣ther: 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 Fa∣ther * 1.576 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 againe, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange naturall and proper Sonne, who hath a quite different nature and essence from his own proper Father, as is here affir∣med.

6. Christ is called the Lamb of God, as answering and full∣filling 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; if any words in the world can properly expresse, 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 * 1.577 head of Testimonies, about the name of God, is 1 Joh. 3. 16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he 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.

To the eight what saist thou? * 1.578

First take this account, that neither in any * 1.579 Greeke edition, but only, the Complutensis, nor in the Syriach, the word God is found; but sup∣pose

that this word were found in all copies, were therefore this word He to be referred to * 1.580 God? Not doubtlesse; not only for that Rea∣son which we gave a little before, in answer to the third Testimony, that such words are not alwaies referred to the next person; but moreover, because John doth often in this Epistle referre the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to him who was named long before, as in the 3, 5, and 7. verses of this Chapter.

1. Our Catechists doe very faintly adhere to the first excep∣tion * 1.581 about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Originall, granting that it is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and that the sence in this place necessarily requires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they doe, we deny, that this is a very just exception which they insist upon, that a Rel••••ive may sometimes, and in some cases, where the sence is evident, be referred to the more remote antecedent, therefore it may, or ought to do so in any place, contrary to the propriety of Grammer, where there are no circumstances, enforcing such a constructi∣on, but all things requiring the proper sence of it. 3. It is al∣lowed of only where severall Persons are spoken of immediate∣ly before, which here are not; one only being intimated, or ex∣pressed. 4. They can give no Example of the word God, go∣ing before, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following after, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is re∣ferred to any thing or Person more remote: much lesse here where the Apostle having treated of God, and the Love of God, drawes an Argument from the Love of God, to enforce our Love of one another. 5. In the places they point unto, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in every of them is referred to the next and immediate Antecedent, as will be evident to the Reader upon the first view.

Give them their great Associate, and we have done. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.582 hi•• est Christus ut supra v. 5. subintelligendum hie autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est, Rom. 4. 8. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Christ is confessed; but the word being a Rela∣tive,

& expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word going immediately before it. No saies Grotius, but the sence is, Herein appeared the love of God, that by his a••point∣ment Christ dyed 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 Grammaticall, con∣struction of the words will beare any such sence, we deny.

And this is what they have to except to the Testimonies, * 1.583 which themselves choose to insist on, to give in their excepti∣ons to, as to the names of Jehovah, and God, being ascribed un∣to Jesus Christ: which having vindicated from all their Sophi∣stry, 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 produ∣ced, and have been so, by those who have pleaded the Deity * 1.584 of Christ, against its opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that enquire after such things. I content my selfe, to vindicate what they have put in exceptions unto.

CHAP. XI.

Of the Worke of Creation assigned to Jesus Christ. &c. The confirmation of his Eternall Deity from thence.

THe Scriptures, which assigne the Creating of all things to Iesus * 1.585 Christ, they propose as the next Testimony of his Deity, whereunto they desire to give in their Exceptions. To these they annexe them, wherein it is affirmed, that he brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, and that he was with them in the Wildernesse, with one particular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the Gospell, about the Prophets seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which are of the first sort, they instance in Ioh.

1. 3. & 10. Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 2. & 10, 11, 12. verses.

The first, and second of these, I have already vindicated in the * 1.586 consideration of them, as they lay in their conjuncture with them going before in v. 1. (2.) Proceed we therefore to the third, which is Col. 1. 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 crea∣ted by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ, is acknowled∣ged. * 1.587 The verses foregoing prevent all Question thereof. He hath translated us into the Kingdome of his deare Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgivenesse of sinnes: who is the Image of the invisible God, the first borne of every creature: for by him were all things &c.

2. In what sence Christ is the Image of the invisible God, even * 1.588 the expresse Image of his Fathers Person, shall be afterwards decla∣red. The other part of the description of him belongs to that which we have in hand. He is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The first borne 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, first created, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first borne; now the terme first in the Scripture, respects either what followes, and so denotes an order in the things spoken of, He that is the first be∣ing one of them, as Adam was the first man: or it respects things going before, in which sence it denyes all order or series of things in the same kind. So God is said to be the first, Isa. 41. 4. be∣cause before him there is none, Isa. 43. 11. And in this sence is Christ the first borne; so the first borne, as to be the only begotten sonne of God, Ioh. 1. 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 Mediatour, and describes * 1.589 him, yet he speaks not of him as Mediatour; for that he enters upon v. 18. And He is the head of the body the Church. &c.

2. That the things, whose Creation are here assigned unto Je∣sus * 1.590 Christ, are evidently contradistinguished to the things of the Church, or new Creation, which are mentioned v. 18. Here he is said to ••e the first borne of every Creature, there the first borne

from the dead. Here to make all things; there to be the head of the bo∣dy the Church.

3. The Creation of all things, simply, and absolutely, is most em∣phatically expressed. 1. In Generall; 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. 20. 11. Act. 4. 24. 3. A description is given of the things so created, accor∣ding to two Adjuncts, which divide all Creatures whatever, whether they are visible, or invisible. 4. An Annumeration is in particular made of one sort, of things invisible, which being of greatest Eminency and Dignity, might seeme, if any, to be ex∣empted from the state and condition of being created by Jesus Christ; whether they be thrones, &c. 5. This distribution and Annu∣meration being closed, the Generall assumption is againe repea∣ted, as having received confirmation from what was said be∣fore: all things were created by him: of what sort soever, whether expressed in the Annumeration foregoing, or no; All things were created by him: and this is amplified by the end of their creati∣on; they were created for him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: as it is said of the Father, Rom. 11. 36. which Revel. 4. 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 cre∣ation, 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 * 1.591 whom we have to do. Thus they,

What dost thou answer to this place? * 1.592

Besides this, that this Testimony speakes of * 1.593 Christ, as of the mediate and second cause, it is manifest, the words [were created] are used in the Scripture, not only concerning the old, but also the new creation; of which you have example Ephes. 2. 10, 15. Iames 1. 18. Moreover, that these words All things in Heaven and in Earth, are not used for all things altogether, appeareth not only from the words subjoyned a little after v. 20. where the Apostle saith, that by him are

all things reconciled in Heaven and in earth, but * 1.594 also from those words themselves, wherein the Apostle said not, that the Heavens and the Earth were created, but all things that were in Heaven and in Earth.

But how dost thou understand that Testimony?

On that manner, wherein all things that are in Heaven and in Earth were reformed by Christ, after God raised him from the dead; * 1.595 and by him translated into another state & con∣dition, and this whereas God gave Christ to be * 1.596 head to Angells and men, who before acknow∣ledged God only for their Lord.

What there is either in their Exceptions, or Exposition, of weight to take of this evident Testimony, shall briefely be considered.

The first exception of the kind of causality, which is here as∣cribed to Christ, hath already been considered and removed, * 1.597 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 opposi∣tion to the former state, wherein they were, who were so crea∣ted. But here, as was above demonstrated, the old creation is spo∣ken of, in direct distinction from the new, which the Apostle describes, and expresses in other termes (v. 20.) If that may be called the New Creation, which layes a foundation of it, as the death of Christ doth of Regeneration. And unlesse it be in that cause, the worke of the New Creation is not spoken of at all in this place. 3. Where Christ is said to reconcile all things to himselfe that are in Heaven and earth, he speakes plainely, and evidently of another worke, distinct from that which he had, described in these verses; and where as Reconciliation supposes a past Enmity, the All things mentioned in the 20. 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 severall Generati∣ons, 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 Apostles purpose, who naming all things in generall, chose to instance in Angells 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 ridicu∣lous, * 1.598 For 1. The Apostle doth not speake 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 an∣other, is not to create the thing so translated, though another new thing it may. When a man is made a magistrate, we doe not say he is made a man, but he is made a Magistrate. 3. The new Creation which they here affirme to be spoken of, is by no meanes to be accommodated unto Angells; 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 evill actions, to Grace, and is the same with Regeneration, or Conver∣sion, which cannot be ascribed to Angells, who never sinned, nor * 1.599 which cannot be ascribed to Angells, who never sinned, nor lost their first habitation. 4. The Dominion of Christ over Angells and men is no where called a new creation; nor is there any co∣lour or pretence why it should be so expressed. 5. The New Creation is in Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 5. 17. but to be in Christ, is to be implanted into him by the Holy Spirit by believing, which by no meanes can be accommodated to Angells. 6. If only the Dominion of Christ be intended, then wherereas Christs Dominion is according to our Adversarys (Sm••••. de Divin. Christi. cap. 16.) extended over all Creatures, Men, Angells, Divells, and all other things in the world, then Men, Angells, Divells, and all things are new Creatures. 7. Socinus saies that by Principalities, and Powers, Divells are intended: and what advancement may they be supposed to have obtained by the new Creation? The Divells were Created, that is, delivered. There is no end of the ••olly and absurditys of this interpretation: I shall spend no more words about it. Our Argument from this place stands firme and unshaken.

Grotius abides by his Friends in the Interpretation of this place, wresting it to the new Creature, and the Dominion of * 1.600 Christ over all; against all the reasons formerly insisted on, and with no other Argument then what he was from the Socinians supplyed withall. His words on the place are. It is certaine, that * 1.601 all things were created by the word. But those things that goe before shew that Christ is here treated of, which is the name of a man. As Chry∣sostome also understood this place: but he would have it, that the world was made for Christ, in a sence not corrupt: but on the account of that which went before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is better interpreted, were ordained, or obtained a cer∣taine new state. So He, in almost the very words of Socinus. But

1. In what sence all things were created by the Word, and what Grotius intends by the Word, I shall speake 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 spo∣ken out to this, we might have had some light into his meaning, in many other places of his Annotations. The Apostle tels us that Christ is over all, God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. And that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by the Resurrection from the dead, Ro. 1. 3. If Christ denote the Person of our Mediatour, 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 Wis∣dome of God, beares eminent favour towards that man Jesus Christ: but that he was any more then a man, (that is, the Uni∣on of the natures of God and man in one person) is denyed. 3. The words before are so spoken of Christ, as that they call him the Sonne of God, and the Image of the invisible God, and the first borne 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 Gods assistance) to prove the Deity of Christ, with all the Texts of Scripture wherein it is plainely 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 Chrysost••mes Exposi∣tion 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 rendred ordained, or placed in a new state and condition, I have before sufficiently evinced; neither doth Grotius adde any thing to evince his interpretation of the place, or to remove what is objected against it.

1. He tells us, that of that sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath spoken * 1.602 in his prolegomena. And urges Ephes. 2. 10, 13. 3. 9. 4. 24. to prove the sence proposed. It is confessed, that God doth some∣times expresse the exceeding greatnesse 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 some∣times 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 himselfe. 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 spo∣ken of, is such a sigment, as so Learned a man might have been a∣shamed 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. 1. 25. 1 Tim. 4. 3. Revel. 4. 11. (2.) Ephes. 2. 10. speakes of the new creature in the sence declared, which is not illustrated by v. 13. which is quite of another import. Chap. 4. 24. is to the same purpose. Chap. 3. 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.

The latter part of the verse he thus illustrates, or rather ob∣scures; * 1.603 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: intellige omnia quae ad novam creationem perti∣nent. How causelesly, how without ground, how contrary to the words, and scope of the place, hath been shewed; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: propter ipsum, ut ipse omnibus praeesset, Rev. 5. 13. Heb. 2. 8. This is to go forward in an ill way. What one instance can he give of this sence of the expression opened? The words as hath been shewed are used of God the Father, Rom. 11. 36. and are expressive of absolute soveraignty, as Rev. 4. 11. (2.) The Texts cited by him to exemplify the sence of this place, (for they are not instanced in to explaine the phrase, which is not u∣sed in them) do quite evert his whole Glosse. In both places the Dominion of Christ is asserted over the whole Creation;

and particularly in Revel. 5. 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 Do∣minion of Christ over them, that is here spoken of; for he speaks only of them that He Created.

Of the 17. v. he gives the same exposition; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut ait Apocal. 1. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intellige ut jam * 1.604 diximus. Not contented to pervert this place, he drawes another into society with it; wherein he is more highly engaged then our Catechists, who confesse that place to be spoken of the Eter∣nity of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: & haec vox de veteri crea∣tione ad novam traducitur; vid. 2 Pet. 3. 5. Prove it by any one in∣stance; or if that may not be done, begge 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 Testi∣mony.

Heb. 1. 2. is nextly mentioned: By whom also he made the worlds. * 1.605

That these words are spoken of Christ, is not denyed. They are too expresse to beare any exception on that account. That God is said to make the World by Christ, doth not at all preju∣dice what we intend from this place. God could no way make the World by Christ, but as he was his own Eternall Wisdome, which exempts him from the condition of a creature. Besides, as it is said, that God made the World by him, denoting the subordination of the Sonne to the Father, and his being his Wis∣dome, as He is described Prov. 8. So also the Word is said to make the World, as a principall efficient cause himselfe, Ioh: 1. 3. and Heb. 1. 10. The word here used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Ioh. 9. 3••. 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 ex∣presly the word is used, Heb. 11. 2. the framing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 heare our Catechists. * 1.606

How doest thou answer to this Testimony? * 1.607

On this manner, that it is here openly writ∣ten, not that Christ made, but that God by * 1.608 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 Heire of al things, he made the worlds. For Jesus of Nazareth was not made Heire of all things before he raised him from the dead: which appeares 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 contei∣ned.

For the first exception, it hath been sufficiently spoken to already: and if nothing else but the pre••xistere of Christ unto the whole creation be hence proved, yet the cause of our Adver∣saryes 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 signifyes not things future any where. This is gratis dictum, and cannot be proved by 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 Heire of all things: even because by him he made all things: which is no reason at all, if you under∣stand only Heavenly things by the worlds here: which also re∣moves the last exception of our Catechists, that Christ was ap∣pointed Heire 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 heire of all things. Besides, this answer, that Christ made not the world untill his Resur∣rection,

is directly opposite to that formerly given by them to Col. 1. 16. where they would have him to be said to make all things, because of the Reconciliation he made by his death. v. 20. 2. The same word or expression in the same Epistle is used for the world, in its Creation, as was before observed, chap. 11. 2. which makes it evident, that the Apostle in both places intends the same. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no where used absolutely for the world to come: which being spoken of in this Epistle is once called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chap. 2. 5. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chap. 6. 5. but no where absolutely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 4. The world to come, is no where said to be made; nor is this expression used of it. It is said Chap. 2. to be put into subjection to Christ, not to be made by him, and Chap. 6. 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 upholdeth all things by the word of his power, v. 3. 6. This plainely 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 * 1.609 good, yet being no way willing to grant, that making of the world is ascribed to Christ, relieves his Friends, with one evasion more then they were aware of. It is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by whom is, put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for whom, or for whose sake. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be rendred by the preterpluperfectiense, he had made: and so the sence, is God made the world for Christ, which Answereth an old saying of the He∣brewes; That the world was made for the Messiah.

But what will not great ••its give a colour to? Grotius is not able to give me one instance in the whole new Testament, * 1.610 where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and if it should be so any where, himselfe would confesse, that it must have some cogent circum∣stance to enforce that construction, as all places must have where we goe off from the propriety of the word. 2. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in the opinion of Beza it is once in the place quoted by Grotiu••; and so signify the fi∣nall cause, as he makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to do. Now the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two, in this businesse of making the World: Rom. 11. 36. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So that doubtlesse in the same matter, one of these is not put

for the other. 3. Why must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be condiderat, and what ex∣ample can be given of so rendring that Aoristus? If men may say what they please, without taking care to give the least probabi∣lity to what they say, these things may passe. 4. If the Apo∣stle must be supposed to allude to any opinion, or saying of the Jewes, it is much more probable that he alluded in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he uses, to the threefold world they mention in their Liturgy: the lower, middle, and higher world, or soules of the blessed. Or the foure fold mentioned by Rab. Alschech. Me••••i••s prosperabitur vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos complectitur: qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus Angelorum, mundus sphaerarum, & mundus supre∣mus, &c. but of this enough.

Though this last Testimony be sufficient to confound all Gainesayers, & to stop the mouths of men of common ingenuity, yet it is evident, that our Catechists are more perplexed with that which followes in the same chapter, which therefore they in∣sist longer upon, then on any one single Testimony besides; with what successe comes now to be considered.

The words are Heb. 1. 10, 11, 12. And thou Lord in the beginning hast layd the foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the workes of * 1.611 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 ar•• the same, and thy yeares shall not faile. That these words of the Bsalmist are spoken concerning Christ, we have the Testimony of the Apostle, applying them to him, wherein we are to acqui••sce. The thing also is cleare in its selfe, for they are added in his discourse of the deliverance of the Church, which worke is peculiar to the Sonne of God; and where that is mentioned, it is he who eminently is inten∣ded. Now very many of the Arguments, where with the De••ty of Christ is confirmed, are wrapped up in these words. 1. His name Jehovah is asserted. And thou Lord, for of him the Psal•••••• speakes though he report not that word. 2. His Eternity & preex∣istence to his incarnation. Thou Lord in the beginning; that is, before the world was made. 3. His Omnipotence, & divine power in the creation of all things: thou hast laid the foundation of the Earth, & the Heavens are the worke of thy hands. 4. His immutability; thou art the same, and thy yeares faile not. as Mal. 3. 6. 5. His Soveraignty and Domi∣nion over all; as a vesture shall thou sold them up, and they shall be chan∣ged

Let us now see what darkenesse they are able to poure forth upon this Sunne, shining in its strength. * 1.612

What dost thou answer to this Testimony? * 1.613

To this Testimony I answer, that it is not to be understood of Christ but of God. But because this * 1.614 writer refers it to the Son of God, it is to be con∣sidered, that the discourse in this Testimony is ex∣pressly about, not one, but two things chiefely: the one is the Creation of Heaven and Earth; the other the abolishing of Created things. Now that that Authour doth not referre the first unto Christ, is hence evident, because in that Chapter He proposeth to himselfe to demonstrate the excellency of Christ above the Angells, not that which he hath of himselfe, but that which he had by Inheritance, and whereby he is made better then the Angells, as is plaine to any one v. 4. of which kind of ex∣cellence seeing that the Creation of Heaven and Earth is not, nor can be, it appeareth ma∣nifestly, that this Testimony is not urged by this writer to prove that Christ Created Hea∣ven 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 Judgement: whereby the excellency of Christ above Angells shall be so conspicuous, that the Angells 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 joyned 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 Testimo∣nies of Scripture, compelled by no necessity,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

much more was this man to do it being com∣pelled * 1.615 thereunto.

But where have the divine writers done this?

Amongst many other Testimonies take Mat. 12. 18, 19, 20, 21. where it is most manifest, that only v. 19. belongeth to the purpose of the Evangelist, when he would prove, why Christ forbid, that he should be made known. So Act. 7. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. where also v. * 1.616 17, 18. only doe make to the Apostles purpose, which is to prove, that the Holy Ghost was * 1.617 poured forth on the Disciples. And there also v. 25, 26, 27, 28. where v. 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 Chap. v. 9. where these words, thou hast loved Righteousnesse and ha∣ted iniquity, are used; it is evident, that they be∣long not to the thing which the Apostle pro∣veth; which is, that Christ was made more ex∣cellent then the Angels.

That in all this discourse there is not any thing considera∣ble, but the horrible boldnesse of these men in corrupting and per∣verting * 1.618 the word of God, will easily to the plainest capacity be demonstrated; for which end, I offer the ensuing Animad∣versions.

1. To say these things are not spoken of Christ, because they are spoken of God, is a shameles begging of the thing in question; * 1.619 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 generall that is spoken of, namely the Deity of Christ, which is proved by one Testimony from Psal. * 1.620 102. concerning one Property of Christ, viz. his Almigh∣ty

Power, manifested in the making all things, and disposing of them in his soveraigne will, himselfe abiding unchangeable.

3. It is shamelesse impudence in these Gentlemen to take upon * 1.621 them to say, that this part of the Apostles Testimony, which he produceth, is to his purpose, that not; as if they were wiser then the Holy Ghost, and knew Pauls designe better then him∣selfe.

4. The foundation of their whole Evasion is most false, * 1.622 viz. that all the proofes of the excellency of Christ, above Angells, insisted on by the Apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to receive by Inheritance. The designe of the Apostle is, to prove the Excellency of Christ, in himselfe, and then in comparison of Angels; and therefore before the mention of what he received by Inheritance, he affirmes directly, that by him God made the worlds. And to this end it is most evident, that this Testimony, that he Created Heaven and Earth, is most di∣rectly subservient.

5. Christ also hath his divine nature by inheritance, that is, * 1.623 He was Eternally begotten of the Essence of his Father, and is thence by right of Inheritance his Sonne, as the Apostle proves from Psal. 2. 5.

6. Our Catechists speake not according to their own * 1.624 Principles, when they make a difference between what Christ had from himselfe, and what he ••••d from Inheritance: For they suppose he had nothing but by Divin•• grant, and voluntary con∣cession, which they make the Inheritance here spoken of. Nor according to ours, who say not, that the Sonne, as the Sonne, is a seipso, or hath any thing a seipso; and so know not what they say.

7. There is not then the least colour, or pretence, of deny∣ing * 1.625 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 generall; and that first expression is, if not only, yet mainely, and chiefely effectuall to confirme the intendment of the Apostle; proving directly, that Christ is better, and more excellent then the Angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made Heaven and Earth; they are but his Creatures: As God often compares himselfe with others. In the Psalmist the words respect chiefely the making of Heaven and Earth, and these

words are applyed to our Saviour. That the two workes of making and abolishing the world, should be assigned distinctly unto two Persons, there is no pretence to affirme. This bold∣nesse indeed is intollerable.

8. To abolish the world is no lesse a worke of Almighty Power, then to make it: nor can it be done by any but him * 1.626 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, which is here aymed 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 * 1.627 thing in question; Yea the first words are chiefely and emi∣nently to the Apostles purpose, as hath been shewed. We dare not say only, for the Holy Ghost knew better then we, what was to his purpose, though our Catechists be wiser in their own con∣ceits then He. Neither is there any Reason imaginable, why the Apostle should rehearse more words here out of the Psalme, then were directly to the businesse he had in hand; seeing how many Testimonies he cites, and some of them very briefely, leaving them to be supplyed from the places whence they are taken.

10. That others of the holy Writers doe urge Testimonies * 1.628 not to their purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in it selfe, and a bold imputation of weaknesse to the Penmen of the Holy Ghost. The instances hereof given by our Adversaries, are not at all to to the purpose, which they are persuing. For

1. In no one of them is there a Testimony cited, whereof one part should concerne one Person, and another another, as is here pretended: and without farther processe this is sufficient to evince this evasion of impertinency: for nothing will amount to the interpretation they enforce on this place, but the pro∣ducing of some place of the New Testament, where a Testi∣mony 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 pro∣per for the confirmation of what is affirmed of him, and what the whole is brought in proofe of.

2. There is not any of the places instanced in by them, wherein 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 the consideration of the severall places.

3. These words, thou hast loved Righteousnesse, and hated Iniquity, are not mentioned to prove immediately the Excellency of Christ above Angels, but his administration of his Kingdome, on which account he is so Excellent, among others; and there∣unto they are most proper.

And this is the issue of their Attempt against this Testimony, * 1.629 which being thus briefely vindicated, is sufficient alone of it selfe to consume with its brightnes al the oposition, which from the darke∣nesse 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 nibling at this Testimony also. His * 1.630 words are: Againe, that which is spoken of God he applyes to the Mes∣siah: * 1.631 because it was confessed among the Hebrewes, that this world was created for the Messiahs sake, (whence I should think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rightly to be understood, thou wast the cause why it was founded; and the workes 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 conceite. And I wish that it had sufficed this Learned man to have framed his old Testament-Annotations, to Rabinicall Traditi∣ons, that the New might have escaped. But jacta est alea. I say then, that the Apostle doth not apply that to one Person, which was spoken of another; but asserts the words in the Psalme to be spoken of him, concerning whom he treates; and thence proves his Excellency, which is the businesse he hath in hand. It is not to adorne Christ with Titles, which were not due to him, (which to doe were Robbery) but to prove by Testimonies that were given of him, that he is no lesse then 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 per∣swade himselfe to receive it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for thee O

Lord were the foundations of the Earth laid: and the Heavens are the workes of thy hands, that is, they were made for thee. Any man may thus make quidlibet ex quolibet; but whether with due reverence to the word of God, I Question. 3. It is not about the sence of the Hebrew particles that we treat, (and yet the Learned man cannot give one cleare instance of what he affirmes) but of the designe of the Holy Ghost in the Psalme, and in this place of the Hebrewes, applying these words to Christ. 4. I marvell he saw not, that this interpretation doth most des∣perately cut its own throat, the parts of it being at an irrecon∣cilable difference among themselves. For in the first place he saies, the words are spoken of God, and applyed to the Messiah, and then proves the sence of them to be such, as they cannot be spoken of God at all, but merely of the Messiah, for to that sence doth he labour to wrest both the Hebrew, and Greeke Text. Me thinks 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 workes of thy hands, that is, they were made for thee: seeing they are properly spoken of God. This one Rabinicall figment, of the worlds being made for the Messiah, is the engine, whereby the Learned man turnes about, and perverts the sence of this whole Chapter. In briefe, if either the plaine sence of the words, or the intendment of the Holy Ghost in this place, be of any account, yea if the Apostle deales honestly, and sincerely, and speakes to what he doth propose, and urges that which is to his purpose, and doth not falsely apply that to Christ which was never spoken of him, this Learned Glosse 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 disposing Providence assigned unto Christ, and his Eternall God-head thence farther confirmed, with other Testimonies thereof.

THat Christ is that God who made all things, hath been pro∣ved * 1.632 by the undenyable Testimonies, in the last Chapter insisted on. That as the great and wise Creatour of all things, he doth also governe, rule, and dispose of the things by him crea∣ted, is another evidence of his Eternall power and God-head; some Testimonies whereof, in that order of proceedure, which by our Catechists is allotted unto us, come now to be consi∣dered.

The first they propose is taken from Heb. 1. 3. where the * 1.633 words spoken of Christ are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 brightnesse of his Fa∣thers Glory, and expresse Image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himselfe purged our sinnes, &c.

This place, or the Testimony therein given to the divine * 1.634 Power of Jesus Christ, they seeke thus to clude.

The word here all things, doth not, no more * 1.635 then in many other places, signify all things uni∣versally without exception, but is referred to those things only, which belong to the king∣dome of Christ: of which it may truly be said, that the Lord Jesus beareth, that is, conser∣veth all things by the word of his Power. But that the word [all things] is in this place referred unto those things only, appeareth sufficiently from the subject matter it selfe of it. Moreover the word, which this writer useth, to beare, doth

rather signify Governing and Administra∣tion, then preservation, as these words annexed [by the word of his power] seeme to inti∣mate.

This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, if * 1.636 any things may be said so to be. For 1. why is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, the things of the Kingdome of Christ? It is the expresse description of the person of Christ, as the brightnesse of his Fathers Glory, and the expresse Image of his person, that the Apostle is treating of, and not at all of his Kingdome as Mediatour. 2. It expressly answers the worlds that he is said to make, v. 2. which are not the things of the Kingdome of Christ; nor doe our Catechists plead them directly so to be. This terme all things, is never put abso∣lutely, for all the things of the Kingdome 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 in∣timated, that should restraine these words to the things of the Kingdome of Christ. 4. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 admini∣string; nor can our Catechists give any one instance of that sig∣nification there. It is properly to beare, to carry, to sustaine, to up∣hold. Out of nothing Christ, made all things, and preserves them by his power from returning into nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sence they have from that expression, by the word of his power, I know not. By the word of his power, is by his powerfull word. And that that Word or command, is sometime taken for the effectuall strength and efficacy of Gods Dominion, put forth for the accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not much proving. Grotius would have the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to referre to the power of the Father: Christ upholdeth all things by the Word of his Fathers Power; without Reason or proofe; nor will the Grammaticall Account beare that rendition of the Rela∣tive mentioned.

About that which they urge out of Jude 15. I shall not con∣tend. * 1.637 The Testimony from thence relyes on the Authority

of the vulgar latine translation; which, as to me, may plead for it∣selfe.

Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. 10. shall I insist on * 1.638 any thing, but only the 9. verse, the words whereof are: Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of Ser∣pents. The designe of the Apostle is known. From the exam∣ple of Gods dealing with the Children of Israel in the Wildernesse upon their sinne and provocations, there being a parity of state and condition between them and Christians, as to their spiritu∣all participation of Jesus Christ, (v. 2, 3, 4.) he dehorts Believers from the wayes & 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. 21. 6. He whom the people tempted in the wildernesse, & 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 * 1.639 Christ was really tempted in the Wildernesse: * 1.640 as from the like speech if any one should so speake may be apprehended; Be not refractory to the Magistrates, as some of our Ancestors were; you would not thence conclude straight∣way, that the same singular Magistrate were in both places intended. And if the like phra∣ses 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 same name, it is there done where another besides him who is expressed cannot be understood: as you have an example here of Deut. 6. 16. you shall not tempt the Lord your God, as you tempted 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. 21. 5.

1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, doe not * 1.641 tempt Christ as some of them tempted, and be not refractory against the Magistrate, as some of them were? Christ is the name of one singular individuall Person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being proper only to him. Magistrate is a terme 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 puzled their Catechumens with their * 1.642 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 doe 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 Apostles Argument been of any force, unlesse Christ had been God, equall to him, who was so temp∣ted.

3. It is false, that the Israelites tempted Moses, or Aaron, or that * 1.643 it can be said they tempted them: it is God they are every where said to tempt, Psal. 78. 18, 24. Psal. 106. 14. Heb. 3. 9. It is said indeed, that they murmured against Moses, that they provo∣ked him, that they chode with him; but to tempt him, which is to require a signe, and manifestation of his Divine Power, that they did not, nor could be said to doe, Numb. 21. 3.

Grotius tryes his last shift in this place, and tells us, from I * 1.644 know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, let us not tempt Christ, but let us not tempt God. Error commissus ex notis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That neither the Syriack, nor the Vulgar Latine translations, nor any copy, that either Stephanus, in his edition of the New Te∣stament, or in his various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmus his, who would have been ready enough to have layd hold of the Advantage, should in the least give occasion of any such conjecture of an Alteration, doth wholy take off with me all the Authority, either of the manuscript, or of him that affirmes it from thence.

As they please to proceed, the next place to be consi∣dered * 1.645 is, John 12. 41. these things said Esaias, 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. 6. that the Apostle relates unto: whence we thus argue: He whose Glory Isaiah saw, Chap. 6. was the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts v. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, v. 5. But this was Jesus Christ, whose Glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of Joh. 12. 41. What say our Catechists.

First it appeares that these words are not * 1.646 necessarily referred to Christ, because they may * 1.647 be understood of God the Father. For the words a little before are spoken of him, He hath blinded, hardned, 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. 9. 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 himselfe are farre different things. And in the Glory of that one God, Isaiah saw also the Glory of the Lord Christ. For the Prophet sayes there, the whole Earth is full of the Glory of God v. 3. But then was this accomplished in reallity, when Jesus appeared to that People, and was afterwards preached to the whole world.

It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, nor * 1.648 what to stick to, in their interpretation of this place. This makes them heap up so many severall suggestions, contradictory one to another, crying, that it may he thus, or it may be thus. But 1. That these words cannot be referred to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to Christ, is evident, because there is no occasion of mentioning him in this place, but an ac∣count is given of what was spoken v. 37. but though he had 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 o∣ther words of blinding and hardning, are evidently alleadged, to give an account of the Reason of the Jewes obstinacy in their

unbeliefe, not relating immediately to the person spoken of. The subject matter treated of, is Christ. The occasion of mentio∣ning this Testimony, is Christ. Of him here are the words spo∣ken. 2. The Glory Isaiah saw was present; all the circumstances of the vision evince no lesse. He tells you the time, place, and cir∣cumstances of it, when he saw the Seraphims, when he heard their voice; when the doore moved at the voice of him that cryed, when the house was filled with Glory, and when he himselfe was so terrifyed, that he cryed out, wo is me, for I am undone. If any thing in the world be certaine, it is certaine, 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 sayes expressly: I have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts: And what the Prophet sayes 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, then by seeing the Glory of the one true God. 5. The Prophet doth not say, that the Earth was full of the glory of God, but it is the Proclama∣tion, 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 Jewes, there was no great manifestation of Glory. The Earth was alwaies full of the Glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relati∣on to the Glory of the Gospell, yet withall they prove, that He was then present, whose Glory in the Gospell was afterwards to fill the Earth.

Grotius hath not ought to adde, to what was before insisted * 1.649 on by his Friends. A••epresentation he would have this be of Gods dea∣ling in the Gospell: (when it is, plainely, his proceeding in the rejection of the Jewes 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 rejoyced: Isaiah so saw his Glory, as God Present, that he trembled: Abraham saw the day of Christ, all the dayes of his believing, Isaiah saw his Glory

only in the yeere that King Ʋzziah dyed: 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 un∣dertakings appeare to be, that are against the Eternall Deity of Jesus Christ.

In his Annotations on the 6. of Isaiah, where the vision insi∣sted 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 applyed by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the Gos∣pell; Nor once names the Chapter where it is done. With what mind, and intention the businesse is thus carried, God knowes, I know not.

CHAP. XIII.

Of the Incarnation of Christ, and his preexistence thereunto.

THe Testimonies of Scripture, which affirme Christ to * 1.650 have been Incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably proves his Preexistence, 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.

From what Testimonies of Scripture do they endea∣vour * 1.651 to demonstrate, that Christ was (as they speake) * 1.652 incarnate.

From these, Joh. 1. 14. Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. * 1.653 16. Heb. 2. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 2, 3. Heb. 10. 11.

Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the handling of * 1.654 the beginning of that Chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it

from all their exceptions; so that we may proceed immediately to the second.

What doest thou answer to the second? * 1.655

Neither is that here contained, which the * 1.656 adverse party would prove; for it is one thing which the Apostle saith, being in the forme of God he tooke the forme of a servant: another, that the Divine nature assumed the humane. For the forme of God cannot here denote the di∣vine Nature, seeing the Apostle writes, that Christ exinanivit, made that forme of no repu∣tation. But God can no way make his nature of no reputation. Neither doth the forme of a servant, denote Humane Nature, seeing to be a servant is referred to the fortune and conditi∣on of a man. Neither is that also to be for∣gotten, that the writings of the New Testa∣ment doe once only (it may be) use that word forme elsewhere, viz. Mark. 16. 12 and that in that sence, wherein it signifyes, not nature, but the outward appearance, saying, Jesus appea∣red in another forme, unto two of his Disci∣ples.

But from those words, which the Apostle afterwards adds, he was found in fashion as a man, doth it not ap∣peare, that He was as they say Incarnate?

By no meanes; For that expression con∣taines nothing of Christs Nature: for of Samp∣son we read that he should be as a man: Judge 16. 7, 11. and Psal. 82. Asaph denounceth to those whom he called Sonnes of the most High, that they should dye like men. Of whom it is certaine, that it cannot be said of them, that they were (as they speake) Incarnate.

How doest thou understand this place? * 1.657

On this manner, that Christ, who in the * 1.658 world, like God, did the workes of God, to whom all yeilded 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 vassall, and as one of the vulgar, when he had of his own accord permitted himselfe to be taken, bound, beaten, and slaine.

Thus they.

Now because it is most certaine, and evident to every one, that ever considered this text, that according to their old trade and craft, they have mangled it, and taken it in pieces, at least cut off the head and leggs of this Witnesse, we must seeke out the other parts of it, and lay it together, before we may proceed to remove this heape out of our way. Our Argument from this place, is not solely from hence, that he is said to be in the forme of God; but also that he was so in the forme of God, as to be equall to him, as is here expressed; nor meerely that he took upon him the forme of a servant, but that he tooke it upon him, when He was made in the likenes of man, or in the likenes of sinfull flesh, as the Apostle expresses it Ro. 8. 3. Now these things our Ca∣techists 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 lyes in this, that in the forme of God, he is said to be equall 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 doe proceed. Thus then they

How doest thou Answer to those places, where Christ is * 1.659 said to be equall to God, Joh. 5. 18. Phil. 2. 6.

That Christ is equall to God, doth no way * 1.660 prove, that there is in him a divine Nature. Yea the contrary is gathered from hence. For if Christ be equall to God, who is God by nature, it followes, that He cannot be the same God. But the equality of Christ with God lyes here∣in

that by that virtue, that God bestowed on him he did, and doth all those things, which are Gods, as God himselfe.

This being the whole of what they tender, to extricate them∣selves * 1.661 from the Chaines, which this witnes 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 designe of the Apostle in this place, * 1.662 being evidently to exhort Believers to selfedenyall, mutuall love, and condescention one to another, he proposes to them the ex∣ample of Jesus Christ: and lets them know, that he being in the forme of God, and equall to God therein; (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, existing in that forme, having both the nature, and Glory of God,) did yet in his love to us, make himselfe of no reputation, or lay aside, and eclipse his Glory, in this, that he tooke upon him the forme of a servant, being made man, that in that forme, and nature, He might be obedient unto death, for us, and in our behalfe: Hence we thus plead.

He that was in the forme of God, and equall to God, existing * 1.663 therein, and tooke on him the nature, and forme of a servant, He is God by nature, and was Incarnate, or made flesh, in the sence before spoken of: Now all this is affirmed of Jesus Christ: Ergo.

1. To this they say, (that we may consider that first, which * 1.664 is first in the Text) that his being equall 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 himselfe, be like God, or equal to him, who is not God by nature; then he that is equall to him, is so: but, to whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equall, saith the Holy one, lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, Isa. 40. 25. none, that hath not created all things of no thing, can be equall to him: And to whom will ye liken me, and make me equall, and compare me, that we may be like, Chap. 46. 5. (2.) Between that which is finite and that which is infi∣nite, that which is eternall, and that which is temporall, the Creature and the Creatour, God by nature, and him, who by nature is not God, It is utterly impossible there should be any Equality. 3. God having so often avouched his infinite distance from all Creatures, his refusall to give his glory to any of them, his ine∣quality

with them all, it must have been the highest Robbery, that ever any could be guilty of, for Christ to make himselfe equall to God, if he were not God. 4. The Apostles Argument arises from hence, that he was equall to God, before he tooke on him the forme of a Servant, which was before his working of those mighty workes, wherein these Gentlemen assert him to be equall to God.

2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousnesse of their * 1.665 begging the thing in question, when they would argue, that be∣cause He was equall to God, He was not God: He was the same God in nature, and Essence, and therein equall to him, to whom he was in subordination, as the Sonne; and in Office a Servant, as un∣dertaking the worke of Mediation.

3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality * 1.666 between Christ and God, in the workes he wrought: For 1. God doth the workes in his own Name, and Authority, Christ in Gods. 2. God doth them by his own Power, Christ by Gods. 3. God doth them himselfe, Christ not, but God in him, as an∣other from him. 4. He doth not do them as God, howe∣ver 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 doe, who doth things, as God.

2. He is said to be equall to God, not as He did such, and such * 1.667 workes, but as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being in the forme of God; antecedently to the taking in hand of that forme, wherein He wrought the workes intimated.

3. To worke great workes, by the power of God, argues no * 1.668 Equality with him; or else all the Prophets, and Apostles, that wrought miracles, were also equall to God. The infinite inequa∣lity of nature between the Creatour and the most Glorious Creature, will not allow, that it be said on any account to be equall to him. Nor is it said, that Christ was equall to God, in respect of the workes He did, but Absolutely, He thought it no Robbery to be equall to God. And so is their last plea to the first part of our Argument accounted for: come we to what they begin withall.

1. We contend not (as hath been often said) about words * 1.669 and expressions. That the Divine nature assumed the Humane, we

thus farre abide by, That the Word, the Sonne of God, tooke to himselfe, into Personall subsistence with him, an humane nature, whence they are both one Person, one Christ: and this is here punctually affirmed, viz. He that was, and is God, tooke upon him the forme of a man. 2. The Apostle doth not say, that Christ made that forme of no Reputation, or Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that forme, but Christ being in that forme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made himselfe * 1.670 of no reputation; not by any reall change of his Divine nature, but taking to himselfe the Humane, wherein he was of no reputation. It being he that was so, in the nature & by the dispensation, wherein he was so; and it being not possible, that the Divine nature of it selfe, in it selfe, should be humbled, yet He was humbled, who was in the forme of God, though the forme of God was not.

3. It is from his being equall with God, in the forme of God, * 1.671 whereby we prove, that his being in the forme of God doth denote his divine Nature: but of this our Catechists had no minde to take notice.

2. The forme of a servant, is that which he tooke, when he * 1.672 was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as Adam begat a Sonne in his own likenesse. Now this was not only in condition a servant, but in reallity, a man. 2. The forme of a servant was that where∣in he underwent death, the death of the Crosse; but he dyed as a man, and not only in the appearance of a Servant. 3. The very phrase of expression manifests the humane nature of Christ to be denoted hereby: only as the Apostle had not before said directly that he was God, but in the forme of God, expressing both his nature, and his Glory, so here he doth not say He was a man, but in the forme of a Servant, expressing both his nature and his condition, wherein he was the servant of the Father. Of him it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He was in the other, but this He tooke. 4. To be a servant denotes the state or condition of a man: but for one who was in the forme of God and equall to him, to be made in the forme of a servant, and to be found as a man, and to be in that forme 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 Sonne made of a woman. 5. This is manifest from the expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He was found in fashion as a man: that is, He

was truely so; which is exegeticall of what was spoken before He took on him the forme of a servant.

But they say this is of no importance; For the same is said of * 1.673 Sampson, Judg. 16. 7, 11. and of others Psal. 82. who yet we doe not say were incarnate.

These Gentlemen are still like themselves. Of Christ it is said, that he humbled himselfe, and tooke upon him the forme of a Servant, and was found in likenesse as a man: of Sampson, that being stronger then an hundred men, if he were dealt so and so withall, he would become as other men, for so the words expressly are: no stronger then another man; and these places are paralell: much good may these paralells doe your Catechumens. And so of those in the Psalme, that though in this world they are high in power for a season, yet they should dy as other men do. Hence, in a way of triumph and merriment, they aske, 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 meanes to be as one, and they who live in power, but dye in weakenesse, as other men doe, are not said to be incar∣nate: but He who being God, tooke on him the forme of a Servant, and was in this world a very man, may (by our new Masters leave,) be said to be so.

For the sence which they give us of this place, (for they are bold to venture at it) it hath been in part spoken to already. Christ * 1.674 was in the world, as to outward appearance, no way instar Dei, but rather as he sayes of himselfe, instar vermis. That he did the workes of God, and was worshiped as God, was because He was God; nor could any but God, either doe the one, as He did them, or admit of the other. 2. This is the exposition given us; Christ was in the forme of God, counting it no robbery to be equall to him, that is, whilst he was here' in the world in the forme of a servant, He did the workes of God and was worshiped. 3. Christ was in the forme of a Servant from his first coming into the world, & as one of the peo∣ple; Therefore He was not made so by any thing afterwards: his being bound, and beate, and killed, is not his being made a ser∣vant; for that by the Apostle is afterwards 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 Crosse.

And this may suffice for the taking out of our way, all that * 1.675 is excepted against this testimony by our Catechists: but be∣cause the Text is of great importance, and of it selfe sufficient to evince the Sacred truth we plead for, some farther ob∣servations, for the illustration of it, may be added.

The sence they intend to give us of these words is plainely * 1.676 this: that Christ by doing miracles in the world, appeared to be as God, or as a God: but he laid aside this forme of God, and tooke upon him the forme of a servant, when He suffered himself to be taken, bound, & crucifyed: He began to be, they say, in the forme of God, when after his baptisme, He undertooke the worke of his publike Ministry, and wrought mighty workes in the world: which forme 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, Answe∣ring * 1.677 the minde of the Holy Ghost, is evident as from what was said before; so also 1. Because it is said of Christ, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was in the forme of God, before he tooke the forme of a servant, and yet the taking of the forme of a servant in this place, doth evidently answer his being made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. his being made in the likenesse of sinfull flesh, Rom 8. 3. his comeing or being sent into the world, Math. 10. 11. 20. 28. Joh. 3. 16, 17. &c. 2. Christ was still in the forme of God, as taken essen∣tially, even then, when he was a servant, though as to the dis∣pensation He had submitted to, He emptied himselfe of the Glo∣ry of it, and was not knowne to be the Lord of Glory, 2 Cor. 8. 3. Even all the while that they say He was in the forme of God, He was in the forme of a servant, that is, He was really the servant of the Father, and was dealt withall in the world as a servant, under all manner of reproach, revilings, and persecutions. He was no more in the forme of a servant when he was bound, then when he had not where to lay his head. 4. The state and condition of a Servant consists in this, that he is not sui 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, 2. 6, 7. Of Ochinus, and Laelius Socinus, by Zinchius in locum; & de Tribus

Elohim, pag. 227. &c. Of Faustus Socinus, by Beckman: exercitat: pag. 168. & Johan. Jun. Examen Respon. Socin. pag. 201, 202. Of Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul. ad Philip. cap. 2. Of Ostorodus, by Jacobus a porta, Fidei Orthodox. Defens. pag. 89. 150. &c. That which I shall farther adde, is in reference to Grotius, whose Annotations may be one day considered by some of more Time and leasure for so necessary a worke.

Thus then he; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in nostris li∣bris * 1.678 non significat internum & occultum aliquid, sed id quod in oculos in∣currit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sanandi morbos omnes, e∣jiciendi Daemones, excitandi mortuos, mutandi rerum naturas: quae verè Divina sunt, ita ut Moses, qui tam magna non fecit, dictus ob id fuit De∣us Pharaonis: vocem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quo dixi sensu habes Mar. 16. 12. Isa: 44. 13. ubi in Hebraeo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Dan. 4. 33. 6. 10. 6. 28. ubi in Chal∣deo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Job. 4. 16. ubi in Hebraeo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in our Books doth not signify an internall, or hidden thing, but that which is visibly discerned: such as was that eminent power in Christ of healing all Diseases, casting out Divels, raising the Dead, changing the Natures of things: which are truly Divine; so that Moses, who did not so great things, was therefore called the God of Pharaoh: The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the sence spoken of, you have, Mar. 16. 12. Isa. 44. 13. where in the Hebrew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dan: 4. 33. &c. where in the Chal∣dee it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Job. 14. 6. where in the Hebrew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

An. A Forme is either substantiall, or accidentall: that which is indeed, or that which appears. That it is the substantiall forme of * 1.679 God, which is here intended, yet with respect to the glorious manifestation of it, (which may be also as the accidentall forme) hath been formerly declared, and proved. So farre it signifies that which is internall and hidden, or not visibly discer∣ned, in as much as the Essence of God is invisible. The proofes of this I shall not now repeat. 2. Christs power of working mira∣cles was not visible, though the miracles He wrought were vi∣sible; insomuch, that it was the great Question between him, and the Jewes, by what power He wrought his Miracles; for they still pleaded, that he cast out Divells by Beelzebub, the Prince of the Divels. So that if the power of doing the things mentio∣ned, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that forme was not visible, and exposed to the sight of men, for it was aliquid internum & occultum, a thing

internall and hidden. 3. If to be in the forme of God, and thereup∣on to be equall to him, be to have power, or Authority, of healing disea∣ses, casting out Divels, raising the dead, and the like; then the Apostles were in the forme of God, and equall to God, having power and Authority given them for all these things, which they wought accordingly; casting out Divels, healing the diseased, raising the dead, &c. which whether it be not blasphemy to affirme, the reader may judge. 4. It is true, God sayes of Moses, Exod. 7. 1. I have made thee a God to Pharaoh; which is expounded c. 4. 16. where God tels him, that Aaron should be to him insteed of a mouth, & he should be to him insteed of God. That is, Aaron should speak & deliver to Pharaoh, & 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 in∣steed of God: And this is given as the reason of that expression, c. 7. 1. of his being a God to Pharaoh; even as our Saviour speakes, because the word of God came by him; because he should reveale the will of God to him. Thou shalt be a God to Praraoh, and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet; Thou shalt speake all that I command thee, and Aaron thy Brother shall speake to Pharaoh. He is not upon the account of his working miracles called God, or said to be in the forme of God, or to be made equall 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 businesse. 5. It is true, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or forme, is used Mar. 16. 12. for the out∣ward appearance; and it is as true the verbe of the same signifi∣cation is used for the internall and invisible forme of a thing, Gal. 4. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, untill Christ be formed in you. So that the very first observation of our Annotatour, that in our bookes, that is, the Scriptures, (for in other Authors it is acknowledged, that this word signifyes the internall forme of a thing) this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not any thing internall or hid∣den, is true only of that one place, Mar. 16. 12. in this it is other∣wise, & the verbe of the same signification is evidently other∣wise used. And which may be added, other words, that bare the same Ambiguity of signifycation, as to things substantiall or accidentall, being applyed to Christ, doe still signify the for∣mer, not the latter; yea where they expressly Answer what is here spoken; as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Col. 1. 15. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 1. 3. both of the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 speake of. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is translated imago, by Arias Mon: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gen. 29. 17. 1 Sam: 28. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used ten times in the Bible, and hath various significations, and is variously rendred: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deut. 4. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 16. so most commonly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Daniel is splendor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and what all this is to our purpose in hand, I know not. The forme of God, wherein Christ was, is that, wherein He was equall to God: that, which as to the Divine Nature, is the same, as his be∣ing in the forme of a Servant, wherein He was obedient to death, was to the humane. And which is sufficiently destructive of this whole Exposition, Christ was then in the forme of a Servant, when this Learned man would have him to be in the forme of God, which two are opposed in this place; for he was the ser∣vant of the Father in the whole course of the work, which He wrought here below: Isa. 42. 1.

He proceeds on this foundation: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.680 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, est locutio Syriaca: in Liturgiâ Syriacâ, Johannes Baptista Christo Baptismum ab ipso expetenti, dieit, non assu∣mam rapinam. Solent qui aliquid bellicâ virtute peperere, id omnibus o∣stentare, ut Romani in Triumpho sane solebant. Non multum aliter Plu∣tarchus in Timoleon: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sensus est, non vendita∣vit Christus, non jactavit istam potestatem: quia saepe etiam imperavit ne quod fecer at vulgaretur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hic est adverbium; sic Odyss: O: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dixit Scriptor, 2 Macc. 9. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, est spectari tanquam Deum. The summe of all is; He thought it no Robbery, that is, He boasted not of his power, to be equall to God, so to be looked on as a God.

The words I confesse are not without their difficulty: many * 1.681 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 besides the sence of them, may be easily mani∣fested; for 1. He brings nothing to enforce this interpretation; That the expression is Syriack, in the idiome 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 Greeke tongue very well, and of the Syriack not at all. Others also give a paralell expression out of Thucidides, lib. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. I grant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be used adverbially; and be rendered aequali∣ter: but now the words are to be interpreted pro subjecta materia. He who was in the forme of God, counted it no Robbery; (that is, did not esteeme it to be any wrong, on that account of his being in the forme of God,) to be equall to his Father, did yet so sub∣mit himselfe, as is described. This being equall to God, is spoken of Christ accidentally to his taking on him the forme of a Servant, which He did in his Incarnation, and must relate to his being in the forme of God; and if thereunto it be added, that the intend∣ment reaches to the declaration he made of himselfe, when he declared himselfe to be equall to God the Father, and one with him, as to Nature and Essence, it may compleat the sence of this place.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He renders, libenter duxit vitam inopem; * 1.682 referring it to the poverty of Christ, whilest he conversed here in the world. But what ever be intended by this expression, it is not the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Grotius afterwards interprets to the same purpose with what he saies here of these words. 2. It must be something antecedent to his taking the forme of a servant, or rather something that he did, or became, ex∣ceptively to what he was before, in becoming a servant. He was in the forme of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but He humbled, or bowed down himselfe, in taking the forme of a servant: that is, He condescended thereunto, in his great love that He bare to us, The demonstration whereof the Apostle insists eepressly upon; and what greater demonstration of love, or condescention up∣on the account of love could possibly be given, then for him who was God, equall to his Father, in the same Deity, to lay aside the manifestation of his glory, & to take upon him our nature, therein to be a servant unto death.

He proceeds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, similis factus servi••, qui nihil * 1.683 proprium possident: He was made like unto servants, who possesse nothing of their own. Our Catechists, with their great Master, referre this his being like servants, to the usage He submitted to at his death; this man to his poverty in his life. And to this sence of these words is that place of Math. 8. 20. better accommodated, then to the

clause foregoing, for whose Exposition it is produced by our Annotatour.

But 1. It is most certaine, that the exposition of Grotius will * 1.684 not, being laid together, be at any tollerable agreement with it selfe, if we allow any order of processe to be in these words of the Apostle: His aime is acknowledged to be an Exhorta∣tion to Brotherly love, and mutuall condescention in the same, from the Example of Jesus Christ; for he tells you, that He being in the forme of God, made himselfe of no reputation, and tooke upon him the forme of a servant. Now if this be not the graduation of the Apostle, that in being in the forme of God, free from any thing of that which followes, He then debased and humbled himself, & took up∣on him the forme of a servant, there is not any forme of plea left from this example, here proposed, to the end aimed at. But now saies Grotius, His being in the forme of God, was his working of miracles; his debasing himselfe; his being poore; his taking the forme 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 whe•• Christ wrought miracles, He was so poore, and possessed nothing of his own; that there was no condescention nor relinquishment of one condition for an∣other discernable therein. 2. The forme of a servant that Christ tooke was that, wherein he was like man; as it is expounded in the words next following; he was made in the likenesse of man; and what that is the same Apostle informes us, Heb. 2. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherefore heought inall things to be made like his brethren: that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was made in the likenesse of man: or as it is expressed Rom. 8. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the likenesse of flesh; which also is expounded Gal. 4. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made of a woman; which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of that, Joh. 1. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word was made flesh. 3. The employment of Christ in that likenes of man, is confestly 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. 42. 1, 19. and which He every where professed himselfe to be. He goes on.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: cum similis esset hominibus, * 1.685

illis nempe primis; id est, pecca••i expers; 2 Cor. 5. 21. whereas He was like men, namely those first, that is, without sin.

That Christ was without sinne, that in his being made like to * 1.686 us, there is an exception as to sinne, is readily granted. He was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 7. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but that he was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not said. 2. This expression was sufficiently cleared by the particular places formerly urged. It is not of his sinlesnesse 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 likenesse of sinfull flesh, yet without sinne, that these words are used. It is a like∣nesse of nature to all men, and not a likenesse of innocency to the first, that the Apostle speakes of: a likenesse, wherein there is a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to the kinde, a distinction in number: as Adam begat a Sonne in his own likenesse, Gen. 5. 1.

All that followes in the Learned Annotater, is only an endea∣vour * 1.687 to make the following words speak in some Harmony, and conformity to what he hath before delivered; which being dis∣cerned 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. Returne we to our Catechists.

The place they next propose to themselves to deale withall, is 1 Tim. 3. 16. And without controversy great is the mystery of Godli∣nesse, * 1.688 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angells, 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 proposi∣tion, this businesse is at a perfect close, and our Adversaries fol∣lowing 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 deaths wound lyes evident in the efficacy of this place. Now here not only the common Apprehension of all Professors of the name of Christ in Generall, but also the common sence of mankind, to be tryed 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God, some person is intended, * 1.689 is evident from hence, that the word is never used but to ex∣presse 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, or is ascribed, truly, or falsly. And if this be not certaine, 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 pre∣tended, 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 hypothe∣sis; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉! 2. That Christ, who is the second Person, the Son of God, is here intended, and none else; is evident from hence, that what ever is here spoken of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 con∣cerning him, and no other. Neither are they possible to be ac∣commodated to any Person but him. Let us a little accom∣modate the words to him. 1. He who as God, was in the be∣ginning with God, in his own nature invisible, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was manifested in the flesh, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when he was made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. and made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom: 8. 3. in the like∣nesse of flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Rom: 1. 3. so made visible and conspicuous, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) dwelling amongst men, who also saw his glory, as the glory of the on∣ly begotten Son of God, v. 14. Being thus manifest in the flesh, having taken our nature on him, He was reviled, persecuted, condemned, slaine by the Jewes as a Malefactor, a seditious Person, an Im∣postor; But 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was justified in the spi∣rit, from all their false accusations and imputations: He was ju∣stified by his Eternall spirit, when he was raised from the dead, and declared to be the Sonne of God with power, thereby, Rom: 1. 4. for though He was crucified through weaknesse, yet he liveth by the power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4. so He also sent out his spirit to convince the World of sinne, because they believed not in him, and of Righte∣ousnesse,

because he went to his Father; Joh. 16. 9, 10. which he also did, justifying himselfe thereby, to the conviction and conversion of many thousands, who before condemned him, or consen∣ted to his condemnation, upon the account formerly mentio∣ned, Act. 2 37. And this is He, who 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was seen of Angels, and so hath his witnesses in Heaven and Earth. For when he came first into the World, all the Angels receiving charg to worship him, by him who said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 1. 6. one came downe at his Nativity to declare it, to whom He was seene, and instantly a multitude of the Heaven∣ly Host saw him, Luk. 2. 9, 13. and afterwards went away into heaven; v. 15. In the beginning also of his Ministry, Angels were sent to him in the Wildernesse to minister to him, Math. 4. 11. and when he was going to his death in the garden, an Angell was sent to comfort him, Luk. 22. 43. And he then knew, that He could at a words speaking, have more then twelve Legions of An∣gels to his assistance, Mat. 26. 53. And when he rose againe, the Angels saw him againe, and served him therein, Math. 28. 2. And as He shall come againe with his holy Angels to judgement, Math. 25. 31. 2 Thess. 1. 7. so no doubt but in his Assention the Angels accom∣panied him: yea that they did so, is evident from Psal. 68. 17, 18. So that there was no eminent concernment of him, where∣in it is not expresly affirmed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: at his Birth, Entrance on his Ministry, Death, Resurrection, Assention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Gospell concerning him throughout the World, so it had a signall en∣trance in that Declaration of him to devout men dwelling at Jerusalem, out of every Nation under Heaven, Act. 7. 5. And here∣upon; 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was believed on in the World; He that had been rejected as a vile person, condemned and slain, being thus justifyed in spirit, and Preached, was believed on, many thousands being daily converted to the Faith of him, to be∣lieve that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, whom before they received not, Ioh. 1. 10, 11. And for his own part, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was taken up into Glory; the story whereof we have, Act. 1. 9, 10, 11. when He had spoken to his Disciples, He was taken up, and a cloud received him. Of which Luke saies briefly, as Paul

here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 1. 2. as Mark also doth, Chap. 16. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was taken up into Heaven, or to Glory; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He was taken up (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) into Glory.

This Harmony of the description of Christ here, both as to * 1.690 his person and Office, with what is elsewhere spoken of him, (this being evidently a summary collection of what is more largely in the Gospell spoken of) makes it evident, that he is God, here intended: which is all that is needfull to be evinced from this place.

Let us now heare our Catechists pleading for themselves. * 1.691 What doest thou Answer to 1 Tim. 3. 16? * 1.692

1. That in many antient Copies, and in the vulgar Latine it selfe, the word, God, is not read; * 1.693 wherefore from that place nothing certaine 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 the Father: that he appea∣red in Christ, and the Apostles, who were flesh: & for what is afterwards read, according to the usuall translation, He was received into Glory, in the Greeke it is, He was received in Glory, that is, with Glory, or Gloriously.

What then is the sence of this Testimony?

That the Religion of Christ is full of Myste∣ries: for God, that is, his will, for the saving * 1.694 of men, was perfectly made known by infirme & mortall men; and yet because of the Miracles * 1.695 and various powerfull workes, which were performed by such weake mortall men, it [was acknowledged for true, and it was at length perceived by the Angells themselves, and was preached not only to the Jewes, but also to the Gentiles; all Believed thereon, and it was re∣ceived with great glory after an eminent man∣ner.

Thus they; meerly rather then say nothing, or yeild to the truth. Briefely to remove what they offer in way of Exception or Assertion.

1. Though the word God, be not in the vulgar latine, yet * 1.696 the unanimous constant consent of all the Originall Copies, confessed to be so, both by Beza, and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince, that the losse of that word in that translation, is not of any import to weaken the sence of the place. Of other antient copies whereof they boast, they cannot instance one; in the vulgar also, it is evident, that by the Mystery, Christ is under∣stood.

2. That what is here spoken MAY be referred to the Father, * 1.697 is a very sorry shift, against the evidence of all those considera∣tions, which shew, that it OƲGHT to be referred to the Son.

3. It may not, it canno•• with any tollerable sence, be refer∣red to the Father. It is not said, that in Christ and the Apostles he appeared, and was seen of Angells, &c. that is spoken of; but * 1.698 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 the Scripture, to the Father. How was he manifested in the flesh, how was he justifyed in the Spirit, how was He taken up into glory?

4. Though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be rendred gloriously, or with glory, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may not, receptus est, but rather assumptus est; and is * 1.699 applyed to the Assension of Christ in other places, as hath been shewed.

2. For the sence they tender of these words; Let them 1. Give any one instance, where God, is put for the will of God, * 1.700 and that exclusively to any person of the Deity, or to speake to their own Hypothesis, exclusively to the Person of God. This is intollerable boldnesse, and argues something of searednesse. 2. The will of God for the salvation of men, is the Gospell: how are these things applyable to that? How was the Gospell justifyed in the spirit; how was it received into Gory, how was it seen of the Angels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? In what place is any thing of all this spoken of the Gospell? Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In summe, 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 weake mortall men, was no great Mystery; that God should assume humane nature, is so. The will of God can∣not

be said to appeare to the Angells, Christ did so. Of the last ex∣pression there can be no doubt raised.

Grotius insists upon the same interpretation with our Catechists * 1.701 in the whole, and in every part of it: nor doth he adde 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 sence of the place, not opening it in the least, or evincing what he embraces, to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, to any one that is otherwise minded. What he sayes, because he sayes it, deserves to be considered.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: suspectam nobishanc lectionem faciunt in∣terpretes * 1.702 veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, & Ambrosius, qui omnes legunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Addi•• Hinemaerus Opusculo 55. illud. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hic positum a Nestorianis. But this suspicion might well have been removed from this learned man, by the universall consent of all originall Copies, wherein as it seemes his own manuscript, that sometimes helps him at a need, doth not differ 2: One corruption in one translation makes many. 3. The Syriack reads the word God, and so Tremelius hath rendred it. Ambrose and Hin••marus followed the latine translation. And there is a thousand times more probability, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wa•• filch'd out by the Arians, then that it was foysted in by the Nestorians. But if the Agreement of all Originall Copies may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing certaine left us. But saith he; sensum bo∣num facit illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Evangelium illud caeleste innotuit primum non per Angelos, sed per homines moritales, & quantum extorna species fere∣bat infirmos, Christum, & Apostolos ejus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bene convenit myste∣rio, id est, rei latenti: Col. 1. 26, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hominem significat mortalem: 2 Cor: 2. 16. 1 John 4. 2.

1. Our Annotatour having only a suspicion that the word * 1.703 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not in the text, ought on all accounts to have interpreted the words according to the reading, whereof he had the better perswasion, and not according unto that, where∣of he had only a suspicion. But then it was by no meanes easy to accommodate them according to his intention, nor to ex∣clude the Person of Christ frō being mentioned in them, which by joyning in with his suspicion he thought himself able to do. 2. He s•• 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 Gospell; when referred to Christ, nothing is more frequent; John 1. 14. John 6. 53. Acts, 2. 31. Rom. 1. 3. Rom: 8. 3. Rom: 9. 5, Ephes. 2. 14, 15. Col: 1. 22. Heb: 5. 7. Heb. 10. 19, 20. 1 Pet: 3. 18. 1 Pet: 4. 1. 1 John 4. 2. &c. Of the flesh of the Gospell, not one word. 3. There is not the least opposition intimated, between men and Angels, as to the meanes of preaching the Gospell; nor is this any mystery, that the Gospell was preached by men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well applyed 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 words being made flesh, as it is elswhere ex∣pressed. In the place urged out of the Corinthians, whether it be the 2. or 11. Chapter that is intended, there is nothing to prove, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifyes a mortall man. And this is the en∣trance of this exposition; Let us proceed.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; per plurima miracula approbata est ••a veritas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sunt miracula divina, per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quae est 1 Cor. * 1.704 11. 4. & alibi. Justifyed in the Spirit; that is, approved by many mi∣racles; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is miracles by a metonymy. Then let every thing be as the Learned man will have it. It is in vaine to contend. For surely never was expression so wrested. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, simply, is miracles, is false; that to have a thing done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies miracles, is more evidently so; 1 Cor. 2. 4. The Apostle speakes not at all of miracles, but of the efficacy of the Spirit with him in his preaching the word, to convince the world of sinne, Righteous∣nesse, and Judgment, according to the promise of Christ. The ap∣plication of this expression to Jesus Christ see above. He addes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (is here) approbare, ut Math. 11. 19. It is here to ap∣prove, and that because it was necessary that the Learned Anno∣tatour should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In what sence the word is taken, and how applyed to Christ, with the genuine meaning of the place, see above. See also, Joh. 1. 33, 34. nor is the Gospell any where said to be Justifyed in Spirit, nor is this a tollerable exposition, justifyed in spirit, that is, it was approved by miracles.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nempe cum admiratione, Angeli hoc arcanum per ho∣mines morrales didicere; Ephes. 3. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 12. How eminently * 1.705 this suits what is spoken of Jesus Christ, was shewed before. It is true, the Angells as with admiration looke into the things of the Gospell; but that it is said, the Gospell 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not proved.

It is true, the Gospel was Preached to the Gentiles; but yet this * 1.706 word is most frequently applyed to Christ, Act. 3. 20. Act. 8. 25. Chap. 9. 20. Chap. 19. 13. 1 Cor. 1. 23. 1 Cor. 15. 12. 2 Cor. 1. 19. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 2 Cor. 11. 4. Phil. 1. 15. are Testimonies here∣of.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, in magna mundi parte, Rom. 1. 8. Col. 1. * 1.707 6. But then I pray, what difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? The first is, it was approved by mi∣raeles, the other, it was believed; now to approve the truth of the Gospell, taken actively, is to believe it. How much more naturally this is accommodated to Christ, see Ioh. 3. 17, 18. & v. 35, 36. Ioh. 6. 40. Act. 10. 43. and Chap. 16. 31. Rom. 3. 22. Rom. 10. 8, 9. Gal. 2. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 5. &c.

The last clause is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Gloriose admodum exalta∣tumest, * 1.708 nempe quia majorem attulit sanctitatem, quàm ulla ante haec dog∣mata. And this must be the sence of the place, without any co∣lour, much lesse evidence of proofe. For the sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this businesse, see Luk. 9. 51. Mar. 16. 19. Act. 1. 2. v. 11. & v. 22. And in this sence we are indifferent, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto glory, which seems to be most properly intended, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with Glory, as our Adversaries would have it, or gloriously, as Grotius; for it was gloriously, with great Glory, and into that Glory, which He had with his Father before the World was. That the Gospell is Glorious in its Doctrine of Holinesse is true, but not at all spoken of in this place.

Heb: 2. 16. is another Testimony insisted on, to prove the in∣carnation * 1.709 of Christ, and so consequently his subsistence in a divine nature antecedently thereunto. The words are: For ve∣rily, 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 likenesse of the * 1.710 incarnation, as they call it, doth appeare. For this writer doth not say, that Christ took (as some read it, and commonly they take it in that sence) but He takes. Nor doth he say, hu∣mane nature, but the seed of Abraham: which in the Holy Scriptures denotes them, who be∣lieve in Christ, as Gal. 3. 29.

What then is the sence of this place? * 1.711

This is that which this Writer intends, that Christ is not the Saviour of Angells, but of men believing, who because they are subject to afflictions and death, (which He before expres∣sed by the participation of flesh and blood) therefore did Christ willingly submit himselfe unto them, that he might deliver his faithfull ones from the feare of death, and might helpe them in all their afflictions.

The sence of this place is evident; the Objections against it * 1.712 weake. That the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, assumit, not assumpsit, is an Enallage of Tense so usuall, as that it can have no force of an Objection. And v. 14. it is twice used in a con∣trary sence; the time past, being put for the present, as here the present, for that which is past: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: see Joh: 3. 31. Joh: 21. 13. 2. That by the seed of Abraham, is here intended the humane nature of the seed of A∣braham, appears. 1. From the expression going before of the same import with this; He took part of Flesh and Blood, v: 14. 2. From the opposition here made to Angels, or the Angelicall nature; the Holy Ghost shewing, that the businesse of Christ being to save his Church by dying for them, was not therefore to take up∣on him an Angelicall, spirituall substance, or nature, but the nature of man. 3. The same thing is elsewhere in like manner expres∣sed: as where He is said to be made of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom: 1. 3. and to come of the Fathers as concerning the flesh, Rom: 9. 5. 4. Believers are called Abrahams seed sometimes spi∣ritually, in relation to the Faith of Abraham, as Gal: 3. 29. where he is expresly spoken of, as Father of the Faithfull, 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, Joh. 8. 37. I know that ye are Abrahams seed, Rom. 9. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abra∣ham are they all Children, v. 8. that is, they are the Children of the flesh: so Rom. 11. 1. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I, 2 Cor. 11. 22. 2. For the sence assgined; 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 a∣ctuall

helping and relieving of them is mentioned in the next verse. 2. Here is no mention in this verse of Believers being ob∣noxious 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 Gregories 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 sig∣nify 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 an humane nature of the seed of Abraham, into Personall union with him∣selfe.

Grotius is still at a perfect agreement with our Catechists. Saith * 1.713 he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apud Platonem, & alios, est solenniter vindicare, his autem & superioribus intelligendum est, vindicare, seu asserere in liberta∣tem manu injectâ.

This word in Plato and others, is to vindi∣cate 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 denyed; both the helpe afforded, and the meanes of it by Christ, is mentioned be∣fore. The help is Liberty: the meanes, partaking of Flesh and Blood to dye. These words are not expressive of, nor do answer the latter, or the help afforded, but the means for the obtaining of it, as hath been declared. But he adds, the word signifies to lay hold of with the hand, as Mark. 8. 23. &c. Be it granted that it doth ••o•• to lay hold with the hand, and to take to ones selfe. This is not to as∣sert into Liberty, but by the help of a Metaphor: and when the word is used Metaphorically, it is to be interpreted pro subjectâ ma∣teriâ, according to the subject matter: which here is Christs ta∣king a nature upon him, that was of Abraham, that was not Angeli∣call. The other expression he is singular in the interpretation of.

He took the seed of Abraham. id est, id agit, ut vos Hebraeos liberet a * 1.714 peccatis & metu mortis; eventus enim nomen saepe datur operae, in id im∣pensae. That is,

He doth that, that he may deliver you He∣brews from sinne, and feare of death: the name of the e∣vent, is often given to the work imployed to that purpose.

But 1. Here I confesse, he takes another way from our Cate∣chists;

the seed of Abraham is with them, Believers; with him, only Jews; but the tails of their discourse are tyed together with a firebrand between them, to devoure the harvest of the Church. 2. This taking the seed of Abraham, is opposed to his not taking the seed of Angells; now the Jews are not universally opposed to An∣gels in this thing, but humane kind. 3. He took the seed of Abraham, is it seems, He endeavoured to help the Jewes. 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 Jewes only. 4. The discourse of the Apostle is about the under∣taking of Christ by death, and his being fitted thereunto by par∣taking of flesh and blood; which is so farre from being in any place restrained or accommodated only to the Jewes, as that the contrary is every where asserted, as is known to all.

1 John 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come * 1.715 in the flesh, is of God; He who comes into the world, or comes into flesh, or in the flesh, had a susibstence before he so came. It is very probable, that the intendment of the Apostle was to dis∣cover the Abomination of them, who denyed Christ to be a true man, but assigned him a phantasticall body, which yet he so doth, as to expresse his coming in the flesh in such a manner, as eviden∣ces him to have another nature (as was said) besides that which is here Synecdothically called flesh. Our Catechists to this say, * 1.716

That this is not to the purpose in hand; for that which some read, He came into the flesh, is * 1.717 not in the Greeke, 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 sence of which words, is that the Spirit is of God, which confesseth that Jesus Christ, who performed his office in the earth, without any pompe or worldly ostentation, with great hu∣mility, as to outward appearance, and great contempt, & lastly, underwent a contumelious death, is Christ, & King of the people of God.

I shall not contend with them about the translation of the * 1.718 words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seemes to be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but the intend∣ment is the same; for the word came is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, that came, or did come. 2. It is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who did come, that thence any colour should be taken 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 cam•• in the flesh, that is, as to his whole Person and office, his com∣ing, and what he came for. 3. They cannot give us any exam∣ple, nor any one Reason, to evince, that that should be the mea∣ning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which here they pretend. The meaning of it hath above been abundantly declared. So that there is no need that we should insist longer on this place. Nor why we should trouble our selves with Grotius his long discourse on 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 proofe, 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. 10. 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and Offering * 1.719 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. * 1.720

Neither is there here any mention made of * 1.721 the incarnation, (as they call it) seeing that world, into which the Author sayes Christ en∣tred is the world to come, as was above demon∣strated. Whence to come into the world, doth not signify to be borne 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 entring this world was treated of) may be ta∣ken for an immortall body.

What is the sence of this place?* 1.722

That God fitted for Jesus such a body, after* 1.723 He entred Heaven, as is fit and accommodate for the discharging of the duty of an High Priest.

But doubtlesse, then this whole dreame nothing can be more* 1.724 fond or absurd. 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 beare witnesse to the truth? Joh▪ 18. Was it into Heaven that Christ came to beare witnesse to the truth? Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1. 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 Psalmes, in these words, mine eares hast thou opened, expressing the end also why Christ had a body prepared him, namely, that he might yeild obedience to God therein, which he did signally in this world, when he was obe∣dient to death, the death, of the crosse. 3. as I have before▪ manifested the groundlessenesse of interpreting the word world, put abso∣lutely, of the world to come, and so taken off all, that here they relate unto, so in that Demonstration, which God assisting I shall give, of Christs being a Priest, and offering sacrifice in this world, before he entred into Heaven▪ I shall remove what farther here they pretend unto. In the mean time, 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 Analogie given them from elsewhere, which here is not pretended. When he comes into the world, that is, when He enters Heaven; he sayes, a body hast thou prepared me, that is, an immortall body thou hast given me, and that by this immortall body they intend indeed no body, I shall afterward declare.

Grotius turnes these words quite another way, not agreeing* 1.725 with our Catechists; yet doing still the same worke▪ with them: which because he gives no proofe of his exposition, it shall suf∣fice so to have intimated: In summe, v. 4. he tels us, how the blood of Christ takes away sinne, 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 wholy excludes the satisfaction of Christ. His coming into the world, is (he sayes) his shewing himselfe to the world, after he had lead a private life therein for a while; contrary to the perpetuall use of that expression in the New Testament; and so the whole designe of the place is eluded; the exposition whereof I shall deferre to the place of the satisfaction of Christ.

And these are the Texts of Scripture our Catechists thought* 1.726 good to endeavour a delivery of themselves from, as to that Head or Argument of our plea, for his subsistence in a divine nature, antecedently to his being borne 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 Testimonie••* 1.727 confusedly, containing Scripturall▪ Attributions unto Christ, o•• such things as manifest him to be God, which we shall con∣sider in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they are placed of them.

Their first question here is.* 1.728

In what Scriptures is Christ▪ called God?* 1.729

Joh. 1 1. The word was God. Joh. 20. 28. Thomas saith unto Christ, my Lord, and my God. Rom. 9. 5. The Apostle saith, that Christ is God over all blessed for ever.

What can be proved by these Testimonies?

That a divine nature▪ cannot be demonstra∣ted 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 nailes, and of the speare in his side: and Paul calleth him, who according to the flesh was of the Fathers, God over all blessed for ever: 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 o∣ther: and these things, to have the prints of wounds, and to be of th•• Fathers, belong wholy to a man; which were absurd to as∣cribe to him, who is God by nature. And if any one shall pretend that vaile of the distincti∣on of natures, we have above removed that, and have shewed, that this distinction cannot be maintained.

That in all this Answer our Catechists do nothing but begg••* 1.730 the thing in Question, and fly to their own Hypothesis, not against assertions but Arguments, themselves so farre know, as to be forced to Apologize for it in the close. That Christ is not God, because He is not the Person of the Father; that he is not God, be∣cause He is man, is the summe 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 with 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 affirme 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, Iohn 1. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above a∣bundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another nature, that he had before He took flesh, and dwelt with men: v. 14. Herein is He said to be with the Father, in respect of his distinct personall subsistence, who was one with the Father, as to his nature and Es∣sence.

And this is that which we prove from this Testimony, which will not be warded with a bare deniall. The word was with God, and the word was God. God by nature, and with God in his personall distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nailes; as God is said to Redeem the Church with his own blood. He was the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his humane nature shed his blood, and had the print of the nailes in his hands and feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before; & 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 Ro. 9. 5. The Apostle distinguishes of Christ, as to his flesh▪ and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or humane nature, he sayes, he was of the Fathers; but in the other regard He is God over all blessed for ever. And as this is a signall expression of the true God, God over all blessed for ever, so there is no occasion of that expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to the Fl••sh, but to assert some∣thing in Christ, which he afterwards affirmes to be his everlasting Deity, in regard whereof he is not of the Fathers. He is then of the Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The words are most emphatically expressive of the Eternall Deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the Fathers: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, even then when he tooke 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 solemne 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* 1.731 two more; as that of Isaiah 54. 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 & Spouse of the Church, will not be denyed, Eph: 5. 25. Revel: 21. 9. but he who is so, is the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole Earth. And Heb. 3. 4. the Apostle saies, 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: v. 3. But this is not my present imployment.

The Learned Grotius is pittifully entangled about the two* 1.732 last places urged by our Catechists. Of his slight in dealing with that of Ioh. 20. 28. I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christs Resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom: 9. 5. but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not serve the turne, it being not any Christians calling of him God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed Apo∣stle plainly affirming, that He is God ••ver 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ought not to be in the Text: because Erasmus had observed, that Cyprian and Hi••ary, citing this Text, did not name the word: and this he rests upon; although he knew, that all Origi∣nall 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. ••2. do both cite this place to prove, that Christ is called God, though they do not ex∣presse the Text to the full. And it is known, how Athanasius u∣sed it against the Arians, without any hesitation, as to the cor∣ruption 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 Iohn 1. 1. (the first place mentioned) do apprehend, that when he wrote his Annotations on that place, he was no opposer of the D••ity 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 humane Nature into Personall Subsistence with the Son of God: I speake as to the thing it selfe, and not to the expressions which he disallowes. But we must proceed with our Catechists.

Where doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with* 1.733 the Father?* 1.734

Joh. 10. 29, 30, 31. My Father which gave them me, is greater then 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 againe to stone him.

How dost thou Answer this Testimony?

That from hence that Christ is said to be one* 1.735 with the Father, that it cannot be proved that* 1.736 He is one with him in nature, the words of Christ to his Father of the Disciples do shew, Joh. 17. 11. That they may be one as we are; and a little after, v. 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 businesse of our Salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved, is manifest from those places, where Christ saith, his Father is greater then all, and consequently then Christ himselfe, as He expresly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep, Ioh: 14. 28.

Of this place I have spoken before: That it is an Ʋnity of* 1.737 Essence that is here intended by our Saviour, appears; 1. From the Apprehension the Iews had of his meaning in those words, who immediatly upon them took up stones to stone him for blas∣phemy, rendering an account of their so doing v. 33. because he being a man, did make himselfe God. 2. From the exposition He makes himselfe of his words, v. 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, Ioh. 17. 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 Math. 17. 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 Onenesse of Will and consent be the ground of this, that the Son and Father are one; then the An∣gels and God are one, for with their Wills they alwaies do his. 3. Onenesse of Power with God, in any worke, argues onenesse of Essence. Gods 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 then Christ, as is affirmed Ioh. 14. 28. in respect of his ••ffice of Mediation, of which there He treats; but they are One, and Equall in respect of Nature. Neither is God in this place said to be greater then all, in respect of Christ, who is said to be one with him, but in reference to all, that may be sup∣posed to attempt the taking of his sheep out of his hands. 5. Christ took, or received his sheep, not simply as God, the Eternall Son of God, but as Mediatour; and so his Father was greater then He. This Testimony then abides; He that is One with the Father, is God by Nature: Christ is thus one with the Father: (One) is the Unity of Nature; (are) their distinction of Persons. I and my Fa∣ther are one.

Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our Catechists,* 1.738 only he goes one step farther in corrupting the Text. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus: si Patris potestati ••ripi non poterunt, nec meae poterunt: nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, & quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me, aut a Patre custo∣diri: vid: Gen. 41. 25, 27. I suppose he means v. 44. being the words of Pharaoh, delegating Power and Authority immediatly under him to Ioseph; but, as it is known, p••testas is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Autho∣rity, & may belong to Office: but potentia is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, force, vertue, or power, & 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 potestatis, do not prove Unity of Essence in men, yet unitas potentiae, which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth: yea none can have unitatem Potestatis with God, but he who hath unitatem Essentiae.

What they except in the next place against Christs being* 1.739

equall with God, from Joh. 5. 18. & Phil. 2. 6. hath been already removed, and the places fully vindicated. They proceed.

But where is it that Christ is called the Sonne of the* 1.740 Living God, the proper and only beg••tten Sonne of God?* 1.741

Mat. 16. 16. Rom. 8. 32. Joh. 3. 16, 18.

But how are these places answered?

From all these Attributes of Christ a divine nature can by no meanes 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 feigne. Besides, the Scripture testifyeth of other men, that they are the Sons of the Living God: as the Apostle out of Hosea, Ro. 9 26. and as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we read that the proper and only begotten Sonne of God was delivered to death, which cannot be said of him who is God by nature. Yea from hence that Christ is the Sonne of God, it appeares that he is not God: for otherwise he should be Sonne to himselfe. But the cause why these Attributes belong to Christ is this, that he is the chiefest, and most deare to God among all the Sonnes of God: as Isaac, because he was most deare to Abraham and was his heire is called his only begotten sonne Heb. 11. 17. although he had his brother Ishmael: and Solo∣mon the only begotteen of his Mother, although he had many brethren by the same Mother: 1 Chron. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Prov. 4▪ 3.

I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore* 1.742 shall be very briefe in the vindication of them in this place. On what account Christ is, and on what account alone He is called the Sonne of God, hath been sufficiently demonstrated: and his unity of nature with his Father thence evinced. It is true 1. That Peter calls Christ, who was the Sonne of man, the Sonne of the living God. Not in that, or on that account whereon he is the Sonne of man, but because he is peculiarly in respect of an∣other nature, then that wherein he is the Sonne of man, the Sonne of the Living God. And if Peter had intended no more in this Assertion, but only that he was one among the many Sonnes of God, How doth he answer that Question, but whom say ye that I am? 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 solemne confession of him, on whom the Church is built. It is true, Believers are called Children of the living God, Rom. 9. 26. in opposition to the Idols whom they served before their Conversion; neither doe we argue from this expression barely, of the Living God, but in conjunction with those other that follow, and in the Emphati∣calnesse of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a Rocke, which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the proper and only begotten Sonne of God hath been already abundantly evinced; nor is it disproved by say∣ing, that the proper and only Sonne 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 Sonne 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 Sonne of the Father, who is God, and therein the Sonne of God, without any danger of being the Sonne of himselfe, that is, of God as he is the Sonne. This is a begging the thing in que∣stion, without offering any plea for what they pretend to, but their own unbeliefe, and carnall 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 Sonne of God, because he is most deare to God of all his Sonnes; 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 & disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the only begotten Sonne of God, only on this account, because he is most deare among all the Sonnes of God, then He is the Sonne 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, naturall, only begotten Sonne of God, in contradistinction to all others, the Adopted Sonnes of God, as was wade manifest. Isaac is called the only begotten Sonne of Abraham, not absolutely, but in refe∣rence to the Promise: He was his only begotten Sonne to whom the Promise did belong: He that received the promise offered up his only begotten Sonne. Solomon is not said to be the only begotten of his Mother, Prov. 4. 3. but only before the face, or in the sight of his Mother; eminently expressing his preferment a•• to her Af∣fections. How little is this to what the Gospell sayes of Jesus Christ?

I have only to say concerning Grotius in this mater; that* 1.743 from none of th••se 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, & improvement of these Testimonies to the end aymed at, I desire the Reader to see C. 7. They proceed.

What Scripture calls Christ the first borne of every* 1.744 Creature?* 1.745

Col. 1. 15.

What dost thou Answer thereunto?

Neither can it hence be gathered that Christ hath a divine Nature: for seeing Christ is the first borne of every Creature, it is necessary that he be one of the number of the Creatures. For that is the force of the word first borne in the Scriptures, that it is of necessity, that he who is first borne, be one of the number of them of whom he is the first borne: Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. Apoc. 1. 5. Neither that our Lord Jesus was one of the things created in the old Creation, can our Adversaries grant, unlesse 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 can∣not be proved, but also that Christ hath no such Divine nature is firmely evinced. But now that Jesus is called by that name▪ by the Apostle it is from hence, that in time & worth he far ex∣ceedeth all other things of the new Creation.

That by the Creation, in this verse, and the things annume∣rated* 1.746 to be created in the verses following, is intended the Creation of the world, and all things therein visible, & invisible, was before abundantly evinced, in the consideration of the ensuing verses, & the exceptions of these Catechists wholy removed, from being any hinderance to the embracing of the first obvious sence of the words. All then that is here infer'd from a supposition of the new Creation being here intended, (which is a most vaine supposi∣tion) falls to the ground of it selfe: So that I shall not need to take the least farther notice of it. 2. That Christ is so the first borne of the old Creation, as to be a Prince, Heire, and Lord of it, and the things thereof, which is the sence of the word as here used & yet not one▪ of them is evident from the Context: The very next words to these, He is the first borne of every Creature, are, and by him all things were created. He by whom all things, all Creatures were Created, is no Creature; for he else must create himselfe. And so we are neither Arians, nor Photinians: Though the for∣mer have more colour of saving themselves from the sword of the word, then the latter, yet they both perish by it. 3. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first borne, in this place is Metaphoricall: and the expression is intended to set out the excellency of Christ above all other things. That that is the designe of the Holy Ghost in the place, is confessed. Now where∣as the word may import two things concerning him of whom it is spoken; First that he is one of them in reference to whom He is said to be the first borne: Or 2. that he hath Privi∣ledge, Preheminence, Rule, and inheritance of them and over them; I aske which of these significations suits the Apostles ayme 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, begotten before all crea∣tures, or every creature. The Apostle doth not say, Christ was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first of them made, but he was borne 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 expresse mention is made of others, in the same kind, may denote one of them, yet where it is used con∣cerning things so far distant, & which are not compared, but one preferred above the other, it requires no such signification. See Job. 18. 13. Ps. 89. 27. Jer. 31. 9. Grotius is perfectly agreed with our Catechists, and uses their very words in the exposition of this place; but that also hath been considered, and his expositions called to an account formerly.

The next Testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to* 1.747 this question.

What Scriptures affirme, that Christ hath all things that the Father hath?* 1.748

Joh. 16. 15. Joh. 17. 10.

What saist thou to these?

We have above declared, that the word omnia, all things, is almost allwayes referred to the subject matter▪ wherefore from these pla∣ces that which they intend can no way be proved. The subject matter Chap. 16. is that which the Holy Spirit was to reveale to the Apostles, which belonged to the Kingdome of Christ. And Chap. 17. it is most apparent that he treateth of his Disciples, whom God gave him, whom he calls his. Moreover seeing that whatever Christ hath, He hath it by gift from the Father, and not of himselfe, it hence appeareth, that he can by no meanes have a di∣vine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things of himselfe.

Of these texts the consideration will soon be dispatched.* 1.749 Joh. 16. 15. Christ saith; All 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 expounded according to the subject matter treated of, that is, only what the Holy Ghost was to reveale to the Apostles. Let thē the 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 con∣cerning the Kingdome of Christ, that he was thus to shew to the Apostles. But looke whence the Holy Ghost hath his know∣ledge, thence he hath his Essence: For those things doe not re∣ally 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. Joh. 17. 10. A Reason is rendred why those who are* 1.750 Christs, are also Gods, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) were the Fathers, and all the Fathers 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 Sonne, whence all the Sonnes things are the Fathers, and all the Fathers are the Sonnes.

3. Christs having all things not from himselfe, but by* 1.751 gift from the Father, may be understood two wayes. Either it referres 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 sence 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 Sonne, in which regard he re∣ceives 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 Sonne of God, not at all that He is not God.

Grotius on the first place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: etiam* 1.752 praescientia & decreta de rebus futuris, quatenus ecclesiam spectant. Did he truly intend what the first words do import, we should judge our selves not a little beholding to him. The Foreknow∣ledge of God is not in any, who is not God: nor his decrees: The first is an Eternall property of his nature: The latter are Eternall Acts of his will. If Christ have these, He must have the nature of God; But the last words evidently take away what the first seeme to grant, by restraining this participation of Christ, in the foreknowledge & Decrees of God, to things concerning the Church, in which sence Socinus grants the knowledge of Christ to be in∣finite, namely in respect of the Church. Disput de Adorat. Christi cū Christiano Francken p. 15. But it being certaine, that he whose the Prescience of God, & 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 Office as Mediatour, 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 Authour.* 1.753

But what Scripture calleth Christ the Eternall Fa∣ther?* 1.754

Isaiah 9. 6.

What sayst thou thereunto?

From thence a Divine nature cannot be pro∣ved, seeing Christ is called the Father of Eter∣nity for a certaine cause, as may be seen from the words there a little before expressed. But it is marvelous, that the Adversaries will referre this place to the Sonne, which treats of the E∣ternall Father, who, as it is evident according to themselves, is not the Father. But Christ is said to be the Father of Eternity, or of the world to come, because he is the Prince and Author of Eternall life, which is future.

It were well for our Adversaries if they could thus shift off* 1.755 this Testimony. Let the words be considered, and it will quickly appeare, what need they have of other helps, if they intend to escape this Sword, that is furbished against them, and

their cause. The words of the verse are: For unto us a Child is borne, unto us a Sonne is given, and the Goverment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderfull, Councellour, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Our Catechists confessing that this is spoken of Christ, and* 1.756 that he is here called the Everlasting Father, (they are more mo∣dest then Grotius, whose labour to corrupt this place, is to be bewayled; having ventured on the words, as farre as any of the moderne Rabbines, who yet make it their businesse to divert this Text from being applyed 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: this is that which is here affirmed of him, that his name shall be called, or He shall be, & shall be known to be (for both these are con∣tained in this expression) Wonderfull, Councellour, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He who is the mighty God, & 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. 10. 17. Nehem. 9. 32. Jerem. 32. 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. 110. 1. Elohim, Psal. 46. 5. Heb. 1. 8. Jehovah, Jerem. 23. 6. Chap. 33. 16. Mal. 3. 1. Psal. 83. 18, God, Joh. 1. 1. The true God, 1 Joh. 5. 20. The great God, Tit. 2. 13. (of which places before) and here the Mighty God, the Eternall Father.

2. What say our Catechists to all this; they fix only on that* 1.757 expression, the Eternall Father; and say that we cannot intend the Sonne here, because we say, he is not the Father; and yet so do these Gentlemen themselves: they say Christ is the Sonne of God, and no way the same with the Father, and yet they say upon a pe∣culiar account he is here called, the Eternall Father.

3. On what account then soever Christ is called the Eternall* 1.758 Father, yet he is called so; and is Eternall; 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 Eternall 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 Eternall Father, the Prince of Peace, is God by na∣ture, which was to be confirmed.

So much for them. But our other Friend, must not be for∣gotten.* 1.759 The place is of great importance. The Testimony in it, evident & cleare: & we must not suffer our selves on any pretence to be deprived of the suport thereof. Thus then he proceeds in the Exposition of this place.

For unto us a Child is borne, id est, nascetur, nam Hebraea prae∣terita* 1.760 sumuntur pro futuris: i. e. shall be borne &c. of this we shall have use in the very next words.

Unto us a Sonne is given.] dabitur. Ezechias patri Achazo* 1.761 multum dissimilis. Sic tamen ut multo excellentius haec ad Messiam pertine∣re, non Christiani tantum agnoscunt, sed & Chaldaeus hoc loco. i. e. Shall he given: Ezechiah most unlike his Father Ahaz. Yet so that these things belong more excellently to the Messiah, not only as the Christians acknow∣ledge; but the Chaldee in this place.

Here begins the exposition. Hezekiah is intended. So in∣deed* 1.762 say some of the Rabbins. But 1. This prophesy is evident∣ly a continuance of that which is begun c. 7. & was given at the time of the invasion of Judah by Rezin, and Pekah; which was after Ahaz had raigned some years; as is evident, 2 King. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Now he raigned but 16. yeares in all; and when He∣zekiah came to the Crown in succession to him he was 25. yeares of age: 2 Kin. 18. so that he must needs be borne before this Prophesy; there is then already an inconsistency in these Annotations; making the Prophet to speake of that which was past as future and to come.

2. It is true, that the Chaldee Paraphrast applyes this* 1.763 Prophesy unto the Messiah, whose words are. Dicit propheta Domui David; Quoniam parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis, & suscepit legem super se, ut servaret eam; & vocabitur nomen ejus, a facie admirabilis consilii Deus, vir permanens in aeternum: Christus cujuus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus. He not only referrs the whole to Christ, without any intimation of Hezekiah, but says also, that his name shall be, the God of Coun∣cell.

3. Neither is he alone; but the antient Rabbins generally* 1.764 are of the same Judgement, 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.

4. The present difference between us and the learned Anno∣tatour* 1.765 is, whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no: to what hath been spoken, we have that to adde in opposition to him, which we chiefely insist upon, namely, that none of the things ascribed to the person here spoken of, can be attri∣buted to Hezekiah, as expressing somewhat more Divine then can be ascribed to any meer 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* 1.766 of the chiefe said he was the Messiah indeed; and that they were to look for no other: This is the judgement 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 di∣sputed by Rabbi Joseph Albo, Orat. 1. cap. 1. Whether Hillel were not to be reckoned among the Aposta••es, 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 as∣signe: this they prove from v. 7. where in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 7. mem clausum is put in the middle of a word. This Grotius takes notice of v. 7. and saies, eo stabilitatem significari volunt He∣braei, ut per mem apertum in fine rupturam: perhaps sometimes they do so; but here some of them turne 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, & istud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esa. 9. 7. clausum est? Quae∣sivit Deus sanctus benedictus facere Hezekiam Messiam, & Senacheribum Gog & Magog. Dixit proprietas judicii coram eo, domine mundi, & quid Davidem, qui dixit faciei tuae tot cantica, & laudes, non fecisti Mes∣siam, Ezechiamvero, cui fecisti omnia signa haec, & non dixit canticum faciei tuae, vis facere Messiam? Propterea clausum fuit statim, &c. Egres∣sa

est vox coelestis, secretum meum mihi.

Rabbi Tanchum said, see∣ing every mem that is in the middle of a word is open, how comes that in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be closed? The holy blessed God sought to make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, and Senacherib to be Gog and Magog: propriety of judgement

(that is, the right measure of judgement)

said before him, Lord of the whole earth, why didst thou not make David Messiah, who spake so many Songs and Praises before thee? and wilt make He∣zekiah to be the Messiah, for whom thou hast wrought those great signes, and he spake no song before thee? instantly mem was shut, and an heavenly voyce went forth, my secret belongs to me.

And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a Song.* 1.767 And these are good Masters in the Interpretation of Prophesies concerning Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned Annotator about this businesse: Non incredibile est (saies he) quod unus scriba properans commiserat, 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 then those of the Jews: as that by this mem clausum is signified the birth of Christ of a Virgin; and whereas, in number it signifies 600▪ it denotes the space of time at the End whereof Christ was to be borne; which was so many years from the fourth of Ahaz, wherein this Prophesy as is supposed was given.

I have not insisted on these things, as though they were of* 1.768 any importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, where men are dealing seriously about the things of ••••od; 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.

Returne we to the Annotations, the first passage he fixes on is;* 1.769 And the Government shall be on his shoulder; saith he, id est, erit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ab ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, ut inregnum natus; confer Ezech. 28. 13. He shall be borne to Purple: From his very cra∣dle he shall beare the Kingly Purple, being borne to the Kingdome.

But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah; his sonne Menassah* 1.770 was all this as well as He. And how this being in it selfe a light

and triviall thing, common to all other Kings sonnes with him, should be thus Prophesyed of as an eminent Honour and Glory, none can see any cause. 2. But is this indeed the meaning of these words? Hezekiah when he is a boy shall weare a purple C••at; which the Prophet when he gave forth this Prophesy, perhaps saw him playing in every day. Certainely it is a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to a mans own under∣standing, in the exposition of the Scripture. That the Goverment, the Principality here mentioned, which is said to be upon the shoulder of him, concerning whom the words are spoken, that is cōmitted to him, as a weighty thing, is the whole Rule & Gover∣ment of the Church of God, committed to the mannagement of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ the Mediatour, to the unconceivable bene∣fit and consolation of his People, the Reader may find evinced in all expositours on the place; (unlesse some one or other of late; Persons of no note, who to appeare somebodys have ventured to follow Grotius) it is not my businesse to insist on particulars.

His next note is on these words: His name shall be called. In* 1.771 Haebraeo est vocabit. Supple quis{que}. Etiam Chaldaeus vocabitur trans∣tulit. Notum autem Haebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui tales Ti∣tuli aut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conveniunt. I delight not to contend at all, nor shall do it, without great cause. For the sence of these words I am content, that we take up thus much: the Titles following are his names; & they agree to him; that is, He is, or shall be such an one, as answers the description in them given of him. But here our Great Doctors, whom this great man followes are divided. Some of them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seeing how it is possible that the names fol∣lowing should be ascribed to Hezekiah, some of them directly terming him God, they pervert the words, and read them thus; The Wonderfull, Councellour, 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 by cases in the Hebrew. And this way go all the present Rabbins, being set into it by Solomon Jarchi, on the* 1.772 place. But as this is expressly contrary to the Judgement of the old Doctors▪ as hath been abundantly proved out of their Targum and Talmud, where▪ Ezekiah is called the Lord of eight names, and is opposed to Senacherib, who they say had eight

names also; So it is contrary to all their own Rules of Grammer, to place the name of Him who calls, after the verbe calling, of which there is not one instance to be given. Grotius therefore takes in with them, who apply all these names to Hezekiah: shift with them afterwards as well as he can. So he proceeds.

Wonderfull: ob summas quae in eo erunt virtutes. For the excellent* 1.773 virtues that shall be in him. But I pray why more then David, or Josiah? This is his name Wonderfull, that is, he shall be very vertuous, & men shall admire him: How much better this name a∣grees to him, & how much more proper it is, whose Person is so great a Mystery 2 Tim. 3. 16. & whose name is so abstruse, Prov. 30. 4. & that upon the wonderfull 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.

Councellor, the Mighty God: imo consultator Dei fortis. id est, qui in* 1.774 omnibus negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per Prophetas scilicet, ut jam seque∣tur. Yea he who taketh Councell of the Mighty God: that is, who in all his affaires asks Councell of God, namely by the Prophets.

And is not this boldnesse thus to correct the Text: Coun∣sellor,* 1.775 the mighty God; yea He that asketh Counsell 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, equal∣ly 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 intollerable bold∣nesse. It is not without great probability of Truth pleaded by some, that the two first words should go together, the Wonder∣full Counsellor, as those that follow do; not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 admirabi∣lis, is an Epithete, 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 Wisdome of Christ, in all his waies, purposes, and Counsells concerning his Church, this other terme seems to be suited to the setting forth thereof. But this corruption of the Text is the more intolerable in our Annotatour, because in the close of his Observations on this place, he confesses, that all the

things here mentioned have a signification in Christ, much more sublime and plaine, then 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 Rabbinicall 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* 1.776 to Hezekiah, The Everlasting Father; or as it is in the vulgar Latine, Pater futuri seculi; In Hebrae•• non est futuri; Pater seculi est, qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, & 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 vulgar Latine Translation we do not contend. Of* 1.777 the meaning and use of the word Gnolam I have spoken already; when it is applyed to God, it signifies Eternity; but the word* 1.778 here is not Gnolam, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly Eternity when applyed to God, Psal. 10. 16. God is King, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seculi & aeternitatis, 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 sonnes he left, besides one, and he a wicked one for the most part of his daies, is un∣certaine; within an 130 years, or thereabout, his whole posteri∣ty was carried Captive; how exceedingly unsuited this appella∣tion is to him, is evident. The Father of Eternity, that is, one that leaves a Son behind him, & a possibility for his posterity to con∣tinue in the condition wherein he was for an 130 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, Princeps Pacis, the Prince of Peace. Princeps Paci∣ficus, & in pace victurus. A peaceable Prince, and one that should live in Peace.

1. On how much better, more Noble, and Glorious account* 1.779 this Title belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of Peace, is not a peaceable Prince, but the Author, Giver, Procurer, Esta∣blisher of Peace. 3. Neither did Hezekiah Raigne in Peace all

his daies; His Kingdome was invaded, his fenced Citties taken, and himselfe and cheife Cittie delivered by a miraculous slaughter of his enemies.

Of the encrease of his Government, and of Peace no end. Which he* 1.780 reads according to the vulgar Latine; Multiplicabitur ejus imperi∣um, & Pacis ejus non erit finis. Litera••ly, for the multiplying▪ of his Kingdome, and of Peace no end; As to the first part, his exposition is; id est, durabit per annos 29. His Kingdome shall continue for 29 years. Who would believe such grosse darknesse should cover the face of so Learned a man. Of the increase of his Govern∣ment there shall be no end; that is, He shall raigne nine and twenty years. This might almost twice as properly be spoken▪ of his sonne Manasses, who ••aigned 55. And now let him that hath a mind to feed on such huskes as these, go on with his Annotati∣ons in this place. I am weary of considering such trash. And let the pious Reader tremble at the Righteous Judgement of God, giving up men trusting to their own Learning and abili∣ties, refusing to captivate their hearts to the obedience▪ of the truth, to such foolish and childish imaginations, as men of common sence must needs abhorre.

It appears then that we have here a description of Jesus* 1.781 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 Catechists.

In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they re∣turne* 1.782 slight Answers unto; and yet to provide them in such manner, as that they might be the easier deal•• withall, they cut off parcells, and Expressions in the middle of sentences, and from the Context, from whence the greatest evid••nce, as to the Testimony they give in this matter, doth arise. I shall ••••nsider them apart as they are proposed.

1. Christ is called the Word of God, Joh. 1. 1. Revel. 19. 13.* 1.783 They say.

From hence that Christ is called the Word* 1.784 of God, a divine nature▪ in Christ cannot be proved, yea th•• contrary may b•• ga〈…〉〈…〉er••d. For seeing He is the Word of the One God, it is ap∣parent, 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, Ioh. 1. 18. as He is also in the same sence said to be life and Truth.

Christ is the Word of God; the Word or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.785 or the Word which outwardly is spoken of God: or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Eternall Essentiall Word, or wisdome. 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 Gods Eternall Word, or Wisdome, and so consequently God. 2. Christ is so called the Word of God, (Ioh. 1. 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 doubtlesse the one true God, v. 1, 2, 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, Ioh. 1. 1. upon the account of his actuall revealing the word of God to us, in his own Per∣son on the Earth, (which He did v. 18.) because he is called so in his everlasting residence with the Father, before the World was, v. 1. Nor is He so called on that account, Revel. 19. 13. it being applied to him, in reference to the worke of executing Judgement on his enemies, as a King, and not his revealing the word of God, as a Prophet. So that notwithstanding this Excep∣tion, 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. 1. 15. Christ is the Image of the Invisible* 1.786 God. To which they say only;

The same may be said of this, as of that foregoing.* 1.787 But,

An Image is either an Essentiall Image, or Accidentall. A Repre∣sentation* 1.788 of a thing in the same substance with it, as a Sonne is the Image of his Father, or a Representation in some resemblance like that of a Picture. That Christ cannot be the latter is evi∣dent. Our Catechists referre 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 Epithite of God, but to declare also the invisible Spirituall nature of Christ, wherein he is like his Father. And the same is here intended with what is mentioned in the third place.

Heb. 1. 3. He is the expresse Image of his Person.* 1.789

This is to be understood, that▪ whatever God hath pro∣mised,* 1.790 He hath now really exhibited in Christ.

Well expounded; Christ is the Character of his Fathers person,* 1.791 that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ▪ Would not any man admire these mens accumen, and readinesse to interpret Scriptures? The words are part of the description of the Person of the Son of God: He is the brightnesse of his Fathers Glory, and the expresse Image of his Person, upholding all things by the word of his Power: that is, He reveales the will of God. This the Apo∣stle had expressly affirmed v. 1. in plaine & familiar termes; that he should now repeat over the same thing againe in words so exceedingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The Apostle speakes of the Hypostasis of the Father, not of his Will: of his subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We doe not deny, that Christ doth represent his Father to us, and is to us the expresse image of his Person, but antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in himselfe. Grotius his corruption of this whole Chapter, was before discovered, and in part removed.

Joh. 14. 9. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; is next* 1.792 proposed. To which they say;

Neither can any Divine nature be proved from* 1.793 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 speakes of his Father and his Onenesse, whereby he* 1.794 that saw one, saw both, as he describes it to be in the verse fol∣lowing; where he sayes, the Father is in Him, and He in the Fa∣ther. N••w 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 Sonne are seen unto Believers.

Col. 2. 9. is the last in this Collection. In whom dwelleth all the* 1.795 fu••lnesse of the God-head b••dily.

To this they say 1.

That this word Divinitas,* 1.796 may signify the will of God; And seeing the Apostle opp••s••th ••hat speech not to Persons, bu•• to P••ilosophy & the Law, it is manifest, that it is to be un••••rstood of the Doctrine, and not of the Person of Christ. Of this word Bodily thou shalt heare afterward.

But, 1. It is not Divinity, but Deity, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.797 that is here spoken of; and that not simply neither, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the fullnesse of the God-head. 2. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is ever taken for the Will of God, they doe not, they cannot prove. 3. How can it be said, that the Will of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth dwell bodily in any, or what can be the sen••e of that expre••sion? Where they afterwards interpret the word Bodily I do not remember, when I meet with their ex∣position it shall be con••ider••d. 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 beare any such sence, as whereunto they are wrested, but also from the Context. For not only the whole order, and series of words before and after, doe speake of the Person of Christ, For in him are hid all treasures of wisdome and knowledge, v. 3. Him we receive, v. 6. In him we are built up, v. 7. In him we are compleat, v. 10. In him we

are circumcised, v. 11. With him we are buried. v. 12. Together with him are we quickned, v. 13. And it was He that was crucifyed for us, v. 14, 15. but also the designe of the Holy Ghost enforces this sence; it being to discover a fullnesse and sufficiency in Christ, of all Grace and Wisdome, that men should not need to seek reliefe from either Law or Phylosophy. The fullnesse of the God-head inhabiting in the Person of Christ substantially, He is God by nature. And of these places so farre: the three follow∣ing, of Joh. 17. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 10, 11. Joh. 3. 13. have been in their proper places already vindicated.

Grotius interprets that of Col. 2. 9. according to the Analogy* 1.798 of the Faith of our Catechists; Christi doctrina non modo Philosophiae sed & Legi plurimum praestat. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should be Doctrina, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should make it the Doctrine of Christ, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should be no man knowes what, is but a crosse way of interpretation. And yet Augustine is quo∣ted, with a saying from him to give countenance unto it; which makes me admire almost as much as at the interpretation it selfe. The words our Annotatour mentions are taken from his Epist. 57. ad Dardan. though he ••enti••ns i•• not. The reason will quickly appeare to any one that shall consult th•• place; for notwithstanding the expression here cropt off from his Discourse, he gives an interpretation of the words, utterly contrary to what this Learned man would h••re insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have now proposed.

Our Catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places* 1.799 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. 8. 6.

A little to give light to our Argument from hence, and that* 1.800 the strength of it may appeare, some few observations concerning the Context, and the words themselves, will be necessary.

1. V. 7. The Apostle speaking of the Heathens, and their o∣pinion* 1.801 of the Deity, says there be, that is, to them, in their ap∣prehension, Gods many, and Lords many: that is, many supreame

Powers who are Gods and Lords. The termes of Gods many, and Lords many are not expressive of severall kinds of Deities, but of the same; whom they esteemed Lords they esteemed Gods, and so on the contrary: In opposition to this Polutheisme of theirs, he declares that Christians have but one God, one Lord; wherein if the Apostle did not intend to assert one only God unto Chri∣stians, in the different Persons of Father and Sonne, he had not spoken in such an opposition, as the Adversative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the beginning of the words, and the comparison instituted do re∣quire.

2. That this one Lord of Christians is the only true God,* 1.802 is manifest from Deut. 6. 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 wh〈…〉〈…〉 Idolatry is that assertion of Moses. And so Thom••s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 co••fe••sion joynes these two together, intending one and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Person, my Lord, and my God.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being put to signify God, is the word which the* 1.803 Septuagint render Jehovah by, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is that only Jehovah.

4. The Attribution of the same Workes in this verse to Fa∣ther* 1.804 and Sonne, manifest them to be the same one 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;* 1.805 For. 1. He doth manifestly difference him from* 1.806 the Father, whom we have taught above to be the only God by nature. 2. This that it says of him, that by him are all things, shewes him not to be God by nature, seeing as hath been above declared, this particle by, doth not signify the first, but the second cause, which can by no meanes be spoken of him, who is God by nature. And though the Scriptures do some∣times say of the Father, by him are all things, yet these words are to be taken otherwise of the Father, then of the Sonne. It is manifest that this is said of the Father, because all me∣diate

causes, by which any thing is done, are not from any other, but from himselfe; nor are they such, as that He cannot worke without them: but it is spoken of Christ, because by him, another, namely God, worketh all things, as it is expressly said Eph. 3. 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 is so appeareth hence, that the Apostle dealeth of al 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 ab∣solutely, but in some certaine respect, called the one Lord, by whom are all things. Where∣fore his Divine nature is not proved from hence.

It is very evident, that they are much entangled with this* 1.807 Testimony, which necessitates them to turne themselves into all manner of shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no. Their severall attempts to evade shall be considered in their order,

1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearely from the Father,* 1.808 as to his Person, here spoken of; but that they have proved the Father to be the only God by nature, exclusively to the Sonne, and Holy Ghost, is but a boasting before they put off their harnesse. It is true, the Father is said here to be the one God, which no more hinders the Sonne from being so too, then the Assertion that the Sonne is the one Lord, denyes the Fathers being so also.

2. That cavill at the word by, hath been already conside∣red,* 1.809 and removed. It is enough for us to manifest, that this As∣signation of the Creation of all things to Christ, by the Expres∣sion of, by him are all things, doth by no meanes depose him from the honour of principall efficient Cause in that worke, 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 sence, and not to Christ, is purely with∣out any pretence of proofe to begge the thing in Question. Nei∣ther is that any thing to the purpose, which is urged from E∣phes. 3. 9. for we confesse, that as Christ is equall with his Father, as to his nature, wherein He is God, so as He is the Son 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 con∣sideration,* 1.810 is the demonstra••ion 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 himselfe and Idols, Jer. 10. 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 al∣so that the Father is not the one God absolutely, but in some re∣spect only.

4. The words, to us, and Father, do one of them expresse the* 1.811 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 himselfe to those Believers; neither of them at all enforcing 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 needlesly multiply words particularly to a∣nimadvert* 1.812 on Grotius his Annotations on this place: I do it only where he seems to adde 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 occurring in this place, I shall not trouble the Reader with the consideration of his words. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to maintaine his former Expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things of the n••w Creation only intended, but without colour or pretence of proofe; or any thing to give light to such an expo••ition of the words.

Our Catechists next mention, 1 Cor 2. 8. for if they had known* 1.813 it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

Who is the Lord of Glory, or God of Glory, the Holy Ghost de∣clares, Act: 7. 2. The God of Glory appeared to our Father Abraham

when he was in Mesopotamia: & Psal. 24. 9. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in Battell. Christ there∣fore is this God; and indeed is intended in that Psalme. But they say:* 1.814

Divine Nature cannot be proved from* 1.815 hence, seeing it treateth of him who was Cru∣cified; 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,

1. Though the Divine Nature could not be Crucified, yet He* 1.816 that had a Divine Nature might be, and was Crucified in the na∣ture of a Man, which He also had. Our Catechists know they do but begge in these things; and would feign have us grant, that because Christ had an Humane nature, He had not a Divine. 2. He is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory, and these termes are equivalent, as hath been shewed. 3. He was the Lord of Glory when the Jewes 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, untill after his crucifying.

Grotius his Annotation on this place, is worth our observati∣on,* 1.817 as having somewhat new, and peculiar in it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eum quem Deus vult esse omnium Judicem, nam Gloria Christi maximè illum diem respicit; 1 Pet. 4. 13. Christus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, praefiguratus per arcam, quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 24. 9. For the matter and substance of it, this is the same plea with that before mentioned; the Ad∣ditions only deserve our notice: Christ is called the Lord of Glo∣ry, as God is called the God of Glory. And that terme is given him to testify, that he is the God of Glory. If his Glory at the day of Judgement be intended, the Jewes 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 Christs Glory is men∣tioned, 1 Pet. 4. 13. not his obtaining of Glory. He is Essential∣ly the Lord of Glory, the manifestation whereof is various, and shall be eminent at the day of judgement. 2. That the Arke is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is little lesse then Blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of Hosts, who is called the Lord of Glory, Psal. 24.

9. But this is another shift, for the obtaining of the end de∣signed; namely to give an instance where a creature is called Je∣hovah, (as that King of Glory is) then which a more unhappy one could scarce be fixed on in the whole Scripture. The An∣notations of the Learned man on that whole Psalme are very scanty; his designe is to referre it all to the story of Davids bringing home the Ark••, 2 Sam. 6. That it might be occasioned thereby I will not deny; that the Arke is called the King of Glory, and the Lord of Hosts, and not He, of whose Presence and Favour, the Arke was a Testimony, no attempt of proofe is offered. Neither (by the way) can I assent unto his Interpre∣tation of these words; Lift up your heads O ye Gates, and be ye lift up yee everlasting doores: that is, Yee Gates of Sion, made of Cedar, that are made hanging downe, and when they are opened▪ they are lifted up. Certainly something more sublime and Glorious is in∣tended.

The processe of our Catechists is unto Revel. 17. 14. & Chap.* 1.818 19. 16. in both which places Christ is called the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. This also is expresly the name of God, 1 Tim. 6. 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.* 1.819

In this Testimony He is treated of who is the* 1.820 Lamb, who hath garments, who was killed, and Redeemed us with his blood, as John evidently testifyeth, which can by no meanes be referred to a Divine nature, and therefore a Divine na∣ture 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 be∣long to the New Covenant.

These are but drops, the showre is past. Because he who was the* 1.821 Lamb, who was slaine, 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 was the Lamb, He was killed,

slaine, therefore He is not God; that is, He is not King of Kings, & Lord of Lords, which the Holy Ghost, who gave him this name will prove against them. 2. Our Adversaries have nothing to ex∣cept 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 Wor••d, are not of the things of the New Covenant, so that Christs absolute soveraignty over them, is not of the grant which he hath of his Father as Mediatour, but as he is God by nature. And so much for this collection concerning these seve∣rall Names of God Attributed to Christ.

What followes in the three Questions and Answers ensuing,* 1.822 relates to the divine Worship attributed to Christ in the Scrip∣tures, though it be marveilous 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 M. Biddle (C. 10.) I 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 his Eternall power and God-head.

In the last place, they heap up together a number of Testi∣monies,* 1.823 each of which is sufficient to cast them down to the sides of the pit, in the middest of their Attempts against the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God, and accommodate a slight generall Answer to them all. The places are worth the consideration, I shall only propose them, & then consider their Answer.

The first is Is. 8. 13, 14. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himselfe, let him* 1.824 be your feare, & let him be your dread. And He shall be for a Sanctuary: but for a stone of stumbling, & a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel. He that is to be for a Rock of offence, & a stone of stumbling, is the Lord of Hosts, whom we must sanctify in our hearts, and make him our dread and our feare. But this was Jesus Christ: Luk. 2. 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 block, a rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed: Rom. 9. 32, 33. the stone which the builders refused,—and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence: 1 Pet. 2. 7. In all which places that Prophesy 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 feare.

Isa. 45. 22, 23. I am the Lord, and there is none else: I have sworne* 1.825 by my selfe, the word is gone out of my mouth in Righteousnesse, and shall not returne, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall sweare. He who is God, and none else, is God by nature▪ But now, we must all stand before the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ, for it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confesse to God. Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12▪ It is the Judgement seat of Christ, that men must appeare before, when they bow their knee to him, that is, to him who is God, and none else.

Isa. 41. 4. I Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. Chap. 44.* 1.826 6. I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. So Chap. 48. 12. That this is spoken of Christ we have his own Testimony, Revel. 1. 17. Feare 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. 12. 10. I will poure on the House of David, and upon the Inha∣bitants* 1.827 of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and supplications, and they shall looke upon me whom they have pierced. He that speakes is unquestio∣nably 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. 1. 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 a∣gaine, another Scripture saith they shall look on him whom they have pier∣ced. Joh. 19. 36, 37. It is as I said beyond dispute, that it is Jehovah the only true God that spake, and what he spoke of himselfe is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Psal. 68. 17. The Chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thou∣sands* 1.828 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 re∣ceived 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, Ephes. 4. 8, 9, 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 sayes; that what is properly spoken of God, is by Paul mystically applyed to Christ: to the same pur∣pose with what our Catechists afterwards insist on. That it is the same person who is intended in both places, and not that applyed 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 indeavour to divert the meaning of the places to another sence, I 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* 1.829 it may appeare, that a divine nature in Christ* 1.830 cannot from them be proved. For those things which are spoken of God under the Law, may be spoken of Christ under the Gospell: as also they are spoken for another cause; namely, because of that eminent conjunction that is be∣tween God & Christ, on the account of domi∣nion, Power, and Office; all which the Scrip∣tures of the New Testament doe frequently witnesse, that he received by gift from God. And if the Scripture delivers this of Moses, that he brought Israel out of Egypt, Exod. 32. 7. and that he was the Redeemer of the people; & of others, the same things that were evidently writ∣ten of God, when neither Moses, nor others had so neer a conjunction 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 neere conjunction that was between them.

And this is their defence: the Answer they fix upon to all* 1.831 the Testimonies recited: wherein how little Truth or strength there is, will quickly appeare. 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 withall to their own destruction? But the question is, how they ought to be inter∣preted, and what is their sence and intendment. 2. We doe not say, that what is spoken of God under the Law, is accommo∣dated to Christ under the Gospell; 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 appeares by the event, ex∣pounded in the Bookes 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 naught in comparison of the di∣stance that is between the Creatour and a meere creature, is manifest; for let any one be in never so neare 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 businesse in hand: It is said of Moses, that he brought the Children of Israel out of Aegypt, and so he did, as their chiefe Leader and Ruler, so that he was a Redeemer to that people, as he was instrumentall in the hand of God, working by his power and Presence with him those mighty workes, 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 himselfe, was said of Moses & accomplished in him? Or where ever 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 principall efficient, they as the Instrumentall cause, and so may every other creature in the world; as the Sunne gives light and heat; but shall therefore that which God speakes in his own name of himselfe, be so much as ac∣commodated

unto them? 6. The Conjunction that is between God and Christ, according to 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 & all Believr••s; so that of them also, what is spoken of God may be spoken.

And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through* 1.832 with the consideration of all the Testimonies, given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, which these Catechists thought good to take notice of; with a full Answer to their long Chap. de Persona Christi. 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 clearnesse and evidence, had I taken liberty to handle them, as they naturally fall into severall heads, from the Demonstrati∣on of all the Names, and Properties, all the Workes, and Lawes, all the Worship, and Honour of God, to be given and ascribed to Je∣sus Christ. But the worke I had to doe cast my endeavour in this businesse into that order and method, wherein it is here presented to the Reader.

The conclusion of our Catechists is a long Harangue, wherein* 1.833 they labour to insinuate the prejudicialnesse 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 Gospell. The only medi∣um they fix upon, for to gaine 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 ac∣knowledged in their own Consciences. Of the truth of the latter elsewhere. He that had a perfect humane nature, Soule and body, with all the naturall and essentiall properties of them both; He who was borne so, lived so, dyed so, rose againe 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, sinne only excepted, there is a way open for, in this our Confession of him. In the mean time, the great foun∣dation of our Faith, Hope, and Expectation lyes in this, that He is the Sonne of the Living God, and so, that God redeemed his Church with his own bloud; 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 meer 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 sinnes, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them, who wrought out a Righteousnesse, that is rec∣koned to all that believe, that quickens us when we are dead, and sends the Holy Ghost to dwell and abide in us, and is himselfe present with us, &c. It is impossible we should ever have the least consolation in our flying for refuge to him, unlesse we had this grounded perswasion concerning his Eternall Power and Godhead. We cannot think He was made the Sonne of God, and a God, upon the account of what he did for us; but that be∣ing God, and the Son of God, herein was his Love made manifest, that he was made flesh, took upon him the forme of a servant, and became therein for us obedient unto death, the death of the Crosse. Many indeed and inexpressible are the encouragements unto Faith, and Consolation in believing, that we do receive from Christs being made like to us, a perfect man, wherein he under∣went what we were obnoxious unto, and whereby He knowes how to be compassionate unto us; but that any sweetnesse can be hence derived unto any, who do refuse to own the foun∣taine, whence all the streames of Love and Mercy, that runne in the humane nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea that our Adversaries in this businesse 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 dayly de∣monstrate from innumerable Testimonies of Scripture. And for these men, the truth is, as they lay out the choicest of all their endeavoures to prove him not to be God by nature, and so not at all, (for a made God, a second-rank God, a Deifyed man, is no God, the Lord our God being one, and the conceit of it brings in the Polutheisme 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 retaine the nature of a man: and so insteed of a Christ that was God from Eternity, made a man in one Per∣son

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 M. B. after his Masters, instructs his Disciples in, in his lesser Catechisme C. 10. namely, that although Christ rose with his fleshly body, wherein he was cru∣cifyed, yet now he hath a spirituall Body, not in its qualityes, 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 disposed of it, he doth not declare.

CHAP. XV.

Of the Holy Ghost, his Deity, Graces, and Operations.

M^r BIDDLE'S 5^th Chapter examined.

Q. HOW many Holy Spirits of Christians are there?

A. Eph. 4. 4.

Q. Wherein consists the prerogative of the Holy Spirit above other Spi∣rits?

A. 1 Cor 2. 10, 11.

Q. Whence is the Holy Ghost sent?

A. 1 Pet. 1. 12.

Q. By whom?

A. Gal. 4. 6.

Q. Doth not Christ affirme that he also sends him? How speaketh he?

A. Joh. 16. 7.

Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtaine it at a certaine time?

A. Act. 2. 32, 33. Joh. 7. 39.

Q. What were the generall benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?

A. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 16, 26, 27. Rom. 5. 5. Col. 1. 8. Eph. 1. 17. Rom. 15. 13. Rom. 14. 17. Act. 9. 31. Eph. 3. 16.

Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost? What saith Christ to them hereof?

A. Joh. 15. 26. Joh. 16. 13.

Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of Himselfe, and imparting of his own fulnesse? What saith Christ concerning him?

A. Joh. 16. 13, 14.

Q.. Do men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world, and in their naturall 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. Joh. 14. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Gal. 4. 6. Act. 8. 14, 15, 16. Joh. 7. 38, 39. Act. 19. 1, 2. Eph. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Act. 15. 7, 8. Act. 2. 38. Act. 5. 32.

EXAMINATION.

Of the Deity of the Holy Ghost: and his Worke, &c.

THE Fifth Chapter of our Catechist, is, concerning the Ho∣ly* 1.834 Ghost, for reducing of whom into the Order and ranke of* 1.835 Creatures, M^r B. hath formerly taken great paines; following therein the Macedonians of Old, and leaving his new Masters, the Socinians, who deny him his Personality, and leave him to be on∣ly the efficacy, or Energy of the power of God. The designe is the same in both, the meanes used to bring it about differ. The So∣cinians not able to answer the Testimonies proving him to be* 1.836 God, to be no creature, do therefore deny his Personality; M^r B. being not able to stand before the cleare evidence of his Per∣sonality, denyes 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? Ans. One spi∣rit.* 1.837 Eph. 4. 4.

I must take leave to put one Question to M. 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 are Bapti∣zed into his 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 evident, Eph. 4, 4. and this Spi∣rit is God blessed for ever: nor can any be called that one Spirit of Christians, but he that is so. But if by the Holy Spirits of Christi∣ans, He intends created Spirituall beings, sent out of God for the good of Christians, of those that believe, there are then an in∣numerable company of Holy Spirits of Believers; for all the Angells are ministring Spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of Salvation, Heb. 1. 13, 14 So that by this one Testimony, that there is but one Holy Spirit of Christians, that Holy Spirit is ex∣empted from the number of all created Spirits, and reckoned as

the object of their worship, with the one God, and one Lord; Ephes. 4. 4, 5, 6. When yet they worship the Lord their God alone, and him only do they serve, Mat. 4. 10.

His second Q. is, Wherein consists the Prerogative of that Holy Spi∣rit* 1.838 above other Spirits. Ans. 1. Cor. 2. 10, 11.

The Prerogative of that Holy Spirit, of whom we speake, is, that of God above his Creature: the Prerogative of an Infinite, E∣ternall, Selfe-subsisting Being. Yea and that this is indeed his Prerogative, we need not seek for proofe beyond that Testimony here produced by M^r B. (though to another purpose) in An∣swer 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 know∣eth 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 hee* 1.839 charged with folly. Omniscience is an essentiall Attribute of God▪ And therefore Socinus in his disputation with * Franken, durst not allow Christ to be omniscient, least he should also grant him to be Infinite in Essence. Againe; He that searches, or* 1.840 knowes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the deep things of God, is God; None can know the deep things of an Infinite Wisdome and Understanding, but He that is Infinite. All creatures are excluded from an ac∣quaintance with the deep things of God, but only as he voluntari∣ly revealeth them, Rom. 11. 34. Who hath known the mind of God, or who hath been his Counsellor? That is; no Creature hath so been; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ioh. 1. 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 A••••aires. And so it is with the Spi∣rit of God; being God, and having the same Understanding, and Will, and Power with God the Father, and Sonne; as the Spirit of a man knowes 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, M^r B. hath provided sufficiently for his own conviction, and the scattering of all his Paralogismes, and Sophisticall insinua∣tions, running through them both.

The designe of this present Chapter, being to pursue what* 1.841 M^r B. hath some years since publickly undertaken, viz. to disprove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; his aime here being to divert the thoughts of his Catechumens from an apprehension thereof, by his Proposall and Answers of such Questions, as serve to his designe, pretending to deliver the doctrine con∣cerning the Holy Ghost from the Scripture, and not once pro∣ducing any of those Texts, which are most usually insisted on, for the confirmation of his Deity, (with what Christian Candor and Ingenuity, is easily discovered) I shall briefly from the Scrip∣ture, in the first place, establish the Truth concerning the eter∣nall Deity of the Person of the Holy Ghost; and then consider his Questions in their order, so farre as shall be judged meet or necessary.

I shall not go forth unto any long discourse on this subject:* 1.842 Some plaine 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.

I. Then, The spirit created, formed, and adorned this World;* 1.843 and is therefore God. He that made all things, is God. Heb. 3. 4. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the SPIRIT of his mouth: Psal. 33. 6. By his SPIRIT hath he garnished the Heavens. Job. 26. 13. The SPIRIT of God hath made mee, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Chap. 33. 4. Psal. 104. 30. He that makes the Heavens, and garnisheth them; He that maketh man, and giveth him life, is God. So in the beginning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 motabat se, moved himselfe, as a Dove warming its young, as he afterward appeared in the forme of a Dove. And hence that which is ascribed unto God absolute∣ly in one place, is in another ascribed to the spirit absolutely, as Exod. 4. 15. Numb. 12. 8. what it is affirmed that God doth, will do, or did, is affirmed of the Spirit, Act. 1. 16. cap. 28. 25. so Numbers. 14. 22. Deut. 6. 16. What is said of God, is affirmed of the Spirit, Isa. 63. 10. Acts 7. 51. so also Deut. 32. 12. compared with Isa. 63▪ 14. innumerable other instances of the same kind might be added.

II. He Regenerates us; Unlesse we are borne againe of Water and* 1.844 the Spirit, we cannot enter into the Kingdome of God, Ioh. 3. 5. 2 Thessa∣lon. 2. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 2. He also searcheth all things, even the deep things

of God, as was before observed, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. From him is our Illumination, Ephes. 1. 17, 18. 2 Cor. 3. 18. Ioh. 14. 26. The Comfor∣ter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach you all things, Chap. 16. 13. The spirit of Truth shall guide you into all Truth; The Holy Ghost shall teach you, Luk. 12. 12. And he foretelleth things to come. Joh 16. 13. 1 Tim. 4. 1. which is a property of God, whereby he will be known from all false Gods, Isa. 41. 22, 23. &c. and he is in some of these places expresly called God: as also, 1 Cor. 12. v. 6. ••ompared with v. 11. and he is immense, who dwells in all▪ Be∣lievers.

III. He dwelleth in us as God in a Temple, Rom. 8 9. 1 Cor.* 1.845 3. 16. thereby sanctifying us 1 Cor. 6. 11. comforting us Joh. 16. 8. and helping our infirmities. Rom. 8. 26. Mortifying our sins, Rom. 8. 13. Creating in us Christian Graces, Gal. 6. yea he is the Author of all Grace; as is evident in that promise made of his presence with the Messiah, Isa. 11. 2. I say with the Messiah, for of him on∣ly are those words to be understood; to which purpose, I can∣not but adde the words of an old Frier to the shame of some a∣mongst 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 Talmud, this is ex∣pounded* 1.846 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 erre, whilest▪ they feare 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 him, and not of Josiah; which according to his way, he would never have done, if without the injury of his Talmud and Tar∣gum, and the prejudice of all his predecessors, he could have expounded it otherwise. So farre he.

It is not a little strange▪ that some▪ Christians should ven∣ture farther in perverting the Testimonies of Scripture con∣cerning the Messiah, then the Jewes dare to do.

IV. He makes, and appoints to himselfe, and his service, Mini∣sters* 1.847 of the Church, Act. 13. 2. giving unto them Powers, and

working various and Wonderfull workes, as he pleaseth, 1 Cor. 12. 8.

V. He is sinned against; and so offended with sinne, that the* 1.848 sinne against him shall never be forgiven, Math. 12. 31. Though it be not against his Person, but some especiall Grace and Di∣spensation of his.

VI. He is the Object of Divine Worship; We being Baptized in∣to* 1.849 his Name, as that of the Father and Sonne, Mat. 28. 19. And* 1.850 Grace is prayd for from him, as from Father and Sonne, 2 Cor. 13. 13. Revel. 1. 4. Rom. 10. 14. He is to be Head of Churches, Revel. 2. 3. But God will not give this glory to another, Isa. 42. 8. Also he hath the Name of God given him, Esa. 6. 9. compared with Acts 28. 25, 26. and Isa. the 63. ch. v. 13, 14. with Ps. 18. 41, 52. 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. Act. 5. 3. & the Attributes of God are ascribed to him, as (1.) Ubiquity, or Omnipresence, Psal: 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16. (2.) Omniscience, 1 Cor. 2. 10. Ioh. 16. 13. His Omnipotency and Eternity are both manifest from the Creation.

To all this, in a word, it may be added, that he is a Person: the denyall whereof is the only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Ho∣ly Ghost, Mat. 28. 19. And (2) He is conjoyned with the other Divine Persons, as one of them, 2 Cor. 13. 13, Revel. 1. 4, 5. Math. 28. 19. (3.) He hath an Understanding, 1 Cor. 2. 11. and a Will, 1 Cor. 12. 11. (4.) To him are Speaking, and Words ascribed, and such actions, as are peculiar to Persons, Acts 13. 2. Acts 20. 28. &c.

What remaines of this Chapter will be of a briefe and easy* 1.851 dispatch: The next question is.

Whence is the Holy Ghost sent? Answ. 1 Pet. 1. 12. Down from Heaven.

1. This advantageth not at all M. Biddles designe 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 certaine 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, prejudiciall to* 1.852 the prerogative of his divine Being. For he, who is God, equall 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* 1.853 of the Father and the Son, having the Execution of that worke which they respectively concurre in, in an eminent manner to him committed.

3. Where ever the Spirit is said to descend from Heaven, it is* 1.854 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 againe. Essentially he is every where Psal. 139▪ 1, 2, 3, &c.

4. In that place of Peter alleadged by M. Biddle, not the Per∣son of the Spirit, but his gifts on the Apostles, and his Operations in them, whose great and visible foundations were laid▪ Act. 2. on the day of Pentecost, are intended.

The two next Question, leading only to an Expression of the* 1.855 sending of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, though M. Biddles Christians differ about the interpretation of the places produ∣ced for the proofe thereof, and there ly 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 alwaies the power to send the Holy Ghost,* 1.856 or did he obtaine it at a certaine time. Ans. Act. 2. 32, 33. Joh. 7. 39.

The intendment of this Querie is, to conclude from some certaine respect and manner of sending the Holy Ghost to the thing it selfe: from the sending him in a visible, glorious,* 1.857 plentifull, eminent manner, as to the Effusion of his gifts and Graces, to the sending of him absolutely, which me thinkes a Master of Arts should know to be a Sophisticall way of arguing. 2. It endeavours also, from the Exercise of Power to conclude to the receiving of the Power it selfe; and that not the absolute Exercise of it neither, but in some certaine respect, as was spoken. This then is that, which M. Biddle concludes. Because Christ when he was exalted, or when he ascended into Heaven,

had the acomplishment of the Promise actually in the sending forth of the spirit, in that abundant and plentifull manner which was Prophesyed of by Joel Cap. 2. 28. therefore he then first re∣ceived Power to send the Spirit. Which 4. by the Testimo∣ny of Christ himselfe is false, and not the sence of the Holy* 1.858 Ghost in the places mentioned; seeing that before his Ascension he breathed on his Disciples, and bad 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. 1. 11. The Spirit that was in the Prophets of old, was the Spirit of Christ, and sent by him; as was that Spirit, by which he preached in the dayes of the old disobedient world; which places have been for∣merly vindicated at large. So that 6. as that place Act. 2. 32, 33. is there expounded to be concerning the plentifull effu∣sion of the gifts of the Holy spirit in the times of the Gospell, according to the prophesy of Joel: so also is that of Joh. 7. 39. it being positively affirmed, as to the thing it selfe, that he gave the Holy Ghost before his exaltation, though not in that abundant manner as afterwards. And so neither of them con∣clude any thing, as to the time of Christs receiving power to send the spirit; which upon the supposition of such a worke, 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,* 1.859

Q. What were the generall 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 subjoyned. Upon the whole I have only some few things to animadvert.

1. If by the word generall benefits, he limits the receiving of* 1.860 those benefits of the Holy Ghost to any certain time, (as sup∣pose the time of his first plentifull effusion upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and the preaching of the Gospell 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 Life, nor ever be brought to an eternall fru∣ition of him: So it is most false, and contrary to the expresse 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 dayes of his flesh. But I will* 1.861 suppose this is not his intention: because it would plainely 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 annumerated, may be called generall benefits,* 1.862 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 severall Individuals; the same* 1.863 spirit dividing to every one as he will; they are so generall to them all, that every particular Believer enjoyes them all.

3. The Annumeration here given us, is very farre and re∣mote* 1.864 from being complete; there being only some few fruits of the Spirit, and priviledges, 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 workes in us, of the Helpes he affords us, of that Joy, and Consolation he imparts unto us, of the dayly 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 priviledges 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 taske: I have* 1.865 also in part done it elsewhere.

4. I desire M. Biddle seriously to consider, whether even the things which he thinkes good to mention, may possibly be as∣cribed to a meer Creature, or that all believers are by such an one baptized into one body; that we are all made to drinke into one Spirit, &c. But of these things before. Unto this he adds,

Q. What are the speciall benefits accruing to the Apostles by the* 1.866 Holy Ghost: and what saith Christ to them thereof? Answ. Joh. 15. 26. Act. 16. 13.

Besides the Graces of the Spirit, which the Apostles as Believers, received in a plentifull 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 Au∣thority they were seperated to the worke, and were to performe it unto him Act. 13. 2. So whatever worke they were to per∣forme

either as Apostles, or as penmen of the Scripture of the New Testament; they had suitable Gifts bestowed on them, by him 1 Cor. 12. inspiration from him suitable to their worke: 2 Pet. 1. 21. and 2 Tim. 3 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* 1.867 God, working all in all, that divideth of his gifts, as he will 1 Cor. 12. 6, 12. and giveth all Gifts whatever to the Church, that it doth enjoy; so did he in an especiall manner with the Apo∣stles.

Now our Saviour Christ being to leave the World, giving gra∣cious* 1.868 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 common with that of all them, who were to Believe on him to the end of the World 2 Of Apostles & of such, as he intended to im∣ploy* 1.869 in that great worke of planting his Church in the world, & propagating his Gospell to the ends of it. Under both these con∣siderations doth he promise the Spirit to his Disciples. Joh. 13, 14, 15, 16. praying his Father for the Accomplishment of those promises: Chap. 17. that, as Believers they might be kept in the Course of their ob••dience to the end: in which regard he made those promises no lesse to us, then to them. And

2. That as Apostles they might be furnished for their worke, preserved, and made prosperous therein. Of this latter sort, some passages in the verses here mentioned seeme to be, & may have a peculiar regard thereunto, & yet in their substance are of the first kind, & are made good to all believers. Neither is there any more said concerning the teaching and guidance of the Spirit into the Truth, in Joh. 15. 26. & 16▪ 13. then is said 1 Joh. 2. 20, 27. where it is expressly assigned to all Believers. Of that Ʋnction and teaching of the Spirit, of his preserving us in all Truth needfull 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 feare despised by M. Biddle, this is not a season to treat.

That which followes concernes the Order and way of pro∣cedure,* 1.870 insisted on by the Sonne, and Holy Ghost, in carrying on

the Worke of our Salvation, and propagation of the Gospell, whose soveraigne fountaine is in the bosome of the Father. His Querie is.

Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of himselfe, and imparting of his own fulnesse? What saith Christ concer∣ning him? Ans. Joh. 16. 13, 14.

1. The Scripture proposeth the Holy Ghost in the Com∣munication* 1.871 of his Gifts and Graces under a double considera∣tion. 1. Absolutely: as he is God himselfe: and so he speaketh of himselfe, and the Churches are commanded to attend to what he so saith, Revel. 2. 29. and he imparts of his own fullnesse: the self s••me spirit dividing to every one, as he will, 1 Cor. 12. 11. And in this sence 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 speake by the Spirit: Mat. 22. 43. Acts 1. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 21.

2. Relatively: and that both in respect of Subsistence and Ope∣ration, as to the great worke of saving sinners by Jesus Christ. And as in the first of these senses, he is not of himselfe, being the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne, proceeding from them both. So nei∣ther doth he speake of himselfe, but according to what he re∣ceiveth of the Father, and the Sonne. 2. Our Saviour Christ saies here, he shall not speake of himselfe: but he no where saies, He shall not impart of his own fulnesse, which is M. Biddles Addition. To speake himselfe shewes the originall Authority of him that speakes, whereby he speakes to be in himselfe: which as to the words and workes pointed to, is not in the Holy Ghost Perso∣nally considered, and as in this dispensation. But, to impart of his own fullnesse, is to give out of that, which is eminently in him∣self: which the Holy Ghost doth, as hath been shewen▪ 3. Christ in the words insisted on, comforting his Disciples with the pro∣mise of the presence of his Spirit, when he should be bodily ab∣sent from them, acquaints them also with the Workes that he should do, when he came to thē, & upon them in that cleer, eminent, & abundant manner, which he had promised; which is not any new worke, or any other, then 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 blesse them withall, should be no other, but what were procured and purchased for them by himselfe. These things is the Spirit said to heare and speake, 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 sence, and manner. All that dis∣course which we have of the Mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding or coming forth from the Father and Sonne, for the ends specifyed, Joh. 14. 26. & 15. 26. & 16. 7, 13. concernes not at all the eternall Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne, as to his distinct personality and subsistence, but belongs to that O••con••my or dispensation of ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in, for the accom∣plishment of the worke of our Salvation.

The last Querie, by the heap of Scriptures, that are gathered in* 1.872 answer to it, seems to have most weight laid upon it: but is in∣deed of all the rest most weakely S••phisticall: The words of it are.

Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost, while they are of the World, and* 1.873 in their naturall 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?

Ans. The Answer is as above. To the same purpose is that of the Racovian Catechisme.

Is there not need of the internall Gift of the Spirit, that* 1.874 we may believe the Gospell.

Ans. By no means; for we do not read in the Scrip∣ture, that that gift is conferred on any, but him that be∣lieves the Gospell.

Remove the ambiguity of that Expression, Believe the Gospell, and those two Questions perfectly fall in together. It may then be taken either for, Believing the Doctrine of the Gospell, in opposition to the Law, and in this sence it is not here enquired after; or for the power of Believing in the subject, and in that sence it is here denyed.

Now the designe of this Question is, to deny the effectuall* 1.875 Operation of the Holy Ghost, for, & in the Conversion, Regenerati∣on,

and Sanctification of the Elect, and to vindicate the whole work of Faith, Holinesse, Quickning, &c. to our selves. The way designed for the proofe and establishment of this Insinuation consists, in producing sundry Testimonies, wherein it is affir∣med, that those who do believe, and are the Children of God, do receive the Spirit for other ends and purposes, then those here enumerated. The summe 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 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 neces∣sary for any work or employment, that they are called unto; then the Holy Spirit doth not quicken, nor regenera••e them, nor work Faith in them, nor make them the Children of God, nor implant them into Christ. Now when M. B. proves this conse∣quence, I will confesse him to be Master of one Art, which he never learned at Oxford; unlesse it were his busines to learne what he was taught to avoyd.

2. But M^r B. hath one fetch of his skill more in this Questi∣on.* 1.876 He askes, whether men do receive the Holy Ghost, when they are of the World; And for a confutation of any such Appre∣hension, produceth Testimonies of Scripture, that the world can∣not receive the Holy Ghost, nor the naturall Man the things of God. But who told this Gentleman that we say, men whilest they are in, and of the World, do receive the Spirit of God, or the things of the Spirit, in the Scripture sence of the use of that word, re∣ceiving? The expression is metaphoricall, yet alwaies in the case of the things of the Gospell denoting the Actings of Faith in them, who are said to receive any thing from God. Now if this Gentleman could perswade 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 whether he pleased, as the Philistims did Sampson, when they had put out his eyes. A little then to in∣struct 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 mens being enabled to receive it, that Spirit by his power and the efficacy of his Grace, quickneth, regenerateth, and worketh

Faith in their hearts. In briefe, the Spirit is considered, and promised, either as a Spirit of Regeneration, with all the conco∣mitants, and essentiall consequents thereof; or as a Spirit of A∣doption, and the consequents thereof. In the first sence 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 naturall Man* 1.877 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 naturall 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 naturall Man, then, unlesse there be some other Power, then what is in himselfe, to translate him from that condition, it is impossible, that he, who is a Naturall 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 Regenerati∣on,* 1.878 and Faith in men, I shall not now insist on the many Testi∣monies, whereby it is usually, and invincibly confirmed. There is no one Testimony given to our utter impotency, to convert, or regenerate our selves, to believe, repent, and turne to God; no pro∣mise 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 3. 5, 6. Not by workes of Righte∣ousnesse, 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* 1.879 Jesus Christ, unto the Deity of the Spirit, attempting to ranke him among the workes of his own hand, of the peculiar espousing of an enmity against him by Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, from whom the ensuing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 took their name, of the No∣vell inventions of Faustus Socinus and his followers, denying the

Personality of the Spirit, making him to be nothing, but the effi∣cacy of the Power of God, or the Power of God, this is no place to treat. Besides, the Truth is, untill they will speak clearly what they meane 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 accidens, they will not tell us; it is they say potentia Dei: this we confesse; but say, he is not potentia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and that be∣cause we prove him to be God. What then hath been spoken of Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, I shall shut up with that Di∣stich of Gregor. Naz. Sent. Spir. lib. 3.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

CHAP. XVI.

Of Salvation by Christ.

M^r Biddles 6^th Chapter Considered.

THis is a short Chapter, and will speedily receive its Con∣sideration. That Christ is a Saviour, and that He is so call∣ed* 1.880 in Scripture, is confessed on all hands. M. 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 businesse, and theirs, we have the Summe, with the Reasons of it, in the Book of their great Apostle, De Jesu Christo Servatore. This Book is Answered throughout with good successe, by Si∣bran••us Labba••us. The Nerves of it cut by Grotius, De satisfactione Christi; and the reply of Crell••us thereunto throughly removed by Essenius in his Triumphus Crucis. The whole Argumentative part of it, summ'd up into five heads, by Michael Gittichius, is an∣swered 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 Master-piece of the Adversaries, and have made it their businesse to remove its Sophistry, and unmaske its preten∣sions.

M. B. is very slight and overly in this businesse, being not able in the method of Procedure imposed on himselfe, so much as to deliver his mind significantly, as to what he does intend. The deniall and rejection of the satisfaction, and merit of Christ, is that which the man intends, as is evident from his Preface, where he denys them name and thing. This he attempts▪ partly in this Chapter, partly in that concerning the Death of Christ, and also ••hat of Justification. In this he would attempt the no∣tion of Salvation, and referre it only to deliverance from death, by a glorious Resurrection. Some brief Animadversions may possibly rectify the mans Mistakes. His first Question we passe, as a principle in the termes of it on all sides confessed, namely, that Christ is our Lord and Saviour.

His Second is.

Q. Is Christ our Saviour originally, and of himselfe; or because he* 1.881 was given, exalted, and raised up by another to be a Saviour?

Ans. Act. 4. 12. & 5. 31. & 13. 23.

The intendment of this Quere is, to pursue the former insi∣nuations 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 briefe, Christ is considered either absolutely, with respect to his Divine Nature, and Person, as he is God in himselfe: and so he is a Saviour originally, of himselfe: For as for our Redeemer the Lord of Hosts is his Name, the Holy one of Israel, Isa. 47. 4. For thy Maker is thine Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his Name, the Holy one of Israel, Ch. 54. 5. In this sence was Christ a Saviour originally, and of himselfe; But as He took flesh, to accomplish the work of our Redemption, by tasting death for us, though his own mercifull and gratious Will did concurre 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 an hundred more, and not one of them lying in the least subserviency to M. B's designe.

His last Quere is.* 1.882

Q. How do the Saints expect to be saved by Christ?

Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Philip. 3. 20, 21.

The intendment of this Question, must be to Answer the ge∣nerall proposall, in what sence Christ is our Saviour, and how his People are saved by him. Now however that be true in it selfe, which is here asserted, and is the exurgency of the Question & Answer, as connected, the Saints expecting Salvation by Christ, in the compleat accomplishment of it by his Power in Heaven, yet as here proposed to give an account of the whole sence, where∣in Christ is our Saviour, is most false and deceitfull. Christ is a Saviour principally, as he was promised, and came to save his peo∣ple from their Sinnes, whence he had his name of Jesus, or a Savi∣our, Mat. 1. 21. and that by his death, Heb. 2. 14, 15. or laying downe his life a Ransome for us, Math. 20. 28. and giving himselfe a price of Redemption for us, 1 Tim. 2. 6. by whom we have Re∣demption by his blood, even the forgivenesse of sinnes, Eph. 1. 7. so sa∣ving or delivering us from the wrath, that is for to come; 1 Thes. 1. last. The Salvation, which we have by Christ, which this Chapter in Title pretends to discover, is from Sinne, 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 sence of Rom. 5. 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 businesse under our Consideration of the death of Christ.

CHAP. XVII.

IN his Seventh Chap. he proposeth two Questions in gene∣rall,* 1.883 about the Mediation of Christ: Answering first, that he is a Mediator, from 1 Tim. 2. 5. 2. That he is the Mediator of the New Covenant, Heb. 8. 6. & 12. 24. But as to his work of Media∣tion, what it is, wherein it doth consist, on what account prin∣cipally 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 lye, 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 I shall hereunto adde his Ninth Chapter also,* 1.884 which is concerning Bemission of Sinnes by Jesus Christ. The dif∣ference between his Masters and us, being about the meritorious and procuring Cause of Remission of Sinnes by Christ, which here he mentions not; What is farther to be added thereabout, will fall in also under our Consideration of the Death of Christ, and our Justification thereby.

His first Question is altogether out of Question, namely, Wh••* 1.885 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. 16. 16. To as many as receive him, power is given to become the Sons of God, even as many as believe in his name, Joh. 1. 12.

To his next Question an Answer may be given, that will* 1.886 suit that following also; which is the whole of this Chapter; The Question is; Doth not Christ forgive sinnes? Ans. Christ forgave you, Col: 3. 13.

That Christ forgives sinnes, is taken for granted; And yet for∣givenesse of Sin is the supreamest Act of Soveraigne Divine Pow∣er, that God exerciseth in the World. Now Christ may be con∣sidered two waies. 1. Absolutely, as God over all, blessed for ever; So he forgave sinnes by his own Originall Authority and pow∣er, as the Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy. 2. As Mediatour, God and Man; and so his Power was delegated to him by God the Father, as himselfe speakes: All power is given unto me, in Heaven and in Earth, and Mat. 9. he saith, that he had Power on earth to forgive sinnes, i. e. given unto him. Now for∣givenesse of sinnes, is either Autheritative, or declarative. The latter Christ delegated to his Apostles, and all their successors in the Work of Preaching the Gospell: and it is such a Pow∣er, as a meer man may be invested withall. Forgivenesse of sins, which we terme Authoritative, being an act of Soveraign Divine Power, exercised about the Law, and Persons concerned therein, may be said to be given to Christ two waies. 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 what∣ever workes the Father doth, He doht likewise; quicken, as he quickens; Pardon, as he Pardons; as hath been declared. 2. As to the Execusion of it, for such an end and purpose; as the car∣rying on of the Work of Mediation committed to him. And so it is given him in Commission from the Father, who sent him in∣to the World to do his will; and in this sence had He, the Son of Man, power to forgive sins, whilest he was in the Earth. And to M^r B's Ninth Chapter this may suffice.

CHAP. XVIII.

Of Christs Propheticall Office.

THE eighth Chapter in M. Biddle is of Christs Propheticall* 1.887 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 al∣ready.

His first Quest. is. Is not Christ dignifyed as with the title of Media∣tour, so also wiih that of Prophet. Ans. Act. 3. 20, 22.

M. Biddle tels us C. 4. that Christ is dignifyed with the title of God,* 1.888 though he be not so; and here that he is dignifyed 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 Mediatour, particu∣larly as a Priest, as he was to break the Head of Sathan, by the* 1.889 b••using of his own heele. The next solemne renovation of it to Abraham, was of him as King, taking all nations to be his In∣heritance. 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 dig∣nifyed with that Title, but so he is indeed.

2. But says M. Biddle, he is dignifyed with the title of a Prophet,* 1.890 as well as of Mediatour. As though his being a Prophet were contradistinguished from his being a Mediatour. Christs 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 Mediatour between God and man, the surety of the Covenant. He is not then a Mediatour and a Prophet, but He who is the Mediatour, 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 Mediatour. M. 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 Propheticall Office, and nothing else: Which makes me somewhat to wonder, why this man seemes to distinguish be∣tween them.

Many more notions of M. Biddles Masters are here omitted;* 1.891 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 dayes of Noahs, and it was the Spirit of* 1.892 Christ, that was in all the Prophets of old, whereby God in∣structed his Church: That he is a Prophet only, because he hath* 1.893 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 layes dirt enough in our way, so that we shall not need farther to rake into the dunghill.

4. I should not have thought that M. Biddle could have* 1.894 taken advantage for his End and purpose from the place of Scrip∣ture he mentions Act. 3. 20, 22. For Moses said truely, a Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Br••theren like unto me, but that I find him in his next Querie repeating that expression [like unto me] and wresting of it to be the foundation of a con∣ceit plainly jocular. Christ was like to Moses, as he was a Prophet, 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, & had that likenesse to them, which the Antitype (as the thing typifyed is usually, but improperly called) hath to the Type: But that therefore he must not only be like them in the Generall Office wherein the correspondency doth consist, but also in all the particular concernments of the Office, as by them administred, is to confound the Type and (the Antitype, or ra∣ther) thing typifyed. Nor do the words used either by Moses,

Deut 18. 18. or by Peter, Acts 3. 22. intimate any such similitude or likenesse between Christ and Moses, as should extend to such particulars, as are afterw••rds intimated. The words of Peter are, God shall raise you up a Prophet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: rather as he raised up me, then like to me: not the least similitude being inti∣mated between them, but in this, that they were both Prophets and both to be hearkned unto. And so the word used by God to Moses: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sicut tu, (a Prophet as thou art) doth im∣port: I will raise up one that shall be a Prophet, as thou art a Prophet: The likenesse is only in the Office. For such a simi∣litude as should give the least occasion to M: Biddles following figments there is no colour. And so the whole foundation be∣ing rooted up, the tottering superstruction will easily fall to the ground. But then to proceed;

For as much as Christ was to be a Prophet like unto Moses, and Moses* 1.895 had the priviledge above other Prophets, that God made not himselfe known to him in a vision, nor spake to him in a dreame, but face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend, and shewed to him the similitude of▪ the Lord Exod. 33▪ 11. Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8. Can you tell any passage of Scrip∣ture which intimateth, that Christ did see God before the discharge of his Propheticall Office. Ans. John 6. 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 princi∣ples,* 1.896 or the inferences of it are considered.

The principles of it are sundry: 1. That God hath a bodily* 1.897 shape, and similitude, face, and hands, and the like corporeall* 1.898 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 doe also▪ Therefore, 1. Christ did see the face of God, as a man: 2. He did it before he entred his Propheticall Office; whereunto adde 3. the proofe of all; no man hath seen the Father, save he which 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* 1.899 already spoken that, which M: B: will not take out of his way. Of Christs being like Moses, something also hath now been delivered.

That which Exod: 33. 11. in the Hebrew is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

panim al panim, the Septuagint have rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is,* 1.900 praesens praesenti, as one present With him: and the Chaldee Para∣phrast verbum ad verbum. That is, God dealt with him kindly, and familiarly, not with astonishing terrour; and gave him an inti∣mate acquaintance with his mind and will. And the same ex∣pression is used concerning Gods speaking to all the people; of whom yet it is expressly said, that they saw no likenesse at all: Deut. 5. 4.

If from the likenesse mentioned, there must be a samenesse asserted unto the particular attendencys of the discharge of that Office; Then Christ must divide the Sea, lift up a Brazen Serpent, and dye in a Mountaine, and be buried by God, where no man could ever know. Moses indeed enjoyed an eminency of Re∣velation 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 faithfull in all the house of God, but this man is over his house, whose house we are, Heb. 3. 5, 6▪

3. This figment is for ever, and utterly everted by the Holy* 1.901 Ghost, John 1. 17, 18. where he expresly urges a dissimilitude be∣tween Moses, and the only begotten sonne, in that particular, where∣in this Gentleman would have the likenesse to consist. Herein sayes M. B. is Christ like to Moses, that as Moses 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 bosome 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 cleare and familiar manner, then he did to other Prophets; though he told him plainly, that he should not, or could not see his face, Exod. 33. 18, 19. though he gave him some lower manife∣stations of his glory. So that notwithstanding the Revelations made to him, no man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten sonne; He who is of the same nature and Essence with the Father▪ & is in his bosome love, He hath seen him, Joh. 6. 46. & in this doth Moses, being a man only, come infinitely short of the only begotten Sonne, in that he could never see God, which He did. Which is also asserted in the place of Scripture cited by M. Biddle.

4. To lay this axe then also to the Root of M. B's. Tree, to cut* 1.902 it down for the Fire; The Foundation of Christs Propheticall Office, as to his knowledge of the will of his Father, which he was to reveale, doth not consist in his being taken up into Heaven, and there being taught the will of God in his Humane Nature: but in that He was the only begotten Sonne of the Father, who E∣ternally 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 Humane Nature, wherein he declared and Preached the Will of God, He was taught of God, being filled with Wisdome and Ʋnder∣standing,* 1.903 by the Spirit, whereto he was anoynted for that pur∣pose; but as the only begotten Sonne, in the bosome of the Father, He alwaies saw him▪ knew him, and revealed him.

I shall only adde, that this fancy of M. B. and the rest of the* 1.904 Socinians, (Socinianisme being indeed a kind of modest, and sub∣tle* 1.905 Mahumedisme) of Christs 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 quibuscum locutus est ipse Deus. saith he. Est hic Moses: aut juxta alios Moses & Mahumed, super qui∣bus Pax: Mosi Deus locutus est ea nocte, qua in exstasi quasi fuit in mon∣te Sinai. Mahumedi vero locutus est illa nocte, qua s••alis coelo admotis, Angelos vidit ascendere, tunc enim vix jactum duarum sagittarum ab eo fuit. How neer Moses came is not expressed; but Mahomet came within two bow-shoot of him: how neer the Socinian Christ came, I know not, nor doth M. B. informe us.

But yet as M. B. eats his word, as to Moses, and after he had* 1.906 affirmed, that he saw the face of God, saies, he only saw the face of an Angell, so do the Mahumetans also, as to the vision of their Prophet, and tell us▪ that indeed he was not able to see an Angell in his own proper shape, as Socinus says we cannot see a Spirituall Body, though M. B. thinks, that we may see Gods right hand and his left: But of this you have a notable story in K••ssaeus. Saith he:

They report of the Prophet,* 1.907 that on a certain day (or once upon a time) he said to Gabriel: O Gabriel I desire to see thee, in the forme 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 swoun: Mahomet answered, although it be so, yet I would see thee in a bigger shape: Gabri∣el therefore answered; O beloved of God; where dost thou desire to see mee? Mahomet answered, without the Citty of Mecca, in the stony Village; saies Gabriel, that Village will not hold me; therefore answered Mahomet, let it be in Mount Orphath, that is a larger and fitter place saies Ga∣briel; away therefore went Mahomet to Mount Orphath, and behold Gabriel with a great noyse covered the whole Horizon with his shape; which when the Prophet saw, he fell upon the earth in a swoune: when therefore Gabriel, on whom be Peace, had returned to his former shape, he came to the Prophet, and embracing and kissing him, said to him, Feare not O belo∣ved of God, I am thy brother Gabriel. The Pro∣phet answers; thou speakest 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 wouldest thou say, if thou sawest the shape of the Angel Europhil?

They who know any thing of the Mahumedan forgeries and abominations, 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 M. B's mind, that it was not God indeed, but an Angell, that appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai; and thence is this Tale, which came to passe once upon a time.

He proceeds.

From whence doth it appeare, that Christ like Moses heard from God* 1.908 the things that he spake?

Ans. John 8. 40. John 8. 26, 28. Joh. 15. 15. Joh. 14. 8.

All the difficulty of this Question ariseth from those Words, like Moses, and the sence by M. B. put upon them: how falsly▪ how inconsistently with himselfe, with what perverting of the Scripture, hath been declared. The Scriptures in the Answer affirme only that Christ heard, and was taught of the Father: which is not at all denyed, but only the modus, that M. B. would impose upon the words, is rejected: Christ heard of the* 1.909 Father, who taught him as his Servant, in the work of his Me∣diation, by his Spirit, wherewith He was anoynted; but it is his going into Heaven, to heare a lesson with his bodily ••ares, which M. B. aimes at; and labours under the next Querie to prove, how unsuccessefully shall briefly be demonstrated.

Saith he.

Can you farther cite any passage to prove, that Christ as a man ascen∣ded* 1.910 into Heaven, and was there, and came from God, out of Heaven, be∣fore he shewed himselfe to the World, and discharged his Propheticall office: So that the talking of Moses with God, in the person of an Angell, bear∣ing the name of God, was but a shaddow of Christs talking with God?

Ans. John 3. 13. Chap. 6. 38, 51. Chap. 7. 32, 33, 41, 42, 57, 58. Chap. 8. 29. Chap. 13. 1, 2. Chap. 16. 28, 29, 30. Chap. 17. 8.

We are come now to the head of this Affaire; to that which* 1.911 ha's been aimed at all along in the former Querys. The summe is: Christ untill the time of his Baptisme, 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 Generall. But then when He was led into the Wildernesse, to be tempted, He was rapt up into Heaven, and* 1.912 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 kn••w the Will of God, by being his only begotten Sonne, full of Grace* 1.913 and Truth, and that he was full of the Spirit, when he went to the Wildernesse, being by him anoynted to Preach the Gospell; though at his solemne entrance so to do, the Heavens were o∣pened, and the Holy Ghost descended on him in the forme of a Dove, God giving solemne Testimony to him, and charge to

heare him, yet because M. B's Masters are not able to answer the Testimonies of Scripture, for the Divine Nature of Christ, which affirme 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 Sonne of God. Be∣fore I proceed farther in the Examination of this Invention, and detection of its falshood, that it may appeare, that M. B. made not this discovery himselfe, by his impartiall study, (as he reports) of the Scripture, it may not be amisse to enquire after the mind of them in this businesse, whose Assistance M. B. ha's in some measure made use of.

The Racovian Catechisme gives us almost the very same Questi∣on* 1.914 and Answer. (Ʋnde apparet Christum Dei voluntatem perfecte ma∣nifestasse? Hinc, quod ipse Jesus perfectissima ration••, eam, a Deo in coelis sit edo••tus, & Deum hominibus pub••••candum e coelo magnifice sit ••issus, & eam perfecte iisdem annu••••iavit. Ʋbi vero Scriptum est Christum fu∣isse in coelo, & a coelo missum. Joh. 6 38. Chap. 3. 13. Catech. Ra∣••ov. de Offic. Christi Prophetico Qu. 4, 5.)

Whence is it manif••st, that Christ revealed the Will of God perfectly unto u••? Hence, because Jesus himselfe was in a most perfect manner ••aught it of God in Heaven, and was sent from Heaven magnificent∣ly for the publishing of it to men, and did perfectly declare it to them; but where is it written, that Christ was in Hea∣ven, and was sent from Heaven: Joh. 6. 38.

And so do they proceed with the places of Scripture here cited by M B. The same Smalcius spends one whole Chap. in his Book of the Di∣vinity of Christ, whose title is, De initiatione Christi ad munus Pro¦pheticum, to declare and prove this thing; that Christ was so ta∣ken 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 vari∣ance with M. B. that he deny's, that Moses saw the Face of God, which this man makes the ground of affirming, that Christ did so. But here M. B. is at variance also with himselfe, in the end of the last Question, intimating that Mos••s saw only the Face of an Angell, that bare the name of God, which now serves his turne as the other did before. Ostorodus in his Institutions▪ Cap. 16. pursues the same businesse with vehemency, as the manner of the man was; but Smalcius is the Man, who boasts himselfe to have first made the discovery; and so he did, as farre as I can find; or

at least, he was the first that fixt the time of this rapture, to be when he was in the Wildernesse. And saith he, hoc mysterium no∣bis a Deo per sacras literas revelatum esse plurimum g••udemus▪ (idem ibid.) And of all his Companions, this man laies most weigh•• on this Invention: His 8. chap. in the Refutation of Martinus S••iglecius de verbi incarnat: natur: is spent in the pursuit of it. So also is a good part of his Book against Raven Spergerus: Socinus himselfe ventures at this businesse, but so faintly and slightly, as I suppose in all his Writings there is not any thing to be found, wherein he is lesse▪ Dogmaticall; His▪ dis∣course of it, is in his first Answer to the Parianesis of Volanus, pag. 38, 39, 40. * 1.915 One while he sayes the words are to be ta∣ken Metaphorically; then, that Christ was in Heaven in his mind and Meditation: and at last, it may be he was taken into Heaven, as Paul was.

To returne to our Catechists, and to the thing it selfe, the Rea∣der* 1.916 may take of it this briefe account.

1. There is indeed in the New Testament abundant men∣tion of our Saviours coming down from Heaven, of hi•• coming forth from God, which in what sence it is spoken hath been fully before declared. But of his being taken up into Heaven after his Incarnation befo••e his death, and being there taught the minde of God, and the Gospell, 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 whom we have to doe, is of such importance to the confirmation of his doctrine, and upon a supposition of his being a meere 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 what ever is evill and contemptible, that none of the Apostles in its vindication, none of the Antients against the Pagans should once make use of this defensative, that Christ was taken up into Heaven & there instructed in the mind of God. Let one word, Testimony, or ••xpre••sion be produ••ed to this purpose, that Christ was tak••n up into Heaven, to be instructed in the minde of God, before his entrance upon his Office, & let our Adversaries take the cause. If not, let this story be kept in the old Golden Legend, as a match for any it conteines.

2. There was no cause of this R••pture or taking of Christ* 1.917 into Heaven; That which is assigned, that there He might be taught the Gosp••ll, helps not in any measure; For the Scrip∣ture not only assignes other causes of his acquaintance with the mind, and Will of God, namely, his onenesse with the Father,* 1.918 being his only begotten Sonne, hi•• Word, and Wisdome, as also (in respect of his condescention to the Office of Mediation) his being anointed with the fulnesse of the Spirit, as was promised, and P••ophesied of him; But also affirmes, that this was accom∣plished both on him, and towards him, before such time as this fiction is pretended to fall out.

Instantly upon his baptisme Luke tells you, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, full of the Holy G••ost, Chap. 4. 1. which was all that was required to give him a full furnishment for his Office, and all that was promised on that account. This answers what he expresses to be necessary for the discharg of his Propheti∣call Office: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Isa. 61. 1. and upon that he sayes, He hath sent me to preach: God also solemnely bare witnesse to him from Heaven, to the same purpose, Ma••. 3. 17. And before this, John affirmes, that he was the Light of the world, the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world (Joh. 1. 9.) which how he should be, and yet himselfe be in darkenesse not knowing the will of God, is not easily to be apprehended.

3. To what purpose served all that Glory at his Baptisme: that* 1.919 solemne Inauguration, when he took upon him the immediate admini∣stration of his Propheticall Office, in his own person, if after this

he was to be taken up into Heaven, to be taught the minde 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 signe, whereby he should be knowne to be the great Prophet Joh. 1. 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 b•• instructed?

4. If this must be supposed to be, without any mention, yet* 1.920 why is it said alway, that Christ came from heaven to the earth? If he was first on the earth, & was taken into heaven, & came again to the earth, he had spoken to the understanding of men, if he had said I am returned frō Heaven; & not as he doth, I am come frō Heaven. This in lesser matters is observed▪ Having gone out of Galilee to Jordan & coming again it is said, he returned frō Jordan, Luk. 4. 1. & having* 1.921 been with the Gadarens, upon his coming to the other side from whence he went, it is said, he returned from the Gadarens back* 1.922 againe Luk. 8. 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 writ••rs.

5. It is said, that Christ entred once into the Holy place, and that having obtained eternall Redemption▪ Heb. 9. 12. yea, and ex∣pressly that he ought to suffer before he so entred, Luk. 24. 26. but according to these men, he went twice into Heaven: once before he suffered, and had obtained Eternall Redemption, and once afterward. It may also be observed, that when they are* 1.923 pressed to tell us some of the circumstances of this great matter, being silent to all other, they only tel us that they con••••cture the Time to be in the space of that forty days, wherein he was in the* 1.924 wildernes; on purpose through the Righteous judgement of God to entangle themselves in their own imaginations, the Holy Ghost affirming expressly, that he was the whole forty days in the Wilder∣nesse, amongst the wild beasts, Mark. 1. 13.

Enough being said to the disprovement of this fiction, I shall* 1.925 very briefely touch upon the sence of the places, that are produ∣ced to give countenance thereunto. In most of the places insi∣st••d on, there is this expression. He that came down from Heaven,

or, I came down from Heaven, so Joh. 6. 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58. Joh. 3. 30, 31, 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 minde of God: He that hath a mind to grant this consequence, is will∣ing to be these mens Disci••le. 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* 1.926 flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and his glory was seen, as the glory of the only begotten Sonne of God; so that it is not a locali de∣scension, but a gratious condescension, that is in••imated, with his voluntary humiliation, when he who was in the forme of God humbled himselfe to take upon him the forme of a Servant, there∣in to learne obedience. So that these expressions yeild very little reliefe to our Adversarie.

2. The second sort are those, wherein He is said to come* 1.927 forth from God, or from the Father; this is expressed. Ioh. 3. 42. Ioh. 13. 1, 3. Ioh. 16. 28, 29, 30. Ioh. 17. 3. Ioh. 16. 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 Gospell, and sent againe 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 Mediatour, the great Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church, none denyes, and this is all that in those places is expressed. Of which after∣wards.

3 Some particular places are yet remaining. The first is* 1.928 Joh. 3. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came downe from Heaven, the Sonne of man whi••h is in Heaven. That, which is, M. B. renders rather, whi••h was: whether with greater prejudice to his caus••, or conscience I know not. To his cause, in that he manif••st, that it cannot be d••fended without corrupting the word of God: To his Conscience, by corrupting it to serve his own ends and turne accordingly. The words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which will by no meanes admit of his corrupting glosse.

I say then, let the words speake themselves, and you need

no other to cut the throat of the whol cause, that this man hath undertaken to mannage. He that speakes is the Sonne of man, and all the time of his speaking he was in Heaven. He (saith he) is in Heaven: in his humane 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 Sonne of man; and what then becomes of M. B's Christ? And what need of the Rapture whereof he speakes.

For the Ascending into Heaven, mentioned in the beginning of* 1.929 the verse, that it cannot be meant of a locall ascent of Christ in his humane 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 locall ascent. Eph. 4. 9, 10. The ascent there mentioned, answers the discourse that our Saviour was then upon, which was to enforme Nicodemus in Heavenly things; To this end he tells him (v. 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 winde, nor the causes, and issue of it: much lesse did they understand the Heavenly things of the Gospel, which none (saith he, v. 13.) hath pierced into, is acquainted withall, hath ascended into Heaven, in the knowledge of, but he who is in Hea∣ven, 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 reveale, 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 speake. Of a Locall ascent to the end and purpose mentioned, there is not the least sylla∣ble.* 1.930 * 1.931

Thus I say the context of the Discourse seemes to exact a metaphoricall interpretation of the words: our Saviour in them informing Nicodemus of his acquaintance with Heavenly things, whereof he was ignorant. But yet the propriety of the word may be observed without the least advantage to our Adversa∣ries; For it is evident, that the words are eclipticall; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ascend, must be repeated againe to make the sence compleat: and why may not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be inserted, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So are the words

rendred by Theophilact: and in that sence relate not to what was before, but what was to be. And an instance of the necessity of an alike supplement, is given in Math. 11. 27. moreover some suppose, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, affirming the want of a potentiall con∣junction, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the like, (which the following exceptives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, require) in the place, is not to be taken for the act don, 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, Joh. 6. 62. What and if you shall see the* 1.932 Sonne of man ascending up where he was before: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That Christ was in Heaven before his locall ascent thither in his humane nature, is part of our plea to prove his divine nature, and what will thence be obtained I know not.

And this is the first Attempt that these Gentlemen make upon the Propheticall Office of Christ; He did not know the will of God, as the only begotten Sonne of the Father in his b••some; He was not furnished for the declaring of it, in his own immediate Mi∣nistry, by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and his being filled therewith; He was not solemnely inaugurated thereunto by the glorious presence of the Father, and Holy Ghost with him, one in a voyce, the other in a bodily shape, bearing witnesse to him, to be the Prophet sent from God; but being for many yeares ignorant of the Gospell, and the will of God, or what he came into the world to do, He was, no man knowes where, when, nor how, rapt into Heaven, and there taught and instructed in the 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 yeare.

Here the Racovians adde.* 1.933

What is that will of God which by Christ is revea∣led?* 1.934

It is the new Covenant, which Christ, in the name of God, made with humane kind, whence also he is called the Mediatour of the new Covenant.

It seemes 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 borne contained the substance of it: Math. 1. 21. (2.) Christ did not make the Covenant with us as Mediatour; but confirmed & ratifyed it: Heb. 9. 15, 16, 17. God gave him in the Covenant which he made; and therefore is said to give him for a Cove∣nant, Isa. 42. 6. (3.) The Covenant of Grace is not made with all mankind, but with the seed of the woman: Gen. 3 15. Gal. 3. 16. Rom. 9. 7, 8. (4.) Christ is not called the Mediatour of the Covenant, because he declared the will of God concer∣ning it, but because he gave his life a Ransome for those with whom it is made, 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6. and the promises of it were confirmed in his bloud, Heb. 9, 15. ch. 10. 16. 28. (5.) This cove∣nant was not first made, & revealed, when Christ taught it in his own Person. It was not only made, but confirmed to Abaham in Christ 430. yeares before the Law, Gal. 3. 17. yea ever since the entrance of sinne, no man hath walked with God but in the same Covenant of Grace: as elswhere is declared.

Let us see what followes in M. B. says he.

You have already shewed that Christ was like unto Moses, in seeing* 1.935 God, and hearing from him the things which he speake, but Moses exceeded all other Prophets likewise in that he only was a Law giver; was Christ therefore like unto Moses in giving of a Law also, and is there any mention of this Law. Ans. Gal. 6. 2. fulfill the Law of Christ, Rom. 3. 27. by the Law of Faith, Jam. 2. 12. by the Law of liberty, Jam. 1. 25.

That Moses did not see the face of God hath been shewed, and M. Biddle confesseth the same. That Christ was not rapt into Heaven for any such end or purpose as is pretended, that He is not compared to Moses as to his initiation into his Propheticall Office, that there is no one word in the Scripture giving counte∣nance to any of these figments hath been evinced. Nor hath M. Biddle sh••wed any such thing to them, who have their sences exercised to discerne good and evill; what apprehensions soever his Catechumens may have of his skill and proofes.

2. What is added to this question will be of an easy dis∣patch.* 1.936 The word [Law] may be considered generally, as to the nature of it, in the sence 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 clearely the whole minde 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 in∣stituted 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 Commandement, and the Law of Christ, Gal. 6. 2. even that which he did so eminently practice: As he was a Teacher, a Prophet come out from God, He taught the minde, and will, and worship of God; from his own bosome Joh. 1. 18. Heb. 1. 1. And as he was, & is the King of his Church, he hath given precepts and Lawes, and Ordinances, for the Rule and government thereof, to which none can adde, nor from them may detract. But take the word Law, strictly, in reference to a Covenant end, that He which performes it shall be justifyed by his performance thereof; So we may say, he gave the Law originally as God, but as Mediatour he gave no such Law, or no Law in that sence, but revealed fully and clearely our justification with God upon an∣other 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 Jewes by Moses in the Wildernesse; of which in the chapter of Justification.

For the places quoted by M. Biddle, that of Gal. 6. 2. Beare one* 1.937 anothers burthen, and fullfill the Law of Christ, speakes only of that one command of brotherly love and forbearance; which is called peculiarly; as I said, a new commandment, though the Jewes had it from the beginning; and the Law of Christ, because of the emi∣nent accomplishment of it by him, who loved us, and gave himselfe for us, transmitting it a new to us, with such new motives, and inducements, as it had not received before, nor ever shall a∣gaine. The Law of Faith mentioned Rom. 3. 27. is no more but the Doctrine of the Gospell, and of Justification without the workes of the Law, that is, all workes commanded by what Law soever: as the whole doctrine of the word of God is called the Law, neere an hundred times in the Psalmes. The law of Faith is that which is opposed to the law of workes, as a meanes of obtaining Righteousnesse, which is not by obedience to new Commands.

The places in Ja. 2. 12. Ja. 1. 25. speak directly of the Morall Law, which is manifest by that particular annumeration of its precepts, which we have subjoyned, v. 13, 14.

3. But M. Biddles Masters have a farther reach in the asser∣ting* 1.938 Christ to have given a new Law: namely, whereas they place Iustification as a Consequent of our own obedience, and ob∣serving how impossible it is to doe it, on the Obedience yielded to the Morall Law, the Apostle having so frequently, & expressly decryed all possibility of Iustification thereby, they have therefore faigned to themselves, that Christ Jesus hath given a New Law, in Obedience whereunto we may be justifyed; which when they attempt to prove, it will be needfull for them to produce other manner of evidences, then that hereby M. B. insisted on which speakes 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 vin∣dication given by our Saviour Math. 5. in the next Querie, he calls them very ignorantly the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant. If M. B. knowes no more of the New Covenant, but that it is a New Law given by our Saviour Mat. 5. 6, 7. (as upon other accounts) I pitty the man: He proceeds.

Doth not Christ then partly perfect, partly correct the Law of Moses,* 1.939 what is the determination of Christ concerning this matter. Math. 5. 21, 22, 23, 24.

1. The reason of this Querie, I acquainted the Reader with before. These men seeking for a Righteousnes as it were by the* 1.940 workes 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 so dealt with the Law as here is expressed; so that to yeild 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* 1.941 Christ, in reference to the Law of Moses, as it is called; that is, the Morall 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 ••aid on the

Law of God. 1. Of Imperfection. 2. Of Corruption, that needed Amendment or Correction.

Before I proceed to examine the particular instances,* 1.942 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.

For its perfection we have the Testimony of God himselfe expressly given thereunto, Psal. 19. 7. The Law of the Lord is PERFECT converting the Soul. It is the perfect Law of liberty, Jam. 1. 25. Yea so perfect, as that God hath forbidden any thing to be added to it, or to be taken from it Deut. 4. 1, 2. Deut. 12. 32.

2. If the Law wants Perfection, it is in respect of its essentiall* 1.943 parts, or its integrall parts, or in respect of degrees. But for its* 1.944 essentiall parts it is perfect, being in matter, and forme, in sence, and sentence, Divine, Holy, Just, Good. For its Integrals, it com∣priseth the whole Duty of man Eccles. 12. and the last; which doing he was to live; And for the degrees of its commands, It re∣quireth that we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and all our soules, and our neighbours as our selves; which our Saviour confirmes as a Rule of perfection. Math. 22. 37.

3. If the Law of God was not perfect, but needed correction* 1.945 it is either because God could not, or would not give a perfect and compleat Law: To say the first, is Blasphemy: for the latter, theres no pretence for it. God giving a Law for his Service, proclaiming his wisdome and Holinesse to be therein, and that if any man did performe it, he should live therein, certainely 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.

4. The perfection of the Law is hence also evinced; that the* 1.946 precepts of Christ wherein our obedience requires us to be per∣fect, are the same, and no other then the precepts of the Law: his new commandment of love is also an old one, 1 John 2. 7, 8. which Christ calls his new command, Joh. 13. 34. and the like instan∣ces might be multiplyed, neither will the instance of M. B. e∣vince the contrary which he argues from Mat 5. for that Christ doth not in that chapter correct the Law, or adde any new pre∣cept

thereunto, but expounds and vindicates it from the cor∣rupt Glosse of the scribes and Pharisees, appeares,

1. From the Occasion of the discourse, and the Proposition* 1.947 which our Saviour makes good, establisheth, and confirmeth therein: which is laid down v. 21. Except your righteousnesse ex∣ceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, you cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. In pursuit of this proposition. He mani∣festeth what their Righteousnesse was, by examining their Cate∣chisme upon the Commandements, and the Exposition they made therein of them. It is not the Righteousnesse of the Law that our Saviour rejects, and requires more in his Disciples, but that of the Pharisees whom he every where called Hypocrites: But for the Law he tells them a Tittle of it shall not passe away, & he that keepes it shall be called great, or be of great esteeme in the Kingdome of God: and the good workes; that our Saviour then required in his Disciples, are no other but those that were com∣manded in the Law.

2. The very Phraseology, and manner of speech here used by* 1.948 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 chaire 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 wa•• written. And it was said to them of Old; the common pret••nce of the Pharisees in the impo∣sing their Traditions, and Expositions of the Law. It is the tradi∣tion of the Elders; it was said to them, by such and such blessed Ma∣sters of old.

3. Things are instanced in, that are no where written in the* 1.949 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 con∣trary is directly commanded, Levit. 19. 18. Exod. 23. 4, 5. Prov. 21. 21, 22. To them who gave this Rule, thou shalt love thy Neigh∣bour, and hate thine enemy, doth Christ oppose himselfe. But those were the Scribes and Pharisees in their corrupt Glosses, from which Gods Law is vindicated, not in its selfe before corrupted.

4. Whose saying Christ rejects, their sayings He did not come to fulfill; But he came to fulfill and accomplish the Law, and

therefore it is not the Law, and the sentence thereof, that he re∣jects* 1.950 in that forme of speech, but I say unto you.

Before I come to the consideration of the particular instances* 1.951 given by M. B. a briefe Consideration of what is offered to this purpose by Smalcius, in his Racovian Catechisme, may be premi∣sed. His first Chapter about the Propheticall 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 Que∣stion and Answer.

What are the Perfect commands of God, revealed by* 1.952 Christ?

Part of them is contained in the Precepts gi∣ven* 1.953 by Moses, with those which are added there∣unto in the New Covenant: part is contained in those things, which Christ himselfe prescri∣bed.

The commands of God, revealed by Jesus Christ, are here referred to three heads. 1. The Ten Commandements 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 Comman∣dements* 1.954 were revealed by Jesus Christ. The Catechist confesseth that they were given to Moses, and revealed by that means; how are they then said to be revealed by Christ: if they shall say, that he may be said to reveale them, because he promulged them anew, with new Motives, Reasons, and Encouragements, I hope he will give us leave to say also, that what he calls a new Commandement, is not so termed in respect of the matter of it, but its new enforcement by Christ: we grant Christ revealed that Law by Moses, with its new Covenant Ends, as he was the great Prophet of his Church, by his Spirit, from the foundation of the World; but this Smalcius denyes.

2. That Christ made no new additions to the Morall Law,* 1.955 hath been partly evidenced from what hath been spoken con∣cerning 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, that our blessed Saviour did for the times* 1.956 of the New Testament institute the two Ordinances of Bap∣tisme and the Lords Supper, in the roome of them, which toge∣ther 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 new Law, with a Law designe in them. 2. Though there is an obedience in their performance yeil∣ded to God & Christ, yet they belong rather to the Promise, th••n the Precepts of Christ; to our priviledge, before unto our duty.

In the progresse of that Catechist, after some discourse about* 1.957 the Ceremoniall and Judiciall 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 Morall Law, in the severall Precepts of it. And to the first he saies, that Christ added two things. 1. In that he prescribed us a certain forme of Prayer; of which af∣terwards in the Chapter designed to the consideration of what M^r B. speaks to the same purpose. 2. That we acknowledge himselfe for God, and Worship him; of which also in our dis∣course of the Kingly Office of Christ. To the Second, he saies, is ad∣ded in the New Testament, not only, that we should not wor∣ship Images, but avoid them also; which is so notoriously false, the avoiding of Images of our own making, being no lesse cō∣manded in the Old Testament, then in the New, that I shall not in∣sist thereon. The residue of his plea is the same with M. B's from Mat. 5. where what they pretend shall be considered in order.

To consider then briefely the particular Instances: The first* 1.958 is in reference to the Sixth Commandement, Thou shalt not Kill. This the Pharisees so interpreted, as that if a man kept himselfe from blood, and from causing the death of ano••her, He was Righ∣teous, as to the keeping of this Commandement. Our Saviour* 1.959 lets his Disciples know, that there is a closer, and nearer sence of this Law: I say unto you, in the Exposition of this Comman∣dement, that any rash anger, anger without a cause, all offence gi∣ven, proceeding from thence, in light vilifying expressions, such as Racha, much more all provoking taunts and reproaches, as thou fool, are forbidden therein, so as to render a man ob∣noxious to the judgement of God, and condemnation in their

severall degrees of sinfulnesse; as there were amongst themselves severall Councells, according to severall Offences; the judge∣ment, the Councell, 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 Commande∣ment, and so to render a man obnoxious to the judgement of God, in severall degrees of sinne, according as the eruptions of it are, he proceeds in the following verses to exhort his Disciples to Patience, Forbearance, and Brotherly Love, with readinesse to A∣greement and Forgivenesse, verses 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.

2. In the next place, he proceeds to the vindication, and* 1.960 Exposition of the Seventh Commandement, v. 27. Thou shalt not com∣mit Adultery: which the Pharisees had so expounded, as that if a man kept himselfe from Actuall uncleannesse, 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 Sence of this Commandement, 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 lesse forbidden, then that of actuall uncleannesse, which the Law made death. And certain∣ly, he must needs be as blind as a Pharisee, who sees not, that the uncleannesse of the Heart, and Lust after Women, was forbidden by the 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 himselfe thereunto at all, but only shewes, that, that permi••sion of Divorce is to be interpreted according to the Rule and Instruction given in the first Institution of Marriage, (as afterward, on another occasi∣on he explains himselfe Math 19) And not that men might therefore for every cause, that they would, or could pretend, instantly put away their Wives, as the Pharisees taught men to do; And as Josephus, one of them testifies of himselfe, 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 exten∣ded beyond the just cause of divorce, as it is by the Pharisees, but made use of only in the case of Fornication, v. 27, 28. And thereupon descends to caution his Disciples, to be carefull and

circumspect in their walking in this particular, and not be led by an offending eye, or hand, (the beginning of evill,) to greater Abominations.

3. In like manner doth he proceed in the vindication of the* 1.961 third Commandement; The Scribes and Pharisees had invented, or approved of Swearing by Creatures, the Temple, Altar, Hierusalem, the Head, and the like; and thereupon raised many wicked and cursed distinctions, on purpose to make a cloake for hypocrisy, and lying, as you may see Math. 23. 16, 17, 18. If a man sweare by the Temple, it is nothing; he is not bound by his Oath; but if he sweare 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 ordina∣ry conversations, there was nothing sincere, or open, and plaine, left amongst them. This wicked glosse of theirs (being such as their successors abound withall to this day) our blessed Savi∣our decry's; and commands his Disciples to use plainenesse, and simplicity in their conversation, in plain Affirmations, and Nega∣tions, without the mixture of such profane, and cursed execra∣tions, v. 34, 35, 36, 37. which that it was no new duty, nor unknown to the Saints of the Old Testament, is known to all that have but read it.

4. In matter of Judgement between man and man, he proceeds* 1.962 in the same manner; because the Law had appointed the Ma∣gistrate to exercise talionem in some cases, and to ••ake 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 injur'd them with an hostile mind, at least un∣till 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 proceedure of the Magistrate by the Law, yet indeed all private revenges were for∣bidden, and all readinesse to contend with others: which he am∣plifieth in the proposall of some particular cases; and all this by vertue of a Rule, which himselfe affirmes to be contained in the Law; Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy selfe, v. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. pressing also lending, and giving, as works of charity, where∣unto a blessing is so often pronounced in the Old Testament.

5. His last instance is in the matter of Love, concerning* 1.963 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 peoples first coming into Canaan, he commanded them to shew them no mercy, but utterly to destroy them, Deut. 7. 2. This the wretched Hypocrites laid hold of, to make up a Rule, and Law for private men to walke by, in reference to them, whom they accounted their Enemies, in expresse contradiction to the com∣mand of God, Ex. 23. 4, 5. Levit. 19. 18. Wherefore our blessed Saviour vindicates the sence of the Law from this cursed Tra∣dition also, and renews the precept of loving, and doing good to our Enemies, v. 43, 44, 45. So that in none of the instances mentio∣ned, 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 sence 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 wickednesse. And this also may fully suffice to remove what on this account is delivered by the Racovian Catechisme. But on this foundation M. B. proceeds.* 1.964

You have made it appeare plainly that the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant, whereof Christ was the Mediator, is better then the Law of Workes, or the Old Covenant, whereof Moses was the Mediator in respect of Precepts, is it also better in respect of Promises? A. Heb: 8. 6. Heb. 7. 19.

This is indeed a comfortable passage, for the better under∣standing whereof I shall single out the severall noble Propositi∣ons, 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* 1.965 Law, in the same sence as Moses was Mediator of the Old Law, the Law of Workes.

2. Christs Addition of Precepts and Promises to the Law of Moses, is the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant.

3. The People, or the Church of the Jewes, lived under the Old Covenant, or the Law of Workes: whereof Moses, not Christ was the Mediator▪

4. The difference betweenthe Old, and the New Covenant,

lyes in this; that the New hath more Precepts of Obedience, and more Promises then the Old.

And now truly he that thinks, that this man understands* 1.966 either the Old Covenant, or the New, either Moses, or Christ, ei∣ther Faith, or Workes, shall have liberty from me to enjoy his o∣pinion, for I have not more to adde, to convince him of his mistake, then what the man himselfe hath here deli∣vered.

For my part, I have much other work to do, occasioned by M. B. and therefore I shall not here divert to the consideration of the two Covenants, and their difference, with the twofold Admini∣stration of the Covenant of Grace, both before, and after Christs coming in the flesh; but I shall content my selfe with some briefe Animadversions upon the forementioned Propositions, and proceed.

1. In what sence Christ is the Mediatour of the new Covenant,* 1.967 I shall (God assisting) at large declare, when I come to treat of his death, and satisfaction; and shall not here prevent my selfe in any thing of what must then, and there, be delive∣red.

2. That there are precepts, and Promises attending the new Covenant, is granted; but that it consists in any addition of precepts to the Mosaicall Law, carryed on in the same tenour with it, with other promises, is a figment directly destructive of the whole Gospell, and the mediation of the Sonne of God. By this meanes the whole undertaking of Jesus Christ, to lay downe his Life a Ransome for us, our justification by his blood, his being of God made Righteousnesse to us, the free pardon of our sinnes, and Acceptation with God, by, and for him, as he is the end of the Law for righteousnesse, all communication of effectuall grace, to worke in us new Obedience, the giving of a new cleane heart, wi••h 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 sinnes. The Covenant of workes was, doe this and live, and the tenour of the Law, if a man do the things thereof, he shall live thereby; that is, if a man by his own strength per∣forme, and fulfill the Righteousnesse that the Law requires, he shall have Eternall Life thereby. This Covenant saith the A∣postle,

God hath disanulled, because no man could be saved* 1.968 by it: The Law thereof through sinne was become weake, and* 1.969 insufficient as to any such end and purpose; what then doth God substitute in roome thereof: why a new Covenant, that hath more precepts added to the old, with all those of the Old con∣tinued, that respected Morall Obedience. But is this a remedy? Is not this rather a new burthen? If the Law could not save us before, because it was impossible through sinne that we should perfectly accomplish it, and therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no man be justifyed: 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 mens immortall soules is come to be concerned therein; I should think the time exceedingly lavish't, 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.

3. That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of workes, properly▪* 1.970 & formally so called, & that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of workes, is a no lesse pernitious figment then the former. The Covenant of workes was, do this and live; on perfect obedience you shall have life. Mercy, and pardon of sinnes 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. 9. 5. Gen. 3. 15. Chap. 12. 3. were justifyed by Faith, Gen 15. 6. Rom. 4. Gal 3. obtained Mercy for their sinnes, and were justifyed in the Lord, Isa. 42. 24. had the Spirit for conversion, Regeneration, and Sanctifi∣cation, Ezek. 11. 19. Chap. 36. 26. expected, and obtained Sal∣vation by Jesus Christ: things as remote from the Covenant of Workes as the East from the West.

It is true, the Administration of the Covenant of Grace, which they lived under, was darke, legall, and low, in comparison of that, which we now are admitted unto, since the comming 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 patterne of* 1.971 ours.

Let us now see what answer▪ M. B. Applyes to his Querie:* 1.972

The first text he mentions is, Heb. 8. 6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant, built upon better promises. That which the Holy Ghost here affirmes, is, that the New Covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediatour, is better then the Old; and that it hath better Promises: which I suppose none ever doubted. The Covenant is better, seeing that could by no meanes save us, which by this Christ doth to the uttermost. The promises are better, for it hath innumerable promises of Co••version, Pardon, and Perseve∣rance, which that had not at all; and the promise of Eternall life, which that had, is given upon infinitely better, and surer, termes. But all this is nothing at all to M. B's purpose.

No more is the second place which he mentioneth, Heb. 7.* 1.973 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 workes is intended, but the legall Administration of the Covenant of Grace. This saith the Apostle, made nothing perfect; men were kept under Types, and Shaddowes, and though they were Children of God by Adoption, yet in comparison, they were kept as servants, be∣ing under Age untill the fullnes of time came, when the bringing in of Jesus Christ, that better hope, made the Administration of* 1.974 Grace perfect, and compleat. M^r B. all along obscures himselfe under the ambiguous terme of the Law; confounding its cove∣nant & subsequent use; For the Covenant use of the Law, or as it was the tenour of the Covenant of workes, the Saints of the Old Testament were no more concerned in it, then are we. The Subsequent use of it, may be considered two waies. 1. As it is purely Morall, exacting perfect Obedience, and so the use of it is common to them and us. 2. As attended with ceremoniall and judiciall institutions in the Administration of it, and so it was peculiar to them: And this one observation will lead the Reader through much of the Sophistry of this Chapter, whose next Question is.

Were those better promises of God touching Eternall Life, and immor∣tality* 1.975 hidden in the darke, and not brought to light under the Law?

Ans. Christ Jesus hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospell: 2 Tim. 1. 10.

The whole ambiguity of this Question lyes in those expressi∣ons,

hidden in the darke, and not brought to light, if he intend compa∣ratively, in respect of the cleare revelation made of the mind, and will of God by Jesus Christ, we grant it: if he meane it abso∣lutely, that there were no promises of life & immortallity given under the Law, it is absolutely false. For

1. There are innumerable promises of Life and immortallity* 1.976 in the Old Testament, given to the Church under the Law. See Heb. 11. 4. Deu. 12. 1. Deut. 30. 6. Psal. 19. 10, 11. Deut. 33. 29. Psal. 130. 8. Isa. 25. 8, 9. Chap. 45. 17. Chap. 15. 6, 7. Jerem. 23. 6. Psal. 2. 12. Psal. 32. 1, 2. Psal. 33. 12.

2. They Believed Eternall life, & therefore they had the pro∣mise* 1.977 of it, for Faith relieth alwayes on the word of promise; Thus did Job, Chap. 19. 25, 26, 27. and David, Psal. 17. 15. So did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Heb. 11. 10, 11, 12. Yea and some of them as a patterne and Example, without dying obtained it, as Enoch and Elias.

3. The Covenant of Abraham was that, which they lived in, and under; But this Covenant of Abraham had promises of Eternall Life: Even that God would be his God, dead and alive, Gen. 17. 1, 7. And that the promises thereof were promises of Eternall Life, Paul manifests Rom. 4. 3. Gal. 3. 14. but this hath been so abundantly manifested by others, that I shall not long∣er insist upon it: we are come to the last querie of this Chap∣ter. which is,

Though the Promises of the Gospell be better then those of the Law, yet are they not as well as those of the Law, proposed under conditions of Faith, and perseverance therein, of Holinesse, and Obedience, of repentance, and suffering for Christ; how speake the Scriptures? Iohn 3. 14, 15, 16, 18, 26. Hab. 2. 14. Heb. 2. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Rom. 8. 13. Acts 3. 19. Rev. 2. 5, 16. Ioh. 5. 17.

Neither will this Querie long detaine us: In the New Te∣stament* 1.978 there being meanes designed for the attainement of an End, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance, for the attain∣ment 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 meanes, or way whereby we come to be accepted in Christ. The first sort are those insisted on by M. B. and they are so farre Conditionall, as that they declare the firme connexion and concatenation of

the end and meanes 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 Chil∣dren of the Covenant, as I have so fully and largely elsewhere declared, that I shall not here repeat any thing there written* 1.979 nor doe I know any necessity of adding any thing thereunto. I thought to have proceeded with the Racovian Catechisme also, as in the former part of the Discourse: But having made this processe; I had notice of an answer to the whole by Arnoldus the Professor of Divinity at Francker, and there∣fore that I may not actum agere, nor seeme to enter an others la∣bour, I shall not directly, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, carry on a confutation thereof hereafter, but only divert thereunto, as I shall have occasion, yet not omitting any thing of weight therein, as in this Chapter I have not, as to the matter under Considera∣tion.

CHAP. XIX.

Of the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, and of the Worship that is ascribed, and due to him.

OF the Nature of the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, his Inve∣stiture* 1.980 with it, his Administration of it, with the efficacy of that Power which therein he puts forth, both towards his E∣lect, and others, M. B. doth not administer any occasion to dis∣course. 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 enquiry, as to these things, unlesse farther occasion be administred▪ 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. 15. 28. it seems, that he shall then also cease to be God: such a God as they now allow him to be.

By some passages in his Second and Third Questions, he seems* 1.981

to intimate, that Christ was not invested in his Kingdome be∣fore his Ascension into Heaven. So Quest. the Second. Is* 1.982 Christ already invested in his Kingdome, and did he after his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, exercise Dominion, and Soveraignty ••ver men and Angells? And Quest. third. For what cause, and to what end was Jesus Christ exalted to his Kingdome? To which he Answers from Phil▪ 2. 8, 9, 10. In both places intimating, that Christ was not invested with his Kingly power, untill after his Exaltation. (As for the en••s of his Exaltation, these being some mentioned, though not all, no•• the chiefe, I shall not far∣ther insist on them.) But that this, a•• it is contrary to the Te∣stimony, that himselfe gave of his being a King, in a Kingdome, which was not of this World, it being a great part of that Office, whereunto he was of his Father a••oynted; so it is altogether inconsistent with M. B's principles, who maintaines, that he was worshiped with Religious worship and Honour, whilest he was upon the Earth; which Honour and Worship (saies he) is due to him, and to be performed meerly 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, whilest 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 his Book, De* 1.983 ve••a Jesu Christi Divinitate, is, De nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus in terris m••rtalis degens habuit a 1.984. Which in the Chapter it selfe 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 expres∣eth not. The name of God they say is a name of Office and Au∣thority: The Authority of Christ on which account he is to be worshipped, is, that which he hath as King. And yet the same Au∣thor b 1.985 afterward contends, that Christ was not a King untill after his Resurrection and Ascension. For my part I am not solicitous

about reconciling him to himselfe; let them that are so, take paines if they please therein. Some paines I conceive it may cost them; considering, that ihe afterwards affirmes expresly, that he was called Lord and God of Thomas, because of his Di∣vine Rule, or Kingdome; which, as I remember, was before his Ascension.

As for his Exaltation at his Ascension, it was not by any* 1.986 investiture in any new Office, but by an Admission to the Exe∣cution of that part of his work of Mediatorship which did re∣maine, in a full and glorious manner; the whole concernment of his humiliation being past; In the mean time doubtlesse he* 1.987 was a King, when the Lord of Glory was crucifyed.

But that which remaines of this Chap. is more fully to be* 1.988 considered.

Question 4. is. How ought men to Honour the Sonne of God?

From hence to the end of the Chap. M. B. insists on the Re∣ligious Worship, and invocation of Jesus Christ: which with all his Companions, he places as the consequent of his Kingly Of∣fice, and that Authority, wherewith for the execution and dis∣charge thereof from God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider what is tendered by M. B. to the purpose in hand, and then take liberty a little more largely to handle the whole bu∣sinesse of the Worship of Jesus Christ, with the Grounds, Rea∣sons, and Motives thereof.

His Fifth Question to this matter is, How ought men to Honour* 1.989 the Sonne of God, Christ Jesus.

And it is Answered Joh. 5. 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 Ho∣nour* 1.990 wherewith the Father is Worshipped and Honoured; that is, with that Worship and Honour, which is Divine and Religi∣ous, with that subjection of Soule, and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone. How Socinus him∣selfe doubled in this businesse, and was intangled, shall be af∣terwards 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 perfor∣mance* 1.991 of this duty, of yeilding Divine Honour and Worship to Christ, strengthens the former Assertion, and therefore I have

nothing to except, or adde thereunto.

In Question the Sixth M. B. labours to defend▪ the throat of his* 1.992 Cause, against the edge of that Weapon, which is sharpned a∣gainst it by this concession, That Jesus Christ is to be Wor∣shiped 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 the same Essence with the Father, or because he hath the same judiciary power, what is the decision of the Son himselfe concerning this point?

Ans. Joh. 5. 22, 23▪

The summe is: The same Worship is to be given to the Father and the Son, but upon severall grounds; To the Father, be∣cause 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 ma∣nifest.

1. That there neither is, nor can be, any more then one for∣mall* 1.993 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 individuall account, as to the formall, and fundamentall cause thereof.

2. That no delegated Power of Judgement is, or can be a suffici∣ent* 1.994 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 judgement unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father.) I say in brief, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not expressive of the formall cause of the honouring, and Adora∣tion of Christ, but of an effectuall motive to men to honour him, to whom upon the account of his divine Nature that honour is due. As in the First Commandement, I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage, thou shalt have 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 formall 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 afterwrd.

Quest. 7. A farther diversion from the matter in hand is at∣tempted* 1.995 by this inquiry. Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he had in him the Divine Nature, personally united to the Humane, or because he was the Son of Man: what is the decision of the Son himselfe concerning this point also?

A. He hath given him authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of Man, Ioh. 5. 27.

1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision enquired after, wherein there is no such difference at all. Nor do we say, that God gave Christ the judiciary Power, wherewith as Media∣tour he is invested, because he had in him the Divine Nature perso∣nally united to his Humane. The Power that Christ hath upon the account of his Divine Nature, is not delegated, but essentiall to him: nor can M. 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 perso∣nally united to the Humane; but that the Humane Nature was Perso∣nally united to the Divine. His Personality belonging to him up∣on the account of his Divine nature, not his Humane.

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 Man-kind. 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, M. B. cannot prove, nor doth attempt it.

The 8, 9, 10. Quest▪ belong not to us: we grant it was, and* 1.996 is, the Will and Command of God, that lesus Christ the Me∣diator should be worshiped of Angells and Men; and that he was so Worshiped 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* 1.997 work, being exalted on the Right hand of God; but that the bot∣tome, foundation, and sole formall cause of the Worship, which God so commands to be yeilded 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 intima∣tion.

The 11, 12. look againe the same way with the former, but* 1.998 with the same successe. Saith he, When men ascribe Glory and Do∣minion to Jesus Christ in the Scripture, and withall intimate the ground thereof, is it because they conceive him to be very God, and to have been e∣ternally begotten out of the Divine Essence, or because he gave himselfe to death: let me heare how they explaine themselves?

Ans. Rev. 5. 6.

Q. 12. Are the Angels of the same Opinion with the Saints▪ when they also ascribe Glory and Dominion to him, let me heare how they also explain themselves?

Ans: Rev. 5. 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 worshiped, or what is the formall Reason why Divine worship is ascribed to him, but only what is in their thoughts and considerations a powerfull, and effectu∣all motive to Love, Feare, Worship, & to ascribe all glory to him. As David often cries, praise the Lord O my Soule (or assignes glory and Honour to him) because he hath done such or such things; inti∣mating a motive to his Worship, and not the prime foundation and cause, why he is to be Worshiped.

Having spoken thus to the Adoration of Christ, his last Que∣stion* 1.999 is about his Invocation, which he proves from sundry pla∣ces of Scripture, not inquiring into the Reasons of it; so that adding that to the former Concession of the Worship and Ho∣nour due to him, I shall close these considerations with this one Syllogisme. He who is to be Worshiped by Angels and Men with that Di∣vine worship, which is due to God the Father, & to be prayed unto, called on, believed in, is God by nature, blessed for ever: but according to the confession of M^r B. Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by Angells 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 confirme 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,* 1.1000 there was not any thing wherein he was more opposed, or wherewith he was more exercised, by the men of the same de∣signe

with himselfe, then in this, about the Worship and Invoca∣tion of Iesus Christ. He and his Unkle Laelius, urging (amongst others) this Proposition, that Christ was not God, Franciscus Da∣vid, Budnaeus, Christianus Franken, Paleologus, with others, made the conclusion, that he was not to be worshiped as God, nor called upon. With some of these he had sundry Disputes and conferences, and was miserably intricated by them, being una∣ble to defend his opinion, upon his Hypothesis of the Person of Christ. That Christ is to be worshiped, 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 per∣petually gravelled, as more especially it befell him in his di∣spute with Christianus Franken An. 1584. as is evident in what is extant of that Dispute, written by Socinus himselfe. Of the chiefe argument insisted on by Franken, I shall speak after∣wards: see Disput, cum Franken, p. 24, 25, 28, 35, &c. Against Fran∣ciscus David, he wrote a peculiar Tract; & to him an Epistle, to prove that the words of Thomas, my Lord and my God, were spo∣ken of Christ, and therefore he was to be Worshiped; (Epist. pag. 186.) wherein d 1.1001 he positively affirmes, that there was no other reading of the words (as David vainly pretended) but what is in 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 walkes in the same paths, is this remarked. Wherefore He and his Associates rejected this Franciscus David, afterward as a de∣testable Heretick, and utterly deserted him when he was cast in∣to Prison by the Prince of Transilvania, where he dyed misera∣bly raving and crying out, that the Divels expected, and waited for his company in his journey, which he had to go. (Florim: Raem. l. 4. c. 12.) the account whereof Smalcius also gives us, in his relation

of * 1.1002 Franzius, Theses de Hypocrit. disput. 9. p. 298.

After these stirs, and disputations, it grew the common* 1.1003 tenent of Socinus, and his followers (see his Epistle to Enjedinus) that those who denyed that Christ was to be worshiped, and invoca∣ted, were not to be accounted Christians: (which how well it agrees with other of his assertions shall instantly be seen.) So Socinus himselfe leads the way: Respon ad e 1.1004 Nemojevium Ep. 1. who is followed by Volkelius. f 1.1005 Ʋnlesse (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 Catechisme, de Praecept, Christi cap. 1. whose Author affirmes plainely, that he esteemed them not Christians who worshiped him not; and g 1.1006 accounted that indeed they had not Christ, however in word they durst not deny him.

And of the rest, the same is the Judgement: but yet with what consistency with what they also affirme concerning this Invocation of Christ, we shall now briefely consider.

h 1.1007 Socinus in his third Epistle to Mathias Radecius, whom he every where speakes honourably of, and calls him excellent man, Friend, Brother, and much to be observed Lord (because he was a great man) who yet denyed, and opposed this invocation of

Christ, lays this down in the entrance of his Discourse, That* 1.1008 there is nothing of greater moment in Christian Religion, then the demonstration of this, that invocation, and Adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ, although he be a created thing. And in the fol∣lowing words he gives you the Reason of the importance of the proof of this Assertion: namely, because the k 1.1009 Trinitarians maine strength and Argument lyes in this; that Adoration and In∣vocation are due to Christ, which are proper only to the high God. Which makes me bold on the other side to affirme, that there is nothing in Christian Religion, more cleare, nor more needfull to be confirmed, then 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 meere creature, of what dignity, power, and au∣thority 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 bottome and foundation thereof, he dares goe 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 sayes there is none.

And therefore he distinguisheth between the l 1.1010 Adoration of Christ, and his Invocation. For the first, he affirmes, that it is com∣manded, or at least that things are so ordered, that we ought to adore him, but of the latter, sayes he, there is no precept, only we may doe so if we will. The same he had before affirmed in his answer to m 1.1011 Franciscus David. Yea in the same discourse he af∣firmes, that if n 1.1012 we have so much faith, as that we can go with confi∣dence to God without him, we need not invocate Christ. We may (saith he) invocate Christ, but we are not bound so to do. Whence

o 1.1013 Niemojevius falls upon him, & tells him, that he had utterly spoil'd their cause by that concession. To deliver himself frō which charge, how pittifully he intricates himselfe, 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-per∣formance of that, which himselfe dares not affirme that they ought to do, and with what consistency of principles these things are affirmed, is easy to Judge.

Of the same judgement with him is Volk. de vera Rel. l. 4. c. 11.* 1.1014 de Christi invocatione. Schlincting. ad: Meisner. pag. 206, 207. and generally the rest of them. Which againe how consistent it is, with what they affirme in the p 1.1015 Racovian Catechisme, namely, that this is an addition which Jesus Christ hath made to the first Com∣mandement, that he himselfe is to be acknowledged a God, to whom we are bound to yeild divine Honour, I see not. For if this be added to the first Commandement, that we should worship him as God, it is scarce doubtlesse at our liberty to call upon him or no. Of the same minde is Smalcius de Divinitate Jesu Christi: A q 1.1016 Book that he offered to Sigismund the third King of Poland, by the meanes of Jacobus Sienienska Palatine of Podolia in the yeare 1608. who in his Epistle to the King calls him his Pastor. And yet the same r 1.1017 Person doth in another place of the the same

Treatise, most bitterly inveigh against them▪ who will not worship, nor invocate Christ, affirming, that they are worse then the Trinitarians themselves, then which it seemes he could invent nothing more vile to compare them with. s 1.1018 And yet a∣gaine that there is no precept, that he should be invocated. Cat. Rac. (That is the same p••rson with the former) c. 5. de praecep: Christi quae legem prefecerunt. So also Ostorodus, Compendiolum Doctrinae Ecclesiae Christianae nunc in Polonia potissimum florentis. Cap. 1. Sect. 2.

It is then on all hands concluded, that Jesus Christ is to be* 1.1019 worshiped with Divine and Religious worship, due to God only.

Fixing this as a common and indisputable principle, I shall subjoyne and prove these two Assertions.

1. In generall, 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 ^t worshiped on the account of the Power and Authority, which he hath received from God, as Mediatour, but solely on the account of his be∣ing God blessed for ever: And this is all that is required in an∣swer to this Tenth Chapter of M. B. what followes on the Heads mentioned, is for the further satisfaction of the Reader in these things upon the occasion administred, and for his Assi∣stance to the obviating of some other Socinian Sophismes, that he may meet withall. I shall be briefe in them both.

^t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gregor. Theol.

For the first: Divine Worship is not to be ascribed to them* 1.1020 whom God will certainely destroy. He will not have us to Worship them, whom himselfe hateth. But now, all Gods that have not made the Heavens and the earth, he will destroy from under these Heavens. Ier. 10. 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, & from under these Hea∣vens. It is a thing that God would have the Nations take notice of; and therefore is it written in the Caldee Dialect in the Originall, that they who were principally concerned in those dayes, might take the more notice of it. And it is an instructi∣on that God put into the mouths of the meanest of his peo∣ple, that they should say it to them; say ye to them. And the Assertion is universall, 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 18. 27. He is made so; but that he made the Heavens and Earth, they deny; and therefore he is so farre from having any right to be worshi∣ped, that God hath threatned he shall be destroyed.

Againe, the Apostle reckons it among the sinnes of the Gen∣tiles,* 1.1021 that they worshiped them who by nature were not Gods, Gal. 4. 8.* 1.1022 from which we are delivered by the knowledge of God in the Gos∣pell. And the weight of the Apostles Assertion of the sinne of Gentiles, lyes in this, that by nature they were not God, who were worshiped. 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 Gospell to the practice of that, which is the greatest sinne 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 i••stitution; Rom. 1. it is reckoned among those sinnes, which are against the Light of nature; they worshiped the Creature (besides or) more then (or with) the Creatour, v. 25. who is God blessed for ever more. To* 1.1023 worship a Creature, him who is not the Creator, God blessed for ever, is that Idolatry, which is condemned in the Gentiles, as a sinne against the Light of nature, which to commit, God cannot, (be it spoken with reverence) dispense with the Sons of* 1.1024 men (for he cannot deny himselfe) much lesse institute and appoint them so to doe. It being then on all hands confessed, that Christ is to be worshiped with divine or Religious worship, it will be easy to make the conclusion, that he is God by nature, blessed for ever more.

That also is generall and indispensable which you have* 1.1025 Jerem. 17. 5, 6. Cursed be the man, that trusteth in man, and

maketh flesh his arme, 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 arme 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, that is no more but so, with that kinde of Trust, wherewith we trust in Jehovah (as by the antithesis v. 7. is evident that it is inten∣ded,) 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 doe if we worship him with di∣vine worship, would by this Rule be denounced a Cursed thing.

Revel. 19. 20. and Chap. 22. 9. do adde the command of* 1.1026 God to the generall 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 bretheren, that have the Testimony of Jesus, worship God, so againe, Chap. 22. 9. There are evidently two Reasons assigned by the Angell, 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 worshiped; Now he that is not God, at his best estate, however exalted, is but a servant* 1.1027 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 clearely deprived of all worship by this prohibition, and Reason of it. 2. From the Command, and the naturall, and Eternall Obligation of it, in those repeated words * 1.1028 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is the word of the Law, that our Saviour himselfe insists on, Mat. 4. 10. that is here repeated; and the force of the Angells Reason, for the strengthning his prohibition, is from hence, that no other but he who is God, that God intended by the Law, and by our Savi∣our, Math. 4. 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 worship, who is not that God, they would be of no force for the reproofe of John, in his attempt to worship the Angels, nor have any influence into his prohibition. And thus that Angel, who Chap. 8. 9, 11. shewes John all Creatures in

Heaven and Earth, yeilding divine worship, and Adoration to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ; in the close of all appro∣priates all that worship to God himselfe 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 appeare, how vaine is that plea of the* 1.1029 Adversaries to avoid the force of this reproofe, which is man∣naged by Schlictingius against Meisnerus.

To those places* 1.1030 (saith he) where mention is made of God alone to be wor∣shiped; 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 powerfull, only im∣mortall, and yet these who are made partakers of them from God, ought not simply to be excluded from Wisdome, Power, and Immortality: wherefore when it is said, that God alone is to be worshiped and adored, he ought not to be sim∣ply 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* 1.1031 excluded from a participation with him by that particle mentio∣ned; and wherever any thing is said of God only, we are to un∣derstand it of God and others, for of him, in all things, doe all other things depend.

2. When it is said, ••hat God only is wise &c. though it doe not* 1.1032 absolutely deny that any other may be wise with that Wisdome which is proper to them, yet it absolutely denyes that any one partakes with God in his Wisdome; is wise as God is wise, with that kind of Wisdome wherewith God is wise. And so where it is said, that God only is to be worshiped, 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 Gods appointment, from their Excellency and prehemi∣nence, yet it doth Absolutely exclude any from being worshiped with divine worship, that is due and proper to God.

3. We shall shew afterward, that whatever Dignity, Rule,* 1.1033 and Dominion, they say is given to Christ, and whatever excel∣lency in him doth thence arise, yet it is quite of another kinde and stands upon another foote of account, then that ••ssenti∣all Excellency that is in God; and so cannot, nor doth re∣quire the same kind of worship as is due to God.

4. Angels and men are depending on God in Authority and* 1.1034 Power, and therefore if this Rule be true, they are not exclu∣ded from Divine and Religious Worship, in the Command of worshiping God only; and so they may be worshiped with divine and religious Adoration and Invocation, as well as Jesus Christ. Neither is it any thing but a meere 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 which is properly divine, and the formall 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 then theirs, as to degrees, they are to be worshiped with the same kind of worship, though he may be worshiped more then they▪

5. This is the substance of Schlictingius his Rule;* 1.1035 when any thing is affirmed of God exclusively to others, indeed others are not excluded, but included.

6. We argue not only from the exclusive particle, but from the* 1.1036 nature of the thing it selfe. So that this pretended Rule and Exception, notwithstanding, all, and every thing whatever that is not God, is by God himselfe everlastingly excluded from the least share in divine or Religious Worship, with expresse condemnation of them, who assigne it to them.

The same evasion with that insisted on by Schlictingius,* 1.1037 Socinus himselfe had before used: and professes that this is the bottome & foundation of all his Arguments in his disputation with Franciscus David, about the invocation of Christ, that others as well as God may be worshiped and invocated: in his 3. Epist. to Volkelius, where he labours to answer the objection

of Johns praying for Grace from the seven spirits that are before the throne of Christ, Revel. 1.

But why I pray is it absurd to* 1.1038 affirme, that those seven spirits (supposing them meere crea∣tures) 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 no where forbidden that we should invocate none but God, (os durum) but also, and much rather, because those inter∣dictions never exclude those who are subordinate to God himselfe.

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 worshiped is purely to begge 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, containe the grand plea of all Idolators, Heathenish, and Antichristian. x 1.1039 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 woship stocks and stones, because he appoints them so to do. And so said the Israelites when they worshiped the Golden Calfe: it is a feast to Jehovah. But if John might worship, and invocate (which is the highest Act of Worship) the seven Spirits, Rev. 1. 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 Booke, Chap. 20. 22. who was no lesse subordi∣nate 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 Catechisme takes another course, and tells you,* 1.1040 that the foundation of the Worship and Adoration of Christ, is, because * 1.1041 Christ had added to the first Commandement, that we should

acknowledge him for God. That is; he who hath divine Authority o∣v••r us, to whom we are bound to yeeld Divine Honour. But

1. That Iesus Christ, who is not God by Nature, did adde to the* 1.1042 command of God, that he himselfe should be acknowledged for God, is intolerable Blasphemy; asserted without the least colour or pretence from the Scripture, and opens a doore to downe∣right Atheisme.

2. The Exposition of his being God, that is, one who hath Divine* 1.1043 Authority over us, is false: God is a Name of Nature, not of Of∣fice and power, Gal: 4. 8. 3. Christ was worshiped and com∣manded to be worshiped, before his coming in the flesh, Ps. 2. 12. Gen. 48. 16. Exod. 23. 21.

But if this be added to the First Commandement, that Christ* 1.1044 be Worshiped as God: Then is he to be worshiped with the worship required in the first Commandement: Now this Wor∣ship 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 himselfe with his Master, who plainly affirmes, that Iesus Christ is not to be worshiped with that ••i∣vine worship, which is due to God alone; and strives to answer that place of Iohn 5. 23. to the contrary, a 1.1045 that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father. That Christ should be comman∣ded to be worshiped in the First Commandement, (or by an addition made thereto) which commands us to have only one God, and not be worshiped with the worship which is due to that one God, is one of the mysteries of these mens Religion: but to proceed.

Where the formall cause of Divine Worship is not, there Divine* 1.1046 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 worshiped without Idola∣try. The formal Reason of any thing is but one; the reason of all worship is Excellency or Preheminence; The reason of Divine or Religious worship is divine preheminence and excellency. Now divine Excellency and preheminence is peculiar unto ••he Di∣vine Nature. Wherein is it that God is so infinitely excellent a∣bove all creatures? Is it not from his infinitely good, and in∣comprehensible

nature? Now look what difference there is be∣tween the Essence of the Creator and the Creature, the same is be∣tween their Excellency. Let a Creature be exalted to never so great an 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 prehemi∣nence be the cause of worship, and the distance between the ex∣cellency 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 formall cause; this then can∣not be ascribed to any other. And to whomsoever it is ascri∣bed, thereby do we acknowledge to be in him all divine per∣fections; which if he be not God by Nature, is grosse Idolatry. In summe▪ Adorability (if I may so say) is an absolute incom∣municable 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* 1.1047 Christ himselfe is not by us worshiped, under any other formall Reason, but as he is God; which will adde some light to what hath already been spoken. And here least 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. Iesus Christ, the Mediatour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God and Man,* 1.1048 the Son of God, having assumed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Luk. 1. 35.) that holy thing, that was borne of the Virgin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having no subsistence of its own, into personall subsistence with himselfe, is to be Worshipped with divine Religious worship, even as the Father. By worshipped with Divine Worship, I meane believed in, hoped in, trusted in, invocated as God, as an independent fountaine of all good, and a soveraigne disposer of all our pre∣sent, and everlasting concernments; by doing whereof, we ac∣knowledge in him, and ascribe to him all divine perfections; Omni potency, Omniscience, ••nfinite goodnesse, Omnipre∣sence, and the like.

This proposition was sufficiently confirmed before. In the

Revelation you have the most solemne representation of the di∣vine spirituall 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 Iesus Christ) that washed us in his blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever, amen. Cap. 1. 6. so againe the same Church represented by f••wer living Creatures, and 24 Elders, falls down before the Lamb. cap. 5. 8. and 12. worthy is the Lamb that was slaine to receive power, and riches, and glory, and blessing: and v. 13, 14. joynt worship is given 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, cap. 7. 9, 10. Now the Lamb is neither Christ in respect of the Divine Nature, nor Christ in respect of the Humane 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 sinnes of the World, to whom all this Honour and Worship is ascribed. This the Apostle per∣fectly confirmes, Rom. 14. 8, 9, 10, 11.

For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we dye, we dye unto the Lord, whether we live therefore, or dye, we are the Lords: for to this End Christ both dyed, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living: but why doest thou judge thy Brother, or why doest thou set at naught thy Brother: we shall all stand before the judge∣ment seat of Christ; For it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confesse to God.

To Christ exalted in his dominion and Sove∣raignty, we live, and dye: to him do we bow the knee, and confesse, that is, performe all Worship, and stand before him, as at his disposall; we sweare by him, as▪ in the place from whence these words are taken.

2. That our * 1.1049 Religious, Divine, and Spirituall worship, hath a

double, or twofold respect unto Jesus Christ.

1. As he is the ultimate formall object of our worship, being God to be blessed for evermore, as was before declared. 2. As the way, meanes, & cause of all the good we receive from God in our religious approach to him. In the first sence, we call upon the name of Christ, 1 Cor. 1. 2. In the other, we aske the Father in his name, according to his command, Ioh: 16. 23. In the first, we respect him as one with the Father, as one who thinks it no rob∣bery to be equall with him, Phil. 2. 8. the fellow of the Lord of Hosts. In the other, as one that doth intercede yet with the Father, Heb. 7. 25. praying him yet to send the Comforter to us, being yet in that regard lesse then the Father; and in which respect, as he is our head, so God is his head, as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor: 11. 3. the Head of every man (that is every believer) is Christ, and the head* 1.1050 of Christ is God; In this sence, is he the way whereby we go to the Father. And through him we have an accesse to the Father, Eph. 2▪ 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In our Worship with our Faith, Love, Hope, Trust, and prayers, we have an accesse to God. Thus in our approach to the Throne of Grace, wee look upon Christ as the High Priest over the House of God, Heb. 4. 14, 15, 16. by whom we have admission; who offers up our Prayers and supplications for us, Revel. 8. 3. In this state as he is the head of Angells, and his whole Church, so is he in subordination to the Father, and therefore he is said at the same time to re∣ceive Revelations from the Father, and to send an Angell as his servant, on his work and employment; Rev. 1. 1. And thus is he our Advocate with the Father, 1 Iohn 2. 1. In this respect then, seeing that in our accesse to God, even the Father, as the Father of Him, and His, with our Worship, Homage, Service, our* 1.1051 Faith, Love, Hope, Confidence, and Supplications, eying Christ, as our Mediatour, Advocate, Intercessor, upon whose Account we are accepted, for whose sake we are pardoned, through whom we have Admission to God, and by whom we have Help and Assi∣stance 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 our Wor∣ship, as the ultimate, adaequate, formall object of it: But as the me∣ritorious cause of our Approach and acceptance, and so of great consideration therein. And therefore whereas Rom. 3. 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 forgivenesse of sinne, through the Righteousnesse of God.* 1.1052

And these two distinct respects have we to Jesus Christ our* 1.1053 Mediator, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Mediatour depending on the Father, in subordination to him, so our Faith regards him, we Love him, and Hope in him, as the Way, Meanes, 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 Mediatour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God and* 1.1054 Man, who is to be worshiped with Divine or Religious wor∣ship, is to be so worshped, because he is our Mediatour. That is, his mediation is the ratio quia, an unconquerable Reason, and Argument, why we ought to love him, feare him, believe in him, call upon him, and worship him in generall. This is the Reason still urged by the Holy Ghost, why we ought to wor∣ship him, Revel. 1. 5, 6. To him that loved us, and washed us from our sinnes in his own blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God, and his Father, to him be Glory, and Dominion for ever and 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 Revel. 5. 12. there is an Acknowledgement of the power, riches, goodnesse, wisdome, strength, glory, and blessing, that belongs to him, because, as the Lamb, as Mediatour, 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 in it, and that which he continueth in, the benefits we receive thereby, and* 1.1055 our everlasting misery without it, are all chains upon our souls, to bind us to the Lord Christ in Faith, Love, and Obe∣dience. But yet this Mediation of Christ is not the formall and fundamentall cause of our worship, (as shall be shewed) but on∣ly a motive thereunto. It is not the ratio formalis, & fundamenta∣lis 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 shall have no other Gods but mee. He makes his benefit of bringing* 1.1056 them out of the land of Egypt, the reason of that eternally indi∣spensab••e morall Worship, which he requires in the First Com∣mandement; Not that that was the formall cause of that wor∣ship, for God is to be worshiped▪ as the first▪ Soveraigne Indepen∣dant Good, as the absolute Lord of all, and fountain of all Good, whether he gives any such▪ benefits or no: But yet all his Mer∣cies, all his Benefits, every thing he doth for us, in his Provi∣dence, in his Grace, as to the things of this life, or of another, are all Arguments and M••tives to presse us to the perfor∣mance of all that Worship and Service, which we owe unto* 1.1057 him, as our God and Creator. Praise the Lord O my soule, 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 Me∣diation is not the formall cause thereof, but only an invincible motive thereunto. Let this therefore be our fourth and last Ob∣servation.

4. Though Jesus Christ, who is our Mediator, God and* 1.1058 Man, be to be worshiped 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 worshiped under this red••plica∣tion, as Mediator, though he who is Mediator is to be worshiped; and he is to be worshiped because he is Mediator. That is, his Mediatory Office is not the formall cause and Reason of yeelding divine worship to him, nor under that consideration is that worship ultimatly terminated in him. The formall Reason of any thing strictly taken, is but one: and it is that, from the con∣cession whereof, that thing or effect whereof it is the cause or Reason, without any other help doth arise, or result from it. Now the formall cause or Reason of all Divine Worship is the Deity, or Divine Nature: That being granted, Divine worship ne∣cessarily followes to be due: That being denyed, that worship also is, and is to be for ever denied. We may not worship them, who by nature are 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

yeelded to him. And if the Son of God had never been our Mediator, yet he was to be worshiped.

It is the * 1.1059 Deity of Christ then, which is the fundamentall, formall cause and Reason, and the proper object of our worship; for that being granted, though we had no other Reason, or argu∣ment for it, yet we ought to worship him; and that being denyed, all other Reasons and Motives whatever would not be a suf∣ficient cause, or warrant for any such proceeding.

It is true, Christ hath a power given him of his Father, above* 1.1060 all Angels, principalities, and powers: called all power in Hea∣ven* 1.1061 and Earth: a name above every name, giving him an ex∣cellency, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 willingnesse therein to succour, relieve, and save us to the ut∣termost, in a way of Mediation, is a powerfull, effectuall mo∣tive▪ (as was said before) to his worship. But yet this is an Excel∣lency which is distinct from that, which is purely, and proper∣ly divine; and so cannot be the formall reason of religious wor∣ship. Excellency is the cause of honour: every distinct Excellency & eminence is the cause of honour: every distinct Excellen••y & 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 originall, infinite, and communicating: and therefore can∣not be the formall cause of the same honour and worship.

I shall briefely give the reasons of the Assertion insisted on▪* 1.1062 and so passe on to what remaines.

The first is taken from the nature of divine, or religious worship. It is that whereby we ascribe the Honour, and Glo∣ry of all infinite perfections, to him, whom we so worship; To be the first Cause, the fountaine of all good, independent, infinitely wise, powerfull, alsufficient, almighty, alseeing, omnipotent, eternall, the only rewarder, as such we submit our selves to him religiously, in Faith, Love, Obedience, Adoration, and Invo∣cation. But now we cannot ascribe these divine Excellencys, & perfections unto Christ, as Mediatour: 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 a∣lone is it that he is so worshiped.

2. Christ under this formall conception (as they speake,) as* 1.1063 Mediatour, is not God; but under this, as partaker of the nature of God. Christ as mediatour is an expression, as they speake, in the concreté, whose form•• is its abstract. Now that is his mediation or Mediatory Office; and therefore if Christ under this formall conception of a Mediator be God, his Mediatory office, and God, must be the same: which is false and absurd. Therefore as such, or on that fundamentall account, he is not worshi∣ped with divine worship.

3. Christ in respect of his mediation dependeth on God,* 1.1064 and hath all his power committed to him from God, Math. 11. 27. All things (saith he) are given me of my Father. And Math. 28. 18. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth. Joh. 17. 2. Thou hast given unto him power over all flesh; and in innumerable other places is the same testifyed. God gives him as Media∣tour his Name, that is, his Authority. Now God is worshiped because he is independent, he is, and there is none besides him. He is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first and the last; And if the reason why we worship God with divine worship be, because he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and independent: certainely that wherein Christ is dependent, and in subordination to him, as receiving it from him, cannot be the formall cause of attributing divine worship to him.

4. Christ in respect of his divine nature is equall with God,* 1.1065 that is, the Father: 2 Phil. 9, 10. but in respect of his Mediation, he is not equall to him, he is lesse then he: my Father (saith he) is greater then I. John 14. 28. now whatever is lesse then God, is not equall 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 equall to God is commonly received in that axiome, whereby the arguments thence taken against his Deity are answered; inae∣qualitas Officii non tollit aequalitatem naturae. Now certainely, that which is infinitely unequall to God, cannot be the formall cause of that worship which we yeild to him, as God.

5. That which shall cease, and is not absolutely Eternall,* 1.1066 cannot be the formall cause of our worship: for the formall rea∣son of worship can no more cease, then God can cease to be

God: for when that ceaseth, we cease to worship him; which whiles he is the Creator, and soveraigne Lord of his Creatures, cannot be. Now that the Mediatory Office of Christ shall cease the Holy Ghost affirmeth, 1 Cor. 15. 24. he then gives up his Kingdome 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, whilest 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 worke of it shall be perfectly consummated, & he hath saved to the uttermost all that come to God by him.

The sum of all is, Jesus Christ, God & man, our Mediatour,* 1.1067 who is to be worshiped in all things, & invocated as the Father, & whom we ought night and day to honour▪ 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 worshiped▪ Not as Mediatour, exalted of God, and intrusted with all power and dignity from him, but as being equall with him, God to be bessed for ever; his divine nature being the fundamentall formall 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 sophisticall plea of the Socinians, against the Deity of Christ, then this one observation. Themselves acknowedge, that Christ is to be worshiped with religious worship, and his name to be invoca∣ted, denying to account them Christians, whatever they are, who are otherwise minded, as Franciscus David, and those before mentioned were. Now if there be no possible reason to be assigned for the ••ormall 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* 1.1068 hath been spoken, as to Guidance of our Soules in the worship of God: Or in our addresses to the Throne of Grace by Jesus Christ. What God hath discovered of himselfe unto us, he would have us act faith upon, in all that we have to deale with him in. By this we are assured we worship the true God, and not an Idol, when we worship him, who has revealed himselfe in his word, and as he has revealed himselfe. Now God hath decla∣red

himselfe to be three in one, for, there are three that beare witnesse in Heaven, & these three are one, 1 Joh. 5. So then is he to be worship∣ed; And not only so, but the Order of the three Persons in that Deity, the eternall internall order among themselves is revealed to us. The Father is of none; is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Sonne begotten of the Father: having the glory of the only begotten Sonne of God, and so is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 & the Son. He is often so called, the Spirit of God, & the spirit of the Son. For the Terme of proceeding, or going forth, I professe my selfe ignorant, whether it concerne chiefely his eter∣nall personality, or his dispensation in the worke of the Gospell. The latter I 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 Sonne: and is of them both, and from them both. God then, by us is to be worshiped, as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three Persons in this order, and so are we to deale with him in our approaches to him. Not that weare to frame any conception in our minds of distinct substances, which are not; but by Faith closing with this reve∣••ation of them, we give up our soules in contemplation and admiration of that we cannot comprehend.

2. There in an externall oeconomy and dispensation of the* 1.1069 persons, in reference to the work of our Salvation, & what we draw nigh to them for: so the Father is considered as the foun∣dation of all Mercy, Grace, Glory, every thing that is dispensed in the Covenant, or revealed in the Gospell. The Son receiving all from him: and the Spirit sent by the Son, to effect and compleat the whole good pleasure of God in us, & toward us; & in, & under the consideration of this oeconomy, is God of us to be worshiped.

All things (saith Christ) are given me of the Father Math. 11. 27.* 1.1070 that is, to me, as Mediatour; therefore come to me: And in his prayer Joh. 17. 8. I have given to them the words thou gavest unto me, and they know that I came out from thee, and believe that thou hast sent me. So most fully Joh. 3. 34, 35. He is sent of God, and from the love of the Father to him as Mediatour are all things given him, it pleased the Father that in him all fullnes should dwell Joh. 1. 16. Col. 23. Joh. 5. 26. He hath given him to have life: that is, as he is Mediator, appointed him to be the fountaine of Spirituall life to his elect

and Revel▪ 1. 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 faiths acting it selfe toward* 1.1071 God in our worship of him. It eyes the Father as the fountaine of this dispensation; and the Sonne as the Mediatour, as the store∣house, & the Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers the Sonne under those two distinct notions. 1. As the Ordinance and servant of the Father, in the great worke of Mediation: so it loves him, delights in him, and rejoyceth in the Wisedome of God, in finding out, and giving such a meanes of Life, Salvation, and union with himselfe; and so by Christ believes in God, even the Father. It considers him 2ly as the way of going to the Father, and there it rests, a•• the ultimate object of all the Religious actings of the soule. So we are very often said, through, and by Christ, to believe in God, by him to have an accesse to God, and an entrance to the throne of grace. In this sence, I say, when we draw nigh to God, in any religious worship yea in all the first actings, and movings of our soules 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 serving the designe of his Love: and so the soule is immediatly fixed on God, through Christ, being strengthned, supported, and sustained by the consideration of Christ, as the only procuring cause of all the good things we seeke from God, and of our interest in those excellencyes, which are in him, which make him excellent to us.

And this is the generall consideration that faith hath of* 1.1072 Christ, in all our dealings with God; we aske in his name, for his sake, goe to God on his account, through him, and the like; are strengthned and imboldned upon the interest of him as our High Priest, and intercessor, God the Father being yet alwayes ••mediately in our eye, as the primary object of our worship. But yet now againe, this Christ, as Mediatour, so sent & intrusted by the Father, as above, is also one with the Father, God to be blessed for evermore. Faith also takes in this consideration, & so he who before was the meanes of fixing our faith on God, is thereupon be∣come the proper object of our faith himselfe: we believe in Him, invocate, call upon him, worship him, put our trust in him, and

live unto him. Over & above then the distinction that the Eternall Persons have in the manner of in-being in the same Essence, which also is the object of our Faith: that distinction which they have in the Externall oeconomy, is to be considered in our Religious worship of God: and herein is Christ partly eyed as the Fathers servant, the meanes, 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 worshiping of God in Christ: and worshiping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the Spirit.

Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may* 1.1073 be worth the while, a little to consider the condition of our Adversaries, in reference to this businesse, wherein of all other things (as I said before) they are most intangled. Of the contests and disputes of Socinus with Franciscus David, about this businesse, I have given the Reader an account formerly, and the little successe he had therein. The man would faine have stood, when he had kicked away the ground from under his feet, but was not able. And never was he more shamefully gravel'd in any dispute, then in that which he had with Christianus Fran∣ken, about this businesse, whereof I shall give the Reader a brief account.

This Franken seems to have been a subtile fellow, who, denying* 1.1074 with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently, that it was im∣possible to find out a foundation of yeelding Religious wor∣ship or Adoration unto him. With him, about this matter, So∣cinus had a solemne dispute in the house of one a 1.1075 Paulicovius. An. 1584. March 14. Franken in this Disputation was the oppo∣nent, and his first Argument is this. b 1.1076

Look how great di∣stance 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 Crea∣tor and the Creature there is the greatest difference, whether you respect nature and Essence, or dignity & excellency, and therefore there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of the Creator and the Creature. But the honour that chiefely is due to God, is religious worship, therefore this is not to be given to a Creature, therefore not to Christ, whom you confesse to be a meer Creature.

This I say was his first Argument. To which Socinus c 1.1077 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 worshiped without weighty causes for it.

But by the favour of this Disputant, God cannot give that* 1.1078 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 God, to him which is not God, is utterly impossible and contradictory to its selfe. 2. We confesse that there be most weighty causes, why Christ should be worshiped, yet but one formall Reason of that worship we can acknowledg. And therefore when Franken had taken off this absurd answer, by sundry instances, & Reasons, Socinus is driven to miserable evasions: first he cryes out, d 1.1079 I can answer all these testi∣monyes: to which when the other replyed, And I can give a probable answer to all the texts you produce, arguing the adoration of Christ: being driven to hard shifts he adds, f 1.1080 I am as certaine of the truth of my* 1.1081

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, g 1.1082▪ Your certainty cannot be a rule of truth to me, and others, seeing another man may be found that will say, he is most certaine of the contrary opinion; so that prevailing nothing by this meanes, he is forced to turne the Tables, & instead of an answer, which he could not give to Frankens Argument, to become opponent, and urge an Argu∣ment 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 wor∣ship him But by the favour of this disputant, this is not his businesse. He was to answer Frankens Argument, whereby he proved, that he was not to be worshiped; and not to have* 1.1083 brought a contrary Testimony, which is certainly to be inter∣preted 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 Adver∣sarie* 1.1084 to another absurdity, had its rise frō a distinction given by Socinus, about a twofold religious worship: one kind whereof without any medium was directed to God; the other is yeilded him by Christ, as a meanes. The first he sayes is proper to God; the other belongs to i 1.1085 Christ only: Now he is blind that doth not see, that for what he doth here to save himselfe, that he doth not begge the thing in question; who granted him that there wa a twofold Religious 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 in∣deed upon the matter all that Franken desired; namely, that Christ was not to be worshiped with that worship, wherewith God is worshiped, and consequently not with Divine. But Franken asks him, whether this twofold worship was of the k 1.1086 same kind or no? To which he answered, that it was, be∣cause it l 1.1087 abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which after the interposition of another intangling Que∣stion, the man thus replys upō him. ^m This then will follow, that even the

image of Christ is to be worshiped, because one & the sam•• worship respects the image as the meanes, Christ as the end, as Th. Aquinas tels us, frō whom you borrowed your figment: Yet this very fancy Socinus seemes af∣terward to illustrate by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a Table, shewing how it passed by some hands, where truely it was, but stayed not untill it came to the end: For which grosse Allusion he was sufficiently derided by his Adversary. I shall not insist on the other Arguments, wherewith on his own Hypothesis he was miserably gravel'd by this Franken: and after all his pre∣tence of reason, forced to cry out, these are Philosophicall Argu∣ments; and contrary to the Gospell. The Disputation is ex∣tant, 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 farre.

CHAP. XX.

Of the Priestly Office of Christ: How he was a Priest: when He entred on his Office: and how He dischargeth it.

M^r BIDDLE'S 11^h Chap. Examined.

HIS 11^th Chapter is, concerning the Priestly Office of Jesus* 1.1088 Christ. In the First and Second Question he grants Him to be a Priest, from (Heb. 4. 14.) and to be appointed to that Of∣fice by the Father, from Heb. 5. 5. The remainder of the Chapter is spent in sundry attempts to prove, that Christ was not a Priest, whilest he was on the Earth▪ as also to take off from the End of his Priest-hood, with the benefit redounding to the Church thereby.

For the first, a man would suppose M. Biddle were faire and* 1.1089 ingenious in his Concessions, concerning the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: May we but be allowed to propose a few Questions to him, and to have Answers suggested according to the Analogy of his Faith, I suppose his acknowledgement of this Truth will be found to come exceedingly short of what may be expe∣cted.

Let him therefore shew, whether Christ be an High Priest properly so called, or only in a Metaphoricall sence, with respect to what he doth in Heaven for us, as the High Priest of old did deale for the People in their things, when he received mercy from God? Againe, whether Christ did, or doth offer a proper Sacrifice to God? and if so; of what kind? or only that his Offering of himselfe in Heaven is Metaphorically so called? If a∣ny shall say, that M. B. differs from his masters in these things, I must needs professe my selfe to be otherwise minded, because of his following attempt to exclude him from the investiture with, and execution of his Priestly Office in this life, and at his death; whence it inevitably follows, that he can in no wise be a proper Priest, nor have a proper Sacrifice to offer, but that both the one, and the other are Metaphoricall; and so termed in allusion to what the High Priest among the Jewes did for the People. That which I have to speake to, in this ensuing discourse, will hinder me from insisting much on the demonstration of this, that Christ was a Priest properly so called, and offered to God a Sacri∣fice of Attonement, or propitiation, properly so called, whereof all other Priests, and Sacrifices appointed of God, were but Types. Briefely therefore I shall do it.

The Scripture is so positive, that Jesus Christ in the execution* 1.1090 of His Office of His Mediation, was, and is a Priest, an High Priest, that it is amongst all that acknowledge him utterly out of Question. That he is not properly so called, but Metaphorically, and in allusion to the High Priest of the Jewes (as was said) the Socinians contend. I shall then (as I said) in the first place prove, that Christ was an High Priest properly so called; and then evince when he was so; or when he entred on that Of∣fice. This first is evident from that description, or definition of an High Priest, which the Apostle gives, Heb. 5. 1. Every High Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men, that he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifices for sin. That this is the description of an High Priest properly so called, is manifest from the Apostles ac∣commodation of this Office spoken of to Aaron, or his exempli∣fying of the way of entrance thereinto, from that of Aaron, v. 4. And no man taketh this Honour to himselfe, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. That is, to be such an High Priest as Aaron was, which here he describes. One that had that honour, which

Aaron had. Now certainly Aaron was an High Priest properly and truly, if ever any one was so in the World. That Jesus Christ was such an High Priest, as is here described, yea that he is the very High Priest so described by the Holy Ghost, appears upon this twofold consideration. 1. In generall; the Apostle ac∣commodates this definition, or description of an High Priest to Iesus Christ, v. 5. So also Christ glorified not himself, to be made a High Priest. Were it not that very Priesthood of which he Treats, that Christ was so called to; it were easy so to reply: true! to a proper Priest∣hood a man must be called, but that which is improper & Metaphori∣call only, he may assume to himself, or obtaine it upon a more generall account, as all Believers do. But this the Apostle ex∣cludes, by comparing Christ in his Admission to this Office, with Aaron, who was properly so. 2. In Particular, all the parts of this description have in the Scripture a full, and com∣pleat Accommodation unto Jesus Christ, so that he must needs be properly an High Priest, if this be the description of such an one.

1. He was taken from amongst men. That great Prophesy of him* 1.1091 so describes him, Deut. 18. 18. I will raise you up a Prophet from A∣MONG YOUR BRETHREN. He was taken from a∣mong men, or raised up from among his Brethren. And in parti∣cular, it is mentioned out of what Tribe amongst them he was ta∣ken, Heb. 7. 13, 14. For he, of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another Tribe: For it is evident, that our Lord sprang out of Juda. And the Family he was of in that Tribe, namely that of David, is every where mentioned. God raised up the horne of Salvation in the House of his Servant David, Luk. 1. 69.

2. He was ordained for men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to things ap∣pointed* 1.1092 by God: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, appointed to rule, and preside, and go∣verne, as to the things of God. This Ordination, or Appointment, is that after mentioned, which he had of God: his Ordination to this Office, v. 5, 6. So also Christ Glorified not himselfe, to be made an High Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee, &c. He had his Ordination from God: He who made him both Lord and Christ, made him also an High Priest; and he was made in a more solemne manner then ever a∣ny Priest was; even by an Oath, chap. 7. 20, 21. For as much as no•• without an Oath, &c. and he was so appointed for men, to preside

and governe them in things appertaining to God, as it was with the High Priest of old; the whole charge of the House of God, as to holy things, his worship, and his Service, was committed to him. So is it with Jesus Christ, Heb. 3. 6. Christ is as a Son over his own house, whose house are we. He is for us, and over us, in the things of the Worship, and house of God. And that he was or∣dained for men, the Holy Ghost assures us farther, chap. 7. 26. Such an High Priest BECAME US; he was so, for us: which is the first part of the description of an High Priest, properly so called.

3. The prime and peculiar end of this Office, is to offer Gifts,* 1.1093 and Sacrifice for sinne. And as we shall abundantly manifest af∣terwards, that Christ did thus offer Gifts, and Sacrifices for sinne: so the Apostle professedly affirmes, that it was necessary he should do so, because he was an High Priest, chap. 8. 3. For eve∣ry High Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity, that this man have somewhat also to Offer. The force of the Apostles Argument, concerning the necessity of the offering of Christ, lyes thus: Every High Priest is to offer Gifts and Sacri∣fices; but Christ is an High Priest; therefore he must have some∣what to Offer. Now if Christ was not a Priest properly so called, it is evident his Argument would be inconclusive; for from that which is properly so, to that which is only so Metaphorically, and as to some likenesse, and proportion, no Argument will lye: for instance; Every True man is a Rationall Creature; but he that shall thence conclude, that a Painted man is so, will find his Conclusion very feeble. What it is that Christ had to Offer, and what Sacrifice he offered, shall afterward be declared. The definition then of an High Priest properly so called, in all the parts of it, belonging unto Christ, it is necessary that the thing defined belong also unto him.

2. He who is a Priest, according to the Order of a True and Re∣all* 1.1094 Priesthood, he is a True, and Reall Priest. Believers are called Priests, Rev. 1. 5. And are said to Offer up Sacrifices to God; spi∣rituall* 1.1095 Sacrifices, such as God is pleased with. Whence is it, that they are not Reall and Proper Priests? Because they are not Priests of any Reall Order of Priesthood, but are so called, be∣cause* 1.1096 of some Allusion to, and Resemblance of the Priests of Old, in their accesse unto God. This will also by the way dis∣cover

the vanity of them among us, who would have the Mini∣nisters of the Gospel, in contradistinction to other Believers, be called Priests. Of what Order were they, who did appro∣priate that appellation? The absurdity of this figment, the Learned Hooker could no otherwise defend, then by affirming, that Priest was an abbreviation of Presbyter. When both in truth, and in the intendment of them that used that terme, its sence was otherwise. But to returne. The Sons of Aaron were properly Priests; why so, because they were so appoynted in the Line of the Priesthood of Levi, according to the Order of Aa∣ron▪ Hence I assume; Christ being called a Priest, according to the Order of a True and proper Priesthood, was truly, and pro∣perly so: He was a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, Psal. 110. 4. which the Apostle often insists on, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If you say, that Christ is called an High Priest, after the Order of Melchisedeck, not properly, but by reason of some proportion, and Analogy, or by way of Allusion to him: you may as well say, that he was a Priest according to the order of Aaron; there being a great similitude between them, against which the Apo∣stle expresly disputes in the whole 7. chap. to the Hebrews. He therefore was a reall Priest, according to a Reall and Proper Order.

3. Againe: He that was Appointed of God to Offer Sacri∣fices* 1.1097 for the sins of men, was a Priest properly so called; but that Christ did so, and was so appointed, will appeare in our farther consideration of the Time, when He was a Priest, as also in that following, of the Sacrifice he offered; so that at present I shall not need to insist upon it.

4. Let it be considered, that the great medium of the Aposto∣licall* 1.1098 perswasion against Apostasy in that Epistle to the Hebrews, consists in the exalting of the Priesthood of Christ▪ above that of Aaron: now that which is Metaphorically only so in any kind, is cleerely and evidently lesse so, then that which is properly, and directly so. If Christ be Metaphorically only a Priest, He is lesse then Aaron on that consideration. He may be far••e more excel∣lent then Aaron in other respe••••s, yet in respect of the Priest∣hood he is l••sse excellent, which ••s so directly opposite to the de∣signe of the Apostle in that Epistle, as nothing can be more. It is then evident on all these considerations, and might be made

farther conspicuous, by such as are in readinesse to be added, that Christ was, and is Truly, and Properly an High Priest: which was the first thing designed for confirmation.

The Racovian Catechisme doth not directly aske or answer this* 1.1099 Question, whether Christ be an High Priest properly so called, but yet insinuates its Authors Judgement expresly to the con∣trary. * 1.1100

The Sacerdotall Office of Christ is placed herein, that as by his Kingly Office he can help and relieve our ne∣cessities; so by his Sacerdotall Office he will help, and actu∣ally doth so. And this way of his helping or relieving us, is called his Sacrifice.

Thus they begin. But 1. That any Office of Christ should* 1.1101 bespeake power to relieve us, without a Will, as is here affirmed of his Kingly, is a proud, foolish, and ignorant fancy. Is this e∣nough for a King among men, that he be able to relieve his Sub∣jects, though he be not willing? or is not this a Proper descrip∣tion of a wicked Tyrant? Christ as a King, is as well willing, as able to save, Isa 32. 1, 2▪ 2. Christ as an High Priest, is no lesse a∣ble, then willing also, &, as a King, he is no lesse willing, then able, Heb. 7. 27. That is, as a King he is both able and willing to save us, as to the Application of salvation, and the meanes thereof: As a Priest, he is both willing, and able to save us, as to the procuring of Salvation, and all the meanes thereof. 3. It is a senselesse folly to imagine, that the Sacrifice of Christ consists in the manner of affording us that help and reliefe, which as a King he is able to give us: such weak engines do these men apply, for the Subversion of the Crosse of Christ; but of this more after∣wards.

But they proceed to give us their whole sence, in the next* 1.1102 Question and Answer, which are as followeth.

Why is this way of his affording help called a Sacri∣fice?* 1.1103

It is called so by a figurative manner of speak∣ing, for as in the Old Covenant, the High Priest entring into the Holiest of Holies, did do those things, which pertained to the expiation of the

sins of the People: So Christ hath now entred the Heavens, that there he might appeare be∣fore God for us, and performe all things that belong to the expiation of our sins.

The summe of what is here insinuated, is, 1. That the Sacri∣fice of Christ is but a figurative Sacrifice, and so consequently, that he himselfe is a figurative Priest: for as the Priest is, such is his Sacrifice: Proper, if proper; metaphoricall, if metaphoricall••; what say our Catechists for the proof hereof? they have said it; not one word of Reason, or any one Testimony of Scripture is produ∣ced to give countenance to this figment. 2. That the High Priest made attonement and expiation of sinnes, only by his entring in∣to the most holy place, and what he did there: which is notori∣ously false, and contrary to very many expresse Testimonies of Scripture, Levit. 4. 3, 13, 21, 27. chap. 5. 16. chap 6. 5, 6, 7. Levit. 16. &c. 3. That Christ was not an High Priest, untill he en∣tred the holy place; of which afterwards. 4. That he made not expiation of our sinnes, untill he entred heaven, and appeared in the pre∣sence of God: Of the Truth whereof, let the Reader consult Heb. 1. 3. If Christ be a figurative Priest, I see no reason why he is not a figurative King also; and such indeed those men seem to make him.

The second thing proposed is, that Christ was an High Priest,* 1.1104 whilest he was on the the Earth; and offered a sacrifice to God. I shall here first answer what was objected by M. Biddle to the contrary, and then confirme the truth it selfe.

I say then first, that Christ was a Priest, while he was on earth, and he continueth to be so for ever; that is, untill the whole worke of mediation be accomplished.

Socinus first published his opinion in this businesse in his book de* 1.1105 Jesu Christo servatore against Covet. For some time the venome of that errour was not taken notice of. Six yeares after, as himself telleth us, (* 1.1106 Epistola ad Niemojev. 1.) he wrote his Answer to Vola∣nus, wherein he confirmed it againe at large. Whereupon Niemo∣jevius, a man of his own Antitrinitarian infidelity, writes to him, &

b 1.1107 askes him sharply (in substance) if he was not mad to affirme a thing so contrary to expresse Texts of Scripture. (Epist Joh. Niemojev. 1. ad Faust. Socin.) Before him, that Atheisticall Monke Ochinus had dropped some few things in his Dialogues hereabout. Before him also Abailardus had made an entrance into the same abomination, of whom sa••es c 1.1108 Bernard (Epistola 190.) Habemus in Francia novum de Doctore Magistro theologum: qui ab ineunte aetate sua in arte Dialectica lusit, & nunc in Scripturis sacris insanit.

How the whole Nation of the Socinians have since consented* 1.1109 into this notion of their Master, I need not manifest. It is grown one of the Ar••icles of their Creed; (as this man here lay•• it down among the substantiall grounds of Christian Re∣ligion.) Confessedly on their part, the whole doctrine of the satisfact••on of Ch••ist, and Justification turnes on this hinge. For though we have other innumerable demonstrations of the Truth we assert, yet as to them, if this be proved, no more is needful For if Christ was a Priest, & offered himself a Sacrifice it cannot but be a Sacrifice of Attonement, seeing it was by blood & death. Crellius tels us, that Christ dyed for us on a double account; a 1.1110 Partly as the Mediator, and surety of the New Covenant; Partly as a Priest, that was to offer himself to God. A man might think he granted Christ to have been a Priest on the Earth, and as such to have offered himselfe a Sacrifice. So also doth b 1.1111 Volkelius allow the killing of the Sa∣crifice, to represent the death of Christ. Now the killing of the Sacrifice, was the Sacrificing of it. So Stuckus proves from that of the Poet, Et nigram mactabis ovem, lucum{que} revises. But Crellius afterwards expounds himself, and tells us, c 1.1112 that this two fold Office of Christ (then which nothing can be spoken more ri∣diculously) of a Mediator and a Preist did as it were meet in the death of Christ: the one ending, (that is, his being a Mediatour)

and the other beginning. And d 1.1113 Volkelius doth the like; with a suffi∣cient contradictiō to his Assertion, calling the death of Christ the beginning and entrance of his Priesthood. For his Mediatorship Crellius telleth us that it is most evident, that Christ there in was sub∣ordinate to God: so he Phrases it; that is, he was a Mediatour with us, from God, and not at all e 1.1114 with God for us. And this he proves, because he f 1.1115 Put not himselfe into this Office, nor was put it into it by us, so to confirme the Covenant between God and us; but was a Mini∣ster and Messenger of God. who sent him for this purpose. But the folly of this shall be afterwa••ds manifested. Christ was given of God, by his own consent, to to be a M••diatour, for us, and to lay down his life a ransome for us. (1. Tim. 2. 4, 5, 6.) which certainely he did to God for us, and not for God to us, as shall afterward be evinced. But comming to speake of his priest hood He is at a losse. g 1.1116 When (saith he) he is considered as a Priest (for that he was properly a Priest he denys, calling it Sacerdotit, & oblatio∣onis metaphora) although he seemeth to be like one who doth something with God, in the name of men, if we consider diligently, we shall finde that he is such a Priest, as performes something with us, in the name of God.

This proofe is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But this is no new thing with these men. Because Christ as an High Priest, doth something with us for God, therefore He did nothing with God for us. As though because the High Priest of old, was ov•••• the House of God, and ruled therein; therefore he did not offer Sacrifices to God for the sinnes of the People. All that Crellius in his ensuing Discourse hath to prove this by, is, because as h•• saith, Christ Offered not his Sacrifice untill he came to Heaven. Which because he p••oves not, nor endeavoures to do it, we may see what are the Texts of Scripture urged for the confir∣mation of that conceite by M. B. and others.

Seeing all the proofes collected for this purpose are out of the* 1.1117 Epistle to the Hebrewes, I shall consider them in order as they

lye in the Epistle, and not as transposed by his Questions with whom I have to do.

The first is (in his eleventh Question.) thus insinuated; Why would God have Christ come to his Priestly Office by suffering? Accor∣ding to the tenour of the Doctrine before delivered, the infe∣rence is, that until after his sufferings he obtained not his Priestly Office, for by them he entered upon it. The Answer is. Heb. 2. 10. 17, 18.

Ans. 1. The Apostle doth not say absolutely, that it became* 1.1118 Christ to be made like us, that he might be an High Priest, but that he might be a mercifull high Priest. That is, his suffering and death were not required antecedently, that he might be a Priest, but they were required to the Excecution of that End of his Priesthood, which consists in Sympathy and Sufferance together with them, in whose stead he was a Priest. He sustained all his Afflictions, and death it selfe, not that he might be a Priest, but that being mercifull, and having experience, he might on that account be ready to succour them that are Tempted; and this the words of the last verse do evidently evince to be the mea∣ning of the Holy Ghost: in that he suffered, being tempted. His sufferings were to this end of his Priesthood, that he should be Mercifull, able to succour them that are tempted; besides, it is plainely said, that he was an High Priest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make Reconciliation for the sinnes of the People. Now that Recon∣ciliation was made by his death and blood the Scripture in∣formes us, Rom. 5. 10. Whilst we were enemies, we were reconciled by the death of his Sonne. Dan. 9. 24. So that even from this place of Scripture, produced to the contrary, it is evident, that Christ was an high Priest on Earth, because he was so when he made re∣conciliation, which he did in his death on the Crosse.

But yet M. Biddles candid proceedure in this businesse may* 1.1119 be remarked; with his Huckstering the word of God. He reads the words in this order: It became him to make the Captaine of their Salvation perfect through fuffering; that he might be a mercifull and Faithfull high Priest. Who would not conclude, that this is the series and tenour of the Apostles Discourse? And that Christ is said to be made perfect through sufferings, that he might be a mercifull High Priest. These words of making perfect through suffe∣ring,

are part of the 10. verse: that he might be a Mercifull High Priest, part of the 17. Between which two there inter∣cedes a Discourse of a businesse quite of another nature; namely, his being made like his Bretheren in taking on him the seed of Abraham, whereof these words, that he might be a Mercifull and Faithfull High Priest, are the immediate issue: That is, he had a body prepared him, that he might be a Priest, an•• have a Sacrifice. Our High Priest was exercised with sufferings and temptations, sayes the Apostle: Jesus was exercised with sufferings and temptations, that he might be our High Priest, sayes M. Biddle.

Heb. 8. 1, 2. is insisted on to the same purpose in his third* 1.1120 Question, which is; What manner of High Priest is Christ?

Ans. Heb. 8. 1, 2. We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens. A Mini∣ster of the Sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle, &c. I name this in the next place, because it is coincident with that of Ch. 4. 14. (insisted on by Socinus, though omitted by our Author.)

Hence it is inferred, that Christ entred the Heavens before he was an High Priest; and is an High Priest only when he is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on High.

Ans. That Christ is an high Priest there also, we grant? that he is so there only, there is not one word in the place cited to prove. Heb. 4. 14. saith indeed, that our High Priest is entred into the Heavens; but it sayes not, that he was not our High Priest be∣fore he did so. As the High Priest of the Jewes entred into the Holy place, but yet he was an High Priest before, or he could not have entred into it. He is such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of Majesty; that is, not like the typicall High Priest who dyed, and was no more; but he abides in his Office of Priesthood; not to Offer Sacrifice, for that he did once for all, but to intercede for us for ever.

Heb. 8 4. is nextly produced in Answer to this Question.* 1.1121

Was not Christ a Priest whilst he was upon Earth, namely when he dyed on the Crosse? Ans. Heb. 8 4. Chap. 7. 15, 16.

The same Question and Answer is given by the Racovian Catechisme, and this is the maine place insisted on by all the Soci∣nions: For if he were on earth, he should not be a Priest, seeing that there are Priests, that offer gifts according to the Law.

Ans. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be interpreted of the state and Conditi∣on of him spoken of, and not of the place wherein he was. If he were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a meere earthly condition, as the High Priest of the Jewes, he should not be a Priest. So is the Ex∣pression used elsewhere. Col. 3. v. 2. we are commanded not to minde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is terrene things, earthly things. And v. 5. mortify your members, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, your Earthly members.

2. If the word signify the place, and not the Condition of the things, whereof they are, they may be referred to the Ta∣bernacle, of which he speakes, and not to the High Priest. v. 2. the Apostle tells us, that he is the Minister, or Priest of the true Taber∣nacle, which God made, and not man: and then v. 3. that in the other Tabernacle there were Priests that Offered dayly sacrifices: So that saith he, if this Tabernacle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He should not be a Priest of it. For in the Earthly Tabernacle there were other Administrators: but to passe these interpretations,

3. The Apostle does not say, that He that is upon the* 1.1122 Earth can be no Priest, which must be our Adversaries Argu∣ment, if any, from this place, and thus formed, He that is upon the Earth is no Priest; Christ before his Assension was upon the Earth, therefore he was no Priest. This is not the intendment of the Apostle, for in the same verse he affirmes, that there were Priests on the Earth. This then is the utmost of his intendment; that if Christ had been only to continue on the Earth, and to have done what Priests did, or were to do upon the Earth, there was neither need of him, nor roome for him: but now is He a Priest, seeing he was not to take upon him their worke; but had an Eternall Priest-hood of his own to Administer. There is no more in this place, then there is, Chap. 7. 19, 23, 24. which is a cleare Assertion, that Christ had a Priesthood of his own, which was to perfect and compleat all things; being not to share with the Priests, that had all their work to do upon the Earth. And in v. 13, 14, 15. of Chap. 7. you have a full exposition of the whole matter. The summe is, Christ was none of the Priests of the Old Testament; No Priest of the Law: all their earthly things vanished, when he undertooke the Administration of Heavenly. So that neither doth this at all evince, that Christ

was not a Priest of the order of Melchisedeck, even before his Assension.

To this Heb. 7. 15, 16. is urged, and those words; after the* 1.1123 power of an endles Life, are insisted on: as though Christ was not a Priest, untill after he had ended his life, and risen a∣gaine.

But is this the intendment of the Apostle? Doth he aime at any such thing? The Apostle is insisting on one of his Arguments to prove from the institution of the Priest-hood of Melchisedeck, or a Priest-hood after his Order, the excellency of the Priest∣hood of Christ above that of Aaron; from the manner of the institution of the one and of the other, this Argument lyes: sayes he; the Priests of the Jewes were made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the Law of a carnall Commandement: that is, by carnall rights and ceremonies, by carnall Oyle and Ordinances; but this man is made a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by virtue of an endles life; by the ap∣pointment of God, having such a life, as should never by death interrupt him in the Administration of his Office; for though the life of Christ was intercepted three dayes, yet his Person was never dissolved, as to the Administration of his Office of Priest-hood: which is the thing spoken of, and in respect of that he had an endles life.

Quest 9. is to the same purpose. How did Christ enter into the* 1.1124 Holy place to offer himselfe?

Ans. By his own blood, Heb. 9. 12.

Ans. Would not any one imagine, that it was said in the Scrip∣ture, that Christ entred into the Holy place to Offer hims••lfe; that, that is taken for granted, and the modus, or manner how he did it, is alone enqui••ed after? This is but one part of the So∣phistry M. B. makes use of in this Scripture Catechisme. But it is so farre from being a true report of the Testimony of the Scripture, that the plain contrary is asserted, namely, that Christ offered himselfe before his entrance into the holy place, not made with hands, and then entred thereinto, to appeare in the presence of God for us. Christ entred by his own blood into the holy place, in as much as having shed and offered his blood a sacrifice to God, with the efficacy of it he entred into his presence, to carry on the work of his Pri••sthood in his intercession for us. As the

High Priest, having offered without, a Sacrifice to God, entred with the blood of it into the most holy place, there to perfect and compleat the duties of his Office, in offering, and interceding for the ••eople.

The remaining Questions of this Chapter may be speedily* 1.1125 dispatcht. His sixth is.

What benefit happeneth by Christs Priesthood?

Ans. Heb. 5. 9, 10.

Though the place be very improperly urged, as to an An∣swer to the Question proposed; there being very many more testimonyes clearly and distinctly expressing the Immediate fruits, and benefits of the Priestly Office of Christ; yet because we grant, that by his Priesthood principally, and eminently Christ is become the Author of Salvation, we shall not dissent, as to this Question and Answer. Only we adde as to the man∣ner, that the way whereby Christ by his Priesthood became the Author of Salvation, consists principally in the Offering up of himselfe to death, in, and by the shedding of his blood, whereby he obtained for us Eternall Redemption, Heb. 9. 14, 26.

But this M. B. makes enquiry after. Qu. 8. How can Christ save* 1.1126 them by his Priesthood? Ans. Heb. 7. 25. Heb. 9. 28.

Ans. 1. We acknowledge the use of the Intercession of Christ, for the carrying on, and the compleating of the work of our Salvation: as that also it is the Apostles designe there, to manifest his Ability to save, beyond what the Aaronicall Priests could pretend unto, which is mentioned chap. 7. 25. but, that He saves us thereby, exclusively to the Oblation he made of himselfe at his Death; or any otherwise, but as carrying on that Work, whose foundation was laid therein, (Redemption being meritoriously procured thereby) I suppose M. B. doth not think, that this place is any way usefull to prove. And that place which he subjoynes is not added at all to the Advantage of his intendment: for it is most evident, that it is of the Offer∣ing of Christ by death, and the shedding of his blood, or the Sacrifice of himselfe, as v. 26. that the Apostle there speaks.

There is not any thing else, that is needfull for me to insist* 1.1127 upon in this Chapter; for though the Scripture instructs us in many other uses, that we are to make of the Doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ, then what he expresses in his last question,

yet that being one Eminent one amonst them (especially the foundation of coming with boldnesse to the Throne of Grace, being rightly understood) I shall not need to insist farther on it.

Not to put my Selfe, or Reader to any needlesse trouble, M.* 1.1128 B. acknowledging that Christ is an High Priest, and having op∣posed only his investiture with the Office, whilest he was upon the Earth, and that to destroy the Attonement made by the Sa∣crifice of himselfe; having proved that he was a Priest properly so called; I shall now prove that He was an High Priest whilest he was upon Earth, and shew afterwards what he had to Offer, with the Efficacy of his Sacrifice, and the Intent thereof. First, the Scrip∣ture will speedily determine the difference, Eph. 5. 2. Christ hath loved us, and hath given himselfe for us an Offering, and a Sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour. He that offereth Sacrifices and Offerings unto God, is a Priest: So the Apostle defines a Priest, Heb: 5. 1. He is one taken from amongst men, and ordained to of∣fer Gifts, and Sacrifices for sinnes. Now thus did Christ doe, i•• his giving himselfe for us: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he delivered himselfe for us; To deliver himselfe, or to be delivered for us, notes his death alwaies, in contradistinction to any other act of his: so Eph. 5. 25. Gal. 2. 22. Rom. 8. 32. Rom. 4. 25 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In that delivery of himselfe he Sacrificed; therefore he was then a Priest.

To this Socinus invented an Answer, in his Book de Servatore,* 1.1129 which he insists on againe Epist. 2. ad Niemojev. and whereunto* 1.1130 his followers have added nothing, it being fixed on by them all; in particular by Smalcius in Catech. Racov. And yet it is in it self ludicrous, and almost jocular. The words they tell us are thus to be read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and there they place a point in the verse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: without any de∣pendance upon the former words, making this to be the sence of the whole. Christ gave himselfe to death for us; and O what an offering was that to God, and O what a Sacrifice! that is in a metaphoricall sence; not that Christ offered himselfe to God for us: but that Paul called his giving himselfe to dye, an offering, or a thing gratefull to God, as good Works are called an Offer∣ing, Phil. 4. 18. That is: the Dying of Christ was praeclarum facinus, as Volkelius speaks. But,

1. It is easy to Answer or avoid any thing by such wayes as this; divide, cut off sentences in the dependence of the words, and you may make what sence of them you please; or none at all.

2. These words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, have no other word to be regulated by, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and therefore must relate thereunto; and Christ is affirmed in them to have given himselfe an offering, and a Sacrifice▪

3. These word an Offering and a Sacrifice, are not a commen∣dation of Christs giving himselfe, but an illustration, and a de∣scription of what he gave; that is, himselfe, a Sacrifice of sweet savour to God. So that notwithstanding this exception, (becom∣ing only them that make it) it is evident from hence, that Christ of∣ferred himselfe a Sacrifice in his Death, and was therefore then a Priest fitted for that work.

2. Heb. 5. 6, 7. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest* 1.1131 for ever, after the Order of M••lchisedeck: who in the dayes of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cryes and teares, unto him that was able to save him from Death. v. 6. The Apo∣stle tells us, that he was a Priest, and v. 7. what he did by virtue of that Priesthood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: It is a T••mple expression of the Office of a Priest, that is used. So v. 1 An High Priest is appointed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he may offer. Now when did Christ do this. It was in the dayes of his flesh, with strong cryes and teares; both which evidence this his Offering to have been before his death, and at his death; and his mentioning of prayers and teares, is not so much to shew the matter of his Offer∣ing, which was himselfe; as the manner, or at least the concomitants of the Sacrifice of Himselfe, Prayers and Teares; and these were not for himselfe; but for his Church, and the businesse that for their sakes he had undertaken.

3. Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himselfe purged our sinnes, sate down at the Right hand of the Majesty on high. The purging of our sinnes* 1.1132 was by Sacrifice; There was never any other way 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but now Christ did this before his Ascension: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when he had himselfe, or after he had purged our sinnes; and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by himselfe, or the Sacrifice of himselfe. That our sinnes are purged by the oblation of Christ, the Scripture is

cleare; hence his blood is said to wash us from all our sinnes. And Heb.* 1.1133 10. 10. sanctified, is the same with purged: and this through the offering of the body of Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Christ then offering this Sacrifice whilest he was on the Earth, was a Priest in so doing.

Unto this may be added sundry others of the same import, C. 7. 27. Who needed not dayly, as those High Priests, to offer up Sacrifice,* 1.1134 first for his own sins, and then for the peoples; for this he did once, when he offered up himselfe. The one Sacrifice of Christ is here compared to the dayly Sacrifices of the Priests. Now those dayly Sacrifices were not performed in the most holy place, whither the High Priest entred but once in a yeare, which alone was a Representation of Heaven; so that what Christ did in Heaven cannot answer to them, but what he did on earth, before he entred the Holy Place, not made with hands.

And Ch 9. 12. He entred by his own blood into the holy place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after he had obtained eternall redemption. Re∣demption* 1.1135 is every where in the Scripture ascribed to the blood of Christ. And himselfe abundantly manifesteth on what ac∣count it is to be had, when he says, that he gave his life a ransome, or a price of redemption. Where, and when Christ laid down his life, we know: and yet that our Redemption or Freedome is by the Offering of Christ for••••s, is as evident, ch. 9. 26. He puts away sinne (which is our Redemption) by the Sacrifice of himselfe; so that this Sacrifice of himselfe was before he entred the Holy Place; and consequently. He was a Priest before his entrance in∣to Heaven. It is I say apparent from these places, that Christ offered himselfe, before he went into the Holy Place, or sate down at the Right hand of the Majesty on high, which was to be proved from them.

4. Christ is often said to offer himselfe once for all: designing by that expression some individuall Action of Christ, and not such* 1.1136 a continued course of proceedure, as is his presentation of him∣selfe in Heaven; or the continuation of his oblation, as to its ef∣ficacy by his Intercession; so Heb: 7. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heb: 9. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. 10. 10. v 12, 14. In all these places the offering of Christ is not only said to be one, but to be once offered; now no offering of Christ, besides that which he offered on the Earth, can be said to be once offered. For that which is don in Heaven is done alwayes, and for ever; but that which is done

always, cannot be said to be done once for all. To be always done, or in doing,, as is Christs offering himselfe in Heaven, and to be done once for all, as was the Oblation spoken of in those places, whereby our sins are done away, are plainely contra∣dictory: it is said to be so offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to be opposed unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby the Apostle expresses that of the Aaronicall Sacrifice, which in two other words he had before delivered; they were offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in which sence his offering himself in Heaven cannot be said to be done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but only that on the Crosse. Besides, he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 28. and how he did that we are informed, 1 Pet. 2. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: he did it in his body on the Tree.

Besides, the Apostle Heb. 9. 26. tels us, that he speakes of such* 1.1137 an offering, as was accompanied with suffering: he must have of∣ten* 1.1138 suffered since the foundation of the World: It was such an offering, as could neither be repeated, nor continued without suffering that he treats of. We do not deny, that Christ offers himselfe in heaven; that is, that he presents himselfe, as one that was so of∣fered, to his Father: but the Offering of himselfe; that was on earth, and therefore there was he a Priest.

5. Once more; that Sacrifice which answered those Sacri∣fices,* 1.1139 whose Blood was never carried into the Holy place; that must be performed on earth, and not in Heaven. That many proper Sacrifices were offered as types of Christ, whose blood was not carried into the Holy place, the Apostle assures us, Heb. 10. 11. The dayly Sacrifices had none of their blood carried into the Holy place: for the High Priest went in thither only once in the yeare. But now these were all true Sacrifices and types of the Sacrifice of Christ; and therefore the Sacrifices of Christ al∣so, to answer the types, must be offered before his entrance into Heaven, as was in part declared before. Yea there was no other Sacrifice of these, but what was performed in their killing and slaying, and therefore there must be a Sacrifice prefigured by them, consisting in killing and shedding of blood. All this is asserted by the Apostle, Heb. 7. 27. Who needeth not daily as those High Priests, to offer up Sacrifices, for this he did once, when he offere up himselfe. Those Sacrifices which were offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dayly,

were types of the Sacrifice of Christ; and that of his, which was offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did answer thereunto; which was his death, and nothing else.

CHAP. XXI.

Of the Death of Christ, the Causes, Ends, and Fruits thereof, with an entrance into the Doctrine of his Satisfaction thereby.

MR Biddles 12^th Chapter is concerning the Death of Christ,* 1.1140 the Causes, and Fruits, and Ends thereof: The Errour and mistake whereabout, is the Second great head of the Socini∣an Religion; Next to his Person, there is not any thing, they set themselves so Industriously to oppose, as his Death, in the sence wherein it hath constantly hitherto been embraced by all Christians, as the great foundation of their Faith and Consi∣dence.

That the Lord Jesus, our Mediator, did not by his Death and* 1.1141 Sufferings undergoe the penalty of the Law, as the punish∣ment due to our sinnes, that he did not make Satisfaction to God, or make Reconciliation for Transgressours, that he did not thereby properly Redeeme us by the payment of a Ransome, nor so suffer for us, as that our sins should in the Justice of God be a meritorious cause of his suffering, is the Second Great Article of the Creed, which they * 1.1142 labour to assert and maintaine.

There is not any thing about which they have laid out so* 1.1143 much of their strength, as about this, namely, that Jesus Christ is called our Saviour in respect of the way of Salvation, which he hath revealed to us, and the power committed to Him to deli∣ver us, and save us, in, and by Obedience required at our hands, not on the account of any Satisfaction he hath made for us, or Attonement by the Sacrifice of himselfe.

How Faustus Socinus first broacht this opinion, with what* 1.1144

difficulty he got it to be entertained, with the men of his own profession, as to the Doctrine of the Trinity, has been before declared. What weight he laid upon this opinion about the* 1.1145 Death of Christ, and the opposition he had engaged in against his satisfaction, with the diligence he used, and the paines he took about the one and the other, is evident from his writings to this purpose which are yet extant. His Book De Jesu Christo Servatore is wholy taken up with this Argument; so is the greatest part of his Praelections; his Lectiones Sacrae are some of them of the same subject; & his Paraenesis against Volanus; many of his Epistles, especially those to Smalcius, and Volkelius, and Niemojevius, as also his treatises about Justification have the same designe. Smalcius is no lesse industrious in the same cause, both in his Racovian Catechisme, and his Answers and Replys with Franzius and Smiglecius. It is the maine designe of Schlictingius his Comment on the Hebrews; Crellius de Causis mortis Christi, and his defence of Socinus against Grotius dwells wholy on this Doctrine. Volkelius hath his share in the same Work, &c.

What those at large contend for, M. Biddle endeavours* 1.1146 slily to insinuate into his Catechumens in this Chapter; Having threfore briefely spoken of Salvation by Christ, and of his Mediation in generall, in consideration of his 6, and 7. Chap∣ters; I shall now God assisting take up the whole matter, and after a briefe discovery of his intendment in his Queries concerning the Death of Christ, give an account of our whole Doctrine of his Satisfaction, confirming it from the Scriptures, and vindicating it from the exceptions of his Masters.

For the order of proceedure, I shall first consider M. Biddles* 1.1147 Questions; then state the point in difference, by expressing what is the judgement of our Adversaries concerning the Death of Christ, and what we ascribe thereto; and then demonstrate from the Scripture the Truth contended for.

M. Biddles first Question is,* 1.1148

Was it the will and purpose of God that Christ should suffer the Death of the Crosse? What saith the Apostle Peter to the Jews concerning this? Ans. Acts 2. 22, 23. to which he subjoynes, What say the Disci∣ples in generall concerning the same? Ans. Acts 4. 24, 27, 28.

It is not unknown what difference we have, both with the Socinians and Arminians about the purposes and efficacious de∣crees, and the Infallibility of the Prescience of God: some∣thing already hath been spoken to this purpose, in our Dis∣course concerning the Prescience of God, as formerly in that of Perseverance. How unable M. Biddles companions are to disentangle themselves from the Evidence of that Testimony, which is given to the Truth we contend for, by these Texts which here he with so much confidence recites, hath been abundantly by others Demonstrated. I shall not here enter into the merits of that cause, nor shall I impose on M. Biddle the opinion of any other men, which he doth not expressly own; only I shall desire him to reconcile what he here speakes in his Querie, with what he before delivered concerning Gods not foreseeing our free actions, that are for to come. What God purposes shall be, and come to passe, He certainely foresees, that that will come to passe. That Christ should dy the death of the Crosse was to be brought about by the free actions of men, if any thing in the world was ever so, and accomplished in the same manner; yet that this should be done, yea so done, God purposed; and therefore without doubt foresaw that it should be accomplished, and so fore∣saw all the free actions whereby it was accomplished. And if he foresee any one free action, why not all? There being the same Reason of one and all. But at the present let this passe. His second Question is.

Did Christ dye to reconcile and bring God to us, or on the contrary, to* 1.1149 bring us to God? Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Ephes. 2. 14. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 19. & 1 Pet. 3. ••8.

That I may (by the way) speake a little to this Question, reserving the full discussion of the matter int••nded to the en∣sueing discourse; The termes of it are first to be explai∣ned.

1. By Reconciling God, we intend the making of such an Attonement, whereby his w••ath or Anger, in all the ••ffects of it, are turned away. Though we use not the expr••ssion of Recon∣ciling God to us, but of Reconc••••••ng us to God, by the taking away, or removall of his wrath, and Anger, or the mak••ng reconciliation with God for sinne; yet as to reconcile God, intends the appeasing of the Justice and Anger of God, so that whereas be∣fore

we were obnoxious to his Displeasure, Enmity, Hatred, and Wrath thereby, and on that account we come to be ac∣cepted with him, we say Christ dyed to reconcile God to Ʋs, which in the progresse of the Discourse with plentifull demon∣strations from the Scripture shall be evinced.

2. Of bringing God to us, we speake not; unlesse by bringing* 1.1150 God to us, he intends the procurement of the Grace and Favour of God toward us, and his loving presence to be with us, and then we say, in that sence Christ by his death brought God to us.

3. Our Reconciliation to God, or the reconciliation as it* 1.1151 stands on our part, is our Conversion unto God, our deliverance from all that Enmity and opposition unto God, which is in us by nature; and this also we say is the effect, and fruit of the Death of Christ.

4. Our bringing unto God, mentioned 1 Pet. 3. 18. is of a* 1.1152 larger and more comprehensive signification, than that of our Reconciliation; containing the whole effect of the death of Christ, in the removall of every hinderance and the Collation of every thing necessarily required to the perfect and compleat accom∣plishment of the worke of our Salvation, and so containes no lesse the Reconciliation of God to us, than ours to him; and is not proper to make up one member of the division there in∣stituted, being a generall expression of them both.

Now concerning these things M. Biddle enquires, Whether* 1.1153 Christ by his death reconciled God to us, or on the contrary, us to God; So insinuating, that one of these Effects of the Death of Christ is inconsistent with the other; This seemes to be the mans aime,

1. To intimate, that this is the state of the difference between him and us; that we say, Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us; and he, that he dyed to Reconcile us to God.

2. That these things are contrary; so that they who say the one, must deny the other; That we who say, that Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us, must of necessity deny that he dyed, to Recon∣cile us to God; and that he also, who saith, he dyed to Reconcile us to God, may, and must deny on that account the other effect by us ascribed to his death. But this Sophistry is so grosse, as it is not worth the while to insist upon its discovery; We say, that Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us in the sence before explained,

and us unto God; and these things are so farre from being of any Repugnancy one to another, as to the making up of one entire end, and effect of the death of Christ, that without them both the worke of Reconciliation is by no meanes compleat.

Not to prevent the full proofe and evidence hereof, which is intended, it may at present suffice, that we evince it by the light* 1.1154 of this one consideration; If in the Scripture it is expressly and frequently affirmed, that Antecedently to the consideration of the Death of Christ, and the Effects thereof, there is not only a reall Enmity on our parts against God, but also a Law Enmity on the part of God against us, and that both of these are removed by Vertue of the Death of Christ, then the Reconciliation of God to us, and our Reconciliation to God, are both of them one entire effect of the death of Christ. That there is in us by nature a reall Enmity against God▪ before it be taken away by the virtue of the death of Christ, and so we Reconciled to him, is not denyed; and if it were, it might be easily evinced from Rom. 8. 18. Tit. 3. 3. Ephes. 2. 12. and innu∣merable other places; And certainely the evidence on the other side, that there was a Law enmity on the part of God against us, Antecedent to the consideration of the Death of Christ, is no lesse cleare. The great Sanction of the Law, Gen. 3. Deut. 27. 29. cons••dered in conjunction with the Justice of God, Rom. 1. 32. Hab. 1. 13. Psal. 5. 4, 5, 6. 2 Thess. 10. 5, 6. and the Testimonies given concerning the state and condition of man in reference to the Law and Justice of God, Joh. 3. 36. Rom. 5. 18. Ephes. 2. 3, 12. &c. with the expresse assignation of the Reconciliation pleaded for, to be made by the Death of Christ, Dan. 9. 24. Heb. 2. 18. do abundantly evince it; There being then a mutu∣all Enmity between God and us, though not of the same kind, (it being Physicall on our part, and Legall or Morall on the part of God,) Christ our Mediatour making up peace and friendship be∣tween us, doth not only Reconcile us to God, by his Spirit, but God also to us, by his blood; but of this more afterward un∣der the consideration of the death of Christ, as it was a Sacrifice.

For the Texts cited by M. Biddle, as making to his purpose,* 1.1155 the most, if not all of them looke, another way then he intends to use them. They will in the following Chapter come under

full consideration. Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were Reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne; is the first mentio∣ned. That our being Reconciled to God, in this place doth not in∣tend our Conversion to him, and our deposition of the Reall enmity, that is in us against him, but our Acceptance with him, upon the account of the Attonement made in the blood of Christ, whereby he is Reconciled to us, is evident from sundry circumstances of the place. For

1. That which is called being reconciled by his death, in 10. is being justifyed by his blood, vers. 9. The observation of the same Antithesis in both verses makes this evident. Now to be justifyed by the blood of Christ, is not to have our enmity with God slaine and destroyed (which is our Sanctification) but our Acceptation with God upon the account of the shedding of the blood of Christ for us; which is his Reconciliation to us.

2. We are thus Reconciled, when we are enemies, as in the verse insisted on; when we were enemies we were Reconciled; Now we are not Reconciled in the sence of deposing our Enmity to God (that deposition being our Sanctification) whilest we are enemies, and therefore it is the Reconciliation of God to us, that i•• intended▪

3. Verse 11. we are said to receive this Reconciliation; or as the word is rendred, the Attonement; the word is the same with* 1.1156 that used v. 10. Now we cannot be said to receive our own conver∣sion, but the Reconciliation of God by the blood of Christ, his favour upon the Attonement made, that by Faith we do receive; Thus M. Biddles first Witnesse speakes expressly against him, and the designe for the carrying on whereof he was called forth; as afterward will more fully appeare.

His second also of Ephes. 2. 14, 16. speakes the same language;* 1.1157 He is our peace, who hath made both one, that we might reconcile both unto God in one body, by the death of his Crosse, having slaine the enmity thereby; Setting aside the joynt designe of the Apostle to manifest the Reconciliation made of Iewes and Gentiles by the Crosse of Christ, it is evident, the Reconciliation here meant consists in slaying the enmity mentioned, so making peace; Now what is the enmity intended? Not the Enmity that is in our hearts to God, but the Legall emnity that lay a∣gainst us, on the part of God; as is evident from v. 15. and

the whole designe of the place, as afterwards will appeare more fully.

There is indeed 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. mention made of Recon∣ciliation* 1.1158 in both the sences insisted on; of us to God, v. 20. where the Apostle saith, the end of the ministry is to reconcile us to God; to prevaile with us to lay down our enmity against him, & oppositi∣on to him; of God to us, v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; which to be the import of the words is evinced from the exegeticall expression immediately following; not imputing to them their sins & transgressions▪ God was so reconciling the world unto himselfe in Christ, as that upon the account of what was done in Christ, He will not impute their sins to th••m▪ The Legall en∣mity he had against them, on the account whereof alone mens sinnes are imputed to them, being taken away. And this is farther cleared by the summe of his former Discourse, which the Apostle gives us v. 21. declaring how God was in Christ recon∣ciling the world to himselfe; For (saith he) he made him sin for us who knew no sinne, that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him; Thus he was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, in that he made him to be sinne, or a sacrifice for sinne, so to make an At∣tonement for us, that we might be accepted before God, as Righteous on the account of Christ.

Much lesse doth that of the 1 Pet. 3. 18. In the last place men∣tioned,* 1.1159 speak at all to M. B's purpose: Christ hath once suffered for sinne, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; bringing to God, is a generall expression of the Accomplishment of the whole work of our Salvation, both in the removall of all hin∣derances, and the collation of all things necessary to the fulfilling of the work: Of this the Apostle mentions the great fundamen∣tall, and procuring cause, which is the suffering of Christ in our stead; the just for the unjust: Christ in our stead suffered for our sinnes, that he might bring us to God; Now this suffering of Christ in our stead, for our Sinnes, is most eminently the cause of the Reconciliation of God to us; and by the intimation thereof, of our Reconciliation to God, and so of our Manuduction to him.

Thus, though it be most true, that Christ Dyed to Reconcile* 1.1160 us to God, by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by M. Biddle to prove it, (so unhappy is he in his Quotation••)

speake to the defence of that Truth, which he doth oppose, and not of that which he would assert; and which by asserting in opposition to the Truth, with which it hath an eminent consi∣stency, he doth corrupt.

The next Question I shall not insist upon; It is concerning* 1.1161 the object of the death of Christ, and the Universality thereof; The words of it are, For whom did Christ dye? The Answer is from 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. 1 Tim. 5. 6. Heb. 2. 9. Joh. 6. 8 where mention is made of all, and the World, in reference to the death of Christ. The Question concerning the object of the Death of Christ, or whom he dyed for, hath of late by very many been so fully discussed; and I have my selfe spoken elsewhere some∣what to that purpose; It shall not then here be in••••sted on; In* 1.1162 a word, we confesse that Christ died for all, and for the World; but whereas it is very seldome that these words are compre∣hensive of all and every man in the World, but most frequently are used for some of all Sorts, they for whom Christ died, being in some places expounded to be the Church, Believers, the Children, those given unto him out of the World, and no where described by a∣ny terme expressive constantly of an absolute Ʋniversality, we say the Words insisted on are to be taken in the latter sence, and not the former; being ready, God assisting, to put it to the issue and tryall with our Adversaries, when we are called there∣unto.

He proceeds; What was the procuring cause of Christs death?* 1.1163

Ans. Rom. 4. 25. Isa. 53. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 3. The Expressions are; That Christ was delivered for our offences, that Christ died for our sinnes, and was bruised for our iniquities.

That in these, and the like places, that clause for our sinnes, offences, and transgressions, is expressive of the procuring cause of the death of Christ, M. B. grants; Sinne can be no otherwise the procuring cause of the death of Christ, but as it is morally merito∣rious thereof▪ To say our sinnes were the procuring cause of the death of Christ, is to say, that our sinnes merited the death of Christ; And whereas this can no otherwise be, but as our sinnes were imputed to him, and he was put to death for them, M. B. hath in this one Question granted the whole of what in this subject he contends against. If our sinnes were the procuring cause of the death of Christ, then the death of Christ was that punishment

which was due to them; or in the Justice, or according to the tenour of the Law of God, was procur'd by them; and so conse∣quently He in his death underwent the penalty of our Sinnes, suf∣fering in our stead▪ and making thereby satisfaction for what we had done amisse: M. Biddles Masters say generally that the expression of dying for our sinnes denotes the finall cause of the death of Christ; that is, Christ intended by his death to con∣firme the Truth, in obedience whereunto we shall receive for∣givenesse of sinnes; This grant of M. B's, that the procuring cause of the Death of Christ is hereby exprest, will perhaps appeare more Prejudiciall to his whole cause, then he is yet aware of; especially being proposed in distinction from the finall cause, or end of the Death of Christ, which in the next place he men∣tions,* 1.1164 as afterward will more fully appeare; although I con∣fesse he is not alone; Crellius making the same concession.

The last Question of this Chapter is, What are the ends of* 1.1165 Christs suffering and Death intimated by the Scripture? Whereunto by way of Answer, sundry Texts of Scripture are subjoyned; every one of them expressing some one end or other, some effect or fruit, something of the aime and intendment of Christ in his suffering and Death; whereunto exceeding many others might be annexed, but this businesse of the death of Christ, its Causes, Ends, and Influence into the work of our Salvation, the manifestation that therein he underwent the punishment due to our sinnes, making attonement, and giving satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by the price of his blood, &c. being of so great weight and importance as it is, lying at the very bot∣tome, and foundation of all our hope and confidence, I shall, leaving M. Biddle, handle the whole matter at large in the en∣suing Chapters.

For our more cleere and distinct proceedure in this Impor∣tant head of the Religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay downe the most Eminent Considerations of the Death of Christ, as proposed in the Scripture, and then give an Account of the most Speciall Effects of it in particular, answering to those Considerations of it; in all manifesting wherein the expiation of our sinnes by his blood doth consist.

The Principall Considerations of the Death of Christ, are

of it,

• 1. As a PRICE.
• 2. As a SACRIFICE.
• 3. As a PENALTY.

Of which in the order wherein they are mentioned.

CHAP. XXII.

The severall considerations of the Death of Christ, as to the Expiation of our sinnes thereby, and the satisfaction made therein: First, of it as a Price. Secondly, as a Sacrifice.

1. THe Death of Christ in this businesse is a Price: and that* 1.1166 properly so called: 1 Cor. 6. 20 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you were bought with a Price; and if we will know what that Price was, with which we are bought; the Holy Ghost informes us, 1 Pet. 1. 17, 18. ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. It is the blood of Christ, which in this businesse hath that use which silver and gold have in the Re∣deeming of Captives: And paid it is into the hand of him, by whose Power and Authority the Captive is detained, as shall be proved: And himselfe tells us what a kind of Price it is, that is so paid; it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 20. 28. He came to lay downe his life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which for its more evidence and cleerenesse, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim 2. 6. A Price of Redemption, for the de∣livery of another.

The first mention of a Ransome in the Scripture is in Exod.* 1.1167 21. 30. If there be laid on him a summe of money, then he shall give for the Ransome of his life, what ever is laid on him: the word in the O∣riginall is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Septuagint there render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and it is used againe in the same sence, Ps. 49. 9. and in both places intends a valuable price, to be paid for the deliverance of that, which upon guilt became obnoxious to death. It is true, the word is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redimere, vindicare, as∣serere in libertatem, by any wayes and meanes, by Power, Strength, or otherwise. But where ever it is applyed to such a kind of Redemption, as had a Price▪ going along with it, the Septuagint constantly render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sometimes

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, otherwise by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the like.

It is then confessed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old Testament, is some∣times* 1.1168 taken for redemit in a Metaphoricall sence, not strictly and literally, by the intervention of a Price; but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word whereby it is rendred, when a Price intervened, is ever so taken in the New Testament, is denyed. Indeed Moses is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 1. 35. in reference to the Metaphoricall Redemption of Israel out of Aegypt: a deliverance by Power and Strong Arme; but shall we say because that word is used improperly in one place, where no price could be paid, where God plainly saies, it was not done by a Price, but by Power, therefore it must be so used in those places, where there is ex∣presse mention of a Price, both the Matter of it, and its forma∣lity as a Price, and speaketh not a word of doing it any other way, but by the payment of a Price. But of this afterward.

There is mention of a Ransome in ten places of the Old Te∣stament;* 1.1169 to ransome, and ransomed, in two or three more. In two of these places, Exod. 21. 30. and Lev. 49. 8. the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as before, and rendred by the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all other place it is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly sig∣nifies a propitiation, as Psal. 49. 7. which the LXX have variously rendred. Twice it is mentioned in Job. Ch. 33. 24. and Chap. 36. 18. In the first place, they have left it quite out, and in the latter so corrupted the sence, that they have rendred it altoge∣ther unintelligible, Prov. 6. 35. & 13. 8. they have properly rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a price of Redemption, it being in both places used in such businesse, as a Ransome useth to be accepted in: Chap. 21. 8. They have properly rendred it to the subject matter: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are things publickely devoted to destru∣ction, as it were to turne away Anger from others, coming up∣on them for their sakes.

So is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Homo piacularis pro lustration•• & expiatione patriae* 1.1170 devotus; whence the word is often used as scelus in Latine, for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies he in the Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used* 1.1171 in the same sence by Herodotus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athamas was made a piaculum, or a propitiation for the Countrey. Whence Budaeus renders that of the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: nos tanquam

piacula mundi facti sumus, & succidaneae pro populo victimae. we are as the accursed things of the World, and Sacrifices for the people: reading the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: nos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Greek Scho∣liast,* 1.1172 who read it as we commonly do, rendring it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as the vulgar Latine purgamenta, to the same purpose; such as have all manner of filth cast upon them.

And Isaiah 43. 3. They have rendred the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.1173 a commutation by price; so Mat. 16. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a Price in exchange. Now in all these places and others, the Hebrews use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a propitiation, by way of Allusion; as is most especially evident from that of Isaiah, I will give Aegypt a propitiation for thee; That is, as God is attoned by a propitiatory Sacrifice, wherein something is offered him in the room of the Offender, so will he do with them; put them into trouble, in room of the Church, as the Sacrificed Beast was in the room of him for whom it was Sacrificed; and hence does that word signify a Ransome, because what God appoin∣ted in his Worship to redeeme any thing, that by the Law was de∣voted, which was a compensation by his institution, (as a clean beast in the room of a first born was to be offered a Sacrifice to God) was so called. And the word satisfaction, which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice together, Num: 35. 31. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Originall. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed is Originally Pitch or Bitu∣men: Hence what God saies to Noah about making the Arke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 6. 14. the Septuagint have rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bituminabis bitumine. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in P••hel, is Pla••avit, expiavit, ex∣piationem fecit; because by Sacrifice sins are Covered, as if they had not been; to cover or hide, being the first use of the word.

And this is the rise and use of the word Ransome in the Scrip∣ture,* 1.1174 both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it denotes properly a price of Redemption, a valuable compensation made by one thing for ano∣ther, either in the Native signification, as in the case of the first word; or by the first Translation of it from the Sacrifice of Attonement, as in the latter. Of this farther afterwards in the businesse of Redemption. For the present it sufficeth, that the death of Christ was a Price or Ransome, and these are the words whereby it is expressed.

2. It was a Sacrifice; & what sacrifice it was shall be declared.* 1.1175

1. That Christ offered a sacrifice, is abundantly evident from what was said before, in the consideration of the time and place, when, and wherein Christ was an high Priest. The necessity of this the Apostle confirmes Heb. 8. 3. For every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. If he be a Priest, he must have a Sacrifice. The very nature of his employment requires it. The whole and entire office & employment of an High Priest, as a Priest, consists in offering Sacrifice, with the performance of those things, which did necessarily precede and follow that Action. It is of necessity then that he should also have somewhat to offer as a sacrifice to God.

For the other part of our inquiry, viz. What it was that he* 1.1176 Sacrificed; I shall manifest in this order of processe, (taking leave to inlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved before, as the manner of it.)

• 1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice, that any Priest had offered before, by Gods appointment.
• 2. He did not actually offer any such Sacrifice.
• 3. I shall shew positively what he did offer.

1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice that the Priests of old had appointed for them to offer. He came to do another manner of worke, then could be brought about with the blood of Bulls and Goats. It cost more to redeeme our soules. That which was of more Worth in it selfe, of neerer concernement to him that offe∣red it, of a more manifold Alliance to them for whom it was offered, and of better acceptation with God to whom it was offered, was to be his Sacrifice. This is the aime of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For the Law &c.

This is the summe of the Apostles Discourse; The Sacrifices* 1.1177 instituted by the Law, could not effect, nor worke that which Christ our High Priest was to accomplish by his Sacrifice; and therefore he was no•• to offer them; but they were to be abolished, and something else to be brought in that might supply their roome and defect.

What was wanting in these Sacrifices, the Apostle ascribes to* 1.1178 the Law, whereby they were instituted. The Law could not do it, that is, the Ceremoniall Law could not do it. The Law which insti∣tuted and appointed these Sacrifices, could not accomplish that

end of the instruction, by them▪ And with this expression of it he subjoynes a reason of this weakenesse of the Law. It had a shaddow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things them∣selves. An obscure representation of those good things, which when they were instituted and in force, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to come, though now actually exhibited, and existent: that is, Jesus Christ himselfe, and the good things of the Gospell accompa∣nying of him. It had but a shaddow of these things, not the image; that is, the substance of them; for so I had rather un∣derstand Image here substantially; as that may be called the image of a picture, by which it it drawn; then to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to differ but gradually, as the first rude shape and proporti∣on, and the perfect limning of any thing do. The reason then why al the solemn, operous, burdensome service of old, could not (of it selfe) take away sin, is because it did not containe Christ in it, but only had a shaddow of him.

2. The Apostle instances in particular, by what means the* 1.1179 Law could not do this great worke, of making the commers thereunto perfect. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, those who come to God by it, the worshippers; which is spoke in opposition to what is said of Christ, Chap. 7. 25. He is able to save to the uttermost 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those that come to God by him. The word expresseth any man under the consideration of one coming to God for Acceptati∣on. As Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh unto God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; these it could not make perfect; that is, it could not perfectly attone God, and take away their sinnes, so that the conscience should no more be troubled, nor tormented with the guilt of sinne, as v. 2, 4. By what could not the Law do this? By those Sacrifices which it offered yeare by yeare continually.

Not to speake of Sacrifices in generall. The Sacrifices of* 1.1180 the Jewes may be referred to 4. heads.

1. The dayly Sacrifice of morning and evening, which is institu∣ted Exod. 29. 38, 39. which being omitted, was renewed by Nehemiah: 10. 33. And wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus according to the Prophesy of Daniel, Dan. 11▪ 31. this is the juge sacrificiū typifying Christs constant presence with his Church, in the benefit of his death alwayes.

2. Voluntary and occasionall, which had no prefixt time, nor matter; So that they were of such Creatures as God had▪

allowed to be sacrificed, they were left to the will of the Offerer, according as Occasion and necessity was by providence administred. Now of these Sacrifices there was a peculiar Reason, that did not (as farre as I can finde) bellong unto any of the rest▪ The judiciall government of that Nation being as their own Historian Josephus calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and immedi∣ately in the hand of God; He appointed these voluntary Sacrifi∣ces, which were a part of his Religious worship, to have a place also in the judiciall government of the People. For whereas he had appointed death to be the punishment due to every sinne; He allowed that for many sinnes, Sacrifice should be offered, for the expiating of the guilt contracted in that Commonwealth, of which himselfe was the Governour. Thus for many sinnes of ignorance, and weaknesse, and other Perversityes, Sacrifice was offered, and the guilty Person dyed not, according to the gene∣rall tenour of the Law, cursed is every one that continueth not in all these things. Hence David in his great sinne of murther and* 1.1181 Adultery flyes to meere Mercy acknowledging, that God had appointed no Sacrifice for the Expiation of those sins, as to the guilt politicall, contracted in that commonwealth, though otherwise, no sinnes nor sinners were excluded from the benefit of Sacrifices. This was their politicall regard, which they had, or could have only on this account; that God was the supream politicall Governour of that people, their Lord, and King.

3. Sacrifices extraordinary on solemne occasions: which* 1.1182 seeme some of them to be Mixed of the two former kinds: stated and voluntary. Such was Solomons great Sacrifice at the Dedi∣cation of the Temple. These partly answered the Sacrifice, insti∣tuted at the dedication of the Altar and Tabernacle, partly the free will offerings, which God allowed the people, according to their occasions; and appointed them for them.

4. Appointed Sacrifices on solemne dayes: as on the sabbath,* 1.1183 new moones, passeover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater Jubilee but especi∣ally the solemn Anniversary Sacrifice of expiation, when the High Priest entred into the Holy place, with the blood of the beast Sacrificed, on the tenth day of the month Tizri. The institution of this Sacrifice you have Levit. 16. throughout. The matter of it was one Bullock, and two Goats, or Kids of Goats, v. 2, 5, The manner was this, 1. In the entrance Aaron offered one▪

Bullock peculiarly for himselfe and his house, v. 6. 2. Lots were cast on the two goats, one to be a sinne offering, the other to be Azarel, v. 8. 9. (3.) The Bullock and goate being slaine, the blood was carryed into the Holy place. (4.) Azarel having all the sinnes of the people confessed over him, was sent into the Wildernesse to perish; v. 21. (5.) The end of this Sacrifice was Attonement and cleansing, v. 30. Of the whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this Sacrifice (as of others) elsewhere; at present, I attend only the Thesis proposed.

Now if perfect Attonement and Expiation might be expected* 1.1184 from any of the Sacrifices so instituted by God, certainely it might be from this: therefore this doth the Apostle choose to instance in. This was the Sacrifice offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but these saith he could not do it; the Law by them could not do it, and this he proves with two Arguments.

1. From the Event vers. 2, 3. For then would they not have ceased to be offered; because that the worshipper once purged, should have had no more conscience of sin? But in these Sacrifices, there was a re∣membrance made againe of sinnes every yeare. The words of the second verse are to be read with an Interrogation, conclusive in the negative: would they not have ceased to have been offered? That is certainely they would; and because they did not do so, it is evident from the Event, that they could not take away sinne. In most Copys the words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Those that adde the negative particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, put it for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is frequently used.

2. From the nature of the thing it selfe, v. 4. For it was not possible, that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sinne; the Reason in these words is evident and plaine, especially that of v. 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing.

1. In regard of Impetration; it was impossible they should really attone God, who was provoked. 1. The conjunction between the sinner and the Sacrificed Beast, was not such, or so neere (being onely that of possessour and possessed,) that really and beyond Representation, and Type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sinne of the other. Much lesse secondly, was there an innate worth in the blood of any beast, though never so innocent, to attone the justice of God, that was offended at sinne: Mich. 6. 6, 7. Nor thirdly, was there any will in

them for such an undertaking, or commutation. The Sacri∣fice was bound with cords to the hornes of the Altar; Christ went will∣ingly to the sacrifice of himselfe.

2. In regard of application. The blood of Common Sacri∣fices being once shed, was a dead thing, and had no more worth nor efficacy: it could not possibly be a living way for us to come to God by; nor could it be preserved, to be sprinkled upon the conscience of the sinner.

Hence doth the Apostle make it evident, in the first place,* 1.1185 that Christ was not to offer any of the Sacrifices which former Priests had offered, because it was utterly impossible, that by such Sacrifices, the end of the Sacrifice which he was to offer, should be accomplished. This also he proves.

2. Because God had expresly ••isallowed of those Sacrifices, as to that End; not only it was impossible in the nature of the thing it selfe, but also God had absolutely rejected the tender of them, as to the taking away Sinne, and bringing sinners to God. But it may be said, did not God appoint them for that end and purpose, as was spoken before; the end of the Sacri∣fice in the day of expiation was (Levit. 16. 30.) to attone, and cleanse; On that day shall the Priest make an attonement for you to cleanse you. (for the Priest made an Attonement actively, by offering the Sacrifice: the Sacrifice its selfe Passively, by undergoing the penalty of Death; Christ, who was both Priest & Sacrifice, did both) I answer; they were never appointed of God for to accō∣plish that End, by any reall worth, and efficacy of their own, but meerly to typify, prefigure, and point out him, and that; which did the Work, which they represented; and so served as the A∣postle speaks, untill the time of Reformation, Heb. 9. 10. they served the use of that people, in the under-age Condition, wherein God was pleased to keep them.

But now that God rejected them as to this end and purpose, the Apostle proves by the Testimony of David, speaking of the Acceptance of Christ, Psalm. 40. 6. 7. Sacrifice and offering thou diddest not desire, mine eares hast thou opened; burnt-offering, and sin-of∣fering hast thou not required: Then said I, ••o I come, &c. which the Apo∣stle insists on, v. 6, 7, 8, 9. There are several accounts, upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard, & not to approve or accept of Sacrifices, which yet were of his own Institution. 1. In respect

of the Hypocrisy of the offerers: That people being grown formall, and corrupt, trusted in Sacrifices, and the Worke wrought in them, and said by them, they should be justified; God ex∣pressing his indignation against such Sacrificers, or the Sacrifi∣ces of Such Persons, rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted, that is, in reference to them that used them. This is the intention of the Holy Ghost, Isaiah 1. 12, 13. but this is not the cause of their rejection in this place of the Psalmist; for he speaketh of them who walked with God in uprightnesse, and wai∣ted for his Salvation; even of himselfe and other Saints, as ap∣pears in the Context, v. 5. &c. 2. Comparatively; they are rejected as to the outward Work of them, in comparison of his more spiri∣tuall Worship; as Psal. 50. 12, 13, 14. but neither are they here rejected on that account; nor is there mention of any opposition between the outward Worship of Sacrifice, & any other more Spirituall and internall part thereof: but between Sacrifice, and the boring of the eare, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expres∣ly, v. 6.

Their Rejection then here mentioned, is, in reference to that* 1.1186 which is asserted, in opposition to them, and in reference to the end, for which that is asserted: look to what end Christ had a Body fitted and prepared for, and to that end, and the com∣passing of it, are all Sacrifices rejected of God: now this was to take away sinne, so that as to that end are they rejected.

And here in our passage may we remove what the Racovian* 1.1187 Catechisme gives us, as the difference between the expiation un∣der the Old Testament, and that under the New, concerning which, Chap. de Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 5. they thus enquire.

What is the difference between the expiation of sinne* 1.1188 in the Old and New Testament?

The expiation of sinnes under the New Te∣stament, is not only much different from that under the Old, but also is farre better, and more excellent: and that chiefely for two cau∣ses: The first is, that under the Old Testament, expiation by those legall Sacrifices was ap∣pointed only for those sinnes, which happened upon imprudence and infirmity; from whence they were also called infirmities and ignoran∣ces.

But for greater sinnes, such as were ma∣nifest transgressions of the command of God, there were no Sacrifices instituted, but the pu∣nishment of Death was proposed to them: & if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by vertue of the Covenant, but of singular mercy, which God besides the Covenant did afford, when, and to whom he would: but un∣der the New Covenant, not only those sinnes are expiated, which happen by imprudence, and infirmity, but those also, which are trans∣gressions of most evident commands of God, whilest he who happened so to fall, doth not con••inue therein, but is changed by true repen∣tance, and falleth not into that sinne againe. The latter cause is, because under the Old Te∣stament, expiation of sinnes was so performed, that only temporall punishment was taken a∣way from them, whose sinnes were expiated. But under the New, the expiation is such, as not only takes away Temporall, but Eternall punishment, and in their stead, offer Eternall life promised in the Covenant, to them whose sinnes are expiated. Thus they.

Some briefe Animadversions will give the Reader a cleare* 1.1189 account of this discourse. 1▪ Sundry things are here splendid∣ly supposed by our Catechists, then which nothing could be imagined or invented more false: as (1.) That the Covenant was not the same for Substance under the Old and New Te∣stament, before and after the coming of Christ in the flesh. (2.) That those under the Old Testament were not pardoned or saved by Christ. (3.) That death Temporall was all that was threatned by the Law. (4.) That God forgave sinne, and not in, or by the Covenant (5.) That there were no promises of Eternall life under the Old Testament, &c. on these and the

like goodly principles, is this whole discourse erected: let us now consider their Assertions: The first is;

1. That expiation by legall Sacrifices was only for some sins,* 1.1190 and not of all: as sinnes of infirmity and ignorance, not great crimes; wherein 1. They suppose, that the legall Sacrifices did by themselves, and their own efficacy, expiate sinne, which is directly contrary to the discourse of the Apostle now insisted on. (2.) Their affirmation hereon is most false: Aaron making an Attonement for sinne, confessed over the Goat ALL THE INIQUITIES of the Children of Israell, and ALL their Transgressions, in all their sinnes, Levit. 16. 21. and besides, all manner of sinnes are comprised under those expressions of Igno∣rances and Infirmities.

2. They say, for greater sinnes there was then no expiation, but death was threatned to them. But then 1. None that ever com∣mitted such sinnes were saved; for without expiation there is no Salvation. 2. Death was threatned, and inflicted without mercy for some sinnes, as the Law with its judiciall additaments was the Rule of the Judaicall Politie; and for those sinnes, there was no Sacrifice for a deliverance from death Temporall; but Death was threatned to every sinne, small and great, as the Law was a Rule of Morall obedience unto God; and so in respect of Sa∣crifices there was no distinction. This difference of Sacrifices for some sins, and not for others in particular, did depend meerly on their use by Gods appointment in the Common-wealth of that People, and had no regard to the spirituall expiation of sinne, which they typified.

3. That God forgave the sinnes of his people of old, by sin∣gular mercy, and not by vertue of his Covenant, is a bold sig∣ment. God exercises no singular mercy, but in the Covenant thereof: Eph. 2. 12.

4. Their condition of Expiation (by the way) under the New Testament, that the sinner fall not againe into the same sinne, is a matter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discusse it.

5. That the Expiation under the Old Testament reached only to the removall of temporall punishment, is another imagi∣nation of our Catechists. It was death eternall that was threat∣ned, as the punishment due to the transgression of the Law, as it

was the Rule of obedience to God, as hath been proved; even the death that Christ delivered us from, Rom. 5. 12, &c. Heb. 2. 14, 15. God was attoned by those Sacrifices, according to their way of making Attonement, Levit. 16. 30. so that the punish∣ment avoided was Eternall punishment. 2. Neither is this in∣deed spoken by our Catechists, as though they believed any punishment should be Eternall; but they only hide themselves in ambiguity of the expression, it being annihilation they intend thereby. 3. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this discourse is, that expi∣ation by Sacrifices was no other, then what was done really by the Sacrifices themselves, so everting their typica•• nature and in∣stitution, and devesting them of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which they did represent.

6. It is confessed, that there is a difference between the Ex∣piation under the Old Testament, and that under the New; but this of Application and manifestation, not of impetration and procure∣ment: This is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.

But they plead proofe of Scripture for what they say in the* 1.1191 ensuing Question.

How doest thou demonstrate both these?* 1.1192

That the sinnes, which could not be expia∣ted under the Old Testament, are all expiated under the New, Paul witnesseth, Act. 13. 38, 39. and the same is also affirmed, Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. But that sinnes are so expiated under the New Testament, as that also Eternall pu∣nishment is removed, and life Eternall given, we have Heb. 9. 12.

This work will speedily be at an issue. 1. It is denied, that Paul Act: 13. 38, 39. makes a distinction of sins, whereof some might be expiated by Moses Law, and others not. He says no more there, then in this place to the Hebrews, namely, that the Legall Sacrifices, wherein they rested and trusted, could not of themselves free them, or their Consciences from sin, or give them Peace with God; being but Types and Shaddowes of good things to come; the Body being Christ, by whom alone all Justification from sinne is to be obtained. Absolutely the Sacrifices of the

Law Expiated no sinne, and so were they rested in by the Jews. Typically they expiated all, and so Paul calls them from them to the Antitype (or rather thing Typifyed) now actually ex∣hibited.

2. The two next places of Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. do expres∣ly* 1.1193 condemne the Figment they st••ive to establish by them; both of them assigning the pardon of sinnes that were past, and their Expiation, unto the Blood and Sacrifice of Christ; though there were then purifications, purgations, sacrifices, yet the meritorious, and efficient cause of all Expiation, was the blood of Christ, which manifests the Expiation under the Old and New Testa∣ment for substance to have been the same.

3. That the Expiation under the New Testament is accompa∣nied with deliverance from Eternall punishment, and a grant of life Eternall, is confessed; and so also was that under the Old, or it was no Expiation at all, that had respect either to God, or the soules of men: but to proceed with the Sacrifice of Christ.

This is the first thing I proposed, Christ being to offer Sacrifice,* 1.1194 was not to offer the Sacrifice of the Priests of old; because they could never bring about wha•• he aimed at in his Sacrifice; it was impossible in the nature of the thing it selfe, and they were ex∣presly, as to that end, rejected of God himselfe.

2. Christ as a Priest did never Offer these Sacrifices; it is true!* 1.1195 as one made under the Law, and whom it became to fulfill all righte∣ousnesse, he was present at them: but as a Priest he never offered them; for the Apostle expresly affirmes, that he could not ••e a Priest, that had right to offer those Sacrifices, as before; and he posi∣tively refuses the owning himselfe for such a Priest, when ha∣ving cured the Leprous man, he bad him goe shew himselfe to the Priest according to the Law.

3. What Christ did offer indeed, as his Sacrifice, is nextly* 1.1196 mentioned. This the Apostle expresseth in that which is asser∣ted, in opposition to the Sacrifices rejected, Heb. 10. 5. But a body hast thou prepared me.

The words in the Psalme are in the sound of them other∣wise, Psal: 40. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine eares hast thou digged: which the Septuagint render, and the Apostle from them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; a body hast thou prepared me; Of the accommoda∣tion of the Interpretation to the Originall, there is much con∣tention;

some think here is an Allusion to the custome among the Jewes, of boring the eare of him, who was upon his own con∣sent to be a Servant for ever. Now because Christ took a Body to be obedient, and a servant to his Father this is expressed by the boring of the eare, which therefore the Septuagint renders by preparing a body, wherein he might be so obedient; but this to me seems too curious on the part of the Allusion, and too much strained on the part of the Application, and therefore I shall not insist on it.

Plainly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not only in its first s••nc•• to dig▪ but also to prepare, and is so rendred by the Septuagint; now where∣as the Originall expresseth only the ea••es, which are the organ by which we heare, and become obedient, (whence to heare is sometimes as much as to be obedient) it mentions the eare Sy∣necdochically, for the whole body, which God so prepared for obe∣dience to himselfe: and that which the Originall expressed Sy∣necdochically, the Septuagint, and after them the Apostle, rendred more plainly and fully, naming the whole body wher••in he obeyed, when the ears were only expressed, whereby he learned obedi∣ence.

The Interpretation of this place by the Socinians, is as ridi∣culous,* 1.1197 as any they make use of; take it in the words of * 1.1198 Volkelius.

Adde hereto that the mortall body of Christ, which he had before his death, yea before his Ascension into Hea∣ven, was not fit for his undergoing this Office of Priesthood, or wholly to accomplish the Sacrifice: wherefore the divine writer to the Hebrews Chap. 10. 5. declareth, that then he had a perfect body, accommodated unto this work, when he went into the World; that is, to come, which is Heaven.

An heap of foolish A∣bominations. 1. The truth is; no body, but a Mortall body was fit to be this Sacrifice, which was to be accomplished, according to all the types of it, by shedding of blood, without which there is no remission. 2. It is false, that Christ had a mortall body after his Resurrection; or that he hath any other body now in Heaven, then what he rose withall. 3. It is false, that the World, spoken of simply, doth

any where signify the World to come, or that the World here sig∣nifies Heaven. 4. It is false, that the coming into the World, signifies going out of the world: as it is here interpreted. 5. Christs bring∣ing into the world, was by his Incarnation and birth, Heb. 1. 6. according to the constant use of that expression in the Scripture, as His Assension is his leaving the world, and going to his Father, Joh: 13. 1. Cap. 14. 19. Cap. 16▪ 28.

But I must not insist on this; it is the Body that God prepa∣red* 1.1199 Christ for his obedience, that is, his whole humane nature that is asserted for the matter of Christs offering. For the clea∣ring whereof the Reader may observe, that the matter of the Offering, and Sacrifice of Christ is expressed three wayes.

1. It is said to be of the body and blood of Christ: Heb. 10. 10. The offering of the body of Jesus, and the blood of Christ, is sayd to purge us from our sinnes, that is, by the Sacrifice of it; and* 1.1200 in his blood have we Redemption, and by his own blood did he enter into the Holy place, Heb. 9. 12. and most expressly, Heb. 13. 12.

2. His Soule: Isa. 53. 10. when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne.

3 It is most frequently sayd to be himselfe that was offered. Eph. 5. 2. & Heb. 1. 3. Heb. 9. 14 & v. 25. & v. 26. Heb. 7. 27. Hence it appeares, what was the matter of the Sacrifice of this High Priest; even Himselfe; he Sacrificed himselfe; His whole humane nature; he offered up his body and soule, as a propitiatory Sacrifice to God; a Sacrifice for Attonement and expiation.

Further to cleare this, I must desire the Reader to take notice* 1.1201 of the import of this expression: He sacrificed himselfe; or Christ Sacrificed himselfe. He in the first place, as it is spoken of the Sacrificer, denotes the Person of Christ, and both natures herein: himselfe as the Sacrificed, is only the humane nature of Christ wherein, and whereof that Sacrifice was made▪ He makes the Attonement actively as the Priest; Himselfe passively, as the Sa∣crifice.

1. He is the Person of Christ, God and man joyntly and distinctly acting in the worke.

1. As God, Heb. 9. 14. through the Eternall Spirit he offered himselfe to God; His Eternall Spirit, or Deity, was the principall Agent, offering; and whereever there is mentioning of Christs

offering himselfe, it relates principally to the person, God man, who offered.

2. The free will of his humane nature was in it also; So Heb. 10. 7. Lo! I come to do thy will; when God had prepared him a body, opened his eares, he sayes, Lo I come to do thy will; as it was written of him in the volume of Gods book; and that this expression Lo I come to do thy will, sets out the readinesse of the humane will of Christ, is evident from that Exposition which is given of it, Psal. 40. 8. yea thy Law is within my heart, or in the midst of my bowels; Thy Law, the Law of the Mediatour, that I am to undertake, it is in the midst of my heart: which is an ex∣pression of the greatest readinesse and willingnesse possible. He then that offers is our Mediatour, God and man in one Person; and the offering is the act of the Person.

2. Himselfe offered, as the matter of the Sacrifice, is only the* 1.1202 humane nature of Christ, Soule and Body, as was said; which is evident from the description of a Sacrifice, what it is.

A Sacrifice is a Religious oblation, wherein something by the Mini∣stry of a Priest, appointed of God thereunto, is dedicated to God and destroyed, as to what it was, for the ends and purposes of Spirituall worship where∣unto it is instituted. I shall only take notice of that one part of this definition, which asserts that the thing Sacrificed was to be destroyed as to what it was. This is cleare from all the Sacri∣fices that ever were: either they were slaine, or burnt, or sent to destruction. Now the person of Christ was not dissolved; but the Ʋnion of his natures continued; even then when the humane nature was in it selfe destroyed, by the Separation of Soule and Body. It was the Soule and Body of Christ that was Sacrificed; his body being killed, and his soule separated; so that at that season it was destroyed as to what it was; though it was impossible he should be detained by death.

And this Sacrifice of Christ, was typyfied by the two Go••ts▪ his* 1.1203 body, whose blood was shed, by the Goat that was slaine visibly, and his soule by Azazel, on whose Head the sinnes of the people were confessed, and he is sent away into the Wil∣dernesse to suffer there by a fall or famishment.

This also will farther appeare in our following conside∣ration of the Death of Christ, as a punishment; when I shall shew▪ that he suffered both in Soul and Body▪

But it may be sayd, if only the humane nature of Christ was offered, how could it be a Sacrifice of such infinite value, as to the justice of God, for all the sinnes of all the Elect, whereunto it was appointed.

Asw. Though the thing Sacrificed was but finite, yet the person sacrificing was infinite; and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Acti∣on followes the Agent; that is, our Mediatour 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whence the Sacrifice was of infinite value.

And this is the second consideration of the Death of Christ, it was a Sacrifice; what is the peculiar influence of his death as a Sacrifice, into the satisfaction he hath made, shall be decla∣red afterwards▪

From what hath been spoken, a briefe Description of the* 1.1204 Sacrifice of Christ, as to all the concernements of it maybe taken.

1. The person designing, appointing, and instituting this Sacri∣fice, is God the Father; as in grace contriving the great work of the Salvation of the Elect: A body did he prepare him; and therein he came to do his Will (Heb. 10. 9.) In that which he did, which the Sacrifices of old could not do. He came to fulfill the Will of God, his Appointment, & Ordinance, being his Servant therein; made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lesse then the Father, that he might be Obedient to death: God the Father sent him when He made his soule an offering.

2. He to whom it was offered, was God; God Essentially con∣sidered, with his glorious Property of Justice, which was to be attoned: He gave himselefe a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour: Eph. 5. 2. that is, to attone Him being provoked, as we shall see afterwards.

3. The person Offering was Christ the Mediatour, God and man: He offered himselfe to God: Heb. 9. 14. And because He did it, who was God and man, and as God and man, God is sayd to redeeme his Church with his own blood, Act. 20. 28.

4. The matter of the sacrifice was his whole humane Nature, body and soule, called himselfe, as I have shewed, in sundry particulars.

5. The immediate efficient cause of his offering, and the de∣struction of that which he offered unto God, as before descri∣bed, was his own will: Lo! I come (saith he) to do thy will: and

no man (saith he) taketh my life from me; I lay down my life, and I have power to take it up againe, Joh. 10. 17, 18. What men or Divells did to him, as what he suffered from the Curse of the Law, comes under another Consideration, as his Death was a penalty: as it was a Sacrifice his own will was all the cause immediately effecting it.

6. The fire that was to set this Holocaust on a flame, was the Holy Spirit, Heb. 9. 14. Through the Eternall Spirit; that the fire which came down from Heaven, & was alwayes kept alive upon the Altar, was a type of the Holy Ghost, might easily be demonstrated. I have done it elsewhere. Now the Holy Spi∣rit did this in Christ; he was offered through the Eternall Spirit; as others were by fire.

7. The Scripture speakes nothing of the Altar, on which Christ was offered. Some assigne the Crosse; That of our Savi∣our is abundantly sufficient to evince the folly thereof: Math. 23. 18, 19. If the Crosse was the Altar, it was greater then Christ, and Sanctifyed him, which is Blasphemy. Besides▪ Christ himselfe is said to be an Altar. Heb. 13. 10. and he is said to Sanctify him∣selfe to be an offering or a Sacrifice Joh. 17. 19. So that indeed the Deity of Christ, that supported, bore up, and sanctifyed the humane nature as offered, was the Altar; and the Crosse was but an instrument of the Cruelty of man, that taketh place in the Death of Christ as it was a penalty, but hath no place in it as a Sacrifice.

That this Sacrifice of Christ was a Sacrifice of propitiation, as made by blood, as answering the Typicall Sacrifices of old; that the end and effect of it was Attonement or Reconciliation, shall elsewere be more fully manifested: the Discovery of it also will in part be made, by what in the ensuing Discourse shall be spoken about Reconciliation its selfe.

CHAP. XXIII.

Of the Death of Christ, as it was a punishment, and the Satisfaction made thereby.

SO is the Death of Christ revealed as a Price, and a Sacri∣fice;* 1.1205 what are the proper effects of it, under these conside∣rations, shall be afterward declared.

The 3^d consideration of it, is, its being a penalty, or a punish∣ment. To cleare this, I shall demonstrate foure things.

1. What Punishment properly so called, is.

2. That Christs death was a punishment, or that in his Death he did undergoe punishment.

3. What that was that Christ underwent, or the materiall cause of that punishment.

4. Wherein the formallity of its being a punishment did consist; or whence that dispensation had its equity.

For the first. I shall give the definition of it, or the description of its generall nature.

2. The Ends of it are to be considered.* 1.1206

For the first, that usuall generall description seemeth to be* 1.1207 comprehensive of the whole nature of punishment; it is, ma∣lum passionis, quod infl••gitur ob malum actionis, An evill of suffering inflicted for doing evill▪ Or more largely to describe it; it is an Effect of justice in him, who hath soveraigne Power, and Right, to order and dispose of offenders, whereby he that doth contra∣ry to the Rule of his actions, is recompenced with that which* 1.1208 is evill to himselfe, according to the demerit of his fault.* 1.1209

1. It is an Effect of Justice; hence Gods punishing is often called an inflicting of Anger; as Rom. 3. 5. is God unrighteous, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; who inflicteth Anger? Anger is put for the justice of God, Rom. 1. 18. the Anger, or Wrath of God is revea∣led from Heaven, &c. That is, his vindict••ve justice against sinne▪ is manifested by its effects; and againe, the Cause for the Ef∣fect. Anger for the effect of it in punishment. And therefore we

have translated the word vengeance, Rom. 3. 5. which denotes the punishment it selfe.

2. It is of him, who hath Soveraigne Power, and Judiciary* 1.1210 Right to dispose of the Offenders; and this is either immediate in God himselfe, as in the case whereof we speake: He is the only Law giver, who is able to save, and to destroy, Jam. 4. 12. or it is by him delegated to men, for the use of humane Society; so Christ tells Pilate, he could have no Power over him (whom he considered as a Malefactor) unlesse it was given him from above., Joh. 19. 11. though that is spoken in reference to that peculiar dispensation.

3. The Nature of it consists in this, that it be evill to him, on* 1.1211 whom it is inflicted; either by the immission of that which is Cor∣rupting, vexing, and destroying, or the substraction of that which is cheering, usefull, good, and desireable, in what kind soever: And therefore did the Antients call punishment fraus, because when it came upon men, they had deceived, and cut short themselves of some good, that otherwise they might have enjoyed. So the Historian, Caeterae multitudini diem statuit, ante∣quam* 1.1212 liceret sine fraude ab armis discedere: that is, that they might go away freely, without punishment. And so is that expression explained by Ʋlpian, Dig. lib. 20. Capitalem fraudem admittere, est tale aliquid delinquere, propter quod, capite puniendus sit.

The Schoolemen have two Rules that passe amongst them* 1.1213 without controll. 1. That Omne peccatum est adeo voluntarium▪ ut si non sit voluntarium non est peccatum. It is so of the nature of sin, that it be voluntary, that if any thing be not voluntary, it is not sinne. The other is, est ex naturâ poenae ut sit involuntaria: it is so of the nature of Punishment, that it be against the will of him that is punished, that if it be not so, it is not punishment.

Neither of which Rules is true, yea the latter is undoubted∣ly false. For the first, every sinne is thus farre indeed voluntary, that what is done contrary to the expresse will of him that doth it, is not his sinne; but that the actuall will, or willing of the sinner is required, to make any thing his sin, is false. In the case of originall sinne manifestly; wherefore John gives us ano∣ther definition of sinne then theirs is, that it is, dictum, factum, con∣cupitum contra legem; namely, that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a transgression of the Law; have it the actuall consent of the will or no, if it be a

Transgression of the Law, an inconformity to the Law, it is sinne.

For the latter, it is true indeed, that for the most part it falls out, that every one that is to be punished, is unwilling to un∣dergoe it; and there is an improper nolleity (if I may so speak) in nature, unto the substracting of any good from it, or the im∣mission of any evill upon it; yet as to the perfection of the na∣ture of punishment, there is no more required, then what was laid down in generall before, that there be malum passionis, ob malum actionis, a suffering of evill for doing of evill, whether men will or no. Yea men may be willing to it, as the Soul∣diers of Caesar after their defeat at Dyrrachium, came to him, and* 1.1214 desired that they might be punished, more antiquo: being asha∣med of their flight. But what ever really or personally is evill to a man for his evill, is punishment; though chiefely among the Latines, punishment relates to things reall: capitall revenges had another name. Punishments were chiefely pecuniary, as Ser∣vius on that of Virgil: Post m••hi non simili paena commissa luetis: lue∣tis: persolvetis: & hic sermo a pecunia descendit, antiquorum enim poenae omnes pecuniariae fuerunt. And supplicium is of the same impor∣tance. Punishments were called supplicia, because with the mulcts of men, they sacrificed, and made their supplications to God; whence the word is sometimes used for that worship; as in Salustius, describing the old Romans, he says they were in sup∣pliciis Deorum magnifici.

4. There is the procuring cause of it, which is, doing evill,* 1.1215 contrary to the Law and Rule, whereby the Offender ought to walk, and regulate his actings and proceedings: omnis poena, si justa est, peccati poena est, sayes Aug. indeed not only s•• justa est, but si poena est; taking it properly, Offence must precede punish∣ment.

And whatever evill befalls any, that is not procured by of∣fence, is not properly punishment, but hath some other name and nature. The name poena, is used for any thing that is vexa∣tious or troublesome, any toyle or labour, as in the Tragedian, speaking of one who tired himselfe with travaile in hunting: Quid te ipse poenis gravibus infestus gravas but improperly is it thus* 1.1216 used. This Abraham evinceth in his plea with God, Gen. 18. 25. That be farre from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with

the wicked; and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be farre from thee: shall not the judge of all the Earth do right? It is of God as the Judge of all the Earth of whom he speakes; that is, of him that hath the supreame power of disposing of offenders; and of his Justice inflicting; which as I said, was the cause of punishment. It is that, whereby God doth right: and he gives the procuring cause of all punishment, the wickednesse of men; that be farre from thee, to destroy the righteous with the wicked. And there∣fore that place of Job, chap. 9. 22. This is one thing, therefore I said it, he destroys the perfect and the wicked: Is not to be understood absolutely, but according to the subject of the dispute in hand, between him and Bildad. Bildad sayes, chap. 8. 20. That God will not cast away a perfect man. that is, he will not afflict a godly man to death. He grants that a Godly man may be afflicted, which Eliphas his companion seemed to deny: yet saies he, he will not cast him away, that is, leave him without reliefe from that Affliction, even in this Life. To this Jobs answer is, this is one thing; that is, one thing I am resolved on, and therefore I said it, and will abide by it, he destroyeth the perfect and the wicked; not only Wicked men are destroyed, and cut off in this life, but Perfect men also; but yet in this very destruction, as there is a diffe∣rence in the persons, one being perfect, the other wicked: So there is in Gods dealing with them; one being afflicted to the doore of Heaven, the other cursed into Hell. But for punishment proper∣ly so called, the cause is sinne, or the offence of the person puni∣shed. And therefore in the Hebrew, the same words (many of them) signify both sin & punishment, so neer & indissoluble is their relation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut. de Serâ Numin. vindicta.

5. The measure of any penalty, is the demerit of the offence:* 1.1217 it is a rendring to men, as for their works, so according to them

Nec vincet Ratio hoc, tantundem ut peccet, idem{que} Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti* 1.1218 Et qui nocturnus Divum Sacra legerit. Adsit Regula, peccatis quae poenas irroget aequas, Nec scutica dignum, horribilisectere flagello.* 1.1219

I shall not trouble the Reader with the Heathens Apprehension of Rhadamanthean Righteousnesse, and the exact rendring to every

one according to his Desert even in another world.

There is a twofold Rule of this proportion of sinne and punishment: The one constitutive, the other declarative. The Rule constitutive of the proportion of penalty for sinne, is the infinitely wise, Holy, and Righteous will of God. The Rule declarative of it is the Law.

For the first, It is his Judgement that they which commit sinne are worthy of Death, Rom. 1. 32. This the Apostle fully declares: Chap. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10. The day of punishing, he calls the day of the Revelation of the Righteous Judgement of God. That is, what his Judgement is concerning the demerit of sinne. The world shall then know, what in Justice he requires for the due venge∣ance of it. And this according to his Will, v▪ 6. He will in his Righteous judgement render to every one according to his deeds.

And here it is to be observed, that though there be an excee∣ding great variation in sinne, in respect of degrees, so that some seeme as mountaines, others in comparison of them but as mole∣hils, yet it is the generall nature of sinne, (which is the Creatures subducting its selfe from under the Dominion of God, and de∣pendance upon him,) that punishment originall is suited unto:* 1.1220 Whence death is appointed to every sinne, and that eternall;* 1.1221 wherein the degrees of punishment vary not the kind.

2. * For the severall kinds of punishment (I call them so, in a generall acceptation of both words) they are distinguished according to their ends, and Causes: the ends of punishments, or all such things as have in them the nature of punishments, may be referred to the ensuing heads.

1. The first End of punishment, is, the good of him that is punished, and this is twofold. 1. For Amendment, and reco∣very from the evill, and sinne that he hath committed. This kinde of punishing is frequently mentioned in Scripture; so eminently Levit. 26. doth the Lord describe it at large, and in∣sists

upon it, reckoning up in a long series, a Catalogue of seve∣rall judgements; he interposing, But if ye shall not be REFOR∣MED by these things, but will walke contrary to me, as v. 25. then will I do so, and so, or adde this, or that punishment to them foregoing: and this in reference to the former end of their Reformation; & the successe of this proceedure we find variously expressed: sometimes the end of it in some measure was ful∣filled, Psal. 18. 32, 33, 34, 35. sometimes otherwise, Isai. 1. 5. Why should you be smitten any more? you will revolt more and more; intima∣ting, that the end of the former smiting was to cure their re∣voltings. And this kinde of punishment is called * 1.1222 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, correction for instruction; and is not punishment in its strict, and proper sence.* 1.1223

2. For the taking off of sinners, to prevent such other wickednesses as they would commit, should patience be exerci∣sed towards thē. The very Heathen saw, that he that was wicked & not to be reclaimed, it was even good for him, & to him, that he should be destroyed. Such an one as Plutarch says, was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hurtfull to others, but most of all to himself. How much more is this evident to us, who know that future judgements shall be proportionably encreased to the wickednes of men in this world; & if every drop of Judgement in the world to come, be incomparably greater, then the greatest & heaviest a man can possibly suffer in this life, or loose his life by, it is most evident, that a man may be punished with death for his own good: mitius punientur. This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this hath no place in humane Administrations of punishments, when they arise to death it selfe: men cannot kill a man, to prevent their dealing worse with him, for that is their worst; they can doe no more sayes our saviour; but accidentally it may be for his good. Generally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as Aristotle speakes* 1.1224 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and is thereby differenced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (of which afterwards) which as he says, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is one not corrected, not restrained, incastigatus. And therefore the punishment of death cannot at all properly be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but cutting off by God to prevent farther sinne, hath in it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thereunto.

2. The second end of punishment, which gives a second* 1.1225 kind of them in the generall sence before mentioned, is for

the good of others, and this also is various.

1. For the good of them that may be like minded with him that is punished; that they may be deterred, afrighted, and perswa∣ded from the like evills. This was the end of the punishing of the presumptuous sinner, Deut. 17. 12, 13. That man shall dye, and all the people shall heare, & feare, and do no more presumptuously. The peo∣ple; that is any among them that was like minded unto him that was stoned & destroyed. So in some places they have taken Lions that have destroyed men, and hung them on crosses, to fright others that should attempt the like. Hence exemplum, is* 1.1226 sometimes put absolutely for punishment because punishment is for that end. So in the Comedian, Quae futura exempla dicunt in eum indigna: on which place Donatus, graves poenae, quae possunt caeteris docu∣mento esse, exempla dicuntur. And this is a tacite end in human pun∣ishment. I do not know that God hath committed any pure Re∣venge unto men: That is, punishing with a meere respect to what is past. Nor should one man destroy another, but for the good of others. Now the good of no man lyes in revenge. The content that men take therein, is their sin, and cannot be ab∣solutely good to them. So the Philosopher, nemo prudens punit quia* 1.1227 peccatum est, sed ne peccetur; revoc••ri enim praeterita non possunt, futura prohibeantur. And Rom. 13. 4. If ye do that which is evill, be afraid, &c. See what he hath done to others, and be afraid.

2. It is for the good of others, that they may not be hurt in* 1.1228 the like kind, as some were by the sin of him who is punished for it. This seems to be the main end of that great fundamental Law* 1.1229 of humane society, Let him that hath killed by violence be killed, that the rest of men may live in peace. And these kinds of punish∣ments in reference to this end are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exam∣ples: that others by impunity be not enticed to evil, and that the residue of men may be freed from the harme that is brought upon them, by reason of such evils.

Hence the Historian sayes, that Commonwealths should ra∣ther be mindfull of things done evilly, then of good turnes: the for∣getfulnesse of the latter, is a discouragement to some good, but of the former an encouragement to all licentiousnesse. Thus Joseph suspecting his espoused consort, yet refused 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make an open example of her by punishment. And these

punishments are thus called from their use, and not from their* 1.1230 own nature: and therefore differ not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but only as to the end and use from whence they have their denomination.

3. The good of him that punisheth is aymed at, and this* 1.1231 is proper to God. Man punisheth not, nor can, nor ought, for his own good, or the Satisfaction of his own justice; but God made all things for himselfe, and the wicked for the day evill, Prov. 16. 4. and Rom. 9. 22. and in Gods dealing with men, whatever he doth unlesse it be for this end, it is not properly punishment.

This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vindicta noxae; purely the recompensing of the evill that is committed, that it may be revenged. This (I say) in Gods dealing is properly punishment, the revenge of the evill done, that himselfe, or his justice may be satisfyed, as was seen before, from Rom. 2. 7, 8, 9. verse. Whatever of evill God doth to any, which is therefore called punishment, because it parta∣keth of the generall nature of punishment, and is evill to him that is punished; yet if the intendment of God be not to revenge the evill past upon him, in a proportion of Law, it is not punishment properly so called. And there∣fore it will not suffice to prove that Believers are, or may be punished for sinne, to heap up Texts of Scripture, where they are said to be punished, and that in reference to their sinne; unlesse it can be also proved, that God doth it animo ulciscendi, and that their punishment is vindicta noxae, and that it is done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but of this I am not now to treat. The Reader may hence see what punish∣ment is in generall; what are the ends of it, and its kinds from thence; & what is punishment from God, properly so called. It is vindicta noxae, animo ulciscendi, ut ipsi satisfiat: and this kind of punishment was the death of Christ: which is to be proved.

3. That the death of Christ was a punishment properly* 1.1232 so called, which is the third consideration of it, as I said, is next to be proved. Of all the places of Scripture and Testimonys whereby this may be demonstrated, I shall fix only on one por∣tion of Scripture: and that is Isai. 53. What in particular shall be produced from thence; will appeare when I have given

some generall Considerations of the Chapter, which I shall do at large, as looking on that Portion of Scripture as the sum of what is spoken in the old Testament, concerning the Satis∣factory Death of Jesus Christ.

1. This whole Prophesy from▪ v. 13. of chap. 52. which is* 1.1233 the head of the present Discourse, is evinced to belong to the Messias, against the Jewes.

1. Because the Chaldee Paraphrast, one of their most ancient Masters, expressly names the Messias, and interprets that whole Chapter of him; behold (saith he) my servant the Messias shall deale prudently. And the Ancient Rabbins, as is abundantly proved by others, were of the same mind. Which miserably intangles their present obdurate Masters, who would fixe the Prophesy upon any, rather then on the Messias. Seeing evidently, that if it be proved to belong to the Messias in Thesi, it can be applyed to none other in Hypothesi, but Iesus of Nazareth.

2. Because they are not able to find out, or fixe on any* 1.1234 one whatever, to whom the things here spoken of, may be accomodated. They speak indeed of Ieremiah, Iosias, a righte∣ous man in generall, the whole people of Israel; of Messiah Ben Ioseph, a man of Straw of their own setting up; but it is easy to mani∣fest, were that our present work, that scarce any one Expression, in this Prophesy, much lesse all, do or can agree to any one, or all of them named, so that it must be brought home to its pro∣per subject: of this at large in the ensuing digression against Grotius.

3. That to us it is evident above all contradiction, that the* 1.1235 whole belongs to Iesus Christ; because not only paticular Te∣stimonies are taken from hence in the New Testament and apply∣ed to him, as Mat. 8. 17. Mark. 15 28. Luk. 22. 37. Rom 10. 16. but it is also expounded of him in generall for the Conversion of soules, Act. 8. 28. The story is knowne of Philip and the Eunuch.

3. This is such a Prophesy of Christ, as belongs to him not* 1.1236 only properly, but immediately: that is, it doth not in the first place point out any Type of Christ, and by him shaddow out Christ, as it is in sundry Psalmes, where David and Solomon are firstly spoken of, though the Messias be principally intended: but here is no such thing. Christ himself is immediately spoken

of. Socinus sayes indeed, that he doubted not but that these things did primarily belong to another, could he be discovered, who he was; and that from Him was the Allusion taken, and the Accom∣modation made to Christ: and if (saith he) it could be found out who he was, much light might be given into many expressions in the Chapter. But this is a bold figment, for which there is not the least countenance given either from Scripture or rea∣son; which is evidently decryed from the former Arguments, whereby the impudency of the Jewes is confounded: And shall be farther in the ensuing digression where it shall be proved that it is impossible to fix on any one but Jesus Christ, to whom the severall expressions, and matters expressed in this Prophesy may be accommodated.

2. Now there are three generall parts of this Prophesy, to* 1.1237 consider it with Reference to the businesse in hand: As the seat of this Truth in the old Testament.

1. A description given of Christ, in a mean, low, misera∣ble condition, from v. 14. of Chap. 52. to v. 5. of Chap. 53. His visage was marred, and his forme, more then the Sonnes of men, he hath no forme, nor comelinesse v. 2. No beauty, a man of griefe, and sorrowes, despised, neglected, acquainted with griefe, v. 3. looked on as stricken and aflicted of God. v. 4.

2. The Reason is given of this Representation of the Messias, of whom it is said in the entrance of the Prophesy, that he should deale prudently, and be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. To which this description of him seemes most adverse and contrary. The Reason (I say) hereof is given from v. 5. to the 10. it was on the account of his being punished, and broken for us, and our sinnes.

3. The issue of all this from v. 10. to the end, is the Justifi∣cation and Salvation of Believers.

It is the second that I shall insist upon, to prove the Death of Christ, to have in it the nature of punishment, properly and strictly so called.

Not to insist upon all the particular passages, that might be* 1.1238 done to great advantage, and ought to be done, did I purpose the through, and full handling of the businesse before me, (but I am in transitu, and pressing to ••omewhat farther) I shall only urge two things.

1. The Expressions throughout, that describe the state and condition of Christ as here proposed.

2. One or two singular Assertions, comprehensive of much of the rest.

For the the first, let the Reader consider what is contained in* 1.1239 the severall words, here setting forth the condition of Christ: we have, despising and rejecting, sorrow and griefe, v. 4. He was stricken, smitten, afflicted; or there was striking, smiting, affliction on him. Wounded, bruised, chastised with stripes, v. 5. wounding, bruising, chastising unto sorenesse, oppressed, stricken, cut off, killed, brought to slaughter, v. 7, 8, 9. Bruised, sacrificed, and his soule made a•• offering for sin▪ v. 10.

Now certainely for the materiall part, or the matter of pu∣nishment, here it is abundantly: here is malum passionis in every kind. Immission of evill, substraction of Good in soule and body: here is plentifull measure heaped up, shaken together, and running over.

But it may be said, though here be the matter of punishment,* 1.1240 yet it may be all this was for some other end; and so it may be it was (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or punishment properly so called.

Consider then the ends of punishment before insisted on▪ and see what of them is applicable to the Transaction▪ betweene God and Christ here mentioned.

1. Was it for his own Correction? No sayes the Prophet, v. 9. He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth: He was perfectly innocent. So that he had no need of any Chastisement for his Amendment; and so signally in sundry pla∣ces, where mention is made of the Death of Christ, his own spotlesse innocency is often pleaded. Neither was it for his instruction that he might be wise, and instructed in the will of God; for at the very entrance of the Prophesy, Chap. 52. 13. he sayes, he shall deale prudently and be exalted. He was Faithfull before in all things. And though he experimentally learned obedience, by his sufferings, yet habitually to the utmost his eares were bored, and himselfe prepared to the will of God, before the afflicti∣ons here principally intended. Neither

3. Was He 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; punished for example; to be made en example to others, that they might not offend: For

what can offenders learne from the punishment of one who never offended: He was ••ut off, but not for himselfe: and the end assigned v. 11. 12. which is not the Instruction only, but the justification, and Salvation of others, will not allow this end. He shall justify many, for he shall beare their iniquities; H•• set us an ex∣ample in his Obedience; but he was not punished for an Example. Neither

4. Was it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a suffering to beare witnesse and Te∣stimony to the Truth. There is no mention of any such end in this place. Yea to make that the maine intendment here, is a monstrous figment. The expressions all along as we shall see in the next place, are, that all this was for our transgressions, for our sinnes, for our iniquities, for our peace. God wounded, brui∣sed, killed him, fo•• ou•• iniquities▪ that is, he dyed to beare witnesse to his Doctrine▪ Credat Ap••lla.

2. Then, the matter of punishment being expressed, see* 1.1241 the cause of the infliction of it. It was for Transgressions, for iniquities, v. 5. For wandring and iniquity, v. 6. For Transgressions, v. 8. For sinne, v 12. Let us now remember the generall de∣scription of punishment that was given at the beginning; It is Malum passionis quod infligitur ob malum actionis, and see how di∣rectly it suits with this punishment of Jesus Christ. 1. Here is malum passionis inflicted, wounding, bruising, killing. And 2. there is malū actionis deserving, sinne, iniquity, and transgression. How these met on an innocent person, shall be afterwards declared. 2. Goe along to the peculiar description of punishment properly so called, as mannaged by God. It is vindicta noxae; now if all other ends and causes whatever, as of Chastisement or Ex∣ample, &c. be removed, and this only be asserted, then this Af∣fliction of Christ was vindicta noxae, punishment in the most proper sence; but that these ends are so removed hath been declared upon the particular consideration of them.

And this is the first Argument from this place to prove; that the Death of Christ and his suffering, hath the nature of pu∣nishment.

2. The second is, from the more particular expressions of* 1.1242 it to this purpose, both on the part of the person punishing, and on the part of the person punished: a single expression on each part may be insisted on.

1. On the part of God punishing, take that of v. 6. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all: of which sort also is that of v. 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he put him to griefe, when th••u shalt make his soule an offering for sinne.

2. On the part of him punished, v. 11▪ He shall bear•• their iniquities. From the consideration of these expressions, we shall evidently evince what we have proposed. Of these in the next Chapter.

CHAP. XXIIII.

Some particular Testimonies evincing the Death of Christ to be a punishment, properly so called.

THE two Expressions that I chose in particular to consider, are* 1.1243 nextly to be insisted on.

The first relates to Him, who did inflict the punishment. The other to him that was punished.

The first in v. 6. The Lord laid on him the iniquityes of us all. The person punishing, is Jehovah, the person punished called Him; that is, he who is spoken of throughout the whole Prophesy; the Messiah Jesus Christ, as above declared.

For the opening of the words, that the efficacy of them to our purpose in hand may appeare. Two of them are especially to be considered. 1. What is meant by that which is rendred l••id on Him, 2. What is meant by Iniquity.

The first by our Translation is rendred in the Margent, Made to* 1.1244 meeet; He made to meet; ••n him the iniquities of us all; The vulgar Latine, posuit Dominus ineo. The Lord put upon him according to our Translation in the Text. Montanus, dominus fecit occurrere. in ••um. God hath caused to meet on him, according to our Translation in the Margent. Junius to the same purpose. Jehov••h fecit ut incurrat, the Lord made them meet, & fall on him. The Septu∣agint render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Lord delivered him to our sins, that is, to be punished for them. By others the word is rendered impegit, trad••xit, conj••cit, al to the same

purpose, importing an act of God in conveying our sins to Christ.

The word here used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; its Root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to which all* 1.1245 the significations mentioned, are assigned; Occurrere, obviam ire, incurrere, aggredi, rogare, precari: The first generall signification of it is to meet, as the bounds of a Field, or Country, or house, meet with one another. Ioshuah 19. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So all a∣long in that chapter, where the bounds of one Country, are said to reach to another; that is, to meet with them; it is the word here used. So in voluntary Agents, it is obviam ire, or to meet, and that either for good or evill; for good it is spoken of God, Psal 64. 5. thou meetest him, &c. and so for evill Amos▪ 5. 19. as if a man fled from a Lyon, and a Beare meet him: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, to teare him in pieces. Hence because men that met others, went to them, to desire some help of them, the word also signifies to aske, to pray, entreat, or intercede; so the word is used Isa. 59. 16. there was no entreater, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 none to meet, to come and aske. And in this very chap. v. 12. he made intercession for the transgress∣ors; the word is the same with that here used▪ to meet the Lord, and intercede for transgressors, to stay his hand against them, is its sence.

2. To meet, or to make to meet properly, which is the First, and most cleare sence of the word. It is often used for to meet ani∣mo hostili, to meet, to fall upon for hurt, 1 Sam. 2••. 17. the ser∣vants of the King would not put forth the hand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to meet, that is, as we have translated it, to fall upon the Priests and kill them; so 2 Sam. 1. 15. David bid his young man arise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fall upon the Amalekite, that is, to kill him. Judg. 15. 1••. Sampson made the men of Judah sweare that they would not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meet with him, or fall on him themselves.

Nextly, it may be enquired in what sence the word is here* 1.1246 used, whether in the first spoken of, to aske, entreat, intercede; or in the latter, to meet; or to meet with.

Grotius interpreteth it, (to remove, so much of his interpre∣tation by the way) permisit Deus, ut ille nostro gravi crimine indig∣nissima pateretur; that so he might suit what is spoken to Jeremiah, without pretence or colour of proofe. For the word, it is 46 times used in the Old Testament, and if in any one of them it may be truly rendred permisit, as it is done by him, or to that sence, let it be here so applied also. And for that sence, which

is, that God suffered the Jews by their wi••kednesse to intreat him evilly, it is most remote from the intendment of the words, and the Holy Ghost in them.

1. First then, that the words cannot be interpreted to pray, or in∣tercede,* 1.1247 is evident frō the contexture; wherein it is said (in this sence) he prayed him for the iniquity of us all; that is, the Lord prayed Christ for the iniquities of us all. This sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, Socinus himselfe grants not to be proper, nor con∣sistent. Porro significatio illa, precari, in loco nostro locum habere non potest; alioqui sequeretur Isaiam voluisse dicere, Deum fecisse, ut omnium nostrûm iniquitas per Christum, vel pro Christo precata fuerit, quod longe absurdissimum esse nemo non videt▪ cap. 21. p. 132. Praelec. Socin.

2. It is then to meet: now the word here used being in Hiphil, which makes a double Action of that expressed by ad∣ding the Cause, by whose Power, vertue, and impresse, the thing is done; thence it is here rendred occurrere fecit, he made to meet, and so the sence of it is, God made our sinnes, as it were, to set up∣on, or to fall upon Iesus Christ, which is the most common use of the word, as hath been shewed.

It is objected, that the word signifies to meet, yet no more but* 1.1248 this may be the meaning of them; God in Christ met with all our iniquities; that is, for their pardoning, and removall, & taking away▪

Of the many things that may be given in for the eversion of this Glosse, I shall name only two, whereof the first is to the word, the latter to the matter. For the word; the Conjugation ac∣cording to the common Rule, enforces the sence formerly mentioned; he made to meet, and not he met.

2. The Prophet in these words renders a reason of the con∣temptible sad condition of the Messiah, at which so many were scandalized, and whereupon so few believed the report of the Gospel concerning him; and this is, that God laid on him our ini∣quities; now there is no reason why he should be represented in so deplorable a state and condition, if God only met with, & pre∣vented our sinne, in and by him, which he did (as they say) in his Resurrection, wherein he was exceeding Glorious; so that the meaning of the word is, that God made our sinnes to meet on him, by laying them on him; and this sence Socinus himselfe consents unto, Praelec. cap. 21. p. 133. But this also will farther

appeare in the explication of the next word: and that is, our iniquities.

He hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How the Iniqui∣ty of us, that is, the punishment of our iniquity? I shall offer three things, to make good this interpretation.

1. That the word is often found in that sence; so that it is* 1.1249 no new, or uncouth thing, that here it should be so, Gen. 4. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine iniquity is greater then I can beare, it is the same word here used; they are the words of Cain, upon the denuncia∣tion of God's judgement on him; and what iniquity it is, he gives you an account in the next words, behold thou hast cast me out, v▪ 14. that was only the punishment▪ laid on him. It is used in like manner severall times Levit. 20. 17, 19. and 1 Sam. 28. 10. Saul sweare to the Witch, that no iniquity should be fall her; that is, no punishment for that which she did at his command, in raising up a Spirit to consult withall, contrary to the Law. And also in sundry other places: so that this is no new signification of the word, and is here most proper.

2. It appears from the explication that is given of this thing* 1.1250 in many other expressions is the Chapt. God laid on him the ini∣quity of us all. How? in that it pleased him to bruise him, and put him to griefe, v. 10. In that he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities, v. 5. as will be made more evident when I come to the next Phrase: He bare our iniquities, which an∣swers to this, He laid them on him.

3. Because he did so lay our sinne on Christ, that he made his* 1.1251 Soul an offering for sinne: when our iniquities were on him, his Soul▪ that is, He, by an usuall Synecdoche, (the Soul for the Per∣son) was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an off••ring for sinne; the word here u∣sed, is like piaculum in Latine, which signifies the fault, and him who is punished for it in a way of a publick Sacrifice: So is this word taken both for a sinne, a trespasse, and a Sacrifice for the exp••ation of it. As another word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used also Lev. 4. 3. He shall offer it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a sinne; that is, an Offering for sinne; So also Exod 29. 14. Lev. 4. 29. And this very word is so used Levit: 7. 2. They shall kill 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, the sinne, or sin offering, or trespasse offering, as there it is rendred: and other in∣stances might be given. Now God did so cause our iniquities to meet on Christ, that he then under th••m made himselfe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

or an offering for sinne. Now in the offering for sinne, the penal∣ty of the Offence was, suo more, laid on the beast, that was Sacri∣ficed or made an offering; Paul interpreteth these words by o∣ther expressions, 2 Cor. 5. 21. he made him to be a sinne for us, that is, an offering for sinne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ He made him sinne, when he made him a Curse▪ the curse of the Law, Gal: 3. 13▪ that is, gave him up to the Punishment, by the Law due to sin: Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in the likenesse of sinfull flesh, and for sinne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for sin, a Sacrifice for sinne, condemned sin in the flesh, Heb: 10. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in burnt Offerings, & for sin thou hadst no pleasure; and againe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It appears then from all that hath been said, that our iniquities that were laid on Christ, were the punishment due to our iniquity.

Farther to cleare this, I shall a little consider what Act of* 1.1252 God this was, whereby he laid our iniquities on Christ; and these two things are considerable therein.

1. How it was typically prefigured.

2. How it was done, or in what Act of God the doing of it doth consist.

1. This was eminently represented in the great Anniversary Sacrifice, of which I have spoken formerly; especially in that part which concernes the Goate, on which the Lot fell to be sent* 1.1253 away: That that Goat was a Sacrifice, is evident from the 5. v. where both the Kids of the Goats, (afterward said to be two Goats) are said to be a Sinne Offering; how this was dealt withall, see v. 21. Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the live Goat, & confesse our sin, all the iniquities of all the people, all their transgressions in all their sins, & put them upon the Head of the Goat, Now in what sence could the sins of the People, be put upon the Head of the Goat.

1. This was not meerly a Representation; as it were a Shew or Pageant, to set forth the taking away of iniquity; but Sins were Really, as to that Typicall Institution, laid on the Head of the Goat: whence he became a p••aculum, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and he that touched him was defiled, so v. 26. The Man that carried out the Goat, was unclean untill he was legally purified, and that because the Sinne of the People was on the Head of the Goat, which he so carri••d away.

2. The proper prav••ty, malice, and filth of sinne, could not be

laid on the Goat. Neither the Nature of the thing, nor the Sub∣ject will beare it; for neither is Sinne, which is a Privation, an irregularity, an obliquity, such a thing, as that it can be tran∣slated from one to another, although it hath an Infectious, and a Contagious quality to diffuse it selfe, that is, to beget som••∣thing of the like nature in others: nor was the Goat a Subject wherein any such pernitious or depraved habit might reside, which belongs only to Intelligent Creatures, which have a morall Rule to walk by.

3. It must be the punishment of Sinne, that is here intended,* 1.1254 which was in the Type laid on the head of the Goat; And therefore it was sent away into a Land not inhabited, a Land* 1.1255 of separation, a Wildernesse, there to perish, as all the Jewish Doctors agree: that is, to undergoe the Punishment that was inflicted on him; That in such Sacrifices for sinne, there was a reall imputation of sinne unto punishment, shall afterwards be farther cleared.

Unto this Transaction doth the Prophet allude in this ex∣pression,* 1.1256 he Laid on, or put on him. As the High Priest confessed all the sins, Iniquities, & Transgressions of the people & laid thē on the Head of the scape Goat, which he bare, undergoing the utmost punishment he was capable of, and that punishment, which in the generall kind and nature is the punishment, due to sinne, an evill and violent death. So did God lay all the sinnes, all the punishment due to them, really upon one that was fit, able, and appointed to beare it, which he suffered under to the utmost, that the Justice of God required on that account. He th••n tooke a view of all our sinnes and iniquityes; He knew what was past and what was to come, knowing all our thoughts a farre off. Not the least errour of our minds, darknesse of our understan∣dings, perversnesse of our Wills, Carnallity of our affections, sinne of our nature, or lives, escaped him. All were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before him. This is set out by the variety of expressi∣ons used in this matter in the Type; all the iniquities, all the transgressions, & all the sinnes▪ And so by every word whereby we expresse sin, in this 53. of Isaiah: going astray, tur••ing aside, iniquity, transgression, sinne, and the like▪ God (I say) made them all to meet on Chirst in the punishment due to them.

2. What is the Act of God, whereby he casts ou•• sins on Christ.* 1.1257

I have elsewhere considered, how God in this businesse is to* 1.1258 be looked on: I said now in the entrance of this Discourse, that Punishment is an effect of Justice in him, who had power to dispose of the offender as such. To this two things are required.

1. That he have in his hand power to dispose of all the con∣cernments of the offence and sinner, as the Governour of Him and them all. This is in God. He is by nature the King and Go∣vernour of all the world. O••r Lawgiver, Jam. 4. 12. Having made rationall Creatures, an•• required obedience at their hands, it is essentially belonging to him to be their Governour, and not only to have the soveraigne disposall of them, as he hath the su∣preame dominion over them, with the legall dispose of them,* 1.1259 in answer to the morall subjection to him, and the obedience he re∣quires of them.

2. That as he be a King, and have supreame government, so* 1.1260 he be a Judge to put in execution his Justice. Thus God is judge himselfe. Psal. 50. 6. He is the Judge of the world. Gen. 18. 25. Psal. 94. 2. Psal. 75. 7. Is. 33. 22. as in innumerable other places: Now as God is thus the great Governour & Judge, he pursues the constitutive principle of punishment, his own righteous and holy Will, proportioning penaltyes to the demerit of sin.

Thus in the laying our sinne on Christ, there was a two fold Act of God: one as a Governour, the other as a Judge properly.* 1.1261

1. The first is, innovatio obligationis, the innovation of the obli∣gation, wherein we were detained, and bound over to punish∣ment. Whereas in the Tenour of the Law as to its obligation unto punishment, there was none originally but the name of the Offender, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye: and Cursed is every one that continues not: and the soule that sinneth it shall dye; God now puts in the name of the surety of Jesus Christ; that he might bccome responsible for our sinnes, and undergoe the punishment that we were obliged to. Christ was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he was made under the Law; that is, he was put into subjection, to the Obligation of it unto punishment: God put his name into the obligation, and so the Law came to have its Advan∣tage against him, who otherwise was most free from the charge of it. Then was Christ made sin, when by being put into the Ob∣ligation of the Law, he became lyable to the punishment of it. He was the Mediatour of the new Covenant, the Mediator between God

and man, 1 Tim. 2. 5. So a Mediator, as to lay down his life a ransome for them, for whō he was a Mediator, v. 6. & the surety of the Co∣venan•• is he also Heb. 7. 22. Such a surety, as paid that which he never took, made satisfaction for those sins which he never did.

2. The second Act of God as a Judge, is inflictio poenae.* 1.1262 Christ b••ing now made obnoxious, and that by his own con∣sent, the Justice of God finding him in the Law, layeth the weight of all on him. He had done no violence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth; well then, it will be well with him: surely it shall be well with the innocent, no evill shall befall him; nay but said he v. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to griefe: Yea, but what was the reason of this? Why was this the will of God? why did this seeme good to the Just Judge of all the world? The Reason is in the very next words, His soule was made an offering for sinne, which before is expressed, he bare our greife, he was wounded for our transgressions; being made lyable to them he was punished for them.

By that which is said it is evident from this first expression▪* 1.1263 or the Assignation of an Action to God in reference to him, that this Death of Christ was a punishment, He who had power to do it, bringing in him, (on his own voluntary offer) into the Obligation to punishment, and inflicting punishment on him ac∣cordingly.

The second expression whereby the same thing is farther convinced is on the part of him that was punished, & this in v. 4. Surely he hath borne our griefes, and carryed our sorrowes, or which is more evident v. 11. He shall beare their iniquities.

For the Right understanding of the words, I shall give a* 1.1264 few briefe previous observations, that may give light to the matter we treat of. And the first is,

1. That as this whole thing was done in the Justice of God, as hath been declared, so it was done by the Counsell and Appointment of God. The Apostles confesse the Death of Christ to have proceeded thence, Act. 4. ••8. and Act. 2. 23. Now as laying of our sinnes on Christ, being designed our Mediatour, and undertaking the worke, was an act of God, as the Gover∣nour of all, and the righteous Judge, so this of the determinate coun∣sell, and fore appointment, or the eternall designation of Christ to his office, is an Act of Soveraigne power and Dominion in God, where∣by

he doth as he pleaseth, according to the Counsell of his will. As he would make the world in his soveraigne good pleasure, when he might have otherwise done, Revel. 4▪ 11. So he would determine, that Christ should beare our iniquities, when he might otherwise have disposed of it, Rom. 11. 34, 35, 36, 37.

2. In respect of us, this preappointment of God was an act* 1.1265 of Grace, that is, a sovereigne Act of his good pleasure, whence all good things, all fruits of Love whatever to us doe flow. Therefore it is called Love, Joh. 3. 16. and so in the fruit of it is it expressed, Rom. 8. 32. And on this John often insists in his Gospell and Epist: 1 Joh. 4. 9, 10, 11. His aime on his own part was the declaration of his Righteousnesse, Rom. 3. 25. and to make way for the praise of his glorious grace, Eph. 1. 6. on our parts, that we might have all those good things, which are the fruits of the most intense Love.* 1.1266

3. That Christ himself was willing to undergoe this burthen & undertake this work: & this as it is consistent with his death being a punishment, so it is of necessity to make good the other Conside∣rations of it, namely, that it should be a price, and a Sacrifice. For no man gives a price, & therein parts with that which is precious to him unwillingly; nor is a Sacrifice acceptable that comes not from a free & willing minde. That he was thus willing himselfe professeth, both in the undertaking & carrying of it on; in the undertaking, Heb. 10. 9. Lo I come to do thy will O God: It is the Expression of one breaking out with a ready joy to do the thing proposed to him. So the Church of old looked on him, as one that came freely and cheerfully, Cant. 2. 8, 9. It is the voyce of my beloved, behold he cometh leaping on the mountaines, skipping on the hills: My Beloved is like a Roe, or a young Hart, he standeth behind the wall, he looketh forth at the window, showing himselfe through the Lattice. The Church looked on Christ as yet at a distance from the actuall performance of the worke he had undertaken, and so her selfe kept off from that cleare and close Communion which she longed after, and thence shee says of him, that he stood behind the wall, that He looked forth at the window, & shewed him∣self at the lattices. There was a wall yet hindring the actuall exhibi∣tion of Christ; the fulnes of time was not come. The purpose of God was not yet to bring forth; but yet in the meane time, Christ

looked on the Church through the window of the promise, and the Lattice of the Leviticall ceremonies.

And what discovery do they make of him, in the view they take in the broad light of the Promises, and the many glimpses of the Ceremoniall Types. They see him coming, leaping on the moun∣taines, and skipping on the hills, coming speedily with a great deale of Joy and willingnesse.

So of himselfe he declares what his minde was from of old, from everlasting, Prov. 8. 30, 31. Rejoycing alwaies before him, that is, before God his Father: but in what did he rejoyce? in the habita∣ble parts of the earth, & my delight was with the Sons of men. When this Joy of his was, he tells you v. 22, 23, 26, 27. He rejoyced before God his Father in the Sonnes of men, before they were created; that is, in the worke he had to do for them.

His will was also in the carrying of it on unto Accomplishment,* 1.1267 He must be doing his Fathers businesse, his Will who sent him. Luk. 12. 50. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He was pained as a woman in travaile to be delivered, to come to be baptized in his own blood. And when he was giving himselfe up to the utmost of it, He professes his readinesse to it Joh. 18. 11. when Peter who once before would have advised him to spare himselfe, now being his Counsell was not followed, would have rescu••d him with his sword: As for his Advice he was called Satan, so for his proferd Assistance, he is now rebuked: and the reason of it is given, shall I not drinke of the cup? It is true, that it might appeare, that his death was not a Price, and a Sacrifice only, but a Punishment also, wherein there was an immission of every thing that was evill to the suffering nature, and a substraction of that which was Good, He discovered that aversenesse to the drinking of the Cup, which the Truth of the Humane Nature absolutely re∣quired, (and which the amazing bitternesse of the Cup over∣powred him withall) yet still his will conquered and prevailed in all, Math. 26. 53, 54.

4. Christ his love was also in it, his delight was in the* 1.1268 Sonnes of men; his love toward them carryed him out to the worke: And Paul proves it by the instance of himselfe, Gal. 2. 20. Who loved me. And John applyes the same to all Belie∣vers, Revel. 1. 5, 6. To him that loved us, &c. And thus was this great worke undertaken.

These things being premised, let us looke againe to the words under consideration.

1. For the Word he bare our Griefe v. 4. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; A* 1.1269 word of as large, and as many various Acceptions as any, if not absolutely the most extensive in the whole Hebrew tongue. It hath usually assigned unto it by the Lexicographer, eight or nine seve∣rall significations: And to make it evident, that it is of various acceptions, It is used (in the Collections of Calasius) 818 times in the Old Testament, whereof not a third part is answered in any language by one and the same word. With those sences of it, that are Metaphoricall, we have not any thing to doe. That which is the first, or most proper sence of it & what is most fre∣quently used, is to carry or beare, & by which it is here translated as in very many other places.

Socinus would have it here be as much as abstulit, he took away,* 1.1270 so saith he, God took away our sinne in Christ, when by him he decla∣red, and confirmed the way whereby Pardon and Remission is to be obtai∣ned; as he pardoned our sinne in Christ, by discovering the new Cove∣nant, and Mercy therein. Now because the Word is of such va∣rious significations, there is a necessity that it be inter∣preted by the Circumstances of the place where it is used. And because there is not any circumstance of the place, on the account whereof the word should be rendred abstulit, he took away, and not tulit, he took, bare, or suffered, we must consider what Arguments or Reasons are scraped toge∣ther aliunde by them, and then evince what is the Proper signifi∣cation of it, in this place.

1. This very expression is used of God Exod. 34. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.1271 ferens iniquitatem, as also 'tis again repeated, Numb. 14. 18. In both which places, we translate it forgiving, forgiving iniquities, transgressions, and sinnes. Nor can it be properly spoken of God, to beare: for God cannot beare, as the word properly signi∣fies.

The summe of the Objection is; The word that is used so many times, and so often metaphorically, is once or twice in ano∣ther place used for to take away, or to pardon; therefore this must be the sence of it in this place. God cannot be said to beare iniquities, but only metaphorically, & so he is often said to beare, to be pressed, to be weary, & made to serve with them; He is said to beare our sins, in

reference to the end of bearing any thing, which is to carry it away: God in Christ taking away, pard••ning our sinnes, is said to Beare them, because that is the way which sinnes are taken away; they are taken up, carried, and laid aside. But he of whom these words are spoken here, did beare properly, and could do so, as shall be shewed.

2. The Interpretation of this place by Mathew, or the appli∣cation* 1.1272 of it is insisted on; which is of more importance, Math. 8. 16, 17. Christ curing the diseases of many, and bodily sick∣nesses, is said to beare our Griefes, according as it is said in Isaiah, that he should do. Now he did not bear our diseases, by taking them upon himselfe, and so becoming diseased, but morally, in that by his Power he took them away from them, in whom they were.

Not to make many Words, nor to multiply Interpretations, and Accommodations of these places, which may be seen in them, who have to good purpose made it their businesse to con∣sider the paralell places of the Old and New Testaments, and to Reconcile them: I say only, it is no New thing to have the Effect and Evidence, and end of a thing, spoken of in the New Testament, in Answer to the Cause, and Rise of it, mentioned in the Old, by the application of the same words unto it which they are mentioned in. For instance, Paul Eph. 4. 8. citing that of the Psalmist, Psal. 68. 18. Thou hast ascended up on high, and hast led Captivity Captive, and received gifts for men; renders it; when he ascended up on high, he led Captivity Captive, and gave gifts unto Men; and that because his giving of them, was the end of his recei∣ving of them; and his receiving of them, the Foundation of his giving of them▪ the Effect and Fruit being here expressed, the Foundation and Ground supposed.

So also, Mine eares hast thou bored, Psal. 40. is rendred, a body hast▪ thou prepared me, Heb: 10. because the end of the boring the eare of Christ was, that he might offer his body a Sacrifice to God; So it is here in this place of Mathew: Christ his taking away the bo∣dily Distempers, and Sicknesses of men, was an Effect, and an Evidence of his taking away their sinne, which was done by bear∣ing of them; And therefore Mathew mentioning the Effect and Evidence of the thing, doth it in the Words that expresse the

Cause and Foundation of it. Not, that, that was a compleat Accomplishment of what was foretold, but that it was so de∣monstrated in the Effect and evidence of it. Nor do the Socini∣ans themselves think that this was a full accomplishment of what is spoken by the Prophet, themselves insisting on another interpretation of the words: So that notwithstanding these exceptions, the Word here may have its Proper signification of bearing or carrying; which also that it hath, may be farther evi∣denced.

1. Here is no cogent Reason, why the Metaphoricall use of the* 1.1273 Word should be understood. When it is spoken of God, there is a Necessity, that i•• should be interpreted by the Effect; because Properly he cannot beare, nor undergoe▪ griefe, sorrow, or pu∣nishment. But as to the Mediator, the case is otherwise, For he confessedly underwent these things Properly, wherein we say that this word Bearing of Punishment doth consist; He was so bruised, so broken, so slaine: So that there is no Reason to depart from the Propriety of the Word.

2. Those who would have the sence of the Word to be, to* 1.1274 take away, in this place, confesse it is by way of the Allusion be∣fore mentioned; that he that takes away a thing, takes it up, and bears it on his shoulders▪ or in his armes, untill he lay it downe; and by vertue of this Allusion doth it signify to take away. But why! seeing that taking up, and bearing, in this place is proper, as hath been shewed, why must that be leaped over, and that which is Improper, and spoken by way of Allusion, be insi∣sted on.

3. It appears that this is the Sence of the word, from all the* 1.1275 circumstances of the Text, and Context. Take three that are most considerable.

1. The Subject spoken of, who did thus bear our Griefes; and this is Christ; of whom such things are affirmed, in Answer to this Question, How did he bear our Griefes? as will admit of no other sence: The Holy Ghost tells us how he did it, 1 Pet. 2. 24, 25. Who his ownselfe bare our sinnes in his body on the Tree. That Peter in that place expressed this part of the Prophesy of Isaiah, which we insist upon, is evident: The Phrase at the close of v. 24▪ and the beginning of v. 25▪ of this Chapter make it so: They are the very words of the end of the 5 & beginning of the 6^th

verses here; How then did Christ beare our Griefes? Why in that he bare our sinne in his own body on the Tree.

I shall not insist on the precise signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here used, as though it expressed the outward manner of that suffering of Christ for sinne, when he was lifted up on the Crosse or Tree. It is enough, that our sinnes were on him, his body; that is, his whole humane Nature, (by an usuall Synecd••che) when he was on the Tree; that he did it when he suffered in the flesh, Cap. 4. 1. He that did so bear our Griefe, sinne, and iniquities, as to have them in his own body, when he suffered in the flesh, he is said properly therein tulisse, not abstulisse, to have borne, not taken a∣way our Griefes. But that this is the Case, in Christ his bearing our Griefe, the Holy Ghost doth thus manifest.

2. The manner how Christ bare them evidently manifesteth, in* 1.1276 what sence this expression is to be understood. He so bare them, that in doing so, he was wounded and bruised, grieved, chastised, s••ain, as it is at large expressed in the Context. Christ bare our Griefe, so as in doing of it, to be wounded, broken, grieved, killed, which is not to take them away, but really to beare them upon himselfe.

3. The Cause of this bearing our Griefe, is assigned to be Sinne;* 1.1277 He was wounded for our transgressions, as was shewn before: Now this cannot be the sence, for our sinnes, he took them away; but for our sinnes, He bare the punishment due to them, 2 Cor 5. 21.

4. To put all out of Question, the Holy Ghost in this Chapter useth another word in the same matter, with this, that will admit of no other Sence, then that which is proper. And that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall beare their iniqui∣ties: and it is used immediately after this we have insisted on, as explicative of it; and carried our sorrowes: Now as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies to lift, to take up that which a man may carry, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to beare, and undergoe the burthen, that is taken, or that a man hath laid on his shoulders. And Mathew hath rendred this word by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is bajulo, p••rto; to beare a thing, as a man doth a burthen on his shoulders; nor is it once used in the Scriptures, but it is either properly to beare a burthen, or Metaphorically from thence, to undergoe that which is h••avy and burthensome; Thus did Christ bare our Griefes, our Iniqui∣ties, by putting his shoulder under them, taking them on himself.

2. What did he thus beare? our Griefes, our Sinnes; or our* 1.1278 Iniquities, our sinnes. Let us see by a second instance, what it is in the Language of God, To bear iniquities, and this Argument will be at an iss••e. Lament. 5. 7. Our Fathers have sinned, and are not, and we h••ve borne their ini••uitie. We have bo••ne their Iniquities, or the p••ni••hment that was d••e to them▪ They are not, they are gone out of the World, before the day of Recompence came, and we lye under the puni••hment threatned and inflicted for their sinnes, and our own Distinctly.

1. Men are said to bear their own sinne, Levit: 19. 5. every one* 1.1279 that eateth it shall bear his iniquity; that is, he shall be esteemed guilty, and be punished: Levit. 20. 17. He shall bear his iniquity, is the same with he shall be killed, v. 16. and he shall be cut off from his people, v. 18. For a man to bear his iniquity, is constantly for him to answer the Guilt, and undergoe the Punishment due to it.

2. So also of the sinnes of others, Numb. 14. 33. And your Chil∣dren shall wander in the Wildernesse forty years, and shall bear your whoredomes: beare your whordomes; that is, my anger for them, and the punishment due to them. Numb. 30. 15. He that compells by his Power and Authority another to breake a vow, shall him∣selfe be lyable to the Punishment due to such a breach of Vow. Ezek. 18. 20. is an explanation of all these places: The soul that sinnes it shall dye, it shall be punished, The Son shall not beare the ini∣quity of the Father, &c. The Son shall not be punished for the sin of the Father▪ nor the Father for the sinne of the Son. In briefe, this expression, To bear iniquities, is never otherwise used in Scripture, but only for to undergoe the Punishment due there∣unto.

Thus much then we have clearely evinced. God did so lay* 1.1280 our sinnes on Christ, as that he bare and underwent that which was due to them; God inflicting it on him, & he willingly undergoing it. Which is my second demonstration from this place, that the Death of Christ is also a punishment. Which is all that I shall urge to that purpose. And this is that, and all that we in∣tend by the Satisfaction of Christ.

But now having laid so great stresse as to our Doctrine under demonstration upon this place of the Prophet, and finding some attempting to take away our foundation, before I proceed, I shal divert to the consideration of the Annotations of Grotius on this whole

chap & rescue it from his force & violence, used in contending to make what is here spoken to suit the Prophet Jeremiah, and to intend him in the first place: to establish which vain conjecture, he hath perverted the sence of the whole, and of every particular verse, from the beginning to the end of this Prophesy.

CHAP. XXV.

A Digression concerning the 53^d Chapter of Isaiah: And the vindication of it from the perverse Interpretation of HUGO GROTIUS.

THis Chapter is well by some termed Carnificina Rabbinorum;* 1.1281 a place of Scripture that sets them on the rack; and makes thē turn thēselves all ways possible to escape the torture, which it puts their unbelieving hearts unto. Not long since a worthy and very learned friend told me, that speaking with Manasseh Ben Israel at Amstelredam, and urging this Prophesy unto him, he inge∣nuously told him, profecto locus iste magnum scandalum dedit; to whom the other replyed; Recte, quia Christus vobis lapis scandali est. Hulsius the Hebrew Professor at Breda, professes that some Jewes told him, that their Rabbins could easily have extricated themselves from all other places of the Prophets, if Isaiah in this place had but held his peace. a 1.1282 Huls. Theolog. Judaic. lib. 1. Part. 2. Dict. Sapp. de Tempor. Messiae. Though I value not their boasting of their extricating themselves from the other Prophe∣sies, knowing that they are no lesse entangled with that of Daniel, chap. 9. (Of which there is an eminent story in Franzius,* 1.1283 de sacrificiis, concerning his dispute with a Learned Jew on that subject:) yet it appeares, that by this, they are confessedly intricated beyond all hope of evading, untill they divest them∣selves of their Cursed Hypothesis.

Hence it is that with so much greedines they scraped together* 1.1284 all the Copyes of Abrabaniel's Comment on this Chapter; so that it was very hard for a Christian, a long time to get a sight of it; as Constantine l' Empereur acquaints us in his Preface

to his refutation of it: because they thought themselves in some* 1.1285 measure instructed by him, to avoid the Arguments of the Christians from hence, by his application of the whole to Josiah: and I must needs say he hath put as good, yea a farre better colour of probability upon his Interpretation, then he with whom I have to do, hath done on his.

How ungratefull then, & how unacceptable to all Professours of* 1.1286 the name of Jesus Christ, must the labours of Grotius needs be; who hath to the uttermost of his power reached out his hand to relieve the poore blind Creatures from their rack and Torture, by applying (though successelesly) this whole Pro∣phesy of Jeremiah, casting himselfe into the same entanglements with them, not yielding them indeed the least relief, is easily to conjecture. And this is not a litle aggravated, in that the Socinians who are no lesse racked & tortured with this Scripture then the▪ Iewes, durst never yet attempt to accommodate the things here spoken of to any other; though they have expressed a desire of so doing; and which if they could compasse, they would free themselves from the sharpest sword, that lyes at the throat of their cause; Seeing if it is certaine, that the things here men∣tioned may be applyed to any other, the satisfaction of Christ cannot from them be confirmed. This Digression then is to cast into the fire that br••ken Crutch, which this Learned man hath lent unto the Iewes and Socinians to lean upon, and keep them∣selves from sinking under their unbeliefe.

To discover the rise of that Learned Mans opinion, that Ieremiah* 1.1287 is intended in this Prophesy, the conceits of the Iewish Doctors may a little be considered, who are divided amongst themselves; The ancient Doctours generally conclude, that it is the Messiah, who is here intended Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper, sayes the Chaldee Paraphrast upon the place And Constantius l' Empe∣reur tells from * 1.1288 R. Simeon, in his book Salkout, that the Ancient Rabbins, in their ancient Book Tancluma, and higher, were of the

same Judgement. Rabbi Moses Alscheth is urged to the same pur∣pose at large by Hulsius. And in his comment on this place he sayes expressly, Ecce Doctores nostri lauda••ae memoriae uno ere statuunt, & a majoribus acceperunt, de rege Messia sermonem esse, & doctorun▪ L. M. v••stigiis insistemus. And one passage in him is very admira∣ble in the same place saith he; Dicunt Doctores nostri L▪ M. omni∣um afflictionum quae mundum ingressae sunt, tertia pars Davidi & Pa∣triarchis obtigit: tertia altera seculo excisionis, ultima tertia pars regi Messiae incumbet. Where he urgeth the common consent of their Doctors for the sufferings of the Messiah. Of the same mind was R▪ Solomon, as he is cited by Pe••rus Galatinus lib. 8. cap. 14. As the same is affirmed by the Misedrach Resh. cap. 2. 14. And in Beresheth Rabba on Gen. 24. as is observed by Raimundus Martin, Pug. fedei 3^a p. Dist. 1▪ cap. 10. So that before these men grew im∣pudent and crafty in corrupting and perverting the Testimo∣nies of the Old Testament, conc••rning the Messiah, they gene∣rally granted him, and only him to be here intended▪ It was not for want of company then that Grotius tooke in with the Modern Rabbins, who being mad with envy and malice care not what they say, so they may oppose Jesus▪ Christ.

2. Many of the following Jewish Doctors interpret this* 1.1289 place of the whole people of the Jewes. And this way goe the men, who are of the greatest note amongst them in these latter daies; as R. D. Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Abarbiniel, Lipman, with what weake and mean pretences, with what inconsistency as to the words of the text hath been by others manifested.

3. Abrabinel or Abrabaniel, a man of great note and honour amongst them, though he assent to the former Exposition of applying the whole Prophesy to the People of the Jewes, and in∣terprets the words at large accordingly, which exposition is confuted by Constantine l' Empereur, yet he inclines to a singular opinion of his own, that Josiah is the man pointed at, and de∣scribed: But he is the first and last, that abides by that inter∣pretation.

4. Grotius interprets the words of Jeremiah in the first place▪ not denying them (as we shall see) to have an Acc••mmodation to Christ. In this he hath the Company of one Rabbi; R. Saadias G••on, mentioned by Aben Ezra upon the 52. Chapt. of this Prophesy v. 13. But this fancy of Saadias is fully confuted

by Abarbinel: which words because they sufficiently e∣vert the whole designe of Grotius also, I shall transcribe as they lye in the translation of Huls••us. Revera ne unum quidem versiculum video, qui de Jeremiah exponi possit: qua ratione de eo dice∣tur, Extolletur & altus erit valde? Item illud, Propter eum obdent Re∣ges os suum, Nam aetas illa Prophetas habere consueverat. Quomodo etiam dici potest Morbos nostros portasse, & dolores nostros bajulasse, & in tumi••e ejus curationem nobis esse, Deum in ipsum incurrere fecisse peccata omnium nostrûm: quasi ipsi poena incubuisset, & Israel fuisset immunis▪ Jam illud, Propter pec••atum populi mei plaga ipsis, item, Dedit cum improbis se∣pulcrum ejus, ad ipsum referri nequit; multo minus illud, videbit semen, prolongabit dies, item, Cum robustis partietur spolium. In quibus om∣nibus nihil est quod de ipso commode affi••mari possit. Ʋnde vehementer mi••or, quomodo R. Hagaon in hanc sententiam perduci potuerit, & Sapi∣entes dari qui hanc expositionem laudant: cum tamen tota ista exponendi ratio plane aliena sit, & e Scriptura non facta.

Now certainely if this Jew thought he had sufficient cause to admire, that any blind Rabbi should thus wrest the sence of the Holy Ghost, and that any wise man should be so foolish as to commend it: We cannot but be excused, in admiring that any man professing himselfe a Christian, should insist in his steps, and that any should commend him for so doing.

That therefore, which here is affirmed, in the entrance of his Discourse by Abarbinel, namely, that not one verse can, or may be expounded of Jeremiah, shall now particularly be made good against Grotius.

1. He confesseth with us that the Head of this Prophe∣sy* 1.1290 and Discourse is in vers. 13. chap. 52. The words of that verse are.

Behold my Servant shall deale prudently: he shall be exalted and ex∣tolled, and be very high.

Of the sence of which words, thus he.

Ecce intelliget servus meus] Haec omnia clarissime revelata cognoscet Ieremiah. Exaltabitur & elevabitur & subl••mis erit valde.] In mag∣no honore erit apud ipsos Chaldaeos, Ierem. 39. ch. v. 40. My servant Jeremiah shall have all these things clearely revealed to him, and he shall be in great honour with the Chaldeans. So he,

First, for the words themselves: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the vulgar* 1.1291 Latine, he renders intelliget, shall understand. The word signifies

rather prudence for Action with successe, then any speculativ•• knowledge by Revelation: 1 Sam. 18. 30. it is used of David behaving himselfe wisely in the businesse of his millitary & civill employment. Its opposite saith Pagnin, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (quod incogi∣tantiam significat in rebus agendis & ignavā levitatem) which signifies incogitancy in the management of affaires and idle lightnesse: Whence the word is usually taken for to prosper in affaires, as it used of our Saviour Ierem. 23. 5. a King shall raigne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and prosper. Nor can it be otherwise used here, considering the Connexion of the words wherein it stands: it being the precedent to his being highly exalted who is spoken of; which rather followes his dealing prudently, then his receiving revelations: So that in the very entrance there is a mistake in the sence of the word, and that mistake lyes at the bottome of the whole Interpre∣tation.

2. I deny that God speaks any where in the Scripture of any* 1.1292 one, besides Jesus Christ in this phrase, without any addition, My Servant, as here; Behold my Servant. So he speakes of Christ, Ch. 42. v. 1, 19. and other places; but not of any other Per∣son whatever. It is an expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not to be applyed to any, but to him, who was the Great Servant of the Father, in the Work of Mediation.

3. Even in respect of Revelations, there is no ground, why those made to Jeremiah, should be spoken of so Emphatically, and by way of Eminence above others; seeing he came short of the Prophet, by whom these words are written. Nor can a∣ny instance be given of such a prediction used concerning any Prophet whatever, that was to be raised up in the Church of the Jewes; but of Christ himselfe only.

4. The Exposition of the close of these words, he shall be* 1.1293 * ••xalted and extolled, and be very high: (the great Exaltation of* 1.1294 the Lord Jesus Christ in his Kingdome, when he was made a Prince, and a Saviour, in a most eminent manner, being set forth in various expressions, no one reaching to the glory of it) is unworthy the Learned Annotator. He shall be exalted and extol∣led, and be very high; that is, the Chaldeans shall give him victualls, and a reward, Jerem. 40. 5. and after a while, He shall be carried a Prisoner into Egypt, and there knockt on the head: such was the exaltation of the poore Prophet. What resemblance hath

all this, to the Exaltation of Jesus Christ, whom the Learned man confesseth to be intended in these words.

The sence then of these words is, Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Servant of the Father, Isa. 42. 1, 19▪ Phil. 2. 7, 8. shall deale p••udently, and prosper in the businesse of doing his Fathers will, and car∣rying on the affaires of his own Kingdome, Isa. 9. 7. And be ex∣alted farre above all Principalities and Powers, having a name given him above every name, that at the name of Jesus, &c. Phil. 2. 7, 8.

The next verse is.

As many were astonied at thee, his visage was so marred, more then a∣ny* 1.1295 man, and his forme more then the Sonnes of men.

Of the Accomplishment of this, in and upon the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no difficulty. The Astonishment mentioned is that of Men, at his low, and despicable Condition as to outward appearance; which was such, as that he said of himselfe, he was a worme and no man, Ps. 22. His Condition was such, & his Visage such, as all that knew any thing of him▪ were astonied to the purpose. The marring of his visage and forme, as it may point out all the Acts of violence, that were done upon his face, by spitting, buffeting, and the like; so they ex∣presse his whole despis••d, contemned, persecuted estate, and condition. But let us a••tend to our Annotator.

Modo secunda, modo tertia personâ de Jeremia loquitur, quod frequens* 1.1296 Hebraeis: Sicut mul••i miratierant hominem tam egregium tam faedè tra∣ctari, in carcerem detrudi, deinde in lacum lutosum, ibi{que} & paedore & cibi inopiâ tabescere: Sic contra, rebus mutatis, admirationi erit honos ipsi ha∣bitus.

Hee speaks of Jeremiah, sometimes in the second, sometimes in the third Person, which is frequent with the Hebrews: As many wondered that so excellent a person should so vilely be dealt with, be thrust into Prison, and then into a miry lake, and there to pine with stinke, and want of food: So on the contrary, affaires being changed, the Honour afforded him, shall be matter of admiration.

1. To grant the first observation▪ as to the change of Per∣sons* 1.1297 in the discourse, the word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be astonied) here u∣sed, signifies not every slight Admiration, by wondering upon any occasion, or that may be a little more then ordinary: but mostly, an Astonishment arising from the contemplation of some ••uthfull spectacle. So Levit. 26. 32. I will bring the Land into deso∣lation,

and the Enemies which dwell therein, shall be astonied at it; and the word is neer twenty times used to the same purpose. This by way of diminution is made, mirati sunt, admirationi erit.

2. This Astonishment of men, is by Grotius referred both to* 1.1298 the dejection, and Exalta••ion of Ieremiah, whereof there is nothing in the words. It is the Amazement of en, at the despicable con∣dition of him, that is spoken of, only, that is intended; but with∣out intruding something of his Exaltation, this discourse had wanted all colour or pretext.

3. Was it so great a matter in Ierusalem, that a Prophet should be put in Prison, there, where they imprisoned, stoned, tor∣tured, and slew them almost all, one after another, in their se∣verall Generations, that it should be thus prophesyed of, as a thing that men would, and should be amazed at? Was it any wonder at all in that Citty, whose streets not long before, had runne with the blood of innocent men, that a Prophet, should be cast into Prison? Or was this peculiar to Ieremiah to be dealt so withall? Is it any matter of Astonishment to this very day? Was his Honour afterward, such an amazing thing, in that for a little season he was suffered to go at Liberty, and had victualls given him? Was not this, as to the thing it selfe, common to him with many Hundred others? Were his afflictions such, as to be beyond compare with those of any man, or any of the Sons of men? Or his Honours such, as to dazle the eyes of men with Admiration and Astonishment? Let a man dare to make bold with the word of God▪ and he may make as many such Appli∣cations as he pleaseth, and find out what Person he will, to an∣swer all the Prophecies of the Messiah. This not succeeding, let us try the next verse.

So shall he sprinkle many Nations; the Kings shall shut their mouthes* 1.1299 at him: for that which had not been told them, shall they see, and that which they had not heard, shall they consider.

Ita asperget gentes multas] in Hebr▪ sic asperget; ut responde•••• illi sicut, quod praecessit. Multo••ex Gentibus ab Idolorum cultu ••vertet. Similitudo sumpta ab aspersionibus Legalibus; unde & Chaldae•••• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est ••bjurgari. At LXX habent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. non malè, nam mirari est aspergi fulgore alicujus.

In the Hebrew it is, So he shall sprinkle, that it might answer to the, As, that went before. He shall turne many of the Nations from the

worship of Idols. A similitude taken from the Legall wash∣ings. whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Chaldees is to rebuke. The LXX render it. So shall many Nations wonder at him: not bad∣ly▪ For to wonder is as it were, to be sprinkled with any ones brightnesse.

For the Exposition of the words.

1. We agree that it is, So he shall sprinkle: an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, relating* 1.1300 to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 14. As many were astonied, &c. The great work of Christ, and his exaltation therein, being rendred in oppo∣sition to his Humiliation, and Dejection before mentioned: As he was in so meane a condition, that men were astonied at him, so he shall be exalted, in his great work of converting the Na∣tions, to their Admiration.

2. It is granted, that the Expression, he shall sprinkle, is an Al∣lusion* 1.1301 to the legall washings, and purifications, which as they were typicall of reall Sanctification, and Holinesse; so from them is the Promise thereof so often expressed in the termes of washing and cleansing, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. the Terme being preser∣ved and used in the New Testament frequently; the Blood of Christ, whereby this work is done, being therefore called the Blood of sprinkling; Eph. 5. 25, 26. Heb. 9. 14. The pouring out of the Spirit by Jesus Christ, for the purifying, and sanctifying of ma∣ny Nations, not the Iews only, but the Children of God throughout the World, by Faith in his Blood, is that which is here intended. What the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Chaldee to this purpose, is, I know not.

3. The LXX have very badly rendred the words, Many Nations* 1.1302 shall wonder at him; both as to words & sence. For 1. as the words will not beare it; so 2. they make that the Action of the Nations towards Christ, which is his towards thē; They loose the whole sence of the words, & what they say, falls in with what fol∣lowes, & is cleerly expressed. 3. It is not helped by the Expla∣nation given to it, by the Annotator. The First expression is Meta∣phorical, which the LXX render by a word proper, remote from the sence intended; which the Annotator explaines by another meta∣phor. By which kind of proceedure, men may lead words and senses whither and which way they please.

4. For the Accommodation of the words to Ieremiah; how* 1.1303 did he sprinkle many Nations; so as to answer the type of Legall

cleansing? Did he poure out the Spirit upon them? Did he san∣ctify, and make them holy? Did he purge them from their ini∣quities? But he turned many amongst the Nations, from the worship of Idols: But who told Grotius so? Where is it written or recor∣ded? He prophesyed indeed of the desolation of Idolls and Idola∣ters: Of the Conversion of many; of any among the Heathen by his Preaching, he being not purposely sent to them, what evi∣dence have we? If a man may faine what he please, and affixe it to whom he please, he may make whom he will to be foretold in any Prophesy.

Kings shall shut their mouth at him.] Reges, ut Nebuchodonosor Chal∣daeorum,* 1.1304 & Nechos Aegyptiorum, eorum{que} Satrapae admirabuntur cum si∣lentio, ubi videbunt omnia, quae dixit Ieremias ad amussim & suis tempo∣ribus impleta.

Kings, as Nebuchodonosor of the Chaldees, & Necho of the Aegyptians, and their Princes, shall admire with silence, when they shall see all things foretold by Ieremiah come to passe exactly, and to be fulfilled in their own time.

That by this Expression, Wonder and Amazement is inten∣ded, is agreed: As men, all sorts of men before were astonied at his low condition; so even the greatest of them shall be Asto∣nied at the prosperity of his worke and Exaltation. The Rea∣son of this their shutting their mouthes in silence and Admiration, is, from the work which he shall doe; that is, he shall sprinkle ma∣ny Nations; as is evident from the following reason assigned: for that which hath not been told them, shall they see; which expresseth the Meanes whereby he should sprinkle many Nations, even by the Preaching of the Gospell to their Conversion.

For the Application hereof to Ieremiah. 1. That the Kings* 1.1305 mentioned did so become silent with Admiration at him and Asto∣nishment, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and all these magnificent thoughts of the Chaldeans dealing with Ieremiah, is built only on this; that look∣ing on him, as a man that had disswaded the Iews from their Rebellion against them, and rebuked all their wickednesse, and foretold their ruine, they gave him his Life, and Liberty. 2. The Reason assigned by Grotius, why they should so admire him, is for his predictions: but the Reason of the great Amazement and Astonishment at him, in the Text, is his sprinkling of many Na∣tions: so that nothing, not a word, or expression doth here agree to

him. Yea this Glosse is directly contrary to the letter of the Text.

The close of these words is; That which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard, shall they consider. Of which he sayes; They shall see that come to passe, foreseen and foretold by him, which they not heard of by their Astrologers or Magitians.

1. But what is it, that is here intended? The desolation of* 1.1306 Ierusalem: That was it which Ieremiah foretold; upon the ac∣count whereof he had that respect with the Chaldees, which through the mercy of God he obtained. Is this that which is thus emphatically exprest; That which they had not heard, that which they had not been told, this they should see, this they should consider. That this is directly spoken of Jesus Christ, that he is the thing which they had not seen, or heard of, the Apostle tells us, Rom. 15. 21. Strange that this should be the desolation of Iersalem. 2. It is probable that the Magicians and Astrologers, whose life and trade it was to flatter their Kings with hope of successe in their Warres, and undertaking, had foretold the taking of Jeru∣salem, considering that the King of the Chaldees, had used all* 1.1307 manner of divinations, before he undertook the warre against it. It is too much trouble to abide on such vain imaginations. Nor doth Grotius take any care to evidence, how that which he delivers as the sence of the words, may so much as be typi∣cally spoken of Jesus Christ, or be any way accommodated to him.

The Prophet proceeds Chap. 53. with the same continued* 1.1308 discourse. Who hath believed our report; and to whom is the Arme of the Lord revealed? which words are thus illustrated by the An∣notator.

Vultis scire, inquit, quis ille sit futurus de quo caepi agere, qui & meis prophetiis plenam habebit fidem, & ipse ae maximis rebus, quas potentia Dei peraget, revelationes accipiet exactissimas, omnibus circumstantiis ad∣ditis: Dabo vobis geminas ejus notas, unde cognosci possit: Hae notae in Ieremiam quidem congruunt prius, sed potius in Christum

Will you know, saith he, who he shall be, of whom I have begun to treat? Who shall both fully believe my Prophecies, and shall himselfe receive most exact Revelations of the great things that the Power of God shall bring to passe, all the circumstances being added; I will give you two notes of him,

by which he may be known: These notes in the first place a∣gree to Ieremiah; but rather to Christ.

I suppose i•• we had not the Advantage of receiving quite* 1.1309 another Interpretation of these words, from the Holy Ghost himselfe in the New Testament, yet it would not have been easy for any to have swallowed this Glosse, that is as little al∣lyed to the Text, as any thing that can possibly be imagined. The Holy Ghost tells us, that these words are the complaint of the Prophet, and the Church of Believers unto God, concerning the paucity of them that would believe in Christ, or did so be∣lieve, when he was exhibited in the flesh: the power of the Lord with him for our Salvation, being effectually revealed to very few of the Jewes: so Ioh. 12. 37, 38. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that the saying of Isaias the Prophet might be fulfilled, Lord who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arme of the Lord been revealed? So Rom▪ 10. 16. But they have not obeyed the Gospell; for Isaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

••. Let us now a little compare these severall Interpretati∣ons:* 1.1310 Who hath believ••d our report? Lord how few do believe on Christ, working miracles himself▪ & preached by the Apostles? Jeremiah shall b••lieve my▪ Prophecies, saith Grotius. To whom is the arme of the Lord revealed? To how few is the power of God unto salvation made known by the Holy Ghost? Ieremiah also shall have cleer rev••lations, saies Grotius. And this is counted Learnedly to interpret the Scriptures; and every day are such Annotations on the Scriptue multiplied.

3. It is not then the Prophets prediction of what he should do,* 1.1311 of whom he treats, what he should Believe, what he should Re∣ceive, whereof there is notice given in this verse; but what o∣thers shall doe in reference to the Preaching of him; they shall not believe, Who hath believed?

4. The Annotator tells us, these words do agree to Chrst* 1.1312 chiefly, and magis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This then must be the signification of them, according to his Interpretation, in relation unto Christ: He shall believe the Prophesies of Isaiah, and receive revelations of his own. For my part I am rather of the mind of Iohn and Paul, concerning these words, then of the Learned Annotator's▪

5. There is no mention of describing the person spoken of,

by two notes: but in the first words the Prophet enters upon the description of Christ, what he was, what he did, and suffered for us, which he pursues to the end of the Chapter.

V. 2. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a ro••••* 1.1313 out of a dry ground; he hath no forme nor comelinesse, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty, that we should desire him.] An entrance is made in these words, into the account that the Prophet intends to give, why so few believed in Christ the Messiah, when he came, after they had looked for him, and desired him so long, namely his great unsuitablenesse to their Expectation; They looked for a Person shining in Honour and Glory, raysing a vi∣sible pompous terrene Kingdome, whereof they should be made par∣takers. But Christ, when he comes indeed, grows up both in his humane nature, and his Kingdome, as a tender plant, obnoxious to the incursions of Beasts, Winds, and Stormes, and treading on of every one; yet preserved by the providence of God, under whose eye, and before whom he grew up, he shall prosper; and he shall be as a Root preserved in the dry ground of the parcht house of David, and poore Family of Mary and Ioseph, every way outwardly contemptible; so that from thence none could look for the Springing of such a branch of the Lord. And whereas they expected that he should appeare with a great deale of outward forme, Lovelinesse, Beauty, and every thing that should make a Glorious Person desireable, when they come to see him, indeed, in his outward condition, they shall not be able to discover a∣ny thing in the World, for which they should desire him, own him, or receive him. And therefore after they shall have gone forth upon the report that shall goe of him, to see him, they shall be offended and returne, and say, Is not this the Carpenters sonne, and are not his Brethren with us? This sword of the Lord, which lyes at the Heart of the Jewes to this day, the Learned Annotator labours to ••ase them of, by accommodating these words to Ieremiah; which through the favour of the Reader, I shall no otherwise refute, then by its repetition: For he shall grow up before the Lord as a tender plant; Jeremiah shall serve God in his Propheticall Office, whilest he is young: And as a root out of a dry ground: He shall be borne at Anathoth, a poor village. He hath no forme nor comelinesse: He shall be heavy and Sad. And when we see him &c. He shall not have an amiable countenance. Who

might not these things be spoken of him that was a Prophet, if the name of Anathoth be left out and some other supplyed in the roome thereof?

The third verse pursues the description of the Messiah in re∣spect of his abject outward condition, which▪ being of the same import with the former, and it being not my ayme to comment on the Text, I shall passe by.

V. 4. Surely he hath borne our griefes and carryed our sorrowes: Yet* 1.1314 we did esteeme him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.] Having for∣merly given the sence of these words, and vindicated them from the Exceptions of the Socinians, I shall do▪ no more but ani∣madvert upon their accommodation to Ieremiah by Grotius. Thus then he,

Vere languore•• nostros ipse tulit.] Ille non talia meritus, mala subiit quae nos eramu•• meriti. Haec omnia ait Iudaeos dicturos post captam urbem He that deserved no such thing underwent the evills that we had deserved. All these things he saith the Iewes shall say after the taking of the Citty.

It is of the unworthy dealing of the Iewes with the Prophet in Ierusalem during the seige, that he supposes these words are spoken, and spoken by the Iewes after the taking of the Citty. The summe is, when he was so hardly treated, we deserved it, even to be so dealt withall, not he, who delivered the word of God.

But 1. The words are, he bare our griefes, and carryed our sorrowes:* 1.1315 That by our griefes & sorrowes our sins, and the punishment due to them are intended, hath been declared. That the force of the words bearing and carrying do evince, that he tooke them upon himselfe, hath also been manifested. That he so tooke them, as that God made them meet upon him in his Justice, hat likewise been proved. That by his bearing of them we come to have peace, and are freed▪ shall be farther cleared; as it is ex∣pressly mentioned, v. 5, 11. Let us now▪ see how this may be ac∣commodated to Ieremiah: Did he undergoe the punishment due to the sinnes of the Jewes? Or did they beare their own sinnes? Did God cause their sinnes to meet on Him, then when he bare them, or is it not expressly against his Law, that one should beare the sinnes of another? Were the Jewes freed▪ Had they peace by Ieremiah's sufferings? Or rather did they not

hasten their utter ruine? If this be to interpret the Scripture, I know not what it is to corrupt it.

2. There is not the least▪ evidence, that the Iewes had any* 1.1316 such thoughts, or were at all greatly troubled after the taking of the City by the Chaldeans, concerning their dealings with Jeremiah; whom they afterwards accused to his face, of being a false Prophet, and lying to them in the name of the Lord. Neither are these words supposed to be spoken by the Jewes, but by the Church of God.

Et nos ex••stimavimus eum percussum (leprosum v. 6.) vulneratum &* 1.1317 a Deo humiliatum] Nos credidimus Jeremiam merito conjectum in car∣••erem & lacū, Deo illum exosum habente, ut hostem Ʋrbis, Templi, & Pseu∣doprophetam. We believed that Ieremiah w••s deservedly cast into the prison and mire, God hating him as an enemy of the City and Temple, and as a false Prophet. But

1. These words may be thus applyed to any Prophet what∣ever, that suffered Persecution & martyrdom from the Jewes, as who of thē did not, the one or the other? For they quickly saw their errour and mistake as to one, though at the same time they fall upon another; as our Saviour upbraideth the Pharisees.

Nor

2. Was this any such great matter, that the Jewes should think a true Prophet to be a false Prophet, and therefore deser∣vedly punished, as in the Law was appointed, that it should thus signally be foretold concerning Ieremiah. But that the Sonne of God, the Sonne and heire of the Vineyard, should be so dealt withall, this is that the Prophet might well bring in the Church thus signally complaining of. Of him to this day are the thoughts of the Jewes no other then as here recorded, which they expresse by calling him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The reason of the low condition of the Messiah, which was so* 1.1318 misapprehended of the Jewes, i•• rendred in the next verse, and their mistake rectifyed.

But he was wounded for our transgress••ons, he was bruised for our ini∣quities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we ••re h••aled▪

I suppose it▪ will not be questioned, but that these words be¦long to our Blessed Saviour, and that Redemption which he wrought for us by his death and blood. Not only the full ac∣complishment

of the thing it selfe, as delivered in the New Te••••ament, but the quotation of the words themselves, to that end and purpose 1 Pet. 2. 24. do undenyably evince it. In what sence the words are to be understood of him, we have former∣ly declared. That in that sence they are applicable to any o∣ther will not be pleaded. That they have any other sence is yet to be proved. To this, thus the Annotator.

Ipse autem vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras] in Hebraeo. At* 1.1319 vero ipse vulneratus est (id est, male tractatus est) crimine nostro: in nobis culpa fuit, non in ipso: Sic & quod sequitur, Attritus est per culpam nostrorum: Iniquissima de eo sens••mus & propterea crudeliter eum tractavimus: id nunc rebus ipsis appare••: Similia dixerant Judaei qui se converterunt die Pentecostes: & de••nceps.

But he was wounded for our transgressions] in the Hebrew, But he was wounded (that is, evilly entreated) by our fault. The fault was in us, not in him: And so that which followes: He was bruised by our fault: we thought ill of him, and therefore handled Him cruelly: This now is evident from the things themselves: The like things said the Iewes who converted themselves on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards.

The Reading of the words must first be considered, and then* 1.1320 their sence and meaning: For against both these doth the Lear∣ned Annotate•• transgresse, perverting the former, that he might the more easily wr••st the latter. He was wounded for our sinnes [crimine nostro] by our crime; that is, it was our fault not▪ his, that he was so evilly dealt with. And not to insist on the word, wounded or tor∣mented with pain, which is slightly interpreted by evil-entreated, the question is, whether the efficient, or procuring and meritorious cause o•• Christs wounding be here expressed.

2. The words used to expresse this cause of wounding are* 1.1321 two, and both Emphaticall: the first is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he was wounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ for our prevarications, our proud transgres∣sing of the Law▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, est rebellare, & exire a voluntate Domini, vel praecepto, ex superb••a: R. D. in Mich••. It is properly to ••ebell a∣gainst man or God; Against man▪ 2 King. 3. 7. The King of Moab 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath rebelled against me: and Ch 8. v. 20. In his daies Edom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rebelled: as also against God, Isa. 1. ••. I have brought up Chil∣dren, and they 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have rebelled against mee. Nor is i•• used in a∣ny other sence in the Scripture, but for Pr••varication and Rebel∣lion

with an high hand, and through pride: The other word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He was bruised 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for our iniquities; The word signifies, a declining from the right way, with perversity and fro∣wardnesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, est iniquè vel perversè agere; propriè curvum esse, vel incurvari; so that all sorts of sinnes, are here Emphatically and Distinctly expressed, even the greatest Rebellion, and most perverse, crooked turning aside from the waies of God.

3. Their Causality, in reference to the wounding of him here* 1.1322 mentioned, is expressed in the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 min, which pro∣perly is de, ex▪ à, è, from, or for. Now to put an issue to the sence of these words, and thence, in a good measure, to the sence of this place, let the Reader consult the Collections of the use of this Preposition in Pagnine, Buxtorf, Calasius, or any other; when he finds it with sin as here, and relating to punishment, if he find it once to signify any thing but the meritorious procuring cause of punishment, the Learned Annotator may yet enjoy his in∣terpretation in quietnesse. But if this be so? If this Expression do constantly and perpetually denote the impulsive procuring cause of punishment; it was not well done of him, to leave the preposition quite out in the first place, and in the next place so to expresse it, as to confine it to signify the efficient cause of what is affirmed.

This being then the reading of the words, He was wounded or tormented for our sins: The sence as relating to Jesus Christ, is manifest. When we thought he was Justly for his own sake, as a Seducer, and Malefactor, smitton of God, he was then under the Punishment due to our Iniquities; was so tormented for what we had deserved. This is thus rendred by our Annotator. Jeremiah was not in the fault, who Prophesyed to us, but we, that he was so evil∣ly dealt with: He was bruised for our Iniquities, that is, we thought hard of him, and dealt evilly with him; which may passe with the former.

The LXX render these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.1323 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Rightly! to be wounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is to be wounded for, and not by sinne, no otherwise then that also signifies the impulsive cause. And the Chaldee Paraphrast, not able to avoid the cleernesse of the Expression, denoting the meritorious cause of Punishment, and yet not understanding how the Messiah should be wounded,

or punished, he thus rendred the words: Et ipse aedificabit do∣mum Sanctuarii nostri, quod violatum est propter peccata nostra, & tradi∣tum est propter iniquitates nostras.

He shall build the House of our Sanctuary, which was violated for our sinnes (that is, as a punishment of them) and delivered for our iniquities.

So he: not being able to offer sufficient violence to the phrase of ex∣pression, nor understanding an Accommodation of the words to him spoken of, he leaves the words, with their own proper sig∣nificancy, but turnes their intendment, by an addition to them, of his own.

Proceed we to the next words, which are exegeticall of* 1.1324 these: He was wounded for our sinnes; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed. Of these thus the An∣notator

Disciplina pacis nostrae super eum] apud eum, id est, monitis, nobis attulit salutaria, si ea reciperemus.

He gave us wholsome warnings, if we would have received them.

But 1. there is in this sence of the words, nothing Peculiar to Ieremiah; All the rest of the Prophets did so, and were reje∣cted no lesse then he.

2. The words are not, He gave us good Counsel, if we would have* 1.1325 taken it: But, The Chastisement of our Peace was upon him. And what affinity there is between these two Expressions, that the one of them should be used for the Explication of the other, I professe I know not; Peter expounds it by, He bare our sinnes in his own body on the Tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24.

3. The word rendred by us, Chastisement; by the vulgar Latin••* 1.1326 which Grotius followes, disciplina, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Musar; which as it hath its first signification to learne, so it signifies also to correct, because Learn••ng is seldome carried on without correction; and thence disciplina signifies the same. Now what is the Correction of our Peace? Was it the Instruction of Christ, not that he gave, but that he had, that we have our Peace by? The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he renders, apud eum, contrary to the known sence of the word; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to ascend, to lift up, to make to ascend; a word of most fre∣quent use; thence is the word used, rendred super; intimating that the Chastisement of our Peace was made to ascend on him; as Peter expresseth the sence of this place; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: he carried up our sins

on his body on the Tree; they were made to ascend on him. The LXX render the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Vulgar Latine super eum: And there is not the least colour for the Annotators, Apud eum. Now the Chastisement of our Peace, that is, the punishment that was due, that we might have peace, or, whereby we have peace with God, was upon him; is (it seems) He gave us good Coun∣sell and admonition, if we would have followed it.

4. Here is no word expressing any act of the person spoken* 1.1327 of, but his suffering or undergoing punishment. But of this enough.

Et livore ejus sanati sumus] Livore ejus, id est, ipsius patientiae,* 1.1328 nos sanati fuissemus, id est, liberati ab impendentibus malis, si verbis ipsius, tanta malorum tolerantia confirmatis, habuissemus fidem. Hebraei potentialem modum aliter quàm per indicativum exprimere nequeunt; ideo multa adhibenda attentio ad consequendos sensus.

With his stripes we are healed.] with his wound, or sore, or stripe, that is, by his Patience we might have been healed; that is, freed from impendent evills, had we believed his words, confir∣med with so great bearing of evills. The Hebrews cannot expresse the Potentiall mood, but by the Indicative: there∣fore much attention is to be used to find out the sence.

I cannot but professe, that setting aside some of the monstrous* 1.1329 figments of the Iewish Rabbins, I never in my whole life, met with an Interpretation of Scripture, offering more palpable vio∣lence to the Words, then this of the Annotator. Doubtlesse to repeate it, with all Sober men, is sufficient to confute it. I shall briefely adde;

1. The Prophet saies, we are healed: the Annotator, we might have been healed, but are not.

2. The healing in the Prophet, is by deliverance from sinne, mentioned in the words foregoing: and so interpreted by Peter, 1 Ep. 2. 24. whereby we have Peace with God, which we have. The healing in the Annotator, is the deliverance from destructi∣on by the Chaldeans which they were not delivered from, but might have been.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chabura, in the Prophet, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Peter; but pa∣tience in the Annotator.

4. By his stripes we are healed, is in the Annotator, By hearkning to him we might have been healed; or delivered from the evills

threatned, by his stripes; that is, by hearkning to his Counsell, when he endured evills patiently; we are healed, that is, we might have been delivered, but are not.

5. As to the Reason given of this Interpretation, that the Hebrews have no Potentiall Mood, I shall desire to know who compel'd the Learned Annotator to suppose himselfe wiser then the Holy Ghost, 1 Pet. 2. 24. to wrest these words into a Poten∣tiall signification, which he expresseth directly, actually, Indicative∣ly. For a Iew to have done this out of hatred and enmity to the Crosse of Christ, had been tolerable: but for a man profes∣sing himselfe a Christian, it is somewhat a strange attempt.

6. To close with this verse; we do not esteeme our selves at* 1.1330 all beholding to the Annotator, for allowing an Accommodati∣on of these words to our blessed Saviour; affirming, that the Jewes, who converted themselves (for so it must be expressed, least any should mistake, and think their Conversion to have been the work of the Spirit, and Grace of God) on the day of Pentecost, used such words, as those that the Jewes are fained to use, in re∣ference to Ieremiah. It is quite of another businesse that the Pro∣phet is speaking; not of the sinne of the Jewes in crucifying Christ, but of all our sinnes, for which he was crucifyed;

—Munera quidem misit, sed misit in hame.

V. 6. All we like sheep are gone astray, we are turned every one to his* 1.1331 own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Grotius. Erraveramus a Manassis temporibus, alii ad alia idola: Et permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indigna pateretur. We have all erred from the dayes of Manasseh, some fol∣lowing some Idols, others others: And God permitted that he by our grie∣vous crime should suffer most unworthy things.

Though the words of this verse are most important, yet ha∣ving at large before insisted on the latter words of it, I shall be briefe in my Animadversions on the signall depravation of them by the Learned Annotator. Therefore.

1. Why is this Confession of sinnes restrained to the* 1.1332 times of Manasseh? and not afterwards? The expression is universall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all of us: and a man to his owne way. And if these words may be allowed to respect Jesus Christ at all, they will not beare any such restriction. But this is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this interpretation; that these are the

words of the Jewes after the destruction of Jerusalem; which are the words of the converted Jewes and Gentiles, after the suf∣fering of Jesus Christ.

2. Why is the sinne confessed, restrained to Idolatry? Mens* 1.1333 own wayes which they walk in, when they turne from the wayes of God, and know not the wayes of peace, comprehend all their evills of every kind, that their hearts and lives are in∣fected withall.

3. The last words are unworthy a person of much lesse learn∣ing,* 1.1334 and Judgement then the Annotatour. For

1. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hiphghiah (of which before) is inter∣preted without pretence▪ warrant, or colour, Permisit God per∣mit••ed. But of that word sufficiently before.

2. By his suffering unworthy things through our fault, he understands not the meritorious cause of his suffering, but the meanes whereby he suffered; even the unbeliefe & Cruelty of the Iewes, which is most remote from the sence of the place.

3. He mentions here distinctly, the fault of them that speake, and his suffering that is spoken of. Permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indigna pateretur: when in the Text the fault of them that speake, is the suffering of him that is spoken of. Our iniquities were laid on him; that is, the punishment due to them.

4. His suffering in the Text is Gods act: in the Annotations, the Iewes only.

5. There is neither sence nor coherence in this Interpreta∣tion of the words. We have all sinned, and followed Idols: and God hath suffered him to be evilly intreated by us: When the whole context evidently gives an account of our deserving, and the wayes whereby we are delivered: And therein a reason of the low and abject condition of the Messiah in this world. But of this at large elsewhere.

Vers. 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he* 1.1335 opened not his Mouth: he is brought as a Lambe to the slaughter, and as a sheepe before her sharers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

Oblatus est, quia ipse voluit, & non aperuit os suum] in Hebr. oppressus. & afflictus fuit, & non aperuit os suum. Sensum bene expresserunt LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Etiam tunc cum in Carcerem ageretur, & in locum lutosum nihil fecit, dixitve iracunde.

Sicut ovis] initissimum animal.

Et quasi agnus] cum quo ipse Ieremias se comparat, Cap. 11. v. 18.

He was offered because he would, and he opened not his mouth] in the Hebrew, he was oppressed and afflicted.

The LXX have well expressed the sence. Because of affliction he opened not his mouth: Even then when he was thrown into the prison and mire, he neither did, nor spake any thing angrily.

As a Sheep] a most mild Creature.

And as a Lamb] wherewith Jeremiah compares himselfe, Chap. 11. v. 18.

The processe of the words is to give an account of the same* 1.1336 matter formerly insisted on, concerning ones suffering for the sinne of others. That the words are spoken of the Lord Jesus, the Holy Ghost hath long since put it out of question, Act. 8. 32. And though there be some difficulty and variety in the Inter∣pretation of the first words, yet his patient suffering as the lamb of God, typed out by all the Sac••••fices of the Jewes, under the punishment due to our sinnes, shines through the whole.

1. For the words themselves they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are variously rend••ed: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 LXX.* 1.1337 And he for, or because of affliction. Oblatus est quia ipse voluit. Vulg. Lat. He was offered because he would. Oppressus est & ipse afflictus est. Arias Mont. Exigitur & ipse affligitur, Jun it was exacted, and he was afflicted. Others, It was exacted, and he answ••red, which seemes most to agree with the Letter; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is some∣times written with the point on the right corner of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and then it signifies to approach, to draw nigh; and in the matter of Sacrifice it signifies to offer, because men drew nigh to the Lord in offering. So Amos 5. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Have you made to draw nigh your offerings and Sacrifices? Or have you offered? Thus the Vulg. Lat. read the word, and rendred it Oblatus est, he was offe∣r••d. With the point in the left corner, it is to exact, to require, to afflict, to oppresse. To exact and require at the hands of any, is the most common sence of the word. So 2 King. 23. 25. Jehoja∣chim exacted silver and gold of the people of the Land. Thence

is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Exactour, one that requires what is imposed on men Zec. 9. 8. & 10. 4. Being used here in a passive sence, it is, it was exacted, and required of him. that is, the punishment due to our sinnes was required of Jesus Christ having undertaken to be a sponsor: And so Junius hath supplyed the words: Exigi∣tur paena, Punishment was exacted. And this is more proper, then what we read, He was oppressed; though that also be significant of the same thing. How the punishment of our sinne was exacted or required of Jeremiah, the Annotatour declares not.

The other word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naanch; the Vulg. Lat. seemes to* 1.1338 looke to the active use of the word, to answer; and therefore renders it voluit; he would, he willingly submitted to it, or he undertook to do that which was exacted. And much may be said for this interpretation from the use of the word in Scrip∣tur••. And then the sence will be, it was exacted of him; or our pu∣nishment was required of him, & he undertook it with willing∣nesse, & patience: so it denotes the will of Christ in undergoing the penalty due to our sinnes, which he expresseth Psal. 40. 8. Heb. 10. 6, 7. Take it in the sence wherein it is most commonly used, and it denotes the event of the exacting the penalty of our sinnes of him: He was afflicted. In what sence this may possibly be applyed to Ieremiah, I leave to the Annotatour's friends to find out.

The next words, He opened not his mouth, he applyes unto the Pa∣tience* 1.1339 of Ieremiah, who did neither speak, nor do any thing angrily when he was cast into prison. Of that honour which we owe to all the Saints departed, and in an especiall manner to the great builders of the Church of God, the Prophets and Apo∣stles, this is no small part, that we deliver them from under the burthen of having that ascribed to them, who are members, which is peculiar to their head. I say then, the perfect submission and patience expressed in these words, was not found in holy Ieremiah, who in his Affliction and triall opened his mouth, and cursed the day wherein he was borne: & when he says that himself was as a Lamb, and as an Oxe appointed to the slaughter, in the same place, and at the same time he prayes for vengeance on his Adversaries, Ierem. 11. 19. in those words, not denoting his pa∣tience, but his being exposed to their cruelty.

V. 8. He was taken from prison and from judgement, and who* 1.1340 shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he smitten.

The person speaking is here changed, as is manifest from the closed of the verse, for the transgression of my people; who were the speakers before. These then are the words of God by the Pro∣phet: and they are not without their difficulties, concerning which the Reader may consult Commentatours at large. Grotius thus

De carcere & judicio ablatus est] id est, liberatus tandem: Judicium vocat hoc, quia specie judicii ipsi haec mala imposita fuerunt. Jerem. 32.* 1.1341 3. liberatur autem per Babylonios. Generationem ejus quis enarrabit?] Quis numerare poterit dies vitae ejus? id est, erit valde longaevus. Quia abscissus est de terra viventium] nempe cum actus fuit primum in car∣cerem, deinde in lacum illum caenosum, & rursum in carcerem.

He was taken from prison and judgement.] that is, he was at length delivered. He calls it judgement, because these evills were imposed on him with a pretence of Judgement. But he was freed by the Babylonians: Who shall declare his gene∣ration?] Who shall be able to number the dayes of his life? that is, He shall live very long. For he was cut off out of the land of the living] namely, when he was throwne into the prison, and then into the miery pit, and then into prison a∣gaine.

He adds, Propter scelus populi mei percussi eum] in Heb. est plaga ipsi (supple supervenit) populi summo errore, ac crimine, ut ante dictum est.

For the wickednesse of my people I have stricken him] in the Hebrew it is, Stroke i•• on him (that is, befell him) through the great errour and fault of the people, as it before said. So farre he.

The sence of these words being a little tryed out, their ap∣plication will be manifest. The first words are not without* 1.1342 their difficulty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from prison say we. The word is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prohibere, coercere; to forbid and restraine: and is no where used for a prison directly. The LXX have rendred it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his humility or humiliati∣on, his Judgement or sentence was taken away, refer∣ring one of the words to one thing, and another to another. The Vulgar Latine, Angustia: Arias Mountanus, clausura: Junius, per coarctationem: rendring the preposition by, not from. The

word is rendred by us, oppression: Psal. 107. 39. it is at the ut∣most in reference to a Prison, claustrum, a place where any may be ••hut up: but may as well be rendred Angustia, with the Vulgar Latine; better coarctation, with Junius, being taken for any kind of st••ait and restraint. And indeed properly our Saviour was not cast into a Prison, though he was all night un∣der restaint. If the intendment of the words be about what he was d••livered from under which he was; and not what he was delivered from, that he should not undergoe it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and from judgement, there is no difficulty in the word. Only whose judgement it is, that he was taken from, is worth inquiry; whi∣ther that of God or man▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was taken, ublatus est. The Vulgar Latine, he was taken up. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is capere, accipere, fe••re, tollere, a word of very large use, both in a good, and in a bad sence; to be taken up, it will scarcely be found to signify; to be taken a∣way, very often.

Now the sence of these words is, that either Christ was* 1.1343 taken away, that is, killed and slaine by his pressures, and the pre∣tended judgement that was passed on him, or else that he was de∣livered from the straights and judgement, that might have come upon him. Although he was so afflicted, yet he was taken away from distresse & judgement. Iunius would have the former sence: & the exegesis of the word, taken away, by the following words he was cut off from the Land of the Living, seeme to require it: In that sence the words are, B••durance, restraint, affliction & judgement, either the Righteous Judgment of God, (as Iunius) or the pre∣tended▪ juridicall processe of men, he was taken away or slain. If I go off from this sence of the words, of all other apprehensions, I should cleave to that of eternall restraint or condemnation, from which Christ was delivered in his greatest distresse, Isa. 50. 7, 8. Heb. 5. 7. Though his Afflictions were g••eat, and his pressures sore, yet he was delivered from eternall restraint and Condemna∣tion; it being not possible that he should be detained of death.

Applying all this to Ieremiah, sayes Grotius, he was delivered* 1.1344 from prison and judgement by the Babylonians That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is delive∣red, & that he was delivered by the Babylonians frō judgment, after that judgment had passed on him, & sentence been executed for many moneths, is strange. But let us proceed to what followes.

Who shall declare his generation? Who shall speak it, or be able

to speak it? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his generation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is aetas, generatio, saeculum: gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; who shall expound his gene∣ration, or declare it: that is, though he be so taken away by opp••ession, and judgement, yet his continuance, his generation, his abiding shall be such, as Quis eloquetur? Who shall speake it? It shall be for ever and ever; for he was to be satisfied with long, or eternall life, and therein to see the Salvation of God.

This is (saies Grotius) Wo can declare the Generation of* 1.1345 Ieremiah? he shall live so great a space of time. He began his Prophesy when he was very young, Ch. 1. v. 5. even in the 13^th yeare of Iosiah: and he continued Prophesying in Ierusalem un∣till the 11^th yeare of Zedekiah, about 40 years: and how long he lived after this is uncertain. Probably he might live in all 60 years; whereas it is evident that Hosea prophesyed 80 years or very neer. Now that this should be so marveilous a thing, that a man should live 60 or 70 years, that God should foretell it, as a strange thing, above twice so many years before, and expresse it by way of admiration, that none should be able to declare it, is such an Interpretation of Scripture, as becomes not the Learned Annotator. Let the Learned Reader consult Abarbinel's Accommodation of these words to Iosiah, and he will see what shifts the poor man is put to, to give them any tolerable sence.

For he was cut off out of the land of the living. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.1346 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His life was taken from the Earth: to the sence, not the letter:] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cut off, as a branch is cut off a tree; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ab∣scindere, succidere, excidere, to cut off. The Land of the living, is the state and condition of them that live in this world; so that to be cut off from the Land of the living, is a proper expression for to be slaine, as in reference to Christ it is expressed by ano∣ther word, Dan. 9. 26. The meaning of this is, saies Grotius, Jere∣miah was cast into the Prison, and into the miery lake. He was cut off out of the Land of the Living; that is, he was put into Prison twice, and taken out againe. If this be not to offer violence to the word of God, I know not what is. The Learned man confesses, that this whole Prophesy belongs to Christ also; but he leaves no sence to the words, whereby they possibly may be applied to him. How was Christ cast into Prison, and a miery pit, and taken out from thence by the way of deliverance?

For the transgression of my People was he stricken. Of the sence of* 1.1347 this expression, that Christ was smitten, or that the stroke of pu∣nishment was upon him for our sinnes, or the sinnes of Gods people, I have spoken before. Grotius would have it, by the sins, that is, the People sinned in doing of it; that is, in putting Jeremiah into Prison. The whole Context evidently manifests, and the Preposition in the Relation wherein it stands to sinne and pu∣nishment, necessarily requires, that the impulsive, and meritori∣ous, not the efficient cause, be denoted thereby.

V. 9. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in* 1.1348 his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Et dabit impios pro sepulturâ & divitem pro morte suâ.]* 1.1349 Illi ipsi interficere eum etiam voluerant, ut legimus Jerem. 26. At Deus istius vice viros potentes quidem, sed improbos, Sacerdotes nempe, mor∣tem Jeremiae machinatos, morti dedit per Chaldaeos, 2 Reg. 25. 18, 19, 20, 21. Nihill illis divitiae suae profuerunt, quibus redimi se posse spe∣raverant. Eò quod iniquitatem non fecerit, ne{que} dolus fuerit in ore ejus.] quanquam nihil aliud dixerat, quàm quod Deus ei man∣daverat.

And he shall give the wicked for his grave or buriall, and the Rich for his death.] They would have slaine him, as we read Ierem. 26. But God gave them, that were very power∣full indeed, but wicked, even the Priests that designed his death, up to Death by the Chaldeans, 2 King. 25. 18. their riches, whereby they hoped to redeeme themselves, profited them nothing.—although he had not said any thing, but what God commanded him.

It is confessed, that the first words are full of difficulty, and* 1.1350 various are the Interpretations of them: which the Reader may consult in Expositours. It is not my work at present to Comment on the Text, but to consider its Accommodation by Grotius. The most single sence of the words to mee seems to bee, that Christ being cut off from the Land of the Living, had his Sepulcher among wicked men, being taken down from the Crosse as a Malefactor, and yet was buried in the Grave of a Rich man, by Joseph of Arimathea in his own grave; the consent of which Interpretation with the Text, is discovered by Forste∣rus and Mercerus, names of sufficient Authority in all Hebrew li∣terature.

The sence that Grotius fixes on, is, that God delivered Ieremiah from death, and gave others to be slaine in his steed, who had contrived his death. But

1. Of deliverance from death here is no mention; yea he,* 1.1351 who is spoken of, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in mortibus ejus, in his deaths, or under death and its power. So that it is not, Others shall dye for him, but, He being dead, under the power of death, his grave, or buriall, or sepulcher, shall be so disposed of.

2. There is not any word spoken of putting others to death; but of giving, or placing his Grave with the wicked. Nor were those mentioned in the 2 King. 25. 18, 19. that were slaine by the King of Babel, as it doth any way appeare, of the peculiar e∣nemies of Ieremiah; the chiefe of th••m S••raiah being pr••bably he, to whom Jeremiah gave his Prophesy against Babylon, who is said to be a quiet Prince, Ierem. 51. 59, 61.

3. It is well that it is granted, that pro is as much as vice: for one, in ones steed: which the Learned Annotators friends will scarce allow.

4. The application of those words, He did no violence, nor was there any deceit found in his mouth, (which are used to expresse the absolutely perfect innocency of the Sonne of God) to any man, who as a man is, or was a lyar, is little lesse then Blasphemy, and to restraine them to the Prophets message from God, is devoid of all pretence of plea.

V. 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he shall put him to griefe: when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne, he shall see* 1.1352 his seed, he shall prolong his daies, and the pleasure of the Lord shall pro∣sper in his hand.

Tamen Deo visum est eum conterere & infirmare.] id est, at∣tenuare fame, illuvie, squalore: verba activa apud Hebraeos saepè* 1.1353 permittendi habent significationem; causa sequitur, cur id Deus permiserit. Si posuerit pro delicto animam suam, videbit semen longae∣vum.] verteris recte: ut cum semetipsum subjecerit paenis, vide∣at semen, diu{que} vivat. Hebraeis paena etiam injuste irrogata 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur, quia infligitur si non sonti, certe quasi sonti; si•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sumi appa∣ret, Gen. 31. 39. Zech. 14. 19. Vixit diu Jeremias in Aegypto.

Yet it seemed good to God to Bruise and Weaken him.] that is, to weaken him, and bring him downe by hunger,

filth, &c. Active verbs among the Hebrews, have often the signification of permitting: the Reason followes, why God suffered this. If he make his soule &c.] You shall rightly read it, that when he hath submitted himselfe to punish∣ments, that then he may see his seed and live long. Amongst the Hebrews punishment un••ustly inflicted, is called asham, because it is inflicted on him that is guilty, or supposed so. So it is evident, that Chata is taken Gen. 31. 39. Zech. 14. 19. Jeremiah lived long in Egypt.

The words and sence are both briefely to be considered. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.1354 voluit, the Lord would bruise him: delectatus est; Jun: It pleased the Lord, say we. The Greek renders this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly; although in the following words it utterly departs from the originall. The word is not only velle, but voluntatem seu compla∣centiam habere, to take delight to doe the thing, and in the do∣ing of it, which we will to be done, Numb. 14. 8. Iudges 13. 23. Our Translation referres it to the Purpose, and good pleasure of God; so is the word used Jonah 1. 14. and in sundry other places. The Noune of the same signification is used ag••ine in this verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and translated▪ the pleasure; The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper; that is, the thing which pleases him, and which he hath purposed to doe. The purpose and pleasure of the Lord in giving Christ up to death, Act. 2. 23. & 4 26, 27▪ is doubtlesse that which the Prophet here intends; which also as to the exe∣cution of it, is farther expressed, Zechar. 13. 7.

2. It pleased the Lord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eum contundere; conterere, frangere:* 1.1355 to bruise, or breake him: in answer to what was said before, v. 5. he was wounded, he was bruised, &c.

That which is said to accommodate all this to Jeremiah, is, that by all this is intended, that God permitted it to be done to him. But,

1. The word Chaphetz is no where used in that sence, nor will* 1.1356 any where beare tha•• Interpretation. And though some active verbs in the Hebrew may be interpreted in a sence of permitting, or suffering the thing to be done, which is said to be done: Yet that all may so be interpreted when we please, without a cogent Reason of such an Interpretation; that this verb signifying not only to will, but with delight and purpose, should be so inter∣preted, and that in this place, not admitting of such a Glosse in

any other place, is that which was needfull to be said by the Learned Annotator; but with what pretence of Reason or Truth, I know not.

2. As to Christ, to whom he confesseth these words proper∣ly* 1.1357 to belong, the proper sence of the word is to be retained, as hath been shewed; and it is very marveilous, the improper sence of the word should be used in reference to him, to whom it nextly belongs; and the proper, in reference to him, who is more remotely, and secondarily signifyed.

For the second passage; when, or if, thou or he shall make his* 1.1358 soule an offering for sinne: or as it may be read, when his soule shall make an offering for sinne; it may relate either to God, giving him up for a Sacrfice, his Soule for his whole humane nature; or to Christ, whose soule was, or who offered himselfe as a Sacrifice to God, Eph. 5. 2. Which way soever it be taken, it is peculiar to Christ; for neither did God ever make any one else an Offering for sinne, nor did ever any person but Christ, make himself an offe∣ring, or had power so to doe, or would have been accepted in so doing. To suit these words to Ieremiah, it is said, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew, signifies any punishment, though unjustly in∣flicted.

I will not say that the Learned Annotator affirmes this, with a* 1.1359 mind to deceive; But yet I cannot but think, that as he hath not given, so he could not give one instance out of the Scripture, of that use of the word which he pretends. This I am sure, that his Assertion hath put me to the labour, of considering all the pla∣ces of Scripture, where the word is used, in the full collections of Calasius; and I dare Confidently assure the Reader, that there is no colour for this Assertion, nor instance to make it good. The Greekes have rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an offering for sinne; as is expressed, Rom. 8. 3 Heb. 10. 5, 8. so the word is used Levit. 5. 16. & 7. 1. But,

If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be not used in that sence, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, in Gen. 31. 39. Z••char. 14 19. But,* 1.1360

1. This doth not satisfie, If this word may not be so interpre∣ted, which is here used; yet another, which is not here used, may be so interpreted; and therefore that which is here used, must have the same sence. Nor,

2. Can he prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath any other signification, but* 1.1361

either of sinne, or punishment, or satisfaction; In the first place instanced in, Gen. 31. 39. Iacob says, that, for that, which was taken away out of the flock of Laban, he expiated it, he made satisfaction for it, as the Law afterwards required in such ca∣ses should be done, Exod. 22. 12. And in that place of Zech. 14. 19. it is precisely punishment for sinne. But this word is not in our Text.

Take then the word in any sence that it will admit of, to ap∣ply this expression to Jeremiah, is no lesse then Blasphemy. To say that either God, or himselfe made him a sacrifice for sinne, is to Blaspheme the one Sacrifice of the Son of God.

For the next words, He shall see his seed, Grotius knowes not* 1.1362 how to make any application of them to Ieremiah, and there∣fore he speaks nothing of them. How they belong to Christ, is evident, Psal 22. 30. Heb. 2, 8, 9. that, he shall prolong his daies, is not applicable to Ieremiah, of whom the Annotator knew not how long he lived in Egypt, hath been formerly declared. Christ prolonged his daies, in that notwithstanding that he was d••ad, he is alive, and lives for ever.

The last clause concerning the prospering of the good pleasure, the* 1.1363 will, and pleasure of the Lord, in the hand of Jesus Christ, for the gathering of his Church, through his blood, and making peace between God and Man, hath little relation to any thing, that is spoken of Jeremiah, whose ministry for the conversion of soules, doth not seem to have had any thing eminent in it above other Prophets; yea falling in a time, when the Wickednesse of the People, to whom he was sent, was come up to the height, his message seemed to be almost totally rejected.

V. 11. He shall see of the travaile of his soule, and shall be satisfied:* 1.1364 By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.

The event, and glorious issue of the suffering of Christ, in re∣spect of himselfe and others, with the Reason thereof, is briefly comprised and expressed in this verse.

Videbit & saturabitur.] videbit diu ad satietatem: simile lequen∣di* 1.1365 genus in Hebraeo. Gen. 25. 8. & 35. 19. 1 Paralip. 23. 1. & 29. 28. 2 Paral. 24. 14.

In scientiâ suâ.] per eam quam habet Dei cognitionem.

Justificabit ipse justus servus meus multos.] Exemplo & insti∣tutione

corriget multos, etiam ex gentibus. Haec est maximè propria verbi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 significatio, & G••aeci 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut apparet Dan. 12. 3. Apo∣cal. 22. 11. & alibi saepè.

Et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit.] id est, auferet, per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia qui sordes aliquas auferunt, solent eos coll•• supposito portare: Abstulit Jeremias multorum peccata, ita ut diximus, corrigendo.

He shall see and be satisfied] he shall see long, unto satie∣ty; the like phrase of speech you have in the Hebrew, Gen. 25. 8. &c. By his knowledge] By that knowledge which he hath of God. He shall justify many.] by his example and institution he shall convert many, even from among the Hea∣then: this is the most proper sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek; as appeareth Dan. 12. 3. Revel. 22. 11. &c. For he shall bare their iniquities] that is, take them away, by a Metonymy: because those that take away filth, use to take it on their necks, and beare it. Ieremiah took a∣way the sinnes of many, as was said, by correcting or amend∣ing them.

The intelligent Reader will easily perceive the whole Socini∣an* 1.1366 poyson, about the Death of Christ, to be infolded in this In∣terpretation. His knowledge is the knowledge that he had of God, and his Will, which he decalres: to justify, is to amend mens lives, and to beare sinne, is to take it away. According to the Analogy of this Faith, you may apply the Text to whom you please, as well as to Ieremiah. But the words are of ano∣ther import, as we shall briefely see.

1. Those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the vulgar Latine ren∣de••s, pro eo quod laboravit: ad verbum, propter laborem animae suae, which expresse the object of the seeing mentioned, and that wherewith he was satisfied, are not taken notice of. The travaile of the soule of Christ, is the fruit of his labour, travaile, and suffer∣ing: this, saies the Prophet, he shall see, that is, receive, perceive, enjoy; as the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in many places signifies: verbes of sence with the Hebrews, having very large significations: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saturabitur, he shall be full, and well contented,, and pleased with the fruit that he shall have of all his labour, and Travaile: This (saith Grotius) is, He shall see to satiety, whereby he intends he should live very long, as is evident from the places whither he sends us, for an Exposition of these words, Gen. 25. 8. &c. in all

which mention is made of men that were old, and full of daies.

1. But to live to satiety, is to live till a man be weary of li∣ving,* 1.1367 which may not be ascribed to the Prophet.

2. This of his long life, was spoken of immediatly before, ac∣cording to the Interpretation of our Annotator, and is not (pro∣bably)inst••ntly again repeated.

3. The long life of Jeremiah by way of eminency above o∣thers, is but pretended; as hath been evinced. But

4. How came this wo••d to see, to be taken neutrally, and to signify to live? What instance of this sence, or use of the word can be given? I dare boldly say, not one: He shall see unto satiety, that is, he shall live long.

5. The words videbit, saturabitur, do not stand in any such relation to one another, or construction, as to endure to be cast into this forme: It is not, videbit diu ad satietatem; much lesse, vivet ad s••tietatem, but videbit, saturabitur.

6. The word shall see, evidently relates to the words going before, the travaile of his soule: if it had been, he shall see many years, or many daies, and be satisfied; it had been something. But it is, He shall see of the travaile of his soule, and be satisfied.

2. By his knowledge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in, or by his knowledge, in sci∣entiâ* 1.1368 suâ, Vulg. Lat. Cognitione sui, Jun. The LXX wholly perv••••t▪ all the words of this verse, except the last, as they do also of the former. That by the knowledge here mentioned, is meant the knowledge of Christ taken objectively, and not the knowledge of God taken actively, as our Annotator supposes, is evident from the fruit that is ascribed hereunto, which is the justification of them that have that knowledge. By his knowledge, that is, the knowledge of him, they shall be justified, Phil: 3 8. So, teach me thy feare, that is, the feare of thee: my worship, that is, the worship of mee. No knowledge of God in the Land. But the use of this is in the next words.

My righteous Servant shall justify many: that this terme used* 1.1369 thus absolutely, My righteous servant, is not applied to any in the Scripture besides Jesus Christ, hath been declared, especially, where that is ascribed to him, which here is spoken of, can it be no otherwise understood. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall justify, that is, shall absolve from their sinnes, and pronounce them Righteous, Gro∣tius would have the word here to signify, to make holy and Righte∣ous

by instruction and institution, as Dan. 12. 3. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Re∣vel. 22. 11. That both these words are to be taken in a forensicall signification, that commonly, mostly they are so taken in the Scriptures, that scarce on•• and another instance can be given to the contrary, that in the matter of our Acceptation with God through Christ, they can no otherwise be interpreted, hath been abundantly manifested by those, who have written of the doctrine of justification at large; that is not now my present busi∣nesse. This I have from the Text, to lay in the way of the In∣terpretation of the Learned Annotator: the Reason, and Foun∣dation of this justification here mentioned, is in the following words, which indeed steere the sence of the whole Text. For he shall bear their iniquities. Now what justification of men is a pro∣per effect of anothers bearing their iniquities? Doubtlesse the acquitting of them from the guilt of their sinnes, on the ac∣count of their sinnes being so borne, and no other. But,

Sayes our Annotatour, To beare their sinnes, is to take them away,* 1.1370 by a figurative expression: If this may not be unde••stood, I suppose every one will confesse, that the Annotator hath labou∣red in vaine, as to his whole endeavour of applying this Prophe∣sy unto Ieremiah▪ If by bearing our iniquities, be intended the undergo∣ing of the punishment of those iniquities, & not the delivering men frō their iniquities, the whole matter here treated of, can relate to none but Iesus Christ, & to him it doth relate in the sence contended for. Now to evince this sence we have al the Arguments that any place is capable to receive the confirmation of its proper sence by.

For 1. The word as is confessed, signifies properly to beare or* 1.1371 carry, and not to take away; Nor is it ever otherwise used in the Scripture, as hath beenn declared, and the the proper use of a word is not to be departed from, & a figurative admitted with∣out great necessity.

2. The whole phrase of speech of bearing iniquity is constant∣ly in the Scripture used for bearing or undergoing the punish∣ment due to sin, as hath been proved by instances in abundance; nor can any instance to the contrary be produced.

3. The manner whereby Christ bare the iniquities of men, as described in this Chapter, namely by being wounded, bruised put to griefe, will admit of no interpretation, but that by us insi∣sted on. From all which it is evident, how violently the Scrip∣ture

is here perverted by rendring, My righteous servant shall justify many, for the shall bear their iniquities, by, Ieremiah shall instruct many in godlinesse and so turne them from their sinnes.

V. the last. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,* 1.1372 and he shall divide the spoile with the strong, because he hath poured out his soule unto death, and he was numbred with transgressors, and he beare the sinnes of many, and made intercession for the Transgressours.

A further fruit of the travaile of the Lord Christ in his con∣quest over all oppositions, in the victory he obtained, the spoiles that he made, expressed after the manner of the things of men, with the causes and antecedents of his Exaltation, is summarily comprised in these last words. Hereof thus Grotius.

Dispartiam ei plurimos.] Dabo ei partem in multis: id est, multos servabunt Chaldaei in ejus gratiam, vide Jerem. 39. 17. Et fortium dividet spolia.] id est, Nabuzardan Magister militum, capta urbe, de praeda ipsi dona mittet. Jer. 40. 5. Oblatus etiam ipsi a Chaldaeis locus quantum vellet. Pro eo quod tradidit in mortem animam suam] in Hebraeo, Quia effudit in mortem animam suam, id est, periculis mortis semet objecit, colendo veritatem quae odium parit. Vide histo∣riam ad hanc rem oppositam, Jerem. 26. 13. Sic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dici pro periculo mortis semet objicere diximus ad Joh. 10. 11. Et com scele∣ratis reputatus est] Ita est tractatus quo modo scelerati solent in carcere, catenis & barathro. Et peccata multorum tulit] pessime tractatus fuit permultorum improbitatem uti sup. v. 5. Et pro Transgressoribus rogavit] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est depr ecari: Sensus est, eo ipso tempore cum tam dura patere tur a populis, non cessavit ad Deum preces pro eis fundere, vide Jerem. 14. 7. &c.

I will divide him a portion with the great, or many] that is,

the Chaldeans shall preserve many for his sake. Ierem. 39. 17. He shall divide the spoile with the strong,] that is, Nabu∣zardan the chiefe Captain, the City being taken, shall send him gifts of the prey, Ier. 40. 5. As much land also as he would was offered him by the Chaldeans. Because he poured out his soule unto death] that is, he exposed himselfe to the dangers of death, by following truth, which begets hatred. See Iere. 26. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is spoken for exposing a mans life to danger of death. He bare the sinne of many] or was evilly treated by the wickednes of the many. And made inter∣cession for the Toansgressours;] he prayed for the People, &c.

To runne briefely over this exposition* 1.1373

1. I will divide him a portion with the great, that is, the Chaldees shall save many for his sake. How is this proved? Ierem. 39 17, 18. Where God sayes, he will s••ve Ebedmelech, because he put his trust in him: Such is the issue commonly, when men will wrest the Scripture to their own imaginations. Such are their proofes of what they affirme.

2. He shall divide the spoyle with the strong: that is, the Citty be∣ing taken, the Captaines of the guard gave him victualls, and a reward, and set him at liberty, as we read Jerem. 40. 5.

3. Because he poured out his soule to death; that is, he ventured his life by preaching the truth; although he did not dye. For

4. He bare the sin of many: that is, by the wickednesse of many he was wronged; though this expression in the verse foregoing be interpreted, he shall take away their sinnes: and that when a word of a more restrained signification is used to expresse bea∣ring, then that here used. At this rate a man may make apply∣cation of what he will, to whom he will.* 1.1374

Upon the sence of the words, and their accomplishment in and upon the Lord Jesus Christ, I shall not insist. That they do not respect Jeremiah at all, is easily evinced from the consi∣deration of the intollerable wresting of the words, and their sence by the Learned Annotator, to make the least allusion ap∣peare betwixt what befell him, and what is expressed.

To close these Animadversions, I shall desire the Reader to observe

1. That there is not any Application of these words made to the Prophet Ieremiah, that suits him in any measure; but what may also be made to any Prophet, or Preacher of the word of God, that met wi••h affliction and persecution, in the discharge of his duty, and was delivered by the presence of God with him: So that there is no reason to perswade us, that Ieremiah was pe∣culiarly intended in this Prophesy.

2. That the Learned Annotatour, though he professe that Jesus Christ was intended in the letter of this Scripture, yet hath interpreted the whole, not only without the least mention of Iesus Christ, or application of it unto him, but also hath so opened the severall words and expressions of it, as to leave no place nor roome for the maine Doctrine of his Satisfaction here princi∣pally intended. And how much the Church of God is behol∣ding

to him for his paine and travaile herein, the Reader may judge.

CHAP. XXVI.

Of the matter of the punishment that Christ underwent, or what he suffered.

HAving dispatched this Digression, I returne again to the con∣sideration* 1.1375 of the death of Christ, as it was a punishment which shall now be pursued unto its issue.

The third thing proposed to the Consideration on this Ac∣count was the matter of this punishment that Christ underwent which is commonly expressed by the name of his Death.

Death is a name comprehensive of all evill, of what nature, or of what kind soever: All that was threatned, all that was ever inflicted on man: though much of it fall within the compas of this life, and short of death, yet it is evill purely on the ac∣count of its Relation to Death, and its tendency thereunto; which when it is taken away, it is no more generally, and absolute∣ly evill, but in some regard only.

The death of Christ as comprehending his punishment, may be* 1.1376 considered two wayes.

1. In its selfe.

2. In reference to the Law.

On the first head, I shall only consider the generall evident concomitants of it, as they lye in the story, which are all set down, as aggravations of the Punishment he underwent.

In the latter, give an account of the whole, in refrence to the Law.

1. Of death naturall, which in its whole nature is penall,* 1.1377 (as hath been elsewhere evinced) there are foure Aggravations whereunto all others may be referred. As 1. that it be violent or bloody. 2. That it be ignominious or shamefull. 3. That it be lingring and painefull. 4. That it be legall and accursed. And all these to the hight, met in the Death of Christ.

• 1. It was violent and bloody, hence he is said to be* 1.1378
• 1. Slaine, Act. 2. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ye have slaine.
• 2. Killed, Act. 3. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ye have killed.
• 3. Put to Death, Ioh. 18. 31, 32.
• 4. Cut off, Dan. 9. 26.

The death of Christ, and the blood of Christ, are on this ac∣count in the Scripture the same. His death was by the effusion of his blood; and what is done by his Death, is still said to be done by his blood. And though he willingly gave up himselfe to God therein, as he was a Sacrifice, yet he was taken by violence, and nailed to the Crosse, as it was a punishment: and the disso∣lution of his body and soule was by a meanes no lesse violent, then if he had been most unwilling thereunto.

2. It was ignominious and shamefull. Such was the Death* 1.1379 of the * 1.1380 Crosse. The death of Slaves, Malefactors, Robbers, Pests of the earth, and burthens of humane society; like those cru∣cifyed with him. Hence he is said to be obedient to Death, the death of the Crosse, Phil. 2. 8. that shamefull and ignominious death. And when he endured the Crosse, he despised the shame also, Heb. 12. 2. To be brought forth scourged as a Malefactor, amongst Malefactors, in the eye of the world, made a scorne and a by word, men wagging the head, and making mouths at him in deri∣sion, when he was full of torture bleeding to death, i•• no small aggravation of it. Hence the most frequent expression of his death is by the Crosse, and Crucifying.

3. It was lingring: It was the voice of cruelty it selfe, con∣cerning* 1.1381 one who was condemned to dye: sentia•• se mori: let him so die that he may feele himselfe dying; and of one, who to escape tor∣ture killed himselfe, evasit, he escaped me: suddaine death though violent, is an escape from torture. Such was this of Christ. From his Agony in the garden, when he began to dye, (all the powers of hell being then let loose upon him) untill the giving up of the

Ghost, it was from the evening of one day to the evening of ano∣ther: from his scourging by Pilate, after which he was under con∣tinuall paine, and suffering in his soule, in his body, to his death, it was six houres; & all this while was he under exquisite tortures, as on very many considerations might easily be ma∣nifest.

4. It was legall; and so an Accursed death. There was pro∣cesse* 1.1382 against him by witnesse and judgement: Though they were indeed all false and unjust, yet to the eye of the world, his death was legall, and consequently accursed. Gal. 3. 13. Cursed is eve∣ry one that hangeth on a tree: that is, because of the doome of the Law; whose sentence is called a curse, Deut: 27. 29. such was that of Christ, Isa: 53. 4.

2: As all these Aggravations attended his death, as it was* 1.1383 death it selfe, so there was an universality in all the concerne∣ments of it, as it was a legall punishment. Briefely to give some instances.

1. There was an vniversality of efficient Causes: Whether principall or instrumentall. The first great division of causes efficient, is into the Creator and the Creatures, and both here con∣curred.

1. The Creator, God himselfe laid it upon him; He was not only delivered by his determinate counsell, Acts 2. 22, 23. Acts 4. 27, 28. not spared by him, but given up to death, Rom: 8. 32. but, it pleased him to bruise him, and to put him to griefe, Isa: 53. 10. as also to forsake him, Psal. 2••. 1. so acting in his punishment, by the immission of that which is evill, & the substraction of that which is good, so putting the cup into his hand, which he was to drink, & mixing the wine thereof for him, as shall afterward be declared.

2. Of Creatures one generall division is, into intelligent, and* 1.1384 brute or irrationall, and both these also in their severall ways con∣curred to his punishment; as they were to do by the sentence and curse of the Law.

Intelligent Creatures are distinguished into spirituall and invisi∣ble, or visible and corporeall also.

Of the first sort are Angells and Divells; which agree in the same nature, differing only in qualities, and states or Conditions. Of all things, the Angells seeme to have no hand in the Death of Christ; for being not Judge, as was God, nor opposite to God

as is Sathan, nor under the curse of the Law, as in man∣kind, and the residue of the Creatures, though they had inestimable benefit by the Death of Christ, yet neither by demerit, nor efficacy, as is revealed, did they adde to his punish∣ment: Only whereas it was their Duty to have preserved him being innocent, and in his way, from violence and fury, their as∣sist••nce was withheld.* 1.1385

But from that sort of spirituall invisible Creatures, he suffered in the attemps of the Divell.

Christ looked on him at a distance in his approach to set up∣on him: the prince of this world (saith he) commeth, John 14. 30. He saw him coming with all his malice, fury, and violence to set upon him, to ruine him if it were possible: And that he had a close combate with him on the crosse, is evident from the conquest that Christ there made of him, Col: 2. 15. which was not done without wounds, and blood, when he brake the Serpents head, the serpent bruised his heele, Gen: 3. 15.* 1.1386

2. For men; the second ranke of intellectuall Creatures; they had their influence into this punishment of Christ, in all their di∣stributions, that on any account they were cast into.

1. In respect of Country or Nation, and trhe priviledges there∣on attending. The whole World on this account is divided into Jewes and Gentiles; and both these had their Efficiency in this businesse, Psal. 2. 1. Why did the Heathen rage, and the people ima∣gine a vaine thing? Heathens and People, Gentiles and Iews, are all in it, as the place is Interpreted by the Apostles, Acts 4. 25, 26. And to make this the more eminent, the great Representative of the two People conspired in it; the Sanhedrym of the Iews, and the body of the People in the Metrop••liticall Citty, on the one hand; and the Romans, for the Gentiles, who then were r••rum Domini, and govern'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Luke tells us, Chap. 2. 1. The whole on both hands is expressed Math. 20. 18. 19.* 1.1387

2. As to Order, men are distinguished into Rulers, and those under Authority, and both sorts herein concur••d.

1. Rulers are either Civill or Eccl••siasticall: both which (not∣withstanding al their Divisions) conspir'd in the d••ath of Christ.

1. For Civill Rulers, as it was foretold▪ Ps••l. 2. 2. Psal▪ 2••. 12. so it was accomplished, Acts 4. 25, 26. The story is known of the concurrence of Herod & Pilate in the thing: the one Ruler

of the place where he lived, and conversed; the Other, of the Place, where he was taken and Crucified.

2. For Ecclesiasticall Rulers; What was done by the Priests, and all the Councell of the Elders, is known. The matter of fact need not be in••isted on; indeed, they were the great contri∣vers, and malitious plotters of his death; using all waies and means for the accomplishing of it, Acts 3. 17. in particular, An∣nas, the usurper of the Priesthood, seems to have had a great hand in the businesse, and therefore to him was he first carried.

2. For those under Authority: besides what we have in the* 1.1388 Story, Peter tells the Body of the People, Acts 2. 23. that they took him, and with wicked hands crucified him, and slew him: and Ch: 3. 15. That they killed the Prince of life; so Zech. 12. 10. not only the house of David, the Rulers, but the inhabitants of Ierusalem, the peo∣ple, are said to pierce him, and thence, they who pierced him, is a pe∣riphrasis of the Jews. Rev. 1▪ 7. after, every eye shall see him, there is a distribution into them that pierced him, that is, the Iewes, and all the kindreds of the Earth, that is, the Gentiles. The very rabble was stirred up to cry crucify him, crucify him, and did it accor∣dingly, Math: 27. 20. And they all consented as one man in the cry, v. 22. and that with violence and clamour, v. 23. abjects made Mouthes at him, Psal 35. 15. Psal: 22. 6.

3. Distinguish man in Relation to himselfe, either upon a na∣turall,* 1.1389 or a morall account, as his kindred and relations, or stran∣gers, & they will appeare to be all engaged: but this is so com∣priz'd in the former distinction of Jewes and Gentiles, that it need not be insisted on.

2. On a Morall account, as they were either his friends or his Enemies, he suffered from both.

1. His Friends, all his Disciples forsook him, and fled, Mat: 26. 56. the worst of them betrayed him, Mat. 26. 14. & the b••st of them denied him, v. 10. and so there was none to help, Psal: 22. 11.

And if it were thus with him in the house of his friends, what may be expected from

2. His Enemies; their malice and conspiracy, their implacable∣nesse and cruelty, their plotting and accomplishment of their designes, take up so great a part of the History of his Crucify∣ing, that I shall not need insist on particular instances.

Yea mankind was engaged, as distinguished into Sexes. Of* 1.1390

men of all sorts, you have heard already: and that tempting, ensnaring, captious question of the Maid to Peter manifests, that amongst his Persecutors, there were of that Sex also, Math: 26. 69.

Of mens distinction by their employments, of Souldiers, Law∣yers, Citizens, Divines, all concurring to this work: I shall not adde any thing to what hath been spoken.

Thus the first Order of Creatures, those that are intellectuall,* 1.1391 were universally, at least with a distributive universality, engaged in the suffering of the Lord Jesus; and the Reason of this generall engagement, was, because the Curse, that was come upon them for sinne, had filled them all with Enmity one against another. 1. Fallen Man, and Angells, were engaged into an everlasting Enmity, on the first Entrance of sinne, Gen: 3▪ 15, 16. 2. Men one towards another were filled with malice, and envy, and hatred, Titus 3. 3.

3. The Jewes and Gentiles were engaged by way of visible representation of the Enmity which was come on all Mankind, Ioh: 4. 9. Eph: 2. 15, 16, 17. and therefore he who was to under∣goe the whole Curse of the Law, was to have the rage and fury of them all executed on him. As I said before, all their persecu∣tion of him concerned not his death, as it was a sacrifice, as he made his soule an Offering for sinne; but as it was a punishment, the utmost of their Enmity was to be executed towards him.

2. The residue of the Creatures concur'd thus farre to his suf∣ferings,* 1.1392 as to manifest themselves at that time, to be visibly un∣der the Curse and indignation, that was upon Him, and so with∣drew themselves as it were, from yeilding him the least assi∣stance. To instance in generall, Heaven and Earth lost their glo∣ry, and that in them which is usefull and comfortable to the Chil∣dren of Men, without which all the other Conveniences, and Advantages, are as a thing of nought: The Glory of Heaven, is its light, Psal: 10 1, 2. And the glory of the Earth, is its stability; He hath fixed the Earth, that i•• shall not be moved.

Now both these were lost at once. The Heavens were dark∣ned, when it might be expected in an ordinary cou••se, that the Sun should have shone in its full beauty, Math: 27. 45. Luke 23. 44, 45. And the Earth lost its stability, and shooke or trembled, v: 51. and the rocks rent, and the graves opened; all Evidences of that dis∣spleasure

against sinne, which God was then putting in executi∣on to the utmost, Rom. 1. 18.

Thus first in his suffering there was an universality of efficient causes.

2. There was an universality in respect of the Subject, wherein* 1.1393 he suffered. He suffered, 1. In his Person, 2. In his Name, 3. In his Friends, 4. In his Goods; as the Curse of the Law extended to all, and that universally in all these.

1. In his Person, or his Humane Nature in his Person; he suffe∣red in the two essentiall constituent parts of it: His Body, and hi•• Soule.

1. His Body, In generall, as to its integrall parts; his Body was broken, 1 Cor. 11. 24. and Crucified; his Blood was shed, or pou∣red out.

2. His Soul. His Soul was made an Offering for sinne, Isa. 53. 10. And his Soul was heavy unto Death, Math. 26. 27, 38.

2. In particular: his Body suffered in all its concernments, name∣ly,* 1.1394 all his Senses, and all its parts or members.

1. In all its Senses: as to instance,

1. In his feeling; he was full of Paine, which made him, as he sayes, cry for disquietnesse; and this is comprised in every one of those expressions, which say he was Broken, Pierced, and lived so long on the Crosse, in the midst of most exquisite torture; untill being full of paine, he cryed out, and gave up the Ghost, Math. 27. 50.

2. His Tasting. When he fainted with losse of Blood, and grew thirsty, they gave him Gall and Vinegar to drinke, Math. 27. 34. Ioh: 19. 29▪ Math. 27. 48. not to Stupify his senses, but to encrease h〈…〉〈…〉orment.

3. His Seeing. Though not so much in the naturall Organ of it, as in its use. He saw his Mother, and Disciples standing by, full of Griefe, Sorrow, and Confusion, which exceedingly encrea∣sed his Anguish and Perplexity, Ioh: 19. 25▪ 26. And he saw his Enemies full of Rage and Horror, standing round abou•• him, Psal 22. He saw them passing by, and wagging the head in sco••n, Math. 29. 39. Psal. 22. 7, 8.

4. His Eares were filled with Reproach and Blasphemy, of which he grievously complaines, Psal: 22. 7, 8, 16. which also is expressed in its Accomplishment, Math. 27. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.

Luke 23. 36, 37, 38. They reproach'd him with his God, and his Ministry, and his Profession: as did also one of the Thieves that was crucified with him. And

5. They crucifyed him in a noysome place, a place of stink and loathsomenesse: a place where they cast the dead bod••••s of men, from whose bones it got the name of Golgotha, a place of dead mens sculles, Math: 26. 33.

2. He Suffer••d in all the Parts of his Body; especially those,* 1.1395 which are most ••ender and full of Sense.

1. For his Head, they platted a Crowne of Thornes, and put it on him; and to Encrease his paine, smo••e it on (that the Thornes might pierce him the deeper) with their staves, Math: 27. 28, 29. as the Jewes had stricken him before, Ch: 26. 68. Ioh. 19. 2, 3.

2 His Face they spit upon, buffeted, stroke, and plucked off his haire, Isa: 50 6. Math: 26 67, 68.

3 His Back was torne with whippes and scourges, Math: 27. 27. Ioh: 19. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; there they made long their furrowes.

4 His Hands, and Feet, and Side, were pierced with nailes and Speares, Psal: 22. 16.

5 To expresse the residue of his Body, and the Condition of it, when he hung on the Crosse so long by the Sorenesse of his Hands and his Feet, saies he, all my Bones are out of joynt, Psal: 22. 17. and also v: 14, 15.

Thus was it with his Body, the like also is expressed of his Soule, for* 1.1396

1 On his Mind was darknesse; not in it, but on it, as to his Ap∣prehension of the Love and Presence of God. Hence was his cry, Psal: 22. 1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Math: 27. 46. Though his Faith was upon the whole of the matter prevalent and victorious, Isa: 50 8, 9: Yet he had many sore conflicts with the sense and apprehension of Gods wrath for sinne, and that desertion he was then under, as to any cheering influences of his Love and Presence.

For the rest of his faculties, he was not only under the pressure of the most perplexing, grievous, and burthensome passions, that humane nature is obnoxious unto, as, 1. Heavinesse, His soul was heavy unto death, Math: 26. 37.

2 Griefe; No Sorrow like to his, Lament. 1. 12.

3 Feare, Heb. 5. 7. But also was pressed into a condition, be∣yond what we have words to expresse, or names of passions, or affections to set it forth by▪ Hence he is said to be in an Agony, Luke 22. 44. to be amazed, Marke 14. 33. with the like expressi∣ons, intimating a condition miserable and distressed, beyond what we are able to comprehend or expresse.

2 In his Name, his Repute, or credit, he suffered also; He was* 1.1397 numbered amongst Transgressors, Isa: 53. 11 Psal: 22. counted a male∣factor, and crucified amongst them; a Seducer, a Blasphemer, a Se∣ditious person, a False Prophet, and was cruelly mocked, and deri∣ded on the Crosse, as an Impost••r, that saved others, but could not save himselfe; that pretended to be the Messias, the King of Israel, but could not come down from the Crosse; laid in the ballance with Barrabas, a Rogue and a Murtherer, and rejected for him.

3 In his Friends; The Shepheard was Smitten, and the sheep scat∣tered,* 1.1398 Zech: 13. 7. All his Friends dist••essed, scattered, glad to fly for their lives, or to save themselves, by doing the things that were worse then death.

4 In his Goods; even all that he had; they parted his Garments, and cast lots for his Vesture, Psal: 22. 18. Thus did he not in any thing go free; that the Curse of the Law in all things might be executed on him; the Law curses a man in all his Concernements; with the immission and infliction of every thing that is evill, and the substraction of every thing that is good: that is, with pae∣na sensus, & paena damni, as they are called.

In reference to the Law, I say, that Christ underwent that ve∣ry* 1.1399 punishment, that was threatned in the Law, and was due to sinners. The same that we should have undergone, had not our surety done it for us; to cleere this briefely observe

1. That the Punishment of the Law may be considered two waies.

1 Absolutely in its own nature, as it lies in the Law, and the threatning thereof. This in generall is called Death. Gen: 3. 15. Ezek. 15. 4. Rom: 5. 12. And by way of Aggravation, because of its comprizing the death of Body and Soul, death unto death, 2 Cor: 2. 16. and the second death, Rev: 20. 14. and the curse, Deut: 27. 29. and Math: 25. 41. and wrath, &c. hence we are said to be delive∣red from wrath to come, 1 Thess. 1. 10▪ Rom: 2. 5. wrath, or the day

of wrath: and in innumerable other places; all which are set out in many metaphoricall expressions by those things, which are to the Nature of man most dreadfull; as of a Lake with fir•• and brimstone; of Tophet whose pile is much wood, and the like.

Of this punishment in generall there are two parts.

1. Losse, or separation from God, expressed in these words,* 1.1400 Depart from mee, Math: 7. 23. Go ye cursed, Math: 25. 41. as also 2 Thess: 1. 9.

2 Sense or paine, whence it is called fire; as 2 Thess. 1. 9. Tor∣ments, &c. All this we say Christ underwent, as shall be farther manifested.

2 Punishment of the Law may be considered relatively, to its subject, or the Person Punished, and that in two regards.* 1.1401

1 In reference to its own attendencyes, and necessary conse∣quents, as it falls upon the Persons to be punished; and these are two.

1 That it be a worme that dieth not, Math. 9. 44. Isa. 66. 24.

2 That it be a fire, not to be quenched, that it be everlasting, that its torments be eternall: and both these I say attend and follow the punishment of the Law, on the account of its relation to the per∣sons punished; for

1 The Worme, is from the inbeing, and everlasting abiding of a mans own sinne; that tormenting anguish of Conscience, which shall perplex the damned to Eternity, attends their pu∣nishment, meerely from their own sinne inherent; this Christ could not undergoe. The worme attends not sinne imputed, but sinne inherent; especially not sinne imputed to him, who under∣went it Willingly; It being the cruciating vexation of mens own thoughts, kindled by the Wrath of God against themselves, a∣bout their own sinne.

2 That this worme never dyes, that this fire can never be quen∣ched, but abides for ever, is also from the relation of punishment to a finite creature, that is no more. Eternity is not absolutely in the curse of the Law, but as a finite creature is cursed thereby. If a sinner could at once admit upon himselfe that which is ••quall in divine justice to his offence, and so make satisfaction, there might be an end of his punishment in time. But a finite, and every way limited Creature, having sinned his eternity in this World, against an Eternall and infinite God, must abide by

it for ever. This was Christ free from; the dignity of his person was such, as that he could fully sati••fy divine justice, in a li∣mited season; after which, God in justice lo••sed the pains of death, for it was impossible he should be detained thereby, Acts 2. 24. and that because he was able to swallow up death into victory.

2 Punishment, as it relates to the Persons Punished may be* 1.1402 also considered in respect of the effects, which it produceth in them, which are not in the punishment absolutely considered, and these are generally two.

1 Repining against God, and Blaspheming of him; as in that type of Hell, Isa. 8. 20. This is evill, or sin in its selfe, which punish∣ment is not. It is from the righteous God, who will doe no ini∣quity. This proceeds from mens hatred of God; They hate him in this world, when he doth them good; and blesses them with many mercies; how much more will their hatred be increased, when they shall be cut off from all favour or mercy whatever; and never enjoy one drop of refreshment from him. They hate him, his justice, yea his blessednesse, and all his perfections; Hence they murmure, repine, and blaspheme him; Now this must needs be in∣finitely remote from him▪ who in love to his Father, and his fa∣thers Glory, underwent this punishment; He was loved of the Father, and loved him, and willingly dranke of this Cup, which poysons the souls of Sinners with wrath and revenge.

2. Despaire in themselves; their hopes being cut off to eternity, there remaining no more sacrifice for sinne, they are their own tormentors with everlastingly perplexing despaire: But this our Saviour was most remote from; and that because he believed he should have a glorious issue of the triall the underwent, Heb. 12 2. Isa. 50. 8.

But as to the punishment that is threatned in the Law, in it* 1.1403 selfe considered▪ Christ underwent the same that the Law threat∣ned, and which we should have undergone. For.

1. The Law threatned death, Gen. 3. 15. Ezek. 18. 4. and he tasted death for us, Heb 2. 9. Psal. 22. 7, 8. The punishment of the Law is the curse, Deut. 27. 29. and he was made a curse, Gal. 3▪ 13. The Law threatned losse of the Love and the favour of God, and ••e lost it, Psal. 22. 1.

To say that the death threatned by the Law was one, and that Christ underwent another, that Eternall, this Temporall, and

so also of the curse, & desertion threatned, (besides what shall be said afterward) would render the whole businesse of our Sal∣vation unintelligible, as being revealed in termes equivocall no where explained.

2. There is not the least intimation in the whole book of God, of any change of the punishment, in reference to the surety from what it was, or should have been, in respect of the sinner. God made all our iniquities to meet on him; that is, (as hath been declared) the punishment due to them. Was it the same punish∣ment or another? Did we d••serve one punishment, and Christ undergoe another? Was it the sentence of the Law, that was executed on him, or was it some other thing, that he was ob∣noxious to? It is said, that he was made under the Law, Gal. 4. 4. that sin was condemned in his flesh, Ro. 8. 3 that God spared him not Ro. 8. 31. that he tasted death; that he was made a curse; all relating to the Law: that he suffered more or lesse there is no mention.

It is strange to me, that we should deserve one punishment, and he who is punished for us, undergoe another; yet both of them be constantly described by the same names, and Titles. If God laid the punishment of our sinnes on Christ, certainely it was the punishment that was due to them; mention is every where made of a commutation of Persons, the just suffering for the unjust, the sponsor for the offender, his name as a surety being taken into the obligation, and the whole debt required of him; but of a change of punishment, there is no mention at all. And there is this desperate consequence that wil be made readily, upon a supposall that any lesse then the curse of the Law and death, in the nature of it eternall, was inflicted on Christ, namely, that God indeed is not such a sore revenger of sinne, as in the Scripture he is proposed to be; but can passe it by in the way of composition on much easier termes.

3. The punishment due to us, that is in the curse of the Law,* 1.1404 consists (as was said,) of two parts.

1. Losse, or separation from God.

2. Sence, from the infliction of the evill threatned; and both these did our Saviour undergoe.

For the first, it is expressed of him, Psal. 22. 1. and he actu∣ally complaines of it himselfe, Math. 27. 46. and of this cry for a while, he sayes, O my God, I cry in the day time and thou hearest not

Psal. 22. 2. untill he gives out that grievous complaint, v. 15. My strength is dryed up like a potsherd; Which cry he pressed so long with strong cryes and supplications, untill he was heard▪ and delivered from what he feared, Heb. 5. 7. They who would in∣vent evasions for this expresse complaint of our Saviour, that he was deserted and forsaken, as that he spake it in reference to his Church, or of his own being left to the power and ma∣lice of the Jewes, do indeed little lesse then blaspheme him; and say he was not forsaken of God, when himselfe complaines that he was. Forsaken I say, not by the disjunction of his perso∣nall union; but as to the communication of effects of love and favour, which is the desertion that the damned lye under in Hell. And for his being forsaken, or given up to the hands of men, was that i••, which he complained of? was that it where∣of he was afraid? which he was troubled at? which he sweat blood under the consideration of? and had need of an Angell to comfort and support him? Was he so much in courage and resolution below those many thousands who joyfully suffered the same things for him? If he was only forsaken to the power of the Jewes; it must be so. Let men take heed how they give occasion of blaspheming the holy and blessed name of the Son of God.

Vaninus that grand Atheist, who was burned for Atheisme at* 1.1405 Tholouse in France, all the way as he went to the stake did no∣thing but insult over the Friers, that attended him; telling them, that their Saviour when he was led to death did sweat and tremble, & was in an Agony. But He upon the account of Reason, where∣unto he sacrificed his life, went with boldnesse and cheerfulnesse: God visibly confuted his blasphemy, and at the stake he not on∣ly

trembled and quaked, but roared with horrour. But let men take heed how they justify the Atheisticall thoughts of men, in asserting our blessed Redeemer to have been cast into that mi∣serable and deplorable condition, meerly with the considerati∣on of a temporary death, which perhaps the thieves that were cru∣cifyed with him did not so much tremble at.

2. For paena sensus: from what hath been spoken it is suffi∣ciently* 1.1406 manifest what he underwent on this account. To what hath been delivered before, of his being bruised, afflicted, broken of God from Isa. 53. although he was taken from prison, and iudgement, or everlasting condemnation, v. 8. Adde but this one consi∣deration of what is affirmed of him, that he tasted death for us Heb: 2. 9. and this will be cleared. What death was it he tasted? The death that had the curse attending it, Gal: 3. 13. He was made a curse; and what death that was himselfe declares, Mat. 25. 41. where calling men accursed, he crys goe into everlasting fire: you that are obnoxious to the Law, goe to the punish∣ment of hell; yea and that curse which he underwent Gal. 3. 13. is opposed to the blessing of Abraham, v: 14. or the blessing promised him, which was doubtlesse life eternall.

And to make it yet more cleare, it was by death that he delivered us from death, Heb. 2. 14, 15. and if he dyed only a temporall death, he delivered us only from temporall death, as a punish∣ment. But he shews us what death he delivered us from, and consequently what death he underwent for us, John 8. 51. He shall never see death; that is, eternall death, for every Believer shall see death temporall.

On these considerations it is evident, that the sufferings of* 1.1407 Christ in relation to the Law, were the very same that were threat∣ned to sinners, and which we should have undergone, had not our surety undertaken the worke for us. Neither was there any difference in reference to God the Judge, and the sentence of the law, but only this, that the same Person who offended, did not suffer▪ and that those consequences of the punishment in∣flicted, which attend the offenders own suffering, could have no place in him; but this being not the maine of my present de∣signe, I shall no farther insist on it.

Only I marvell, that any should think to implead this truth* 1.1408 of Christs suffering the same that we did, by saying that Christs

obligation to punishment was sponsionis propriae, ours violatae legis: As though it were the manner how Christ came to be obnoxi∣ous to punishment, and not what punishment he underwent, that is asserted when we say, that he underwent the same that we should have done. But as to say, that Christ became obnoxious to pu∣nishment the same way that we do, or did, that is, by sinne of his own, is blasphemy: so to say he did not upon his own volun∣tary undertaking, undergoe the same, is little lesse. It is true, Christ was made sinne for us, had our sinne imputed to him, not his own; was obliged to answer for our fault, not his own; but he was obliged to answer what we should have done: but hereof elsewhere.

CHAP. XXVII.

Of the Covenant between the Father and the Sonne, the Ground and Foundation of this Dispensation of Christs being punished for us, and in our stead.

THE fourth thing considerable, is the ground of this dis∣pensation* 1.1409 of Christs being punished for us, which also hath influence into his whole mediation on our behalfe. This is that compact, covenant, convention, and Agreement, that was be∣tween the Father, and the Sonne, for the accomplishment of the worke of our Redemption by the Mediation of Christ, to the prayse of the glorious Grace of God.

The Will of the Father, appointing & designing the Son to be the Head, Husband, Deliverer, and Redeemer of his Elect, his Church, his people, whom he did for••know, with the Will of the Sonne voluntarily, freely undertaking tha•• worke, and all that was required thereunto, is that compact (for in that forme it is propo∣sed in the Scripture) that we treat of.

It being so proposed, so we call it; though there be difficul∣ty* 1.1410 in its explication. Rabbi Ruben in Galatinus sayes of Isa. 66. 15. that if the Scripture had not said it, it had not been Lawfull to have said it, but being written, it may be spoken, in fire, or by* 1.1411 fire is the Lord Judged; for it is not Sophet, that is, Judging, but

misphet, that is, is judged: which by some is ••pplied to Christ, and the fire he underwent in his suffering. However the Rule is safe, that which is written may be spoken; for, for that end was it written: God in his Word teaching us, how we should speake of him; so it is in this matter.

It is true; the Will of God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost,* 1.1412 is but one. It is a Naturall property, and where there is but one Na∣ture, there is but one Will: but in respect of their distinct perso∣nall actings, this Will is appropriated to them respectively; so that the Will of the Father, and the Will of the Sonne, may be∣considered in this businesse. Which though essentially one ••nd the same, yet in their distinct personality it is distinctly conside∣red, as the Will of the Father, and the Will of the Sonne; Not∣withstanding the unity of Essence, that is between the Father and the Sonne, yet is the work distinctly carried on by them so that the same God judges, and becomes surety, satisfyeth, and is satisfied, in these distinct persons.

Thus though this Covenant be Eternall, and the object of it* 1.1413 be that which might not have been, and so it hath the nature of the residue of Gods decrees in those regards, yet because of this distinct acting of the Will of the Father, & the will of the Son, with regard to each other, it is more then a decree, and hath the proper nature of a Covenant, or Compact Hence from the moment of it (I speake not of time) there is a new habitude of Will in the Father and Sonne towards each other, that is not in them essentially; I call it new, as being in God freely, not na∣turally. And hence was the salvation of men before the Incarna∣tion, by the undertaking, mediation, and death of Christ. That the Saints under the Old Testament were saved by Christ, at pre∣sent I take for granted. That they were saved by vertue of a meer decree, will not be said From hence was Christ estee∣med to be Incarnate, and to have suffered; or the fruits of his Incarnation and Suffering could not have been imputed to any: for the thing ••t selfe being denied, the Effects of it are not.

The Revelation of this Covenant is in the Scripture: not that* 1.1414 it was then constituted, when it is first mentioned in the Promises and Prophesies of Christ, but then first declared or revealed. Christ was Declared to be the Sonne of God, by the Resurrecti∣on from the dead; but he was so from Eternity. As in other

places as shall be evinced, so in Isa. 53. is this Covenant men∣tioned; in which Chapter there is this Propheticall Scheme; the Co∣venant between Father and Sonne, which was past, is spoken of as to come; and the sufferings of Christ, which were to come, are spoken of as past, as appears to every one that but reads the Chapter. It is also signally ascribed to Christs coming into the World: not constitutively, but declaratively. It is the greatest folly about such things as these, to suppose them then done, when revealed, though revealed in expressions of doing them. These things being premised, I proceed to manifest, how this Covenant is in the Scripture declared.

Now this Convention or Agreement, as elsewhere, so it is most* 1.1415 cleerely expressed, Heb: 10. from Ps. 40. Lo! I come to do thy will O God. And what Will? v. 10. The Will by which we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Iesus once for all. The Will of God was, that Jesus should be offered; and to this End, that we might be sanctified and saved: It is called the offering of the body of Jesus, in Answer to what was said before, a body hast thou prepared mee; or an humane nature, by a Synechdoche. My Will, says God the Father, is, that thou have a body, and that that body be offered up, and that to this end, that the Children, the Elect might be san∣ctified: Sayes the Sonne to this, Lo, I am come to do thy Will. I ac∣cept of the Condition, and give up my selfe to the perfor∣mance of thy Will.

To make this more distintly evident, the nature of such a* 1.1416 compact, Agreement, or convention, as depends on personall ser∣vice, such as this, may be a little considered.

There are five things required to the compleat establishing, and accomplishing of such a compact & agreement: 1. That there be sundry Persons, two at least, namely a Promiser, and under∣taker, agreeing * 1.1417 voluntarily together in Counsell and designe, for the Accomplishment, and bringing about some common End, ac∣ceptable to them both, so agreeing together; being both to do somewhat, that they are not otherwise obliged to doe, there must be some common end agreed on by them, wherein they are de∣lighted; and if they do not both voluntarily agree to what it on each hand incumbent to doe, it is no Covenant or Compact, but an imposition of one upon the other.

2. That the Person promising, who is the principall engager* 1.1418

in the Covenant, do require something at the hand of the other, to be done, or undergone, wherein he is concerned. He is to pre∣scribe something to him, which is the Condition, whereon the Accomplishment of the end aimed at, is to depend.

3. That He make to him who doth undertake, such Promises, as are necessary for his supportment and encouragement, and which may fully ballance in his judgement, and esteeme, all that is re∣quired of him, or prescribed to him.

4. That upon the weighing, and consideration of the Conditi∣on and Promise, the Duty and Reward prescribed, and ingaged for, as formerly mentioned, the undertaker do voluntarily addresse himselfe to the one, and expect the Accomplishment of the o∣ther.

5. That the Accomplishment of the Condition, being * 1.1419 plea∣ded by the undertaker, and approved by the Promiser, the com∣mon end originally designed, be brought about and establi∣shed.

These five things are required, to the entring into, and com∣pleat Accomplishment of such a Covenant, Convention, or A∣greement, as is built on personall Performances: and they are all eminently expressed in the Scripture, to be found in the Compact between the Father and the Sonne, whereof we speake; as upon the consideration of the severalls will appeare.* 1.1420

On the account of these things, found at least virtually, and ef∣fectually, in this Agreement of the Father and Sonne, we call it a Covenant; not with respect to the Latine word Faedus, and the precise use of it, but to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whose signification and use alone is to be attended, in the businesse of any Covenant of God; And in what a large sence they are used, is known to all that understand them, and have made inquirie into their import. The rise of the word faedus, is properly paganish and superstitious; and the legall use of it, strict to a mutuall ingagement upon valuable considerations: The forme of its entrance, by the Sacrifice and killing of a Hogge, is related in Polybius, Livius, Virgil, and others. The generall

words used in it were, * 1.1421 Ita foede me percutiat magnus Jupiter, •••• foede hunc porcum macto, si pactum faederis non servaver••: whence is that phrase of one in danger; sto inter sacrum & saxum. The H••g being killed with a stone; so faedus is a feriendo.

Though sometimes even that word be used in a very large sence, for any orderly disposed Government: as in the Poet:

—Regem{que} dedit qui faedere certo* 1.1422

Et premere, & laxas sciret dare jussus habenas, &c. But unto the signification and Laws hereof, in this businesse, we are not bound: it sufficeth for our present intendment, that the things mentioned, be found virtually in this compact, which they are.

1. There are the Father and the Sonne, as Distinct Persons a∣greeing* 1.1423 together in Counsell, for the accomplishment of the common end; the Glory of God, and the Salvation of the Elect. The end is expressed, Heb ••. 9, 10. Heb. 12. 1. Now thus it was, Zech. 6 13. and the Counsell of Peace shall be between them both, Inter* 1.1424 ambos ipsos. That is the two Persons spoken of, not the two Offi∣ces there intimated, that shall meet in Christ; and who are these? The Lord Jehovah, who speakes, and the Man whose name is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Branch, v. 12. who is to do all the great things there mentioned. He shall grow up &c. But the Counsell of peace, the designe of our Peace▪ is between them both: They have agreed and consented to the bringing about of our Peace. Hence is that name of the Sonne of God, Isa 9 6. Wonderfull Coun∣cellour. It is in reference to the Busines there spoken of, that be is so called. This is expressed at the beginning of the verse: to us a Child is borne, to us a Sonne is given; to what end that was, is

known; namely, that he might be a Saviou•• or a Redeemer: whence he is afterwards called the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace; that is, a Father to his Church and People, in Everlasting Mercy; the grand Author of their Peace, that procured it for them, and established it unto them. Now as to this work, that he who i•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mighty God, might be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sonne given, a child borne; and carry on a work of mercy and peace to∣wards his Church, is he called the wonderfull Councellour, as con∣curring in the Counsell and designe of his Father, and with him, to this end and purpose. Therefore when he comes to suffer in the carrying on of this work, God calls him his fellow, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, my Neighbour in Counsell and advise, as David describes* 1.1425 his, fellow or companion, Psal. 55. 14▪ We took sweet, counsell toge∣ther. He was the fellow of the Lord of Hosts, on this account that they took Councell together about the work of our Salva∣tion to the Glory of God. Prov. 8. 21. to ••••. makes this evi∣dent: that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternall Word, and Wisdome of the Father, who is here intended, was before e∣vinced. What then i•• here said of him? I was 〈…〉〈…〉ly the delight of God, rejoycing before him, rejoycing in the habitable parts of the Earth, and my delight was in the Sonnes of Men. When was this, that the Wisdome of God the Father did so rejoyce before him, on the account of the Sonnes of men, v. 24, 25. When there was no depths, when there were no fountaines abounding with water, before the Moun∣tains were setled &c. whilest as yet he had not made the Earth, &c. But how could this be? Namely by the Counsell of Peace, that was between them both, which is the Delight of the soule of God, and wherein both Father and Son rejoyce.

The first thing then is manifest; that there was a voluntary concurrence, and distinct consent of the Father and Sonne, for the Accomplishment of the worke of our peace, and brin∣ging us to God.

2. For the Accomplishment of this work, the Father who* 1.1426 is principall in the Covenant, the promiser, whose Love sets all on worke, as is frequenly expressed in the Scripture, requires of the Lord Jesus Christ his Sonne, that he shall do that which upon con∣sideration of his Justice, Glory, and Honour, was necessary to be done, for the bringing about the ••nd proposed; prescribing

to him a Law for the performance thereof; which is called his will so often in Scripture.

What it was that was required, is expressed both negatively and positively.

1. Negatively, that he should not do, or bring about this work, by any of those Sacrifices that had been appointed to make Attonement suo more, and to typify out what was by him really to be performed. This the Lord Jesus professeth at the entrance of his work, when he addresses himself to the doing of that, which was indeed required. Sacrifice▪ and burnt offe∣rings, &c. thou wouldest not have. He was not to offer any of the Sacrifices that had been offered before, as at large hath been recounted: it was the will of God that by them, He, & what he was to do, should be shaddowed out & represented; whereupon, at his comming to his worke, they were all to be abrogated▪ Nor was He to bring silver or gold for our Redemption, according to the contrivance of the poore convinced sinner, Mic. 7. 6. but he was to tender God another manner of price, 1 Pet. 1. 18.

He was to do that which the old Sacrifices could not do, as* 1.1427 hath been declared. For it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sinnes, Heb. 10. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod supra 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est extinguere peccata, sive facere ne ultra peccetur; id sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi. Grot in Loc. Falsely and injuriously to the blood of Christ. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is no where in the Scripture, to cause, men to cease to sinne; it never re∣spects properly what is to come, but what is past. The Apostle treats not of Sanctification, but of Justification. The taking away of sins he insists on, is such; as that the sinner should no more be▪ trou∣bled in conscience for the guilt of them: v. 2. The typicall taking away of sinnes by Sacrifices, was by making Attonement with God principally, not by turning men from sinne, which yet was a consequent of them. The blood of Christ takes away sin, as to their guilt, by justification, & not only as to their filth by San∣ctification. This purification also by blood, He expounds in his Annotations C. 9. v. 14. Sanguini autem purgatio ista tribuitur, quia per sanguinem, id est, mortem Christi, secuta ejus excitatione, & evectione, gig∣nitur in nobis fides, Rom. 3. 25▪ quae deinde fides corda purgat. Act. 15. 19. The meaning of these words is evident to all that have their

sences exercised in these things. The eversion of the Expiation of our sinnes, by the way of Satisfaction and attonement, is that which is aymed at. Now because the Annotatour saw, that the comparison insisted on with the Sacrifices of old, would not admit of this glosse: He addes▪ Similitudo autem purgationis legalis, & evangelicae, non est in modo purgandi, sed in effectu. Then which nothing is more false, nor more directly contrary to the Apostles discourse, chap. 9, 10.

2. Positively, and here, to lay aside the manner how he was to* 1.1428 do it, which relates to his Office of Priest, and Prophet, and King, the conditions imposed upon him may be referred to three Heads.

1. That he should take on him the nature of those, whom* 1.1429 he was to bring to God. This is as it were prescribed to him, Heb. 10. 5. a body hast thou prepared me; or appointed that I should be made flesh, take a body therein to do thy will. And the Apostle sets out the infinite Love of the Sonne of God, in that he con∣descended to this inexpressible exinanition, and eclipsing of his Glory, Phil▪ 2. 6, 7. being in the forme of God▪ and equall to God, he made himselfe of no reputation, but tooke upon him the forme of a Servant, and was made in the likenesse of man; or made a man. He did it upon his Fathers prescription, and in pur∣suit of what God required at his hands. Hence it is said, God sent forth his Sonne, made of a woman, Gal. 4. 4. and God sent his own Sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh, Rom. 8. 3. and properly in an∣swer to this of the Fathers appointing him a body, is it that the Sonne answers, Loe! I come to do thy will. I will do it, I will under∣take it; that the great desirable end may be brought about, as we shall see afterwards. So Heb. 2. 14, 15. And though I see no suf∣ficient reason of relinquishing the usuall interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 2. 16. yet if it be apprehendit, and expressive of the effect; not assumpsit, relating to the way of his yeilding us assistance and deliverance, the same thing is intimated.

2. That in this body or humane nature, he should be a Servant* 1.1430 or yeild obedience; hence God calls him his Servant, Isa. 42. 1. Behold my Servant whom I uphold; & that this was also in the con∣dition prescribed to him, our Saviour acknowledges▪ Isa. 49. 5. Now saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his Servant;

And in pursuit hereof, Christ takes upon him the forme of a ser∣vant Phil. ••▪ 6. and this is his perpetuall profession, I come to do the will of him that sent me.

And th•••• commandemene••▪ I have received of my Father. So though he was a Son yet learned •••• obedience. All alon•• in the carrying on of his worke he professes that this condition was by his Father prescribed him, that he should be his Servant, and yeild him▪ obe∣dience, in the worke he had in hand. Hence he saies, his Fa∣ther is greater then he, not only in respect of his humiliation* 1.1431 but also in respect of the dispensation▪ whereunto he as the Son of God, submitted himselfe▪ to performe his Will▪ and yeild him obedience: And this God declares to be the condition whereon he will deliver man▪ Job 33. 23. ••f there be a messenger (a servant)* 1.1432 one of a thousand to undertake for him, it shall be so▪ I will say, de∣liver man; otherwise not.

3. That he should suffer and undergoe what in Justice is* 1.1433 due to Him, that he was to deliver; A hard and great prescrip∣tion: yet such as must be undergone▪ that there may be a con∣sistence of the Justice and Truth of God, with the Salvation of man. This is plainely expressed Is. 53▪ 10. Wher thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, or rather if his soul shall make▪ an offering for sin,* 1.1434 then he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his pay••, and the pleas••••e▪ of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. As if he should say, if this worke be brought about, and if the Counsell of peace which we have consented in, be carryed on, if my pleasure therein be to prosper, thou must make thy soule an offering▪ for sinne. And that this was required of our Saviour, himselfe fully▪ expresses even in his Agony, when praying for the removall of the cup, He sub∣mits to the drinking of it, in these words: thy will O Father be done; this is that, which thou wilt have me doe; which thou hast prescribed unto me, even that I drink of this cup, wherein he tasted of death, and which comprised the whole of his suffering; and this is the third thing in this Convention and Agreement.

4. Promises are made upon the supposition of underta∣king* 1.1435 that which was required; and these of all sorts, that might either concerne the person that did undertake, or the Accom∣plishment of the worke that he did undertake.

1. For the Person himselfe that was to undertake, or the Lord Jesus Christ, seeing there was much difficulty, and great

opposition to ••e passed through, in what he was to do, and undergoe; Promises of the Assistance of his Father by his pre∣sence with him, & carrying him through all perpl••xities and tryalls, are given to him in abundance▪ Some of these you have Isa. 42. 4. He shall not faint, nor be discouraged, untill he hath set judge∣ment in the earth. And v. 6. I the Lord have called thee in Righteous∣nesse, and▪ will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee▪ a Covenant of the People. What ever opposition▪ thou mayst meet withall, I will hold thee, and keep thee, and preserve thee, I will not leave thy soule in Hell, nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption Psal. 16 3. So Psal. 89. 28. My mercy will I keep for him evermo••e, & my Covenant shall stand fast with him. And hence was our blessed Sa∣viours confidence in his greatest tryall. I••a. 50. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. v. 5, 6. our Saviour expresses his undertaking▪ &, what he suffered herein v. 7, 8, 9. The assistance that he was promised of his Father in this great tryall, on the account whereof he despises all his Enemies, with full Assurance of successe: even upon the Fathers ingaged promise, of his presence with him. This is the first sort of promises made to Christ in this Convention, which concerne himselfe directly; that he should not be forsaken in his worke, but carryed through, supported, and upheld, untill he were come forth to full successe, and had sent forth judgement into victory. Hence in his greatest tryall, he mades his addresses to God himself, on the account of these promises, to be delive∣red from that which he feared, Heb. 5. 7. Who in the dayes &c. So Psal. 89. 27, 28.

2. There were promises in this compact, that concerned the* 1.1436 worke it selfe, that Christ undertook; namely, that if he did what was required of him, not only that he should be perserved in it▪ but also, that the worke it selfe should▪ th••i••e and prosper in his hand▪ So Isa. 53. 10, 1••. When thou shalt make &c. What▪ ever he aymed at is here promised to be accomplished; the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper: the designe of Father and Sone, for the accomplishment of our Salvation, shall prosper: He shall see his seed, a seed of Believers▪ shall be raised up, that shall prolong th•••• days: that is, the seed shall prolong, o•• continue whiles the Sunne and Moon•• ind••res▪ all the▪ Elect▪ shall be justifyed and Saved. 〈…〉〈…〉han shall be conquered, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de∣livered from him. And this our▪ Saviour comforts himselfe

withall in his greatest distresse, Psal. 22. 30, 31. and for this glory that was set before him, the glory of bringing many Sons to glory that was promised to him, He despised the shame, and endured the Crosse, Heb. 12. 2. So also Isa. 42. 1, 2.

And this is the 3d thing in this compact, he who prescribes the hard Conditions of Incarnation, obedience, & death, doth also make the glorious promises of Preservation, Protection, and Successe. And to make these promises the more eminent, God confirmes them solemnely by an Oath; he is consecrated an High Priest for evermore by the word of the Oath, Heb. 7. 28. The Lord swear and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever, &c.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ accepts of the Condition, and the* 1.1437 Promise, and voluntarily undertakes the worke. Psal. 40. 7, 8. Then said I, loe! I come to do thy will, yea I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea thy Law is within my heart. He freely, willingly, cheerfully, undertakes to do, and suffer whatever it was the will of his Fa∣ther, that he should do, or suffer, for the bringing about the common end aymed at; He undertakes to be the Fathers servent in this worke: And sayes to the Lord, thou art my Lord, Psal. 16. 2. thou art He, to whom I am to yeild obedience, to submit to thee in tihs worke. Mine eare hast thou bored, and I am thy Servant. I am not Rebellious, I do not withdraw from it, Isa. 50. 8. Hence the Apostle tels us, that this mind was in Him; that whereas he was in the forme of God, he humbled himselfe to the death of the crosse, Phil. 2. 8. and so by his own voluntary consent he came under the Law of the Mediatour, which afterwards as he would not, so he could not decline. He made himselfe surety of the Covenant, and so was to pay what he never tooke. He voluntarily ingaged him∣selfe into this sponsion; but when he had so done, he was legally subject to all that attended it; when he had put his name into the Obligation, he became responsible for the whole debt, and all that he did, or suffered comes to be called Obediene••, which relates to the Law that he was subject to: having en∣gaged himselfe to his father, and said to the Lord, thou art my Lord, loe! I come to do thy will.

5. The fith and last thing is, that on: the one side, the pro∣miser* 1.1438 do approve & accept of the performance of the condition prescribed, and the Ʋndertaker demand, and lay clayme to the promises made, and thereupon the common end designed be accom∣plished

and fulfilled. All this also is fully manifest, in this Compact or Convention. God the Father he accepts of the per∣formance of what was to the Sonne prescribed. This God fully declares Isa. 49. 5, 6. And now sayth the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob againe to him, though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength: And he said, it is a light thing that thou should••st ••e my servant to rayse up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the pre∣served of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou maist be my Salvation to the ends of the earth. And eminently v. 8, 9. Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee: and in a day of Salvation have I helped thee and I will preserve thee & give thee for a Covenant of the people, to establish the earth to cause to inherit the dessolate heritages. That thou mayst say to the prisoners go forth; to them that are in darkenes sh••w your selves, &c. Now I have bin with thee & helped thee in thy work & thou hast performed it, now thou shalt do al that thy heart desires, according to my promise. Hence that which was originally spoken of the Eternall generation of the Son Ps. 2. 7. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee, is applyed by the Apostle to his Resurrection from the dead. Act. 13. 33. God hath fulfilled his word unto us, in that he hath raised up▪ Jesus from the dead, as it is also written in the 2. Psal. Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee. That is, God by the Resurrection from the dead, gloriously manifested him to be his Son, whom he Loved, in whom he was w••ll pleased, and who did all his pleasure. So Rom. 1. 4. He was declared to be the Sonne of God with power, by the Resurrection from the dead. Then was he declared to be the Son of God. God approving and accepting the worke he had done, loosed the paines of death, and raised him againe, manifesting to all the world his approbation and acceptation of him and his worke. Whence he immediately sayes to him, Psal. 2. 8. Aske of me, and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance: now aske▪ what thou wilt, what ever I have promised, what ever thou didst, or couldest expect upon thy undertaking this worke, it shall de done, it shall be granted thee. And

2. Christ accordingly makes his demand solemnly on Earth,* 1.1439 and in Heaven; On earth Ioh. 17. throughout; the whole Chap∣ter is the Demand of Christ, for the Accomplishment of the whole Compact, and all the Promises that were made to Him,

when he undertook to be a Saviour, both which concerned him∣selfe and his Church; see v. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. &c. and in Heaven also; He is gone into the presence of God, there to ap∣peare for us, Heb. 9. 24. and is able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by him, seeing he liveth for ever, to make intercession for them, Heb. 7. 25. not as in the daies of his flesh, with strong cryes and supplications, but by vertue of his Oblation, laying claime to the promised Inheritance in our behalfe. And,

3. The whole work is Accomplished, and the end intended* 1.1440 brought about; For in the Death of Christ he finished the Trans∣gression, and made an end of sinne, and made Reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting Righteousnesse, Dan. 9. 24. and of sinfull man, God saies, deliver him, for I have found a Ransome, Job. 33. 24. Hence our Reconciliation, Justification, yea our salvati∣on, are in the Scripture spoken of, as things actually done and accomplished, in the death, and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, not as though we were all then actually justified and saved, but upon the account of the certainty of the performance, and ac∣complishment of those things in their due time towards us, and upon us, are these things so delivered: for in reference to the un∣dertaking of Christ in this Covenant, is he called the second A∣dam, becoming a common head to his people, with this difference; that Adam was a common head to all that came of him, necessarily, and as I may so say, naturally, and whether he would or no; Christ is so to his, voluntarily, and by his own consent and under∣taking, as hath been demonstrated; now as we all dye in Adam faederally and Meritoriously, yet the severall individualls are not in their persons actually dead in sinne, and obnoxious to eternall death, before they are by naturall Generation united to Adam, their first head; So though all the Elect be made alive, and saved faederally and meritoriously in the Death of Christ, wherein also a certain foundation is laid of that efficacy, which workes all these things in us, and for us, yet we are not viritim made par∣takers of the good things mentioned, before we are united to Christ, by the communication of his spirit to us.

And this I say is the Covenant and Compact, that was be∣tween* 1.1441 Father and Sonne, which is the great foundation of what hath been said, and shall farther be spoken, about the me∣rit and Satisfaction of Christ; here lyes the ground of the Righ∣teousnesse

of the dispensation treated of: That Christ should undergoe the punishment due to us, it was done voluntarily of him∣selfe; and he did nothing but what he had power to doe, and command from his Father to doe; I have power, saith he, to lay downe my life, and Power to take it againe, this command have I received of my Father; whereby the glory both of the Love, and justice of God is exceedingly exalted. And,

1. This stops the mouth of the Socinian clamour, concern∣ing the Unrighteousnesse of one mans suffering personally, for ano∣ther mans sinne. It is true, it is so; if these men be not in such Relation to one another, that what one doth, or suffereth, the o∣ther may be accounted to do, or suffer▪ but it is no unrighteous∣nesse, if the hand offena, that the head be smitten; but Christ is our head, we are his members. It is true; if he that suffereth hath not power over that wherein he suffers; but Christ had power to lay down his life, and take it againe. It is true, if he that is to suffer, or he that is to punish, be not willing, or agreed to the commu∣tatin: But here Father and Sonne as hath been manifested, were fully agreed upon the whole matter. It may be true; if he who suffers cannot possibly be made partaker of any good af∣terward, that shall ballance, and overweigh all his suffering; not, where the Crosse is endured, and the shame despised, for the Glory proposed, or set before him, that suffers: not, where he is made Low for a season, that he may be Crowned with Dignity and Honour. And,

2. This is the foundation of the merit of Christ: The Apo∣stle* 1.1442 tells us, Rom▪ 4. 4. what merit is; it is such an adjunct of obe∣dience, as whereby the Reward is reckoned, not of Grace, but of debt. God having proposed a Law for Obedience unto Christ, with Promises of such and such Rewards, upon condition of fulfilling the obedience required: He performing that Obedience, the Reward is rekoned to him of debt, or he righteously merited what ever was so promised to him. Though the compact was of grace, yet the reward is of debt. Look then what ever God pro∣mised Christ, upon his undertaking to be a Saviour, that, upon the fulfilling of his Will, he merited, that himselfe should be exalted, that he should be the Head of his Church, that the should see his seed, that he should justify and save them, sanctify and glo∣rify

them, was all promised to him; all merited by him. But of this more afterwards.

Having thus fully considered the three fold notion of the death* 1.1443 of Christ, as it was a Price, a Sacrifice, and a Punishment, and dis∣covered the foundation of Righteousnesse in all this, Proceed we now to manifest, what are the Proper Effects of the Death of Christ, under this three fold Notion; now these also an∣swerably are Three.

• 1. Redemption as it is a Price.
• 2. Reconciliation as it is a Sacrifice.
• 3. Satisfaction as it is a punishment. Upon which foundati∣on, Union with Christ, Vocation, Justification, Sanctification, and glory are built.

CHAP. XXVIII.

Of Redemption by the Death of Christ, as it was a Price or Ransome.

HAving given before the Generall Notions of the Death of* 1.1444 Christ, as it is in Scripture proposed, all tending to ma∣nifest the way, and manner of the Expiation of our sinnes, and our delivery from the Guilt, and Punishment due to them, it re∣mains, that an Accommodation of those severall Notions of it, be made particularly, and respectively, to the businesse in hand.

The first consideration proposed of the Death of Christ, was* 1.1445 of it, as a Price; and the issue and effect thereof, is Redemption. Hence Christ is spoken of in the Old Testament as a Redeemer, Joh. 19. 25. I know that my Redeemer lives; the word there used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whose rise and use is commonly known.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is vindicare, redimere, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek which is commonly used for suum vindicare: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato de Legib. 12. And that may be the sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if not in the effect, yet in the cause, Heb. 2. 16.

The rise and use of this word, in this businesse of our deli∣verance by Christ, we have Levit. 25. 25. if any of his Kin come to redeeme it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redimens illud propinquus; the next who is goel too, redeeme it, or vindicate the possession out of Morgage; on this account Boaz tells Ruth, that in respect of the possession of Elimelech, he was Goel, Ruth. 3. 13. a Redeemer, which we have translated, a Kinsman, because he was to doe that office by right of propinquity of blood, or neernesse of Kin; as is evi∣dent from the Law before mentioned. Christ coming to vin∣dicate us into liberty, by his own bl••od, is called by Job his goel; so also is he termed, I••a 41. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thy Redeemer, or thy next Kinsman; and Chap. 4••. 6. in t••at Excellent description of Ch••i••t, v. 24. c. 46. c. Chap. 48. 17. C. 49. 26. C. 54. 5. C. 59. 20. C. 60. 16 C. 63. 16. and in sundry other places; Nei∣ther is the Church of God at all beholding to some late Expo∣sitors, who to shew their skill in the Hebrew Doctors, would impose upon us their Interpretations, and make those expressions to signify deliverance in generall, and to be referred to God the Father, seeing that the rise of the use oif the word plainly re∣strains the redemption intended, to the paying of a Price for it, which was done only by Jesus Christ; so Jerem. 32. 7, 8. Hence they that looked for the Messiah, according to the promise, are said to look for, or to wait for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Redemption in Izrael, Luk. 2. 28. and in the Accomplishment of the promise, the Apostle tells us, that Christ by his blood obtained for us eternall Redempti∣on, Heb. 9. 12. and he having so obtained it, we are justified free∣ly by the grace of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in him, for, by him, or wrought by him: And this being brought home to us, we have redemption through his blood, even the forgivenesse of sinne, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. whence he is said to be made unto us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Redemption, 1 Cor. 1. 30.

How this is done, will be made evident, by applying of what* 1.1446 is now spoken, to what was spoken of the Death of Christ, as a Price; Christ giving himselfe or his life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Price of redemption, as hath been shewed, a ransome; those for whom he did it, become to have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, redemp∣tion thereby, or deliverance from the Captivity wherein they were. And our Saviour expresses particularly, how this was

done as to both parts, Math. 20. 28. He came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, he came to be an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one to stand in the roome of others, and to give his life for them.

To make this the more evident and cleare, I shall give a de∣scription* 1.1447 of Redemption properly so called, and make Applica∣tion of it in the severall parts thereof, unto that under consi∣deration.

Redemption is the deliverance of any one from bondage or captivity, and the misery attending that condition, by the intervention or interposition of a Price or Ransome, paid by the Redeemer to him, by whose Authority He is detained, that being delivered, he may be in a state of liberty, at the di∣sposall of the Redeemer.

And this will comprise the Laws of this Redemption, which are usually given. They are on the part of the Redeemer.

1. Propinquus esto, Let him be neare of Kin.

2. Consanguinitatis jure redimito, Let him redeeme by right of Consanguinity.

3. Injusto possessori praedum eripito; Let him deliver the Prey from the unjust possessor.

4. Huic praetium nullum solvito; to him let no price be paid.

5. Sanguinem pro redemptionis praetio vero demino offerto; Let him offer, or give his blood to the true Lord for a ransome, or price of Redemption.

2. On the part of the Redeemed.

1. Libertatis jure felix gaudeto; Let him enjoy his liberty.

2. Servitutis jugum ne iterum sponte suscipito; Let him not again willingly take on him the yoke of Bondage.

3. Deinceps servum te exhibeto Redemptori; let him in liberty be a Servant to his Redeemer.

The generall parts of this description of Redemption, Soci∣nus* 1.1448 himselfe consents unto: for whereas Covel had a little in∣conveniently defined to redeeme, saying, Redimere aliquem est ae∣bitum solvere creditoris ejus nomine, qui solvendo non erat, sic{que} satis∣facere creditori: which is a proper description of the payment of another mans debt, and not of his Redemption; Socinus cor∣recting this mistake, affirmes, that, Redimere aliquem, nihil ali∣ud propriè significat, quam Captivum e manibus illius qui eum detinet pretio illi daeto liberare.

To redeeme any one pro∣perly, signifies nothing else, but to deliver him out of his

hands that detained him Captive, by a Price given to him who detained him.

Which as to the generall nature of Redemption, contains as much as what was before given in for the description of it: (Socin. de Jes. Christo Servatore lib. 1. Part. 2. Cap. 1.) with the accommodation therefore of that description to the Redemption which we have by the blood of Christ, I shall proceed; Desiring the Reader to remember, that if I evince the Redemption we have by Christ to be pro∣per, and properly so called, the whole businesse of satisfaction is confessedly evinced.

1 The generall Nature of it consists in deliverance; thence* 1.1449 Christ is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the delivers; Rom. 11. 26. as it is writ∣ten, there shall come out of Sion the deliverer; The word in the Pro∣phet, Isa: 59. 20. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that we may know what kind of deli∣verer Christ is; A deliverer by Redemption: He gave himselfe for our sinne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gal. 1. 4. that he might deliver us; He delivered us; but it is by giving himselfe for our sin, 1 Thes. 1. 10. To wait for his Son from Heaven, whom he raised from the dead, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come, so Luk. 1. 74. Rom. 7. 6. Heb. 2. 15. Col. 1. 13.

Now as Redemption, because its generall Nature consists in* 1.1450 Deliverance, is often expressed thereby; so deliverance, because it hath the Effect of Redemption, is, or may be called Redempti∣on, though it be not properly so, but agree in the End, and Ef∣fect only: thence Moses is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 7. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Him did God send a Price, and a Redeemer: that is, a Deliverer; on whom God used for the Deliverance of his People. And because what he did, even the Delivery of his People out of Bondage, agreed with Redemp∣tion, in it's end, the Work of it selfe is called Redemption▪ and He is termed therein a Redeemer, though it was not a direct Re∣demption that he wrought; no Ransome being paid for de∣livery.

It is pleaded, that God being said to redeeme his people in sun∣dry plaees in the Old Testament, which he could not possibly do, by a Ransome, therefore the Redemption mentioned in the Scripture, is Metaphoricall: a meere deliverance: & such is also that we have by Christ without the intervention of any Price.

2. Moses who was a Type of Christ, and a Redeemer, who is so often said to redeeme the people, yet as it is known, did it without any Ransome, by a meere deliverance; therefore did Christ so also.

Not to trouble the Reader with repetition of words, this is the summe of what is pleaded by the Racovian Catechisme to prove our Redemption by Christ, not to be proper, but Metaphoricall, & so consequently that no Satisfaction can be thence evinced. Everbo▪ redimendi non posse effici satisfactionem hanc hinc est planum, quod de ipso Deo in novo & inprisco faedere scribitur, eum redimisse populum suum ex Egypto▪ eum fccis••e redemptionem populo suo: quod Moses fuerit Redemptor, Act▪ 7. 35. Vox ideo Redemptionis, sim∣pliciter liberationem denotat. Rac. Catec. cap. 8. de Christo.

And indeed what there they speake is the summe of the plea of Sociunus as to this part of our description of Redemp∣tion: de Jesu Christo Servatore, Lib. 1. Part. 2 Cap. 1, 2, 3.

To remove these difficulties (if they may be so called) I shall only tender the ensuing considerations.

1. That because Redemption is sometime to be taken Metapho∣rically* 1.1451 for meere deliverance, when it is spoken of God without any mention of a Price or Ransome, in such cases as wherein it was impossible that a Ransome should be paid (as in the deliverance of the Childrem of Israel from Aegypt, & Pharaoh,)* 1.1452 when it is expressly said to be done by power, and outstretched arme, therefore it must be so understood, when it is spoken of Christ the Mediatour, with expresse mention of a price or Ransome, & when it was impossible but that a ransome must be paid, is a loose consequence, not deserving any notice.

2. That all the places of Scripture, where mention is made* 1.1453 of God being a Redeemer, and Rededming his people, may be re∣ferred unto these heads.

1. Such as call God the Redeemer of his Church in gene∣rall, as the places before mentioned; and these are all to be referred immediately to the Sonne of God, (the manner of his Redemption being described in the New Testament) and so pro∣per Redemption is intended in them. Is. 54. 5, 6. with Ep. 5. 25▪ 26.

2. Such as mention some temporall deliverance, that was Typicall of the Spirituall Redemption, which we have by Jesus Christ; and it is called Redmption, not so much from the gene∣rall

nature of deliverance, as from its pointing out to us that reall and proper Redemption, that was typifyed by it. Such was Gods redeeming his people out of Aegypt▪ So there is no mention of Redemption in the Scripture, but either it is proper, or receives that Apellation from its Relation to that which is so.

3. This is indeed a very wretched and cursed way* 1.1454 of interpreting Scripture, especially those passages of it which set out the grace of God, and t••e Love of Christ to us; namely, to do it by way of diminution, and lessening; God takes and uses this word that is of use amongst men; namely of Redemp∣tion: saith he, Christ hath Redeemed you with his own blood, he hath layd down a price for you; for men to come and interpret this, and say he did it not properly, it was not a compleat Re∣demption, but Metaphoricall, a bare deliverance, is to Blasph••ame God and the worke of his Love and Grace. It is a safe▪ Rule of interpreting Scripture, that in places mentioning the Love and Grace of God to us, the words are to be taken in their utmost significancy. It is a thing most unworthy a good and wise man, to set out his kindnesse and benefits with great swelling words, of mighty weight and importance, which when the things signi∣fyed by them come to be considered, must be interpre∣ted by way of minoration; nor will any worthy man do so. Much lesse can it be once imagined, that God has expressed his Love and Kindnesse, and the fruits of it to us, in great and weighty words, that in their ordinary use and significancy, con∣taine a great deale more then really he hath done? for any one so to interpret what he hath spoken, is an Abomination, into which I desire my soule may never enter.

What the Redemption of a Captive is, and how it is* 1.1455 brought about we know. God tells us, that Christ hath Re∣deemed us, and that with his owne blod; is it no•• better to be∣lieve the Lord, and venture our soules upon it▪ then to goe to God and say, this thou hast said indeed; but it is an improper and Me∣taphoricall Redemption, a deliverance that we have. The truth i••, it is so farre from truth, that God hath delivered the wo••ke of his Grace, and our benefit thereby, in the death of Christ, in words too bigge in their proper signification for th•• things themselves, that no words whatever are sufficient▪ to expresse it and convey it to our understandings.

4. That Moses who was a Type of Christ in the worke of* 1.1456 Redemption, and is called a Redeemer, did redeeme the People without the proper payment of a valuable Ransome; there∣fore Christ did so also; to conclude thus, I say, is to say, that the type, and things typifyed must in all things be alike; yea, that a similitude between them in that, wherein their relation con∣sists▪ is not enough to maintain their relation, but there must be such an identity as in truth overthrows it. Christ tells us, that the Brazen Serpent was a type of him, John 3. 14. As Moses lifted up the brazen Serpent in the wildernesse, ••ven so must the Son of man be lifted up; Now if a man should thence argue, that because the Bra∣zen Serpent was only lifted up, not Crucifyed nor did shed his blood therefore Christ was not Crucifyed, nor shed his blood, would he be attended unto? The like may be said of Jonas, who ws alive in the belly of the Whale, when he was a type of Christ, being dead in the Earth; in the generall nature of deliverance from Captivity, there was an agreement in the corporeall deliverance of Moses and the spirituall of Christ, and here was the one a type of the other; in the manner of their accomplish∣ment, the one did not represent the other; the one being said expressly to be done by power, the other by a Ransome.

2. It is the delivery of one in captivity; all men considered* 1.1457 in the state of sinne, and alienation from God are in captivity. Hence they are said to be captives & to be bound inprison, Isa. 61. 1. and the worke of Christ is to bring the prisoners out of prison, and them that sit in darkenesse, (that is, in the Dungeon) out of the Prison house, Isa. 42. 7. he sayes to the prisoners go forth, to them that are in darkenesse, shew your selves, Chap. 49. 9. as it is eminently expressed Zech: 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of the Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein there is no water. Here are prisoners, Prisoners belonging to the daughter of Sion, for unto them, the Church, he speakes, v. 9. rejoyce greatly O daughter of Sion; those other sheep of the fold of Christ, not yet gathered when this promise was given, are spo∣ken of. And they are in the pit wherein there is no water; a pit for security to detaine them, that they may not escape: and without water, that they may in it find no refreshment. How are these prisoners delivered? By the blood of this Covenant. Of whom he speakes, see v. 9. Behold thy King cometh unto thee:

he is just, and having Salvation, lowly, and riding upon an Asse, and upon a Colt the foal of an Asse. It is a description of Christ when the deliverance of the prisoners with his own blood; which is therefore called the blood of the Covenant, with which he was Sanctifyed He••. 10. 29. hence in the next verse, prisoners of hope is a description of the Elect Zec. 9. 12.

So also are they called Captives expressly, Isa. 49. 25. Thus* 1.1458 saith the Lord, even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; those who were in their captivity a prey to Sathan, that mighty and cruell one, shall be delivered; and who shall do this? The Lord thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer, the Mighty one of Jacob, v. 26. He proclaimes liberty to the Captives. Isa. 61. 1. Luk. 4. 18. And this is given in as the great fruit of the death of Christ, that upon his conquest of it he led capti∣vity captive, Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 8. that is, either captivity active∣ly, Sathan who held and detained his in captivity, or passively those who were in captivity to him.

Thus being both Prisoners and Captives they are said to be in Bondage; Christ gives us liberty from that yoak of bondage. Gal 5. 1. and men are in Bondage by reason of death all their dayes, Heb. 2. 14. There is indeed nothing that the Scripture more abounds in, then this, that men in the state of sinne are in Pri∣son, Captivity, & Bondage, are Captives, Prisoners, and Slaves.

Concerning this two things are considerable.

1. The cause of mens Bondage and Captivity, deserving,* 1.1459 or procuring it.

2. The efficient principall cause of it, to whom they are in Captivity.

For the first (as it is known) it is sinne. To all this bondage and captivity men are sold by sinne. In this businesse sinne is considered two ways.

1. As a Debt, whereof God is the Creditor. Our Saviour hath taught us to pray for the Forgivenesse of our sinnes un∣der that notion, Math. 6. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, remit to us our debts; And in the Parable of the Lord and his Servants, Math. 18. 27, 28, 29. he calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 27. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 30. due ••ebt; all which he expounds by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 35. offences or transgressio••s Debt makes men liable to Prison for

non payment, and so doth sinne (without satisfaction made) to the Prison of Hell; so our Saviour expresses it, Math. 5. 25, 6. Agree quickly with thine Adversary, whiles thou art in the way with him, least at any time the Adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into Prison: Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no meanes come out thence 'till thou hast paid the utmost farthing. On this account, 1. Are men Prisoners for sinne: They are bound in the Prison house, because they have wasted the Goods of their Master, and contracted a Debt that they are no way able to pay: and if it be not paid for them, there they must lye to Eternity. All mankind was cast into Prison, for that Great Debt they contracted in Adam, in their Trustee; be∣ing there, in stead of making any Earnings to pay the Debt al∣ready upon them by the Law, they contract more, and in∣crease 1000s of Talents. But this use of the word Debt and Prison, applyed to Sin and Punishment, is Metaphoricall.

2. As a Crime, Rebellion, Transgression against God, the* 1.1460 great Governour, and Judge of all the World. The Criminal∣nesse, Rebellion, and Transgression, the Disobedience that is in Sinne, is more or lesse expressed by all the words in the Ori∣ginall, whereby any sinnes are signified and called: now for sinne considered as Rebellion, are men cast into Prison, Cap∣tivity and Bondage, by way of Judiciall processe & Punish∣ment.

2. For the Principall Cause of this Captivity and Imprison∣ment,* 1.1461 it is God: For

1. He is the Creditor to whom these Debts are due, Math. 6. 12. Our Father which art in Heaven, forgive us our Debts; It is to him that we stand Indebted the ten thousand Talents; Against thee only have I sinned, saies David, Psal: 51. 4. God hath intrusted us with all we have to sinne by, or withall; he hath lent it us, to lay out for his Glory; our spending of what we have received upon our Lusts, is running into Debt unto God; Though he doth not Reap, where he did not, Sow, yet he requires his Prin∣cipall with advantage.

2. And properly, He is the great King, Judge, and Governour of the World, who hath given his Law, the Rule of our Obe∣dience; and every transgression thereof is a Rebellion against him; Hence, to sinne, is to rebell, and to Transgresse, and to

be Perverse, to Turne aside from the way, to cast off the Yoke of the Lord, as it is every where expressed. God is the Law-gi∣ver, Ja: 4. 12. Who is able to kill and to destroy for the transgres-sion of it; It is his Law chih is broken, and upon the Breach whereof, he sayes, cursed be every one that hath so done, Deut. 29. 29. He is the Judge of all the Earth, Gen 18. 25, 26. Yea The Lord is Judge h••mselfe, Psal. 50 6 and we shall be judged by his Law, James 2. 19, 11, 12. and his judgement is, that they that commit sinne are worthy of Death, Rom. 1. 32. and he is the King for ever and ever, Psal. 10. 16. He Raigneth and executeth Judgement. Now who should commit the Reb••ll that offends, who should be the Author of the Captivity, and imprisonment of the Delinquent, but he who is the King, Judge, and Law-maker.

3. He doth actually ••o•• it, Rom: 11. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.1462 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God hath shut up all under disobedience: he hath laid them up close Prisoners, for their disobedience: and they shall not go ou••, untill satisfaction be made. In the Para∣ble Math: 18. of the Lord, or Master, and his Servants, this is e∣vident; and Math. 5. 25. It is the Judge, that delivers the Man to the Officer, to be cast into Prison. Look who it is that shall inflict the finall Punishment upon the Captives, if a Ransome be not paid for them, He it is, by whose Power and Authority they are committed, and to whom principally they are Priso∣ners, and Captives: Now this is God only, He can cast both bo∣dy and soule into Hell fire, Math: 10. 28. and wicked men shall be destroyed from the terrour of his Presence, and the power of his Glory, 2 Thes: 1. 9. In briefe, God is the Judge, the Law is the Law of God, the Sentence denounced is condemnation from God: the Curse inflicted, is the Curse of God; the Wrath wherewith men are punished, is the wrath of God; He that finds a Ransome is God, and therefore it is properly and strictly He, to whom sinners are Prisoners and Captives, 2 Pet: 2. 4.

And therefore when in the Scripture at any time, men are said to be in Bondage to Sathan: it is but as to the Officer of a Judge, or the Jaylor: to their Sinne, it is but as to their Fet∣ters, as shall be afterwards ore fully discovered.

And this removes the First Question and Answer of the ••a∣covians* 1.1463 to this purpose Socinus De Servatore, expresses himselfe to the whole businesse of Redemption, in 3. Chapters: Lib: 1,

Part. 2. Cap: 1, 2, 3. the summer of which, the Catechists have la∣boured to comprise in as many Questions and Answers. The first is.

What doest thou Answer to those Testimo∣nies,* 1.1464 which witnesse that we are redeemed of Christ?

Ans. It is hence evident, that satisfaction cannot be confirmed from the word Redee∣ming, because it is written of God himselfe, both in the Old and New Testament, that he redeemed his people. 2. Because it is written that God redeemed Abraham, and David, and that Moses was a Redeemer, and that we are redeemed from our iniquities, and our vain conversation, and from the Curse of the Law; for it is certain, that God made satisfaction to none, nor can it be said, that satisfaction is made either to our iniquites, or our vain con∣versation, or to the Law.

I say this whole Plea is utterly removed by what hath been spoken: For 1. In what sence Redemption is ascribed to God and Moses, without the least prejudice of that proper redempti∣on that was made by the blood of Christ, hath been declared, and shall be farther manifested, when we come to Demon∣strate the Price that was paid in this Redemption.

2. It is true, there is no Satisfaction made to our sinne, and vaine conversation, when we are redeemed: but Satisfaction being made to him to whom it is due, we are delivered from them. But of this afterwards.

3. Satisfaction is properly to the Law, when the pe∣nalty which it threatens, and prescribes, is undergone, as in the case insisted on it was. In the mean time, our Catechists are sufficiently vaine, in supposing our Argument to lye in the word redimere; though something hath been spoken of the word in the Originall, yet our plea is from the thing it selfe.* 1.1465

This Socinus thus expresses.

There is also required he who held the Cap∣tive,* 1.1466 otherwise he is not a Captive: To him in our deliverance, if we will consider the thing it selfe exactly, many things do Answer, for ma∣ny things do detaine us Captives; Now they are sinne, the Divell, and the World, and that which followeth sinne, the guilt of eternall dea••h, or the punishment of death appointed to us.

Ans. A Lawfull Captive is detained two waies directly, and that two waies also, Legally, Juridically, and Authoritatively: so is sinfull Man detained Captive of God. The wrath of God a∣bideth on him, Joh: 3. 36. as hath been declared.

2. Instrumentally, in subservience to the Authority of the o∣ther. So is Man in bondage to Sathan, and the Law, and feare of deathto come, Heb. 2. 14, 15.

2. Consequentially, and by accident; so a man is detained by his shackles, as in the filth of the Prison: so is a man Captive to Sinne, and the World; nor are all these properly the detainers of us in Captivity, from which we are redeemed, any more then the Gallowes keeps a Malefactor in Prison, from which by a Pardon and Ransome he is delivered.

To proceed with the description of Redemption given; It* 1.1467 is the delivery of him who was captive from prison, or capti∣vity, and all the miseries attending that condition.

1. What I meane by the Prison, is easily gathered from what hath been delivered concerning the Prisoner or Captive, and him that holds him captive. If the captive be a sinner as a sinner, and he who hold him captive be God, by his Justice making him lyable to Punishment, his captivity must needs be his obnoxiousnesse unto the wrath of God on the ac∣count of his Justice for sin. This are we delivered from by this Redemption, that is in the blood of Jesus, Rom. 3. 23, 24, 25. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: Being justifyed freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes tha are past, through the for∣bearance of God. v. 23. is the description of the state of our Capti∣vity,

having sinned we are come short of the Glory of God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they fall short in their race, and are by no meates able to come up to a participation of God; our d••livery and the meanes of it, is expressed v. 24. our delivery: we are Iustifyed freely by his Grace; or delivered from that condition and state of sin, wherein it was impossible for us to reach and attaine the Glory of God. The procuring cause of which liberty is expressed in the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Redemption or Ransome paying that is in the blood of Jesus; that is the cause of our deliverance from that condition wherein we were: whence and how it is so, is expressed v. 25. God sent him forth, for that end, that we might have deliverance through Faith in his blood, or by Faith be made partakers of the Redepmtion that is in his blood, or purchased by it: and this to declare his righteousnesse; we have it this way, that the Righteousnesse of God may be decla∣red, whereto Satisfaction is made by the death of Christ: for that also is included in the word, propitiation, as shall be after∣ward proved.

Thus whilst men are in this captivity, the wrath of God abi∣deth* 1.1468 on them, Joh. 3. 36. and the full accomplishment of the execution of that wrath is called the wrath to come, 1 Thes. 1. 10. which we are delivered from.

In this sence are we said to have Redemption Col. 1. 14. in his blood, or to have deliverance from our captivity by the price he paid; and by his death to be delivered from the feare of death Heb. 2 15. or our obnoxiousnesse thereto; it being the Justice or Judgement of God, that they which commit sinne, are worthy of death, Rom. 1. 32. Christ by undergoing it delivered us from it.

Whence is that of the Apostle Rom 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to their charge, who shall condemne them? Who should but God? It is God against whom they have sinned, whose the Law is, and who alone can pronounce Sentence of Condemnation on the offen∣ders, & inflict penalty accordingly. Yea, but it is God that Justifies: that is, that frees men from their obnoxiousnesse to punish∣ment for sin in the first sence of it, which is their captivity, as hath been declared; but how comes this about? Why it is Christ that dyed, it is by the death of Christ that we have this Redemp∣tion.

2 From all the miseries that attend that state and condition.* 1.1469 These are usually referred to three heads.

1. The Power of Sathan. 2. Of Sinne. 3 Of the World: from all which we are said to be Redeemed; and these are well compared to the Iaylor, filth, and fetters of the Prison, wherein the Captives are righteously detained.

For the first Col 1. 13, 14. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkenesse, and hath translated us into the kingdome of his deare Sonne, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgivenesse of sins. the power of darkenes, in the power of the prince of darkenes, of Sathan: that God delivers us frō v. 14. by the Redemption that is in the blood of Christ; & how? Even as he who delivers a captive frō the Judg by a price, delivers him also from the Iaylor who kept him in prison. By his death, which as hath been shewed, was a price & a Ransom, he deprived Sathan of al his power over us, which is called his de∣stroying of him, Heb. 2. 14. that is, not the Divell as to his Essence & Being, but as to his Power and Authority over those who are made partakers of his death.

The Words of Socinus to this purpose may be taken notice* 1.1470 of. Lib. De Servat. 1. Part. 2. Cap. 2.

Nothing is wanting in this deliverance, that* 1.1471 it might wholly answer a tru▪ Redemption, but only that he who detained the captive should receive the price: although it seemes to some that it may be said, that the Divell received the price which intervened in our Redemption, as the An∣tient Divines among whō was Ambrose & Augustine made bold to speake, yet that ought to seeme most absured; & it is true that this price was re∣ceived by none. For on that account chiefely is our deliverance not a true, but a metaphoricall redemption, because in it there is none that should receive the Price. For if that which is in ••he place of a price, be received, (by him who delivers the Captive) then not a metaphoricall but a true Price had intervened, & thereupon our Redemp∣tion had been proper.

1. It is confessed, that nothing is wanting to constitute that we speak of to be a true, proper, & reall Redemption, but only that the price paid, be received of him, that delivered the captives; that this is God we proved, that the price is paid to him, we shal nextly p••ove.

2. The only reason given why the Price is not paid to any, is because it is not paid to the Divell; but was it the Law of Sathan we had transgressed? Was he the Judg that cast us into Prison? Was it to he whō we were indebted? Was it ever h••ard ••hat the price of Redemption was payd to the Jaylor? whether any of the ancients said so or no, I shal not now trouble my self to enquire, or in what sence they sayd it; the thing in it self is ridiculouus & blaspemous.

2. Sinne. He Redeemed us from all iniquity, Tit. 2. 14, and we* 1.1472 were Redeemed by the precious blood of Christ from our vaine conversation received by tradition from our Fathers, 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. This redeeming us from our sinnes, respects two things. 1. The guilt of them that they should not condemn us; and 2. the power of them, that they should not rule in us: in the place mentioned, it is the latter that is principally intended, which is evident from what was opposed to the captivity under sinne that is spoken of; in the one place, it is Purchasing to himselfe a peculiar people zealous of good workes, Tit. 2. 14. in the other, the purifying of our soules in obe∣dience to the truth through the Spirit, v. 22. Now we are redeemed from the power of our sin, by the blood of Christ; not immediat∣ly, but consequentially; as a Captive is delivered frō his Fatters and Filth upon the payment of his Ransome; Christs satisfy∣ing the Justice of God, reconciling him to us by his death, hath alsoprocured the gift of his Spirit for us, to deliver us from the power of our sinne. The foundation of this being laid in the blood of Christ, and the price which thereby he paid, our delivery from our sins belongs to his Redemption; and we are there∣fore said to be Redeemed by him from our vaine Conversation.

And the great plea of our Adversary, that this redemption is not proper, because we are redeemed from our iniquities, and vain conversation, to which no ransome can be payd, will then be freed from ridiculous folly, when they shall give an instance of a Ransome being paid to the Prisoners fetters before his deli∣very; whereunto our sins do rather answer, then to the Judge.

2. There is a Redeeming of us from the Guilt of sinne,* 1.1473 which hath a twofold expression. 1. Of redeeming us from the

Curse of the Law, Gal: 3. 13. And 2. Of the redemption of Trans∣gression, Heb: 9. 15.

For the First, the Curse of the Law, is the Curse due to sinne, Deut. 27. 29. that is, to the transgression of the Law. This may be con∣sidered two wayes: 1. In respect of its rise & fountaine, or its terminus a quo. 2. In respect of its End, and Effect, or its termi∣nus ad quem.

For the First; Or the Rise of it; it is the Justice of God, or the just and Holy Will of God, requiring punishment for sinne; as the vengeance that is inflicted actually for sinne, is called the Wrath of God, Rom: 1. 18. that is, his Justice and indignation a∣gainst sinne. In this sence, to redeeme us from the Curse of the Law, is to make satisfaction to the Justice of God, from whence that Curse doth arise, that it should not be inflicted on us; and thus it falls in with what was delivered before, concerning our Captivity by the Justice of God. 2. As it is the Penalty it selfe: So we are delivered from it, by this Ransome paying of Christ, as the Punishment which we should have undergone, had not he undertaken for us, and redeemed us.

2. For the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb: 9. 15. It can be no∣thing* 1.1474 but making reparation for the injury done by transgression: It is a singular phrase, but may receive some light from that of Heb. 2. 17. Where Christ is said to be an High Priest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. to reconcile the sinne of the People: that is, to make reconciliation for them, of the sence whereof afterwards. 3. He Redeemes from the World, Gal. 4. 5.

3. The Third thing is; That this deliverance from Captivity* 1.1475 be by the intervention of a price properly so called; that Christ did pay such a Price I proved before, which is the foundation of this discourse.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and those arising from thence, were speci∣ally insisted on; The known use of the word is, redemptionis pre∣tium; so among the best Authors of the Greek tongue; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Zeneph. Hellen. 7. they took him away without paying his ransome, or the price of his redemption; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: saie•• Plutarch in Fabius: he sent their ransome to Hanniball, and recei∣ved the Prisoners: and from thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same import and signification. So in the Argument of the first Book of the

Iliads, speaking of Chrysis, that he came to the Camp, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to pay a price for the redemption of his Daugh∣ter. And Arist. Ethic. lib. 9. cap. 2. Disputing whether a Benefit, or Good turne, be not to be repaied, rather then a favour done to any other, gives an instance of a Prisoner redeemed; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. whe∣ther he who is redeemed by the payment of a ransome from a rober be to redeeme him, who redeemed him, if Captive, &c. but this is so farre confessed, that if it may be evinced, that this price is paid to any, it will not be denied, but that it is a proper price of redemption, as before was discovered.

That the death of Chrisis such a Price, I proved abundant∣ly,* 1.1476 at the entrance of this discourse; it is so frequently and evi∣dently expressed in the Scripture to be such, that it is not to be questioned, I shall not farther insist upon it.

All that our Adversaries have to object, is, (as was said) that seeing this Price is not paid to any, it cannot be a price pro∣perly so called, for as for the Nature of it, they confesse, it may be a Price, so▪ Socinus acknowledgeth it. Saith he,

I understand the proper use of the word to* 1.1477 redeeme, to be, when a true Price is given; true Price I call not only mony, but whatever is gi∣ven to him, that delivers the Captive, to satisfy him, although many things in the Redemption be Metaphoricall.

That God detaines the Captive, hath been proved; that the* 1.1478 price is paid to him, though it be not silver and gold, and that, that he might be satisfyed shall be farther evinced. So that we have Redemption properly so called; it remaines then that we farther manifest, that the price was paid to God.

Although enough hath been said already to evince the truth* 1.1479 of this, yet I shall farther put it out of question by the ensuing Observations and inferrences.

1. To the payment of a price or ransom properly so called which as is acknowledged is not necessary that it should be mony or the like 1 Pet. 1. 18 but any thing that may satisfy him that detaines the captive, it is not required that it should be payd into the hand of

him that is said to receive it; but only, that it be some such thing as he reuires as the condition of releasing the Captive. It may consist in personall service, which is impossible to be proper∣l•• pid into the hand of any. For instance; If a Father be held captive, and he that holds him so, requires that for the delivery of his Father, the Sone undertake a difficult and hazardous Warfare, wherein he is concerned; & he do it accordingly; this Sonne doth properly ransome his Father, though no reall price be paid into the hand of him that detained him. It is sufficient to prove that this ransome was paid by Christ unto God, if it be proved, that upon the Prescription of God, he did that, and underwent that which he esteemed, and was to him a valuable Compensation, for the delivery of sinners.

2. The p••opriety of paying a Ransome to any, where it* 1.1480 lyes in undergoing the penalty that was due to the Ransomed, consists in the voluntary Consent of him to whom the Ransome is paid, and him that pays it, unto this commutation; which in this businesse we have firmely evinced. And the price paid by Christ could be no other. For God was not our detainer in Captivity as a Soveraigne Conquerour, that came upon us by force and kept us Prisoners, but as a just Judge and Lawgiver, who had seized on us for our Transgressions. So hat not his Power and Will was to be treated withall, but his Law and Justice, and so the Ransome was properly paid to him, in the undergoing that penalty which his Justice required.

3. There must some differences be allowed between Spiri∣tual,* 1.1481 eternall, and Civill, Corporeall, temporall deliverances, which yet doth not make Spirituall Redemption to be improper: nay rather the other make Spirituall Redemption to be improper: nay rather the other is said to be improper wherein it agrees not thereunto; The one is Spirituall, the other Temporall, so that in every circumstance it is not expected that they should agree.

4. There are two things distinctly in God to be considered* 1.1482 in this businesse.

1. His Love, his will, or purpose. 2. His Justice, Law, and Truth. In respect of his Love, his will his purpose, or good-pleasure, God himselfe found out, appointed, and provided this Ransome. The giving of Christ is ascribed to his Love, Will, and good pleasure, Ioh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8 & 8. 32. 1 Ioh. 4. 9, 10. as he had promised by his Prophets of old, Luk. 1. 67. But his Law

and Truth & Justice in their Severall considerations, reuired the Ransome, and in respect of them he accepted it, as hath been shewed at large: So that nothing in the world is more vaine, then that of our Adversaries; that God procured and appoin∣ted this price, therefore he did not accept it: That is, either Gods Love or his Justice must be denyed. Either he hath no justice against sinne, or no Love for sinners; in the Reconciliation of which two, the greatest and most intense hatred against sinne, & the most vnexpressible Love to some sinners in the blood of his only Sonne, lyes the great mistery of the Gospell, which these men are unacquainted withall.

5. That God may be said to receive this Price, it was not* 1.1483 necessary that any Accession should be made to his Riches by the Ransome, but that he underwent no losse by our deliverance. This is the difference between a Conquerour or a Tyrant and a just Ru∣le••, in respect of their Captives, and Prisoners. Sayes the Tyrant or Conquerour, pay me so much whereby I may be enriched or I will not part with my Prisoner: Says the just Ruler and Judge, take care that my justice be not injred; that my Law be satis∣fyed, and I will deliver the prisoners. It is enough to make good Gods acceptance of the Price, that this Justice suffered not by the delivery of the Prisoner; as it did not Rom. 3. 25. yea it was exalted and made glorious above all that it could have been, in the everlasting destruction of the sinner.

These things being thus premised, it will not be difficult to* 1.1484 establish the Truth asserted; namely, that this Price or Ransome was paid to God. For

1. A Price of Redemption, a Ransome must be paid to some or other: The nature of the thing requires it. That the death of Christ was a price or Ransome properly so called, hath been shewed before; the ridiculous Objection, that then it must be payd to Sathan or our sinne, hath also been sufficiently remo∣ved, so that God alone remaines to whom it is to be paid. For unlesse to some it is paid, it is not a Price or Ransome.

2. The Price of Redemption is to be paid to him who de∣taines* 1.1485 the Captive by way of Jurisdiction, Right, and Law Power. That God is he who thus detained the Captive, was also proved before. He is great housholder that calls all his Servants that doe, or should serve him, to an account, Math.

18. 23. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and wicked men are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 •• Pet. 2. 14. the children of his curse, obnoxious to it. It is his Iudgement that they which commit sin are worthy of death, Rom. 1. 32. and Christ is a propitiation to declare his Righteousnesse, Ro. 3. 25. And it is his wrath from whence we are delivered by this Ran∣some, Rom. 2. 5. 1 Thess. 1. last. the Law was his to which Christ was made obdoxious. Gal. 4. 4. the Curse his which he was made, Gall. 3. 13. it was his will he came to do and suffer, Heb. 10. 5. It was his will that he should drink off the cup of his passion, Mat. 26. It pleased him to bruise him. If. 53. He made all our ini∣quities to meet upon him v. 5. so that doubtlesse this Ransome was paid to him; we intend no more by it then what in those places is expressed.

3. This Ransome was also a Sacrifice, as hath been decla∣red.* 1.1486 Look then to whom the Sacrifice was offered, to him the Ransome was paid. These are but severall notions of the same thing. Now the Sacrifice he offered to God, Eph. 5. 2. to him then also, and only was this Ransome paid.

4. Christ paid this Ransome as he was a Mediatour and surety:* 1.1487 nos he was the Mediator between God and man, and therefore he must pay this Price to one of them, either God or man; & i•• is not difficult to determine whether: 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6. gives us this fully. He is the Mediatour, and as such he gave himselfe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Price of Redemption to God.

From this description of redemption properly so called, and* 1.1488 the Application of it to the redemption made by Jesus Christ we thus argue.

He who by his own blood and death paid the price of our redemption to God, in that he underwent what was due to us, & procured liberty & delive∣rance thereby, He made satisfaction properly for our sins; but when we were Captives for sin to the justice of God, & committed thereon to the power of sinne and Sathan, Christ by his death and blood paid the price of our redemption to God, and procured our deliverance thereby: therefore he made Satisfaction to God for our sinnes.

For the farther confirmation of what hath been delivered,* 1.1489 some few of the most eminent Testimonies given to this truth, are to be explained and vindicated, wherewith I shall close this Discourse of our Redemption by Christ. Out of the very

many that may be insisted on, I shall chuse out only those that follow.

1. Rom. 3. 24, 25. Being justifyed freely by his Grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; whom God hath set forth to be a pro∣pitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past, through the forbearance of God. Re∣demption in its selfe, in its Effect, in respect of us, with all its causes is here expressed. Its effect in respect of us, is, that we are justifyed freely: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not brought easily, and with little labour to be righteous or honest, as some vainely imagine (Grot. in locum) but accepted freely with God, without the performance of the workes of the Law, whereby the Jewes sought after Righteousnesse. 2. The End on the part of God, is, the declara∣tion of his Righteousnesse. 3. The meanes pocuring this end is, the blood of Christ: redemption by Christ, and in his blood.

4. The meanes of communicating this effect on the part of God is the setting forth Christ a propitiation: on our part as to ap∣plication, it is faith in his blood.

As to the Effect of our justification, it shall afterwards be* 1.1490 considered. The manner, or rise of it rather, (for both may be denoted) on the part of God, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, freely: or as it is expounded in the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by his grace. Our redemption and the effects of it are free 1. On the part of God, in respect of his purpose and decree, which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom: 11. 5. His great Designe, and contrivance of the worke of our Salvation, and deliverance. This he did according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, Ephes. 1. 5, 6. according to his good pleasure which he had purpo∣sed in himselfe, v. 9. according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsell of his own will, v. 11. And it is free in regard of the Love, from whence Christ was sent, Ioh. 3. 16. which al∣so is ascribed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 2. 9. And it is free in respect of us: we do not obtaine it by the workes of the Law, Rom. 4. 6. nei∣ther can it be so attained, nor is that required of us; and free on our part, in that nothing of us is required in way of satisfa∣ction, recompence, or ransome; He spared not his Son, but with him freely gives us all things, Rom. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are justified freely, that is, we are delivered from our bondage with∣out any Satisfaction made by us, or workes performed by us, to

attaine it, God having freely designed this way of salvation, and sent Jesus Christ to do this work for us.

Ad justitiam vero perducuntur etiam sine labore qui ad minores virtu∣ies,* 1.1491 id est, philosophicas requiri solet, fides enim ejus laboris compendium facit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Grot. in loc.

They are brought to righteousnesse, without that labour that is required for lesser, even Philosophicall virtues: Faith makes an abridgement of the worke.

The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the great man, in the whole interpreta∣tion of that Epistle, as of others of sundry sorts besides him∣selfe, is, that to be justified, is to be brought to righteousnesse by the practice of vertue and honesty (which answers to that the Scrip∣ture calls sanctification) with as grosse a shutting out of light, as can befall any man in the world. This with that notion which he hath of Faith, is the bottome of this Interpretation. But,

2. Let him tell us Freely, what instance he can give of this use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which here he imposeth on us? that it should signify the facility of doing a thing: And withall, whether these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, denote an Act of God, or of them that are justified? Whether being justified freely by his grace, be his free justifying of us, as to what is actively denoted, or our Easy performance of the workes of Righteousnesse? that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place, should relate to our duties, and signify easily; and not to the Act of God accepting us, and import freely, is such a violence offered to the Scripture, as nothing could have com∣pelled the Learned man to venture on, but pure necessity of maintaining the Socinian justification.

3. For the Philosophicall vertues, which the Gods sold for la∣bour, they were splendid a peccata, and no more.

As to this part of the words, Socinus himselfe was not so far out of the way, as the Annotator; saith he, Justificati gratis, sensus est, partem nobis esse peccatorum nostrorum absolutionem (id enim ut scis quod ad nos attinet reipsa justificari est) non quidem per legis opera, qui∣bus illam commeriti sumus, sed gratis per gratiam Dei. De Servat. lib. 1. part. 2. cap. 2.

2. The End on the part of God, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the* 1.1492 declaration of his righteousnesse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is properly Gods justice as he is a Judge. It is true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often rendered by the Seven∣ty 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by us from thence, Righteousnesse, which sig∣nifies

indeed benignity, kindnesse, and goodnesse: and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is Righteousnesse, is rendered by them sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mercy, and the circumstances of the place may sometime require that sig∣nification of the word; but firstly and properly, it is that property of God, whereby as a Judge, he renders to every one according to their ways before him, rewarding those that obey him, and* 1.1493 punishing transgressions; This I have elsewhere declared at large: Hence he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 9. 4. which as Paul speakes 2. Tim. 4, 8. is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the righteous Judge, so Rom. 1. 32. 2 Thess. 1. 6. Rev. 15. 4. so Isa. 59. 16. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor, therefore his arme brought Salvation unto him, & his Righteousnesse it sustained him. His Righteousnesse sustained him in executing vengeance on the ene∣mies of his Church. This is the Righteousnesse that God aimed to manifest, and to declare in our redemption by Christ: that he might be just, as the words follow; namely, that he might be known to be just and righteous, in taking such sore vengeance of sinne, in the flesh of Jesus Christ his Sonne, Rom. 8. 3. Hence did God appeare to be exceeding righteous, of purer eyes, then to behold ini∣quity. He declared to all the World, what was due to sinne, and what must be expected by men, if they are not partakers of the Redemption which is in the blood of Jesus Christ, Rom. 8. 3.* 1.1494

Grotius would have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to signify goodnesse and bounty; which as we deny not, but that in some places in the Old Testament where it is used by the LXX, it doth, or may doe, so we say here, that sence can have no place, which no where is direct and proper: for the thing intended by it in that sence, is ex∣pressed before in those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is not consistent with that, that follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which represents God, as he is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as was spoken before,

Socinus goes another way, saies he. In Christo, Deus ut ostende∣ret* 1.1495 se veracem & fidelem esse, quod significant verba illa, justitiae suae, &c. Referring it to Gods Righteousnesse of veracity and fidelity, in ful∣filling his promise of forgivenesse of sinnes. But, saies Grotius, Righteousnesse cannot be here interpreted, de fide in promissis praestandis, quia haec verba pertinent non ad Judaeos tantum, sed ad Gentes etiam, quibus nulla promissio facta est.

Because Gentiles are spo∣ken of, and not the Jews only, but to them there was no pro∣mise given.

A reason worthy the Annotations; as though

the promise was not made to Abraham, that he should be heire of the world, and to all his seed, not only according to the flesh; and as though the Learned man himselfe did not think the first pro∣mise to have been made, and alwaies to have belonged to all and every man in the World. But yet neither will the sence of So∣cinus stand, for the Reasons before given.

But how are these Ends brought about, that we should be* 1.1496 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and yet there should be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉?

3. Ans. The Meanes procuring all this, is the blood of Christ; it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: by the redempti∣on that is in Jesus Christ; and how that Redemption is wrought, he expresseth, when he shews how we are made partakers of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, through faith in his blood. The re∣demption wrought and procured by the blood of Christ, is the procuring cause of all this. The causa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the Grace of God, of which before, the causa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is this blood of Christ; This Redemption, as here, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luk. 21. 28. Eph. 1. 7. Coll. 1. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 1. 68. John 2. 38. Heb. 9. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Math. 20. 28. Math. 10. 45. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 2. 6. and in respect of the effect. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 4. 24. Rom. 11. 26. Col. 1. 13. 1 Thess. 1 10. This is the procuring cause as I said of the whole ef∣fect of Gods free grace here mentioned, we are justified freely, be∣cause we have Redemption by the blood of Christ: He obtained it for us by the price of his blood.

I rather abide on the former sence of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (from whence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to be a price of redemption, then to Interpret it by lustrum, and so to referre it to the sacrifices of purification, which belong to another consideration of the death of Christ; and yet the consideration of the blood of Christ, as a Sacrifice, hath place here also, as shall be discovered. This is that which is here asserted; we have forgivenesse of sinnes by the interventi∣on of the blood of Christ, obtaining Redemption for us, which is that we ayme to prove from this place.

Grotius gives this Exposition of the words. Christus per obedi∣entiam* 1.1497 suam (maxime in morte) & preces ei accedentes, hoc a patre obti∣nuit, ne is humanum genus gravibus peccatis immersum desereret, at{que} ob∣duraret; sed viam illis daret ad justitiam perveniendi per Christum: & li∣beraret, nempe a necessitate moriendi in peccatis, viam parefociendo per quam exire ista liceret.

Christ by his obedience (especially in

his death) and the prayers accompanying it, obtained this of his Father, that he should not forsake and harden mankind, drenched in greivous sinnes, but should give them a way of coming to righteousnesse by Jesus Christ, and should deliver them from a necessity of dying in their sinne, by revealing a way whereby they might escape it.

1. It is well it is granted, that the death of Christ respected God in the first place, and the obtaining somewhat of him, which the Annotators friends deny.

2. That the purchase of Christ was not for all Mankind, that they might be delivered, but for the Elect, that they should be delivered, ha's elsewhere been declared.

3. Christ by his death, did not obtain of his Father, that he should reveale or appoint that way of obtaining deliverance and Salvation, which by him we have. This, as the giving of Christ himselfe, was of the free Grace and love of God; nor is the ap∣pointment of the way of salvation, according to the Covenant of Grace, any where assigned to the death of Christ; but to the Love of God, sending his Sonne, and appointing him to be a Mediator; though the good things of the Covenant be purcha∣sed by him.

4. This is all the effect here assigned to the Bloodshedding of Jesus Christ; this is the Redemption we have thereby. He ob∣tained of his Father, that a better way of coming to Righteousnesse, then that of the Law, or that of Philosophy, might be declared to us. The my∣stery of the whole is; Christ by his obedience to God, obtained this, that Himselfe should be exalted to give a new Law, and teach a new Doctrine, in obedience whereunto we might come to be Righteous: which must needs be an excellent explication of these words, we have Redemption by his blood; which plainly expresse the Price he paid for us, and the effect that ensued thereon.

Socinus goes another way; says he.* 1.1498

The intervention of the Blood of Christ,* 1.1499 though it moved not God to grant us delive∣rance from the punishment of sinne, yet it mo∣ved us to accept of it being offered, and to be∣lieve in Christ.

That is; the blood of Christ, being paid as a Price of our Re∣demption, hath no effect, in respect of him to whom it is paid, but only in respect of them, for whom it is paid; then which imagination nothing can be more ridiculous.

4. The meanes of Application of the Redemption mentioned,* 1.1500 or participation in respect of us, is faith: It is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this we have no occasion to speake.

5. The meanes of Communication on the part of God, is in these* 1.1501 words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation. God set him forth for this end and Purpose; the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may designe various Acts of God: As,

1. His purpose and determination, or Decree of giving Christ; whence our Translators have in the m••rgent rendred it fore-ordai∣ned, as the word is used, Eph. 1. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which he fore-purposed in himselfe. Or,

2. Gods proposall of him before hand, in Types and Sacrifices to the Jewes; the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being often in composition used in that sence in this Epistle, Chap. 3. 9. Chap. 11. 35. Chap. 15. 4. Or,

3. For the Actuall Exhibition of him in the flesh, when God sent him into the World. Or,

4. It may referre to the open exposition and publication of him in the World by the Gospell; for as we shall afterwards shew, the ensuing words hold out an Allusion to the Arke, which now in Christ the vaile being Rent, is exposed to the open view of Believers; Hence John tels us, Rev. 11. 19. when the Temple was opened, there was seen in it the Arke of the Testament; which as it was not at all in the Second Temple, the true Arke being to be brought in, no more was it to be seen upon the opening of the Temple in the first where it was; being closed in the Holyest of Holies; but now in the Ordinances of the Gospell, the Arke is perspicuous; because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God hath set it forth to Believers.

Now he was set forth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a propitiation. There is none* 1.1502 but have observed, that this is the name of the Covering of the Arke, or the Mercy seat, that is applied to Christ, Heb. 9. 5. but the true Reason and sence of it hath scarce been observed; Ours generally would prove from hence, that Christ did propitiate

God by the Sacrifice of himselfe: that may have something from the generall noton of the word, referred to the sacrificia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whereof afterwards) but not from the particular intimated. The Mercy seat did not attone God for the sinnes that were com∣mitted against the Law, that was in the Arke, but declared him to be attoned and appeased. That this is the meaning of it, that, as the Mercy seat declared God to be Attoned, so also is Christ set forth to Declare, that God was Attoned, not to Attone him, Socinus contends at large, but to the utter confusion of his cause. For,

1. If this declares God to be pacatus, and placatus, then God* 1.1503 was provoked, and some way was used for his Attonement. And

2. This is indeed the true import of that Type, and the Appli∣cation of it here by our Apostle. The Mercy seat declared God to be appeased; but how? by the blood of the Sacrifice that was of∣fered without, and brought into the holy place; The High Priest never went into that place, about the worship of God, but it was with the blood of that Sacrifice, which was expresly appointed to make Attonement, Levit. 16. God would not have the Mercy seate once seen, nor any pledge of his being Attoned, but by the blood of the Propitiatory Sacrifice. So it is here, God sets out Jesus Christ as a propitiation; declares himselfe to be appeased adn recon∣ciled; but how? by the blood of Christ; by the sacrifice of himselfe, by the Price of Redemption which he paid. This is the intendment of the Apostle; Christ by his Blood, and the Price he paid there∣by, with the Sacrifice he made, having Attoned God, or made At∣tonement with him for us, God now sets him forth, the Vaile of the Temple being Rent, to the eye of all Believers, as the Mercy seat wherein we may see God fully reconciled to us. And this may serve for the vindication of the Testimony to the Truth insisted on; and this is the same with 2 Cor. 3. 17.

It would be too long for me to insist in particular, on the* 1.1504 full vindication of the other Testimonies, that are used for the confirmation of this Truth. I shall give them therefore toge∣ther in such a way, as that their Efficacy to the purpose in hand, may be easily discerned.

1. We are bought by Christ saith the Apostle; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ye are bought, 1 Cor. 6. 20. but this buying may be taken Metaphorically for a meer Deliverance, as certainly it is, 2 Pet. 2. 1. denying the Lord

that bought them: i. e. delivered them, for it is spoken of God the Fa¦ther? It may be so, the word may be so used, & therefore to shew the propriety of it here, the Apostle addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with a price: ye are bought with a price: To be bought with a price, doth no where sig∣nify to be barely delivered, but to be delivered with a valuable compensation for our deliverance; but what is this price where∣with we are bought? 1 Pet. 1. 18. not with silver or gold, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; with the pretious honourable blood of Christ: why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the pretious blood? That we may know, that in this busi∣nesse it was valued at a sufficient rate for our Redemption; and it did that, which in temporall civill Redemption is done by silver and Gold, which are given as a Valuable Consideration for the Captive. But what kind of Price is this Blood of Christ? It is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Math. 20. 28. That is, a Price of redemption; whence it is said, that he gave himselfe for us; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Titus 2. 14. that he might fetch us off with a ransome: but it may be that it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not that he put himselfe in our stead, and under∣went what was due to us; but that his death was as it were a Price, because thereon we were delivered. Nay, but his life was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly, and therefore he calls it also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 2. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in composition signifies either opposition, as 1 Pet. 2. 25. or substitution and commutation, Math. 2. 22. in the first sence, here it cannot be taken, therefore it must be in the latter; He was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, did so pay a ransome, that he himselfe became that, which we should have been, as it is expressed, Gal. 3. 13. He redeemed us from the Curse, being made a curse for us: to whom he paid this Price was before declared, and the Apostle expresseth it, Eph. 5. 2. what now is the issue of all this; We have Redempti∣on thereby, Eph. 1. 7. in whom we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, redemption by his blood; as it is againe asserted in the same words, Col. 1. 14. But how came we by this Redemption? He obtained it of God for us, he entred into Heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having found, or obtained everlasting redemption for us; by the Price of his blood he procured this deliverance at the hand of God. And that we may know that this Effect of the death of Christ is Properly towards God, what the immediate issue of this Redemption is, is expressed. It is forgivenesse of sinnes, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 13. Rom. 3. 24, 25.

And this is as much as is needfull to the first Notion of the Death of Christ, as a Price, and Ransome, with the issues of it, and the confirmation of our first Argument from thence for the Satisfaction of Christ.

CHAP. XXIX.

Of Reconciliation by the Death of Christ as it is a Sacrifice.

THE next consideration of the Death of Christ, is of it as a Sacrifice; and the proper Effect thereof is Reconciliation* 1.1505 by his Death as a Sacrifice.

1. Reconciliation in generall, is the renewall of lost friendship and peace between persons at variance. To apply this to the matter treated of, the ensuing positions are to be premised.

1. There was at first in the state of innocency, friendship and peace between God and man. God had no enmity against his Creature: He approved him to be good: and appointed him to walke in peace, communion, confidence, and boldnesse with him. Gen. 3. Nor had man, on whose heart the Law and Love of his Maker was written, any enmity against his Creator, God, and Rewarder.

2. That by sinne there is division, separation and breach of peace and friendship introduced between God and the Creature; Isa. 59. 2. Your iniquities have separated between you and your God,* 1.1506 and your sinnes have hid his face from you, Isa. 63. 10. They rebelled against him, therefore he was turned to be their enemy and fought against them. There is no peace to the wicked saith my God. Is. 48 22. and there∣fore it is that upon a delivery from this condition we are said (and not before) to have peace with God. Rom. 5. 1.

3. That by this breach of peace and friendship with God, God* 1.1507 was alienated from the sinner, so as to be angry with him, & to renounce all peace and friendship with him, con∣sidered as such, and in that condition. He that believeth not, the wrath of God abides on him. Joh. 3. 36. And therefore by nature, and in our naturall condition, we are children of wrath Ep. 2. 3. that is, obnoxious to the wrath of God, that abides upon un∣believers; that is, unreconciled Persons.

4. This enmity on the part of God, consists

1. In the purity and holinesse of his nature, whence he* 1.1508 cannot admit a guilty defiled Creature to have any communion with him; He is a God of purer eyes then to behold iniquity. Heb. 1. 13. And sinners cannot serve him because he is an Holy God, a jealous God, that will not forgive their Transgressions nor their sinnes. Josh. 24. 19.

2. In his will of punishing for sinne, Rom. 1. 32. It is the Judgement of God that they which commit sinne are worthy of death; and this from the Righteousnesse of the thing it selfe 2 Thess. 1. 6. It is a righteous thing with God to recompence tribulations to sinners: He is not a God that hath pleasure in iniquity, Psal. 5. 4, 5, 6.

3. In the sentence of his Law, in the establishing and exe∣cution whereof his truth and honour were engaged, In the day thou eatest thou shalt dye, Gen. 2. 17. And cursed is every one that con∣tinueth not &c. Deut. 27. 29. And of this enmity of God against sinne and sinners, as I have elsewhere at large declared, there is an indelible perswasion abiding on the hearts of all the Sons of men, however by the stirrings of Lust and craft of Sathan, it may be more or lesse blotted in them. hence.

4. As a fruit and evidence of this enmity, God abominates their persons, Psal. 1. 4, 5, 6. rejects and hates their dutyes and ways, Prov. 15. 8, 9. And prepares Wrath and Vengeance for them to be inflicted in his appointed time, Ro. 2. 5. All which make up perfect enmity on the part of God.

2. That man was at enmity with God as on his part, I* 1.1509 shall not need to prove; because I am not treating of our Re∣conciliation to God, but of his Reconciliation to us.

5. Where there is such an enmity as this, begun by offence on* 1.1510 the one part, and continued by anger and purpose to punish on the other, to make Reconciliation is properly to propitiate, and turne away the Anger of the person offended, and thereby to bring the Offendor into favour with him againe, and to an en∣joyment of the same, or a friendship built on better conditions then the former. This description of Reconciliation doth God himselfe give us, Job. 42. 7, 8, 9. And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Te∣manite, my wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my Servant Job

hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven Rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for your selves a burnt offering, and my Ser∣vant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept, least I deale with you after your folly, in that you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, like my servant Job, &c The offenders are Eliphaz and his two Friends: The offence is their folly in not speaking aright of God: The issue of the breach is, that the wrath or anger of God was towards them; Reconciliation is the turning away of that wrath; the meanes wherby this was to be done, appointed of God; is the Sacrifice of Job, for Attonement.

This then is that which we ascribe to the Death of Christ,* 1.1511 when we say that as a Sacrifice we were reconciled to God by it; or that he made reconciliation for us. Having made God our enemy by sinne (as before) Christ by his death turned away his Anger, appeased his wrath, and brought us into favour againe with God: Before the proof of this, I must needs give one cau∣tion, as to some termes of this Discourse, as also remove an objection that lyes at the very entrance against the whole nature of that which is treated of.

For the first, when we speake of the Anger of God, his wrath* 1.1512 and his being appeased toward us, we speake after the manner of men, but yet by the allowance of God himselfe; not that God is properly angry, and properly altered from that state and ap∣peased, whereby he should properly be mutable and be actually changed; but by the Anger of God, which sometime in Scripture signifyeth his Justice from whence punishment proceeds, some∣times the effects of anger or punishment, itself, the obstacles be∣fore mentioned on the part of God, from his nature, Justice, Law, and Truth are intended▪ and his being appeased toward us, his being satisfyed as to all the barrs so laid in the way from recei∣ving us to favour, without the least alteration in him, his nature, will, or Justice: & according to the analogie hereof, I desire that what∣ever is spoken of the Anger of God, & his being appeased or altered which is the language wherein he converseth with us, and in∣structs us to wisdome, may be measured and interpreted.

2. The objection I shall propose in the wordes of Crellius.* 1.1513 Siin co sita est dilectio, quod Deus nos dilexerit & filium suum miserii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pro peccaris nostris, quomodo Christus morte sua demum iram

Dei adversus nos incensam placarit? nam cum dilectio illa dei quae plane fuit summa, causa fuit cur Deus filium suum charissimum miserit, necesse est ut iram jam suam adversus nos deposuerit: nonne aliter eodem tempore & impense amabit, & non amabit? si Deus etiam tum potuit nobis irasci, cum filium suum charissimum supremae nostrae felicitatis causa morti acer∣bissima objiceret, quod satis magnum argumentum erit, ex effectu ejus pe∣titum, unde cognoscamus Deum nobis non irasci amplius. Crell: Defen. So∣cin. con. Grot. part. 6.

To the same purpose Sacinus himselfe. Demonstra••i non modo Christum Deo nos, non autem Deum nobis reconciliasse, verum etiam De∣um ipsum fuisse qui hanc reconciliationem fecerit. Socin. de Servator. lib. 1. pa. 1. cap. 1.

If this be the chiefest and highest love of God, that he sent Christ his only Sonne to be a propitiation for our sinnes, how then could Christ by his death appease the wrath of God, that was incensed against us? For seeing that Gods love was the cause of sending Christ, he must needs before that have laid aside his anger: for otherwise should he not in∣tensely love us, and not love us at the same time? And if God could then be angry with us, when he gave up his Sonne to bitter death for our everlasting happinesse, what Argument or evidence at any time can we have from the effect of it, whence we may know, that God is not farther angry with us?

To the same purpose is the Plea of the Catechist: Cap. 8.

De Morte Christi. Quest. 31, 32.

Ans. The Love wherewith God loved us, when he sent his Son* 1.1514 to dye for us, was the most intense, and supreame in its own kind: nor would admit of any hatred or enmity in God toward us, that stood in opposition thereunto. It is every where set forth as the most intense Love, Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 7, 8, 1 Joh. 4. 10. Now this Love of God, is an eternall free act of his Will: his Purpose, Rom: 9. 11. His good Pleasure, his Purpose tha the purposed in himselfe, as it is called; It is his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, •• Pet. ••. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I have elsewhere distinctly declared; a Love that was to have an efficacy by means appointed: but for a Love of Friend∣ship, Approbation, Acceptation, as to our Persons and duties, God bears none unto us, but as considered in Christ, and for his sake. It is contrary to the whole Designe of the Scripture, and innu∣merable

particular Testimonies, once to fancy a love of friend∣ship, and acceptation toward any in God, and not consequent to the Death of Christ.

2. This Love of Gods purpose and good Pleasure, this charitas or∣dinativa,* 1.1515 hath not the least inconsistency with those hinderan∣ces of Peace and Friendship, on the part of God, before mentio∣ned; for though the Holinesse of Gods Nature, the justice of his Government, the veracity of his word, will not allow that he take a Sinner into Friendship and communion with himselfe, without satisfaction made to him, yet this hinders not, but that in his Soveraigne good will and pleasure, he might purpose to recover us from that condition, by the holy meanes which he appointed: God did not love us, and not love us, or was angry with us, at the same time, and in the same respect. He loved us, in respect of the Free purpose of his Will, to send Christ to re∣deeme us, and to satisfy for our sinne; he was angry with us, in respect of his violated Law, and provoked justice, by sinne.

3. God loves our Persons, as we are his Creatures, is angry with us, as we are his sinners.

4. It is true, that we can have no greater Evidence and Argu∣ment of the Love of Gods good will and pleasure in generall, then in sending his Sonne to dye for sinners; and that he is not an∣gry with them, with an anger of hatred, opposite to that Love; that is, with an eternall purpose to destroy them; but for a Love of Friendship and Acceptation, we have innumerable other pledges, and evidences, as is known, and might be easily declared.

These things being premised, the confirmation of what* 1.1516 was proposed ensues.

1. The use and sence of the words, whereby this Doctrine of our reconciliation is expressed; evinces the Truth contended for. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are the words used in this businesse, are as much as iram avertere, to turne away anger; so is reconciliare, propitiare, and placare, in Latine: Impius, ne audeto placare iram Deorum, Was a Law of the twelve Tables. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, propitior, placor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, placio, exoratio: Gloss. vetus; and in this sence is the word used; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut. in Fabio. to appease their Gods, and turne away the things they feared. And the same Author tells us of a way taken, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

to appease the anger of God. And Xenophon useth the word to the same purpose; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And so also doth Livy use the word reconcilio: non movit modo talis oratio regem, sed etiam reconciliavit Annibali. Bell. Macedon. and many more instances might be given. God then being angry and averse from Love of Friendship with us, as hath been declared, and Christ being said thus to make Reconciliation for us with God, he did fully turne away the wrath of God from us, as by the Testimonies of it will appeare.

Before I produce our witnesses in this cause, I must give this* 1.1517 one caution: It is not said any where expresly, that God is recon∣ciled to us, but that we are reconciled to God. And the sole reason thereof is, because he is the party offended, and we are the parties offending; now the partie offending, is alwaies said to be reconci∣led to the party offended, and not on the contrary; so Math. 5. 23, 24. If thy Brother have ought against thee, go and be reconciled to him; The Brother being the party offended, he that had offended, was to be re∣conciled to him by turning away his anger: and in common speech, when one hath justly provoked another, we bid him, goe, and re∣concile himselfe to him, that is, do that which may appease him, and give an entrance into his favour again; so is it in the Case un∣der consideration; being the parties offending, we are said to be reconciled to God, when his anger is turned away, and we are ad∣mitted into his favour. Let now the Testimonies speak for themselves.

Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the* 1.1518 death of his Sonne; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: we were reconciled to God, or brought againe into his favour. Amongst the many rea∣sons that might be given to prove the intention of this Expressi∣on to be, that we were reconciled to God, by the averting of his Anger from us, and our accepting into favour; I shall insist on some few from the Context.

1. It appears from the Relation that this expression bears to that of v. 8. whilest we were yet sinners Christ died for us; with which this upon the matter is the same, we are reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne: Now the intent of this expression, Christ died for us sinners, is, He dyed to bring us sinners into the favour of God; nor will it admit of any other sence; so is our being re∣conciled

to God by the Death of his Sonne: And that this is the meaning of the Expression, Christ died for us, is evident from the illustration given to it by the Apostle, v. 6, 7. Christ died for the ungodly, How? as one man dyeth for another; that is, to deliver him from death.

2. From the description of the same thing in other words* 1.1519 v. 9. being justifyed by his blood: that it is the same thing upon the matter that is here intended, appeares from the contexture of the Apostles speech, Whilest we were yet enemyes Christ dyed for us; much more being Justifyed by his blood. And if when when we were enemies we were reconciled to God; the Apostle repeats what he had said before; if when we were enemies Christ dyed for us, and we were ju∣stifyed by the blood of Christ, that is, if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God? Now to be justifyed, is Gods Reconciliation to us, his Acceptation of us into favour, not our Conversion to him, as is known and confessed.

3. The Reconciliation we have with God, is a thing ••endred* 1.1520 to us, and we do receive it: v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we have received the reconciliation or Attonement: Now this cannot be spoken in reference to our Reconciliation to God, as on our side, but of his to us, and our acceptation with him: Our Re∣conciliation to God is our Conversion: but we are not said to receive our Conversion, or to have our Conversion tendred to us; but to Convert our selves, or to be Converted.

4. The state and condition from whence we are delivered* 1.1521 by this Reconciliation, is described in this, that we are called Enemies, being enemies we were reconciled. Now Enemyes in this place are the same with Sinners. And the Reconciliation of Sinners, that is, of those who had rebelled against God, pro∣voked him, were obnoxious to wrath, is certainely the procu∣ring of the favour of God for them. When you say, such a poore conquered Rebell, that expected to be tortured and slaine, is by means of such an one reconciled to his prince; what is it that you intend? Is it that he begins to like and love his Prince only, or that his Prince lays down his wrath and pardons him?

5. All the considerations before insisted on, declaring in what sence we are saved by the death of Christ, prove our Re∣conciliation with God, to be our Acceptation with him, not our Conversion to him.

2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20, 21. Is a place of the same importance* 1.1522 with that obove mentioned, wherein the Reconciliation pleaded for, is asserted, and the nature of it explained. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himselfe by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of Reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ Recon∣ciling the world to himselfe, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of Reconciliation. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christs steed be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sinne for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousnesse of God in him.

There is in the words a twofold Reconciliation.

1. Of God to man v. 18. God hath Reconciled us to himselfe by Iesus Christ.

2. Our Reconciliation to God, in the Acceptance of that recon∣ciliation, which we are exhorted to.

The first is that enquired after; the Reconciliation where∣by the anger of God by Christ is turned away, and those for whom he dyed are brought into his favour; which comprises the Satisfaction proposed to confirmation. For

1. Unlesse it be that God is so Reconciled and Attoned,* 1.1523 whence is it that he is thus proclaimed to be a Father towards sinners as he is here expressed? Out of Christ he is a consuming fire to sinners, and everlasting burnings, Is. 33. 14. Being of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, Hab 1. 13. Before whom no sinner shall appeare or stand, Ps. 5. 4, 5. So that where there is no Sacrifice for sinne, there remaines nothing to Sinners, but a certaine fearefull looking for of judgement, and fiery indignation that shall consume the Adversaries, Heb. 10, 26, 27. How comes then this jealous God, this Holy God, and just Iudge, to command some to Beseech Sinners, to be reconciled to him? the reason is given before. It is because he reconciles us to himselfe by Christ, or in Christ: That is by Christ His Anger is Pacifyed, His Iustice Satisfyed, and himselfe appeased, or Reconciled to us.

2. The Reconciliation mentioned, is so expounded in the* 1.1524 Cause and Effect of it, as not to admit of any other interpre∣tation.

1. The Effect of Gods being reconciled, or his reconciling the world to himself, is in those words; Not imputing to them their tres∣passes.

God doth so Reconcile us to himselfe by Christ, as not to impute our trespasses to us. That is, not dealing with us according as Justice required for our sinnes upon the account of Christs Remitting the penalty due to them; laying away his Anger, and receiving us to favour. This is the immediate fruit of the Reconciliation spoken of: If not the Reconciliati∣on its selfe, non-imputation of sinne, is not our Conversion to God.

2. The cause of it is expressed v. 21. He made him to be sinne* 1.1525 for us, who knew no sinne. How comes it to passe that God the righteous Judge doth thus reconcile us to himselfe, and not im∣pute to us our sinnes? It is because he hath made Christ so be sinne for us; That is, either a Sacrifice for sinne, or as sinne, by the imputation of our sinne to him. He was made sinne for us, as we are made the Righteousnesse of God in him. Now we are made the Righteousnesse of God by the imputation of his Righteous∣nesse to us. So was he made sinne for us by the imputation of our sinne to him. Now for God to Reconcile us to himselfe by imputing our sinne to Christ, and thereon not imputing them to us, can be nothing but his being appeased and attoned towards us, with his receiving us to his favour, by and upon the account of the death of Christ.

3. This Reconciling of us to himself, is the Matter committed* 1.1526 to the Preachers of the Gospell, whereby, or by the declaration whereof, they should perswade us to be reconciled to God. He hath commited to us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; this Doctrine concerning Reconciliation mentioned; We therefore beseech you to be reconciled to God. That which is the matter whereby we are perswaded to be reconciled to God, cannot be our Conversion it selfe, as is pretended. The Preachers of the Gos∣pell are to declare this word of God, viz. that he hath reconciled us to himselfe, by the blood of Christ, the blood of the new Te∣stament that was shed for us, and thereon perswade us to ac∣cept of the tidings, or the subject of them, and to be at Peace with God. Can the sence be, we are converted to God, there∣fore be ye converted. This Testimony then speakes clearely to the matter under debate.

3. The next place of the same import is, Eph. 2. 12, 13. 14,* 1.1527 15, 16. That at hat time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the

commonwealth of Israel, & strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who some∣times were farre off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandements contained in Ordinances, for to make in himselfe of twaine one new man, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Crosse having slaine the enmity thereby.

Here is mention of a twofold Enmity.

1. Of the Gentiles unto God.* 1.1528

2. Of the Iewes, and Gentiles, among themselves.

Of the Gentiles unto God, v. 12. Consider them as they are there described, and their Enmity to God is sufficiently evi∣dent. And what in that estate was the respect of God unto them? What is it towards such persons as there described? The wrath of God abideth on them, Joh. 3. 36. they are children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. So are they there expressly called: He hateth all the workers of iniquity, Psal. 5. 5. And will by no meanes acquit the guilty, Exod. 34. 7. Yea he curseth those families that call not on his name.

2. Of the Iewes and Gentiles among themselves: which is expressed, both in the thing it selfe, and in the cause of it; It is called Enmity, and said to arise from, or be occasioned, and improved by the Law of Commandements contained in Or∣dinances; The occasion, improvement, and management of this Enmity between them, see elsewhere.

2. Here is mention of a twofold Reconciliation.* 1.1529

1. Of the Iewes and Gentiles among themselves, v. 14, 15. He is our peace, and hath made both one, slaying the enmity, so making peace.

2. Of both unto God, v. 16. that he might reconcile both unto God.

3. The manner whereby this Reconciliation was wrought; in his body by the Crosse.

The Reconciliation unto God is that aymed at: This Re∣conciliation is the reconciling of God unto us, on the ac∣count of the blood of Christ, as hath been declared. The bringing of us into his favour, by the laying away of his wrath and enmity against us: Which appeares

1. From the cause of it expressed: that is, the Body of Christ,* 1.1530 by the Crosse; or the death of Christ. Now the Death of Christ was immediately for the Forgivenesse of sins. This is the blood of the new Testament that was shed for many for the forgivenes of sins. It is by shedding of his blood, that we have remission or forgivenes. That this is by an Attoning of God, or our acceptance into favour, is confessed.

2. From the expression it selfe: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.1531 denotes one party in the businesse of Reconciliation He made peace between them both; between the Gentiles on the one hand, and the Iewes on the other; and he made peace between them both, and God; Iewes and Gentiles, on the one hand, and God on the other: So that God is a party in the businesse of Reconciliation, and is therein reconciled to us: for our reconciliation to him, is mentioned in our Reconciliation together, which cannot be done without our Conversion.

3. From the description of the enmity given v. 12. which* 1.1532 plainely shews, (as was manifested) that it was on both sides. Now this Reconciliation unto God is by the removall of that Enmity. And if so, God was thereby reconciled, and attoned, if he hath any Anger or Indignation against sinne, or sinners.

4. Because this Reconciliation of both of God, is the great* 1.1533 cause and meanes of their Reconciliation among themselves. God through the blood of Christ, or on the account of his death, receiving both into favour, their mutuall enmity ceased, and without it never did, nor ever will. And this is the Re∣conciliation accomplished by Christ.

The same might be said of the other places, Col. 1. 20, 21. But* 1.1534 I shall not need to multiply Testimonyes to the same purpose. Thus we have Reconciliation by Christ, in that he hath made Attonement or Satisfaction for our sinnes. The observations given on these Texts, being suited to obviate the Exceptions of Socinus treating of this subject, in his book de Servatore, without troubling the Reader with the Repetition of his words.

That which in the next place I thought to do, is to prove that* 1.1535 we have this Reconciliation by the death of Christ as a Sacrifice. But because I cannot do this to my own Satisfaction, without insisting first, on the whole Doctrine of Sacrifices in generall.

Secondly, on the institution, Nature, End, and Efficacy of the Sacrifices of the Aaronicall Priesthod. Thirdly, the respect and Relation that was between them, and the Sacrifice of Christ, both in generall and in particular: And from all these consi∣derations at large deducing the Conclusion proposed: And finding that this procedure would draw out this Treatise to a length, utterly beyond my expectation, I shall not proceed in it; but referre it to a peculiar discourse on that subject.

That which I proposed to confirmation at the entrance of* 1.1536 this Discourse, was the Satisfaction made by the blood of Christ. This being proposed under severall considerations hath thus farre been severally handled: That his death was a Price, that we have Redemption thereby properly so called, was first evinced. That truth standing, the Satisfaction of Christ is sufficiently established, our Adversarys themselves being Judges. The Sacrifice that he offered in his death hath also been manifested. Hereof is the Reconciliation now delivered, the Fruit, and Effect. This also is no lesse destructive of the designe of these men: what they have to object against that which hath been spoken, shall have the next place in our Discourse.

Thus then our Catechists to this businesse, in the 31, and 32,* 1.1537 Questions of the 8 Chap. which is about the Death of Christ.

What say you then to those places, that affirme that he* 1.1538 reconciled us to God?

1.

That the Scripture no where saies, that God* 1.1539 was reconciled to us by Christ. But this only, that by Christ, or the Death of Christ we are reconciled, or reconciled to God, as may appeare from all those places, where reconciliation is treated of. Wherefore from those places, the satisfaction cannot be proved. 2. Because it is evident in the Scripture, that God reconciled us to himselfe, which evinceth the opinion of the Adversaries, to be altogether false, 2 Cor. 5. 18. Col. 1. 20, 22.

Ans. 1. Whether there be any mention of such a Reconci∣liation, as whereby the Anger of God is turned away, and we

Received into Favour, in the Scripture, the Reader will judge, from what hath been already proposed, and thither we ap∣peale. It is not about words and syllables that we contend, but things themselves. The Reconciliation of God to us, by Christ, is so expressed, as the Reconciliation of a Judge to an Offender, of a King to a Rebell, may be expressed.

2. If Christ made Reconciliation for us, and for our sins an Attonement, he made the Satisfaction for us, which we plead for.

3. It is true; God is said to reconcile us to himselfe, but alwaies by Christ, by the blood of Christ: proposing himselfe as reconciled thereby, and declaring to us the Attonement; that we may turne unto him.

They adde. * 1.1540

But what thinkest thou of this Reconciliation?

* 1.1541

Ans. 1.

That Jesus Christ shewed a way to us, who by Reason of our sinnes, were enemies to God, and Alienated from him, how we ought to turne unto God, and by that meanes be re∣conciled to him.

Ans. I suppose there was never a more perverse description of * 1.1542 any thing, Part, or Parcell of the Gospell, by any Men fixed on. Some of the Excellencies of it may be pointed out.

1 Here is a Reconciliation between two parties, and yet a Re∣conciliation but of one; the other excluded.

2. An Enmity on one side only, between God and Sinners, is supposed, and that on the part of the Sinners; when the Scrip∣ture•• do much more abound in setting out the Enmity of God a∣gainst them as such; his wrath abiding on them, as some will find one day to their eternall sorrow.

3. Reconciliation is made nothing but Conversion, or Con∣version to God; which yet are termes and things, in the Scriptures every where distinguished.

4. We are said to be Enemies to God, propter peccata nostra, when the Scripture saies every where, that God is an Enemy to us, propter * 1.1543 peccata nostra. He hateth and is Angry with sinners, his judgement is that they which commit sinne, are worthy of Death.

5. Here is no mention of the Death and Blood of Christ, which

in every place in the whole Scripture, where this Reconciliati∣on is spoken of, is expresly laid downe as the Cause of it; and necessarily denotes the Reconciliation of God to us, by the a∣verting of his Anger, as the Effect of it.

6. Did Christ by his Death shew us a way, whereby we might * 1.1544 come to be reconciled to God or convert our selves? What was that way? Is it, that God lays punishment, and Affliction, and Death on them, who are no way liable thereunto? What else can we learne from the Death of Christ, according to these men? The truth is, they mention not his Death, because they know not how to make their ends hang together.

This is the summe of what they say; We are Reconciled to God, that is, we Convert our selves; by the Death of Christ, that is, not by his death, but according to the Doctrine he Teacheth; and this is the summe of the Doctrine of Reconciliation, Christ teacheth us a way, how we should convert our selves to God. And so much for Reconciliation.

CHAP. XXX.

The Satisfaction of Christ, on the Consideration of His Death, being a Punishment, farther evinced; and vindicated from the Exceptions of Smalcius.

THE Third consideration of the Death of Christ, was of * 1.1545 it, as it was Penal, as therein he underwent Punishment for us, or that punishment which for sin was due to us. Thence directly is it said to be satisfactory. About the word its selfe, we do not contend; nor do our Adversaries except against it, if the thing it selfe be proved, that is intended by that Expression, this Controversy is at an end. Farther to open the nature of Satisfaction, then by what is said before, about bearing of sins, &c. I see no reason; our ayme in that word is known to all; and the sence of it obvious. This is made by some the generall head of the whole businesse. I have placed it on the peculiar conside∣ration of Christs bearing our sinnes, and undergoing punishment

for us. What our Catechists say to the whole, I shall briefly consider.

Having assigned some Causes, and Effects of the Death of * 1.1546 Christ, partly true in their own place, partly false. They aske Q. 12.

Is there no other cause of the Death of Christ?

* 1.1547

Ans.

None at all. As for that which Chri∣stians commonly think, that Christ by his Death, merited salvation for us, and satisfied fully for our sinnes, that opinion is false (or deceitfull) erroneous, and very pernitious.

That the men of this perswasion are bold men, we are not now to learne; Only this Assertion, that there is no other cause of the Death of Christ, but what they have mentioned, is a new experiment thereof.

If we must believe, that these men know all things, and the whole mind of God, so that all is false and pernitious, that lies be∣yond their roade and understanding, there may be some colour for this Confidence. But the Account we have already taken of them, will not allow us to grant them this plea.

2. Of the Merit of Christ, I have spoken briefly before. His * 1.1548 Satisfaction is the thing opposed chiefely; What they have to say against it, shall now be considered. As also how this impu∣tation, or Charge, on the common faith of Christians, about the Satisfaction of Christ, to be false, erroneous, and pernitious, will be mannaged.

Q 13. How is it false, or deceitfull?

* 1.1549

That it is false (or deceitfull) and eroneous * 1.1550 is hence evident; that not only there is nothing of it extant in the Scripture, but also that it is repugnant to the Scriptures, and sound rea∣son.

For the truth of this suggestion, that it is not extant in Scripture, I referre the Reader to what hath been discoursed from the Scripture about it already; When they, or any for them, shall answer, or evade the Testimonies that have been produced, or may yet be so, (for I have yet mentioned none

of those which immediately expresse the dying of Christ for us, nor his being our Mediator and Surety in his death) they shall have liberty (for me) to boast in this manner. In the meane time we are not concerned in their wretched confidence. But let us see how they make good their Assertion by instances.

Q. 14. Shew that in order? * 1.1551

That it is not in the Scripture, this is an Ar∣gument, * 1.1552 that the Assertors of that opinion doe never bring evident Scriptures for the proofe of it; But knit certaine consequences by which they endeavour to make good what they assert: which as it is meet to admit, when they are ne∣cessarily deduced from Scripture, so it is cer∣taine they have no force, when they are repug∣nant to the Scripture.

But what is it that we do not prove by expresse Scripture, and that in abundance? That our iniquity was layd upon Christ; that he was bruised, grieved, wounded, killed for us, that he bare our iniquitys, & that in his owne body on the tree, that he was made sin for us, and a Curse; that we deserved death, and he dyed for us, that he made his soule an offering for sinne, layd down his life a price and ransome for us, or in our stead, that we are thereby redeemed and reconciled to God; that our iniquityes being layd on him, and he bearing them, (that is the punishment due to them) we have deliverance, God being attoned, and his wrath removed, we prove not by conse∣quence, but by multitudes of expresse Testimonyes. If they meane that the word Satisfaction is not found in Scripture in the bu∣sinesse treated of, we tell them that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (all words of a cognate significancy thereto, and of the same importance as to the Doctrine under consideration) are frequently used; It is in∣deed an hard taske to find, Satisfaction, the word, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, or the Greeke of the New; But the thing it selfe is found expressly an hundred times over; and their great Master doth confesse, that it is not the Word, but the thing it selfe, that he opposeth. So that without any thanks to them at all, for granting, that Consequences from Scripture may be

allowed to prove matters of Faith, we assure them, our Do∣ctrine is made good by innumerable expresse Testimonies of the word of God, some whereof have been by us now insisted on; and moreover, that if they and their Companions did not wrest the Scriptures to strange and uncouth sences, never heard of before amongst men professing the name of Christ, we could willingly abstaine wholly from any expression, that is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 found in the word it selfe. But if by their Rebellion against the Truth, and attempts to pervert all the expressions of the word, the most cleare and evident, to perverse and horrid abominations, we are necessitated to them, they must beare them, unlesse they can prove them not to be true.

Let the Reader observe, that they grant, that the consequen∣ces we gather from Scripture, would evince that which we plead and contend for, were it not but that they are repugnant to o∣ther Scriptures. Let them then manifest the Truth of their pre∣tension, by producing those other Scriptures, or confesse that they are selfecondemned.

Wherefore they aske.

* 1.1553

Q. How is it repugnant to the Scripture? * 1.1554

A. In this sort, that the Scriptures do every where testify, that God forgives sinne freely, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 3. 24, 25. But Principally under the New Covenant, Ephes. 2. 8. Math. 18. 23. Now nothing is more opposite to free remission, then satisfaction; so that if a Creditor be satis∣fied, either by the Debtor himselfe, or by any other in the name of the Debtor, he cannot be said to forgive freely.

If this be all that our Consequences are repugnant unto in the Scripture, we doubt not to make a speedy Reconciliation. In∣deed there was never the least difference between them. Not to dwell long upon that which is of an easy dispatch.

1. This Objection is stated solely to the consideration of * 1.1555 Sinne as a Debt, which is Metaphoricall-Sinne properly is an Of∣fence, a Rebellion, a Transgression of the Law, an Injury done, not to a private Person, but a Governor in his Government.

2, The two first places mentioned, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. Rom. * 1.1556 3. 24, 25. do expresly mention the payment of this Debt by Christ, as the Ground of Gods Forgivenesse, Remission, and Pardon; The payment of it, I say, not as considered Metaphori∣cally, as a Debt, but the making an Attonement and Reconcilia∣tion for us, who had committed it, considered as a Crime, and Re∣bellion, or Transgression.

3. We say, that God doth most freely forgive us, as Ephes. 2. * 1.1557 8. Math: 18. 23. without requiring any of the debt at our hands, without requiring any Price or Ransome from us, or any satis∣faction at our hands; but yet he forgives us for Christs sake, set∣ing forth him to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, he laying downe his Life a Ransome for us, God not sparing him, but gi∣ving him up to Death for us all.

4. The Expression of another satisfying in the name of the * 1.1558 Debtor, intends either one procured by the debtor, and at his en∣treaty undertaking the work, or one gratiously given, and as∣signed to be in his stead, by the Creditor. In the first sence it hath an inconsistency with free remission, in the Latter, not at all.

The Truth is, men that dreame of an opposition between the satisfaction made by Christ, the surety, and Mediator of the new Covenant, and free Remission made to us, are utterly ignorant of the whole mystery of the Gospell, nature of the Covenant, and whole Mediation of Christ; advancing carnall imaginations a∣gainst innumerable Testimonies of the Scripture, witnessing the blessed Conspiration between them, to the praise of the glorious grace of God. But they say,

That it is contrary to Reason also, Because it would hence * 1.1559 follow,

That Christ underwent eternall * 1.1560 Death, if he satisfied God for our sinnes: seeing it is manifest, that the punishment we deserved by our sinnes, was eternall Death. Also it would follow, that we should be more bound to Christ, then to God himselfe, as to him who had shewn us greater favour in satisfaction, but God receiving satisfaction afforded us no fa∣vour.

What little reliefe this plea will afford our Adversaries, will quickly appeare. For

1. I have proved that Christ underwent that death that was due unto sinners, which was all, that Justice, Law, or Reason re∣quired. He underwent it, though it was impossible for him to be detained by it.

2. If the Racovians doe not think us obliged to God, for sending his Son out of his infinite & eternall love to die for us, cau∣sing al our iniquties to meet on him, justifying us freely, (who could do nothing for our own delivery) through the Redemption that is in the blood of Christ, we must tell them, that (we blesse his holy name) we are not of that mind; but finding a dayly fruit of his love and kindnesse, upon our soules, doe know that we are bound unto him eternally, to Love, Praise, Serve, honour, and glorify him, beyond what we shall ever be able to expresse.

2. For the enquiry made, and comparison instituted, be∣tween * 1.1561 our obligation to the Father and the Sonne, or which of them we are most beholding to, we professe we cannot speake unto it. Our obligation to both, and either respective∣ly, is such, that if our Affections were extended immeasurably to what they are, yet the utmost and exactest heigth of them, would be due to both, and each of them respectively. We are so bound to one, as we cannot be more to the other; because to both in the absolutely highest degree. This we observe in the Scriptures, that in mentioning the worke of Redemption, the rise, fountaine, and spring of it is still assigned to be in the Love of the Father: The carrying of it on in the love, and Obedience of the Sonne, and so we order our thoughts of Faith towards them. The Father being not one whit the lesse free and gra∣cious to us, by loving us upon the Satisfaction of his Sonne, then if he had forgiven us (had it been possible) without any Satis∣faction at all.

And thus is this Article of the Christian Faith, contrary to * 1.1562 Scripture, thus to Reason. They adde.

How also is it pernitious? * 1.1563

A.

In that it openeth a doore unto men to sin, or at least incites them to sloath in follow∣ing after holinesse. But the Scripture witnesseth that this amongst others is an end of the death

of Christ, that he might redeeme us from our iniquity and deliver us from this evill world that we might be redeemed from our vain con∣versation, and have our consciences purged from dead workes, that we might serve the living God, Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Heb. 9. 14.

That the deliverance of us from the Power and Pollution of our sinne, the purifying of our soules and Consciences, the making of us a peculiar people of God, zealous of good workes that we might be holy and blamelesse before him in love, is one eminent end of the death of Christ, we grant. For this end by his death, did he procure the spirit to quicken us, who were dead in trespasses and sinnes, sprinkling us with the pure water thereof, and gi∣ving us dayly suplyes of Grace from him, that we might grow up in holinesse before him, untill we come to the measure in this life assigned to us in him.

But that the consideration of the Crosse of Christ, and the Satisfaction made thereby, should open a doore of licentiousnesse to sinne, or encourage men to sloath in the wayes of Godli∣nesse, is fit only for them to assert, to whom the Gospell is folly.

What is it I pray in the Doctrine of the Crosse, that should * 1.1564 thus dispose men to licentiousnesse and sloath? Is it that God is so provoked with every sinne, that it is impossible, and against his nature to forgive it, without inflicting the punishment due thereto? Or is it that God so loved us, that he gave his only Sonne to dye for us, or that Christ loved us, and washed us in his own blood? Or is it that God for Christs sake doth freely forgive us? Yea but our Adversaries say, that God freely forgives us; yea but they say it is without Satisfaction. Is it then an encouragement to sinne, to affirme that God forgives us freely for the Satisfaction of his Sonne? and not to say, that he forgives us freely without Satisfaction? doth the adding of Satisfaction whereby God to the highest manifested his indigna∣tion and wrath against sinne; doth that I say make the diffe∣rence, & give the Encouragement? Who could have discovered

this but our Catechists and their Companions? Were this a season for that Purpose, I could easily demonstrate that there is no Powerfull or effectuall motive to abstaine from sinne, no en∣couragement or incitation unto holinesse, but what riseth from or relateth unto the Satisfaction of Christ.

And this is that which they have to make good their charge * 1.1565 against the common Faith, that it is false, erroneous, and pernitious. Such worthy foundations have they of their great superstruction, or rather so great is their Confidence, and so little is their strength for the pulling down of the Church built upon the Rock.

They proceed to consider what Testimonies and proofes * 1.1566 (they say) we produce for the confirmation of the truth conten∣ded for. What (they say) we pretend from Reason (though indeed it be from innumerable places of Scripture) I have vin∣dicated not long since to the full in my book of the vindictive * 1.1567 Justice of God, and answered all the Exceptions given thereunto; so that I shall not translate from ••hence what I have delivered to this purpose, but passe to what followes.

Question 12 they make this enquiry.

* 1.1568 Which are the Scriptures out of which they endeavour * 1.1569 to confirme their opinion?

A.

Those which testify that Christ dyed for us, or for our sinnes, also that he redeemed us, or that he gave himselfe or his life a Redemp∣tion for many; Then, that he is our Mediatour: moreover, that he reconciled us to God, and is a propitiation for our sinne. Lastly, from those Sacrifices which as figures shadowed forth the death of Christ.

So do they huddle up together those very many expresse Testi∣monies of the Truth we plead for, which are recorded in the Scripture. Of which I may clearely say, that I know no one truth in the whole Scripture, that is so freely and fully delive∣red; as being indeed of the greatest importance to our soules. What they except in particular against any of the Testimonies that may be referred to the heads before recounted, (except those which have been already spoken to) shall be considered in the order wherein they proceed.

They say then * 1.1570

For what belongeth unto those Testimonies * 1.1571 wherein it is contended that Christ dyed for us, it is manifest that Satisfaction cannot necessa∣rily be therein asserted, because the Script••re witnesseth that we ought even to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 Joh. 3 16. And Paul writes of himselfe, Col. 1. 14. Now I rejoyce in my affliction for you, and fill up the remainder of the affliction of Christ for his body which is the Church. But it is certaine, that neither do Believers satisfy for any of the bretheren; nor did Paul make satisfaction to any for the Church.

Qest. 23. What then is the sence of these words [Christ dyed for us.]

That these words [for us] do not signify in our place or stead, but for us, as the Apostle ex∣pressly speakes 1 Cor. 8. 11. which also alike places do shew; where the Scripture saith, that Christ dyed for our sinnes, which word can∣not have this sence, that Christ dyed instead of our sinnes, but that he dyed for our sinnes, as it is expressly written Rom. 4. 25. Moreover these words [Christ dyed for us] have this sence, that he therefore dyed, that we might imbrace and obtaine that eternall Salvation which he brought to us from Heaven, which how it is done you heard before.

Resp. Briefely to state the difference between us about the * 1.1572 meaning of this expression [Christ dyed for us] I shall give one or two observations upon what they deliver, then confirme the common Faith, and remove their exceptions thereto.

1. Without any attempt of proofe they oppose vice nostri, and propter nos, as contrary & inconsistent; & make this their Ar∣gument, that Christ did not dy vice nostri, because he dyed propter

nos. When it is one Argument whereby we prove that Christ dyed in our stead, because he dyed for us, in the sence mentio∣ned, 1 Cor. 8. 11. where it is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because we could no otherwise be brought to the end aymed at.

2. Our sence of the expression is evident from what we in∣sist upon, in the Doctrine in hand. Christ dyed for us, that is, he underwent the death and Curse that was due to us, that we might be delivered therefrom.

3. The last words of the Catechists are those wherein they * 1.1573 strive to hide the abomination of their hearts in reference to this businesse. I shall a little lay it open.

1. Christ say they, brought us eternall Salvation from Heaven; that is, he preached a Doctrine in obedience whereunto, we may obtaine Salvation. So did Paul.

2. He dyed that we might receive it; that is, rather then he would deny the truth which he preached, he suffered himselfe to be put to death. So did Paul; and yet he was not Crucifyed for the Church.

3. It is not indeed the death of Christ, but his Resurrection that hath an influence into our receiving of his Doctrine, & so our obtaining Salvation. And this is the sence of these words, (Christ dyed for us.)

For the confirmation of our Faith from this expression, * 1.1574 (Christ dyed for us.) we have

1. The common sence, and customary usage of humane kind as to this expression. When ever one is in danger, and another is said to come and dye for him that he may be delivered, a sub∣stitution is still understood. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of old, as Damon and Pythias &c. make this manifest.

2. The Common usage of this expression in Scripture con∣firmes * 1.1575 the sence insisted on. So David wished that he had dyed for his Sonne Absolon, that is, dyed in his stead, that he might have lived 2 Sam. 18. 33. And that supposall of Paul Rom. 1. 11. of one daring to dye for a good man, relating (as by all Expositours on the place is evinced) to the practice of some in former dayes, who to deliver others from death, had given themselves up to that whereunto they were obnoxious, confirmes the same.

3. The Phrase it selfe, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.1576

which is used Heb. 2. 9. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Rom. 5. 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 5. 14. sufficiently proves our intention, compared with the use of the preposition in other places; especially being farther explained by the use of the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which ever denotes a substi∣tution, in the same sence and businesse, Math 20. 28. Math. 10. 45. 1 Tim. 2. That a Substitution and Commutation is alwayes de∣noted by this preposition (if not an opposition which here can have no place) 1 Pet. 3. 9. Rom. 12 14. Math. 5. 38. Luk. 11. 13. Heb. 12. 16. 1 Cor. 11. 15. amongst other places are sufficient evidences.

4. Christ is so said to dye 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so as that he is said in * 1.1577 his death to have our iniquityes layd upon him, to beare our sinne in his own body on the tree, to be made sinne and a curse for us, to offer himselfe a Sacrifice for us, by his death, his blood, to pay a price or ransome for us, to redeem, to reconcile us to God, to do away our sinnes in his blood, to free us from wrath, and con∣demnation, and sinne. Now whether thus to die for us, be not to dye in our place and stead, let Angels and men judge.

5. But, say they, this is all that we have to say in this busi∣nesse; Yet we ought to lay downe our lives for the Brethren; and Paul saith, that he filled up the measure of the affliction of Christ, for his bo∣dies sake the Church, but neither the one, nor the other did make satisfaction to God by their death, or affliction. But,

1. If all we had to Plead for the sence of this Expression, Christ died for us, depended solely on the sence and use of that * 1.1578 word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then the Exception would have this force in it. The word is once or twice used in another sence, in another busi∣nesse; therefore the sence of it contended for in this businesse, cannot be such as you seek to maintaine. But,

1. This Exception at best, in a cause of this importance, is most frivolous, and tends to the disturbance of all sober Interpre∣tation of Scripture.

2. We are very farre from making the single sence of the Preposition, to be the medium, which in the Argument from the whole expression we insist on.

2. The passage in 1 Jo. 3. 16. being a part of the Apostles perswasive to Love, Charity, and the fruits of them, tending to the reliefe of the Brethren, in Poverty, and distresse, disclaimes all intendment, and possibility of a substitution or Commutation,

nor hath any intimation of undergoing that which was due to another, but only of being ready to the utmost to assist and re∣lieve them. The same is the condition of what is affirmed of Paul; Of the measure of affliction, which in the infinite wise Provi∣dence, and Fatherly care of God, is proportioned to the mysticall body of Christ his Church, Paul underwent his share for the good of the whole. But that Paul, that any Believers were Crucified for the Church, or dyed for it, in the sence that Christ died for it, that they Redeemed it to God by their own blood, it is no∣torious blasphemy once to imagine. The meaning of the phrase (He died for our sinnes) was before explained. Christ then dying for us, being made sinne for us, bearing our iniquity, and redeem∣ing us by his blood, died in our place and stead, and by his Death made satisfaction to God for our sinne.

Also that Christ made satisfaction for our sinne, appears * 1.1579 from hence, that he was our Mediator. Concerning this, after their Attempt against proper Redemption by his blood, which we have already considered, Q. 28. They enquire.

What say you to this, that Christ is the Mediator of the * 1.1580 New Covenant between God and Man? and Answer

Ans.

Seeing it is read, that Moses was a Me∣diator, Gal: 3. 19. (namely of the Old Cove∣nant between God and the people of Israel) and it is evident, that he no way made satisfa∣ction to God; neither from hence, that Christ is the Mediator of God and man, can it be cer∣tainly gathered, that he made any satisfaction to God for our sinne.

I shall take leave before I proceed, to make a returne of this Argument to them from whom it comes, by a meer change of the instance given. Christ they say, our High Priest, offered himselfe to God in heaven: Now Aaron is expresly said to be an High Priest, and yet he did not offer himselfe in Heaven, and there∣fore it cannot be certainly proved, that Christ offered himselfe in Heaven, because he was an High Priest. Or thus: David was a King, and a type of Christ; but David raigned at Jerusalem, and was a temporall King: It cannot therefore be proved, that

Christ is a spirituall King from hence, that he is said to be a King. This Argument I confesse Faustus Socinus could not Answer when it was urged against him by Sidelius: But for the former, I doubt not but Smalcius would quickly have Answered, that it is true; it cannot be necessarily proved, that Christ Offereth himselfe in Heaven, because he was an High Priest, which Aaron was also, but because he was such an High Priest, as entred into the Heavens to appeare personally in the presence of God for us, as he is described to be. Untill he can give us a better An∣swer to our Argument, I hope he will be content with this of ours to his. It is true, it doth not appeare, nor can be evinced necessarily, that Christ made satisfaction for us to God, because he was a Mediator in generall, for so Moses was who made no satisfaction; but because it is said, that he was such a Mediator be¦tween God and Man, as gave his Life a Price of Redemption for them for whom with God he mediated, 1 Tim. 2. 6. it is most evident and undeniable; and hereunto Smalcius is silent.

What remaines of this Chapter in the Catechists, hath been * 1.1581 already fully considered; so to them and M^r B. as to his 12^th Chapter about the death of Christ, what hath been said may suffice. Many weighty Considerations of the Death of Christ in this whole discourse, I confesse are omitted; and yet more per∣haps have been delivered, then by our Adversaries occasion hath been administred unto. But this businesse is the very Center of the New Covenant, and cannot sufficiently be weighed. God assisting, a farther attempt will ere long be made, for the briefe stating all the severall concernements of it.

CHAP. XXXI.

Of Election, and Ʋniversall Grace: Of the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead.

MR Biddles Intention in this 13^th Chapter, being to decry * 1.1582 Gods Eternall Election, finding himselfe destitute of any Scripture, that should to the least outward appearance speak to his purpose, he deserts the way and method of procedure imposed

on himselfe, and in the very Entrance falls into a Dispute a∣gainst it, with such Arguments as the Texts of Scripture after mentioned, give not the least colour or countenance unto. Nor that from me he incurres any blame, for using any Arguments whereby he supposeth he may further or promote his Cause, is this spoken; but having at the Entrance professed against such a proceedure, he ought not upon any necessity, to have transgres∣sed the Law, which to himselfe he had prescribed. But as the matter stands, he is to be heard to the full, in what he hath to offer. Thus then he proceeds.

Q. Those Scriptures which you have already alleadged, when I en∣quired * 1.1583 for whom Christ died, intimate the universality of Gods Love to men: yet for asmuch as this is a point of the greatest importance, without the knowledge and beliefe whereof, we cannot have any true and solid ground of coming unto God, (because if he from eternity intended good only to a few, and those few are not set downe in the Scriptures, (which were written, that we through the comfort of them might have hope,) no man can certainly, yea probably infer, that he is in the number of those few, the contrary being ten thousand to one more likely) what other clear passages of Scripture have you, which shew, that God, in sending Christ, and proposing the Gospel, aimed not at the salvation of a certain elect number, but of men in general?

A. Joh. 3. 16, 17. Joh. 6. 33. Joh. 4. 42. 1 Joh. 4. 14. Joh. 12. 46, 47. Mark. 16. 15, 16. Col. 1. 22 Col. 1. 18. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. 2 Pet. 3. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 19. 1 Joh. 2. 1, 2.

That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, * 1.1584 powerful, liberal provider for the workes of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations, and various communications of his goodnes to them; and may in that regard, be said to have an Ʋ∣niversall Love for them all, is granted: But that God loveth all, and every man alike, with that Eternall Love, which is the foun∣taine of his giving Christ for them, and to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any of those places of Scripture, where they are expressed for whom Christ died; as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.

2. It is confessed, that this is a point of the greatest importance * 1.1585 (that is, of very great) without the knowledge and beliefe whereof, we cannot have any True and Solid ground of com∣ing unto God; namely, of the Love of God in Christ; but that

to know the universality of his Love is of such importance, cannot be proved, unlesse that can be numbred which is wanting, and that weighed in the ballance which is not.

3. We say not, that God from all Eternity intended good only * 1.1586 to a few, &c. He intended much good to all, and every man in the world, & accordingly in Abundance of variety accomplisheth that his intention towards them; to Some in a greater, to Some in a lesser measure, according as seems good to his infinite wisdome and pleasure, for which all things were made and created, Rev. 4. 11. And for that particular eminent good of Salvation by Jesus Christ, for the praise of his Glorious Grace, we do not say, that he intended that from eternity, for a few absolutely considered; for these will appeare in the issue, to be a great multitude, which no man can number, Rev. 7. 9. but that in comparison of them who shall everlastingly come short of his Glory, we say that they are but a little flock, yea few they are that are chosen, as our Savi∣our expresly affirmes, what ever M. B. be pleased to tell us to the contrary.

4. That the granting that they are but few, that are chosen * 1.1587 (though many be called) and that before the foundation of the world some are chosen to be holy, and unblameable in Love through Christ, having their names written in the Book of Life, is a discouragement to any to come to God, M. B. shall perswade us, when he can evince, that the secret and eternall purpose of Gods discriminating between persons, as to their Eternall conditi∣ons, is the great ground and bottome of our approach unto God; and not the Truth and faithfulnesse of the promises which He hath given, with his holy and righteous commands. The issue that lyes before them, who are commanded to draw nigh to God, is, not whether they are Elected or no, but whether they will believe or no; God having given them Eternall, and unchangeable Rules; He that Believes shall be saved, and he that believes not, shall be damned, though no mans name be written in the Scripture, he that believes hath the Faith of Gods veracity, to assure him, that he shall be saved. It is a most vaine Surmisall, that as to that obedience which God requires of us, there is any obstruction laid, by this consideration, that they are but few which are chosen.

5. This is indeed the only true and solid ground of coming * 1.1588 unto God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoyned Faith

and Salvation, so that whosoever believes, shall be saved; neither doth the granting of the pretended universality of Gods Love, af∣ford any other ground whatever; and thi is not in the least shaken or impaired, by the effectuall Love and Purpose of God, for the Salvation of Some. And if M. B. hath any other true and solid ground of encouraging men to come to God by Christ, besides, and beyond this, which may not on one account or other, be edu••ed from it, or resolved into it, (I meane of Gods command and promise) I do here begge of him to acquaint me with it, and I shall give him more thankes for it, if I live to see it done, then as yet I can perswade my selfe to do, on the account of all his other labours which I have seen.

6. We say, though God hath chosen some only to Salvation by * 1.1589 Christ, yet that the names of those some are not expressed in Scripture; the doing whereof would have been destructive to the main end of the Word, the Nature of Faith, and all the Or∣dinances of the Gospell; yet God having declared, that whoso∣ever believeth shall be saved, there is sufficient ground for all and every man in the World, to whom the Gospell is Preached, to come to God by Christ; and other ground there is none, nor can be offered by the Assertors of the pretended universality of Gods Love. Nor is this proposition, he that believes shall be saved, founded on the universality of Love pleaded for, but the Suffici∣ency of the meanes, for the Accomplishment of what is therein Asserted▪ namely the blood of Christ, who is believed on.

Now because M. B. expresseth, that the end of his Asserting * 1.1590 this Ʋniversality of Gods Love, is to decry his Eternall purpose of Ele∣ction; it being confessed, that between these two, there is an inconsistency; without entring farre into that Controversy, I shall briefly shew what the Scripture speaks to the latter, and how remote the places mentioned by M B. are, from giving counte∣nance to the former, in the sence wherein by him who Asserts it it is understood.

For the first, me thinks a little respect and Reverence to that * 1.1591 Testimony of our Saviour, many are called, but few are chosen, might have detained this Gentleman from asserting with so much confidence, that the perswasion of Gods choosing but a few, is an obstruction of mens coming unto God. Though he looks upon our blessed Saviour, as a meer man, yet I hope, he takes

him for a true man, and one that taught the way of God aright. But a little farther to cleare this matter.

1. Some are chosen from Eternity, and are under the pur∣pose * 1.1592 of God, as to the good men••ioned. 2. Those some, are some only, not All: and therefore as to the good intended, there is not an Ʋniversall Love in God, as to the objects of it, but such a distinguishing one as is spoken against. Eph. 1. 4, 5. According as hee hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the World, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in Love: having Predestinated us to the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ to himselfe, according to the good pleasure of his will. Here are some chosen, and consequently an intention of God concerning them, expressed; and this from E∣ternity, or before the foundation of the World, and this to the Good of Holinesse, Adoption, Salvation; and this is only of some, and not of all the World, as the whole tenour of the Discourse being re∣ferred to Believers, doth abundantly manifest.

Rom. 8. 28, 29, 30. And we know, that all things work together for * 1.1593 good, to them that are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Sonne, that he might be the first borne amongst many brethren: Moreover, whom he did Predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he al∣so justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified. The good here intended is Glory, that the Apostle closes withall; Whom he justi∣fied, them he also glorified. The meanes of that End, consists in vo∣cation and justification: The persons to be made partakers of this end, are not all the world, but the called according to his purpose; the designation of them so distinguished, to the end expressed, is from the purpose, foreknowledge, and predestination of God, (that is) his everlasting intention. Were it another man, with whom we have to doe, I should wonder that it came into his mind, to deny this Eternall intention of God towards some for good; but nothing is strange from the Gentleman of our present contest. They are but some which are ordained to Eternall life, Acts 13. 48. but some, that are given to Christ, Ioh. 17. 6. A remnant according to Election, Rom 11. 5. one being chosen, when another was rejected, before they were borne, or had done either good or evill, that the purpose of God, according to Election might stand, Rom 9. 11, 12. and those who attaine salvation, are chosen thereunto, through sanctificati∣on of the Spirit, and beliefe of the truth, 2 Thes. 2. 13. All that is in∣tended

by them, whom M. B. thinketh to load with the opinion he rejects, is but what in these and many other places of Scrip∣ture, is abundantly revealed. God from all Eternity, according to the purpose of his own will, or the purpose which is according to Election, hath chosen some, and appointed them to the obtain∣ing of life and Salvation by Christ, to the prayse of his glorious Grace. For the number of these, be they few or more, in compa∣rison of the rest of the World, the Event doth manifest.

Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God, or intention * 1.1594 spoken of, is peculiar and distinguishing, there is Expresse mention of another sort of men, who are not thus chosen, but lye under the purpose of God, as to a contrary Lot and condition The Lord hath made all things for himselfe, yea even the wicked for the day of evill. Prov. 16. 4. They are persons, whose names are not written in the Lambs book of Life, Rev. 13 8. Being of old ordained to condemnation, Jude 4. being as naturall bruit beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, 2 Pet. 2. 12. And therefore the Apostle distinguisheth all men into those who are appointed to wrath, and those who are appointed to the obtaining of life by Jesus Christ, 1 Thess. 5. 9. An instance of which eternally discriminating purpose of God, is given in Jacob and Esau, Rom. 9. 11, 12. which way, and procedure therein of God, the Apostle vindicates from all appearance of unrighteousnesse, and stops the Mouths of all Repiners against it, from the Soveraignty, and absolute Liberty of his Will, in dealing with all the sonnes of men as he pleaseth, v. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Concluding that in opposition to them, whom God hath made vessells of mercy, prepared unto Glory; there are also vessells of Wrath fitted to destruction, v. 22, 23.

Moreover in all eminent Effects and Fruits of Love, in all the * 1.1595 issues and wayes of it, for the good of, and towards the Sonnes of men, God abundantly manifests, that his Eternall Love, that regards the everlasting good of men, as it was before described, is peculiar, and not universally comprehensive of all, and every one of man-kind.

In the pursuit of that Love, he gave his Sonne to dye; For God commendeth his Love to us, in that whilest we were yet sinners, Christ dyed for us, Rom. 5. 8. Here in is Love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Sonne to be the Propitiation for our sinnes, 1 Joh. 4. 10. Now though he dyed not for the Jews only, but for all, for

the whole World, or Men throughout the whole World, yet that he dy∣ed for some only of all sorts throughout the World, even those who are so chosen, as is before mentioned, and not for them who are rejected, as was above declared, Himselfe testifies, Joh. 17. 9. I pray for them, I pray not for the World, but for them which thou hast given me, thine they were, and thou gavest them me, v. 6. And for their sakes I sanctify my selfe, v. 17. Even as he had said before, that he came to give his life a ransome for many, Mat. 20. 28. which Paul afterwards abundantly confirmes, affirming, that God re∣deemed his Church with his own blood, Acts 20. 28. Not the world, as contradistinguished from his Church, nor absolutely, but his Church throughout the World: And to give us a clearer insight into his intendment, in naming the Church in this businesse, he tells us, they are Gods Elect whom he means, Rom. 8. 32, 33, 34. He that spared not his Sonne, but delivered him up to death for us all, how shall he not with him, freely give us all things? who shall lay any thing to the charg of Gods Elect? It is God that Justifieth: who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed, yea rather that is risen againe, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. They are the Elect for whom God gave his Sonne, and that out of his Love, which the Apostle eminently sets out v. 32. those to whom with his Sonne he gives all things, and who shall on that account never be se∣parated from him.

Farther to manifest, that this great fruit and effect of the * 1.1596 Love of God, which is extended to the whole object of that Love, was not universall. 1. The Promise of giving him was not so: God promised Christ to all, for, and to whom he giveth him. The Lord God of Israel by him visited and redeemed his people, raising up a horne of Salvation for them in the house of his servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been since the world began, Luk. 1 68, 69, 70. In the very first promise of him, the seed of the Serpent (as are all Reprobate unbelievers) are exclu∣ded from any interest therein, Gen 3. 15. And it was renewed again, not to all the world, but to Abraham & his seed Gen. 12. 2, 3. Act. 2. 39. Act. 3. 25. And for many Ages, the Promise was so apropriated to the seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 5▪ with some few, that joyned themselves to them, Is. 56. 3, 4, 5. that the people of God prayed for a curse on the residue of the world Jer. 10 25. as they which were strangers from the Covenant of promise, Eph. 2.

12. they belonged not to them, So that God made not a pro∣mise of Christ to the universality of mankind; which sufficeintly evinceth, that it was not from an universall, but a peculiar Love that he was given. Nor

2. When Christ was exhibited in the flesh, according to the * 1.1597 promise, was he given to all, but to the Church, Is. 9. 6. neither really as to their good, nor ministerially for the promulgation of the Gos∣pell to any, but to the Jewes. And therefore when he came to his own, though his own received him not, Joh 1. 11. yet as to the ministry which he was to accomplish, he professed he was not sent but to the lost sheep of Israel; and gives order to them whom he sent forth to preach in his own life time, not to go into the way of the Gen∣tiles, nor to enter into any City of the Samaritans, Mat. 10. 5 yea when he had been lifted up, to draw all men to him, Joh. 3. 14. and chap. 12. 32. and being Ascended had broken down the partition wall, and tooke away all distinction of Jew and Gentile, circum∣cision and uncircumcision, having dyed not only for that nation of the Jewes (for the remnant of them according to the election of grace, Rom. 11.) but that he might gather together in one the Children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11. 52. whence the lan∣guage and expressions of the Scripture as to the people of God are changed, and in stead of Judah and Israel, they are expressed by the world Joh 3. 16. the whole world, 1 Joh. 2. 1, 2. and all men, 1 Tim. 4. 6. in opposition to the Jews only, some of all sorts being now taken into Grace and favour with God; yet neither then doth he doe what did remaine, for the full administra∣tion of the Covenant of Grace towards all; namely, the pou∣fing out of his Spirit with efficacy of power to bring them in∣to subjection to him; but still carries on, (though in a greater ex∣tent and latitude) a worke of distinguishing Love, taking some and refusing others. So that being exalted, and made a Prince and a Savi∣our, he gives not repentance to all the world, but to them whom he redeemed to God by his blood, out of every kindred and tongue * 1.1598 and people and Nation, Rev. 5. 9.

It appears then, from the consideration of this first most eminent effect of the love of God, in all the concernements of it, that that Love, which is the foundation of all the grace and Glory, of all the Spirituall and Eternall good things, whereof the sonnes of men are made partakers, is not universall, but pe∣culiar and distinguishing.

M. Biddle being to prove his former Assertion of the univer∣sallity of Gods Love, mentions sundry places, where God is * 1.1599 said to love the world, and to send his Sonne to be the Saviour of the world, Joh. 3. 16, 17. John 6. 33. John 4. 42. 1 John 4. 14. John 12, 46, 47. 1 John 2. 1, 2. The reason of which expression the Reader was before acquainted with. The benefits of the death of Christ being now no more to be confined to one Nation, but promiscuously to be imparted to the Children, that were scat∣tered abroad throughout the world in every kindred, tongue, and Nation under Heaven, the word, world, being used to signify men living in the world, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, seldome or never, All (unlesse a distribution of them into severall sorts compre∣hensive of the universality of mankind be subjoyned) that word is used to expresse them, who in the intention of God and Christ are to be made partakers of the benefits of his mediation. Men of all sorts throughout the world, being now admitted thereunto: as was before asserted.

2. The benefit of Redemption being thus grounded upon the * 1.1600 principle of peculiar, not universall Love, whom doth God re∣veale his will concerning it unto? and whom doth he call to the participation thereof? If it be equally provided for all, out of the same love, it is all the Reason in the world that all should equally be called to a participation thereof, or at least so be called, as to have it made known unto them. For a Physitian to pretend that he hath provided a Soveraigne Remedy for all the sick persons in a City, out of an equall Love that he beares to them all, and when he hath done, takes care that some few know of it, whereby they may come and be healed, but leaves the rest in utter ignorance of any such provision that he hath made, will he be thought to deale sincerely in the profession that he makes of doing of this, out of an equall love to them all? Now not only for the space of almost 4000 yeares did God suffer incomparably the greatest part of the whole world, to walke in their own ways, not calling them to repent Act. 14. 16. winking at that long time of their ignorance, wherein they worshiped stocks, stones, & Divels; all that while making known his word unto Iacob his statutes and judgements unto Israel, not dealing so with any Nation, whereby they knew not his judgements, Psal. 147. 19, 20. So in the pursuit of his Eternal Love, calling a few, only in com∣parison

leaving the bulk of mankind in sinne, without hope or God in the world, Eph. 2. 12. but even also since the giving out of a Commission and expresse command, not to confine the preach∣ing of Word, & calling of men, to Iudaeah, but to go into all the world and to preach the Gospell to every Creature Mark. 16. 15. whereupon it is shortly after said, to be preached to every creature under Heaven, Col. 1. 22. the Apostle thereby warning every man and teaching every man, that they might present every man to Iesus Christ Col. 1. 28 namely, of all those to whom he came and preached, not the Iewes only, but of all sorts of men under Heaven, and that on this ground, that God would have all men to be sa∣ved and come to the knowledg of the truth 1 Tim 2. 3, 4. be they of what sort they will, Kings, Rulers, and all under authority; yet even to this very day, many whole Nations, great and numerous sit in darknesse and in the shaddow of death, having neither in their own dayes, nor in the dayes of their forefathers, ever been made partakers of the glorious Gospell of Jesus Christ, whereby alone life and immortality are brought to light, and men are made partakers of the love of God in them. So that yet we have not the least evidence of the universall Love pleaded for. Yea

3. Whereas to the effectuall bringing of men dead in tres∣passes * 1.1601 and sinnes to a participation of any saving spirituall effect of the love of God in Christ, besides the promulgation of the Gospell and the Law thereof, which consisteth in the infallible connexion of Faith and Salvation according to the tenour of it, Math. 16. 16. He that believeth shall be saved; which is accompa∣nyed with Gods command to believe, wherein he declares his will for their Salvation, upon the termes proposed, approving the obedience of Faith, and giving assurance of Salvation there∣upon, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4. there is moreover required the Opera∣tion of God by his Spirit with power; to evince that all this dispensation is managed by peculiar distinguishing love, this is not granted to all, to whom the commanding and approving word doth come, but only to them who are the called according to his purpose, Rom. 8. 28. that is, to them who are predestinated v. 30. for them he calls, so as to Iustify and glorify them thereupon.

4. Not then to insist on any other particular effects of the * 1.1602 Love of God, as Sanctification, Iustification, Glorification; this in generall may be affirmed, that there is not any one good thing

whatsoever, that is proper and peculiar to the Covenant of Grace, but it proceeds from a distinguishing Love, and an inten∣tion of God towards some only therein.

5. It is true, that God inviteth many to Repentance, and ear∣nestly * 1.1603 inviteth them by the means of the word, which he affords them, to turne from their evill wayes, of whom all the individu∣als are not converted, as he dealt with the house of Israel (not all the world, but) those who had his word and ordinances Ezek. 18. 31, 32. affirming that it is not for his pleasure, but for their sinnes, that they dye; but that this manifests an universal Love in God in the way spoken of, or any thing more then the connexion of Repentance and Acceptation with God, with his legall Approbation of turning from sinne, there is no matter of proofe to evince.

6. Also, he is not willing that any should perish, but that all * 1.1604 should come to Repentance, 2 Pet. 3. 9. even all those towards whom he exercises patience and long suffering for that end, (which, as the Apostle there informes, is to us ward) that is, to Believers of whom he is speaking. To them also it is said, that he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men, Lam. 3. 33. even his Church of which the Prophet is speaking: although this also may be extended to all; God never afflicting or grie∣ving men, but it is for some other Reason and cause, then meerly his own will; their destruction being of themselves. David in∣deed tells us, that the Lord is gratious, full of compassion, slow to anger and of great mercy, that the Lord is good to all and his tender mercyes are over all his workes Psal. 145. 8, 9. But he tells us withall, whom he intends by the all in this place, even the generation which prayse his workes and declare his mighty acts, v. 4. those who abundantly utter the memory of his great goodnesse, and sing of his Righteousnesse, v. 7. or his Saints, as he expressly calls them v. 10. The word he there mentions, is the word of the Kingdom of Christ over all, wherein the tender mercyes of God are spread abroad, in refe∣rence to them that do enjoy them. Not but that God is good to all, even to his whole Creation, in the many unspeakeable blessings of his providence, wherein he abounds towards them in all goodnesse, but that is not here intended. So that M. B. hath fruit∣lessly from these Texts of Scripture, endeavoured to prove an universallity of Love in God, inconsistent with his peculiar Love,

purpose and intention of doing good in the sence declared to some only.

And thus have I briefely gone through this Chapter, and by * 1.1605 the way taken into Consideration all the Texts of Scripture, which he there wrests to confirme his figment, On the goodnesse of the Nature of God, of the Goodnesse and Love to all, which he shews in great variety, and severall degrees, in the dispensation of his Providence throughout the World, of this universall Love, and what it is in the sence of M. B. and his companions, of its inconsistency with the immutability, prescience, omnipotence, fidelity, love, mercy, and faithfulnesse of God, this being not a controversy peculiar to them, with whom in this Treatise I have to do, I shall not farther insist.

As I have in the Preface to this Discourse given an account of * 1.1606 the Rise, and present state of Socinianisme, so I thought in this place to have given the Reader an account of the present state of the Controversy about Grace, and Free-will, and the Death of Christ, with especiall reference to the late management there∣of amongst the Romanists, between the Molinists and Jesuits on the one side, with the Jansenians, or Bayans on the other; with the late Ecclesiasticall and Politicall transactions in Italy, France, and Flanders, in reference thereunto, with an account of the Books lately written on the one side and the other, and my Thoughts of them; but finding this Treatise grown utterly beyond my in∣tention, I shall deferre the execution of that designe to some o∣ther opportunity, if God think good to continue my portion any longer in the land of the Living.

The 14^th Chapter of the Catechist, is about the Resurrection of * 1.1607 Christ. What are the proper fruits of the Resurrection of Christ, and the benefits we receive thereby, and upon what account our Justification is ascribed thereto, whether as the great and emi∣nent confirmation of the doctrine he taught, or as the issue, pledge, and evidence of the Accomplishment of the work of our Salva∣tion by deat, it being impossible for him to be detained there∣by, is not here discussed; that which the great designe of this Chapter appears to disprove, is, Christs raising himselfe by his own power: concerning which this is the Question.

Did Christ rise by his own power, yea did he raise himselfe at all? or * 1.1608 was he raised by the power of another? and did another raise him? What

is the perpetuall tenour of the Scripture to this purpose?

In Answer hereunto, many Texts of Scripture are rehearsed, where it is said, that God raised him from the dead, and that he was raised by the power of God.

But we have manifested, that M. B. is to come to another reckoning, before he can make any work of this Argument; God raised him, therefore he did not raise himselfe: When he hath proved that he is not God, let him freely make such an inference and conclusion as this: In the mean time, we say, because God raised him from the Dead, he raised himselfe; for he is God over all blessed for ever.

2. It is true, that Christ is said to be raised by God, taken * 1.1609 personally for the Father, whose joynt Power, with his Own, as that also of the Spirit, was put forth in this work of raising Christ from the Dead. And for his own raising himselfe, if M. B. will believe him, this businesse will be put to a short issue: He tells us, that he laid down his life, that he might take it up againe, no man (saith he) taketh it from me, I have power to lay it downe of my selfe, and I have power to take it againe, Joh. 10. 17, 18. And speaking of the Temple of his Body, He bad the Jews destroy it, and, that he would raise it againe within three daies: which we believe he did, and if M. B. be otherwise minded, we cannot help it.

CHAP. XXXII.

Of Iustification and Faith.

THIS Chapter, for the Title and Subject of it, would re∣quire * 1.1610 a large & serious consideration; But by M. Biddles loose procedure in this businesse, (whom only I shall now at∣tend) we are absolved from any strict inquiry into the whole Doctrine that is concerned herein. Some briefe Animadversi∣ons upon his Questions, and suiting of Answers to them, will be all that I shall go forth unto. His first is,

Q. How many sorts of Iustification or Righteousnesse are there?

This Question supposeth Righteousnesse and Justification to be the same: which is a grosse notion for a Master of Arts. Righ∣teousnesse is that which God requires of u••, Justification is his Act concerning man, considered as vested or induced with that Righteousnesse which he requires: Righteousnesse is the Qualification of the person to be Justifyed; Justification the Act of him that Justifies. A mans legall honesty in his tryall, is not the sentence of the Judge pronouncing him so to be, to all ends and purposes of that honesty. But to his Question M. B. an∣swers from Rom. 10. 5. the Righteousnesse which is of the Law, and Phil. 3. 9. The Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith.

It is true, there is this twofold Righteousnesse that men may * 1.1611 be partakers of, a Righteousnes consisting in exact, perfect & com∣pleat obedience yeilded to the Law, which God required of man under the Covenant of workes, and the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith, of which afterwards: Answerable hereunto there is, hath been, or may be, a twofold Justification: the one consisting in Gods declaration of him, who performes all that he requires in the Law, to be Just and Righteous, and his accepta∣tion of him according to the Promise of Life, which he annex∣ed to the obedience, which of man he did require. And the other Answers that Righteousnesse which shall afterward be de∣scribed. Now though these two Righteousnesses agree in their ge∣nerall end, which is Acceptation with God, and a reward from him, according to his Promise, yet in their own natures, cau∣ses, and manner of attaining, they are altogether inconsistent & destructive of each other; So that it is utterly impossible they should ever meet in and upon the same person.

For the description of the first, M. B. gives it in answer to * 1.1612 this Question.

How is the Righteousnesse which is of the Law described?

Ans. Moses describeth the Righteousnesse which is of the Law, that the man that doth these things shall live by them, Rom. 10. 5.

This description is full and compleat. The doing of the things of the Law, or all the things the law requireth, to this end that a man may live by them, or a keeping of the commandements that we may enter into life, make up this Righteousnesse of the Law. And whatsoever any man doth, or may do, that is required by the Law of God, (as believing, trusting in him, and the like,) to

this end, that he may live thereby, that it may be his Righteous∣nesse towards God, that thereupon he may be Justifyed, it be∣longs to this Righteousnesse of the Law here described by Moses. I say whatever is performed by man in Obedience to any Law of God to this end, that a man may live thereby, and that it may be the mater of his Righteousnesse, it belongs to the Righteousnesse here described: and of this we may have some use, in the consideration of M. B's ensuing Queries. He addes, * 1.1613

What speaketh the Righteousnesse which is of Faith?

A. Ro. 10. 8, 9. The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word which we preach, that if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

The Object of Justifying Faith, namely, Iesus Christ as dying, and rising againe from the dead to the obtaining of Eternall Re∣demption, and bringing in Everlasting righteousnesse, is in these words described. And this is that which the Righteousnesse of Faith is said to speake; because Christ dying and rising is our Righteousnesse. He is made so to us of God, and being under the consideration of his death, and Resurrection received of us by Faith, we are Justifyed.

His next question is,

In the Iustification of a Believer is the Righteousnesse of Christ impu∣ted * 1.1614 to him, or is his own Faith counted for Righteousnesse?

Ans. Rom. 4. 5. His Faith is counted for Righteousnesse.

What M. B. intends by Faith, and what by accounting of it for Righteousnesse, we know full well. The Iustification he in∣tends by these expressions is the plaine old Pharisaicall Justifi∣cation, and no other: as shall elsewhere be abundantly manifested. For the present, I shall only say, that M. Biddle doth most ignorantly oppose the imputing of the Righteousnesse of Christ to us, and the accounting of our Faith for Righteous∣nesse, as inconsistent. It is the accounting of our Faith for Righteousnesse, and the Righteousnesse of workes that is opposed by the Apostle. The Righteousnesse of Faith, and the Righteousnesse of Christ are every way one and the same; the one denoting that whereby we receive it, and are made par∣takers of it, the other that which is received, and where∣by we are Justifyed. And indeed there is a perfect incon∣sistency

between the Apostles intention in this expression, to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his Faith is accounted to him for Righteousnesse, taken with his explication of it, that we are made partakers of the Righteousnesse of Christ by Faith, & therein he is made Righteousnesse to them that believe, with M. B's interpretation of it, which is (as shall be farther manifested) to him that worketh and believes on him, that Justifies the righteous his obedience is his righteousnesse. But of this elswhere.

The next Question and Answer is about Abraham and his * 1.1615 Justification, which being but an instance exemplifying what was spoken before, I shall not need to insist thereon. Of his believing on God only, our believing on Christ, which is also mentioned, I have spoken already, and shall not trouble the Reader with repetition thereof.

But he farther argues. * 1.1616

Doth not God justifie men because of the full price Christ payd to him in their stead, so that he abated nothing of his right, in that one drop of Christs blood was sufficient to satiisfy for a thousand worlds? if not, how are they Saved?

Ans, Being Justifyed freely, Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 17.

That Christ did pay a full price, or ransome for us that he did stand in our stead, that he was not bated any jot of the penalty of the Law, that was due to sinners, that on this account we are fully acquitted, and that the forgivenesse of our sinnes is by the Redemption that is in his blood, hath been already fully and at large evinced; Let M. B. if he please, attempt to evert what hath been spoken to that purpose.

The expression about one drop of Christs blood is a fancy, or im∣agination * 1.1617 of idle Monkes, men ignorant of the Righteous∣nesse of God, and the whole nature of the mediation which our blessed Saviour undertook; wherein they have not the least communion. The close of the Chapter is?

Did not Christ merit Eternall life and purchase the kingdome of Hea∣ven * 1.1618 for us?

Ans. The gift of God is Eternall Life, Rom. 6. 23. It is your Fa∣thers good pleasure to give you the Kingdome, Luk. 12. 32.

Eternall life is the gift of God, in opposition to any merit of ours, and in respect of his designation of him, who is eternall Life, to be our Mediatour, and purchaser of it; yet that Christ did

not therefore obtain by his blood, for us eternall Redemption Heb. 9. 12. that he did not purchase us to himselfe, Tit. 2. 14. or that the merit of Christ for us, and the free Grace of God unto us, are inconsistent, our Catechist attempts not to prove Of the reconci∣liation of Gods purpose, and good pleasure, mentioned Luk. 12. 32. with the Satisfaction and merit of the Mediatour, I have spoken also at large already.

I have thus briefely passed through this Chapter, although is treateth of one of the most important heads of our Religion, be∣cause (the Lord assisting) I intend the full handling of the Doctrine opposed in it, in a just Treatise to that purpose.

CHAP. XXXIII.

Of keeping the Commandements of God: And of Perfection of Obedience, how attaineable in this Life.

THE Title of Chapter 16^th in our Catechist, is of Keeping * 1.1619 the Commandements, and having an eye to the reward, of perfection in vertue and Godlinesse to be attained; and of departing from Righteous∣nesse and Faith. What the man hath to offer on these severall heads, shall be considered in order. His first Question is.

Q. Are the Commandements Possible to be kept?

Ans. His Commandements are not grievous, Joh. 5. 3. My yoake is easy, and my burthen light, Math: 11. 30.

1. I presume it is evident to every one, at the first view, that * 1.1620 there is very little relation between the Question and the Answer thereunto suggested. The inquiry is of our strength & power: the Answer speaks to the nature of the Commands of God. It never came sure into the mind of any living, that the meaning of this Question, Are the Commandements possible to be kept? Is, is there an absolute impossibility from the nature of the Commands of God themselves that they cannot be kept by any. Nor did ever any man say so, or can without the greatest Blasphemy against God. But the Que∣stion is, what Power there is in Man to keep those Comman∣dements of God; which certainly the Texts insisted on by M. B. doe not in the least give an Answer unto.

2. He tels us not, in what state or condition he supposes that per∣son * 1.1621 to be, concerning whom the inquiry is made, whether he can possibly keep the Commandements of God or no: Whether he speaks of all men in generall, or any man indefinitely, or restrainedly of Belie∣vers. Nor,

3. Doth he informe us, what he intends by keeping the Com∣mands of God? Whether an exact, perfect, and every way com∣pleat keeping of them, up to the highest degree of all things, in all things, Circumstances and Concernements of them: or whe∣ther the keeping of them in an universall sincerity, accepted before God, according to the tenure of the Covenant of Grace, be in∣tended. Nor,

4. What Commandements they are, which he chiefely respects, and under what Consideration: Whether all the Commands of the Law of God as such; or whether the Gospell commands of Faith and Love, which the places from whence he answers do respect. Nor,

5. What he means by the impossibility of keeping Gods com∣mands, which he intends to deny; that which is absolutely so from the nature of the thing its selfe, or that which is so only in some respect, with reference to some certain state and Conditi∣on of Man.

When we know in what sence the Question is proposed, we * 1.1622 shall be enabled to returne an Answer thereunto, which he that hath proposed it here, knew not how to doe: In the mean time, to the thing its selfe intended, according to the light of the pre∣mised Distinctions, we say that all the Commandements of God, the whole Law is excellent, pretious, not grievous in its selfe, or its own Nature, but admirably expressing the Goodnesse, and Kind∣nesse, and Holinesse of him that gave it, in Relation to them to whom it was given, and can by no means be said, as from it's selfe and upon its own account, to be impossible to be kept. Yet,

2. No unregenerate man can possibly keep, that is, hath in himselfe a Power to keep any one of all the Commandements of God, as to the matter required, and the manner wherein it is required. This impossibility is not in the least relating to the Nature of the Law, but to the impotency, and corruption of the Person lying under it.

3. No man though regenerate, can fulfill the Law of God Per∣fectly,

or keep all the Commandements of God, according to the Originall tenour of the Law, in all the Parts and Degrees of it; nor ever any man did so, since sinne entred into the World; for it is impossible that any regenerate man should keep the Com∣mandements of God, as they are the tenour of the Covenant of works. If this were otherwise, the Law would not have been made weake by sinne, that it should not justify.

4. That it is impossible, that any man though regenerate, should by his own strength fulfill any one of the commands of God, seeing without Christ we can do nothing, and it is God who works in us to will and to doe of his good pleasure.

5. That to keep the Commandements of God, not as the tenour of the Covenant of Works, nor in an absolute perfection of o∣bedience, and correspondency to the Law; but sincerely and up∣rightly, unto Acceptation, according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace, and the obedience it requires, through the assistance of the Spirit, and Grace of God, is not only a thing possible, but ea∣sy, Pleasant, and Delightfull.

Thus we say,

1. That a person Regenerate by the Assistance of the Spirit and grace of God, may keep the Commandements of God, in yeeld∣ing * 1.1623 to him, in answer to them, that sincere obedience, which in Jesus Christ, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, Is required: yea it is to him an Easy and Pleasant thing so to doe.

2. That an unregenerate Person should keep any one of Gods Commandements as he ought, is impossible, not from the Na∣ture of Gods Commands, but from his own state and Condi∣tion.

3. That a Person, though Regenerate, yet being so but in part, and carrying about him a body of Death, should keep the Commands of God, in a perfection of Obedience, according to the Law of the Covenant of Works, is impossible from the condi∣tion of a Regenerate man, and not from the Nature of Gods Com∣mands. What is it now that M. B. opposes? Or what is that he Asserts?

I suppose he declares his mind in his Lesser Catechisme, Chap. * 1.1624 7. Q. 1. where he proposes his question in the words of the Ruler amongst the Jews; What good shall a man doe that he may have

eternall life? An Answer of it followes in that of our Saviour, Math. 19. 17, 18, 19. If thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commande∣ments.

The intendment of this inquiry must be the same with his that made it, as his Argument in the whole is; or the Answer of our Saviour, is no way suited thereunto: Now it is most evi∣dent, that the Inquiry was made according to the principles of the Pharifees, who expected Justification by the Works of the Law, according to the tenour of a Covenant of Works, to which presumption of theirs, our Saviour suits his Answer: and seeing they sought to be justified, and Saved as it were, by the Works of the Law, to the Law he sends them. This then being M B's sence, wherein he affirmes that it is possible to keep the Commande∣ments, so as for doing good, and keeping them, to enter into life, I shall only remit him, as our Saviour did the Pharisees to the Law: but yet I shall withall pray, that our mercifull Lord, would not leave him to the foolish choyce of his own darkned heart, but in his due time, by the blood of the Covenant, which yet he seems to despise, send him forth of the Prison wherein is no water.

Q. 2. But though it be possible, to keep the Commandements, yet is it * 1.1625 not enough, if we desire and endeavour to keep them; although we actually keep them not? And doth not God accept the Will for the Deed?

Ans. 1 Cor. 7. 19. Math. 7, 21, 24, 26. Jam. 1. 25. Rom. 2. 10. Joh. 13. 17. Luk. 11. 24. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Mat. 16. 27. Revel. 22. 21. Mat. 19. 18, 19. In all which places, there is mention of doing the will of God, of keeping the Commandements of God.

The aime of this Question, is to take advantage at what hath been delivered by some, not as an ordinary Rule for all men to walke by, but as an extraordinary relief for some in distresse. When poore soules bowed down under the sence of their owne weaknesse, and insufficiency for obedience, and the exceeding unsuitablenesse of their best performances to the spirituall and exact perfection of the Law of God, (things which the proud Pharisees of the world are unacquainted withal) to support them under their distresse, they have been by some directed to the consideration of the sincerity that was in their Obedience, which they did yeild, and guided to examine that, by their desires and endeavours. Now as this direction is not without a good foundation in the Scripture, Nehemiah describing the Saints of

God by this character, that they desire to feare the name of God, Neh. 1. 11. and David every where professing this, as an emi∣nent property of a Child of God, so they who gave it, were very farre from understanding such desires, as may be preten∣ded as a colour for floath, and negligence, to give countenance to the soules and consciences of men in a willing neglect of the performance of such dutyes, as they are to presse after; but such they intend, as had adjoyned to them, and accompa∣nying of them, earnest continuall sincere endeavours (as M. B. ac∣knowledgeth) to walke before God in all well pleasing, though they could not attaine to that perfection of obedience that is required. And in this case, though we make not apply∣cation of the particular Rule of accepting the will for the deed, to the generall case, yet we feare not to say, that this is all the perfection, which the best of the Saints of God in this life at∣taine to, and which according to the tenour of that Covenant wherein we now walk with God in Jesus Christ, is accepted. This is all the doing or keeping of the Commandements that is intended in any of the places quoted by M. B. unlesse that last: wherein our Saviour sends that proud Pharisee, according to his own principles to the Righteousnesse of the Law which he followed after, but could not attaine. But of this more afterwards. He farther argues,

Though it be not only possible but also necessary to keep the Commandements, * 1.1626 yet is it lawfull so to do that we may have a right to eternall Life, and the heavenly inheritance? May we seeke for honour, and glory, and immorta∣lity, by well doing? is it the tenour of the Gospell that we should live upright∣ly in expectation of the hope hereafter? and finally ought weto suffer for the Kingdome of God, and not as some are pleased to mince that matter from the kingdome of God? where are the testimonies of Scripture to this purpose?

An. Revel. 22. 14. Rom. 2. 6, 7, 8. Tit. 2. 11, 13. 2 Thess. 1. 5.

Ans. 1. In what sence it is possible to keep the Commande∣ments, in what not, hath been declared. 2. How it is necessary or in what sence, or for what end, M. B. hath not yet spoken, though he supposeth he hath; but we will take it for granted that it is necessary for us so to do; in that sence, and for that End and purpose, for which it is of us required. 3. To allow then the Gentleman the advantage of his Captious proceedure

by a multiplication of entangled queries; and to take them in that order wherein they lye.

To the first, whether we may keep the commandements that we may have right to eternall life. I say 1. keeping of the Commande∣ments in the sence acknowledged may be looked on in respect of Eternall life, either as the cause procuring it, or as the meanes conducing to it. 2. A right to eternall life may be considered in respectof the Rise and Constitution of it, or of the present evidence & last enjoyment of it. There is a twofold Right to the Kingdome of Heaven; a Right of desert according to the te∣nour of the Covenant of works; & a right of promise according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace. I say then, that it is not lawfull, that is, it is not the way, Rule, & Tenour of the Gospell, that we should do or keep the commandements, so that that doing or keeping should be the cause procuring & obtaining an original Right, as to the rise and constitution of it, or a Right of desert to eternall Life. This is the perfect tenour of the Covenant of works and Righteousnesse of the Law; do this and live; if a man do the worke of the Law he shall live thereby; and if thou will enter into life, keep the Commandements; which if there be any Gospell or new Covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ, is antiqua∣ted as to its efficacy, and was ever since the entrance of sinne into the world, as being ineffectuall for the bringing of any soule unto God, Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 8. 11, 12. This if it were need∣full, I might confirme with innumerable Texts of Scripture, and the transcription of a good part of the Epistles of Paul in parti∣cular. 3. The inheritance which is purchased for us by Christ, & is the Gift of God, plainely excludes all such confidence in keeping the Commandements, as is pleaded for. For my part, I willingly ascribe to obedience any thing that hath a con∣sistency (in reference to eternall life) with the full purchase of Christ, and the free donation of God; and therefore I say 4. as a meanes apointed of God, as the way wherein we ought to walk, for the coming to, & obtaining of the Inheritance so fully purchased and freely given, for the evidencing of the right gi∣ven us thereto by the blood of Christ, & giving actuall admission to the enjoyment of the purchase, and to testify our free accep∣tation with God, and Adoption on that account, so we ought to do, and keep the Comandements, that is, walke in holinesse, with∣out

which none shall see God. This is all that is intended, Re. 22. 14. Christ speaks not there to Unbelievers, shewing what they must do to be justifyed & saved; but to redeemed, justifyed, & sanctifyed ons, shewing them their way of admission & the meanes of it to the remaining priviledges of the purchase made by his blood.

His next question is, May we seeke for honour and glory and immor∣tallity * 1.1627 by well-doing? which words are taken from Rom. 2. 7, 8.

I answer, the words there are used in a law sence, and are declarative of the Righteousnes of God, in rewarding the keepers of the Law of nature, or the Morall Law, according to the Law of the Covenant of Workes. This is evident from the whole designe of the Apostle in that place, which is to convince all men, Jewes and Gentiles, of sinne, against the Law; and the im∣possibility of the obtainig the Glory of God thereby. So in particular from v. 10. where Salvation is annexed to works, in the very termes wherein the Righteousnesse of the Law is ex∣pressed by M. B in the Chapter of Justification; and in direct opposition whereunto, the Apostle sets up the Righteousnesse of the Gospell Chap. 1. 17. Chap. 3. & 4. But yet translate the words into a Gospel sence, consider well doing as the way ap∣pointed for us to walke in, for the obtaining of the end menti∣oned, and consider Glory, Honour, and immortallity, as a reward of our obedience, purchased by Christ, and freely promised of God on that account, and I say we may, we ought by patient continuing in well doing, seeke for glory honour and immortality; that is, it is our duty to abide in the way, and use of the meanes prescribed, for the obtaining of the inheritance purchased and promised: but yet this, with the limitations before in part mentioned. As 1. that of our selves we can do no good; 2. that the ability we have to do good, is purchased for us by Christ. 3. This is not so full in this life, as that we can perfectly, to all degrees of perfection, do good, or yeild obedience to the law. 4. That which by grace we do yeild and performe, is not the cause pro∣curing or meriting of that inheritance: which 5. as the grace whereby we obey, is fully purchased for us by Christ, and freely bestowed upon us by God.

His next is, Is it the tenour of the Gospell that we should live uprightly in expectation of the hope hereafter? doubtlesse; neither shall I need to give any answer at all to this part of the inquiry but what

in the words of the Scripture, produced for the proofe of our Catechists intention. The Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodlinesse and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and a glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Tit. 2. 11, 12, 13. Christ the great God our Saviour, having promised an inheritance to us with himselfe, at his glorious appearance, raiseth up our hearts with an hope and Expectation thereof; his Grace or the Doctrine of it, teacheth us to performe all manner of holinesse, and righteousnesse all our dayes; and this is the tenour and law of the Gospell, that so we do; but what this is to M. Biddles purpose I know not.

His last attempt is upon the exposition of some (I know not * 1.1628 whom) who have minced the doctrine so small (it seemes) that he can find no relish in it; saith he, finally ought we to suffer for the King∣dome of God, or from the Kingdome of God? his answer is 2 Thess. 1. 5. That you may be counted worthy of the Kingdome of God, for which you also suffer. I confesse suffering from the kingdome of God, is something an uncouth expression; and those who have used it to the Offence of this Gentleman, might have more commodiously delive∣red what they did intend. But the Kingdome of God being sometimes taken for that rule of Grace which Christ hath in the hearts of Believers, and thereupon being said to be within us, and the word, from, denoting the principle of obedience in suffering, there is a truth in the expression, and that very consistent with suffering for the Kingdome of God, which here is opposed unto it. To suffer from the kingdome of God, is no more, then to be enabled to suffer from a principle of grace within us, by which Christ beares rule in our hearts; and in this sense we say that no man can do or suffer any thing so, as it shall be acceptable unto God, but it must be from the Kingdome of God: for they that are in the flesh cannot please God, even their Sacrifices are an abomina∣tion to him. This is so farre from hindring us, as to suffering for the Kingdome of God, that is, to endure persecution for the profession of the Gospell, (for in the place of the Apostle cited denotes the procuring occasion, not finall cause) that without it so we cannot do: and so the minced matter hath I hope a savory relish recovered unto it againe.

His next questions are. 1. Have you any examples of keeping the * 1.1629

Commandements under the Law? what saith David of himselfe? Psal. 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. And

2. Have you any example under the Gospell? 1 Joh. 3. 10. be∣cause we keepe his commandements.

All this trouble is M. B. advantaged to make from the am∣biguity of this expression of keeping the C••mmandements; we know full well what David saith of his Obedience; and what he said of his sinnes; so that we know his keeping of the Commandements was in respect of sincerity, as to all the Commandements of God, and all the parts of them: but not as to his perfection in keep∣ing all or any of them. And he who says we keep his Commande∣ments, says also, that if we say we have no sinne, we lye, and deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us.

He addes, Have you not examples of the Choysest Saints who obeyed * 1.1630 God in hope of the reward both before, under, and after the Law? Heb. 11. 8, 9, 10, 24, 25, 26. Heb. 12. 12. Tit. 1. 1, 2.

To obey in hope of Eternall Life, is either to yeeld obedience, in hope of obtaining Eternall life, as a reward procured by, or pro∣portioned to that obedience; and so no Saint of God since the Fall of Adam, did yeeld obedience to God, or ought to have so done: or to obey in hope of Eternall life, is to carry along with us, in our Obedience, an hope of the enjoyment of the promised inheritance in due time, and to be encouraged, and strengthened in Obeying thereby. Thus the Saints of God walke with God, in hope, & Obedience at this day; and they alwayes did so from the be∣ginning: They have hope in, and with their Obedience, of that whereunto their obedience leads, which was Purchased for them by Christ.

Q. Doe not the Scriptures intimate that Christians may attaine to * 1.1631 perfection of vertue and Godlinesse, and that it is the intention of God and Christ, and his Ministers, to bring them to this pitch? rehearse the Texts to this effect.

Ans. Eph. 1. 4.

Not to make long Work of that, which is capable of a spee∣dy dispatch; by vertue and Godlinesse, M. B. understands that uni∣versall Righteousnesse and Holinesse, which the Law requires; by perfection in it, an Absolute, Compleat Answerablenesse to the Law, in that Righteousnesse and Holinesse, both as to the mat∣ter wherein they consist, and the manner how they are to be per∣formed;

that Christians may Attaine, expresses a Power that is reducible into Act: So that the intention of God and the Mi∣nisters, is not, that they should be pressing on towards Perfecti∣on, which it is confessed, we are to doe, whilest we live in this World, but actually in this Life, to bring them to an enjoyment of it. In this sence, we deny that any man in this life, may at∣taine to a perfection of vertue and Godlinesse; For,

1. All our works are done out of Faith, 1 Tim. 1. 5. Gal. 5. 6. now this Faith, is the Faith of the forgivenesse of Sinnes by Christ, and that purifieth the Heart, Acts 15 8, 9. But the works that proceed from Faith, for the forgivenesse of sinnes by Christ, cannot be perfect absolutely and in themselves, because in the very rise of them, they expect Perfection and compleatnesse from ano∣ther.

2. Such as is the Cause, such is the Effect; but the principle * 1.1632 or Cause of the Saints obedience in this life is imperfect; so there∣fore is their obedience. That our santification is imperfect in this life, the Apostle witnesseth, 2 Cor. 4. 16. 1 Cor. 13. 9.

3. Where there is flesh and Spirit, there is not perfection: for * 1.1633 the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, from whence our perfection must proceed if we have any: but there is flesh and Spirit in all Believers, whilest they live in this World, Gal. 5. 17. Rom. 7. 14.

4. They that are not without sinne, are not absolutely perfect; * 1.1634 for to be Perfect, is to have no sinne: but the Saints in this life are not without sinne, 1 Ioh. 1. 8. Math. 6. 12. Iames 3. 2. Eccles. 7. 21. Isa. 64 6. but to what end should I multiply Arguments, or Testimonies to this purpose? If all the Saints of God have ac∣knowledged themselves sinners all their dayes, alwayes depre∣cated the Justice of God, and appeal'd to Mercy in their triall before God, if all our perfection be by the blood of Christ, and we are justified not by the works of the Law, but Grace, this phari∣saicall figment may be rejected as the foolish imagination of men ignorant of the Righteousnesse of God, and of him who is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to thom that do Believe.

But take perfection as it is often used in the Scripture, and as∣cribed * 1.1635 to men, of whom yet many great and eminent failings are recorded (which certainly were inconsistent with perfecti∣on absolutely considered) and so it denotes two things. 1. Sin∣cerity in opposition to Hypocrisie: And 2. ••niversality, as to all

the parts of obedience, in opposition to partiality, and halveing with God: So we say, perfection is not only attaineable by the Saints of God, but is in every one of them; but this is not such a perfection, as consists in a point, which if it deflects from, it ceases to be perfection; but such a condition as admits of seve∣rall degrees, all lying in a tendency to that perfection spoken of; and the men of this perfection, are said to be perfect or upright in the Scripture, Psal. 37. 14. Psal. 119. 100. &c.

No then to insist on all the places mentioned by M. B. in * 1.1636 particular, they may all be referr'd to Foure heads; 1. Such as mention an unblameablenesse before God in Christ, which argues a Perfection in Christ, but only sincerity in us; Or 2. Such as mention a perfection in fieri, but not in facto esse, as we speak; a pressing towards perfection, but not a perfection obtained, or here ob∣tainable; Or 3. A comparative perfection in respect of others; or a Perfection of Sincerity, accompanied with Universality of o∣bedience, consistent with Indwelling sinne, and many transgres∣sions. The application of the severall places mentioned to these Rules, is Easy, and lyes at hand, for any that will take the pains to Consider them. He proceeds.

If Workes be so necessary to Salvation, as you have before shewed from * 1.1637 the Scripture, how cometh it to passe that Paul saith, We are justified by Faith without Works? meant he to exclude all Good works whatsoever, or only those of the Law? How doth he explain himselfe? Rom. 2. 2, 28. We are justified by Faith, without the works of the Law.

A. How, and in what sence workes are necessary to Salvation, hath been declared, and therefore I remit the Reader to its proper place.

2. A full Handling of the Doctrine of Justification, was waved before, and therefore I shall not here take it up, but content my selfe with a briefe removall of M. B's attempts to deface it. I say then,

3. That Paul is very troublesome to all the Pharisees of this Age, who therefore turne themselves a thousand ways to es∣cape the Authority of the Word and Truth of God, (by him fully declared and vindicated against their fore-fathers) la∣bouring to fortify themselves with distinctions, which as they suppose (but falsely) their Predecessors were ignorant of; Paul then, this Paul, denyes all works, all works whatsoever, to

have any share in our Justification before God, as the matter of our Righteousnesse, or the Cause of our justification. For,

1. He excludes all Works of the Law, as is confessed. The* 1.1638 works of the Law, are the works, that the Law requires. Now there is no work whatever that is good or acceptable to God, but it is required by the Law; so that in excluding works of the Law, he excludes all Works whatever.

2 He expresly excludes all Works done by vertue of Grace, and after Calling; which (if any) should be exempted from being works of the Law: For though the Law requires them, yet they are not done from a principle, nor to an end of the Law; these Paul excludes expresly, Ephes. 8. 9. 10. By Grace we are Saved, not of Workes; what Workes? those which we are created unto in Christ Jesus.

3. All Works, that are Works, are Excluded expresly, and set in an opposition to Grace in this businesse, Rom. 1. 5, 6. If it be of Grace, it is no more of Works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of Works, it is no more Grace, otherwise Works is no more Works▪ and Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5.

4. All Works are excluded, that take off from the Absolute Freedome of the justification of sinners, by the Redemption that is in Christ, Rom. 3. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Now this is not Peculiar to any one sort of Works, or to any one Work, more then to another, as might be demonstrated; but this is not a place for so great a Work, as the thorow hand∣ling of this Doctrine requires. He addes,

Can you make it appeare from else-where, that Paul intended to ex∣clude* 1.1639 from justification, only the perfect Works of the Law, which leave no place for either Grace or Faith, and not such Works as include both, and that by a justifying Faith he meant a working Faith, and such an one as is accompanied with Righteousnesse?

Ans. Eph. 2. 8, 9, 10. Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5. Rom. 11. 5, 6. Rom. 4. 14, 15, 16. Gal. 5. 6. Rom. 1. 17, 18,

A. Still Paul and his Doctrine trouble he man, as they did his Predecessors. That Paul excluded all Works of what sort soever, from our justification, as precedaneous causes or con∣ditions thereof, was before Declared. M. B. would only have it, that the perfect Works of the Law only are excluded, when if any Works take place in our justification with God, those only may

be admitted; for certainly, if we are Justified, or pronounced Righteous for our Works, it must be for the Works that are Perfect, or else the judgement of God is not according to Truth. Those only it seems are excluded, that only may be accepted; and imperfect workes are Substituted, as the matter of a perfect Righteousnesse; without which, none shall stand in the presence of God. But,

2. There is not one Text of Scripture mentioned by M. B. whence he aimes to evince his Intention, but expresly denyes what he asserts; and sets all Works whatever in opposition to Grace, and excludes them all, from any place in our justificati∣on before God: So that the man seems to have been infatuated by his Pharasaisme, to give direction for his own condemnation. Let the places be considered by the Reader.

3. The Grace mentioned, as the Cause of our justification, is* 1.1640 not the Grace of God, bringing forth good Works in us, which stand thereupon in opposition to the works of the Law, as done in the strength of the Law, but the free Favour and Grace of God towards us in Christ Jesus, which excludes all Works of ours whatever, as is undeniably manifest, Rom. 4. 4. Chap. 11. 5, 6.

4. It is true, Justifying Faith is a Living Faith, purging the Heart, working by Love, and bringing forth fruits of obedi∣ence; but that its Fruits of Love and Good Works have any cau∣sall influence into our justification, is most false. We are justified freely by Grace, in opposition to all Fruits of Faith whatever, which God hath ordained us to bring forth: That Faith whereby we are justified, will never be without works, yet we are not Justified by the Works of it, but freely by the Blood of Christ; how; and in what sence we are justified by Faith its selfe, what part, office, and place, it hath in our Justification, its con∣sistency in its due place and Office, with Christs being our Righteousnesse, and its receiving of Remission of sinnes, which is said to be our blessednesse, shall elsewhere (God assisting) be ma∣nifested.

What then hath M. B. yet remaining to plead in this busi∣nesse?* 1.1641 the Old abused refuge, of opposing Iames to Paul, is fixed on▪ This is the beaten plea of Papists, Socinians, and Armini∣ans. Saith he,

What Answer then would you give to a man, who wresting the words of

Paul in certain places of his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians should beare you in hand, that all good Works whatever, are excluded from justification and Salvation, and that it is enough only to Believe. Jam. 2. 20, 21, 22. 23, 24, 25 26.

Ans. He that shall exclude Good Works from Salvation, so as not to be the way and meanes appointed of God, wherein we ought to walk, who seek and expect salvation from God; and affirmes that it is enough to Believe, though a man bring forth no Fruits of Faith, or good Works; if he pretend to be of that perswasion, on the account of any thing delivered by Paul, in the Epistles to the Romans or Galatians, doth wrest the words and Sence of Paul, and is well confuted by that passage men∣tioned out of James.

But he that excluding all works from Justification in the sence declared, affirming that it is by Faith only, without works; and affirmes, that the Truth and Sincerity of that Faith, with its Efficacy in its own kind for our justification, is evin∣ced by Works, & the mans Acceptation with God thereon ju∣stified by them, doth not wre••t the words nor Sence of Paul; and speaks to the intendment of James.

2. Paul instructs us at large, how Sinners come to be Justifi∣ed before God, and this is his professed designe in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. James professedly exhorting Be∣lievers to good Works, demands of them, how they will acquit themselves before God and Man to be justified; and affirmes that this cannot be done, but by works. Paul tells us what Justifica∣tion is; James describes Justifying Faith by its Effects; but of this also elsewhere. To all this he subjoynes.

I would know of you, who is a just or Righteous man? Is it not such an* 1.1642 one, as apprehendeth, and applieth Christs Righteousnesse to himselfe, or at most desires to do Righteously, is not he accepted of God?.

Ans. 1 Joh. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. 1 Joh. 2. 29. Acts 10. 34, 35. Ezek. 18. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

He to whom God imputes Righteousnesse, is righteous. This he doth to him, who works not, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4. 5, 6, 7. there is then a Righteousnesse without the wo••ks of the Law, Phil. 3. 10. To apprehend and apply Christs Righteousnesse to our selves, are expressions of Believing unto ju∣stification, which the Scripture will warrant, Ioh. 1. 12. 2 Cor. 1.

30. He that Believeth, so as to have Christ made Righteousnesse to him, to have Righteousnesse imparted to him, to be freely justi∣fied by the Redemption that is in the blood of Jesus, he is just: and this State and Condition, as was said, is obtained by apply∣ing the Righteousnesse of Christ to our selves; that is, by reckon∣ing him, and his Righteousnesse by Faith, as tendered unto us in the offer and Promises of the Gospell.

Of desiring to do righteously, and what is intended by that ex∣pression,* 1.1643 I have spoken before. But,

2, There is a twofold Righteousnesse, a Righteousnesse impu∣ted, whereby we are justified, and a Righteousnesse inherent, whereby we are sanctified. There M. B. would oppose, and from the Assertion of the one, argue to the destruction of the o∣ther; though they Sweetly, and Eminently comply in our Com∣munion with God. The other Righteousnesse was before evin∣ced: Even our Sanctification also is called Righteousnesse, and we are said to be just in that respect.

1. Because our Faith and interest in Christ is justified thereby to be true, and such as will abide the fiery tryall.

2. Because all the acts of it are fruits of Righteousnesse, Rom. 6. 19, 22.

3. Because it stands in opposition to all Ʋnrighteousnesse, and he that doth not bring forth the Fruit of it, is Unrighteous.

4. With men, and before them it is all our Righteousnesse; and of this do the places mentioned by M. Biddle treat, without the least contradiction, or colour of it, to the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ, wherewith we are Righteous before God.

The in••endment of the last Querie in this Chapter, is to prove* 1.1644 the Apostasy of Saints; or that true Believers may fall away totally and finally from grace. I suppose it will not be expected of me, that I should enter here into a particular Consideration of the pla∣ces by him produced, having lately at large gone through the* 1.1645 consideration of the whole Doctrine opposed; wherein not only the Texts here quoted by M. B. but many others, set off by the Management of an able head; and dexterous hand••, are at large considered, thither therefore I referre the Reader.

It might perhaps have been expected, that having insisted* 1.1646 so largely as I have done, upon some other heads of the Doctrine of the Gospell corrupted by M. B. and his Companions, that I

should not thus briefly have passed over this important Article of Faith, concerning Justification: but besides my wearinesse of the work before me, I have for a defensative farther to plead, that this Doctrine is of late become the Subject of very many Polemi∣call discourses; to what Advantage of Truth, time will shew, and I am not willing to adde oyle to that fire, 2. That if the Lord will, and I Live, I intend to doe something purposely, for the vin∣dication, and clearing of the whole Doctrine its selfe; and there∣fore am not willing Occasionally to anticipate here, what must in another Order and Method be insisted on; to which for a close, I adde a desire, that if any be willing to contend with Me about this matter, he would forbeare Exceptions against these Extem∣porary Animadversions, untill the whole of my Thoughts lye before him, unlesse he be of the Persons principally concern'd in this whole discourse, of whom I have no reason to desire that Re∣spect or Candor.

CHAP. XXXIV.

Of Prayer. And whether Christ prescribed a forme of prayer to be used by Believers: and of praying unto him, and in his name under the Old Testa∣ment?

THE first Question is,

Is Prayer a Christian duty?* 1.1647

Ans. Pray without ceasing, 1 Thess. 5. 17.

If by a Christian duty, a duty whereunto all Christians are obliged is understood, we grant it a Christian duty. The com∣mands for it, encouragements to it, Promises concerning it, are innumerable; and the use and benefit of it, in our Communi∣on with God, considering the state and condition of sinne, Emptinesse, Want, Temptation, Tryalls that here we live in, inesti∣mable. If by a Christian Duty it be intended that it is required only of them who are Christians, and is instituted by some∣thing

peculiar in Christian Religion, it is denyed. Prayer is a naturall acknowledgement of God, that every man is everlastingly, and indispensably obliged unto by vertue of the Law of his Creation, though the matter of it be varied according to the severall states and conditions whereunto we fall, or are brought. Every one that lives in dependency on God, and hath his suplys from him, is by vertue of that dependance obli∣ged to this duty, as much as he is to own God to be his God. He proceeds.

How ought men to pray? Ans. Lifting up holy hands without wrath* 1.1648 and doubting. 1 Tim. 2. 8.

The enquiry being made of the manner of acceptable prayer, the answer given respecting only one or two Particulars, is narrow and scanty. The qualification of the person praying, the meanes of accesse to God, the cause of acceptation with him, the ground of our confidence in our supplications, the Efficacy of the Spirit of Grace as promised, are either all omitted, or only tacitely intimated. But this, and many of the following Questions, with the answers, being in their connexion capable of a good and faire interpretation, though all be not expressed that the Scripture gives, in Answer to such Questions, & the most materiall requisite of prayer in the Holy Gost be omitted, yet drawing to a close I shall not farther insist upon them; having yet that remaining, which requires a more full Animadver∣sion.

Q. 11. Did not Christ prescribe a forme of prayer to his disciples, so that* 1.1649 there remaineth no doubt touching the lawfullnesse of using a forme?

A. Luk 11. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Ans. If Christ prescribed a forme of prayer to his disciples, to be used as a forme by the repetition of the same words; I confesse it will be out of Question, that it is Lawfull to use a forme: but that it is lawfull not to use a forme, or that a man may use any prayer but a forme, on that supposition, will not be so easily determined. The words of Christ are, when you pray, say, Our Fa∣ther &c. If in this prescription, not the matter only, but the words also are attended, and that forme of them which followes is prescribed to be used, by vertue of this command of Christ, it will be hard to discover on what ground we may any otherwise

pray, seing our Saviours command is positive, when you pray, say, Our Father, &c.

That which M. B. is to prove is, that Our Saviour hath prescribed* 1.1650 the repetition of the same words ensuing, and when he hath done so, if so he can do, his conclusion must be, that that forme ought to be used, not at all that any else may. If our Saviour have prescri∣bed us a forme, how shall any man dare to prescribe another? or can any man do it without casting on his forme the reproach of im∣perfection and insufficiency? Our Saviour hath prescribed us a forme of prayer to be used as a forme by the repetition of the same words; therefore we may use it, yea we must, is an invincible argument, on supposition of the truth of the proposition. But our Saviour hath prescribed us such a forme &c. thererefore we may use another, which he hath not prescribed, hath neither shew nor colour of Reason in it.* 1.1651

But how will M. B. prove that Christ doth not here instruct his Diciples in what they ought to pray for, and for what they ought in prayer to addresse themselves to God, and under what considerations they are to looke on God in their aproaches to him and the like, only, but also that he prescribes the words there mentioned by him to be repeated by them in their suplications. Luk. 11. he bids them say Our Father &c. which at large Mat. 6. is, pray after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to this purpose. I do not think the Prophet prescribes a forme of words, to be used by the Church when he sayes, Take with you words, and turne to the Lord, and say un∣to him, Take away iniquity, (Hos. 14. 2.) but rather calls them to fervent supplication for the pardon of sinne, as God should enable them to deale with him. And though the Apostles never prayd for any thing, but what they were for the substance directed to by this prayer of our Saviour, yet we do not find, that ever they repeated the very words here mentioned, or once commanded or prescribed the use of them, to any of the Saints in their days, whom they exhorted to pray so fervently and earnestly. Nor in any of the Rules and Directions, that are given for our pray∣ing, either in reference to our selves, or him, by whom we have accesse to God, is the use of these words at any time in the least recommended to us, or recalled to mind, as a matter of duty.* 1.1652

Our Saviour sayes when ye pray, say, Our Father; on supposi∣tion of the sence contended for, and that a forme of words is

prescribed, I aske whether we may at any time pray, and not say so? seeing he sayes, when you pray, say: whether we may say any thing else, or use any other words? whether the saying of these words be a part of the worship of God? Or whether any promise of Acceptation be annexed to the saying so? whether the spirit of grace and supplication be not promised to all believers? And whe∣ther he be not given them to enable them to pray, both as to matter and manner? and if so, whether the Repetition of the words mentioned by them, who have not the Spirit given them for the ends before mentioned, be availeable? and whether prayer by the Spirit where these words are not repeated, as to the letters and Syllables, and order wherein they stand, be acceptable to God? whether the prescription of a forme of words, and the gift of a siprit of prayer be consistent? whether the forme be pre∣scribed because Believers are not able to pray without it? Or be cause there is a peculiar Holinesse force and energy in the letters words and syllables, as they stand in that forme? And whe∣ther to say the first of those be not derogatory to the Glory of God, and efficacy of the Spirit, promised and given to Believers, and the second, to assert the using of a Charme in the worship of God? whether in that respect Pater noster be not as good as Our Father? whether innumerable poore soules are not deluded & hardned by Satisfying their consciences in, and with, the use of this forme never knowing what it is to pray in the holy Gost? And whether the Asserting this forme of words to be used, have not confirmed many in their Atheisticall blaspheming of the holy spirit of God, & his Grace in the prayers of his people? And whether the repetition of those words, after men have been long praying for the things contained in them, as the manner of some is, be not so remote from any pretence or colour of warrant in the Scripture, as that it is in plaine termes ridiculous? When M. Biddle, or any on his behalfe, hath answered these questions, they may be supplyed with more of the like nature and impor∣tance.

Of our addresse with all our Religious worship to the Father,* 1.1653 by Jesus Christ the Mediatour, how and in what manner we do so, and in what sence he is himselfe the ultimate object of divine worship, I have spoken before; and therefore I shall not need to insist on his next question, which makes some

enquiry thereabout. That which followes is all that in this Chapter needs any Animadversion. The words are these,

Was it the custome during the time that Christ conversed on the earth* 1.1654 (much lesse before he came into the world) to pray unto God in the name of Christ, or through Christ? or did it begin to be used after the Resurrection and exaltation of Christ? what saith Christ himselfe concerning this?

Ans. Joh. 16. 24, 25, 26.

The times of the Saints in this world are here distinguished in∣to different seasons: that before Christs comming in the flesh, the time of his conversation on earth, and the time following his Resurrection and Exaltation. What was the custome in these severall seasons of praying to God in the name of Christ, or through him, is enquired after; and as to the first and second it is denyed, granted as to the latter, which is further confirmed in the Answer to the last Question, from Heb. 13. 20, 21. Some briefe observations will disentangle M. B's Catechumens, if they shall be pleased to attend unto them.

1. It is not what was the custome of men to do,* 1.1655 but what was the minde of God that they should do, that we enquire after. 2. That Jesus Christ in respect of his Divine Nature, wherein he is One with his Father, was alwayes worshipped and invocated, ever since God made any Creatures to worship him, hath been formerly declared. 3. That there is a twofold knowledge of Christ the Mediatour: One in generall, in thes••, of a Mediatour, the Messiah promised, which was the knowledge of the Saints under the Old Testa∣ment. 2. Particular, in hypothess, that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah, which also was known, and is to the Saints under the New Testament. 4. That as to an explicite knowledge of the way and manner of Salvation, which was to be wrought, accom∣plished, and brought about by the Messias, the promised seed Jesus Christ, and the Addresse of men unto God by him, it was much more evidently and cleerly given after the Resurrection, and the Assention of Christ then before: the Spirit of Revelation being then poured out in a more abundant manner then before. 5. There is a twofold praying unto God in the name of Christ. One in expresse words▪ cleare and distinct intention of mind, insisting on his Mediation, and our acceptance with God on his account. The other implyed

in all Acts of Faith, and dependance on God, wherein we rely on him, as the meanes of our accesse to God.

I say, these things being premised, 1. That before Christs coming* 1.1656 into the world, the Saints of the Old Testament did pray, and were appointed of God to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, in as much as in all their Addresses unto God they leaned on him, (as promised to them) through whom they were to receive the Blessing, and to be blessed; believing that they should be accep∣ted on his account. This was vertually prayer to God in the name of Christ, or through him. This is evident from the te∣nour of the Covenant wherein they walked with God; in which they were called to look to the seed of the woman, to expect the blessing in the seed of Abraham; speaking of the seed as of one and not of many; as also by all their types and Sacri∣ces wherein they had by Gods institution respect to him, with Abraham, by Faith even as we: So that whether we consider the promise, on the account whereof they came to God, which was of Christ, and of blessing in him; or the means whereby they came, which were Sacrifices, & types of him; or the confidence wherein they came, which was of Attonement and forgivenesse of sinne by him, it is evident, that all their prayers were made to God in the name of Christ, and not any upon any other ac∣count. And one of them is expresse in termes to this purpose Dan. 9. 17. If they had any promise of him, if any Covenant in him, if any Types representing him, if any light of him, if any longing after him, if any benefit by him or fruit of his Mediation, all their Worship of God was in him, and through him.

2. For them who lived with Him in the dayes of his flesh,* 1.1657 their Faith and Worship was of the same size and measure with theirs that went before; so was their addresse to God in the same manner, and on the same account; only in this was their knowledge enlarged, that they believed, that, that individuall Person was he who was promised, and on whom their Fathers be∣lieved. And therefore they prayed to him for all Mercies Spi∣rituall and Temporall, whereof they stood in need, as to be sa∣ved in a Storme, to have their Faith encreased, and the like, though they had not expresly, and cleerly made mention of his Name in their Supplications. And that is the sence of our Saviour in the place of John insisted on, Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my Name; that is, Expresly, and in direct Application of the Promises

made in the Messiah unto him, though they had their Accesse to God really and vertually, by and through him, in all the wayes before expressed. And indeed to Evidence the glory of the pre∣sence of the Spirit, when poured forth upon them with a ful∣nesse of Gifts and Graces, such things are recorded of their Igno∣rance, and Darknesse in the Mysteries of the Worship of God, that it is no great wonder, if they who were then also to be de∣tained under the Judaicall Pedagogie for a season, had not recei∣ved as yet, such an improvement of Faith, as to aske, and Pray in the name of Jesus Christ as exhibited, which was one of the great Priviledges reserved for the dayes of the Gospell. And this is all that M. B. gives Occasion unto in this Chapter.

CHAP. XXXV.

Of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the State of the Wicked at the Last Day.

IN his last Chapter, M. Biddle strives to make his Friends a∣mends* 1.1658 for all the wrong he had done them in those forego∣ing. Having attempted to overthrow their Faith, and to turne them aside from the simplicity of the Gospell; he now in∣formes them, that the worst that can happen to them, if they fol∣low his Counsell, is but to be annihilated, or utterly deprived of their being, Body and Soule, in the day of Judgement. For that everlasting Fire, those endlesse Torments, wherewith they have been so scared and terrified formerly, by the Catechismes and Preachings of men that left and forsook the Scripture, it is all but a Fable, invented to affright Fooles and Children. On this ac∣count he lets his followers know, that if rejecting the Eternall Son of God, and his righteousnesse, they may not go to Heaven, yet as to Hell, or an Everlasting abode in Torments, they may be secure; there is no such matter provided for them, nor any else. This is the main designe in this Chapter, whose Title is, Of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Last Judgement, and what shall be the finall Condition of the Righteous and Wicked thereupon.

The first Questions lead only to Answers, that there shall* 1.1659 be a Resurection of the dead in generall; that they shall be raised and judged by Christ, who hath received Authority from God to that purpose, that being the last great worke that he shall

accomplish by vertue of his Mediatory Kingdome committed to him. Some snares seeme to be laid in the way in his questions, being captiously proposed; but they have been formerly bro∣ken in pieces in the Chapters of the Deity of Christ, and his person; whither I remit the reader if he find himselfe entangled with them.

I shall only say by the way, that if M. B. may be expounded* 1.1660 by his * 1.1661 Masters, He will scarce be found to give so cleare an Assent to the Resurrection of the dead, as is here pretended; that is to a raysing againe of the same individuall body, for the substance, and all substantiall parts. This his Masters think not possible; and therefore reject it, though it be never so ex∣pressly affirmed in the Scripture. But M. Biddle is silent of this discovery made by his Masters, and so shall I be also.

That wherewith I am to deale he enters upon in this question. Shall not the wicked and Ʋnbelievers live for ever, though in torments, as well as the Godly and faithfull? or is eternall life peculiar to the Faith∣full? Ans. Joh. 3. 36.

The Assertion herein couched is, that the * wicked shall not live* 1.1662 for ever in torments: and the proof of it is, because eternal life is promised only to the faithfull: yea, he that hath not the Son shall never see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Joh. 3. 36. As to the Assertion it selfe we shall attend further unto it in∣stantly.

When * 1.1663 Socinus first broached this Abomination, he did it with

the greatest cunning and slight that possibly he could use; la∣bouring to insinuate it insensibly into the minds of men; know∣ing full well how full of scandall the very naming of it would prove: but the mans successe was in most things beyond his own imagination.

For the proof insinuated; Life, & Eternall Life in the Gospell, as* 1.1664 they are mentioned as the end, & Reward of our Obedieoce, are not taken meerly Physically, nor do expresse only the abode, duration, & continuance of our being, but our continuance in a state & condition of blessednesse and Glory. This is so evident, that there is no one place, where Life to come, or eternall life are spoken of simply in the whole new Testament, but as they are a Reward, and a blessed Condition to be obtained by Jesus Christ. In this sence we con∣fesse the wicked and impenitent shall never see Life, nor obtaine Eternall Life, that is, they shall never come to a fruition of God to Eter∣nity; but that therefore they shall not have a Life or Being, though in torments, is a wild inference. I desire to know of M. B. whether the evill Angels shall be consumed or no, and have an utter end? If he say they shall, he gives us one new notion more: If not, I aske him whether they shall have Eter∣nall Life or no? If he sayes they shall not enjoy eternall Life in the sence mentioned in the Scripture; I shall desire him to consider, that men also may have their being preserved and yet not be partakers of Eternall Life in that sence wherein it it pro∣mised.

The proof insisted on by M. Biddle sayes, that the wrath of God* 1.1665 abides upon unbelievers, even then when they doe not see life; now if they abide not, how can the wrath of God abide on them? doth God execute his wrath upon that which is not? If they abide under wrath, they do abide. Under wrath doth not diminish from their abiding, but describes its condi∣tion.

Death and Life in Scripture, ever since the giving of the first* 1.1666 Law, and the mention made of them therein, as they expresse the condition of man in way of Reward or punishment, are not opposed naturally, but morally; not in respect of their being (if I may so say) and Relation, as one is the privation of the other in the way of nature, but in respect of the state and condition which is exprest by the one & the other, viz. of Blessednesse, or misery. So

that as there is an eternall Life, which is as it were a second life, a Life of glory following a life of Grace; so there is an eternall death, which is the second death, a death of misery following a death of sinne.

The death that is threatned and which is opposed to life,* 1.1667 and Eternall Life, doth not any where denote annihilation, but only a deprivation and comming short of that blessednesse which is promised with Life, attended with all the evills which come under that name, and are in the first commination; Those who are dead in trespasses and sinnes are not nothing, though they have no life of grace But M. Biddle proceeds, and sayth,

Though this passage which you have quoted seeme clearely to prove that* 1.1668 eternall life agreeth to no other men but the Faithfull, yet since the contrary opinion is generally held among Christians, I would faine know of you whe∣ther you have any other places that affirme that the wicked dye directly, and that a second death; are destroyed and punished with everlasting destru∣ction, are corrupted, burnt up, devoured, slaine, passe away, and perish?

Ans. Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 8. 13. Revel. 21. 6, 8. Revel. 2. 10, 11. 1 Thess. 5. 3. 2 Pet. 3. 7. 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8, 9. Gal. 6. 8 2 Pet. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 3. 17. Heb. 10. 39. Mat. 3. 12. Heb. 10. 26, 27. Luk. 19. 27 1 Joh. 2. 17. 2 Cor. 2. 15, 16.

How well M. B. hath proved his intention by the place of* 1.1669 Scripture before mentioned, hath been in part discovered, and will in our processe yet farther appeare. The Ambiguity of the word life and Eternall Life (which yet is not ambiguous in the Scripture, being constantly used in one sence and significa∣tion, as to the purpose in hand) is all the pretence he hath for his Assertion; besides that, his proofe that unbelievers doe not abide, lyes in this, that the wrath of God abides on them.

2. This is common with this Gentleman and his Masters;* 1.1670 Christians generally think otherwise, but we say thus; so slight do they make of the common Faith which was once delivered to the Saints. But he may be pleased to take notice, that not on∣ly Christians think so, but assuredly believe that it shall be so, having the expresse word of God to bottome that their faith upon. * 1.1671 And not only Christians believe it, but mankind ge∣nerally in all ages consented to it; as might abundantly be evinced,

3. But let the expressions wherewith M. B. endeavours to* 1.1672 make good this his monstrous assertion of the Annihilation of the wicked and Unbelievers at the last day, be particu∣larly considered, that the strength of his conclusion, or rather the weaknesse of i••, may be discovered.

The first is that they are said to dye, and that the second death Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 8. 13. Revel 21. 18. Revel. 2. 10, 11. but how now will M B prove, that by dying is meant the Annihilation of body and Soule? There is mention, of a naturall death in Scrip∣ture, which though it be a dissolution of nature, as to its essenti∣all parts of body and soule, yet it is an Annihilation of neither; For the soule abides, and M. B. professes to believe, that the body shall rise againe. There is a Spirituall death in sinne also mentioned, which is not a destruction of the dead Persons be∣ing, but a morall condition wherein he is. And why must the last death be the Annihilation pretended? As to a comming short of that which is the proper life of the soule in the enjoy∣ment of God, which is called life absolutely, and eternall life, it is a death; And as to any comfortable attendencies of a being conti∣nued, it is a death. That it is a totall deprivation of being, seeing those under it are to Eternity to abide under torments, (as shall be shew∣ed) there is no colour.

2. It is called destruction, and perdition, and everlasting de∣struction,* 1.1673 1 Thes. 5. 3. 2 Pet. 3. 7. 2 Thes. 1. 7, 8, 9. True, it is a destruction as to the utter casting men off from all and every thing wherein they had any hope or dependance; a casting them eternally off from the happines of Rationall Creatures, & the end which they ought to have aymed at. That is, they shall be destroyed in a morall not a naturall sence; to be cast for ever under the wrath of God, I think, is destruction: and there∣fore it is called everlasting destruction, because of the punish∣ment which in that destruction abideth on them. To this are re∣duced the following expressions of utterly perishing, and the like, Gal. 6. 8. 2 Pet 2. 12. 1 Cor. 3. 17. 2 Pet. 3. 16.

3. Burning up the chaffe with unquenchable fire, is mentioned* 1.1674 Mat. 3. 12. but if this burning of the chaffe do consume it, pray what need it be done with fire that cannot be quenched? When it hath done its worke, it will surely be put out. The expression is metaphoricall, and the allusion is not in the consumption of chaffe

in the fire, but in the casting it into the fire; or the setting fire un∣to it. So the fiery indignation is said to devoure the adversaries, not that they shall no more be, but that they shall never see happinesse any more; All these expressions being metaphoricall, & used to set out the greatnesse of the wrath and Indignation of God against im∣penitent sinners, under which they shall lye for ever. The resi∣due of the expressions collected are of the same importance. Christs punishment of Unbelievers at the last day, is compa∣red to a King saying, bring hither mine Enemies, and slay them before me, Luk. 19. 27. because as a naturall death is the utmost punishment, that men are able to inflict, which cuts men off from hopes and enjoyments, as to their natural condition, so Christ will lay on them the utmost of his Wrath, cutting them off from all hopes and enjoyments as to their spirituall and morall condition. It is said the fashion of this world passeth away 1 Joh 2. 17. because it can give no abiding continuing refreshment to any of the Sonne•• of men; when he that doth the will of God hath an everlasting continuance in a good condition, notwithstan∣ding the intervening of all troubles, which are in this life. But that wicked men have not their being continued to eternity, no∣thing is here expressed.

A very few words will put an issue to this controversy, if our* 1.1675 blessed Saviour may be accepted for an Umpire; saith he, Mat. 25 46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternall: certainely he that shall be everlastingly punished, shall be everlastingly. His punishment shall not con∣tinue, when he is not. He that hath an end, cannot be ever∣lastingly punished. Againe, saith our Saviour, in Hell the fire shall never be quenched; Where the worme dyeth not, and the fire is not quenched Mat. 9. 43, 44. which he repeats againe v. 46. and that M. B. may not cause any to hope the contrary, againe v. 48. This addes to the former miracle, that men should be punished and yet not be; that they shall be punished by the stings of a worme to torment them when they are not, and the burning of a fire, when their whole Essence is consumed. So also Isa. 66. 24. their torments shall be endlesse, and the meanes of their torments continued for ever: but for themselves (it seemes) they shall have an end, as to their being; and so NOTHING shall be punished with an everlasting worme, and a fire never to be

quenched. Nay which is more, there shall be amongst them weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, Mat. 8. 12. the utmost sorrow and indignation expressible, yea beyond expression; and yet they shall not be. God threatens men with death and de∣struction, and describes that death and destruction to consist in the abiding under his wrath in endlesse torments: which unexpressible sorrow evidently shewes that death is not a con∣sumption of them as to the continuance of their being, but a de∣privation of all the good of life naturall, spirituall, and eternall; with an infliction of the greatest evills that they can be capacitated to endure, and undergo, called their destruction and perdition.* 1.1676

What hath been the intention and designe of M. B. in this his* 1.1677 Catechisme, which I have thus farre considered, I shall not judge, There is one Lawgiver to whom both he and I must give an ac∣count of our labour, and endeavours in this businesse. That the tendency of the worke it selfe is to encrease Infidelity and sin in the world, I dare averre. Let this Chapter be an instance, and from the savour that it hath, let a tast be taken of the whole; and its nature be thereby estimated. That the greatest part of them to whom the mind of God, as revealed in Scripture, is in some measure made known, are not won and Prevailed upon by the Grace, Love and Mercy proclaymed therein, and tendred through Christ, so as to give up themselves in all holy Obedi∣ence unto God, I suppose will be granted. That these men are yet so over powred by the terrour of the Lord therein disco∣vered, and the threats of the wrath to come, as not to dare to runne out to the utmost, that the desperate thoughts of their own hearts, & the Temptations of Sathan meeting in conjunction, would carry them out unto, as it hath dayly & manifold expe∣riences to evince it, so the examples of men so awed by con∣viction, mentioned in the Scripture, do abundantly manifest. Now what is it among all the considerations of the account that

men are to make, and the Judgement which they are to undergo, which doth so ••maze their soules, and fill them with horrour and Astonishment, so strike off their hands when they are ready to stretch them out to violence & uncleannesse, or so frequently maks their conception of sin abortive, as this of the Eternity of their punishment, which impenitent sinners must undergoe. Is not this that which makes bitter the otherwise sweet morsels that they role under their tongues? and is an Adamantine chaine to coerce and restraine them, when they breake all other cords, and cast all other bonds behind them? yea hath not this been from the creation of the world * 1.1678 the great engine of the providence of God for the preserving of mankind from the outragiousnesse and unmeasurablenesse of iniquity and wickednesse, which would utterly ruine all humane society, and work a degeneracy in mankind into a very neere approximation unto the beasts that perish; namely; by keeping alive in the generallity of rationall creatures a prevailing conviction of an abiding condi∣tion of evill doers in a state of misery. To undeceive the wretched world, and to set sinfull man at liberty from this bondage and thraldome to his own causelesse feares, M. B. comes forth, and assures them all, that the Eternity of torments is a fable and everlasting punishment a lye; let them trouble themselves no more, the worst of their misery may be past in a moment; it is but annihilation, or rather perdition of soule and body, and they are for ever freed from the the wrath of the Almighty. Will they not say let us eate and drink for to morrow we shall dye? down we lye of a season: God it seemes will see us once againe and then farewell for ever. Whether ever there were a more compendious way of serving the designe of Sathan, or a more ex∣pedient engine to cast down and demolish the banks and bounds give to the bottomelesse lust and corruption of naturall men, that they may overflow the world with a deluge of sinne and confusion, considering the depraved condition of all men by na∣ture, and the rebellion of the most against the love and mercy of the Gospell; I much doubt. But who is more fit to encou∣rage wicked men to sin & disobedience, then he who labours also to pervert the righteous and obedient from their Faith?

TO close this whole Discourse I shall present M. Biddles Catechumens with a shorter Catechisme then either of his, col∣lected out of their Masters Questions, with some few inferences, naturally flowing from them; and it is as followes.

1. What is God?

Ans. God is a Spirit, that hath a Body, shape, eyes, eares, hands, feet like to us.

2. Where is this God?

Ans. In a certaine place in Heaven, upon a throne, where a man may see from his right hand to his left.

3. Doth he ever move out of that place?

Ans. I cannot tell what he doth ordinarily, but he hath formerly come down sometimes upon the earth.

4. What doth he do there in that place?

Ans. Among other things, he conjectures at what men will doe here below.

5. Doth he then not know what we do?

Ans. He doth what we have done, but not what we will do.

6. What frame is he in, upon his knowledge and Con∣jecture?

Ans. Sometimes he is afraid, sometimes grieved, sometimes joyfull, and sometimes troubled.

7. What peaee and comfort can I have in committing my selfe to his Providence, if he knowes not what will befall me to morrow?

Ans. What is that to me, see you to that.

8. Is Jesus Christ God?

Ans. He is dignifyed with the title of God, but he is not God?

9. Why then was he called the only begotten Sonne of God?

Ans. Because he was borne of the Virgin Mary.

10. Was He Christ the Lord then when he was borne?

Ans. No, he became the Lord afterwards.

11. Hath he still in Heaven an humane body?

Ans. No, but he is made a Spirit, So that being not God but man, he was made a God, and being made a God, he is a spirit, and not a man.

12. What is the Holy Ghost?

Ans. A principall Angell.

13. Did death enter by sin, or was mortallity actually caused by sinne?

Ans. No.

14. Why is Christ called a Saviour?

Ans. Because at the Resurrection he shall change our vile bo∣dyes.

15. On what other account?

Ans. None that I know of.

16. How then shall I be saved from sinne and wrath?

Ans. Keep the Commandements, that thou maiest have a right to eternall Life.

17. Was Christ the Eternall Sonne of God in his bosome revealing his minde from thence, or was he taken up into Hea∣ven, and there taught the Truths of God, as Mahomet pre∣tended?

Ans. He ascended into Heaven, and talked with God, before he came and shewed himselfe to the world.

18. What did Christ doe as a Prophet?

Ans. He gave a new Law.

19. Wherein?

Ans. He corrected the Law of Moses.

20 Who was it that said of old, thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy?

Ans. God in the Law of Moses, which Christ corrects.

21. Is Christ to be worshipped because he is God?

Ans. No, but because he redeemed us.

22. May one that is a meer Creature be worshipped with Divine or Religious worship?

Ans. Yes.

23. How can Christ being a meer man, and now so farre re∣moved from the earth, understand and heare all the prayers and desires of the hearts of men, that are put up to him all the world over?

Ans. I cannot tell, for God himselfe doth not know that there are such actions, as our free actions are, but upon enquiry.

24. Did Christ give himselfe for an offering and Sacrifice to God in his Death?

Ans. No, for he was not then a Priest.

25. Did Christ by his death make reconciliation for our sinnes, the sinnes of his people, beare their iniquities that they might have peace with God?

A. No, but only dyed that they might turne themselves to God.

26. Did he so undergoe the curse of the Law and was so made sinne for us; were our inquities so laid on him, that he made satisfaction to God for our sinnes?

A. No, there is no such thing in the Scripture.

27. Did he merit or procure Eternall life for us by his Obe∣dience and suffering?

A. No, this is a fiction of the Generality of Christians.

28. Did he redeeme us properly with the price of his blood, that we should be saved from wrath, death, and Hell?

A. No, there is no such use or fruit of his death and blood-shedding.

29. If he neither suffered in our stead, nor unde•• went the Curse of the Law for us, nor satisfyed Justice by making recon∣ciliation for our sinnes, nor redeemed us by the price of his blood, what did he do for us? on what account is the our Sa∣viour?

A. He taught us the way to Heaven, and dyed to leave us an example.

30. How then did he save them, or was he their Saviour, who dyed before his teaching and dying?

A. He did not save them, nor was their Saviour, nor did they aske any thing in his name, or received any thing on his account.

31. Did Christ raise himselfe according as he spake of the temple of his body, destroy this temple and the third day I will raise it againe?

A. No, he raised not himselfe at all.

32. Hath God from eternity loved some even before they did any good, & elected them to life and Salvation to be obtai∣ned by Jesus Chrsst?

A. No, but he loved all alike.

33. Did God in the sending of Christ ayme at the Salvation of a certaine number of his Elect?

A. No, but at the Salvation of men in generall whether ever any be Saved or no.

34. Are all those Saved for whom Christ dyed?

A. The least part of them are Saved.

35. Is faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, or are we converted by the efficacy of his Grace?

A. No, but of our selves we believe and are converted, and then we are made partakers of the Spirit and his grace.

36. Are all true Beeeeeeeeievers preserved by the power of God unto Salvation?

A. No, many of them fall away and perish.

37. Is the Righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us for our Justification?

A. No, but our own Faith and workes.

38. Are we to receive or apprehend Christ and his Righte∣ousnesse by Faith, that we may be justifyed through him?

A. NO, but believe on him that raised him from the dead, and without that, it suffices.

39. Are we able to keep all Gods Commandements?

A. Yes.

40. Perhaps in our sincere endeavours? but can we do it absolutely and perfectly?

A. Yes, we can keep them perfectly.

41. What need a man then to apprehend Christs righteous∣nesse and apply it to himselfe by Faith?

A. None at all, for there is no such thing required.

42. What shall become of wicked men after the Resurrection?

A. They shall be so consumed body and soul, as not at all to remaine on torments.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 1.
• a 1.2

  Socin: de Authorit. Sa. Scrip. cap. 1. Racov: An. 1611 p. 13. Socin: Lect. Sacr. p: 18. Episcep: di∣sput: de Author: Script: thes: 3. Volkel: de vera Relig: lib: 5: cap: 5. p: 375 Socinus. autem videtur re∣ctius de SS: opinari, Epist: ad Radec: 3 p: 140. Ego quidem sentio, nihil in Scrip∣tis, quae communiter ab iis, qui Christiani sunt dicti, re∣tepta, & pro divinis habita sunt, constanter legi, quod non sit verissimum: hoc{que} ad divinam Providentiam pertinere prorsus arbitror, ut ejusmodi scripta, nunquam depraventur aut corrumpantur, ne{que} ex toto, ne{que} ex par••e.
• * 1.3

  §. 2.
• * 1.4

  §. 1.
• * 1.5

  §. 2.
• * 1.6

  §. 3.
• * 1.7

  §. 4.
• * 1.8

  §. 5.
• b 1.9

  Smalcius de divinit. Jes. Christ. edit. Racov. An. 1608. per Ja∣cob. Sieniens∣kia. Volkel. de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 10. pag. 425. p. 468. & ana∣tea. p. 206. Catech. Rae. cap. 1. de cognit. Christ. quaest 3. Confession de foi, des Chrestiens, qui croyent en un seul Dieu le Pere &c. p 18, 19. Ionas Schlictingius, ad Meisner: Artic: de Filio Dei pag: 387. Socin: Res•• ad Wiekum p: 8. & passlin reliqui.
• * 1.10

  §. 6.
• c 1.11

  Ierem. 10. 11.
• d 1.12

  1 Ioh. 5. 7.
• * 1.13

  § 7.
• c 1.14

  Matth. 28. 18.
• d 1.15

  Exposuisti quae cognitu ad salutem de essentia Dei sunt prorsus necessaria, ex∣pone quae ade∣am rem vehe∣menter utilia esse censeas. R. Id quidem est ut cognoscamus, in essentia Dei unam tantum personam esse. Demonstra hoc ip∣sum. R: Hoc sane. vel hinc patere potest, quod essentia Dei sit una numero; quapropter plures nu∣mero personae, in eâ esse nullo pacto possunt. Quae nam est haec una persona divina? R. Est ille De∣us unus, domini nostri Jesu Christi pater. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Catech. Racov. cap. 1. de cognit. Dei. de Dei essentia.
• * 1.16

  §. 8.
• e 1.17

  Significat enim Christus id, quod ratio ipsa dictat, Deum, cum spiritus sit, non nisi spiri∣tualibus reve∣ra delectari. Crell. de Deo: seu de vera Rel: lib. 1 c. 15. pag. 108. Spiritus est Deus: animadvetterunt ibi omnes propè S. litorarum interpretes, Dei nomen, quod ar∣•••• est in G〈…〉〈…〉 atum, subjecti locum tenere: vocem, spiritus, quae articulo caret, praedicati: & 〈…〉〈…〉 substantiam: Ita perinde est, ac si dictum fuisset, Deus est spiritus, seu spi∣ritua••••: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 idem ibid. p. 107.
• * 1.18

  §. 9.
• * 1.19

  §. 10.
• * 1.20

  §. 11.
• * 1.21

  §. 12.
• * 1.22

  §. 13.
• * 1.23

  §. 14.
• * 1.24

  §. 15.
• * 1.25

  §. 16.
• * 1.26

  §. 17.
• * 1.27

  §. 19.
• * 1.28

  §. 20.
• * 1.29

  §. 21.
• * 1.30

  §. 22.
• * 1.31

  §. 23.
• * 1.32

  § 24.
• * 1.33

  §. 26.
• * 1.34

  § 27.
• * 1.35

  §. 28.
• * 1.36

  §. 29.
• f 1.37

  Si spatium vacansuper ca∣put Crealorris, & si Deus ip∣se in loco est, erit jam locut ille major & Deo & munds; nihil enim non majus est id quod capit, illo quod capi∣tur. Tertul. ad Max. lib. 1. cap. 15.
• * 1.38

  §. 30.
• g 1.39

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo. lib. 2. Alleg. Leg.
• h 1.40

  Maimon: Mor. Neuoch p. 1. c. 8.
• i 1.41

  Buxtorf. in Lexic ••ver∣bo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• l 1.42

  Jovis omnia plena. Virg. Eclog. 3.
• m 1.43

  Lucan lib. 3.
• * 1.44

  h Quocun{que} re flexeris, ibi illum (Deum) videbis occur∣rent mtibi, ni∣hil ab illo vacat, opus suum ipse implet. Senec. de benef. lib. 4. cap. 8.
• n 1.45

  Vide Beza. Epist. ad Philip. Mar∣nix.
• * 1.46

  §. 31.
• o 1.47

  Vide Virgil. Aenead. lib. 6. principio caelum &c. ex Platonicis.
• * 1.48

  §. 1.
• * 1.49

  §. 2.
• a 1.50

  Sine Corpo∣re ullo Deum esse vult, ut Graeci dicunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tull. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1. de Platone. mens soluta & li∣bera, segregata ab omni con∣cretione mor∣tali. id.
• b 1.51

  Ex his au∣tem intelligi∣tur, membra humani Cor∣poris, quae Deo in sactis literis ascribuntur, uti & partes quaedam aliarum unithantium, quales sunt alae, non nisi improprie Deo tribui. Siquidem a spiritus natura protsus abhorrent, Tribuuntur autem Deo per metaphoram cum metonymia conjunctam. Nempe quia facultates vel actiones Deo conveni∣unt, illarum similes, quae membris illis, aut insunt, aut per ea exercentur: Crellius Deo sive 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vera Relig. lib. 1. cap. 15. pag. 107.
• * 1.52

  §. 3.
• c 1.53

  Epiphan. Tom. 1. lib. 3. Heres. 70. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 10.
• * 1.54

  §. 4.
• * 1.55

  §. 5.
• * 1.56

  §. 6.
• * 1.57

  §. 8.
• * 1.58

  §. 8.
• * 1.59

  §. 9.
• * 1.60

  §. 10.
• a 1.61

  Plato said the same thing expresly, apud Stobaeum, E∣clogae Ethicae l. 2. c. 3. p. 163.
• a 1.62

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Posidonius apud Stobaeum. Eclogae Physicae. lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. I confesse Epicu∣rus said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Stobae us ibidem. cap. 3. pag. 5. And possibly M. B. might borrow his mishapen Divinity from him, and the Anthropomorphites: and then we have the pedegree of his wild positions. But the more sober Philosophers (as Sto∣haeus there tells us) held otherwise. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. which Guil. Canterus renders thus, Quod nec tangi, nec cerni potest Deus, ne{que} sub mensurans, vel terminum cadit aut Alicui est Corpori simile.
• b 1.63

  Videsis Rab. M. Maimonid: de Idolat. 8. 2, 3, &c. & No∣tas Dionysii Vossii ibidem.
• c 1.64

  Quae de Deo dicuntur in sa∣crp codice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, interpretanda sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.65

  §. 14.
• * 1.66

  Vid. D. Bannes in 1. partem Aquinatis. Quaest. 3. Art. 1. & Scolasti∣cos Passim
• * 1.67

  § 15.
• * 1.68

  §. 16.
• * 1.69

  §. 17.
• d 1.70

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Zozom. Hist. Ec. l. 8. c. 11. § 18. Minut. Faelix. in Octay. Lnctan. de vera sap. Mutius pan∣sa Pianensis de osculo ethnicae & Christianae Theol. c. 25. Origen. in Gen. Hom: 3. August: l: 83, Quaest: 22.
• * 1.71

  §. 19.
• * 1.72

  §. 1.
• * 1.73

  §, 2.
• * 1.74

  §. 3.
• a 1.75

  Jer. 44. 15, 16.
• b 1.76

  2 Tim. 2. 26. §. 4. Crellius de Deo seu vera Relig. cap. 29. p. 295.
• * 1.77

  §. 5.
• d 1.78

  Voluntatis divinae Com∣motiones, praesertim vehe mentiores, seu actus e∣jusmodi, qui∣bus voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur, vel ab eo refugit, at{que} abhorret &c. Crell. de Beo: seu Vera Relig. cap: 29. p: 295. vid: etiam cap: 30, 31.
• * 1.79

  §. 6.
• e 1.80

  Deut. 32. 4. Job. 37. 16. Rom. 1. 25. 9. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 11. 6. 15.
• * 1.81

  §. 7.
• f 1.82

  Crellius de Deo ubi supra
• g 1.83

  Isa. 14. 24. Eph. 1. 11. Ro. 11. 33, 34, 35. Isa. 40. 13.
• * 1.84

  §. 8.
• h 1.85

  Exod. 3. 14.
• * 1.86

  Job. 23. 13.
• * 1.87

  §. 9.
• i 1.88

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Philo.
• k 1.89

  Mal. 3. 6.
• * 1.90

  §. 10.
• * 1.91

  §. 11.
• * 1.92

  §. 12.
• * 1.93

  Vid. Andr. Riverum in Psal. 2. p. 11. & in Exod. 4. p. 1••. & A∣quinat. 1. part. Q. 3. Art. 2. ad secundum. Ira dicitur de Deo Secundū similitudinem effectus, quia proprium est Irati punire, ejus ira punitio Metaphorice vocatur.
• a 1.94

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Divi∣na ultio Rom. 1. 8. Col. 3. 6. Gr••tius in Lecum.
• l 1.95

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristot. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• m 1.96

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id. ubi sup.
• * 1.97

  §. 14.
• a 1.98

  Theodoret upon on this place tells us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Non autem ut fuerunt quidom, (so that M. B. is not the first that held this opinion) I••â quadam & paenitentiâ ductue Deus haec egit: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Quomodo ergo paenitentia cadat in Deum? His answer is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Quare paenitentia Dei nihil aliud est, quam mutatio Dispensationis ejus. Paenitet me (inquit) quod constituerim Saul Re∣gem, pro eo quodest, statui illum deponcre. Sic in hoc loco, (Gen. 6. 6.) paenitet fecisse me homine••; hoc est, decrevi perdere humanum genus, Theod. in Gen. Quaest. 50. Tom. opil 1. p. 41, 42.
• * 1.99

  §. 15.
• n 1.100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arist. Rhetor. l. 2. c. 6.
• o 1.101

  Act. 15. 18. 2 Sam. 22. 16. Job. 4. 9. Psal. 18. 15. Rom. 1. 21. Gen. 17. 1. Rom. 9. 16, 17, 18, &c. & 11. 34, 35, 36. Is. 40. 15. Heb. 1. 3. Ps. 33. 9. Act. 17. 25, 28. Ps. 50. 8. Dan. 6. 23. Ps. 90 3. Job. 34. 19.
• * 1.102

  §. 17.
• p 1.103

  Psal. 16. 2. 50. 8, 9, 10. Job 35. 6, 7, 8 Job 22. 2, 3.
• * 1.104

  §. 18.
• * 1.105

  Psal. 50. 21.
• * 1.106

  §. 1.
• * 1.107

  §. 2.
• a 1.108

  Stegman. Photin. Refut Disput. 1. q. 2. An Photiniani ullo modo Christiani dici queant. Neg. Martin. Smiglec. Jes. Nova mon∣stra, novi Arianis. cap. 1. Aridnos nullo modo Christianos dici posse.
• b 1.109

  Ʋt ad ratio∣nem istam non minus plenè quam planè re∣spondeamus, animadverten∣dum est, infal∣sto••••em istam Dei praenotio∣nem, quam pro re concessâ ad∣versarii su∣munt, a nobis non admitti. Socin Praelec. c. 8. p. 25. Cum igitur nulla ratio, nullus Sacra∣rum literarum locus sit, ex quo apertè col∣ligi possit, De∣um omnia quae fiunt, scivisse ante••uam fi∣erent, con∣cludendum est, minime asse∣rendam esse a nobis istam Dei praescientiam: praesertim, cum & rationes non paucae, & sacra Te∣stimonia non desint, unde eam planè negandam esse apparet: idem c: 11. p: 38.
• c 1.110

  Ita{que} in consi∣derate illi faciunt, qui futura contingentia Deum determinatè scire aiuni, quia aliàs non esset om∣niscius: cum potius, ideo illa determinatè futura non concipiat, quia est omniscius: Crellius de Vera Relig. lib: 1 c: 24. p: 201.
• d 1.111

  Nam si omnia futura qualiacun{que} sunt; Deo ab omni aeterni∣tate determinatè cognita fuisse unquam, humanae voluntatis libertatem, ac porro nec Reli∣gi••nem, idem ibid. p 202. Smalclus Resutat. Thes. Franz. disput: 1. de Trinitat. pag: 3. disput. 12. de caus. peccat. p. 428, 429. &c. 435.
• * 1.112

  §. 7.
• * 1.113

  §. 5.
• e 1.114

  Rom. 12. 6.
• f 1.115

  2 Thess. 2. 10, 11, 12.
• g 1.116

  Rom. 1. 23.
• * 1.117

  §. 6.
• * 1.118

  §. 7.
• h 1.119

  Paenitentia infert igno∣rantiam praeteriti, praesentis, & futuri, mutationem volun∣tatis, & errorem in consiliis, quorum nihil in Deum cadere potest: dicitur tamen ille me∣taphorice penitentiâ duci, quemadmodum nos, quando a∣licujus rei paenitet, abolemus, id quod antea feceramus: quod fieri potest sine tali mutatione voluntatis, quâ nunc homo aliquid facit, quod post mutato animo, destruit. Manasseh Ben. Izrael. conciliat. in Gen. 6. q: 23. Paenitentia, cum mu∣tabilitatem importet, non potest esse in Deo, dicitur tamen pae∣nitere, eo qùod ad modum pae∣nitentis se habet, quando de∣struit quod fecerat. Lyran. ad. 1 Sam. 15. v. 35.
• * 1.120

  §. 9.
• * 1.121

  §. 10.
• i 1.122

  Ex hac acti∣one propter quam ab omnibus Deum timens vocaberis cognoscent omnes, quantus in to sit timor Dei, & quous{que} pertingat. R. Mos. Ben Maimon: more Nevoch. p. 3. c. 24.
• k 1.123

  Contigerat nostras infamia temporis aures; Quam cupiens falsam summo dilabor Olympo, Et Deus humanâ lustro sub imagine terras. Ovid.
• * 1.124

  §. 11.
• * 1.125

  §. 12.
• * 1.126

  §. 13.
• l 1.127

  Nimis longè a propriâ ver∣horum significatione receden∣dum est, & sententiarum vis enervanda, si eas eum definitâ illa futurorum contingentium praescientiâ conciliare velis at Gen. 18. 21. & 22. 12. Quicquid enim aliàs de utri∣us{que} loci sententiâ statuas, illud tamen. facile est cernere, Deum novum quoddam, & in∣signe experimentum, illic quidem impietatis Sodomiticae & Gomorrh••, videre vo∣luisse, hic vere pletatis Abra∣hamicae vidisse, quod ante∣quam fieret, plane certum & exploratum non esset. Crellius de vera Relig. c. 24. p. 209.
• * 1.128

  §. 14.
• * 1.129

  §. 14.
• a 1.130

  Hom: Iliad: Rhapsod. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 P. 431. &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.131

  Hom: Iliad. Rhapsod. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ps: 859. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.132

  Hom: Iliad. Rhapsod. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Princip.
• * 1.133

  §. 15.
• * 1.134

  §. 16.
• * 1.135

  §. 7.
• o 1.136

  Intellectio secundum se e∣jus est, quod se∣cundum se op∣timum est. Julius Petro∣nellus l. 3. c. 4 ex Arist. Metaph. l. 12. cap. 7. Sed et intelle∣ctum dupli∣cem video; al∣ter enim intel∣ligere potest, quamvis non intelligat, alter etiam intelli∣git qui tamen nondū est per∣fectus, nisi & semper intelli∣gat, & omnia: & ille demum absolutissimus futurs sit, qui & semper, & omnia, & simul intelligat. Maxim. Tyrius. dissertat. 1. Ʋno mentis cernit in ictu quae sint, fuerint, veniant{que} Boeth.
• p 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hippoc. de Princip. To the same purpose is that of Epi∣charmus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. And the Anonymus Author in Stobaeus (vid. Excerpta Stobaei pag. 117.) speaking of God adds—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. In short, the Pagans generally re∣ceived custome of consulting Oracles, of using their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Auguria, and Auspicia &c. by which they expected answers from their Gods, and significations of their will concerning future things, are evident demonstra∣tions that they believed their Gods knew future Contingents.
• * 1.138

  §. 18.
• q 1.139

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Zenoph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 1.140

  Cum ergo Deus omnia noscat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seu certo futura cognoscit ut talia, similiter & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seu veresimiliter eventura, pro ratione causarum unde pendent. Crellius de Vera Relig. l. 1. c. 24. p. 201.
• * 1.141

  § 12.
• s 1.142

  Sciendum, qu••d omnino aliter se habet ••ntiqua vel aeterna scientia ad ea quae fi••nt & facta sunt, & aliter recens scientia: esse namque rei entis est causa scientiae nostrae, sci∣entia vero aeterna est causa ut ipsa res sit. Si vero quando res est postquam non erat, con∣tingeret noviter in ipsa scien∣tia antiquâ, scientia superad∣dita, quemadmodum contingit hoc in scientia nova, sequere∣tur uti{que} quod ipsa scientia an∣tiqua esset causata ab ipso ente: & non esset causa ipsus. opor∣tet ergo quod non contingat ibi mutatio, scilicet in anti∣qua scientia, quemadmodum contingit in nova: sciendum autem, quod hic error idoirco accidit, quia scientia antiqua mensuratur ab imperitis cum scientia nova, cujus mensurationis modus vitiosissimus est: projicit quippe quando{que} hominem in ••a∣rathrum, unde nunquam est egressurus. Rab. Aben. Rost. Interpret. Raymund. Martin. Pugi. Fidei. P. P. cap, 25. Sect. 4, 5. pag. 201.
• t 1.143

  In Deo sim∣plex est intui tus, quo sim∣pliciter viden∣tur quae com∣posita suntain∣variabiliter quae variabilia sunt, & simul quae successi∣va.
• * 1.144

  §. 21.
• u 1.145

  Ad hanc le∣gem animus noster aptan∣dus est, hanc sequatur, huic pareat, & quae∣cun{que} fiunt de∣buisse fieri pu∣tet. Senec. Epist. 108.
• * 1.146

  §. 21.
• * 1.147

  §. 22.
• * 1.148

  Dixit R. Iu∣chanan: omnia videntur uno intuitu. Dixit Rab. Nachman filius Isaaci, sic etiam nos didicimus: quod Scriptum est Psal. 33. v. 15. formans simul cor eorum, intelligens omnia opera eorum, quomodo intelligendum est? Dicendum est, dici, Deum adunate simul corda totius, mundi? Ecce, videmus non ita rem se habere: sed sic dicendum est, Formans sive creator videt simul cor corum, & intelligit omnia opera eorum. Talmud. Rosch. haschana: interpret: Jose ph. de Voysin.
• * 1.149

  §. 23. Conclus.
• * 1.150

  §. 24.
• * 1.151

  §. 25.
• * 1.152

  §. 26.
• a 1.153

  Quicquid enim est, dum est, necessario est. Aquinas 1. part. Quaest. 19. Art. 3.
• b 1.154

  Vid Scot. in 1. lib. Sent: dist. 30. quaest. Unica. Du∣rand ibid. Dist 38 Quaest 3. Jo Major in 1. Dist. 38, 39. Quaest: 1. Art. 4. Alua∣••cz. de Anxiliis lib. 2. Dis∣put. 10 pag. 55. &c. & Scholasticos in Lombar∣dum ibid. Dist 38. 39. quos fusè enumerat Joh Martines de Ripalda in 1. Sent. pag. 127. & 131.
• x 1.155

  Quid mihi scire quae futura sunt? quaecun{que} ille vult, haec futura sunt. Origen. Hom. 6. in Jesum nave. Vid. Fri∣der. Spanhemium Dub. Evang. 33. pag. 272. in illud Math. Totum hoc factum est, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Paul. Ferrium Schol. Orthodoxi. c. 31. & in Vindiciis. cap. 5. Sect. 6.
• * 1.156

  Vid. Aqui∣nat. 1. Quaest. 83. Art. 1. ad 3.
• * 1.157

  §. 27.
• d 1.158

  Vid: Di••ac. Alvarez. de Auxilliis Gratiae lib. 3. disput. 25. Aquinat. part 2. Quaest. 112. Art. 3. E. 1. Part Quaest. 19. Art. 8. ad. 3.
• * 1.159

  §. 28.
• y 1.160

  Crell. de Vera Relig. lib. 1. cap. 24. Smalcius ad: Franz. dif∣put. 12.
• z 1.161

  In has an∣gustias Cicero coarctat ani∣mum religio∣sum, ut unum eligat a duo∣bus: aut esse aliquid in nostra voluntate, aut esse Praescientiam futurorum: quoniam utrum{que} arbitratur esse non posse, sed si alterum confirmatur, alterum tolli. Si eligerimus praescientiam futurorum, tolli voluntatis arbitrium. Si eligerimus voluntatis arbitrium, tolli Praescientiam futurorum. Ipse ita{que} ut vir magnus & doctus, & vitae humanae plurimùm & peritissime consulens, ex his duebus eligit liberum voluntatis arbitrium. Quod ut confirmaretur, negavit praescientiam futurorum, at{que} eita dum vult facere liberos, facit sacrilegos. Religiosus autem animus utrum{que} eligit, utrum{que} consitetur, & fide pietatis utrum{que} confirmat. Quomodo inquit: Nam si est Prae∣scientia futurorum, sequantur illa omnia, quae connexa sunt, donec eo perveniatur, ut nihil sit in nostra voluntate. Porrò, si est a liquid in nostra voluntate, eisdem recursis gradibus eò pervenitur, ut non sit praescientia futurorum. Nam per illa omnia sic recurritur. Si est voluntatis arbitrium, non omnia fato fiunt. Si non omnia fato fiunt, non est omnium certus ordo causarum. Si certus causarum ordo non est: Nec rerum certus est ordo praescienti Deo, quae fieri non possunt nisipraecedentibus, & efficientibus causis. Si rerum ordo Praescienti Deo certus non est, non omnia sic veniunt, ut ea ventura praescivit. Porro, si non omnia sic eventiunt at ab illo eventura praescita sunt, non est, in••uit in Deo Praescientia futurorum. Nos adversus istos sacrilegos ausus, & impios, & Deum dicimus omnia scire antequam fiant; & voluntate nos facere, quicquid a nobis non nisi volentibus fieri sentimus & novimus. August. de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 9.
• * 1.162

  §. 29.
• a 1.163

  Causam qua∣re Deus futura contingentia praesciat da∣mus hanc, quod sit infinita ip∣suis intellectus perfectio om∣nia cognoscen∣tis. Et sicut Deus cognoscit praeterita secun dum esse quod habuerunt, ita etiam cognos∣cit futura se∣cundum illud esse quod habi∣tura sunt. Dan. Clasen. Theol Natu∣ral, cap. 22. pag. 128.
• * 1.164

  Gen. 45. 5, 6, 7, 8.
• b 1.165

  Praescientia Dei tot habet Testes, quot fe∣cit Prophet as: Tertull. l. 2. contra Mar∣cionem.
• * 1.166

  §. 30.
• * 1.167

  §. 31.
• * 1.168

  §. 32.
• * 1.169

  §. 33.
• * 1.170

  §. 34.
• * 1.171

  §. 35.
• * 1.172

  §. 36.
• * 1.173

  §. 37.
• * 1.174

  §. 38.
• c 1.175

  Speciem & pondus videtur habere haec ob∣jectia; nec pau∣ci sunt, qui ejus, vi adeo moventur, ut divinam futurorum contingentium praescientiam negart, & quae pro eâ facere videntur loca, at{que} Argumenta, magno conatu torquere malint, & flectere in sensus, non minus periculos s quam difficiles. Adme quod attinet, Ego hactenus sive Religione qua∣dam animi, sive divinae Majestatis reverentia, non potui prorsus in animum meum inducere, ratio∣nem istam allegitam tanti esse, ut propfer eam Deo futurorum contingentium praescientia detraben∣da sit: maxime cum vix videam, quomodo alioquin divinarum praedictionum vertias salvari pos∣sit, sine ali ••ua aut incertitudinis macula, aut falsi possibilis suspicione: Sim: Episcop. Respons. ad secund. Epist. Johan: Beverovi.
• d 1.176

  Episcop. institut: Theol: lib. 4. cap. 17, 18. E∣piscop: disput. de Deo Thes: 10.
• * 1.177

  §. 39.
• a 1.178

  Anonymus ad 5. cap. priora Math. p. 28. Nego consequentiam Deus dicere potuit se scire quid facturus erat Abraham, etsi id certo non praenoverit, sed probabiliter. Induci∣turenim Deus saepius humano more loquens: Solent autem homines affirmare se scire ca futura, quae verisimiliter futura sunt &c.
• * 1.179

  §. 44.
• e 1.180

  Arist. 1. de Inter p. c. 8.
• f 1.181

  Alphons. de Mendoza. Con. Theol. Scholast. q. 1. pag. 534. Vasquez. in 1. Tho. dis∣put 16. Ruvio in 1. Interpret. cap. 6. q. uni∣ca &c.
• * 1.182

  Vid. Rod. de Arriaga. dis∣put. Log. 14. Sect. 5. sub∣sect. 3 p 205. Suarez. in Opus. J. 1. de Praescientia Dei cap: 2. Vasquez. 1. Part. disp. 66. cap. 2. Pet, Hurtado de Mend. disp. 9. de Anima. Sect. 6.
• * 1.183

  §. 1.
• * 1.184

  §. 1.
• a 1.185

  Quibus e∣nim oculis in∣tueri potue∣rit vester Pla∣to fabricam il∣lam tanti operis, quâ construia Deo & aedificari mundum faecit? Quae molitio? Quae ferra∣menta? Qui vectes? Quae machinae? Qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt? Quemadmodum autem obediendo parere voluntati architecti aer, ignis, aqua, terra, poteurunt? Velleius apud Ciceron, de Natu. Deor. lib. 1. statim a principio.
• * 1.186

  §. 2.
• b 1.187

  Poterat & illud de Ange∣lis intelligi, faciamus homi∣nem &c. sed quia sequitur, ad imaginem nostram, nefas est credere, ad imagines Angelo∣rum hominem esse factum, aut tandem esse imaginem Ange∣lorum & Dei. Et ideo rectè intelligitur pluralitas Trini∣tatis. Quae tamen Trinitas, quia unus est Deus, etiam cum dixisset, faciamus, & fecit, inquit, Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei: non vero dixit, fecerunt Dii ad imagi∣nem Deorum. August. de Civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 6.
• * 1.188

  §. 3.
• c 1.189

  Georg. Eniedin. Explicat. loc. Ver. & Nov. Testam. in Gen. 1. 26.
• d 1.190

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato. in Timaeo.
• * 1.191

  §. 4.
• * 1.192

  §. 5.
• * 1.193

  §. 6.
• e 1.194

  Vid. Diatrib. de Juslit. Vindicat.
• * 1.195

  §. 7.
• * 1.196

  §. 8.
• * 1.197

  §. 9.
• * 1.198

  §. 10.
• * 1.199

  §. 11.
• * 1.200

  §. 12.
• * 1.201

  §. 13.
• * 1.202

  §. 14.
• * 1.203

  §. 15.
• * 1.204

  Rom. 1. 18.
• * 1.205

  §. 16.
• * 1.206

  §. 17.
• * 1.207

  §. 18.
• * 1.208

  Rom. 6. 13.
• * 1.209

  Ephes. 2. 3.
• * 1.210

  §. 19.
• * 1.211

  §. 20.
• * 1.212

  §.21.
• * 1.213

  §. 22.
• * 1.214

  §. 23.
• * 1.215

  §. 24.
• * 1.216

  §. 25.
• * 1.217

  §. 26.
• f 1.218

  Illud corpus ante peccatum, & mor∣tale secundum aliam, & immortale secundum aliam causam dici poterat. id est, mortale, quia poterat mori, immor∣tale, quippe quia poterat non mort. A∣liud est enim non posse moti, sicut quas∣dam naturas immortales creavit Deus, aliud est autem posse non mori; secun∣dum quem inodum primus creatus est homo immortalis, quod ei praestabatur de ligno vitae, non de constitutione nat••∣rae: a quo ligno seperatus est, cum pec∣casset, ut posset mori, qui nisi pec∣casset posset non mori. Mortalis e••go erat conditione corporis animalis, im∣mortalis autem beneficio conditeris. Si enim corpus animale, utique & mor∣tale, quia & mori poterat, quamvis & immortate dico, quia & mori non pote∣rat. August. Tom. Tertio. de Genesi ad literam lib. 6. cap. 24.
• g 1.219

  Quicun{que} dicit Adam primum hominem morta∣lem factum, ita ut sive peccaret, sive non pecca∣ret, moreretur in co••po∣re, hoc est de corpore exiret non pe••cati mer ito sed necessitate naturae. Anathema sit. Concil. Milevitan. cap. 1.
• h 1.220

  Quaestio est de immortali∣tate hominis pujus concreti ex anima & corpore conflati. Quando loquor de morte, de disso utione hujus concreti loquor. Socin. contra Puccium pag 228.
• i 1.221

  Vid. River. Exercitat. in Gen. cap. 1. exerc. 9.
• * 1.222

  §. 27.
• * 1.223

  §. 27.
• * 1.224

  §. 28.
• * 1.225

  §. 29.
• * 1.226

  §. 30.
• * 1.227

  §. 31.
• * 1.228

  §. 32.
• * 1.229

  §. 33.
• * 1.230

  §. 34.
• a 1.231

  Adamus in∣star infantis vel puerise nu∣dum eff•• gno∣ravit. S••alc. de ve. Dei fil. c. 7. p. 2.
• b 1.232

  De conjuge propria, non nisi sensibus obvia cogno∣vit. Soci. de star. prim. Hom. c. 4. p. 119.
• c 1.233

  Vim arboris scientiae boni & mali per∣spectam non habuerit. idem ibid. pag. 197.
• d 1.234

  Socin. praelect. cap. 3. pag. 8.
• e 1.235

  Cum ipse mortalis esset, se tamen mortalem. esse nesciverit. Socin. de stat. prim. Hom. cap. 4. pag. 118.
• * 1.236

  §. 36.
• f 1.237

  Ʋtrum pri∣mus homo an∣te peccatum justitiam ali∣quam originalem habuerit? Pleri{que} omnes eum illam habuisse affirmant. Sed ego scire vel in - concludamus igitur, Adamum, etiam antequam mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, rev••ra iustum non fuisse. Cum nec impeccabilis esset, nec ullum peccandi occasionem habuisset; ve certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constet, eum ulla ratione a peccando ab∣stinuisse. Socin. praelect. c. 3. p. 8. vid. c. 4. p. 11.
• g 1.238

  Fit ment•• destitutionis vel carentiae divinae gloriae, ergoprivationis Imaginis Dei & justitiae & Sanctitatis, ejus{que} originalis; fit mentio Carentiae divinae Gloriae, ergo in creatione eum homine fuit commu∣nicata: ô ineptias! Smal. Refut. Thes. de peccat. Origi. Disput: 2. pag. 42. Porro ait Franzius, Paulum mox evestigio imagtnem Dei, seu novum hominem ita explicare, quod fuerit conditus primus homo ad justitiam & Sanctimoniam veram. Hic cum erroribus fallatiae, etiam & fortassis voluntariae, sunt commixtae - Videat lector benevelus quanti sit facienda illatie Franzii, dum ait: ergo image Dei in hemine ante lapsum consistebat in concreatâ justitiâ & vera sanctimonia primorum parentum. Si haec non sunt scopae dissolutae, equidem nescio quid eas tandem nominabimur. Smalcius. ubi sup. p. 50, 51.
• h 1.239

  Volkel. de Vera. Relig. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 9. edit. cum lib. Crell. de Deo.
• * 1.240

  §. 37.
• h 1.241

  Socin. Praelect. c. 3. p. 8.
• * 1.242

  §. 38.
• i 1.243

  Etenim unum illud peccatum per se, non mo∣d•• universes po••eros, sed neipsum quldem Adamum, corrumpendi vim habere petuit. Dei vero consilio, in pec∣cati illius paenam id factum fuisse, nec usquam legitur, & plane incredibile est, imo impium id co∣g••tare. Socin. Praelect. cap. 4. Sect. 4. p. 13. Lapsus Adae, cum unus acius fuerit, vim eam, quae ••epravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus posterorum ipsius posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi ••ero in penam irrogatum fuisse, nec Scriptura do••et, ut superius exposui•• us, & Deum illum, qui ••••is aequitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus est id facere voluisse: Catech. Racov. de Cogniti: Christ. cap. 10. quest. 2.
• k 1.244

  De Adamo eum immorta∣lem creatum non fuisse, res apertissima est. Nam ex terra creatus, cibis usus, liberis gignend•• destinatus, & ani∣malis ante lapsum fait. S••alcius de Divin: Jes. Christ. cap. 7. de Promi••so Vitae Aeternae.
• * 1.245

  §. 39.
• l 1.246

  Conclad mus igitur, ••d um, improprie eti∣am loquendo, peccatum ori∣ginale esse; id est, ex pec∣cato illo primi parentis nullā labem aut pra∣vitatem uni∣verso humano generi neces∣sario ingeni∣tam esse, sive inflictam quo∣dāmodo fuisse. Socin. praelect. cap. 4. Sect. 4. p. 13, 14. Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est, quare nes liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit. Nec enim è Scriptura. id peccatum originis doceri potest. Catech. Raccov. de Cognit. Christ. cap. 10. de lib. Arbit. - quaedam ex falsissimis principiis de lucuntur. In illo genere illud potissimum est, quod ex peccato (ut vccant) ori∣ginali depromitur: de quo ita disputant, ut crimen a primo parente conceptum, in sobelem derivatum esse defendant, eius{que} contagione, tum omnes humanas vires corruptas & debravatas, tum potissimum voluntatis libertatem destructam esse asserant. - quae omnia nos pernegamus, ••pote & sanae mentis rationi, & divinae Scripturae contraria. Volkell. de Vera Religi. lib. 5. cap. 18. p. 547, 548. Prior pars Thesis Franzii falsa est. Nam nullum individuam un uam peccato originis fuit infectum. Qua peccatum illud mera est fabula, quam tanquam foetum alie∣num fovent Lutherani, & alii. Smal••ius Refut. Thes. Franz. disput. 2. p. 46, 47. Vid. com∣pend. Sociuis. c. 3. Smal de vera divin. Jes. Christ. c. 7. Putas Adami peccatum & inobedien∣tiam ejus posteritati imoutari. At hoqae••; tibi negamus, quam Christi obedientiam credentibus imputari. Jonas Schlictingius, disput. pro Socino adversus Meisnerum p. 251. vide ••tiam p. 100. Quibus ita exolicatis, facile eos qui - omnem Adami posteritatem, in ipso Adamo parentes••o peccasse, & mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. idem Comment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos ad cap. 7. p. 296.
• * 1.247

  §. 40.
• * 1.248

  §. 41.
• m 1.249

  Ista sapi∣entia rerum divinarum, & sanctimonia, quam Adamo ante Lapsum tribuit Fran∣zius; una cum alits, Idea quaedam est, in cere••ro ip∣sorum nata. Smalcius ubi sup.
• n 1.250

  Socin. Epist. 5. ad Johan. Volkell pag. 489.
• * 1.251

  §. 42.
• * 1.252

  §. 43.
• * 1.253

  §. 44.
• * 1.254

  §. 45.
• n 1.255

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato in Cratylo.
• * 1.256

  §. 46.
• * 1.257

  §. 47.
• * 1.258

  §. 48.
• * 1.259

  §. 49.
• * 1.260

  Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. Vin.
• * 1.261

  §. 50.
• * 1.262

  §. 51.
• * 1.263

  §. 52.
• * 1.264

  §. 53.
• a 1.265

  Cum dix••. initio, hane vi∣am quae adim∣mortalitatem ducat esse di∣vinitus pate∣factam, scire velim, cur id abs te dictum sit?
• * 1.266

  Rom. 2. 7, 8, 9
• * 1.267

  §. 54.
• * 1.268

  Joh. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 2. 7. Ephes. 3. 8, 9, 10, 11. Col. 2. 2, 3. 1 Tim. 3. 16.
• * 1.269

  Ephes. 2. 1. Joh. 1. 5. Rom. 3. 17, 18 Rom. 8. 7. 8. 2 Cor. 2, 14. Tit. 3. 3. Ephes. 2. 8. 4. 18. Col. 1. 13. 2. 13. &c.
• b 1.270

  Cur vere ni∣hil commune habet homo cum immorta∣litate?
• * 1.271

  Idcirco, quod ab initio de humo formatus, propterea{que} mortalis creatus fueri••: deinde vero, quod mandatum Dei, ipsi pro∣positum, transgressus sit; ideo{que} decreto Dei ipsius in mandato expresso, aeternaemorti necessari•• subjectus fuerit.
• c 1.272

  Qui vero id conveniet iis Scripturae lo∣cis, in quibus Scriptum ex∣tat, hominem adimaginem Dei cr••aelum esse, & creatum ad immortalitatem, & quod mors per peccatum in mundum introiret. Gen. 1. 26, 27. Sap. 2. 23. Rom. 5. 12.
• * 1.273

  §. 56.
• * 1.274

  Quod ad Te∣stimonium at∣tinet, quod ho∣minē creatum ad imaginem Dei pronunci∣at, sciendum est, imaginem Dei non sig∣nificare im∣mortalitatem: (quod hinc patet, quod Scripturaeo Tempore, quo homo aeternae morti subjectus erat, agnoscat in homine istam imaginem. Gen 9. 6. Jacob. 3. 9.) sed potestatem hominis, & dominium in omnes res a Deo conditas supra terram, designare: ut idem locus, in quo de hac eadem imagine agitur. Gen. 1. 26. aperte indicat.
• * 1.275

  §. 57.
• * 1.276

  §. 58.
• d 1.277

  Quid pure adtertium re∣spondebis? Apostolus to in loco non a∣git de immor∣talitate, verum de morte ipsa: mortalitas ••ero a norte multum dissidet; siquidem potest esse quis mortalis, nec tamen unquam mori.
• * 1.278

  §. 59.
• e 1.279

  Quae igitur est horum ver∣borum sen∣tentia: quod mors per pec∣catum introi∣erit in mun∣dum? Haec, quod Adamus ob peccatum, decreto & sententia Dei aeternae morti subjectiv•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉; ••••oinde, omnes homines, eo quod ex eo nati sunt, eidem aeternae morti subjaceant: re〈…〉〈…〉 Christi cum Adamo, quam Apostolus eodem capite, v. 12. adfinem, instituit, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉.
• * 1.280

  §. 60.
• * 1.281

  §. 61.
• f 1.282

  Nonne pec∣cato originis hoc liberum arbitrium vi∣riatum est? Peccatum ori∣ginis nullum prorsus est: Quare nec li∣berum arbitri∣um vitiare po∣tuit; nec enim e Scriptura id peceatum originis doceri potest, & lapsus Adaecum unus actus fuerit vim eam, que depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multominus vero posterorum ipsius passet, habere non potuit; ipsi vero in paenam irrogatum fa••••e, nec Scriptura docet, uti saperius exp••suimus; & Deum illum, qui omnis aequitatis fons est, incredibile pro••sus est, id facere vola••••se. Cap. 10. de lib. Arbit. q. 2.
• * 1.283

  §. 62.
• * 1.284

  §. 63.
• * 1.285

  §. 64.
• * 1.286

  §. 65.
• * 1.287

  §. 66.
• g 1.288

  Veruntamen esse peccatū o∣riginis illa Te∣stimonia doce∣re videntur: Gen. 6. ••. &c. Gen. 8. 21. Haec Testi∣monia agunt de peccat•• ve∣luntario: ex i•• ita{que} effici nequit pecca∣tum originis quod autem ad primum attinet, Meses id peccatum ejusmodi fuisse docet cujus causa paenituisse Deum quod homi∣nem creasset, & eum diluvi•• punire decrevisset; Qud certe de ••e〈…〉〈…〉 quod homini natura inesset, quale peccatum ••riginis censeat, aff••rmari nullo pac••o potest. In altero vero Testimoniodocet▪ peccatum hominis eam vim habiturum non esse, ut Deus mundum diluvio propter illua puniret: ••uod eti∣am peccato originis nullo mode convenit.
• * 1.289

  §. 67.
• * 1.290

  §. 68.
• * 1.291

  §. 69.
• * 1.292

  §. 70.
• * 1.293

  Quid vere ea de re sentis quod David ait Psal. 51. 7. Animadver∣tendum est▪ hic Davidem non agere de qui∣busvis hominibus, sed de se tantum, nec simpliciter, sed habita ratione lapsus sui: & eo loquendi modo usum esse, cujus exemplum apud eundem Davidem habes Psal. 58. 4. Quamobrem nec eo Te∣stimonio effici prorsus potest peccatum originis.
• * 1.294

  §. 71.
• * 1.295

  At Pausus ai•• Rom. 5. 12. in Adamo &c. Non habetur eo loco, in Adam omnes peccasse; verum in Grae∣co verba; sunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 passim inter∣pretes reddunt latin••, in quo, quaetamen red li possunt perparticular queniam aut quatenus, ute locis similibus, Rom. 8. 3. Phil. 3. 12. Heb. 2. 18. 2 Cor. 5. 4. videre ess. A••pa. e igitur ne{que} ex hoe loco extrui posse peccatum originis.
• * 1.296

  §. 72.
• * 1.297

  §. 1.
• * 1.298

  §. 2.
• * 1.299

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athanas. dial. 1. contra Maced.
• * 1.300

  §. 4.
• * 1.301

  §. 5.
• * 1.302

  §. 6.
• * 1.303

  §. 7.
• * 1.304

  §. 8.
• * 1.305

  Groti. An∣not. in 1. Cor. 8. 6.
• * 1.306

  Enjedin: ex∣plicat. loc. vet. & nov Testam. in locum.
• * 1.307

  §. 9.
• * 1.308

  Luk. 1. 35.
• * 1.309

  Joh. 1. 1, 2. Joh. 8. 57. Prov. 8. 22. &c.
• * 1.310

  §. 10.
• * 1.311

  Rom. 9. 5.
• * 1.312

  §. 11.
• * 1.313

  §. 12.
• * 1.314

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Graec. Schol.
• * 1.315

  §. 13.
• * 1.316

  Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur, Chri∣stus ••ta tem∣perat, ut om∣nem honorem referat ad pa∣trem, & remo∣veat illud cri∣men, quasi ho∣minem patri aequalem faci∣at. Grotius Annot. in Joh. cap. 5. v. 30.
• * 1.317

  §. 14.
• * 1.318

  §. 15.
• * 1.319

  §. 16.
• * 1.320

  §. 17.
• * 1.321

  §. 18.
• * 1.322

  Ergo dominus Jesus est purus homo?
• * 1.323

  Nullo pacto Et••∣nim est conceptus a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Mar••a Virgine, eoque ab ipsa con∣ceptione & ortu Filius Dei est, ut de eare Luk. 1. 35. legimus. Catech. Racov. de Persona Christi Cap. 1.
• * 1.324

  Jesum Chri∣stum docent esse h••minem illum, a spiritu Sancto conceptum, & natum ex beatâ Virgine, extra vel ante quem, nullum agnoscant esse (aut) fuisse re ipsa existentem unigenitam Dei Filiam. Por••o h••••e, Deum & Filium Dei unigenitum esse docent, tum ratione con••eptionis, a Spiritu Sancto, &c. Com∣pendiolum Doctrinae Eccles. Christianae &c. cap. 1.
• * 1.325

  Coceptus enim est de Spiritis Sancto, & na∣tus ex Virgine Maria. Obid genus concep∣tionis & nati∣vitatis modam Filius etiam Dei ab ipso Angelo vocatus fuit, & ita naturalis Dei Filius (quiae scilicet talis natus fuit) dici vere potest Solus, Jesus Christus a Deo patre suo abs{que} opera viri in lumen productus est. Smal. de vera divinit. Jes. Christ. cap. 3.
• * 1.326

  §. 1. 6
• * 1.327

  Dico igitur, Christum me∣rito dici posse Filium Dei naturalem, quia natus est Dei Filius; tametsi ex ip∣sa Dei sub∣stantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem illum sub alia ratione, quam per generatic••••m ex ipsius Dei substantia probant Angeli verba, Mariae matri ojus dicta Luk. 1. 35. Quia igin•• hemo ille Jesus Nazarenus, qui dictus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti operatione genera∣nus est in matris utere; propterea Filius Dei est vocatus. Faust. Soci••. Responsie. ad Weick. capit. 4. p. 202.
• * 1.328

  Sunt quidem plurima, dicta quae ostendunt Christum, pe∣culiari prorsus nee ulli alio communi rati∣one esse Dei Fi∣••ium: non ta∣ment hinc con∣cludere licet eum esse natu∣rali ratione fi∣lium: cum praeter hane, & illam communem, alia dari possit, & in Cstristo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singulari prorsus ratione, nec ulli communi, Dei Filius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi & effi∣cacia Spiritus Sancti, in utero virginis conceptus fuit & genitus? Schlicting ad Meisner. Artic. de Trinit. pag. 160.
• * 1.329

  §. 20.
• * 1.330

  §. 21.
• * 1.331

  §. 22.
• * 1.332

  §. 23.
• * 1.333

  §. 24.
• * 1.334

  Nee enim om∣ni tempore quo Christus Fili∣us Dei fuit, Deus etiā su∣it. Filiū enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem e∣tiam - referri, & ob ortum ipsum aliquem Dei Filium appellari posse nemo non in∣telligit. At deum (praeter unum illum deum) nemo esse potest, nisi propter similitudinem cum deo. Itaque tunc cum Christus deo similis factus esse•• per drvinas quae in ipso erant quali∣tates, summo jure eatenus dei Filius, qua deus, & vicissim eatenus deus, qua dei Filius: At ante obtentam illam cum deo similitudinem deus propriè dici non potuit. Smal. Respon. ad Smig∣lec. Cap: 17. P: 154.
• * 1.335

  §. 25.
• * 1.336

  §. 26.
• * 1.337

  Si quae fit vo∣cabuli Adop∣tivus signifi∣catio ex mente sacrarum lite∣rarum conside∣retur, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivum dei Filium. Quia enim adoptivi Filii ea est conditio & proprietas, ut talis non fit natus qualis factus est post adoptionem; certe quia Christus talis natura, vel in ipsa conceptione & nativitate non fuit, qualis postea suit, aelate accedente, sine injuria adoptivus dei Filius eo modo dici potest. Smalci. ad Smiglec. c. 20 p. 175.
• * 1.338

  §. 25.
• * 1.339

  Filium Dei unigenitum esse docent, tum propter Sanctificati∣onem, ac mis∣sionem in mundum, tum axaltationem ad dei dextram; adeout factum dominum & deum nostrum affirmant, Compendi. Relig. cap. 1. pag. 2.
• * 1.340

  Primus mo••us est, quia qu••∣tenus homo ex Spiritu dei Sancto concep∣tus est, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Virgine natus est: nec dubium mihi est, quin ob hune modū, deus etiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vecetur Pater domini nostri Jesu Christi. Secundus mo∣dus est, quia Iesus Christus ratione mune∣ris illius, quod a patre speciali manda••o impositum ei fuit, at Re•• Israelis esset, promissas ille per Prophetas, & praevisus ante secala Filias dei vocatur. Fertius modus est, quia a patre ex mortuis in vitam immortalem susci∣tatus, & veluti, exuter•• terrae, nullo, mediante matre, denu•• genit•••• est. & Quartus. modus est, quia Iesus Christus ex morte suscitatus, hares ex asse constitutus est in domo patris sui, ac proinde bo∣norum omnium caelestium, & patris sui ministrorum omnium ••ive Angelorum dominus. Episcop. Institu. Theolog. lib. 4. cap. 33, S. 2. p. 195.
• * 1.341

  §. 28.
• * 1.342

  Insti. Theol. lib. 4. Sect. 2. c. 33. p. 335.
• * 1.343

  §. 29.
• * 1.344

  §. 30.
• * 1.345

  §. 31.
• * 1.346

  §. 32.
• * 1.347

  §. 34.
• * 1.348

  §. 35. Grot. Annot. Joh. ••8.
• * 1.349

  §. 36.
• * 1.350

  §. 37.
• * 1.351

  §. 38.
• * 1.352

  §. 36. Sibi licere praedicans quicquid de•• licet; neque magis Sabbato adstringi. Grassa Calum∣nia. Grot. Annot. Joh. 5. 18.
• * 1.353

  Comparatie est sumpta a di scipulo sibi qui magistrum praeeum∣tem diligenter intuetur, ut imitari posser.
• * 1.354

  Zanchius de Tribus Elo. him. lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 151.
• * 1.355

  §. 40.
• * 1.356

  Notemus igi∣tur Christum Judaeos tan∣quā in verbo∣rūsuorū intel∣ligentia hallu∣cinatos mini∣me reprehen∣deniē se natu∣ralē Dei Filiū clare professum esse. Deinde, quod isto modo colligunt Christum se Deo aequalem facere recte fe••erun••; nec ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re ••anta nos errare non fuit passus. Cartwrightus Har. evan. in Loc.
• * 1.357

  §. 41.
• * 1.358

  §. 42.
• * 1.359

  §. 43. Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus. Si patris Potestati e∣ripi non pote∣runt, nec meae poterunt. Nam potestas mea a patre emanat, & quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me aut a patre custodiri. vid. Gen. 41. 25, 27.
• * 1.360

  §. 44.
• * 1.361

  §. 45.
• * 1.362

  §. 46.
• * 1.363

  §. 47.
• * 1.364

  §. 48.
• * 1.365

  §. 49.
• * 1.366

  §. 50.
• * 1.367

  §. 51.
• * 1.368

  §. 52.
• * 1.369

  Jesus Filius Dei multis mo∣dis dicitur. Maxime popula riter, ideo quod in regnum ae Deo evectus est; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad regnum pervenit, Christo aptantur. Act. 13. 33. & ad Haebreos 1. 5. Haee autem Filii, sive regia dignitas Jesu praedestinabatur & praefigura∣batur tum cum mortalem agens vitam magnae illa signae & prodigia ederet, quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 voce denotan∣tur, saepe & singularites 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ut Mar. 6. 5. & 9. 39. Luk. 4. 36. v. 17. 6. 19. 8. 46. 9. 1. Act. 13. 12. Haec signa edebat Iesus, per spiritum illum sanctitatis, id est, vim divinam, per quam ab initio conceptionis sanctifica∣tus fuerat. Luk. 1. 35. Mark. 28. Joh. 9. 36. Ostenditur ergo Iesus nobilis ex maternae parte, utpote ex rege terreno ortus; sed nobilior ex paternae parte, quippe a Deo factus Rex caelestis post Resurrectionem. Grot. Annot. in Rom. 1. vers. 3, 4.
• * 1.370

  §. 53.
• * 1.371

  §. 54.
• * 1.372

  §. 55.
• * 1.373

  §. 56.
• * 1.374

  §. 57.
• * 1.375

  Praelect. cap. 8, 9, 10.
• * 1.376

  §. 58.
• * 1.377

  §. 59.
• * 1.378

  §. 60.
• * 1.379

  §. 61.
• * 1.380

  §. 62.
• * 1.381

  §. 63.
• * 1.382

  §. 64.
• * 1.383

  §. 65.
• * 1.384

  §. 66.
• * 1.385

  Consta•• igitur (ut ad propo∣situm rever∣tamur,) Chri∣stum anto re∣surrectionem Dei Filium plene & perfecte non fuisse: cum illi & immortalitatis & absoluti dominii cum deo similitudo deesset. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekum. pag. 225.
• * 1.386

  §. 66.
• * 1.387

  §. 67.
• * 1.388

  §. 68.
• * 1.389

  §. 69.
• * 1.390

  §. 70.
• * 1.391

  §. 71.
• * 1.392

  §. 72.
• * 1.393

  §. 73.
• * 1.394

  §. 74. Ego fili hodie te genui, id est regem te feci: hoc in Christo im∣pletum, cum ei data omnis potestas in Coe∣lo & in terra. Math. 28. 18. &c. Grot. in Locum.
• * 1.395

  So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉-〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉∣〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. qui genitus est prior omni creaturâ, vel ante omnem creaturam, forso 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifies cō∣paratively. Arist: Auibus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ioh: 1. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. e.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. & 1 Ioh: 4. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. e.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His generati∣on was before the creation, indeed eter∣nall. Tertulli∣an saith so too. Lib. de Trinitate, Quomodo pri∣mogenitus esse potuit, nisi quia secundum di∣vinitatem ante omnem creatu∣ram ex Deo Patre sermo processit.
• * 1.396

  §. 79.
• * 1.397

  §. 80.
• * 1.398

  Ide•• ••utem nusquam Scrip∣ture est, quòd Deus paten majer••fit, Spiritu, Sancto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo patre: quia non sie assumpta est creatura in qua appareret S. S. sicut assumptus est Filius. hominis, in qua forma ips••••s Verbi D••i persona praesent••retur. August. lib. 1. de Trinit. cap. ••.
• * 1.399

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Proclus. Episcop. Constan. Epist. ad Armenios.
• * 1.400

  §. 83.
• * 1.401

  §. 84.
• * 1.402

  §. 85.
• * 1.403

  Hic primum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vox in natura∣tione Evangeliea reperitur ab Apostolis Jesu tributa, p••st∣quim seilicet sun Resurrectio∣ne pro•••••• erat se esse, a quo •• ita & quidera aeterna, expectari deberet. Mansit de••nde ille mos in Ecclesia, ut apparet ••n rautum in Scriptis Apo∣siolicis, ut Rom. 9. 5. &c ve∣terum Christianorum ut vide•••• est apu•• Justimum A••••rty••em contra Triphenem, sed & in P••••••ad Trajan••n•• Epis••ola, ••••i ait Christianos Christo, ut De••, carmi••a ••ccinisse. Grot. in locu••••.
• * 1.404

  §. 86.
• * 1.405

  §. 87.
• * 1.406

  §. 88.
• * 1.407

  §. 1.
• * 1.408

  §. 2.
• * 1.409

  Interpres Lect. Prefat. ad Catech. Raco.
• * 1.410

  §. 3.
• * 1.411

  §. 4.
• * 1.412

  §. 5.
• a 1.413

  Rogatum te velim, ut ••i••i ea de Jesu Christo exponas, quae me scire oporteat?
• * 1.414

  Sciondum tibi est, quaedam ad essentiam Jesu Christi, quaedam ad illius munus re∣ferri, quae te scire oportet.
• * 1.415

  Quaenam ea sunt, quae ad personam ipsius referuntur••
• * 1.416

  Id selum, quod natura sit hom•• verus, quemadmodum ea de re crebro Scripturae sa∣crae testantur: inter alias 1 Tim. 2. 5. & 1 Cor. 15. 21 qualemolim Deus per Prophe∣tas promiserat, & qualem eti∣am esse testatur fidei Symbolum, quod vulgo Apostolicum vocant, quod nobiscum universi Christiani amplectuntur.
• * 1.417

  §. 6.
• * 1.418

  §. 7.
• * 1.419

  Ergo Dominus Iesus est purus ho∣mo?
• * 1.420

  Nullo pacto: etenim est conceptus e Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, co••; ab ipsa conceptione & ortu Filius Dei est, ut ea de re Luk. 1. 35. legimus ubi Angelus Ma••iam ita alloquitur: Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, &c. Ʋt alias causas non afferam, quas post modum in Iesu Christi persona deprehen∣des, quae evidentissime ostendunt, domi∣num Iesum pro puro homine nullo modo accipi posse.
• * 1.421

  §. 8.
• c 1.422

  Dixeras paulo superius Dominum Jesum natura esse hominem, an idem habet naturam divinam?
• * 1.423

  Nequaquam: nam id non solum rationi sanae, verum etiā Divinis literis repugnat.
• * 1.424

  §. 9.
• d 1.425

  Cedo quî rationi sanae repugnat?

  Primo, ad eum modum, quod duae substantiae, proprie∣tatibus adversae, coire in u∣nam personam nequeant, ut sunt, mortalem & immorta∣lem esse, principium habere, & principio carere: mutabilem & immutabilem existere.
• * 1.426

  Deinde, quod duae natu••a•••• personam singulae constituen∣tes, in unam personam conve∣nire itidem nequeant; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, at{que} ita duos Chri∣stos existere, quem unum esse, & unam ipsius personā omnes citra omnem controversiam agnoscunt.
• * 1.427

  §. 10.
• * 1.428

  §. 11.
• * 1.429

  §. 12.
• * 1.430

  §. 13.
• e 1.431

  Cum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina & humana constare, quemadmodum homo ex animo & corpore constat, quid illis respondendum?
• * 1.432

  Permagnum hic esse discrimen: illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, ut Christus fit Deus & homo; anima vero & corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut nec anima, nec corpus ipse homo sit, nec enim anima, nec corpus sigillatim personam constituunt. At ut natura divi∣na per se constituit personam, ita hu∣mana constituat perse, necesse est.
• f 1.433

  Doce etiam, qui id repugn•• Scripturae, Christum haber•• divinam uaturam.

  Primum, eâ ratione, quod Scriptura nobis unum tan∣tum naturâ Deum proponat, quem superius demonstravi∣mus esse Christi patrem. Se∣cundo, cadem Scriptura te∣statur, JesumChristum natu∣râ esse hominem, ut superius ostensum est; quo ipso, illi na∣turam adimit divinam. Ter∣tio, quod quicquid divinum Christus habeat, Scriptura e∣um patris dono habere aperté doceat, Math. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 9. 1 Cor. 15. 27. Iohn. 5. 19. 10. 25. Deni{que} cum ea∣dem Scriptura atertiss••mé offendat, Jesum Christum om∣nia suafacta divina non sibi, nec alicui naturae divinae su••; sed patri suo vindicare solitum fuisse, planum facit, cam divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine omni causâ suturam fuisse.
• * 1.434

  §. 15.
• * 1.435

  § 16.
• g 1.436

  Atqui illi e Scripturis illam divinam in Christo naturam asserere conantur?

  Conantur quidem va••iis modis; id{que} dum student, aut e Scripturis quibusdam evin∣cere, quae in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis, quae in Scrip∣turis habentur, perperam ra∣tiocinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt.
• * 1.437

  §. 17.
• h 1.438

  Quae vero sunt illa, quae illi de Christo e Scripturis evincere laborant quae illic non habentur?

  Est illius, ut loquuntur, praeaeterni∣tas, quam duplici Scripturarum gene∣re approbare nituntur. Primum ejus∣modi est, in quo praeaeternitatem hane expressam putant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, eam tamen colli∣gi arbitrantur.
• * 1.439

  §. 18.
• * 1.440

  i Quaenam sunt Testimonia Scriptu∣rae, quae videntur ipsis eam praeaeterni∣tatem exprimero?

  Sunt ea, in quibus Scriptura testa∣tur de Christo, ipsum fuisse in princi pio, fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante Abra. hamum, Io. 1. 1. Io. 6. 62. Io. 8. 58.
• * 1.441

  §. 19.
• * 1.442

  k Quid vero ad primum respon∣des?

  In loco citato nihil habetur, de ista praeaeternitate, cum hic principii men∣tio fiat, quod praeaeternitati opponi∣tur. Principii vero vox in Scripturis fere semper ad subjectam refertur materiam, ut videre est, Dan. 8. 1. Joh. 15. 27. 16. 4. Act. 11. 15. cum igitur hic subjecta sit materia Evan∣gelium, cujus descriptionem suscepit Joannes, sine dubio per vocem hane principii, p••incipium Evangelii Jo•• annes intellexit.
• * 1.443

  Trenaeus ad haeres. lib: 3. c. 11.

  Epiphan. lib. 1. Tom: 2. hae∣res: 27, 28, 30, &c. lib: 2. Tom. 2. Hae∣res. 69.

  Theodoret. E∣pitom: Haeret: lib. 2.

  Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. c. 27. Causam post alios hanc scribendi praecipuam tradunt omnes (veteres) ut veneno in Ecclesiam jam tum sparso, autoritate sua, quae apud omnes Christianum nomen prosi∣tentes, non poterat non esse maxima, medicinā faceret. Grot. Praefat. ad Annotat. in Evang Joan.
• * 1.444

  §. 20.
• * 1.445

  Novum Testa∣mentum divi∣nitus oblatum aperio. aliud agenti exhibet se mihi adspe∣tu primo augu∣stissimum illud caput Johannis Evangelistae & Apostoli. In principio erat verbum. Lego partem capitis, & ita commoveor legens, ut repente divinitatem Argumenti, & scripti majestatem, autoritatem{que} sen∣serim, longo intervallo omnibus eloquentiae humanae viribus praeeuntem. Horrebat corpus: stupebat animus, & totum illum diem sic afficiebar, ut qui essem, ipse mihi incertus viderer esse. Francise. Junius.
• * 1.446

  §. 21.
• * 1.447

  Joh. 17. 5.
• * 1.448

  §. 22.
• b 1.449

  Expone igitur mihi, quibus te∣stimoniis approbare contendunt, Christum coelum & terram creasse?

  Iis, ubi scriptum extat, quod per eum omnia facta sint, & sine eo factū sit nihil, quod factū sit, Joh: 1. 3. & iterum, mundus per ipsū fa∣ctus est, v. 10. & rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita &c. Col. 1. 16. Et quod Deus per eum saecul•• fecerit, Heb. 1. 2. deni{que} & ex eo, tu in principio, &c. v. 10, 11, 12.

  Qui vero ad primum Testimo∣nium respondes?

  Primum, non habetur in prim•• testimonio creata sunt, verúm fa∣cta sunt. Deinde, ait Joannes, facta esse per eum; qui mod••s lo∣quendi, non eum, qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam se∣cundam aut mediam exprimit. Deni{que} vox omnia non pro omni∣bus prorsus re••us hic sumitur, sed ad subjectam materiam restringi∣tur omnino, quod frequentissimum est in libris divinis, praesertim No∣vi Testamenti, cujus rei exem∣plum singulare extat, 2 Cor. 5. 17. in quo habetur sermo de re, hui••, de qua Johannes tractat, ad∣modum simili, ubi dicitur, omnia nova facta esse; cum certum sit multa extare, quae nova facta non sunt. Cum vero subjecta apud Io∣annem materia sit Evangelium, apparet vocem omnia, de iis om∣nibus, quae quoquo modo ad Evan∣gelium pertinent, accipi debere.

  Cur vero addidit loaennes, quod sine eo factum est nihil, quod fa∣ctum est?

  Add••dit haec Ioannes, ut eo me∣bius illustraret illa superiora, om∣nia per ipsum facta sunt, quae eam vim habere videntur, per so∣lum Verbum vel Filium Dei om∣nia illa facta esse, licet ejus gene∣ris quaedam, & quidem magni momenti, non per ipsum, verum per Apostolos facta fuerint: ut est vocatio Gentium, & legalium ce∣remoniarum abolitio; licet enim ••aec originem ab ipsis sermonibus & operibus Domini Iesu traxe∣rint, ad effectum tamen non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, sed per ipsius Apostolos, non tamen sine ipso. Apostoli enim omnia nomine, & authoritate ipsius administrarunt, ut etiam ipse Dominus ait, sine me nihil facere po∣testis. Joan. 15. 5.
• * 1.450

  §. 24.
• * 1.451

  §. 25.
• * 1.452

  §. 26.
• * 1.453

  §. 27.
• * 1.454

  §. 28.
• * 1.455

  §. 29.
• m 1.456

  Quid vero respondes ad se∣cundum?

  Primum, quod hic non scribat Johannes, mundum esse creatum, sed factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui mediam cau••am designat, ait enim, mundum per eum factum: Deni{que} haec vox mundus, quemadmodum & aliae, quae prorsus idem in Scripturis valent, non solum Caelum & ter∣ram donotat, verum praeter alias significationes, vel genus huma∣num designat, ut locus praesens o∣stendit, ubi ait, In mundo erat, & mundus eum non agnovit, 1 Ioh. 1. 10. & mundus eum secu∣tus est, Ioh. 12. 19. aut etiam fu∣turam immortalitatem, ut apparet Heb. 1. 6. ubi ait, & cúm iterum introducit primogenitum in mun∣dum, ait, & adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei; quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet e cap. 2. ejusdem E∣pistolae, ubi ait, etenim non Ange∣lis subjecit mundum futurum, de quo loquimur. At nus••uam de eo locutus fuerat, nisi v. 6. cap. 1. praeterea, habes locum cap: 10. v. 5. ubi de Christo loquens, ait, propte∣rea ingrediens in mundum, ait; hostiam & ob lationem noluisti, verum corpus adaptasti mihi; ubi cum palam sit cum loqui de mun∣do, in quem ingressus Iesus, sa∣cerdos noster factus est, (ut cir∣cumstantiae omnes demonstrant) apparet, non de praesenti, sed de futuro mundo agi, quandoquidem Cap. 8. v. 4, de Christo dixerat, si in terris esset, ne sacerdos ••uidem esset.
• * 1.457

  §. 30.
• n 1.458

  Quid veró per haec, Mundu•• per cum factus est, intelligis?

  Duplex eorum sensus dari po∣test: prior, quod genus humanum per Christum reformatum, & quas•• denuó factum sit, eó quód ille ge∣neri humano, quod perierat, & ae∣ternae morti subjectum erat, vitane attulit, eam{que} sempiternam (quod etiam mundo Joannes exprobat, qui per Christum ab interitu vin∣dicatus, eum non agnoverit, sed spreverit, & rejecerit) Is enim mos Hebraici sermonis, quod in e∣jusmodi loquendi modis, verba fa∣cere, creare, idem valeant, quod denuo facere, & denuo creare, idq, propterea, quod verbis, quae composita vocant, ea lingua careat-Posterior vero sensus est, quod illa immortalitas, quam expectamus per Christum, quantum ad nos, facta sit: quemadmodum eadem futurum saeculum, habitâ ratio∣ne nostri, vocatur, licet jam Chri∣sto & Angelis sit praesens.
• * 1.459

  §. 31.
• * 1.460

  o E quibus vero testimoniis Scripturae demonstrare conan∣tur, Christum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse?

  Ex iis, ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur, verbum ca∣ro factum esse, Jo. 1. 14. & Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 16▪ &c.

  Quomodo ad primum re∣spondes?

  Eâ ratione, quod in eo Te∣stimonio non habeatur Deum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum es∣se, aut quod natura divina as∣sumpserit humanam. Aliude∣nim est, verbum caro fa∣ctum est, aliud, Deus incar∣natus est, (ut loquuntur) ve•• natura divina assumpserit hu∣manam. Praeterea, haec verba, verbum caro factum est, vel po∣tius sermo caro factus est, pos∣sunt, & debent ita reddi, ser∣mo caro fuit. Posse ita reddi, e testimoniis, in quibus voae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (quae hic per factum est translata est) verbo fuit reddita invenitur, apparet: ut in codem Cap. v. 6. & Luk. 24. 19. fuit, homo missus •• Deo, &c. Et, Qui fuit vir, Propheta, &c. Debete vero reddi per verbum fuit, ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter loquutus fuisset-sermonem carnem factum es∣se, id est, ut adversarii interpretantur, naturam divinam assumpsisse humanam, postquam ea jam de illo sermone exposuisset, quae nativitatem hominis Jesu Christi subsecuta sunt; ut sunt haec: Joan∣nem Baptistam de illo testa∣tum esse; illum in mundo fu∣isse, a suis non fuisse receptum; quod iis, a quibus receptus fuisset, potestatem dederit, ut filii Dei fierent.
• * 1.461

  §. 32.
• * 1.462

  §. 33.
• * 1.463

  P Qua ratione illud intelli∣gendum est, Sermonem carnem fuisse.
• * 1.464

  Quod is, per quem Deus vo∣luntatem suam omnem perfe∣cté exposuisset, & propterea a Joanne Sermo appellatus fu∣isset, homo fuerit, omnibus miseriis, & afflictionibus, ac morti deni{que} subjectus. Etenim vocem caro eo sensu scriptura usurpat, ut ex iis locis perspi∣cuum est; ubi Deus loquitur: non contendet spiritus meus cum homine in aternum, quia caro est, Gen. 6. 3. Et Petrus, Om∣nis caro ut foenum, 1 Pet. 1. 24.
• * 1.465

  §. 34.
• * 1.466

  §. 35.
• * 1.467

  §. 36.
• g 1.468

  Adsecundum autem quid Respondes?

  Ne{que} hic ullam praeaeternita∣tis mentionem factam expres∣se, nam hoc in loco filium ho∣minis, id est, hominem in coe∣lis fuisse testatur Scriptura, quem citra ullam controversi∣am praeaeternum non extitisse certum est.
• r 1.469

  Ʋbi vero Scriptura de Christo ait, quod de Caelo des∣cendit, a patre exivit, & in mun••um venit. Joh. 3. 13. 10. 36. 16. 28. 17. 18. quid ad haec respondes?

  Ex iis non probari divinam naturam hic apparere, quod primi Testimonii verba, des∣cendit de Caelo, possint figu∣rate accipi, quemadmodum Jac. 1. v. 17. Omne datum bonum & donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a parte lumi∣num. & Apoc. 21. v. 2, 10. vidi civitatem sanctam, Hie∣rusalem novam, descendentem de Caelo a Deo, &c. Quod si pro∣prie accipi debeant, quod nos perlibenter admittimus, appa∣ret, non de alio illa dicta, quam de filio hominis, qui cum per∣sonam humanam necessario habeat, Deus naturâ esse non potest. Porro, quod Scripturae testatur de Christo, quod Pater eum miserit in mundum, idem de Apostolis Christi le∣gimus in iisdem verbis citatis superius. Quemadmodum me misisti in mundum, & ego mi∣si eos in mundum Joh. 17. 18. Ea vero verba, quod Christus a patre exlerit, idem valent, quod de Caelc descendit. Veni∣re vero in mundum, id ejus∣modi est, quod Scriptura post nativitatem Christi extitisse ostendit; Joh. 18. v. 37. ubi ipse Dominus ait; Ego in hoc natus sum, & in mundum ve∣ni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Et 1 Joh. 4. 1. Scriptum est, multos falsos Prophetas exiissein mundum. Quare ex ejusmodi loquendi modis natu∣ra divina in Christo probari non potest. In omnibus vero his locutionibus, quam divinum munc∣ris Christi principium fuerit, duntaxat describitur.
• * 1.470

  §. 38.
• * 1.471

  §. 39.
• s 1.472

  Hoc in loco non solum non exprimitur praeaeternitas, cum aliud sit; ante Abrahamian fu∣isse, aliud, praeaeternum; verum ne hoc quidem expressum est, ip∣sum ante Mariam virginem fu∣isse. Et enim ea verba aliter le∣gi posse (nimirum hac ratione, Amen, Amen, dieo vobis, pri∣usquam Abraham fiat, ego sum) apparet ex iis locis apud eundem Evangelistam, ubi similis & ea∣dem graeca locutio habetur, cap: 13. 19. & modo dico vobis, pri∣usquam fiat, ut cum factum fu∣erit credatis. Et cap. 14. 29. & nunc dixi vobis priusquam fiat, &c. Quae vero ejus sen∣tentia foret lectionis? Admo∣dum egregia: etenim admonet Christus Judaeos, qui eum in sermone capere volebant, ut dum tempus haberent, crederent ip∣sum esse mundi lucem, antequam divina gratia, quam Christus iis offerebat, ab iis tolleretur, & ad Gentes transferretur. Quod ve∣ro ea verba, ego sum, sint ad e∣um modum supplenda; ac si ipse subjecisset iis, ego sum lux mun∣di, superius e principio ejusorati∣onis, ••. 12. constat & hinc, quod Christus bis seipsum iisdem ver∣bis, Ego sum, lucem mundi vo∣caverit, v 24, 28. Ea vero ver∣ba, priusquam Abraham fiat, id significare quod diximus, e no∣tatione nominis Abraham de∣prehendi potest; constat inter om∣nes Abrahamum notare Patrem multarum Gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factus prius A∣braham, quam Dei gratia, in Christo manifestata, in multas gentes redundaret, quippe quod Abra∣hamus unius tantum gentis antea Pater fuerit, apparet sententiam horum verborum, quam attuli∣mus, esse ipsissimam.
• * 1.473

  Fateor me per omnem vi∣tam meam non magis contor∣tam scripturae interpretatio∣nem audivisse; ideo{que} eam pe∣nitus improbo: Eras: Joan. Cum primum fatendi ver∣bum in tuis verbis animad∣verti, spera∣bam te potius nullam in tuae vita scripturae interpretatio∣nem audi∣visse, quae hac sit aut acutior aut verior; quae{que} magis divinum quid saptat, & a Deo ipso patefactam fuisse praese ferat. Ego quidem certe non leves conjecturas habeo, illum, qui primus aetate nostra eam in lucem pertulit (hic autem is fuit, qui primus quo{que} sententiam de Christi origine, quam ego constanter de∣fendo renovavit) precibus multis ab ipso Christo impetrasse. Hoc profecto affirmare ausim, cum Deus illi viro permulta, aliis prorsus tunc temporis incognita, patefecerit, vix quidquam inter illa omnia esse quod interpretatione hac divinius videri queat. Socin: disput. cum Eras. Johan. arg. 4. p. 67.
• * 1.474

  §. 40.
• * 1.475

  §. 41.
• * 1.476

  §. 42.
• * 1.477

  §. 43.
• * 1.478

  §. 44.
• * 1.479

  §. 1.
• * 1.480

  §. 2.
• * 1.481

  Quae vero sunt Testimonia Scripturae, in quibus putant, non exprimi quidem prae-aeter∣nitatem Christi, ex iis tamen effici posse?

  Ea quae videntur Domino Ie∣su quasdam res attribuere ab aeterno; quasdam vero tempore certo & definito.
• * 1.482

  §. 3.
• * 1.483

  Quaenam sunt Testimonia, quae Domino Iesu ab aeterno res quasdam attribuere viden∣tur?

  Sunt ea, ex quibus conan∣tur exstruere Christum ab ae∣terno ex essentia patris geni∣tum.
• * 1.484

  Ex quibus vero locis exstrue∣re conantur, Christum ab aeter∣no ex essentia Patris genitum?

  Ex his potissimum. Mich. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7. & 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.
• * 1.485

  §. 4.
• * 1.486

  Qui vero ad haec Testimo∣nia respondendum est?

  Antequam ad singula Te∣stimonia respondeam, sciendum est, eam ex essentia Patris ge∣nerationem esse impossibilem. Nam si Christus ex essentia Patris genitus fuisset, aut partem essentiae sumpsisset, aut totam. Essentiae partem su∣mere non potuit, eo quod sit impartibilis divina essentia; ne{que} totam, cum sit una numero, ac proinde incommunicabilis.
• * 1.487

  Nisi Scriptu∣ra dixisset, non licuisset dicere, sed ex qua scriptum est dici potest. Rabb. Ruben. apud Galat. lib. 3.
• * 1.488

  §. 5.
• * 1.489

  Qui tamen ad primum Scripturae Testimonium re∣spondendum est?

  Id Testimonium de genera∣tione ex essentia Patris nihil prorsus habet; generationem vero prae-aeternam nulla probat ratione, hic enim mentio sit initii & dierum, quae in aeter∣nitate locum non habent, & verba haec, quae in vulgata le∣guntur, a diebus aeternitatis, in Haebraeo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vero seculi idem quod dies antiqui notant, ut Es. 63. 9. & 11. Mal. 3. 4. Sententia vero loci hujus est, Christum originem nativitatis suae ab ipso principio & annis antiquis ducturum, id est, ab eo tempore, quo Deus in popu∣lo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui & Bethlehemita fuit, & Autor stirpis, & familiae Christi.
• * 1.490

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.491

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.492

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 latere, abscondere, oc∣cultare. 2 Chr. 9. 2. Levit. 4. 13. in Niphal latuit, abscondi tus, occultatus fuit: in Hiphil abscondit, cela∣vit, occultavit. inde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Virgo, quia vi∣ro occulta. Gen. 24. 43.
• * 1.493

  §. 6.
• * 1.494

  Rom. 1. 3.
• * 1.495

  §. 7.
• * 1.496

  §. 8.
• * 1.497

  §. 9.
• * 1.498

  §. 10.
• * 1.499

  Ad secundum vero quid?

  Ne{que} in ea de generaetione ex essentia Patris, nec de ge∣neratione praeaeterna prorsus quicquam haberi: etenim vox hodie, cum certum tempus de∣signet, prae-aeternitatem deno∣tare non potest. Quod vero De∣us eum genuerit, non evincit eum ex essentia ejus genitum: id quod patet ex eo, quod haec eadem verba, ego hodie genui te, primo sensu de Davide di∣cantur, quem constat ne{que} ab aeterno, nec ex essentia Dei ge∣nitum. Deinde, quod Paulus Apostolus cadem verba ad ap∣probandam Christi resurrectio∣nem afferat. Act. 13. 33. & Autor ad Hebraeos ad glorifi∣cationem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. 1 5. & 5. 5. Deni{que} ex ea re, quod constet Deum ali∣ter quam ex essentia generare, dum a Deo genitos credentes Scriptura pronunciat, ut videre est. Ioh. 1. 13. 1 Joh. 3. 9. Jac. 1. 18.
• * 1.500

  §. 11.
• * 1.501

  §. 12.
• * 1.502

  Sensus primus & apertus ad Davidem per∣tinet; mysti∣eus & abstrusi∣or ad Messiam: quo modo ••umpsere Apost. Annot. in v. 1.
• * 1.503

  §. 13.
• * 1.504

  §. 14.
• * 1.505

  Ad quartum vero quid? Ʋt rem melius accipias, sci∣to eos ex hoc loco ad eum mo∣dum argumentari: Sapientia Dei ab aeterno est genita: Chri∣stus est Dei sapientia: ergo ab aeterno est genitus. 1 Cor. 1. 24. Id argumentum firmum non esse hinc patet; primum, quod Solomon agat de sapientia simpliciter, & absolutè consi∣derata, sine additione vocis Dei: Paulus vero non simpli∣citer & absolutè; sed cum ad∣ditione, nempe, Dei. Deinde, Solomen agit de sapientia, quae ne{que} est persona, nec esse potest, ut••e variis effectis, quae huic sapientiae attribuit, appa∣ret, & hoc 7, 8, 9. cap. ex quibus sunt ea, per me Reges regnant, & Principes justa decernunt: & initi•• cap. 9. introducit sapientiam omnes ad se invitantem, & mittentem virgines suas. Paulus vero a∣git de sapientia, quae persona est. Tertio, verba haec, quae sunt reddita ab aeterno, in Haebraeo extant a seculo: aliud vero esse ab aeterno, aliud a seculo, indi∣cant loci Isa. 64. 4. Jer. 2. 20. Luk. 1. 70. & alii permalti similes.
• * 1.506

  §. 15.
• * 1.507

  §. 16.
• * 1.508

  §. 17.
• * 1.509

  §. 18.
• * 1.510

  §. 19.
• * 1.511

  Mercer in Loc. v. 22.
• * 1.512

  §. 20.
• * 1.513

  §. 21.
• * 1.514

  Quid ad hoc respondes? Ne{que} hinc naturam divinam probari. Posse enim aliquem glo∣riam habere antequam mundus ••ieret apud Patrem, nec tamen hinc effici eum esse Deum, appa∣paret 2 Tim. 1. 9. ubi ait A∣postolus de credentibus, illis datam fuisse gratiam, ante tem∣pora secularia. Praeterea, hic scriptum est, Jesum rogare hanc gloriam, quod naturae Divinae prorsus repugnat. Loci vero sen∣pentia est: Christum rogare De∣um, ut ei gloriam reipsa det, quam habuerit apud Deum in ipsius de creto antequam mundus fieret.
• * 1.515

  §. 22.
• * 1.516

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.517

  §. 23.
• * 1.518

  §. 24.
• * 1.519

  §. 25.
• * 1.520

  Quid ad hoc respondes?

  Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici. Nam hic Spiritus, qui in Prophetis erat, Christi dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fuerit, sed quod ea quae Christi fue∣runt, praenunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, praenuncians illas in Christum passiones, & post haec glorias. Quem loquendi modum etiam, 1 Joan. 4. 6. habes. Hinc cognoscimus Spiritum veritatis, & Spiri∣tum erroris, ubi non propterea Spiritus veritatis & erroris Spiritus dicitur, quod veri∣tas & error, tanquam personae, eum Spiritum conferant; verum eo quod Spiritus veritatis loqua∣tur quae veritatis sunt, & Spiritus erroris quae sunt erroris.
• * 1.521

  §. 26.
• * 1.522

  §. 1.
• * 1.523

  §. 2.
• * 1.524

  Quaenam ea loca Scriptu∣rae quae videntur Christo quae∣dam tempore certo & defini∣to attribuere?

  Ea sunt duplicia; quorum alia nomina, alia facta respiciunt, quae Christ•• a Scriptura attri∣bui opinantur.
• * 1.525

  Quaenam sunt quae Christi nomina respiciunt?

  Ea, ubi arbitrantur Jesum a Scriptura vocari Jehovam: Dominum exercituum, Deum verum, solum verum, Deum magnum, dominum Deum omnipotentem, qui fuit, qui est, & qui venturus est; Deum qui acquisivit proprio sanguine Ecclesiam; Deum qui animem posuit pro no∣bis. Jerem. 23. 6. Zac. 2. 8. 1 Joan. 5. 20. Jud. 4. Tit. 2. 13. Apoc. 1. 8. 4. 8. Act. 20. 28. 1 Joan. 3. 16.
• * 1.526

  §. 4.
• * 1.527

  §. 5.
• * 1.528

  §. 6.
• * 1.529

  Quid vero tu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad pri∣mum?

  Primum, quod ex eo confici non possit necessario nomen Je∣hovae Christo attribui. E•• enim verba; & hoc est nomen ejus, quo vocabunt eum, Jehovah justitia nostra, referri possunt ad Israelem, de quo paulo superius eodem versu loquitur: In diebus ejus servibitur Juda, & Isra∣el habitabit secure, & hoc est nomen ejus, &c. Ʋt e loco si∣mili conspici potest apud eundem Prophetam cap. 33. v. 15, 16. ubi ait, in diebus illis, & in illo tempore, faciam ut existat Davidi surculus justitiae, & fa∣ciet judicium & justitiā in ter∣ra. In diebus illis servabitur Iu∣da & Jerusalē habitabit securè, & hoc (supple nomen) quo vo∣cabunt eam, Jehovah justitiae nostra. Etenim in Haebraeo ex∣presse legitur, vocabunt eam, quam vocem posteriorem ad Hierusalem referri prorsus est necesse; & hoc quidem loco Is∣raeli, qui in priori loco positus est, respondet. Videtur igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in pri∣ori etiam loco, haec verba, voca∣bunt eum, ad Israelem referan∣tur. At licet concedamus, no∣men Jehovae ad Christum posse referri, ex altero tamen Testi∣monio apparet asseri non posse, Iehovam simpliciter Christum vocari: ne{que} ex eo sequi, Chri∣stum reipsâ esse Iehovam; sive igitur de Christo, sive de Israe∣le postrema verba in Testimonia Hieremiae accipiantur, sententia ipsorum est, tum Iehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum. Etenim illo tempore, cum Christus appariturus esset, Deus id in Israele facturus erat.
• * 1.530

  §. 7.
• * 1.531

  §. 8.
• * 1.532

  §. 9.
• * 1.533

  §. 10.
• * 1.534

  §. 11.
• * 1.535

  Socin. de seruit p. 3. cap. 4. Franz. de Sa∣crif. p. 786.
• * 1.536

  §. 12.
• * 1.537

  §. 13.
• * 1.538

  §. 14.
• * 1.539

  §. 15.
• * 1.540

  §. 16.
• * 1.541

  Ad secundum vero quid respondes?

  Locum Zechariae ad hunc modum citant hoc dicit Do∣minus Exerci••uum; Post glo∣riam misit me ad gentes, quae vos spoliarunt: qui enim vos tangit, tangit pupillam oculi mei, &c. Quae ad Christum torquent, quod hic ut arbi∣trantur, dicatur, dominum exercituum missum esse a Do∣mino exercituum. Verum ea hic non habentur; quod hinc perspicuum est, quod ea verba, post gloriam misit me &c. sunt ab ali•• prolata, nempe ab Angelo, qui cum Zecha∣ria & alio Angelo colloque∣batur, ut idem eodem capite paulo ante planum est, a versu quarto initio facto, ubi is Angelus loquens introdu∣citur. Quod idem ea ex re videre est, quod ea quae citant verba, hoc dicit Dominus ex∣ereituum, in Haebraeo legantur sic dicit Dominus exercituum item illa, tangit pupillam oculi mei, legantur pupillam oculi ejus, quae non ad Dominum exerci∣tuum, sed ad Legatum referri necesse est.
• * 1.542

  §. 17.
• * 1.543

  §. 18.
• * 1.544

  §. 19.
• * 1.545

  Bereschith Rab. ad gen. 25. 28.
• * 1.546

  §. 20.
• * 1.547

  Quid respondes ad tertium?

  In hoc Testimonio, scimus filium Dei venisse &c. Haec verba, hic est verus deus, ne∣go referri ad dei Filium; non quodnegē Christum esse verum deum; sed quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat: Etenim hic agitur non solum de vero deo; sed de illo uno vero deo, ut articulus in Graeco additus indicat. Chri∣stus vero etsii verus deus sit, non est tamen ille ex se unus deus, qui per se & per sectissi∣ma ratione deus est, eum is deus tantū sit Pater. Nec vero quicquam juvat Adversarios qui propterea haec ad Christum referri volunt, quod verba, Hic est verus deus, & Chri∣sti mentio proxime anteces∣serit. Etenim pronomina re∣lativa, ut hic & similia, non semper ad proxime anteceden∣tia, verum saepenumero ad id, de quo potissimum sermo est, referuntur, ut patet ex his locis, Act. 7. 19, 20. & Act. 10. 6. Joh. 2. 7. e quibus locis apparet, pronomen relativum hic non ad proxime antecedentes personas, sed ad remotiores referri.
• * 1.548

  §. 21.
• * 1.549

  §. 22.
• * 1.550

  §. 23.
• * 1.551

  §. 24.
• * 1.552

  §. 25.
• * 1.553

  §. 26.
• * 1.554

  §. 27.
• * 1.555

  §. 28.
• * 1.556

  §. 29.
• * 1.557

  Ad quintum quid respon∣des?
• * 1.558

  Quintum Testimonium est: Expectantes beatam spe•••• &c. Quo in loco epithetcn magni dei ad Christum re∣ferri duabus rationibus evin∣cere conantur: Prior est su∣perius, de articulo uno praefixa regula. Posterior, quod adven∣tum non expectemus Patris, sed Filii. Verum ad primum argumentum responsum habes in responsione ad quartum te∣stimonium. Ad altorum re∣spondeo, Paulū non dicere, ex∣pectantes adventum Magni dei, verum dicere, expectan∣tes apparitionem gloriae Mag∣ni der. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei patris illustratam iri, cum Christus ad judicium venerit, verba Christi oftendunt, cum ait, quod venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum gloria dei Patris sui. Math. 16. 27. Marc. 8. 38. praeterea, quod est incon∣veniens si dicatur, Deus pater venturus (prout illi è vulgata citant) cum Filius ad mun∣dum judicandum venerit? An Christus Dei patris personam, in judicio mundi, tanquam ejus, a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sustinebit?
• * 1.559

  §. 30.
• * 1.560

  §. 31.
• * 1.561

  §. 32.
• * 1.562

  Quid ad sextum resp••ndes?
• * 1.563

  Eum vero locum propterea ad Christum referunt, quod arbi∣trentur neminem venturum, ni•• Christum. Is enim venturus est ad judicandum vivos & mortuos. Verum tenendum est, eam voc••m quam ilii reddidere, venturus est, reddi aequè posse, futurus est. ut J••an. 16. 13. ubi Domi••us ait de Spiritu, quem Apostolis promittchat, quòd illis esset futura annuncia∣turus; & Act. 18. 21. ubi legi∣mus, diem festum futurum: in quibus locis duobus, vex Graeca est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prias die∣tum sit, qui erat, & qui est, & posterius hoc, quod additum est,
• * 1.564

  per futurum esse reddi debere, ut ubi{que} de existentia ea oratio accipiatur; & non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in postremo de adventu. Nec est quisquam qui non animadvertat hic describi aeternitatem Dei, quae tempus praeteritum, praesens, & futurum comprehendit. Sed quod erassum errorem hune de∣tegit, est quod Apoc. 1. 4, 5. le∣gimus. Gratia vobis, & pax ab eo, qui est, & qui erat, & qui futurus est, & a septem spiriti∣bus, qui sunt ante faciem thro∣ni ejus, & a Jesu Christo, qui est testis fidelis. E quo testi∣monio apparet, Jesum Christum ab eo, qui est, qui erat, & qui futurus est, vel, ut illi credunt, ven∣turus, esse longe alium.
• * 1.565

  §. 33.
• * 1.566

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gen. 49. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mat. 11. 3.
• * 1.567

  §. 34.
• * 1.568

  §. 35.
• * 1.569

  §. 36.
• * 1.570

  §. 37.
• * 1.571

  Quid ad septimum respon∣des?
• * 1.572

  Respondeo, nom••n Dei hoc loco non referri ad Chri∣stum necessario, sed ad ipsum Deum Patrem referri posse, cujus Apostolus, eum sangui∣nem, quem Christus fudit, sanguinem vocat, eo genere lo∣quendi, & eam ob causam, quo genere loquendi, & quam ob causam propheta ait, eum qui tangit populum Dei, tan∣gere pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Etenim summa, quae est inter Deum patrem & Christum conjunctio, etsi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, our Christi sanguis, sanguis
• * 1.573

  ipsius Dei Patris dicatur: prasertim si quis expendat quatenus is est pro nobis fu∣sus. Etenim Christus est ag∣nus Dei, qui tollit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mundi. Vnde sanguis in eum finem fusus, ipsius dei sanguis jure vocaripotest. Nec vero praetereun∣dum est silentio, quod in editione Syriaca loco dei legatur Christi.
• * 1.574

  §. 38.
• * 1.575

  §. 39.
• * 1.576

  §. 40.
• * 1.577

  §. 41.
• * 1.578

  Ad octavum vero quid?
• * 1.579

  Primum igitur sic habeto, ne{que} in Graecá editione ulla, (excepta complutensi) nec in editione Syriaca, vocem De∣us
• * 1.580

  haberi, Verum etiamsa haec vox haberetur in omni∣bus exemplaribus, num idcir∣co ea vox ille, ad Deum e∣rit referenda? Non certè; non solum ob eam causam, quam paulo superius attuli∣mus, in responsione ad Te∣stimonium tertium; quod ver∣ba ejusmodi non semper ad propinquiores personas refe∣rantur: verum etiam quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vocem Graecam Io∣annes in hac Epistola saepe adeum refert, qui longe an••ea nominatus fuerat, ut & 3. 5. & 7. versu ejusdem capitis in Graeco apparet.
• * 1.581

  §. 42.
• * 1.582

  §. 43.
• * 1.583

  §. 44.
• * 1.584

  §. 45.
• * 1.585

  §. 1.
• * 1.586

  §. 2.
• * 1.587

  §. 3.
• * 1.588

  §. 4.
• * 1.589

  §. 5.
• * 1.590

  §. 6.
• * 1.591

  §. 8.
• * 1.592

  Quid ad tertium?
• * 1.593

  Praeter id, quod & hoc te∣stimonium loquatur de Chri∣sto, tanquam mediâ & secun∣dâ causâ, verbum creata sunt, non solum de vetere, verum etiam de nova crea∣tione in Scriptura usurpari constat: cujus rei exempla ha∣bes Ephes. 2. 10, 15. Jacob. 1. 18. Praeterea, ea verba, omnia in coelis, & in terra, non usurpari pro omnibus
• * 1.594

  prorsus, apparet non solum ex verbis paulo inferius subje∣ctis, v. 20. ubi Ap••stolus ait, qued per eum reconciliata sint omnia in caelis & in ter∣ra, verum etiam ex iis ipsis verbis, in quibus Apostolus non ait, coelum & terram creata esse, verum e•• omnia quae in ••aelis & in terra sunt.
• * 1.595

  Quî vero istud testimoni∣um intelligis?
• * 1.596

  Ad eum modum, quo per Christum omnia, quae sunt in coelis & in terra postquam eum Deus a mortuis excita∣vit, reformata sunt, & in alium statum & conditionem translata; id vero cum Deus & Angelis & hominibus Christum caput dederit, qui antea tantum Deum solum pro dom••no agnoverunt.
• * 1.597

  §. 10.
• * 1.598

  §. 11.
• * 1.599

  Ea quae in caelis sunt per∣sonae (quae sub∣jectae sunt Christo) sunt Angeli, ii{que} tam boni quam mali: quae in coelis sunt, & personae non sunt, omnia illa continent quaecun{que} ex∣tra Angelos vel sunt, vele∣tiam esse pos∣sunt. Smal. de Divin. Christi cap. 16. de Regno Christi super Angelos.
• * 1.600

  §. 12.
• * 1.601

  Certum est, per verbum crea∣ta omnia. Sed quae praecedunt, ostendunt hic de Christo agi, quod hominis nomen est, quo∣modo etiam Chrysostomus hunc accepit locum. Sed ille intelligit mundum creatum propter Christum, sensu non malo: sed propter id quod praecessit, rectius est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hic interpretatari, ordinata sunt, novum quendam siatum sunt consecuta.
• * 1.602

  §. 13.
• * 1.603

  §. 14.
• * 1.604

  §. 15.
• * 1.605

  §. 16.
• * 1.606

  §. 17.
• * 1.607

  Quî respondes adquartum testimonium?
• * 1.608

  Eo pacto, quod hic palam Scriptum sit, non, Christum fecisse, sed, Deum per Chri∣stum fecisse secula. Vocem vero secula non solum prae∣sentia & praeterita, verum etiam futura significare posse, in confesso est. Hic vero de futuris agi id demonstrat, quod idem Autor affirmet, per eum, quem haeredem univer∣sorum constituerit Deus, eti∣am secula esse condita. Nam Jesus Nazarenus non prius constitutus haeres universorum fuit, quam eum Deus a mor∣tuis excitavit. Quod hinc patet, quod tum demum om nis potestas in Caelo & in terra cidem data a Deo Patre fue∣rit, ••ujus potestatis donatione, & non alia re, ista universorum haereditas eontinetur.
• * 1.609

  §. 18.
• * 1.610

  §. 19.
• * 1.611

  §. 20.
• * 1.612

  §. 21.
• * 1.613

  Ad quintum quid respon∣des?
• * 1.614

  Ad id Testimonium id re∣spondeo, quod non de Christ••, verum de Deo accipiendum sit. Quia vero idem Scriptor illud ad Fi••ium Dei referat, expendendum est, Sermonem in Testimonio non de••una re sed de duabus potissimum ha∣bert expresse: una est Cali & terrae creatio; altera re∣rum crea••••um abolitio. Quod ••••ro is ••utor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad Christum non 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 perspicum est, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pi••e, p••••stantism 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••∣monsirare sibi proposuer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••am, ajiam a seibso habeato ve••meam qua haereditavis, & qua praestantior Angelis ef∣fectus sit, ut e ver. 4. cuiv is planum est: cujus generis prastantia cum creatio Caeli & terr•• non sit, nec esse possit, apparet manifeste, non in e∣um finem testimonium ab eo Scriptore allatum, ut Chri∣stum creasse Caelum & terram probaret. Cum igitur prior ad Christum referri nequeat, ap∣paret, posteriorem tantum ad eum referendum esse, id vero propterea, quod Deus Caelum & terram per eum abolitu∣rus sit, tum cum judicium extremum per ipsum est ex∣ecuturus. Quo quidem tan∣topere praestantia Christi prae Angelis conspicua futura est, ut ipsi Angeli sint ••ei••ea. ipsa in re ministraturi. Quae poste∣rior oratio, cum sine verbis superioribus, in quibus fit caeli terrae{que} mentio, intelligi n••n
• * 1.615

  potuerit, cum sit cum iis per vocem ipsi conjuncta, & ea∣dem illa verba priora idem autor cōmemorare necesse ha∣buit. Nam si alii scriptores sacri ad eum modum citant Testimonia Scripturae, nulla adacti necessitate, multo ma∣gis huic necessitate compulso, id faciendum fuit.
• * 1.616

  Ʋbi vero Scriptores Sacri id fecerunt?
• * 1.617

  Inter alia multa testimonia, habes Mat. 12. v. 18, 19, 20, 21. ubi nimis apertum est versiculum 19. tantum ad propositum Evangelistae Mat∣thaei pertinere, cum id volue∣rit probare, cur Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret. De∣••••de, Act. 2. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Ʋbi etiam tantum v. 17, & 18. ad propositum Petr•• A∣postoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum supra discipulos do∣ceat: & ibidem v. 25, 26, 27, 28. Ʋbi palam est, versum tantum 27. adpropositum facere, quandoquidem id approbet Apo∣stolus, Christum a morte detineri fuisse impossibile. Deni{que} in hoc ipso capite, v. 9. ubi verba hac, dilexisti Justitiam & odio habuisti iniquitatem, apparet nihilpertinere ••drem quam prob•• Apostolus, quae est, Christum praestantiorem factum Angelis.
• * 1.618

  §. 22.
• * 1.619

  §. 23.
• * 1.620

  §. 24.
• * 1.621

  §. 25.
• * 1.622

  §. 26.
• * 1.623

  §. 27.
• * 1.624

  §. 28.
• * 1.625

  §. 29.
• * 1.626

  §. 30.
• * 1.627

  §. 31.
• * 1.628

  §. 32.
• * 1.629

  §. 33.
• * 1.630

  §. 34.
• * 1.631

  Rursum, quod de Deo dictum fuerat Messiae aptat: qui•• constabat inter Haebraeos, & mundum hune Messiae causae conditum, (un∣de 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 recte intelligi putem, causa fuisti cur fundaretur; & opus manuum tuarum, id est propter to factum: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Haebraeis & Chaldeis etiam propter significat) & fore, ut no•••••• mundus melior{que} condatur per ipsum.
• * 1.632

  §. 1.
• * 1.633

  §. 2.
• * 1.634

  §. 3.
• * 1.635

  Hic verbum, omnia, non minus quam in pluribus aliis locis, non omnia in universum sine ulla exceptione designare; verum ad ea tantum, quae ad Christi reg num pertineant, re∣ferri: de quibus vere dici potest, Dominum Jesum omnia verbo virtutis suae portare, id est, conse••vare. Quod vero vox omnia, hoe loco ad ea dun∣taxat referatur, ex ipsa mate∣ria subjecta satis apparet- Fr••••erea, verbum, quo hic uti∣••••er scriptor, portare, magis gubernandi vel administrandi rationem quam conservandi significat, quemadmodum illa, quae annexa sunt, verbo virtu∣tis suae, innuere vi••entur.
• * 1.636

  §. 4.
• * 1.637

  §. 5.
• * 1.638

  §. 6.
• * 1.639

  §. 7.
• * 1.640

  Ex iis verbis doceri non potest, Apostolum affirmare, Christum in deserto reveta tentatum fuisse: ut è si••••ili oratione, siquis it a diceret, de∣prehendi potest: ne sitis re∣fractarii Magistratui, quem∣admodum quidam majorum nostrorum fuerunt, non illico concluderes eundem numero magistratum utrobi{que} designa∣ri. Quod si reperiuntur in Scripturis ejusmodi loquendi modi, in quibus similis oratio ad eum, cujus nomen paulo a••te expressum est, sine ulla illius ejusdem repetitione re∣feratur, tum hoc ibi fit, ubi ullus alius praeter eum, cujus expressum est nomen, subin∣telligi possit: ut exemplum ejus rei babes in illo testimo∣nio, Deut. 6. 16. non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum, quem∣admodum tentasti in loco tentationis. Verum in ea oratione Apostoli, de quae agimus, potest sub∣intelligi alius praeter Christum, ut Moses, Aaron, &c. de quo vide, Num. 21. 5.
• * 1.641

  §. 8.
• * 1.642

  §. 9.
• * 1.643

  §. 10.
• * 1.644

  §. 11.
• * 1.645

  §. 12.
• * 1.646

  §. 13.
• * 1.647

  Primum, ea verba ad Chri∣stum non necessario referri hinc apparet, quod de Deo Patre accipi possint: etemim verbae paulo superiora de eodem di∣cuntur. Excaecavit, indura∣vit, sanavit. Deinde, glori∣am, quam Esaias vidit poterat esse, imo erat, non praesens, sed futura. Etenim proprium est vatibus futura videre, unde etiam, videntes appellati fu∣ere, 1 Sam. 9. 9. Deni{que} eti∣amsi de gloria ea quae tum praesens erat Esaiae visa haec verba accipias, long e tamen aliud est, gloriam alicujus vi∣dere, & aliud ipsummet vide∣re. Et in gloria illius unius Dei vidit etiam Esaias Glo∣riam Christi Domini. Ait enim ibidem vates, plena est terra gloria Dei, Esa. 6. 3. Tum autem hoc reipsa factum est, cum Jesus Cristus illi populo primum apparuit, & post toti mundo annunciatus est.
• * 1.648

  §. 14.
• * 1.649

  §. 15.
• * 1.650

  §. 1.
• * 1.651

  §. 2.
• * 1.652

  E quibus Testimoniis Scrip∣turae demonstrare conantur, Christum (ut lequuntur) in∣carnatum esse?
• * 1.653

  Ex iis, ubi secundum eo∣rum versionem legitur, ver∣bum caro factum est, Joan. 1. 14. Et qui (Christus) cum esset in forma Dei &c. Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Heb. 2. 16. Joan. 4. 2, 3. Heb. 10. 11.
• * 1.654

  §. 3.
• * 1.655

  §. 4.
• * 1.656

  Ad secundum quid respon∣des? Ne{que} hic eoetare, quod ad∣versa pars confectum velit. Aliud enim est, quod hic Apo∣stolus ait, cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi assumpsit; aliud vero, natura divina assumpsit humanam. Etenim hic: forma Dei designare non potest Dei naturam, cum A∣postolus scribat, eam formam Christum exin anivisse. Deus vero naturam suam nullo modo exinanire potest. Nec vero forma servi denotat naturam humanam, cum servum esse ad fortunam & conditionem hominis referatur. At ne id quo{que} dissimulandum est, scrip∣ta Novi Testamenuti hanc vo∣cem, forma, semel fortassis tan∣tū alibi usurpare, Mar. 16. 12. id{que} eo sensu, quo non natu∣ram, sed exteriorem speciem significat, cum ait, Jesum du∣obis discipulis suis apparuisse in alia forma. Ex iis vero verbis, quae Apostolus paulo post subjecit, babitu inventus est ut homo, nonne apparet eum (ut loquun∣tur) incarnatum esse? Nullo modo, etenim ea ora∣to nihil in se habet ejusmodi. De Sampsone enim in literis sacris legimus, quod idem fu∣turus erat, ut homo; Judic. 16. 7, 11. & Psal. 82. Asaph iis, hominibus, quos Deos & Filios altissimi vocaverat, denunciat, quod essent morituri ut hominos; de quibus certum est, non posse dici, eos (ut adversarii dicunt) incarnatos fuisse.
• * 1.657

  §. 5.
• * 1.658

  Qua ratione locum hunc totum intelligis? Ad eum modum, quod Chri∣stus, qui in mundo instar dei, opera dei efficiebut, & cui sicut deo omnia parebāt & cui divina adoratio exhibebatur, ita volente deo, & hominum salute exigente, factus est tan∣quam servus, & mancipium, & tanquam unus ex aliis vul∣garibus hominibus cum ultro se capi, vin••i••i, caedi, & occidi permiserat.
• * 1.659

  §. 7.
• * 1.660

  Qui porro ad ea loca re∣spondes? Quod Christus sit aequalis deo, id divinam in co naturam nullo modo probat, imo hinc res adversa colligitur. Nam si Christus deo, qui natura deus est, aequalis est, efficitur, quod is idem deus esse non possit. Aequalitas vero christi cum Deo in eo est, quod ea virtute, quam in eum contulit deus, ea omnia efficeret, & efficiat, quae ipsius der sunt, tanquam deus ipse.
• * 1.661

  §. 8.
• * 1.662

  §. 9.
• * 1.663

  §. 10.
• * 1.664

  §. 11.
• * 1.665

  §. 12.
• * 1.666

  §. 13.
• * 1.667

  §. 14.
• * 1.668

  §. 15.
• * 1.669

  §. 16.
• * 1.670

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• * 1.671

  §. 17.
• * 1.672

  §. 18.
• * 1.673

  §. 19.
• * 1.674

  §. 20.
• * 1.675

  §. 21.
• * 1.676

  §. 22.
• * 1.677

  §. 23.
• * 1.678

  §. 24.
• * 1.679

  §. 25.
• * 1.680

  §. 26.
• * 1.681

  §. 27.
• * 1.682

  §. 28.
• * 1.683

  §. 29.
• * 1.684

  §. 30.
• * 1.685

  §. 31.
• * 1.686

  §. 32.
• * 1.687

  §. 33.
• * 1.688

  §. 34.
• * 1.689

  §. 35.
• * 1.690

  §. 36.
• * 1.691

  §. 37.
• * 1.692

  Adtertium vero quid re∣spondes?
• * 1.693

  Primum quidem, quod in multis exemplaribus vetustis & in ipsa vulgata, non legatur vox Deus. Quare ex eo loco certum nihil concludi potest. Deinde, etiamsi ea vox lege∣retur, nullam esse causam cur ad Patrem referri non possit, cùm haee de Patre affirmari possint, eum apparuisse in Chri∣sto, & Apostolis qui caro fue∣runt. Quod autem inferiùs le∣gitur, secundum usitatam ver∣sionem, receptus est in glori∣am, id in Graeco habetur, re∣ceptus est in gloria, id est, cum gloria, aut gloriosè.
• * 1.694

  Quae verò futura est hujus testimonii sententia?
• * 1.695

  Religionem Christi plenane esse mysteriis. Nam Deus, id est, voluntas ipsius de servan∣dis hominibus, per komines infirmos & mortales perfectè patefacta est: & nihilominus tamen propter miracula, & virtutes varias, quae per homi∣nes illes infirmes & mortales edita fuerant, pro vera est ag∣nita: eadem ab ipsis Angelis fuit demum perspecta; non so∣lum Judaeis, verum etiam gentibus fuit praedicata: omnes ei crediderunt, & insignem in modum, & summa cum gloria recepta fuit.
• * 1.696

  §. 39.
• * 1.697

  §. 40.
• * 1.698

  §. 41.
• * 1.699

  §. 42.
• * 1.700

  §. 43.
• * 1.701

  §. 44.
• * 1.702

  §. 45.
• * 1.703

  §. 46.
• * 1.704

  §. 47.
• * 1.705

  §. 48.
• * 1.706

  §. 49.
• * 1.707

  §. 50.
• * 1.708

  §. 51.
• * 1.709

  §. 52.
• * 1.710

  In co, ne similitudinem qui∣dem incarnation is (ut vocant) apparere, cùm is Scriptor non dicat, Christum assumpsisse (ut quidam reddunt, & vul∣go eo sensu accipiunt) sed as∣sumere: nec dicit, naturā hu∣manā, sed semen Abrahae quod in literis sacris not at eos, qui in Christum crediderunt, ut Gal 3. 29. videre est.
• * 1.711

  Quid vero sensus hujus erit loci? Id sibi vult is Scriptor, Christum non esse Servatorem Angelorum, sed hominum cre∣dentium, q••i quoniam & af∣flictionibus & morti subjecti sunt (quam rem superius ex∣pressit per participationem car∣nis & sanguinis) propterea Christus ultro illis se submi∣sit, ut fideles suos a mortis me∣tu liberaret, & in omni affli∣ctione iisdem opem afferret.
• * 1.712

  §. 54.
• * 1.713

  §. 55.
• * 1.714

  §. 56.
• * 1.715

  §. 57.
• * 1.716

  §. 58.
• * 1.717

  Etiam in eo nihil prorsus de incarnatione (quam vo∣cant) haberi. Etenim quod apud quosdam legitur, venit in carnem, in Graeco habetur, in carne venit. Propterea non scribit Joannes, quòd spiritus, qui confitetur Jesum Christum, qui in carne venit, ex Deo est. Sed quod ille Spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo est. Quorum verborum sensus est, eum spiritum ex Deo esse, qui confitetur Jesum illum, qui munus suum in terris fine ulla pompa & often tatione munde∣na, summa cum humilitate, quoad exteriorem specient sumino••; cum contemptu obiverit, martem deni{que} ignominiosam opperierit, esse Christum, & populi Dei regem.
• * 1.718

  §. 59.
• * 1.719

  §. 60.
• * 1.720

  §. 61.
• * 1.721

  Ne hic quidem de incarna∣tione (ut vocant) ullam men∣tionem factam, cum is mun∣dus, in quem ingressum Jesum is autor ait, sit ille mundus fu∣turus, ut superius demonstra∣tum est. Ʋnde etiam ingredi in illum mundum, non nasci in mundum, sed in coelum in∣gredi significat. Deinde, illis verbis, Corpus aptasti mihi, corporis ••ox (••t ex eo appa∣ruit, ubi de ingressu hoc in mundum actum est) pro cor∣pore immortali accipi potest.
• * 1.722

  §. 62.
• * 1.723

  Quae sententia ejus lo••i est? Deum Jesu tale corpus ap∣tasse, postquam in caelum est ingressus, quod ad obeundum munus Pontificis summi ap∣tum & accommodatum foret.
• * 1.724

  §. 63.
• * 1.725

  §. 64.
• * 1.726

  §. 65.
• * 1.727

  §. 1.
• * 1.728

  §. 2.
• * 1.729

  In quibus Scripturis Chri∣stus vocatur deus?

  Joan. 1. v. 1. & verbum fuit deus; & cap. 20. v. 28. Thomas ad Christum ait, do∣minus meus, & deus meus; & Rom. 9. v. 5. Apostolus scribit Christum deum (esse) supra omnes benedictum in secula.

  Quid his testimoniis effici potest.

  Naturam divinam in Chri∣sto ex iis demonstrari non posse, praeter ea quae superius allata 〈◊〉〈◊〉, hinc manifestum est, quod in primo testimonio aga∣••ur de ve••bo, quod Joanes te∣statur apud illum Deum fuisse. In secundo Thomas eum ap∣pellet deum, in cujus pedibus & manibus clavorum, in la∣tere lanceae vestigia deprehen∣dit; & Paulus eum, qui se∣cundum carnem a patribus e∣rat, deum supra omnia bene∣dictum vocat. Quae omnia dici de eo, qui natura deus sit nullo modo posse, planum est. Etenim ex illo sequeretur duos esse deos, quorum alter apud a••terum fuerit. Haec vero, ve∣stigia vulnerum habere, ex patribus esse, hominis sunt prorsus; quae ei qui natura deus sit, ascribi nimis absonum esset. Quod si illud distinctionis naturarum velum quis praetendat, jam superiu•• illud amovimus & docu••mus, hanc distinctionem nullo modo posse sustineri.
• * 1.730

  §. 4.
• * 1.731

  §. 5.
• * 1.732

  §. 6.
• * 1.733

  §. 7.
• * 1.734

  Ʋbi vero Scriptura testatur Christum cum Patre esse u∣num?

  Joan. 10. v. 29, 30. Vbi Dominus ait; Pater qui mihi (oves) dedit, major omnibus est, & nemo eas ••apere potest è manibus Patris mei: Ego & Pater unum sumus.
• * 1.735

  §. 8.
• * 1.736

  Quâ ratione respondes ad id testimonium▪ Ex eo, quod di••a∣tur Christus esse cum patre u∣num, effici non posse, esse unum cum eo natura, verba Christi, quae ad Patrem de discipulis habuit, demonstrant. Joan. 17. 11. Pater sancte, serva illos in nomine ••uo, ut sint unum, quemadmodum & nos unum sumus▪ Et paulo inferius▪ v. 22. Ego gloriam quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis, ut sint unum, quemadmodum nos unum su∣mus. Quod vero Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de voluntate, aut de p••tentia in salutis nostrae ratione accipi debet: unde naturam divinam non probari ex eodem loco constat, ubi Christus ait, Patrem omnibus esse maj••rem, ac proinde etiam ipso Domino, quemadmodum idem Dominus expressè fatetur, & quod eas oves ei dederit, Joan 14. 28.
• * 1.737

  §. 9.
• * 1.738

  §. 10.
• * 1.739

  §. 11.
• * 1.740

  §. 12.
• * 1.741

  Filium autem Dei vive••∣tis, filium Dei proprium & u∣nigenitum esse Christum, ubi habetur?

  De hoc Matth. 16. v. 16. l••gimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Christus filius Dei viven∣tis. Et Rom. 8. v. 32. ubi A∣postolus ait; Qui (Deus) pro∣prio filio non pepercit, verum eum pr••pter nos tradidit. Et Joan. 3. 16. Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum uni∣genitum daret. Et v. 18. no∣men unigeniti filii Dei.

  Quomodo vero ad haec loca respondetur?

  Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo modo probari pos∣se naturam ejus divinam. Nam quod ad primum attinet, notissimum est Petrum fateri, quod filius hominis sit Chri∣stus, & filius Dei viventis, quem constat divinam natu∣ram, qualem illi comminiscun∣tur, non habuisse; praet••rea, te∣statur Scriptura de aliis homi∣nibus quod sint filii Dei vi∣ventis, ut ex Hosea, Rom. 9. v. 26. Et erit loco ejus, ubi iis dictum est; non p••pulus meus (estis) vos; illic vocabuntur filii Dei viventis. Quod vero secundum & tertium locum attinet, in his legimus proprium & unigenitum Dei filium in mortem traditum, quod de eo, qui natura deus sit, dici non potest. Im•• vero ex eo, quod Christus dei Filius sit, apparet deum illum non esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius esset. Causa vero cur Christo ista Attributa competant, haec est, quod inter omnes dei Filios & praecipuus sit, & deo charissimus, quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abra∣hamo charissimus & haeres exsti••it, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. ••1. 17. licet fratrem Ismaelem habuerit: & Solomon unige••itus coram matre sua, licet plures ex eadem ma••re fratres fuerint. 1 Paral. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Prov▪ 4. 3.
• * 1.742

  §. 13.
• * 1.743

  §. 14.
• * 1.744

  §. 15.
• * 1.745

  Quae Scriptura eum vocat, Primo genitum omnis crea∣turae?

  Col. 1. 15.

  Quid ad eam respondes?

  Ne{que} hinc naturam divi∣nam Christum habere ex sculpi posse. Etenim cum Christus primogenitus omnis creaturae sit, eum unum e numero crea∣turarum esse oportere, necesse est. Ea enim in Scripturis vis est primogeniti ut primogeni∣tum unum ex eorum genere quorum primogenitus est, esse, necess•• sit. Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. Apoc. 1. 5. Ʋt vero unus e rebus conditis creati∣onis veteris existat dominus Jesus, nec Adversarii quidem concedent ••isi Ariani esse velint. Ʋnum igitur esse e novae creationis genere domi∣num Jesum concedant oportet. Vnde non solum divina Chri∣sti natura effici▪ non potest; verum etiam quod nullam di∣vinam naturam Christus ha∣beat, firmiter conficitur. Quod vero eo nomine vocatur ab Apostolo Jesus, ••o fit, quod tempore & praestantia res omnes novae creationis l••nge antecedat.
• * 1.746

  §. 16.
• * 1.747

  §. 17.
• * 1.748

  Vbi vero Scriptura eum omnia, quae Pater habeat, hab••re asserit?

  Joan. 16. v. 15. Christus ait Omnia▪ quae Pater habet, mea sunt, & infra capite 17. 10. Mea omnia tua sunt, & tua mea.

  Quid tu ad haec?

  Vox omnia ad subjectam materiam ut superius aliquo∣ties demonstravimus fere sem∣per refertur. Quare ex ejus∣modi locis non potest ullo mo∣do, quod volunt, effici. Mate∣ria vero subjecta cap. 16. est, id nimirum, quod Spiritus Sanctus Apostolis ad Christi regnum spectans revelaturus erat. Et 17. cap. constat a∣pertissime agi de discipulis ip∣sius Iesu quos ipsi deus dederat, unde eos etiam suos vocat. Praeterea, cum quicquid Chri∣stus habeat, habeat Patris dono, non autem a seipso, hinc apparet, ipsum Divinam naturam habere nullo modo posse, cum natura Deus omnia a seipso habeat.
• * 1.749

  §. 18.
• * 1.750

  §. 19.
• * 1.751

  §. 20.
• * 1.752

  §. 21.
• * 1.753

  §. 22.
• * 1.754

  At quae Scriptura Christum Patrem Aeternitatis vocat?

  Isaiae 9. v. 6.

  Tu vero quid ad haec.

  Ex eo naturam divinam probari non posse, cum certam ob causam Pater aeternitatis Christus sit vocatus, ex ipsis verbis ibidem paulo superius expressis, videre est. Mirum vero est, Adversarios hunc lo∣cum, ubi igitur de patre aeter∣no, ad filium referre, quem constat secundum eos ipsos pa∣trem non esse. Pater vero ae∣ternitatis aut futuri seculi propterea dictus est Christus, quod sit princeps & Autorvitae aeternae, quae futura est.
• * 1.755

  §. 23.
• * 1.756

  §. 24.
• * 1.757

  §. 25.
• * 1.758

  §. 26.
• * 1.759

  §. 27.
• * 1.760

  §. 28.
• * 1.761

  §. 29.
• * 1.762

  §. 30.
• * 1.763

  §. 31.
• * 1.764

  §. 32.
• * 1.765

  §. 33.
• * 1.766

  §. 34.
• * 1.767

  §. 35.
• * 1.768

  §. 36.
• * 1.769

  §. 37.
• * 1.770

  §. 38.
• * 1.771

  §. 39.
• * 1.772

  Vid. Pet. Gal. lib. 3. cap. 19. Raymun. Martin. 3. p. Dist. 1. cap. 9.
• * 1.773

  §. 40.
• * 1.774

  §. 41.
• * 1.775

  §. 42.
• * 1.776

  §. 43.
• * 1.777

  §. 44.
• * 1.778

  Psal. 48, 14. Psal. 9. 6, 7. &c.
• * 1.779

  §. 45.
• * 1.780

  §. 45
• * 1.781

  §. 46.
• * 1.782

  §. 47.
• * 1.783

  §. 48.
• * 1.784

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 quod ••erbum Dei s•• Chr••s••us 〈…〉〈…〉i divina in ••hris••o▪ natura n••n potest, imo a••vers••m▪ ••potius▪ colligitur. ••••m ••nim ••••sius unius Dei verbum sit, apparet cum non ••sse ipsum unum Deum. Quod etiam ad singula haec testimo∣nia simul responderi potest. Ver∣bum vero, vel sermo Dei Je∣sus ideo nuncupatur, quod om∣nem Dei voluntatem nobis ex∣posuerit, ut ibidem Johannes inserius exposuit, Joan. 1. 18. Quemadmodum etiam eodem sensu & vita & veritas dicitur.
• * 1.785

  §. 49.
• * 1.786

  §. 50.
• * 1.787

  Hoc idem dici potest de ••••, quod imago Dei conspicui vocatur.
• * 1.788

  §. 51.
• * 1.789

  §. 52.
• * 1.790

  Quod vero character Hypo∣staseos ejus dictus s••, hoc in∣telligi debet; Deū quicquid n••∣bis promisit, jam reipsa in eo exhibuisse.
• * 1.791

  §. 53.
• * 1.792

  §. 54.
• * 1.793

  Quod vero attiret ad dictū domini Jesu. Qui me videt videt Patr••m, ne{que} hinc natu∣ram divinā probari certū cui{que} esse potest, ••um ea ratio vi∣dendi non possit de essentia dei accipi, qu•• invisibilis sit pr••r∣sus, verum de cognitione eorum quae dixit & fecit Christus.
• * 1.794

  §. 55.
• * 1.795

  §. 56.
• * 1.796

  Nec illis denique verbis, quod plenitudo divinitat••s in eo habitat corpopaliter proba∣tur natura divina primum enim, vox ••aec divinitas, de∣signare po••est voluntatem dei, eam••ue orationem cum Apo∣stolus opponat non personi••, sed philosophiae & Legi, hinc per∣spieuum e••, eam de doctrina domini Iesu non de pers••n•• accipi, de hac vero voce corporaliter, quid ea notet, inferius suo loco audies.
• * 1.797

  § 57.
• * 1.798

  §. 58.
• * 1.799

  §. 59.
• * 1.800

  §. 60.
• * 1.801

  §. 61.
• * 1.802

  §. 62.
• * 1.803

  §. 63.
• * 1.804

  §. 64.
• * 1.805

  §. 65.
• * 1.806

  Ex eo quod Christum Apo∣stolus Dominum suum vocet, natura divina effici nequit. Nam eum primo manifeste ab illo Patre, quem ibidem deum unum fatetur, secernit, quem solum natura deum esse supe∣rius docuimus: deinde, hoc ip∣sum quod de eo dicit, omnia per ipsum, eum natura deum esse non ostendit: cum ut superius demonstratum est, hac particu∣la, per, non primam, verum secundam causam designari constet: quod de eo qui natura deus est, dici nullo modo potest. Et licet de patre Scriptura interdum loquatur per eum omnia, aliter tamem haec de Patre, quam de Christo acci∣piuntur: de patre enim haec ideo dici constat, quod omnes causae mediae per quas fit ali∣quid, non aliunde sint, nisi ab ipso, nec sint ejusmodi, ut sine iis ille agere non possit: de Christo vero dicuntur, quod per eum alius quis, nempe De∣us omnia operetur ut Ephes. 3. 9. expresse habetur. Ne com∣memorandum mihi sit, ver∣bum, omnia, (uti superius o∣stensum est) ad subjectam ma∣teriam referri. Quod ita ha∣bere inde apparet, quod Apo∣stolus agit de iis omnibus re∣bus, quae ad populum Christi∣anum pertinent, ut duo haec verba demonstrant, nobis & Pater. Vnde efficitur Christum non simpliciter & absolute, verum certa de causa v••catum Dominum unum, per quem omnia. Quare hinc natura divina non pro∣batur.
• * 1.807

  §. 66.
• * 1.808

  §. 67.
• * 1.809

  §. 68.
• * 1.810

  §. 69.
• * 1.811

  §. 70.
• * 1.812

  § 71.
• * 1.813

  §. 72.
• * 1.814

  §. 73.
• * 1.815

  Cum in eo agatur de eo qui crucifixus sit, apparet ex eo naturam divinam non pro∣bari, cum de hac illud dici nequeat, verum de homine, qui ideo dominus Gloriae di∣citur, hoc est, dominus glori∣osus, quod a deo gloria & ••••∣nore coronatus sit.
• * 1.816

  §. 74.
• * 1.817

  §. 75.
• * 1.818

  §. 76.
• * 1.819

  §. 77.
• * 1.820

  In tertio testimonio, cum agatur de eo, qui agnus est, & qui vestimenta habet, quem & oc••isum, & sanguine suo nos redimisse apertissime idem Jo∣annes fatetur, quae referri ad divinam naturam nulla rati∣one possunt, apparet eo naturam divinam Christi astrui non posse. Omnia vero▪ quae hic Christo in iis testim••niis tri∣buuntur, sigularem ipsius po∣cestatem, quam d••us Christo in iis, quae ad novum faedus pertinent, dedit, arguunt.
• * 1.821

  §. 78.
• * 1.822

  §. 79.
• * 1.823

  §. 80.
• * 1.824

  §. 81.
• * 1.825

  §. 82.
• * 1.826

  §. 83.
• * 1.827

  §. 84.
• * 1.828

  §. 85.
• * 1.829

  §. 86.
• * 1.830

  Ad omnia ita responderi potest, ut appareat nullo modo ex iis effici divinam in Chri∣sto esse naturam. Etenim a∣liam ob causam ea, quae de Deo dicta sunt sub Lege, dici po∣tuerunt de Christo sub Evan∣gelio quemadmodum & dicta sunt. Nimirum propter illam summam, quae inter Deum & Christum est, ratione imperii, potestatis, at{que} muneris, con∣junctionem, quae omnia illum Dei dono consecutum esse Scripturae novi Testamenti pas∣sim testantur. Quod si Scrip∣tura ea tradit de Mose, ••um Israelem ex Aegypto duxisse Ezod. 32. 7. & quod Re∣demptor illius populi fuerit, Act. 7. 35. & de aliis idem, quod de ipso Deo apertissime Scriptum erat. Cum nec Mo∣ses, ne{que} alii, tantā cū Deo con∣junctionem hab••••ent, quanta inter Deum & Christum in∣tercessit, mu••to justius haec, quae de Deo primo respectu dicta sunt, Christo accommodari possunt, propter summam illam & arctis∣simam inter Deum & Christum conjunctionem.
• * 1.831

  §. 87.
• * 1.832

  §. 88.
• * 1.833

  §. 89.
• * 1.834

  §. 1.
• * 1.835

  See his con∣fe••sion in his Epistle to his Book a∣gainst the Deity of Christ.
• * 1.836

  Clopenburgius vindiciae pro Deitate S. S. adversus Pneumato∣mach. Bedellum An∣glum.
• * 1.837

  §. 2.
• * 1.838

  §. 3.
• * 1.839

  De Adoratio∣ne Jesu Christi disputatio: p. 18, 19.
• * 1.840

  §. 4.
• * 1.841

  §. 5.
• * 1.842

  §. 6.
• * 1.843

  §. 7.
• * 1.844

  §. 8.
• * 1.845

  §. 9.
• * 1.846

  Nota quod in locis innume∣ris in Talmud hoc exponitur de Messiah, & nunquam de alio, ab aliquo qui ••licujus a∣pud Haebraeos authoritatis sit; quare patet quod errant, ni∣mium Judaizantes nostri, qui hoc de▪ Iosia ad literam non verentur exponere: de solo quippe Messia hoc intelligen∣dum fore, ostenditur per R. Solomoh, qui hoc de ipso non de Iosiah exponit; quod juxta morem suum nunquam egisset, si abs{que} injuria sui Talmud & Targum, & sine praedecessorum suorum omnium praejudicio, aliter exponere potuisset. Rey∣mund. Marti: pug: fid: p. 3 D. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.847

  §. 10.
• * 1.848

  §. 11.
• * 1.849

  §. 12.
• * 1.850

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiphan. An∣rat. c. 73, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Symbol. Conc: Constantinop:
• * 1.851

  §. 13.
• * 1.852

  §. 14.
• * 1.853

  1 Ioh: 5. 7.
• * 1.854

  §. 15.
• * 1.855

  §. 16.
• * 1.856

  §. 17.
• * 1.857

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.858

  Ioh. 20. 22.
• * 1.859

  §. 18.
• * 1.860

  §. 19.
• * 1.861

  Soci••us. Epist. 3. ad Math. Rad. Rom. 8. 9.
• * 1.862

  §. 20.
• * 1.863

  1 Cor. 12. 11.
• * 1.864

  §. 21.
• * 1.865

  Perseverance of Saints c. 8.
• * 1.866

  §. 22.
• * 1.867

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.868

  §. 23.
• * 1.869

  Ioh. 17. 20.
• * 1.870

  §. 24.
• * 1.871

  §. 25.
• * 1.872

  §. 26.
• * 1.873

  §. 27.
• * 1.874

  Nonne ad credendum E∣vangelio S. S. interiore dono opus est?

  Nullo modo, non enim in Scripturis legimus, cuiquam id conferri donum, nisi cre∣denti Evangelio Cap. 6. de Promiss. S. S.
• * 1.875

  §. 28.
• * 1.876

  §. 29.
• * 1.877

  §. 30.
• * 1.878

  §. 31.
• * 1.879

  §. 3••.
• * 1.880

  §. 1.
• * 1.881

  §. 2.
• * 1.882

  §. 3.
• * 1.883

  §. 1.
• * 1.884

  §. 2.
• * 1.885

  §. 3.
• * 1.886

  §. 4.
• * 1.887

  §. 1.
• * 1.888

  §. 2.
• * 1.889

  Gen. 3. 15. Col. 2. 15, 16. Gen. 12. 2. Dcut. 18. 18.
• * 1.890

  §. 3.
• * 1.891

  §. 4.
• * 1.892

  1 Pet. 3. 19, 20 1 Pet. 1. 11.
• * 1.893

  Isa. 61. 1. Luke 14 18▪ John 16. 7, 8, 9, 10. 1 John 5. 20.
• * 1.894

  §. 5.
• * 1.895

  §. 6.
• * 1.896

  §. 7.
• * 1.897

  See Chap. 3.
• * 1.898

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Antiphanes. de Deo.
• * 1.899

  §. 7.
• * 1.900

  Facie in faci∣em, ita ut ho∣mines cum ho∣minibus collo∣quentes solent; quod refer ad vocum percep∣ti••nem distin∣ctam; non ad conspicuum a∣liquod: nihil enim vide∣runt, Grot. Annot. in locum.
• * 1.901

  §. 9.
• * 1.902

  §. 10.
• * 1.903

  Luk. 2. 52. Is. 61. 1. Heb. 1. 9.
• * 1.904

  §. 11.
• * 1.905

  Socinismus est verecundi••r, aut subtilior Mahumetis∣mus. Cense∣mus script•• Socinianorum ad Turcismum proxime acce∣dere. Censu. Facult. The∣ol. Leid. An. 1598.
• * 1.906

  §. 12.
• * 1.907

  Tradunt de Propheta, quod die quodam dixerit Gabrieli; O Gabriel, optem te in specie figurae tuae magnae videre, se∣cundum quam Deus creavit te; dixit Gabriel; O dilecte Deo, est figura mea valde ter∣ribilis, nemo eam poterit vi∣dere, & sic ne{que} tu, quin ani∣mi deliquium passus concidat. reponit M••humed, etsi maxi∣me ita sit, velim tamen te vi∣dere in figura majeri. Respon∣dit ergo Gabriel, O dilecte Deo ubi me videre desideras? Ex∣tra urbem Meccam resp••ndit Mahumed, in Villa Lapidosa. Dixit Gabriel, valla ista me non capiet; ergo respondit Ma∣humed, in Monte Orphath. Hic inquit Gabriel locus aptior e∣rit & ••apacior. Abiit ergo Mahumed in Montem Or∣phath, & ecce Gabriel, cum magno fragore & strepitu, to∣tum figura sua operiens hori∣zontem, quod cum Propheta vidisset, concidit, deliquiū pas∣sus, in terram. Ʋbi vero Ga∣briel, super quo pax, ad prio∣rem rediisset figuram, accessit ad Prophetam, eum{que} amplexus & esculatus, ita compellavit: ne timeas O dilecte Deo, sum enim frater ••uus Gabriel; Dix∣it Propheta, vera dixisti, O frater mi Gabriel, nunquam existimassem ullam esse Dei creaturam, tanta praeditam figura. Respondit Gabriel, O dilecte Deo, quid si igitur videres figu∣ram Europhil Angeli. Kessaeus Vi••. Patr: p. 12. Interpret. Hotting.
• * 1.908

  §. 13.
• * 1.909

  Isa. 42. 1, 19. Phil. 4. 7. Isa. 52. 13. Isa. 61. 1.
• * 1.910

  §. 14.
• * 1.911

  §. 15.
• * 1.912

  Smalcius. de divin. Christi cap. 4.
• * 1.913

  Joh. 1. 18. Luk. 4 1. Isa. 61. 1. Math. 3. 15, 16, 17.
• * 1.914

  §. 16.
• * 1.915

  Aut verba Christi sine ullo prorsus tropo interpre∣tanda sunt, & p••oinde ex ip∣sis ducta ar∣gumentatio vestra, penitus dossolvetur: aut si tropus aliquis in Christi verbis admittendus est, no•• videmus, cur non potius dicamus, ideo dixisse Christum filium hominis fuisse in caelo, antequam pos•• resurrectionem eo ascenderet, quia jam ante illud tempus, non modo in caelo mente, & cogitatione perpetuo versabatur, verum etiam omnia caelestia, id est arcana quae{que} divinissima, & ipsa omni•• quae in caelo sunt, & siunt, adeo cognita & perspecta habebat, ut ea tanquam praesentia intuere∣tur▪ & ita quamvis in terris degens, in ipso tamen caelo commorari dici possit.

  Nam in caelo antequam moreretur revera esse potuit, post••uam ex Ma••ia natus est: nec solu•• potuit, sed (ut ita dicamus) debuit: si enim homo ille Paulus Christi servus, ad tertium us{que} cael•••• ante mortem raptus est, nullo pacto nobis veresimile sit, Christum ipsum ante mortem in caelo no•• fuisse. Socin. Resp. prior. ad paren. Vol. p. 38, 39, 40.
• * 1.916

  §. 17.
• * 1.917

  §. 18.
• * 1.918

  John 1. 18. John 1. 1. Pro••. 8. 15, 16, 17, 18. Col. 2. 3. Heb. 1. 9. Iohn 3. 34.
• * 1.919

  §. 19.
• * 1.920

  §. 20.
• * 1.921

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.922

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.923

  Smalcius de divin. Christ. cap 4.
• * 1.924

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.925

  §. 21.
• * 1.926

  Ioh. 1. 1, 2, 14.
• * 1.927

  §. 22.
• * 1.928

  §. 23.
• * 1.929

  §. 24.
• * 1.930

  §. 25.
• * 1.931

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theoph. in loc.
• * 1.932

  §. 26.
• * 1.933

  §. 27.
• * 1.934

  Quae vero est illa voluntas Dei per Iesum nobis patefa∣cta?

  Res. Est illud faedus novum quod cum genere human•• Chri∣stus nomine Dei pepigit, unde etiam Mediator novi faederis vocatur: Heb. 8. 6. 1. Tim. 2. 5. Catech. Rac. de Prophet mun. Christi.
• * 1.935

  §. 28.
• * 1.936

  §. 29.
• * 1.937

  §. 30.
• * 1.938

  §. 31.
• * 1.939

  §. 32.
• * 1.940

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 9. 32.
• * 1.941

  §. 33.
• * 1.942

  §. 34.
• * 1.943

  §. 35.
• * 1.944

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.945

  §. 36.
• * 1.946

  §. 37.
• * 1.947

  §. 38.
• * 1.948

  §. 39.
• * 1.949

  §. 40▪
• * 1.950

  Math. 5. 17.
• * 1.951

  §. 41.
• * 1.952

  Quaenam sunt perfecta man∣data Dei per Christum tradi∣ta?
• * 1.953

  Pars eorum continetur in praeceptis a Mose traditis, una ••um iis, quae sunt eis in novo faedere addita. Pars vero con∣t••netur in iis, quae peculiari∣ter ipse Christus praescripsit.
• * 1.954

  §. 42.
• * 1.955

  §. 43.
• * 1.956

  §. 44.
• * 1.957

  §. 45.
• * 1.958

  §. 46.
• * 1.959

  See a full and cleare expo∣sition of this place by D. Lightfeet, in his Preface to the Harmony of the Gos∣pell.
• * 1.960

  §. 47.
• * 1.961

  §. 48.
• * 1.962

  §. 49.
• * 1.963

  §. 50.
• * 1.964

  §. 51.
• * 1.965

  §. 52.
• * 1.966

  §. 53.
• * 1.967

  §. 54.
• * 1.968

  Heb. ••.
• * 1.969

  Rom. 8. 3.
• * 1.970

  §. 55.
• * 1.971

  Rom. 4. 4, 5.
• * 1.972

  §. 56.
• * 1.973

  §. 57.
• * 1.974

  Gal. 4.
• * 1.975

  §. 58.
• * 1.976

  §. 59.
• * 1.977

  §. 60.
• * 1.978

  §. 61.
• * 1.979

  Persever▪ of Sain••s.
• * 1.980

  §. 1.
• * 1.981

  §. 2.
• * 1.982

  §. 2.
• * 1.983

  §. 3.
• a 1.984

  Divinitas autem Iesu Christi qualis sit, discimus ex sacris li∣teris, nempe talis, quae propter munus ipsius divi∣num tota ei tribuitur. Smal▪ de Di∣vin. les. Ch. Cap. 12.
• b 1.985

  Nec enim prius D. Iesus Rec re••ps•• fa••tas est, qu•••• cum consedit ad dextram Dei Patris, & regnare reipsa in cael••, & in terra caepit. idem cap: 13. Sec. 3. c Dominus & Deus procul∣du••io •• Th••ma appella••ur, quia sit talis Dominus, qui divino modo in homines imperium habeat, & divino etiam illud modo exercere possit, & exerceat. idem cap. 24. de fid. in Christum. &c.
• * 1.986

  §. 4.
• * 1.987

  1 Cor. 2. 8.
• * 1.988

  §. 5.
• * 1.989

  §. 6.
• * 1.990

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epi∣than. in Anchorat.
• * 1.991

  §. 7.
• * 1.992

  §. 8.
• * 1.993

  §. 9.
• * 1.994

  §. 10.
• * 1.995

  §. 11.
• * 1.996

  §. 12.
• * 1.997

  Heb. 1. 6.
• * 1.998

  §. 13.
• * 1.999

  §. 14.
• * 1.1000

  §. 15.
• d 1.1001

  Primū ••gi∣tur quod atti∣net ad priorem rationem dico, diversam il∣lam lectionem non extare, ut arbitror, ne{que} in ullo probate codice, ne{que} apud ullum probatum Scrip••orem, quod vel ex eo constare potest, quod Erasmus in suis Anno∣tationibus, quaemvis de hoc ipso loco agat, ejus rei nullam prorsus mentionem facit: Qui Erasmus, cum hoc in genere nus••uam non di∣ligentissime versatur; tum in omnibus locis, in quibus Christus Deus appellari videtur, adco dili∣genter omnia verba expendit, at{que} examinat, ut non immerito & Trinitartis. Arianismi suspectus fuerit, & ab Antitrinitariis inter eos relatus, quae subobscure Trinitati reclamaverint. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Fran. David. p. 186, 187.
• * 1.1002

  Exemplum deni{que} affert nostrorum Thes. 108. Quomodo se gesseriat in Transilvania in negotio Francisci Davidis, quomo∣do semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant vafriciae, perfidiae, crudelitatis, sanguinariae proditio∣nis, &c. sed his primùm regero: non exemplis, sed legibus judicandum esse: si nostri ita se gesserunt ut scribit Frantzius, &c. Deinde dico fals•• ista objecta fuisse ab autoribus scripti, quod citat Frant∣zius nostris: nec enim fraternè tractarunt Franciscum Davidem, us{que} ad ipsum agonem, quanquam cum ut fratrem tractare non tenebantur, qui in Jesu Christi veram divinitatem tam impie invola∣bat, ut dicere non dubitaret, tantum peccatum esse eum invocare, quantum est, si virgo Maria invo∣••etur, &c. Smal. Refut. Thes. Franz. disp. 9. p. 298.
• * 1.1003

  §. 16.
• e 1.1004

  Recte igitur existimasti, mihi quo{que} ve∣risimile vide∣ri, eum, qui Dominum Je∣sum Christum invocare non vult, aut non audet, vix Christiani no∣mine dignum esse: nisi quod non modo vix, sed ne vix quidem, & non modo verisimile id mihi videtur, sed per∣suasissimum mihi est.
• f 1.1005

  Eum invocare si non audeamus, Christiano nomine haud satis digni me∣rito existimari possemus. Volkel. de Ve••a ••elig. lib. 4. cap. 11. de Christi invocatione p. 221.
• g 1.1006

  Quid vero sentis de iis hominib••s qui Christum non invo••ant, nec invocandum cen∣sent? Prorsus non esse Christianos sentio: cum reipsa Christum non habeant, & licet ve••bis id ne∣gare non audeant, reipsa tamen negent. Catec. Rac. de praecep. Christi, cap. 1. p. 126.
• h 1.1007

  Eruditione, virtute, pieta∣to praestantis∣simo viro D. Mathaeo Radecio, amico, & Domino mihi plurimum observando, &c. Praestantissime vir, amice, frater, ac domine plurimum observande.
• * 1.1008

  i Video enim nihil hodie edi posse in totae Christiana Relig••one ma∣joris momenti quam hoc sit, demonstratio, videlicet, quod Christo licet creaturae ta∣men invocatio & adoratio seu cultus di∣vinus conve∣niat. Socin. Epist. ad Rad. 3. pag. 143.
• k 1.1009

  Si enim hoc demonstratum fuerit, conci∣dent omnes Trinitariorum enunitiones, quae revera uno hoc fundamento nituntur adhuc, quod Christo▪ Adoratio & Invocatio conveniunt, quae solius Dei illius altissimi omni ratione videtur esse propria. id. ibid.
• l 1.1010

  Hic primum adoratione cum invocati∣one confundis, quod tamen fi∣eri non debet, cum utrius{que} sit diversa quaedam ratio, adeo ut ego, quamvis nihil prorsus dubi∣tem, praeceptum extare de adorando Christo, & etiamsi non extaret, tamen eum a nobis adorari omnino debere, non idem tamen existimem de codem invocando, cum videlicet invocatio pro ipsae opis imploratione, & directione precum nostrarum accipitur. Hic enim statuo id quidem merito a nobis fieri posse, id est, posse nos jure ad ipsum Christum preces nostras dirigere, nihil tamen esse quod nos id facere cogat. Socin. Epist. ad Radec. 3. pag. 151.
• m 1.1011

  Christum Dominum in∣vocare possumus, sed non debemus, sive non tenemur.
• n 1.1012

  Quod si quis tan••a est fide praeditus, ut ad Deum ipsum perpetuo recte accedere audeat; huic non opus est, ut Christum invocet. Disput. cum Fran. pag. 4.
• o 1.1013

  Legi quo{que} diligenter re∣sponsionem tu∣am ad argu∣menta Fran∣cisci D••vidis; ubi Christi do∣mini invoca∣tionem hono∣rem{que} nomini ejus sacr••sancto convenientem asseris, ac contra calumnias Francisci Davidis defendis. Attame•• videris mihi, paucis verbis, optimam sententiam non tantum obscurasse, sed quasi in dubium revocas∣se, adversarios{que} in errore confirmasse. Quaeris quid sit, quod tantum malum secum importare pos∣sit? Breviter respondeo, verba illa quae saepius addis; Christum Dominum invocare possumus, sed non debemus, sive non tenemur, &c. ruinam negotio, causae{que} tuae minantur: Non possum percipere, quomo••o haec conciliari possint: non debemus, sed possumus. quasi in negotio salutis nostrae liberum sit facere vel omittere, prout nobis aliquid magis necessarium, vel••e contra visum fuerit: Niemojevius Epist. 1. ad Faust. Socin. An. 1587.
• * 1.1014

  §. 18.
• p 1.1015

  Quid praete∣rea huic prae∣cepto primo dominus Jesus addidit, id, quod etiam do∣minum Jesum pro Deo agnos∣cere tenemur: id est, pro eo qui in nos po∣testatem habet divinam & cui nos divi∣num exhibere honorem ob••tricti sumus. Catec. Racov. de praecep. Christi cap. 1.
• q 1.1016

  Cum ita{que} nuper, libellus de Christi divini••ate conscriptus, esset mihi a Pastore meo, viro cum primis pio & literat••, oblatus, in qu••—disseruit. Epist dedic. ad Sigismund
• r 1.1017

  Videtur autem hoc inprimis mo∣do diabolus insidi••s struere domin•• Iesu, dum scilicet tales excitat, qui non dubitant affirmare Domi∣num Iesum nunc plane esse otiosu••n in caelis, & res humanas vel salutem hominum non aliter cu∣rare, quam Moses curat salutem Iudaeorum. Qui quidem homines, professione videri volunt Chri∣stiani, interne vero Christum abnegarunt, & spiritu judaico, qui semper Christo fuit inimicissimus, inflati sunt; & si quis jure cum eis age••e velit▪ indigni plane sunt, qui inter Christianos numeren∣tur, quantumvis ore tenus Ch••i••tum profiteantur, & multa de eo garriant; adeo ut multo tolerabilior sit error illorum qui Christum pro illo uno Deo habent & colunt, quam istorum: & praestet ex duobus malis minus quod a••unt, eligendo, Trinitarium quam hujusmodi blasphemum esse. Smal. de ver. Christi divin. cap. 15. de Regn. Christi Moderno.
• s 1.1018

  Est enim in∣vocatio Iesu Christi, ex nu∣mero earum rerum, quas praecipere nullo modo opus est. idem. cap. 24. de fide in Christum. & de Adorat: & Invocat. Christi.
• * 1.1019

  §. 19.
• * 1.1020

  §. 20.
• * 1.1021

  §. 21.
• * 1.1022

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1023

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1024

  Vid. Diatrib. de Just. div.
• * 1.1025

  §. 22.
• * 1.1026

  §. 23.
• * 1.1027

  Revel. 4. 11.
• * 1.1028

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iustin. Mar. Apol.
• * 1.1029

  §. 24.
• * 1.1030

  Respondeo par∣ticulis istis ex∣clusivis, qualis & solus, & similis, cum de deo us••r∣pantur, nun••uā eos simpliciter e••cludi, qui a deo▪ in ea re de qua agitur, de∣pendent: sic dicitur solus deus sapiens, solus potens, solus immorta∣los, ne{que} ta∣men simplici∣ter a sapientia, a potentia, immortalitate excludi debent & alii, qui istarum rerum participes sunt effecti: Quare jam cum solus deus adorandus au•• invocandus esse dicitur, excludi simpliciter non debet is, qui hac in parte a deo pendet, propter divi••um ab ipso in cancta acceptum imp••rium, sed potius tacite simul includendus est. Schlicting. ad Meis. Artic. de deo. p. 206, 207.
• * 1.1031

  §. 25.
• * 1.1032

  §. 26.
• * 1.1033

  §. 27.
• * 1.1034

  §. 28.
• * 1.1035

  §. 29.
• * 1.1036

  §. 30.
• * 1.1037

  §. 31.
• * 1.1038

  •• Sed cur quae∣s•• absurdum est affirmare sep∣tem illos spiri∣tus a Johanne fuisse invoca∣tos? An quia solus Deus est invocandus? Atqui hanc rationem nihi∣li esse tota illa disputatione demonstratur. Non mod•• quia nunquam deserte inter∣dictum est, quemquam ali∣um praeter de∣um ipsum in∣vocare, sed e∣tiam, & multo magis, quia ejusmodi in∣terdictiones (ut sic loquar) nunquam eos excludunt, qui ipsi deo sunt subordinati. Socin. Epist. ad Volk. 3.
• x 1.1039

  Q••icquid e∣nim ab eo qui subordinationem istam recte novit & mente sua illam probat, in istos conferur, in deum ipsum confertur.
• * 1.1040

  §. 32.
• * 1.1041

  Quid praete∣rea dominus Iesus huic prae∣cept•• primo addidit? Res. Id quod etiamnum dominum Iesum pro deo cognoscere ten••mur, id est pro eo qui in nos potestatem habet divinam, & cui nos divinum exhibere honorem obstricti sumus. Catech. Racov▪ de praecep. Christi.
• * 1.1042

  §. 33.
• * 1.1043

  §. 34.
• * 1.1044

  §. 35.
• a 1.1045

  Nos Paul•• ante ostendi∣mus divinum cultum, qui Christo debe∣tur, & directe ipsum Christū respicit, non esse illum qui uni illi soli deo convenit. Socin. ad Wieck. re••pon. ad cap. 10. Class. 5. Arg. 6. pag. 422, 423.
• * 1.1046

  §. 36.
• * 1.1047

  §. 37.
• * 1.1048

  §. 38.
• * 1.1049

  Ʋnum Deum, & unum ejus fil••um, & ver∣bum, imagi∣ne••q,, quan∣tum possumus supplicationi∣bus, & honori∣bus venere∣mur, offerentes Deo univers••∣rum domino preces per su∣um unigeni∣tum: cui pr••us eas adhib••••us rogantes ut ipse, qui est propitiator pro peccatis nostris, dignetur tanquam pontif••x preces nostras, & s••crificia & intercession••s, offerre Deo. Origen. ad Celsum lib. 8.
• * 1.1050

  Joh. 14. 6.
• * 1.1051

  John 20. 17.
• * 1.1052

  §. 41.
• * 1.1053

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synod. Ephes. An••th. 8. Cyrill.
• * 1.1054

  §. 42.
• * 1.1055

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Cor. 5. 14.
• * 1.1056

  Exod. 20. 2, 3
• * 1.1057

  Psal. 103. 1, 2.
• * 1.1058

  §. 43.
• * 1.1059

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. Epist. ad Adelph. Episc.
• * 1.1060

  §. 44.
• * 1.1061

  Math. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 7.
• * 1.1062

  §. 45.
• * 1.1063

  §. 46.
• * 1.1064

  §. 47.
• * 1.1065

  §. 48.
• * 1.1066

  §. 49.
• * 1.1067

  §. 50.
• * 1.1068

  §. 51.
• * 1.1069

  §. 52.
• * 1.1070

  §. 53.
• * 1.1071

  §. 54.
• * 1.1072

  §. 55.
• * 1.1073

  §. 56.
• * 1.1074

  §. 57.
• a 1.1075

  Disputatio inter Fau∣stum Soci∣num & Chri∣stianum Fran∣ken de honore Christi, id est, utrum Christus cum ipse perfectissima ratione deus non sit, religiosa tamen adora∣tione colendus sit, Habita, 14. Martii. An. 1584. in aula Christophori Paulicovii.
• b 1.1076

  Quanta d••stantia inter Creatorem est & creaturam, tanta ••sse debet differentia inter hono∣norem qui creatori exhibetur, & qui creaturae tribuitur: atqui inter creatorem & creaturam maxima est distantia; sive essentiam & naturam spectes, sive dignitatem & excellentiam: Ergo & maxima esse debet differentia inter honor••m Dei & Creaturae: at honor qui prae••ipue debetur Deo est religiosa adoratio, ergo haec non est tribuenda creaturae; ergo ne{que} Christo, quem tu puram esse creaturam fateris: de adorat. Christi disput. cum Christoph. Fran p. 4.
• c 1.1077

  Etsi summ•• est inter Deū & creaturam distantia, non tamen necesse est, tantam esse differentiam inter honore•• Dei et creatu∣rae, nam potest deus cui vult communicare honorem suum, Christo praesertim, qui dignus est tali▪ honore, qui{que} non sine grávissimis causis ad••••ari jubetur in sacris literis. disputat. de adorat. Christi. pag. 6.
• * 1.1078

  §. 58.
• d 1.1079

  Ad illa om∣nia tes••imoni•• ego possum re∣spondere p. 7.
• f 1.1080

  De veritate meae sententiae tam sum certus, quam certo scio me istum pileum manibus tenere. pag. 9.
• * 1.1081

  e Et ego ad omnes tuos locos, Christi adorationem ••gen••es, probabilem p••••ero responsionem ••fferre. pag. 8.
• g 1.1082

  Tua ista cer∣titudo non po∣test & mihi & aliis esse ve∣ritatis regula, nam reperie∣tur alius quis∣piam, qui di∣cat, sententi∣••m tu•• contra∣riam ex sacris libris▪ sibi esse persuasissimā.
• * 1.1083

  h Tam vera est hac de re mea▪ certitud••, quam verum est Apostolum de Christo dixisse, adorent eum omnes Angeli. pag. 10.
• * 1.1084

  §. 59.
• i 1.1085

  Duplex est adoratio, altera quidem quae si∣ne ullo medio dirigitur in Deum: altera vero per medi∣um Christum defertur ad Deum; illa a∣doratio est soli Deo propria, haec vero con∣venit Christo tantum▪ pag. 11.
• k 1.1086

  Estne utra{que} adoratio ista ejusde•• speci∣ei. pag. 11.
• l 1.1087

  Est, quia adoratio Christi est ipsius Dei, quippe quae in Christo non conquiescat, sed per eum trans〈…〉〈…〉 in Deum. pag. 12. Hoc sequetur, quod ipsius etiam Christi imago sit adoranda, qui•• una & ead••m adoratio respicit in imaginem, tanquam medium, in Christum tanquam finem, quemadmodum Thomas Aquinas docet, a quo tuum tu commentum es mutuatus. p. 13.
• * 1.1088

  §. 1.
• * 1.1089

  §. 2.
• * 1.1090

  §. 3.
• * 1.1091

  §. 4.
• * 1.1092

  §. 5.
• * 1.1093

  §. 6.
• * 1.1094

  §. 7.
• * 1.1095

  Heb. 13. 16.
• * 1.1096

  1 Pet. 2. 9. Ephes. 2. 18. Heb. 10. 22.
• * 1.1097

  §. 8.
• * 1.1098

  §. 9.
• * 1.1099

  §. 10.
• * 1.1100

  Munus igi∣tur Sacerdota∣le in eo situm est, quod quem∣admodum pro Regio munere pote••t nobis in omnibus no∣stris necessita∣tibus subvenire: it•• pro munere Sacerdotali subvenire vult, ac porro subvenit; At{que} haec illius sub∣veniendi, seu opis afferendae ratio, sacrificium ejus appellatur. Catec. Rac. de Mun. Chr. Sacer. p. 1.
• * 1.1101

  §. 11.
• * 1.1102

  §. 12.
• * 1.1103

  Quare haec ejus opis affe∣rendae ratio Sacrificium voca∣tur?

  Vocatur ita figura••o loquen∣di mod••, quod quemadmodum in prisco foedere summus Pontifex ingressus in sanctū sanctorum, ea quae ad expianda peccata popu∣li spectarent, perficiebat, it•• Christus nunc pene••ravit caelos, ut illic Deo appareat pro nobis, & omnia ad expiationem pec∣catorum nostrorum spectanti•• peragat. Heb. 2. 17. & 4. 14. & 5. 1. & 9. 24. De Mun. Chr. Sacerdot. Q. 2.
• * 1.1104

  §. 13.
• * 1.1105

  §. 14.
• * 1.1106

  Nam annos abhinc sex at∣{que} eo amplius idem paradox∣um in mea de Jesu Christo servat••re di∣sputatione sine dubio legisti. Faust. Socin. Res. ad Joh: Niemojev. Ep. 1.
• b 1.1107

  Verum non sine maerore, (ne quid gravius ad∣dam) incidi inter legendum in quoddam paradoxon, dum Chri••tum in morte, sive in cruce sacri∣ficium obtulisse perneagas, Joh. Niemojev. Epist. 1. ad Faust. Socin.
• c 1.1108

  Vide Bernard. Epist. 109.
• * 1.1109

  §. 15.
• a 1.1110

  Etenim mor∣tem, Christus subiit, duplici ratione: par∣tim quidem, ut faederis me∣diator, seu sponsor, & ve∣luti testator quidem partim ut Sacerdas Deo ipsum ob∣laturus. Crell. de caus. ••ort. Christi p. 6.
• b 1.1111

  Partes hu••us maneris haec sunt potissim um; mactatio victimae, in Tabernaculum ad oblationem peragen••am ••ngressio, & ex ••odem egressio. Ac mactatio quidem mortem Christi violentam, sanguinis{que} profusionem conti••et. Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 3. cap. 37. p. 145.
• c 1.1112

  In morte utrum{que} munus (Mediatoris, & Sacerdotis) veluti coi••: & prius quidem in ea definit, ea{que} confirmatur postremum autem incipit, & ad Christus fuit quodammodo praeparatus. p. 8.
• d 1.1113

  Hin•• co••••i∣gitur solam Christi mor∣tem, nequa∣qu••m illā per∣fectam absolu∣tam{que} ipsius oblationem de qua in Epist. a•• Hebraeos a∣gitur, fuisse—sed principium & praeparatio∣nem quandam istius Sacer∣dotii in caelo demum admi∣nistrandi, ex∣titisse. idem. ibid.
• e 1.1114

  Jam vero satis apparet, Christum prio∣ri modo specta∣tum, penitus Deo subordi∣natum esse. p. 6.
• f 1.1115

  Ne{que} enim vel ipsum ingessit, vel a nobis missus est ad faedus inter De∣um, & nos peragendum: sed Dei, qui ipsum in hunc finem miserat, minister, ac internuntius h••c in parte fuit. p. 7.
• g 1.1116

  Cum vero consideratur ut Sacerdos, etsi similitud nem refert ejus, qui Deo aliquid hominum nomine pr••stet. Si tamen rem ipsam penitius spectes, deprehendes, talem cum esse sacerdotem, qui Dei nomine nobis aliquod praeslet. pag. 7.
• * 1.1117

  §. 16.
• * 1.1118

  §. 17.
• * 1.1119

  §. 18.
• * 1.1120

  §. 19.
• * 1.1121

  §. 20.
• * 1.1122

  §. 21.
• * 1.1123

  §. 22.
• * 1.1124

  §. 23.
• * 1.1125

  §. 24.
• * 1.1126

  §. 25.
• * 1.1127

  §. 26.
• * 1.1128

  §. 27.
• * 1.1129

  §. 28.
• * 1.1130

  Ʋolkel. de ver. Relig. lib. 3. cap. 37. p. 461.
• * 1.1131

  §. 29.
• * 1.1132

  §. 30.
• * 1.1133

  1 Joh. 1. 7.
• * 1.1134

  §. 31.
• * 1.1135

  §. 32.
• * 1.1136

  §. 33.
• * 1.1137

  §. 34.
• * 1.1138

  §. 34.
• * 1.1139

  §. 35.
• * 1.1140

  §. 1.
• * 1.1141

  §. 2.
• * 1.1142

  Vid. Faust. Socin. de Jes. Christ. Ser∣vator. Praelect: Theol. Lect. Saec. Paeraen. ad Volan. Epistola ad Niemojev. Thes. de Iustif. Smal: Ref. Thes. Fran. adv. Smigl. Nov. Monst. Catec. Rac. &c. Crelli. de Caus. Mor. Christ. Vindic. ad Grot. Volkel. Ver. Relig. Christ. Ostored. Institut. cap. 11. Schlicting. Epist. ad Hebrae. &c.
• * 1.1143

  §. 3.
• * 1.1144

  §. 4.
• * 1.1145

  Preface.
• * 1.1146

  §. 5.
• * 1.1147

  §. 6.
• * 1.1148

  §. 7.
• * 1.1149

  §. 8▪
• * 1.1150

  §. 9.
• * 1.1151

  §. 10.
• * 1.1152

  §. 11.
• * 1.1153

  §. 12.
• * 1.1154

  §. 13.
• * 1.1155

  §. 14.
• * 1.1156

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1157

  §. 15.
• * 1.1158

  §. 16.
• * 1.1159

  §. 17.
• * 1.1160

  §. 18.
• * 1.1161

  §. 19.
• * 1.1162

  Salus Electo∣rum sanguis Jesu.
• * 1.1163

  §. 20.
• * 1.1164

  Crellius de Causis Mortis Christi. p. 13.
• * 1.1165

  §. 21.
• * 1.1166

  §. 1.
• * 1.1167

  §. 2.
• * 1.1168

  §. 3.
• * 1.1169

  §. 4.
• * 1.1170

  §. 5
• * 1.1171

  Aristoph. in Plut.
• * 1.1172

  1 Cor. 4. 13.
• * 1.1173

  §. 6.
• * 1.1174

  §. 7.
• * 1.1175

  §. 8.
• * 1.1176

  §. 9.
• * 1.1177

  §. 10.
• * 1.1178

  §. 11.
• * 1.1179

  §. 12.
• * 1.1180

  §. 13.
• * 1.1181

  Psal. 51. 16.
• * 1.1182

  §. 14.
• * 1.1183

  §. 15.
• * 1.1184

  §. 16.
• * 1.1185

  §. 17.
• * 1.1186

  §. 19.
• * 1.1187

  §. 20.
• * 1.1188

  Quodnam est discrimen in∣ter Veteris, & Novi foederis peccatorum expiationem?

  Expiatio peccatorum sub novo foedere, non solum distat ab expiatione peccatorum sub vetere plurimùm, verum etiam longe praestantior, & excellen∣tior est. id vero duabus potis∣simum de causis: prior est, quod sub vetere foedere, iis tantum peccatis expiatio, per illa legalia Sacrificia, consti∣tuta fuit, quae per imprudenti∣am, vel per infirmitatem ad∣missa fuere, unde etiam infir∣mitates, & ignorantiae nuncu∣pabantur: verum pro peccatis gravioribus, quae transgressio∣nes erant mandati Dei mani∣festae, nullae sacrificia institutae fuerant, sed mortis poena fu∣it proposita. Quod si talia De∣us alicui condonabat, id non vi foederis fiebat, sed miseri∣cordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra foedus, & quando, & cui libuit exhibebat: sub novo vero foedere peccata ex∣piantur, non solum per impru∣dentiam & infirmitatem ad∣missas, verum etiam ea, quae apertissimorum Dei mandato∣rum sunt transgressiones, dummodo is, cui labi ad eum modum contige••it, in eo non pe••severet, verum per veram pae∣nitentiam resipiscat, nec ad il∣lud peccatum amplius relaba∣tur. P••sterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco foedere ad eum modum expiatio peragebatur, ut poena temporaria tantum ab iis, quorum peccata expiaban∣tur, tolleretur: sub Novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum poenas temporarias, verum etiam aeter∣nas amo••eat, & loco paenarum, aeternam vitam in foedere promissam, iis quorum peccata fuerint ex∣piata offerat. De Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 6.
• * 1.1189

  §. 21.
• * 1.1190

  §. 22.
• * 1.1191

  §. 23.
• * 1.1192

  Qua ratione ver•• utrum{que} demonstras?

  Peccata quae sub vetere foe∣dere expiari non potuere omni•• sub Novo expiari testatur A∣postolus Paulus, in Actis, cap. 13. 38, 39. idem habetur Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. Quod vera ea ratione expien∣tur peccata sub novo foedere, ut etiam aeterna poena amoveatur, & vita aeterna donetur, habe∣tur Heb. 9. 12. ubi sup. Q. 7.
• * 1.1193

  §. 24.
• * 1.1194

  §. 25.
• * 1.1195

  §. 26.
• * 1.1196

  §. 27▪
• * 1.1197

  §. 28.
• * 1.1198

  Adde quod corpus mortale▪ quo Christus ante mortem, imo ante suum in caelum ascensum praeditus e••a••, ad hoc Sacer∣dotium obeundum, & sacrifi∣cium penitus a solvendum, ap∣tum non fuit; ideo{que} tunc de∣mum corpus, hu••c rei accom∣modatum, perfectum ei fuisse, divinus Author indicat, Heb. 10. 5. cum in mundum, nempe futurum illum, qui caelum est, ingrederetur. Volkel. de vera Relig: lib. 3. cap▪ 37. de Sac. Christi. p. 14••.
• * 1.1199

  §. 29.
• * 1.1200

  1 John 1. 7. Ephes. 1. 13.
• * 1.1201

  §. 30.
• * 1.1202

  §. 31.
• * 1.1203

  §. 32.
• * 1.1204

  §. 33.
• * 1.1205

  §. 1.
• * 1.1206

  §. 2.
• * 1.1207

  Si non reddit faciendo quod debet reddet patiendo quod debet. August. lib. 3. de lib. Arbit.
• * 1.1208

  §. 3.
• * 1.1209

  Vid. Diat. de just. Vindic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hier.
• * 1.1210

  §. 4.
• * 1.1211

  §. 5.
• * 1.1212

  Salust. bell. Catil.
• * 1.1213

  §. 6.
• * 1.1214

  Quanta for∣titudine dimi∣caverint. te∣stimonio est, quod adverso semel apud Dyrrachium praelio, poenam in se ultro de∣poposcerunt. Sueton. in Jul. Cael. cap. 68. More patrio decimari volu∣erunt. Appia∣nus.
• * 1.1215

  §. 7.
• * 1.1216

  Senec. Hip∣pol. Act. 2.
• * 1.1217

  §. 8.
• * 1.1218

  Hor. Sa. lib 1. 3.
• * 1.1219

  Vid. Catonis orat. apud Salust. Bel. Catalin.
• * 1.1220

  §. 9.
• * 1.1221

  Puniendispec∣catis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Ʋna est quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur: cum poena adhibetur castigandi at{que} emendandi gratia, ut is qui fortuito deliquit, atten∣tior fiat, correctior{que}. Altera est, quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appellant, ea causa animadvertendi est, quum dignitas authoritas{que} ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemptum ejus pariat, & honorem elevet. &c. vid. A. Gell. lib. 6. cap. 24.
• * 1.1222

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut. de vir∣tut.
• * 1.1223

  §. 10.
• * 1.1224

  Arist. Rhet. 1.
• * 1.1225

  §. 11.
• * 1.1226

  Terent. Eunuch. Ac. 5. S••e. 4.
• * 1.1227

  Se••▪
• * 1.1228

  §. 12.
• * 1.1229

  Naturale jus talionis hic indicatur. Grot. in Gen. 9. 6.

  Inde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Math. 1. 19.
• * 1.1230

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thucid. lib. 3.
• * 1.1231

  §. 13.
• * 1.1232

  §. 14.
• * 1.1233

  §. 15.
• * 1.1234

  §. 16.
• * 1.1235

  §. 17.
• * 1.1236

  §. 18.
• * 1.1237

  §. 19.
• * 1.1238

  §. 20.
• * 1.1239

  §. 21.
• * 1.1240

  §. 22.
• * 1.1241

  § 23▪
• * 1.1242

  §. 24,
• * 1.1243

  §. 1.
• * 1.1244

  §. 2.
• * 1.1245

  §. 3.
• * 1.1246

  §. 4.
• * 1.1247

  §. 5.
• * 1.1248

  §. 6.
• * 1.1249

  §. 7.
• * 1.1250

  §. 8.
• * 1.1251

  §. 9.
• * 1.1252

  §. 10.
• * 1.1253

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.1254

  §. 11.
• * 1.1255

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1256

  §. 12.
• * 1.1257

  §. 13.
• * 1.1258

  Vide Of the Death of Ch••••st, the price he paid, and the Pur∣chase he made
• * 1.1259

  Vid. Dia••ib. de Justit. Divin.
• * 1.1260

  §. 14.
• * 1.1261

  §. 15▪
• * 1.1262

  §. 16.
• * 1.1263

  §. 17.
• * 1.1264

  §. 18.
• * 1.1265

  §. 19.
• * 1.1266

  §. 20.
• * 1.1267

  §. 21.
• * 1.1268

  §. 22.
• * 1.1269

  §. 23
• * 1.1270

  §. 24.
• * 1.1271

  §. 25.
• * 1.1272

  §. 26.
• * 1.1273

  §. 27.
• * 1.1274

  §. 28.
• * 1.1275

  §. 29.
• * 1.1276

  §. 30.
• * 1.1277

  §. 31.
• * 1.1278

  §. 23.
• * 1.1279

  §. 33.
• * 1.1280

  §. 34.
• * 1.1281

  §. 1.
• a 1.1282

  Aliqui Ju∣daei mihi con∣fessi sunt, Rab∣binos suos ex Propheticis Scripturis fa∣cile se extri∣care potuisse, modo Isaias tacuisset.
• * 1.1283

  Disput. deci∣ma, de Sacri∣ficiorum du∣ratione, Thes. 82, 83, 84. &c.
• * 1.1284

  §. 2.
• * 1.1285

  Abrabiniel tam avide a Judaeis passim conquiritur, ut vix tandem e∣jus compos fie∣ri potuerim. Nam eum Christiani superiorem putant: qui solide eorum argumenta &c. Constant. l' Emper. Prolog. ad Lectorem: praefix. Com. Abrab. in cap. 53. Is.
• * 1.1286

  §. 3.
• * 1.1287

  §. 4.
• * 1.1288

  Porrp libri istius, unde haec sectio in Esaiam de∣sumpta est, Au∣thor per••ibe∣tur D. Sime∣on, conciona∣torum princeps, qui Francofurti olim degebat. Hic•• Judaeorum vetustissimis Scriptis, secundum bibliorum seriem, dicta & explicationes plurimas magna diligentia & labore collegit: unde libr•• su•• nomen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ac si peram dicas: quia ut in pera reconduntur plurima: l' Emper.
• * 1.1289

  §. 5.
• * 1.1290

  §. 6.
• * 1.1291

  §. 7.
• * 1.1292

  §. 8.
• * 1.1293

  §. 9.
• * 1.1294

  Eminenti•• ••••¦tionem quavis formula ex∣pressit, quia illius emin••n∣tia erit subli∣mis excellen∣tia. D. Kim∣chi.
• * 1.1295

  §. 10.
• * 1.1296

  §. 11.
• * 1.1297

  §. 12.
• * 1.1298

  §. 13.
• * 1.1299

  §. 14.
• * 1.1300

  §. 15.
• * 1.1301

  §. 16.
• * 1.1302

  §. 17.
• * 1.1303

  §. 18.
• * 1.1304

  §. 19.
• * 1.1305

  §. 20.
• * 1.1306

  §. 21.
• * 1.1307

  Ezek. 21. 21, 22.
• * 1.1308

  §. 22.
• * 1.1309

  §. 23.
• * 1.1310

  §. 24.
• * 1.1311

  §. 25.
• * 1.1312

  §. 26.
• * 1.1313

  §▪ 28.
• * 1.1314

  §. 29.
• * 1.1315

  §. 30.
• * 1.1316

  §. 31.
• * 1.1317

  §. 32. Grot.
• * 1.1318

  §. 33.
• * 1.1319

  §. 34. Grot.
• * 1.1320

  §. 35.
• * 1.1321

  §. 36.
• * 1.1322

  §. 37.
• * 1.1323

  §. 38.
• * 1.1324

  §. 39.
• * 1.1325

  §. 40.
• * 1.1326

  §. 41.
• * 1.1327

  §. 42.
• * 1.1328

  Grot.
• * 1.1329

  §. 43.
• * 1.1330

  §. 44.
• * 1.1331

  §. 45.
• * 1.1332

  §. 46.
• * 1.1333

  §. 47.
• * 1.1334

  §. 48.
• * 1.1335

  §. 49.
• * 1.1336

  §. 50.
• * 1.1337

  §. 51.
• * 1.1338

  §. 52.
• * 1.1339

  §. 53.
• * 1.1340

  §. 54.
• * 1.1341

  Grot.
• * 1.1342

  §. 55.
• * 1.1343

  §. 56.
• * 1.1344

  §. 57.
• * 1.1345

  §. 58.
• * 1.1346

  §. 59.
• * 1.1347

  §. 60.
• * 1.1348

  §. 61.
• * 1.1349

  Grot.
• * 1.1350

  §. 62.
• * 1.1351

  §. 63.
• * 1.1352

  §. 64.
• * 1.1353

  Gret.
• * 1.1354

  §. 65.
• * 1.1355

  §. 66.
• * 1.1356

  §. 67.
• * 1.1357

  §. 68.
• * 1.1358

  §. 69.
• * 1.1359

  §. 70.
• * 1.1360

  §. 71.
• * 1.1361

  §. 72.
• * 1.1362

  §. 73.
• * 1.1363

  §. 74.
• * 1.1364

  §. 75.
• * 1.1365

  Grot.
• * 1.1366

  §. 76.
• * 1.1367

  §. 77.
• * 1.1368

  §. 78.
• * 1.1369

  §. 79.
• * 1.1370

  §. 80.
• * 1.1371

  §. 18.
• * 1.1372

  §. 82.
• * 1.1373

  §. 83.
• * 1.1374

  §. 84.
• * 1.1375

  §. 1.
• * 1.1376

  §. 2.
• * 1.1377

  §. 3.
• * 1.1378

  §. 4.
• * 1.1379

  §. 5.
• * 1.1380

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, seu crucifragium ut crux ipsa, servorum quasi peculiare sup∣plicium fuit. Lipsius. Sublimes extra ordinem ali∣quae statueban∣tur cruces; si exempla eden∣da forent in famosa persona, & ob atrox facinus, aut si ho•• supplicio veniret afficiendus ille, cujus odium erat apud omnes flagrantissimum; Salmas. de Cruce: which seemes to be the case in the Crosse of Christ: between these of the thieves. Bene addit crucem, nam servorum non civium crucis erat supplicium. Nannius, in Terent. And. Ac. 3. Noli minitari, Scio Crucem•• futu∣ram mihi sepulchrum: ibi mei majores sunt siti, pater, avus, proavus, abavus: servus apud Pla ut. Mil. Glor. 2. 4. 19. Vid. Trach. Histor. lib. 2. 72. Vulcat in Avid. Cassio. cap. 4. Capitolin. in Macrin. cap. 12. Luc. florus lib. 3. cap. 19.
• * 1.1381

  §. 6.
• * 1.1382

  §. 7.
• * 1.1383

  §. 8.
• * 1.1384

  §. 9.
• * 1.1385

  §. 10.
• * 1.1386

  §. 11.
• * 1.1387

  §. 12.
• * 1.1388

  §. 13.
• * 1.1389

  §. 14.
• * 1.1390

  §. 15.
• * 1.1391

  §. 16.
• * 1.1392

  §. 17.
• * 1.1393

  §. 18.
• * 1.1394

  §. 19.
• * 1.1395

  §. 20▪
• * 1.1396

  §. 21.
• * 1.1397

  §.. 22
• * 1.1398

  §. 23.
• * 1.1399

  §. 24.
• * 1.1400

  §. 25.
• * 1.1401

  §. 26.
• * 1.1402

  §. 27.
• * 1.1403

  §. 28.
• * 1.1404

  §. 29.
• * 1.1405

  Vidi ego dum plaustro per o∣ra vulgi tra∣ducitur, illu∣dentem Theo∣llogo e Francis∣canis, cujus cura mollire ferocitatem a∣••imi obstinati. Lucilius ferocitate contumax, dum in patibulum traditus, Monachi solatium aspernatus objectam Crucem aversatur, Christo{que} illudit in haec eadem verba; illi in extremis prae timore imbel∣lis sudor, ego imperterritus morior. Falso sane imperterritum se dixit scelestus homo, quem vidimus dejectum animo, Philosophia uti pessime, cujus se mentiebatur professorem. Erat illi in extremis aspectus ferox & horridus▪ inquieta mens, an xium quodcun{que} loquebatur: & quanquam Philoso∣phicè mori se clamabat identidem, finiisse ut brutum nemo negaverit. Antequam rogo subdere∣••ur ignis: jussus sacrilegam linguam cultro submittere, negat, ne{que} exerit, nisi forcipum vi appre∣hensam carnifex ferro abscindit: non alias voci feratio horridior: diceres mugire ictum Bovem, &c. Hic Lucilii Vanini finis, cui quanta conssantia fuerit, probat belluinus in morte clamor. Vidi e∣go in custodia, vidi in patibulo, videram antequam subiret vincula: flagitiosus in libertate, & vo∣luptatum sectator avidus, in carcere Catholicus, in extremis, omni Philosophiae praesidio destitutus, amens moritur. Gramon: Histor. Gal. lib. 3. ad An. 1619.
• * 1.1406

  §. 30.
• * 1.1407

  §. 31.
• * 1.1408

  §. 32▪
• * 1.1409

  §. 1.
• * 1.1410

  §. 2.
• * 1.1411

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1412

  §. 3.
• * 1.1413

  §. 4.
• * 1.1414

  §. 5.
• * 1.1415

  §. 6.
• * 1.1416

  §. 7.
• * 1.1417

  Nec dari quicquam ne∣cesse est, ut substantiam capiat obliga∣tio; sed sufficit eos qui negotia gerunt consen∣tire. Institut. l. 3. de ob∣lig. ex con∣sensu.
• * 1.1418

  §. 8.
• * 1.1419

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Formula Jur. institut. lib. 3. c. Tollitur. §. item per: Numerius Nigidius interrogavit Aulum Augerium: Quic∣quid tibi hodierno die, per Aquilianam stipulationem spopondi, id ne omne habes acceptum. Respon∣dit Aulus Augerius, habeo, acceptum{que} tuli. ibid.
• * 1.1420

  §. 9.
• * 1.1421

  Faecialis sumpto in ma∣nibus lapide, postquam de faedere inter partes conve∣nerat, haec verba dixit, Si recte ac sine dolo malo, hoc faedus at{que} hoc iusiurandum▪ facio, dii mihi cuncta felicia praestent; sin aliter aut ago, aut cogito, caeteris omnibus salvis, in propriis legibus, in propriis laribus, in propriis templis, in propriis sepulchris, solus ego peream, ut hic lapis de mani∣bus meis decidet. Polyb. lib. 3. Audi Iupiter, audi pater patrate, ut illa palam prima postrema, ex illis tabulis recitata sunt sine dolo malo, ut{que} ea his hodie rectissime intellecta sunt: illis legibus populus Romanus prior non desiciet: si prior defecerit public•• consilio, dolo malo, tu ille Diespiter, populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hodie, feriam; tanto{que} magis ferito, quanto magis potes, polles{que} id ubi dixit, porcum saxo silice percussit▪ Livius.

  Armati, Jovis ante aram, pateras{que} tenentes,

  Stabant, & caesa jungebant foed••ra porca. Virgil. Aeneid. lib. 8. Ad quem locum Servius: faedera dicta sunt, à porea faede & crudeliter occisa: nam cum a••te gladiis configeretur, a fecialibus inventum, ut silice feriretur, ea caus•• quod antiquum Jovis signum, lapi∣dis ••silicem putaverunt esse.
• * 1.1422

  Virg. Aeneid. 1.
• * 1.1423

  §. 10.
• * 1.1424

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1425

  Zec. 13. 7.
• * 1.1426

  §. 11.
• * 1.1427

  §. 12.
• * 1.1428

  §. 13.
• * 1.1429

  §. 14.
• * 1.1430

  §. 15.
• * 1.1431

  Joh. 14. 28.
• * 1.1432

  Vid Coccei∣um in locum.
• * 1.1433

  §. 16.
• * 1.1434

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.1435

  §. ••7.
• * 1.1436

  §. 18.
• * 1.1437

  §. 19.
• * 1.1438

  §. 20.
• * 1.1439

  §. 21▪
• * 1.1440

  §. 22.
• * 1.1441

  §. 23.
• * 1.1442

  §. 24.
• * 1.1443

  §. 25.
• * 1.1444

  §. 1.
• * 1.1445

  §. 2.
• * 1.1446

  §. 4.
• * 1.1447

  §. 5.
• * 1.1448

  §. 6.
• * 1.1449

  §. 7.
• * 1.1450

  §. 8.
• * 1.1451

  §. 10.
• * 1.1452

  Deut. 4. 34.
• * 1.1453

  §. 11.
• * 1.1454

  §. 12.
• * 1.1455

  §. 13.
• * 1.1456

  §. 14.
• * 1.1457

  §. 15.
• * 1.1458

  §. 16.
• * 1.1459

  §. 17.
• * 1.1460

  §. 18.
• * 1.1461

  §. 19.
• * 1.1462

  §. 20.
• * 1.1463

  §. 21.
• * 1.1464

  Qid ad ea Testimonia, quae nos a Christo testantur Redemp∣tos, Respondes?

  R. E verbo redimendi non posse effici satisfactionem hanc, hinc est planum, quod de ipso Deo & in novo, & in prisco foedere scribitur, eum redimisse p••pulum suum ex Aegypto; eum fecisse re∣demptionem populo suo; deinde cum scriptum sit, quod Deus rede∣mit Abrahamum & Davidem, & quod Moses fuerit Redemp∣tor, & quod simus redempti••••e nostris iniquitatibus, aut e vana conversatione nostra, & e male∣dictione legis: Certum autem est Deum nemini satisfeciss; nec vero aut iniquitatibus, aut con∣versationi vanae, aut legi satisfa∣ctum esse dici posse.
• * 1.1465

  §. 22.
• * 1.1466

  Requiritur & is, qui cap∣tivum detineat: alioqui cap∣tivus non esset: huic in libe∣ratione nostra, si exactius rem ipsam considerare vellmus, re∣sp••ndent multa. Multa siqui∣dem nos tanquam captivos detinebant: ea autem sunt pec∣catum, Diabolus, Mundus, & qui peccatum consequuntur, mortis aeternae reatus seu mor∣tis aeternae nobis decre••u sup∣plicium. De Servator. Lib. 1. Cap. 2.
• * 1.1467

  §. 23.
• * 1.1468

  §. 24.
• * 1.1469

  §. 25.
• * 1.1470

  §. 26.
• * 1.1471

  Nihil in hac liberatione desi∣deratur, ut omnino verae re∣demptioni respondeat, nisi ut is qui captivum detinebat, Pretium accipiat: quamvis autem quibusdam videatur, dici posse, Diabolum, preti∣um quod in nostra liberatione intervenit, accepisse, quam∣admodum antiquiores Theole∣gi, inter quos Ambrosius, & Augustinus ausi sunt dicere, tamen id perabsurdum videri debet, & recte est ne∣minem id pretium accepisse aff••rmare. Ea siquidem ratio∣ne potissimum, non vera sed Metaphorica redemptio, libera∣tio nostra est; quocirca in ea nemo est, qui pretium accipi∣at, si enim id quod in ipso pretii loco est acceptum (ab eo scilicet qui captivum hominem detinebat) fuisset, jamnon metaphoricum, sed verum pretium in∣tervenisset, & propterea vera Redemptio esset.
• * 1.1472

  §. 27.
• * 1.1473

  §. 28.
• * 1.1474

  §. 29.
• * 1.1475

  §. 30.
• * 1.1476

  §. 31.
• * 1.1477

  Propriam enim verbi redi∣mendi significationem intelli∣go, cum verum pretium in∣tervenit; verum autem pre∣tium voo, non pecuniam tan∣tum sed qui••quid ut ei satissi∣at qui captivum detinet datur, licet alioqui multa metapho∣rico in ejusmodi redemptione reperiantur Socin. de Serv. lib. 1. Part. 1. Cap. 1.
• * 1.1478

  §. 32.
• * 1.1479

  §. 33.
• * 1.1480

  §. 34.
• * 1.1481

  §. 35.
• * 1.1482

  §. 36.
• * 1.1483

  §. 37.
• * 1.1484

  §. 38.
• * 1.1485

  §. 39.
• * 1.1486

  §. 40.
• * 1.1487

  §. 41.
• * 1.1488

  §. 42.
• * 1.1489

  §. 43.
• * 1.1490

  §. 44.
• * 1.1491

  §. 45.
• * 1.1492

  §. 46.
• * 1.1493

  Diatrib. de Justit. Div.
• * 1.1494

  §. 47.
• * 1.1495

  §. 48.
• * 1.1496

  §. 49.
• * 1.1497

  §. 50.
• * 1.1498

  §. 51.
• * 1.1499

  Interventus sanguinis Chri∣sti, ••icet Deum ad liberatio∣nem hanc a peccatorum nostro∣rum paena nobis concedendum movere non potuerit, movit tamen nos ad eam nobis obli∣tam accipiendam, & Christo fidem habendam, Socin. ubi sup.
• * 1.1500

  §. 52.
• * 1.1501

  §. 53.
• * 1.1502

  §. 54.
• * 1.1503

  §. 55.
• * 1.1504

  §. 56.
• * 1.1505

  §. 1.
• * 1.1506

  §. 2.
• * 1.1507

  §. 3.
• * 1.1508

  §. 4.
• * 1.1509

  §. 5.
• * 1.1510

  §. 6.
• * 1.1511

  §. 7.
• * 1.1512

  §. 8.
• * 1.1513

  §. 9.
• * 1.1514

  §. 10.
• * 1.1515

  §. 11.
• * 1.1516

  §. 12.
• * 1.1517

  §. 13.
• * 1.1518

  §. 14.
• * 1.1519

  §. 15.
• * 1.1520

  §. 16.
• * 1.1521

  §. 17.
• * 1.1522

  §. 18.
• * 1.1523

  §. 19.
• * 1.1524

  §. 20.
• * 1.1525

  §. 21.
• * 1.1526

  §. 22.
• * 1.1527

  §. 22.
• * 1.1528

  §. 23.
• * 1.1529

  §. 24.
• * 1.1530

  §. 25.
• * 1.1531

  §. 26.
• * 1.1532

  §. 27.
• * 1.1533

  §. 28.
• * 1.1534

  §. 29.
• * 1.1535

  §. 30.
• * 1.1536

  §. 31.
• * 1.1537

  §. 32.
• * 1.1538

  Ad haec vero, quod nos Deo Reconciliârit quid affers?
• * 1.1539

  Primum, nusquam scrip∣turam asserere, Deum no∣bis a Christo reconciliatum; verum id tantum, quod nos per Christum aut mortem ejus, simus reconciliati, vel Deo re∣conciliati, ut ex omnibus lo∣cis, quae de hac reconciliatio∣ne agunt, videre est. Quare nullo modo ex iis omnibus lo∣cis ea satisfactio extrui potest. deinde vero qd aperte in Scrip∣turis extat, Deum nos sibi re∣conciliasse, id opinionem Ad∣versariorum prorsus falsam es∣se evincit. 2. Cor. 5. 18. Col. 1. 20, 23.
• * 1.1540

  §. 34.
• * 1.1541

  Quid vero de hac reconci∣liatione sentis? Christum Jesum nobis, qui propter pec••ata nostra Dei ini∣mici eramus, & ab eo aba∣lienati, viam oftendisse, quem∣admodum nos ad Deum con∣verti, at{que} ad eum modum ei reconciliari oporteat.
• * 1.1542

  §. 35.
• * 1.1543

  Rom. 1. 32.
• * 1.1544

  §. 36.
• * 1.1545

  §. 1.
• * 1.1546

  §. 2.
• * 1.1547

  Nonne est etiam aliqua alia mortis Christi causa? Nulla prorsus; etsi nunc vulgo Christiani sentiunt, Christum morte sua nobis sa∣lutem meruisse, & pro pec∣catis nostris planarie satisfe∣cisse, quae sententia fallae•• est & erronea, & admodum perniciosa. Cat. Racov. de Mor. Christi cap. 8. q. 12.
• * 1.1548

  §. 3.
• * 1.1549

  §. 4.
• * 1.1550

  Quaratione? Quod ad id quod fallax sit & erronea, attinet, id hinc perspicuum est, quod non solum de ea nihil extet in scriptu∣ris, verum etiam Scripturis & sanae rationi repugnat?
• * 1.1551

  §. 5.
• * 1.1552

  Demonstra id ordine? Id non haberi in Scripturis argumento est, quod istius opi∣nionis assertores nunquam per∣spicuas scripturas afferunt, ad probandam is••••m opinionem: verum quasdam consecutiones nectunt, quibus quod asserunt efficere conantur; quas at admittere aequum est, cum ex Scripturis necessario adstru∣untur, ita ubi Scripturis re∣pugnantur, ••eas nullum vim habere certum est: Quest. 15.
• * 1.1553

  §. 6.
• * 1.1554

  Qui vero Scripturae repugnat? Ad eum modum, quod Scrip∣turae passim, Deum peccata homi∣nibus gratuito remittere, testen∣tur, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 3. 24, 25. potissimum vero sub N. Fae∣dere, Ephes. 2. 8. Math 18 23. &c At remissioni gratuitae ni∣hil adversatur magis quam satis∣factio. Cui enim creditori satis∣fit, vel ab ipso debitore, vel ab a∣lio debitoris nomine, de eo dici non potest vere, eum debitum gratuito ex ipsa gratia remisisse.
• * 1.1555

  §. 7.
• * 1.1556

  §. 8.
• * 1.1557

  §. 9.
• * 1.1558

  §. 10.
• * 1.1559

  §. 11.
• * 1.1560

  Ce••o qui ••istud rationi re∣pugnet? Id quidem hinc perspicuum est, quod sequeretur Christum aeternam mortem subiisse, si Deo pro peccatis notris satis∣fecisset: Cum cons••et paenam quā homines peccatis merue∣rant aeternam mortem esse: de∣inde con••equeretur, nos Christo, quam Deo ipsi devinctiores es∣se, quippe qui satisfactione multum gratiae nobis ostendisset; Deus vero exacta satisfactione, nulla prorsus Gratia nos prosecu∣tus fuisset.
• * 1.1561

  §. 12.
• * 1.1562

  §. 13.
• * 1.1563

  Cedo etiam, qui haec opinio est perniciosa? Ad eum modum, quod ho∣minibus fenestram ad peccan∣di licentiam aperiat, aut cer∣te ad socordiam in pietate colenda eos invitet. Scrip∣tura vero testatur, eum inter alios Christi mortis finem esse, ut redimeremur ab omni iniquitate, ex hoc seculo ne∣quam eriperemur, & redime∣remur ex vana conversatione a patribus tra••ita, & munda∣remur conscientia a mortuis operibus ad serviendum Deo viventi. Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Heb. 9. 14.
• * 1.1564

  §. 14.
• * 1.1565

  §. 15.
• * 1.1566

  §. 16.
• * 1.1567

  De Justit. divin. Diatrib
• * 1.1568

  §. 17.
• * 1.1569

  Quae vero sunt Scripturae e quibus illi opinionem suam adstruere conantur? Eae, quae testantur Christum vel pro peccatis nostris mortuum. de∣ande, quod nos redemit, aut dedit semetipsum, & animam suam. Redemptionem pro mul∣tis: Tum quod noster. Media∣tor est. Porro quod nos recon∣ciliarit Deo, & sit propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; Deni{que} ex illis Sacrificiis, quae mor∣tem Christi, seu figurae adumb••averunt.
• * 1.1570

  §. 18.
• * 1.1571

  Quod attinet ad illa Testi∣monia in quibus habetur Chri∣stum pro nobis mortuum, ex iis satisfactionem aastrui ne∣cessario non posse hinc mani∣festum est, quod Scriptura te∣stetur, etiam nos pro fratribus animas ponere debere 1 Joh. 3. 16. & Paulus de se seri∣bat Col. 1. 24. nunc gaudeo &c. Certum autem est, nec fideles pro fratribus cuiquam satisfacere, neque Paulum cuiquam. pro Ecclesia satis∣fecisse.

  At horum verborum, Chri∣stum pro nobis esse mortuum, qui sensus est?

  Is, quod haec verba [pro nobis] non significent loco vel vice nostri, verum propter nos, uti etiam Apostolus expresse loquitur, 1 Cor. 8. 11. Quod etiam similia verba indicant, cum Scriptura loquitur, pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse Christum; quae verba eum sensum habere nequeunt, loco seu vice nostrotum peccatorum mortuum esse; verum propter peccata nostra esse mortuum; uti Rom. 4. 25. manifeste Scriptum legimus. Ea porro verba (Christum pro nobis mortum esse•• hanc habent vim, eum idcirco mortuum, ut, nos salutem aeternam, quam is nobis caelitus attulit ••amplecteremur, & consequemur; quod qua ra∣tione fiat, paulo superius accepisti.
• * 1.1572

  §. 19.
• * 1.1573

  §. 20.
• * 1.1574

  §. 21.
• * 1.1575

  §. 22.
• * 1.1576

  §. 23.
• * 1.1577

  §. 24.
• * 1.1578

  §. 25.
• * 1.1579

  §. 26.
• * 1.1580

  Quid ad haec dicis, quod Christus sit Mediator inter Deum & homines, aut N. faederis?

  Cum legatur Moses fuisse Mediator Gal. 3. 19. (puta inter Deum & populum Izra∣el aut prisci faederis) neque eum satisfecisse deo ullo modo constet, ne hinc quidem quod mediator dei & hominum Christus sit, colligi certo pote∣rit, eum satisfactionem ali∣quam, qua deo pro peccatis nostris satisfieret peregisse.
• * 1.1581

  §. 28.
• * 1.1582

  §. 1.
• * 1.1583

  §. 2.
• * 1.1584

  §. 3.
• * 1.1585

  §. 4
• * 1.1586

  §. 5.
• * 1.1587

  §. 6.
• * 1.1588

  §. 7.
• * 1.1589

  §. 8.
• * 1.1590

  §. 9.
• * 1.1591

  §. 10
• * 1.1592

  §. 11.
• * 1.1593

  §. 12.
• * 1.1594

  §. 13.
• * 1.1595

  §. 14.
• * 1.1596

  §. 15.
• * 1.1597

  §. 16.
• * 1.1598

  §. 17.
• * 1.1599

  §. 18.
• * 1.1600

  §. 19.
• * 1.1601

  §. 20.
• * 1.1602

  §. 21.
• * 1.1603

  §. 22.
• * 1.1604

  §. 23.
• * 1.1605

  §. 24.
• * 1.1606

  §. 25.
• * 1.1607

  §. 26.
• * 1.1608

  §. 27.
• * 1.1609

  §. 28.
• * 1.1610

  §. 1.
• * 1.1611

  §. 3.
• * 1.1612

  §. 4.
• * 1.1613

  §. 5.
• * 1.1614

  §. 6.
• * 1.1615

  §. 7.
• * 1.1616

  §. 8.
• * 1.1617

  §. 9.
• * 1.1618

  §. 10.
• * 1.1619

  §. 1.
• * 1.1620

  §. 2.
• * 1.1621

  §. 3.
• * 1.1622

  §. 4.
• * 1.1623

  §. 5.
• * 1.1624

  §. 6.
• * 1.1625

  §. 7.
• * 1.1626

  §. 8.
• * 1.1627

  §. 9.
• * 1.1628

  §. 11.
• * 1.1629

  §. 12.
• * 1.1630

  §. 13.
• * 1.1631

  §. 14.
• * 1.1632

  §. 15.
• * 1.1633

  §. 16.
• * 1.1634

  §. 17.
• * 1.1635

  §. 18.
• * 1.1636

  §. 19.
• * 1.1637

  §. 20.
• * 1.1638

  §. 21.
• * 1.1639

  §. 22.
• * 1.1640

  §. 23.
• * 1.1641

  §. 24.
• * 1.1642

  §. 25.
• * 1.1643

  §. 26.
• * 1.1644

  §. 27.
• * 1.1645

  Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance Vindicated.
• * 1.1646

  §. 28.
• * 1.1647

  §. 1.
• * 1.1648

  §. 2.
• * 1.1649

  §. 3.
• * 1.1650

  §. 4.
• * 1.1651

  §. 5.
• * 1.1652

  §. 6.
• * 1.1653

  §. 7.
• * 1.1654

  §. 8.
• * 1.1655

  §. 9.
• * 1.1656

  §. 10.
• * 1.1657

  §. 11.
• * 1.1658

  §. 1.
• * 1.1659

  §. 2.
• * 1.1660

  §. 3.
• * 1.1661

  Deinde ne∣gant Resurre∣ctionem car∣nis: hoc est, hujus ipsius corporis, quod carne ac san∣guine praeditū est, etsi fate∣antur corporae esse resurrectura, h••e. ipsos homines fideles; qui tunc novis corporibus caelestibus induendi sum compendiolum Doctrin. Eccles. in Polon.
• * 1.1662

  §. 4. Itaque negan? cruciatus im∣piorum & Di∣abolorum dura∣turos esse in ae∣ternum, verum omnes simul penitus esse abolendos: adeo ut mers •••• infernus ipse dicantur conjiciendi in stagnum illud ar∣dens, Ap. 10. Rationem addunt, quod absurd••m sit, deum irasci in aeternum; & peccata creatu∣rarum finita, paenis infinitis mulctare: praesertim cum hinc nulla ipsius gloria illustretur: Compen. Doct. Eccles. in Polon.
• * 1.1663

  Nam quod ais, ca ibi, tum de Christianorum Resurrectione, tum de morte impiorum fassim contineti, quo ••multis fi•••• magna offensione, tum nostris tum aliis, legi non poss••nt: s••io equidem ea ibi centir••••••, sed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 judicio nee pass••m, nec it a aperte (cavi enim istud quantum potui.) ut quisqua•• 〈…〉〈…〉 offendi possit, adeo ut quod nominatim attinet ad impiorum mortem, in quo•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 main•• est 〈◊〉〈◊〉 offensionis periculum, ea potius ex i••s colligi possit, qua ibi d••sputantur, quam expres••e 〈…〉〈…〉 signata extet: adeo ut lector, qui aliequi sententiam meam adversus Puccium de 〈…〉〈…〉 hominis, quae toto libro agitatur, quae{que} ob non pauces quis habet fautores parum 〈…〉〈…〉 onis parers potest, probandam censeat, prius sentiat doctrinam i••••am sibi jam persuasum 〈…〉〈…〉 suaderi animadvertat. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Johan. Volkel. o. p. 431.
• * 1.1664

  §. 5.
• * 1.1665

  §. 6.
• * 1.1666

  §. 7.
• * 1.1667

  §. 8.
• * 1.1668

  §. 9.
• * 1.1669

  §. 10.
• * 1.1670

  §. 11.
• * 1.1671

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato in Phaedo.
• * 1.1672

  §. 12.
• * 1.1673

  §. 13.
• * 1.1674

  §. 14.
• * 1.1675

  §. 15.
• * 1.1676

  A. Ita joca∣ris, quasi ego dicam, eos esse miseres, qui nati non sunt & non eos mi∣seros, qui mor∣tui sunt, M. esse ergo, eos dicis. A. immo, quia non sunt, cum fuerint, eos miseros esse M. pugnantia te loqui non vides? quid enim tam pugnat, quam non modo miserum, sed omnino quidquam esse, qui non sit. A. Quo••iam me verbo premis, postha•• non ita dicam, miseros esse, sed tantum, miseros, ob id. ipsum quia non sunt. M. non dicis igitur, miser est M Crassus, sed miser Crassus. A. Ita plane. M quasi non necesse sit, quic quid isto modo pronunties, id aut esse, aut non esse, an tu dialecticis ne imbutus quidem es &c. Cicer. Tuscul. Quest. Lib. 1.
• * 1.1677

  §. 16.
• * 1.1678

  Haec Caesar disseruit, credo falsa existi∣mans ea quae de infernis memorantur diverso itinere malos a bonis leea tetra, in∣culta, foeda at∣que fomidolo∣sa habere. Cato apud Salust. Bell. Catilin.