The works of John Owen

THE

WORKS

OF

JOHN OWEN, D.D.

EDITED BY

THE REV. WILLIAM H. GOOLD, D.D.,

EDINBUBGH.

VOL. XII.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.

LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN KOBEETSON.

MDCCCLXII. lQx

o a

MURRAY AND O1BB, PRINTEES, EDINBURGH.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XTI.

VINDICLE EVANGELIC^;

OB,

THE MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL VINDICATED
AND SOCINIANISM EXAMINED.

PAGE

3

.

5

.

6

.

11

.

55

i,

59

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR,

Dedication,

Epistle Dedicatory,

Preface to the Reader,

Mr Biddle's Preface to his Catechism.

Mr Biddle's Preface briefly examined

CHAP.

I.— Mr Biddle's first chapter examined— Of the Scriptures,
II.— Of the nature of God,

III-— Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God, .
IV.— Of the attribution of passions and affections, anger, fear, repentance,

unto God— In what sense it is done in the Scripture,
V. — Of God's prescience or foreknowledge,

VI.— Of the creation, and condition of man before and after the fall,
VII.— Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God,
VIII.— An entrance into the examination of the Racovian Catechism in the
business of the deity of Christ— Their arguments against it an
swered ; and testimonies of the eternity of Christ vindicated,
IX.— The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced— Sundry texts of Scripture

vindicated, ....
X.— Of the names of God given unto Christ, .

XI- — Of the work of creation assigned to Jesus Christ, etc.— The confirmation
of his eternal deity from thence, .....
XII.— All-ruling and disposing providence assigned unto Christ, and his
eternal Godhead thence farther confirmed, with other testimonies
thereof, .....

HI — Of the incarnation of Christ, and his pre-existence thereunto,
XIV.— Sundry other testimonies given to the deity of Christ vindicated,
XV.— Of the Holy Ghost, his deity, graces, and operations,

XVI.— Of salvation by Christ,

XVII.— Of the mediation of Christ

XVIII.— Of Christ's prophetical office, ....
XIX.— Of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, and of the worship that is ascribed

and due to him, .....

XX.— Of the priestly office of Christ— How he was a priest— When he en
tered on his office— And how he dischargeth it,

XXI — Of the death of Christ, the causes, ends, and fruits thereof, with an
entrance into the doctrine of his satisfaction thereby,

85
86

108
115
140
169

205

236
248

265

371
397
411

!V CONTENTS.

CHAP. f PAGlt

XXII.— The several considerations of the death of Christ as to the expiation of
our sins thereby, and the satisfaction made therein— First, Of it as
a price; secondly, As a sacrifice, . • 419

XXIII.— Of the death of Christ as it was a punishment, and the satisfaction

made thereby, .... . . . • 433

XXIV.— Some particular testimonies evincing the death of Christ to be a pun
ishment, properly so called, . . • • • 443
XX V.— A digression concerning the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and the vindication

of it from the perverse interpretation of HUGO GROTIUS, . . 455

XXVI.— Of the matter of the punishment that Christ underwent, or what he

suffered, ........ 485

XXVII.— Of the covenant between the Father and the Son, the ground and foun
dation of this dispensation of Christ's being punished for us and in
our stead, .... ... 496

XXVIII.— Of redemption by the death of Christ as it was a price or ransom, . 508
XXIX.— Of reconciliation by the death of Christ as it is a sacrifice, . .531

XXX.— The satisfaction of Christ, on the consideration of his death being a
punishment, farther evinced, and vindicated from the exceptions of

Smalcius, .542

XXXI.— Of election and universal grace— Of the resurrection of Christ from the

dead, • . • •...'.,« • v • • 551

XXXII.— Of justification and faith, ....... 561

XXXIIL— Of keeping the commandments of God, and of perfection of obedience

— How attainable in this life, ...... 564

XXXI V.— Of prayer ; and whether Christ prescribed a form of prayer to be used
by believers ; and of praying unto him and in his name under the
old testament, ........ 577

XXXV.— Of the resurrection of the dead and the state of the wicked at the last

day, . .581

[APPENDIX.]
Of the Death of Christ, and of Justification, . . . .591

A EEYIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, . . . . . . . 618

A Second Consideration of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius, . . . 619

Epistles of Grotius to Crellius, . . 633

VINDICLE EVANGELIC J!;

OR,

THE MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL VINDICATED AND
SOCINIANISM EXAMINED,

1NT4B

CONSIDERATION AND CONFUTATION

OP

A CATECHISM CALLED "A SCRIPTURE CATECHISM," WRITTEN BY J. BIDDLE, M.A.,

AND THE CATECHISM OF VALENTINUS SMALCIUS, COMMONLY CALLED

"THE RACOVIAN CATECHISM;"

WITH

THE VINDICATION OF THE TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE CONCERNING THE DEITY AND

SATISFACTION OF JESCS CHRIST FROM THE PERVERSE EXPOSITIONS AND

INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM BY HUGO GROT1US, IN HIS

ANNOTATIONS ON THE BIBLE.

ALSO, AN APPENDIX,

IN VINDICATION OF SOME THINGS FORMERLY WRITTEN ABOUT THE DEATH OF CHRIST
AND THE FRUITS THEREOF FROM THE ANIMADVERSIONS OF MR. R. B.

BY JOHN OWEN, D.D.,

A SERVANT OF JESUS CHRIST W THE WORK OF THE GOSPEL.

VTJ .*%.( irifrturyi, £«» T» ot<reSii]-it rut xxTX
)i A<*£»if ypoupS*. — CYRIL. HIEROS., Catech. 4.

OXFORD: 1655.

VOL. XIL

PREFATORY NOTE.

Ix 1654 the commands of the Council of State were laid upon Owen to undertake the
refutation of Socinianism, which about that time was introduced into England, and in
the following year the "Vindicise Evangelicse" appeared; — a work of unequal merit, and
in many parts obsolete under the new light shed on the subject by more recent discus
sions, but in the main so solid as never to have been answered ; containing much that
modern polemics have by no means superseded ; full of information as to the early his
tory of Socinianism, nowhere else to be gleaned in the theological literature of Britain ;
and altogether of such substantial excellence as to render its author's name worthy of
its place as historically the first among that splendid catena of divines, — Bull, Water-
land, Horsley, Hagee, Fuller, Pye Smith, and Wardlaw, — by whom the cardinal doc
trines of Christ's person, Godhead, and work, have been placed on a basis of unshaken
demonstration from the Word of God.

In the execution of his task, our author resolved to meet three parties whose writ
ings tended to unsettle the general belief of the Church of Christ respecting these doc
trines ; — Biddle, whose publications, devoted to the propagation of Unitarian sentiments,
had drawn the attention and excited the fears of the Council ; the Polish Socinians, as
represented by the Bacovian Catechism ; and Hugo Grotius, whose Socinianizing com
ments on Scripture have left his orthodoxy on the vital truths of our Lord's divinity
and satisfaction under a cloud of suspicion.

JOHN BIDDLE, the father of English Socinianism, was born in 1616, at Wotton-under-
Edge. Having made considerable proficiency at the grammar school of his native town,
he received from Lord Berkeley an exhibition of £10, was admitted a student of Mag
dalen Hall, Oxford, and took his degree of A.M. in 1641. While occupied afterwards
as a teacher in the city of Gloucester, he began to divulge his errors by the private
circulation of a small tract, under the title, " Twelve Arguments drawn out of the
Scriptures, wherein the commonly received opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit
is fully Refuted." He was summoned from the county jail, to which the magistrates
had committed him, to answer for his errors before Parliament ; and, on the report of a
committee respecting his case, he was left under the custody of an officer of the House
for five years. During this period he published successively his " Twelve Arguments,"
" A Confession of Faith concerning the Holy Trinity," and " The Testimonies of Ire-
naeus, etc., concerning one God and the Persons of the Holy Trinity." By an atrocious
act passed in 1648, in which it was made a capital offence to publish against the being
and perfections of God, the deity of the Son and of the Spirit, and similar doctrines,
Biddle had well-nigh fallen a martyr to his opinions. The act, however, never came
into operation. He was even in more serious peril after the Long Parliament was dis
solved and its opponents were in power ; for he actually stood a trial for his life in
1655. Cromwell dexterously overruled these proceedings by the summary banishment of
Biddle to Star Castle, in one of the Scilly Islands. He recovered his freedom only to be
cast into prison anew on the Restoration ; and having caught some distemper common
in the jails of that time, he died a prisoner in 1662. He was a man of considerable
attainments as a scholar. "Except his opinions," says Anthony Wood, " there was little
or nothing blameworthy in him;" and his admirer, Toulmin, pronounces him " a pious,
holy, and humble man." His piety must have been of a singular type, if we consider
his views of the divine nature, — views replete with the most profane and revolting
materialism, at that time without a parallel in our literature, and calculated to shock
the best feelings and holiest convictions of his countrymen, while the knowledge of
them inspired continental divines with alarm, as if England were fast lapsing into the
most impious heresies. It can only be from a desire that their cause may have the
honour of having stood, in one instance at least, the test of civil penalties under British

4 PREFATORY NOTE.

rule, that Socinians, who pride themselves on their views of the spirituality of God,
claim affinity with poor Biddle.

Nicolas Estwick replied to him, in an " Examination of his Confession of Faith;
Poole in his " Plea for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost;" and Francis Cheynel, in hia
" Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Biddle held to his errors,
and produced in 1654 his "Twofold Catechism," etc.; which the following work of
Owen is designed to review and confute.

The RACOVIAN CATECHISM derives its name from the Polish city of Rakau, the chief
seat of the Polish Unitarians. According to Sandius (Bib. Antitrin. p. 44), the first
Catechism of this name was the work of Gregory Paul; and when Faustus Socinus and
Peter Statorius, junior, were prevented by death from completing their revision of it, ac
cording to an appointment laid upon them by their brethren of the same creed, the task
was devolved on Valentine Smalcius, Jerome Moscorovius, and John Volkelius. The first
part of this statement seems to want authentication, and the original of the Catechism
has been traced to a confession of faith prepared by George Schomann. Remodelled
by the committee mentioned above, it appeared in 1605, and was the first edition of the
Racovian Catechism. It was translated into German in 1608. A reprint of the origi
nal work in London attracted the notice of Parliament, and on the 2d of April 1652, the
Sheriffs of London and of Middlesex were ordered to seize and burn all the copies of it
at the London Exchange and at Palace Yard, Westminster. An English translation of
it, prepared most probably by Biddle, issued from the Amsterdam press in 1652. The
most correct and valuable edition of the Catechism, supplying the latest views of the
old Socinian theology in Poland, is the quarto edition of 1680, printed at Amsterdam
by Christopher Pezold. Modern Socinianism has added nothing to the plausibility with
which the system is invested in this Catechism; and the refutation of its insidious
principles by Owen was a service to the cause of scriptural truth, from which Chris
tianity is yet reaping, and for generations will continue to reap, the highest benefit.

HUGO GEOTIUS is a name which reminds us of a sadly chequered history, diversified
gifts of the highest order, and a strangely piebald and ambiguous creed. We need not
allude to the well-known incidents of his eventful career, — the high offices he held in his
native country, his connection with the disputes between the Gomarists and the Re
monstrants, the retribution under which he became the victim of that appeal to arms
and force which his own party beyond all question had begun, his escape from prison
through the ingenious device of his wife, his residence at Paris, and death at Rostock
in 1645. He had published a work, "De Satisfactione Christi," designed to refute the
errors of Socinianism, but towards the close of his life he prepared a series of anno
tations on Scripture, respecting which it was the charge of Owen that " he left but one
place giving testimony clearly to the deity of Christ." Dr Hammond took him to task
for misrepresenting the Dutch statesman. Owen, both in the " Vindicise Evangelicae"
and in his "Review of the Annotations," advances overwhelming evidence in support of his
assertion. Whether we are to account it morbid candour or indifference to the great
truths of the gospel, Grotius assuredly emitted a most uncertain sound respecting them.
He is claimed alike by Socinians, Arminians, and Papists. The learned Jesuit Peta-
vius said prayers for the repose of his soul ; and Bossuet considered him so near the
truth that "it was wonderful he did not take the last step," — that is, connect himself
with the Church of Rome, — while he affirms, at the same time, that " he stole from the
Church her most powerful proofs of the divinity of Christ." Menage wrote a witty
epigram, to the effect that as many sects claimed the religion of Grotius as towns con
tended for the honour of being the birth-place of Homer. Who would not wish to
rank among the abettors of his own tenets a statesman of such vast attainments and
versatile ability ? It is enough, however, to make us sympathize with Owen, who only
followed the example of all the Protestant divines of Charenton, in repudiating fellow
ship with Grotius, when we peruse the epistles of the latter to the Socinian Crellius. See
page 638. Is the difference between those who hold and those who deny the Godhead
of Christ to be made matter of contemptuous aposiopesis, and to be spoken of as
" quantiUa causa ? " — ED.

TO IHK

EIGHT HONOUEABLE THE COUNCIL OF STATE,

[AND]

TO HIS HIGHNESS,

THE ENSUING

VINDICATION OF THE GLOEY AND DOCTRINE OF THE GEEAT GOD
AND OUR SAVIODB JESUS CHRIST,

WBITTEN UPON THEIR COMMAND,

IS HUMBLY DEDICATED BY ITS OTWOKTHY AUTHOR,

J. O.

TO THB RIGHT WORSHIPFUL, HIS REVEREND, LEARNED, AND WORTHY
FRIENDS AND BRETHREN,

THE HEADS AND GOVERNORS OF THE COLLEGES AND HALLS,

WITH ALL OTHER STUDENTS IN DIVINITY, OR OF THE TRUTH WHICH IS AFTER GODLINESS,
IN THE FAMOUS UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

OF this second address unto you in this kind, whereuntol am encouraged by your
fair and candid reception of my former, I desire you would be pleased to take the
ensuing account. It is now, as I remember, about a year ago since one Mr
Biddle (formerly a master of arts of this university, by which title he still owns
himself) published two little Catechisms, as he calls them, wherein, under sundry
specious pleas and pretences, which you will find discussed in the ensuing trea
tise, he endeavours to insinuate subtilely into the minds of unstable and unlearned
men the whole substance of the Socinian religion. The man is a person whom,
to my knowledge, I never saw, nor have been at all curious to inquire after the
place of his habitation or course of his life. His opposition some years since to
the deity of the Holy Ghost, and now to that of the Father and Son also, is all that
he is known to me by. It is not with his person that I have any contest; he
stands or falls to his own master. His arguments against the deity of the Holy
Ghost were some while since answered by Cloppenburgh, then professor of divinity
at Franeker, in Friesland, since at rest in the Lord ; and, as I have heard, by one
in English. His Catechisms also are gone over the seas; whereof farther mention
must afterward be made. At their first publishing, complaint being given in by
some worthy persons to the Honourable Council against them, as abusive to the
majesty and authority of the word of God, and destructive to many important
truths of the gospel (which was done without any knowledge of mine), they were
pleased to send for me, and to require of me the performance of that work which
is here presented unto you. Being surprised with their request, I laboured to
excuse myself to the utmost, on the account of my many employments in the
university and elsewhere, with other reasons of the like nature, which to my
thoughts did then occur. Not prevailing with them, they persisting in their
command, 1 looked on it as a call from God to plead for his violated truth ; which,
by his assistance, and according as I had opportunity, I was in general alway
resolved to do. Having, indeed, but newly taken off my hand from the plough
of a peculiar controversy about the perseverance of the saints, in the following
whereof I was somewhat tired, the entrance into the work was irksome and bur
densome unto me. After some progress made, finding the searching into and dis
cussing of the important truths opposed of very good use to myself, I have been
carried through the whole (according as I could break off my daily pressing occa
sions to attend unto it) with much cheerfulness and alacrity of mind. And this
was the reason why, finding Mr Biddle came short of giving a fair occasion to the
full vindication of many heads of religion by him oppugned, I have called in to his
assistance and society one of his great masters, namely, Valentinus Smalcius, and
his Catechism (commonly called the Racovian), with the expositions of the places

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 7

of Scripture contended about by the learned Grotius, as also, on several occasions,
the arguments and answers of most of the chief propugners of Mr Biddle's religion.
Now, besides your interest in the truths pleaded for, there are other considera
tions also inducing me to a persuasion that this endeavour of mine will not be
unacceptable unto you. Mr Biddle's Catechisms, as I said, being carried over and
dispersed in sundry places of the United Provinces, the professors of their academies
(who have all generally learned the English tongue, to enable them for the under
standing of the treatises of divinity in all kinds written therein, which they begin
to make use of to the purpose) cry out against them, and professedly undertake
the refutation thereof. Now, certainly it cannot be for our advantage in point
of repute amongst them, that they (who are yet glad of the occasion) should be
enforced to undertake the confutation of a book written by one who styles himself
a master of arts of this university (which they also take notice of), wherein they
are so little concerned, the poison of it being shut up from then- people under the
safe custody of an unknown tongue. Nicolaus Arnoldus, the professor of divi
nity at Franeker, gives an account of this book, as the most subtile insinuation of
the Socinian religion that ever was attempted, and promises a confutation of it.

Maresius, professor at Groningen, a man well known by his works published,
goes farther, and, on the account of these Catechisms, charges the whole nation and
the governors of it with Socinianism ; and, according to the manner of the man,
raises a fearful outcry, affirming that that heresy hath fixed its metropolitical seat
here in England, and is here openly professed, as the head sect in the nation, dis
playing openly the banners of its iniquity : all which he confirms by instancing in
this book of a master of arts of the university of Oxford.1 Of his rashness in
censuring, and his extreme ignorance of the state of affairs here amongst us, which
yet he undertakes to relate, judge, and condemn, I have given him an account,
in a private letter to himself.

Certainly, though we deserved to have these reproaches cast upon us, yet of all
men in the world those who live under the protection and upon the allowance of
the United Provinces are most unmeet to manage them ; their incompetency in
sundry respects for this service is known to all. However, it cannot be denied
but that, even on this account (that it may appear that we are, as free from the
guilt of the calumnious insinuations of Maresius, so in no need of the assistance of
Arnoldus for the confutation of any one arising among ourselves speaking perverse
things to draw disciples after him), an answer from some in this place unto those
Catechisms was sufficiently necessary. That it is by Providence fallen upon the
hand of one more unmeet than many others in this place for the performance of
this work and duty, I doubt not but you will be contented withal; and I am bold to
hope that neither the truth nor your own esteem will too much suffer by my en
gagement herein. Yea (give me leave to speak it), I have assumed the confidence
to aim at the handling of the whole body of the Socinian religion, in such a way
and manner as that those who are most knowing and exercised in these contro
versies may find that which they will not altogether despise, and younger students

i " Prodiit hoc anno in Anglia, authore Johanne Bidello, artium magistro, pneumatomacho, duplex
Catechesis Scripturaria, Anglico idiomate typis evulgata.qua sub nomine religioms Christianas purum

n vder velle -

ocnana a eors, u
trahere post dies caniculares, cum Deo est animus."— Nicol. Arnold, prsef ad lector.

" Necessarium est hoc tristi tempore, quo Sociniana pestis, quam baud immento dixeris omnis im-
pietatis ixpixotot, videtur nunc in vicina Anglia sedem sibi metropolitanam flxisse, nisi quod isthie
facile admittat et bella cruenta, et judicia capitalia severissima, sub quorum umbone crevit. Nam
inter varias hrereses, quibusfelix ilia quondam insula et orthodoxies tenacissima hodie conspurcatur,
tantum eminet Socinianismus, quantum 'lenta solent inter viburna Cupressi;' nee enim amplius ibi
horrenda sua mysteria mussitat in angulis, sed sub dio explicat omnia vexilla suas iniquitatis : non
lonuor incomperta, benevole lector. Modo enim ex Anglia allatus est Anglica lingua conscriptus
Catechismus duplex, major et minor, Londini publice excusus, hoc anno 1654, apud Jac. Coterell, et
Kich. Moone, etc., authore Johanne Bidello, magistro artium Oxoniensi, etc."— Sam. Marea. Hjd. Socin.
Eefut. torn. ii. prsefat. ad lect.

8 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

that whereby they may profit. To this end I have added the Racovian Catechism,
as I said before, to Mr Biddle's; which as I was urged to do by many worthy
persons in this university, so I was no way discouraged in the publishing of my
answer thereunto by the view I took of Arnoldus' discourse to the same purpose,
and that for such reasons as I shall not express, but leave the whole to the judg
ment of the reader.

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

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

But for the passages in his Annotations, the substance of the doctor's plea is,
" That the passages intimated are in his posthuma ; that he intended not to publish
them ; that they might be of things he observed, but thought farther to consider ;"
and an instance is given in that of Col. i. 16, which he interprets contrary to what
he urged it for, John i. 1-3. But granting what is affirmed as to matter of fact
about his Collections (though the preface to the last part of his Annotations will
not allow it to be true'), I must needs abide in my dissatisfaction as to these Anno-
tations, and of my resolves in these thoughts give the doctor this account Of the
Soc.man religion there are two main parts; the first is Photinianism, the latter
1 elagiamsm,— the first concerning the person, the other the grace of Christ Let
us take an eminent instance out of either of these heads: out of the first their deny
ing Christ to be God by nature; out of the latter, their denial of his satisfaction.

absol-

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 9

For the first, I must needs tell the apologist, that of all the texts of the New
Testament, and Old, whereby the deity of Christ is usually confirmed, and where
it is evidently testified unto, he hath not left any more than one, that I have ob
served, if one, speaking any thing clearly to that purpose. I say, if one, for that
he speaks not home to the business in hand on John i. I shall elsewhere give an
account; perhaps some one or two more may be interpreted according to the ana
logy of that. I speak not of his Annotations on the Epistles, but on the whole
Bible throughout, wherein his expositions given do, for the most part, fall in with
those of the Socinians, and oftentimes consist in the very words of Socinus and
Smalcius, and alway do the same things with them, as to any notice of the deity
of Christ in them. So that I marvel the learned doctor should fix upon one par
ticular instance, as though that one place alone were corrupted by him, when
there is not one (or but one) that is not wrested, perverted, and corrupted, to the
same purpose. For the full conviction of the truth hereof, I refer the reader to
the ensuing considerations of his interpretations of the places themselves. The
condition of these famous Annotations as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same.
Not one text of the whole Scripture, wherein testimony is given to that sacred
truth, which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the doctrine in it con
cealed and obscured by them. I do not speak this with the least intention to cast
upon him the reproach of a Socinian ; 1 judge not his person. His books are
published to be considered and judged. Erasmus, I know, made way for him in
most of his expositions about the deity of Christ; but what repute he hath there
by obtained among all that honour the eternal Godhead of the Son of God, let
Bellarmine, on the one hand, and Beza, on the other, evince. And as I will by
no means maintain or urge against Grotius any of the miscarriages in religion
which the answerer of my animadversions undertakes to vindicate him from, nor
do I desire to fight with the dust and ashes of men; yet what I have said is, if
not necessary to return to the apologist, yet of tendency, I hope, to the satisfaction
of others, who may inquire after the reason of my calling the Annotations of the
learned man to an account in this discourse. Shall any one take liberty to pluck
down the pillars of our faith, and weaken the grounds of our assurance concern
ing the person and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall not we have the bold
ness to call him to an account for so sacrilegious an attempt? With those, then,
who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, I expect no blame or reproach for
what I have endeavoured in this kind; yea, that my good will shall find acceptance
with them, especially if it shall occasion any of greater leisure and abilities farther
and professedly to remark more of the corruptions of those Annotations, I have
good ground of expectation. The truth is, notwithstanding their pompous show
and appearance — few of his quotations (which was the manner of the man) being
at all to his purpose,1 — it will be found no difficult matter to discuss his assertions
and dissipate his conjectures.

For his being a Papist, I have not much to say. Let his epistles (published by
his friends) written to Dionysius Petavius the Jesuit be perused, and you will
see the character which of himself he gives,2 as also what in sundry writings he
ascribes to the pope.

What I have performed, through the good hand of God in the whole, is humbly
submitted to your judgment. You know, all of you, with what weight of busi
ness and employment I am pressed, what is the constant work that in this place

1 " Grotius, in lib. v. De Veritat. Relig. Christian, in notis R. Sel. Aben Ezra et Onkelos adducit.
Sed alienis oculis hie vidit, aut aliena fide retulit (forte authoribus illis aut non intellectis, aut propter
occupationes non inspectis), aut animositati et authoritati in citandis authoribus, et referendis dictis
aut factis, ut ipsi hoc usui venlebat, nimium in scriptis theologicis indulserit." — Voet. Disput. de Ad-
Tent. Messi.

J " Reverende domine, saepe tibi molestus esse cogor Sumpsi hanc ultimam operam, mea

ante hue dicta et famain quoque a ministris allatratam tuendi : in eo scripto si quid est, aut Catholicis
Sententiis discongruens, aut cseteroqui a veritate alienum, de eo aba te viro eruditissimo," etc., "ciijus
judicium plurimi facio moneri percupio."— Epist. Grot, ad Dionys. Petav. Ep. 204.

10 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

is incumbent on me, how many and how urgent my avocations are; the considera
tion whereof cannot but prevail for a pardon of that want of exactness which per-
haps in sundry particulars will appear unto you. With those who are neither
willing nor ahle to do any thing in this kind themselves, and yet make it their
business to despise what is done by others, I shall very little trouble myself. That
which seems, in relation hereunto, to call for an apology, is my engagement into
this work, wherein I was not particularly concerned, suffering in the meantime
some treatises against me to lie unanswered. Dr Hammond's answer to my ani
madversions on his dissertations about episcopacy, Mr Baxter's objections against
somewhat written about the death of Christ, and a book of one Mr Home against
my treatise about universal redemption, are all the instances that I know of which
in this kind may be given. To all that candidly take notice of these things, my
defence is at hand. I do not know that I am more obliged to answer a treatise
written against myself than any other written against the truth, though I am not
particularly named or opposed therein ; nor do I intend to put any such law of
disquietness upon my spirit as to think myself bound to reply to every thing that
is written against me, whether the matter and subject of it be worth the public
ventilation or no. It is neither name nor repute that I eye in these contests : so
the truth be safe, I can be well content to suffer. Besides, this present task was not
voluntarily undertaken by me; it was, as I have already given account, imposed on
me by such an authority as I could not waive. For Mr Home's book, I suppose
you are not acquainted with it; that alone was extant before my last engagement.
Could I have met with any one uninterested person that would have said it de
served a reply, it had not have lain so long unanswered. In the meantime, I
cannot but rejoice that some, like-minded with him, cannot impute my silence to
the weakness of the cause I managed, but to my incompetency for the work of
maintaining it. To Mr Baxter, as far as I am concerned, I have made a return
in the close of this treatise; wherein I suppose I have put an end to that contro
versy. Dr Hammond's defensative came forth much about the time that half
this treatise was finished, and being about a matter of so mean concernment, in
comparison of those weighty truths of the gospel which I was engaged in the
defence of, I durst not desert my station to turn aside thereto. On the cursory
view I have taken of it, I look upon what is of real difference between that learned
person and myself to be a matter of easy despatch. His leaves are much more
soft and gentle than those of Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, and Schlichtingius. If
the Lord in his goodness be pleased to give me a little respite and leisure, I shall
give a farther account of the whole difference between the learned doctor and me,
in such a way of process as may be expected from so slow and dull a person as I
am. In the meantime, I wish him a better cause to manage than that wherein
against me he is engaged, and better principles to manage a good cause on than
some of those in his treatise of schism, and some others. Fail he not in these, his
abilities and diligence will stand him in very good stead. I shall not trouble you
with things which I have advantages other ways to impart my thoughts concern
ing; I only crave that you would be pleased candidly to accept of this testimony of
my respects to you, and, seeing no other things are in the ensuing treatise pleaded
for but such as are universally owned amongst you, that, according to your several
degrees, you would take it into your patronage or use, affording him in his daily
labours the benefit of your prayers at the throne of grace, who is your unworthy
fellow-labourer,

JOHN OWEN.
OXOK. CH. CH. COLL.,
April 1, [1655.]

THE PEEFACE TO THE EEADEB.

To those that labour in the word and doctrine in these nations of Eng
land, Scotland, and Ireland, with all that call upon the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord, John Owen wisheth grace and peace from God our
Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

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

The Holy Ghost tells us that we are " built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ;
in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy
temple in the Lord : in whom we are builded together for an habitation of
God through the Spirit," Eph. ii. 20-22. And thus do all they become
the house of Christ " who hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the
hope firm unto the end," Heb. iii. 6. In this house of God there are daily
builders, according as new living stones are to be fitted to their places
therein ; and continual oppositions have there been made thereto, and will
be, " till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of
the fulness of Christ," Eph. iv. 13. In this work of building are some
employed by Jesus Christ, and will be so to the end of the world, Matt.
xxviii. 19, 20, Eph. iv. 11, 12 ; and some employ themselves at least in a
pretence thereof, but are indeed, to a man, every one like the foolish wo
man that pulls down her house with both her hands. Of the first sort,
" other foundation can no man lay," nor doth go about to lay, " than that
is laid, which is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii. 11 ; but some of them build on
this foundation " gold, silver, and precious stones," keeping fast in the

12 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

•work to the form of " wholesome words," and contending for " the faith
that was once delivered unto the saints."

Others, again, lay on " wood, hay, and stubble," either contending about
"foolish questions," or "vain and unprofitable janglings," or adding to what
God hath commanded, or corrupting and perverting what he hath revealed
and instituted, contrary to the proportion of faith, which should be the
rule of all their prophecy, whereby they discharge their duty of building
in this house. Those with whom I am at present to deal, and concerning
•whom I desire to tender you the ensuing account, are of the latter sort;
such as, not content, with others, to attempt sundry parts of the building,
to weaken its contexture, or deface its comeliness, do with all their might
set themselves against the work [rock ?] itself, the great foundation and
corner-stone of the church, the Lord Jesus, who is " God blessed for ever."
They are those, I say, whom I would warn you of, in whom, of old and of
late, the spirit of error hath set up itself with such an efficacy of pride and
delusion, as, by all ways, means, [and] devices imaginable, to despoil our
dear and blessed Redeemer, our Holy One, of his "eternal power and God
head;" or to reject the eternal Son of God, and to substitute in his room a
Christ of their own, one like themselves, and no more; to adulterate the
church, and turn aside the saints to a thing of naught. If I may enjoy
your patience whilst I give a brief account of them, their ways and endea
vours for the compassing of their cursed ends; of our present concern
ment in their actings and seductions; of the fire kindled by them at our
doors; of the sad diffusion of their poison throughout the world, beyond
•what enters into the hearts of the most of men to imagine, — I shall sub
join thereunto those cautions and directions which, with all humbleness, I
have to tender to you, to guide some, and strengthen others, and stir up
all to be watchful against this great, and I hope the last considerable
attempt of Satan (by way of seduction and temptation) against the foun
dation of the gospel.

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

The first sort of them may be reckoned to be those who are commonly
esteemed to be followers of SIMON MAGUS, known chiefly by the names
of Gnostics and Valentinians. These, with their abominable figments of
aeons, and their combinations, conjugations, genealogies, and unintelligible
imaginations, wholly overthrowing the whole revelation of God concern
ing himself and his will, the Lord Jesus and the gospel, chiefly, with
their leaders, Marcus, Basilides, Ptolemaeus, Valentinus secundus (all fol
lowing or imitating Simon Magus and Menander), of all others most
perplexed and infected the primitive church : as Irenzeus, lib. i. ; Tertul-
lian, Prsescrip. ad Haeret. cap. xlix; Philastrius, in his catalogue of heretics;
Epiphanius in Panario, lib. i. torn, ii ; and Augustine, in his book of He
resies, l " ad quod vult deus manifesto." To these may be added Tatianus,
Cerdo, Marcion, and their companions (of whom see Tertullian at large,
and Eusebius, in their respective places.) I shall not separate from them
Montanus, with his enthusiastical formal associates ; in whose abominations
it was hoped that these latter days might have been unconcerned, until
the present madness of some, commonly called Quakers, renewed their
follies ; but these may pass (with the Manichees), and those of the like fond
imaginations, that ever and anon troubled the church with their madness
and folly.

1 Epiph. Haer. xlviL

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 13

Of the second rank CERINTHUS is the head, with Judaizing Ebion;1 both
denying expressly the deity of Christ, and asserting him to be but a mere
man; even in the entrance of the Gospel being confounded by John, as is
affirmed by Epiphanius, Hser. li. " Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Eccle-
siasticis de Johanne." The same abomination was again revived by Theo-
dotus, called Coriarius (who, having once denied Christ, was resolved to
do so always); excommunicated on that account by Victor, as Eusebius
relates, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. ult., where he gives also an account of his
associates in judgment, Artemon, Asclepiodotus, Natalius, etc. ; and the •
books written against him are there also mentioned. But the most noto
rious head and patron of this madness was Paulus Samosatenus, bishop of
Antioch, anno 272 ; of whose pride and passion, folly, followers, assistants,
opposition, and excommunication, the history is extant at large in Euse
bius. This man's pomp and folly, his compliance with the Jews and
Zenobia, the queen of the Palmyrians, who then invaded the eastern
parts of the Roman empire, made him so infamous to all Christians, that
the Socinians do scarce plead for him, or own him as the author of their
opinion. Of him who succeeded him in his opposition to Jesus Christ,
some fifty or sixty years after, namely, Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, they
constantly boast. Of Samosatenus and his heresy, see Euseb. Hist. Eccles.
lib. vii. cap. xxix., xxx., and Hilary, De Synodis ; of Photinus, Socrat.
Eccles. Hist. lib. ii. cap. xxiv., xxv. And with these do our present Soci
nians expressly agree in the matter of the person of Christ.2

To the third head I refer that deluge of ARIANISM, whose rise, con
ception, author, and promoters, advantages, success, and propagation ; the
persecutions, cruelty, and tyranny of the rulers, emperors, kings, and
governors infected with it; its extent and continuance, — are known to all
who have taken care in the least to inquire what was the state of the church
of Grod in former days, that heresy being as it were the flood of water
that pursued the church for some ages. Of Macedonius, Nestorius, and
Eutyches, — the first denying the deity of the Holy Grhost, the second the
hypostatical union of the two natures of Christ, and the last confounding
them in his person, — I shall not need to speak. These by the Socinians of
our days are disclaimed.8

In the second sort chiefly we are at present concerned. Now, to give
an account, from what is come down unto us, by testimonies of good report
and esteem, concerning those named, Theodotus, Paulus, Photinus, and the
rest of the men who were the predecessors of them with whom we have to
do, and undertook the same work in the infancy of the church which these
are now engaged in when it is drawing, with the world, to its period, with
what were their ways, lives, temptations, ends, agreements, differences
among them, and in reference to the persons of our present contest (of
whom a full account shall be given), is not my aim nor business. It hath
been done by others ; and to do it with any exactness, beyond what is
commonly known, would take up more room than to this preface is allotted.
Some things peculiarly seem of concernment for our observation, from the

14 THE PREFACE TO THE READER

time wherein some of them acted their parts in the service of their master.
What could possibly be more desired, for the safeguarding of any truth
from the attempts of succeeding generations, and for giving it a security
above all control, than that, upon public and owned opposition, it should
receive a confirmation by men acted by the Holy Ghost, and giving out
their sentence by inspiration from God ? That, among other important
heads of the gospel (as that of justification by faith and not by works, of
Christian liberty, of the resurrection of the dead), this most glorious truth,
of the eternal deity of the Son of God, underwent an open opposition from
some of them above written, during the life of some of the apostles, before
the writing of the Gospel by John, and was expressly vindicated by him
in the beginning thereof, is acknowledged by all who have in any measure
inquired into and impartially weighed the reports of those days. What
could the heart of the most resolved unbeliever desire more for his satis
faction, than that God should speak from heaven for the conviction of his
folly and ignorance? or what can our adversaries expect more from us,
when we tell them that God himself immediately determined in the con
troversy wherein they are engaged ? Perhaps they think that if he should
now speak from heaven they would believe him. So said the Jews to
Christ, if he would come down from the cross when they had nailed him to
it, in the sight and under the contempt of many miracles greater than the
delivery of himself could any way appear to be. The rich man in torments
thought his brethren would repent if one came from the dead and preached
to them. Abraham tells him, " If they will not hear Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Doubtless, if what is already written be not sufficient to convince our ad
versaries, though God should speak from heaven they would not believe,
nor indeed can, if they will abide by the fundamental principles of their
religion. Under this great disadvantage did the persuasion of the Soci-
nians set out in the world, that Christ is only •vp/Xog aivdguvos, — by nature
no more but a man; so that persons not deeply acquainted with the
methods of Satan and the darkness of the minds of men could not but
be ready to conclude it certainly bound up in silence for ever. But how
speedily it revived, with what pride and passion it was once and again
endeavoured to be propagated in the world, those who have read the stories
of Paulus Samosatenus are fully acquainted, who yupvfi ryj xspahff, blas
phemed the Son of God as one no more than a man. In some space of
time, these men being decried by the general consent of the residue of
mankind professing the name of Jesus Christ, and their abomination de
stroyed by the sword of faith, managed in the hands of the saints of those
days, Satan perceiving himself at a loss and under an impossibility of pre-
valency, whilst the grossness of the error he strove to diffuse terrified all
sorts from having any thing to do therewith, he puts on it, by the help
of Arius and his followers, another gloss and appearance, with a pretence
of allowing Christ a deity, though a subordinate, created, made, divine
nature, which in the fulness of time assumed flesh of the virgin; — this
opinion being, indeed, no less really destructive to the true and eternal
deity of the Son of God than that of theirs before mentioned, who expressly
affirmed him to be a mere man, and to have had no existence before his nati
vity at Bethlehem ; yet having got a new pretence and colour of ascribing
something more excellent and sublime unto him than that whereof we are
all in common partakers, it is incredible with what speedy progress, like
the breaking out of a mighty flood, it overspread the face of the earth.
It is true, it had in its very entrance all the advantages of craft, fraud, and

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 15

subtilty, and in its carrying on, of violence, force, and cruelty, and from
the beginning to its end, of ignorance, blindness, superstition, and profane-
ness, among the generality of them with whom it had to deal, that ever any
corrupt folly of the mind of man met withal. The rise, progress, cruelty,
and continuance of this sect, with the times and seasons that passed with
it over the nations, its entertainment by the many barbarous nations which
wasted, spoiled, and divided among themselves the Roman empire, with
their parting with it upon almost as evil an account as at first they embraced
it, are not, as I said, my business now to discover. God purposing to revenge
the pride, ingratitude, ignorance, profaneness, and idolatry of the world,
•which was then in a great measure got in amongst the professors of Chris
tianity, by another more spiritual, cruel, subtile, and lasting " mystery of
iniquity," caused this abomination of Arianism to give place to the power
of the then growing Eoman antichristian state, which, about the sixth or
seventh century of years since the incarnation of the Son of God, having
lost all church order and communion of the institution of Jesus Christ, fell
into an earthly, political, carnal combination, authorized and animated by
the spirit of Satan, for the ends of superstition, idolatry, persecution, pride,
and atheism; which thereby ever since [have been] vigorously pursued.

With these Arians,1 as was said, do our SOCINIANS refuse communion,
and will not be called after their name : not that their profession is better
than theirs, or that they have much to blame in what they divulge, though
they agree not with them in allowing a pre-existing nature to Christ be
fore his incarnation; but that generation of men having made themselves
infamous to posterity by their wickedness, perjuries, crafts, and bloody
cruelties, and having been pursued by eminent and extraordinary judg
ments from God, they are not willing to partake of the prejudices which
they justly lie under.

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

A design he had in hand that was like to do him more service than any
"" his former attempts. Having, therefore, tried his utmost in open oppo
sition to the person of Christ (the dregs of the poison thus shed abroad
infecting in some measure a great part of the east to this day), by a way
never before heard of, and which Christians were not exercised with nor in
any measure aware of, he subtilely ruins and overthrows all his offices and
• the whole benefit of his mediation, and introduceth secretly a new worship
from that which he appointed, by the means and endeavours of men pre
tending to act and do all that they did for the advancement of his kingdom
and glory. And therefore, whilst the fatal apostasy of the western world,
under the Roman antichrist, was contriving, carrying on, and heightening,
till it came to its discovery and ruin, he stirs not at all with his old engines,
•which had brought in a revenue of obedience to his kingdom in no measure

1 " Ariani Christo divinum cultum non tribuerunt. Atqui longe prsestat Trinitarium
esse quam Christo divinum cultum non tribuere. Imo Trinitarius (meo quidem judicioj
modo alioqui Christ! prsecepta conservet, nee ulla ratione eos persequatur, qui Trinitarh
non sunt sed potius cum ipsis fraterne conferre, ac veritatem inquirere non recuset,
merito Christianus dici debet. Qui vero Christum divina ratione non colit, is nullo
modo Christianus dici potest : Quocirca non est dubitandum, quin Deo minus displi-
cuerunt Homo-ousiani Trinitarii, quam vulgus Arianorum. Quid igitur mirum, si cum
totus fere orbis Christianus in has uuas (ut ita dicam) factiones divisus esset, Deus visi
pnibus et miraculis testari voluisset utram ipsarum viam salutis vel adhuc retineret, vei
jam abjecisset. Adde Arianos acerrime tune persecutes fuisse miseros Homo-ousianos.
idque diu et variis in locis : quare merito se Deus Arianis iratum ostendit." — Socin. ad
\Veik, p. 452.

16 THE PREFACE TO THE READER

proportionable to this, which by this new device he found accruing to him.
But when the appointed time of mercy was come, that God would visit his
people with light from above, and begin to unravel the mystery of ini
quity, whose abominations had destroyed the souls of them that embraced
it, and whose cruelty had cut off the lives of thousands who had opposed
it, by the Reformation, eminently and successfully begun and carried on
from the year 1517, Satan perceiving that even this his great master
piece of deceit and subtilty was like to fail him, and not to do him that
service which formerly it had done, he again sets on foot his first design, of
oppugning the eternal deity of the Son of God, still remembering that the
ruin of his kingdom arose from the Godhead of his person and the efficacy
of his mediation. So, then, as for the first three hundred years of the pro
fession of the name of Christ in the world, he had variously opposed the
Godhead of our blessed Saviour, by Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus
Samosatenus, Marcus, Basilides, Valentinus, Calarbasus, Marcion, Photinus,
Theodotus, and others; and from their dissipation and scattering, having
gathered them all to a head in Arius and his abomination, — which some
times with a mighty prevalency of force and violence, sometimes more sub-
tilely (putting out by the way the several branches of Macedonianism,
Nestorianisrn, Eutychianism, all looking the same way in their tendency
therewith), — he managed almost for the space of the next three hundred
years ensuing; and losing at length that hold, he had spent more than
double that space of time in carrying on his design of the great anti-
christian papal apostasy ; being about the times before mentioned most
clearly and eminently discovered in his wicked design, and being in danger
to lose his kingdom, which he had been so long in possession of, intend
ing if it were possible to retrieve his advantage again, he sets on those men
who had been instrumental to reduce the Christian religion into its pri
mitive state and condition with those very errors and abominations where
with he opposed and assailed the primitive professors thereof, — if they
will have the apostles' doctrine, they shall have the opposition that was
made unto it in the apostles' times : his hopes being possibly the same
that formerly they were (but assuredly Christ will prevent him) ; — for as
whilst the professors of the religion of Jesus Christ were spiritual, and full
of the power of that religion they did profess, they defended the truth
thereof, either by suffering, as under Constantius, Valens, and the Goths
and Vandals, or by spiritual means and weapons; so when they were carnal,
and lost the life of the gospel, yet endeavouring to retain the truth of the
letter thereof, falling on carnal, politic ways for the supportment of it, and
the suppressing of what opposed it, Satan quickly closed in with them, and
accomplished all his ends by them, causing them to walk in all those ways
of law, policy, blood, cruelty, and violence, for the destruction of the truth,
•which they first engaged in for the rooting out of errors and heresies.
" Haud ignota loquor." Those who have considered the occasions and ad
vantages of the bishop of Rome's rise and progress know these things to
be so. Perhaps, I say, he might have thoughts to manage the same or
the like design at the beginning of the Reformation, when, with great craft
and subtilty, he set on foot again his opposition to the person of Christ;
which being the business chiefly under consideration, I shall give some
brief account thereof.

Those who have formerly communicated their thoughts and observations
to us on this subject have commonly given rise to their discourses from
Servetus, with the transactions about him in Helvetia, and the ending of
his tragedy at Geneva. The things of him being commonly known, and

PEEFACE TO THE READER 17

my design being to deal with them in their chief seat and residence,
where, after they had a while hovered about most nations of Europe, they
settled themselves, I shall forbear to pursue them up and down in their
flight, and meet with them only at their nest in Poland and the regions
adjoining. The leaders of them had most of them separated themselves
from the Papacy on pretence of embracing the reformed religion ; and
under that covert were a long time sheltered from violence, and got
many advantages of insinuating their abominations (which they were tho
roughly drenched withal before they left the Papacy) into the minds of
many who professed the gospel.

The first open breach they made in Poland was in the year 1562 (some
thing having been attempted before), most of the leaders being Italians,
men of subtile and serpentine wits. The chief leaders of them were
Georgius Blandrata, Petrus Statorius, Franciscus Lismaninus; all which
had been eminent in promoting the Reformation.1

Upon their first tumultuating, Statorius, to whom afterwards Socinus
wrote sundry epistles, and lived with him in great intimacy, was summoned
to a meeting of ministers, upon an accusation that he denied that the Holy
Spirit was to be invocated. Things being not yet ripe, the man knowing
that if he were cast out by them he should not know where to obtain,
shelter, he secured himself by dissimulation, and subscribed this confes
sion : " I receive and reverence the prophetical and apostolical doctrine,
containing the true knowledge of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
and freely profess that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought to
be worshipped with the same religion or worship, distinctly or respectively,
and to be invocated, according to the truth of the holy Scripture. And,
lastly, I do plainly detest every heretical blasphemy concerning God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whether it be Arian, Servetian, Eunomian,
or Stancarian."2 And this confession is to be seen in the acts of that con
vention, under his own hand, to this day ; which notwithstanding, he was
a fierce opposer of the doctrine here professed all his days afterward.

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

And this man was one of the first heads of that multitude of men com
monly known by the name of Anabaptists among the Papists (who took
notice of little but their outward worship), who, having entertained
strange, wild, and blasphemous thoughts concerning the essence of God,

) "De tribus in una divina essentia personis anno 1562 controversial!! moverunt, in
Min. Pol. Itali quidam advenae ; praecipui autem assertores contra S. S. Trinitatem fuere,
Georgius Blandrata theologus ac medicus, Petrus Statorius, Tonvillanus, Franciscus
Lismaninus theologiae doctor, quorum tamen ab initio opera reformationis valde fuit
ecclesise Dei procliva."— Hist. Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p. 84.

1 " Propheticam et apostolicam doctrinam, quae yeram Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti
cognitionem continet, amplector ac veneror, parique religione Deum Patrem, Filium, et
Spiritum Sanctum distincte secundum sacrarum literarum yeritatem colendum. implo-
randumque precibus, libere profiteer. Denique omnem hsereticam de Deo Patre, Filio, et
Bpiritu Sancto blasphemiam, plane detestor, sive Ariana ilia, sive Servetiana, sive Euno-
miana, sive Stancariana."— Act. Eccles. Min. PoL Syn. Pinczov. anno 1559.

VOT. TTTT 2

] 3 PREFACE TO THE READER.

were afterward brought to a kind of settlement by Socinus, in that reli
gion he had prepared to serve them all ; and into his word at last con
sented the whole droves of Essentiators, Tritheists, Arians, and Sabellians,
that swarmed in those days in Silesia, Moravia, and some other parts of

CT O I* m fLIl V

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

The records of the synods in Poland of the reformed churches give us
somewhat farther of him ; as doth Socinus also against Weik. Being an
excellent physician, he was entertained, at his first coming into Poland, by
Prince Eadzivil, the then great patron of the reformed religion in those
parts of the world, — one of the same family with this captain-general of
the Polonian forces for the great dukedom of Lithuania, a man of great
success in many fights and battles agains't the Muscovites, continuing the
same office to this day. To him Calvin instantly wrote, that he should
take care of Blandrata, as a man not only inclinable to, but wholly
infected with, Servetianism.1 In that, as in many other things he admo
nished men of by his epistles, that wise and diligent person had the
fate to tell the truth and not be believed. See Calvin's epistles, about the
year 1561. But the man on this occasion being sent to the meeting at
Pinckzow (as Statorius), he subscribes this confession : —

" I profess myself to believe in one God the Father, and in one Lord
Jesus Christ, his Son, and in one Holy Ghost, whereof each is essentially
God. I detest the plurality of Gods, seeing to us there is one only God,
indivisible in essence. I confess three distinct persons, the eternal deity
and generation of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, true and eternal
God, proceeding from them both."2

This did the wretched man think meet to do, that he might preserve the
good esteem of his patron and reserve himself for a fitter opportunity of
doing mischief ; which also he did, obtaining a testimonial from the whole
meeting of his soundness in the faith, with letters to Prince Eadzivil and
to Calvin signifying the same.

Not long after this, by the great repute of his skill in physic, he became
known and physician to Stephen, king of Poland; by whose favour, having
no small liberty indulged him, he became the patron of all the Antitrini-
tarians of all sorts throughout Poland and Transylvania. What books he
wrote, and what pains he took in propagating their cause, hath been de
clared by others. The last epistle of Socinus, in order as they are printed
(it being without date, yet evidently written many years before most of
them that went before it), is to this Blandrata, whose inscription is, "Am-
plissimo clarissimoque viro Georgio Blandratse Stephani invictissimi regis

1 " De Georgio Blandrata, pro singular! suo in ecclesiam Dei amore pramonuit Polonos
Cl. vir Johan. Cal. quinetiam illustrissimum principem palatimim, Vilocensem, Nico-
laum Radzivilium, cujus patrocinio Blandrata turn utebatur. Subplfecerat enim yir
doctus Blandratae ingenium ad Served sententiam esse compositum : itaque serius prin-
cipi suasor fuit, ut sibi ab eo cayeret : sed homo ille facile, technis suis fallacibus, optimo

Erincipi fucum fecit, adeo ut ille iratus Johanni Calvino, Blandratam nomine suo ad
ynodum Pinckzoviensem anno 1561, 25 Jun. habitam, delegaret cum literis, quibus serio
postulabat in causa Blandratts, cum ecclesia, dicebatque male et praecipitanter egisse
Calvinum, quod Blandratam traduceret, et Servetismi notaret." — Regen. Hist. lib. i. p. 85.
2 " Fateor me credere in unum Deum Patrem, et in unum Dominion Jesum Christum
Filium ejus, et in unum Spiritum Sanctum, quorum quilibet est essentialiter Deus. Deo-
rum pluralitatem detestor, cum unus tan turn sit nobis Deus, essentia indivisibilis.
Fateor tres cisse distinctas hypostases ; et seternam Christ! clivinitatem et generationem ;
et Spiritum Sanctum, unuin et uetoiuum Deum, ab utrcque p.ocedentem. ' — Act. Syn.
Pinckzov. anno 156L

PREFACE TO THE READER 19

Polonise, etc., archiatro et conciliario intimo, domino, ac patrono suo
perpetua observantia colendo ; et subscribitur, Tibi in Domino Jesu de-
ditissimus cliens tuus F. S." To that esteem was he grown amongst
them, because of his advantages to insinuate them into the knowledge of
great men, which they mostly aimed at ; so that afterward, when Socinus
wrote his answer about magistrates to Palseologus, in defence of the Kaco-
vians,1 Marcellus Squarcialupus, his countryman, a man of the same persua
sion with him, falls foully on him, that he would venture to do it without
the knowledge and consent of this great patron of theirs.

But though this man by his dissimulation and falsehood thus escaped
censure, and by his art and cunning. insinuation obtained high promotions
and heaped up great riches in the world, yet even in this life he escaped
not the revenging hand of God. He was found at length with his neck
broke in his bed ; by what hand none knoweth. Wherefore Socinus, ob
serving that this judgment of God upon him, as that on Franciscus David
(of which mention shall be made afterward), would be fixed on in the
thoughts of men to the prejudice of the cause which he favoured, con
sidering more what was for his interest than what was decent or conve
nient, decries him for an apostate to the Jesuits before he was so de
stroyed, and intimates that he was strangled in his bed by a kinsman
whom he had made his heir, for haste to take possession of his great
wealth.2

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

For Lismaninus, the third person mentioned, he was accused of Arianism
at a convention at Morden, anno 1553, and there acquitted with a testi
monial.3 But in the year 1561, at another meeting at Whodrislave, he

1 " Dixit heri vir amplissimus Blandrata, librum se tuum contra Palseologum acce-
pisse. Habes tu unum saltern cui sis charissimus, cui omnia debes, qui judicio maxime
polleat: cur tan turn studium,* consiliique ppndus neglexisti? poteras non tantum ejua
censuram absoluti jam libri petere, sed consilium postulare de subeundo non levi labore.
Et possum affirmare senis consilium tibi sine dubio, si petivisti, profuturum fuisse." — Ep.
Marcel. Square, ad Faust. Socin.

2 " Monendum lectorem harum rerum ignarum censui, Blandratam haud paulum ante
mortem suam vivente adhuc Stephano rege Polonise, in illius gratiam, et quo ilium erga
se liberaliorem (ut fecit) redderet, plurimum remisisse de studio sup in ecclesiis nostris
Transilvanicis nostrisque hominibus juvandis : imo ep tandem devenisse ut vix existima-
retur priorem quam tautopere foverat de Deo et Christo sententiam retinere, sed potius
Jesuitis, qui in ea provincia tune temporis Stephani regis^et ejus fratris Christopher!
hand multo ante vitam functi, ope ac liberalitate non mediocriter, florebant, jam adhserere
aut certe cum eis quodammodo colludere. Illud certissimum est, cum ab eo tempore quo
liberalitatem quam ambiebat regis Stephani erga se est expertus, ccepisse quosdam ex
nostris hominibus quos charissimos prius habebat, et suis opibus juvabat spernere ac
deserere, etiam contra promissa et pbligationem suam, et tandem illos penitus deseruisse,
atque omni verte et sincerae pietatis studio valedixisse, et solis pecuniis congerendis in-
tentum fuisse, qusa fortasse justissimo Dei judicio, quod gravissimum exercere solet con
tra tales desertores, ei necem abeo quem suum heredem fecerat conciliarunt." — Socin.
ad Weik. cap. ii. p. 43, 44. * Act. Syn. Morden. anno 1553.

20 PREFACE TO THE HEADER.

was convicted of double dealing, and after that wholly fell off to the Anti-
trinitarians, and in the issue drowned himself in a well.1

And these were the chief settled troublers at the first of the Polonian
reformed churches. The stories of Paulus Alciatus, Valentinus Gentilis,
Bernardus Ochinus, and some others, are so well known, out of the epistles
of Calvin, Beza, Bullingor, Zanchius, with what hath of late from them
been collected by Cloppenburgius, Hornbeek, Maresius, Becmannus, etc.,
that it cannot but be needless labour for me to go over them again. That
which I aim at is, from their own writings, and what remains on record
concerning them, to give a brief account of the first breaking in of Anti-
trinitarianism into the reformed churches of Poland, and their confused
condition before headed by Socinus, into whose name they have since
been all baptized.

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

After many tergiversations, many examinations of them, many false sub
scriptions, in the year 1562, they fell into open division and separation
from the reformed churches.2 The ministers that fell off with them, besides
Lismaninus and his companions (of whom before), were Gregorius Pauli,
Stanislaus, Lutonius Martinus Crovicius, Stanislaus Paclesius, Georgius
Schomanus, and others, most of whom before had taken good pains in
preaching the gospel. The chief patrons and promoters were Johannes
Miemoljevius, Hieronyraus Philoponius, Johannes Cazaccovius, the one a
judge, the other a captain, the third a gentleman, — all men of great
esteem.

The year that this breach was made, L^ELIUS SOCINUS, then of the age
of thirty-seven years, who laid the foundations that his nephew after built
upon, died in Switzerland, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus in
forms us.* The man's life is known : he was full of Servetianisin, and had

iBtt.Ep.8L

» "Cum diutius non possint in ecclesia delitescere, manifesto schismate Petricoviaj, anno
1562, habito prius colloquio earn scindunt et in sententiam suam pertrahunt plurimos
turn ex ministris, turn ex patronis. Ministri qui partem eorum sequebantur erant in
principio Gregorius Pauli," etc.— Hist. Eccles. Slavon. Regen. lib. i. p. 86.

» "Laelius interim pnematura morte extinctus est ; incidit mors in diem parendinum
id. Mail 1562, setatis vero ejus septimi supra trigesimuin."— Eques. Polou Vita Faust.
Socin. fcenens.

PEEFACE TO THE READER. 21

attempted to draw sundry men of note to his abominations; a man of
great subtilty and cunning, as Beza says of him,1 incredibly furnished for
contradiction and sophism; which the author of the life of Socinus phrases,
he was " suggerendae veritatis minis artifex." He made, as I said, many
private attempts on sundry persons to entice them to Photinianism ; on
some with success, on others without. Of his dealing with him, and the
advantage he had so to do, Zanchius gives an account in his preface to his
book " De Tribus Elohim."2

He was, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus relates, in a readi
ness to have published his notions and conceptions, when God, by his
merciful providence, to prevent a little the pouring out of the poison by
so skilful a hand, took him off by sudden death; and Faustus himself
gives the same account of the season of his death in an epistle to Dudi-
thius.3

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

The assembly of states was called against the Muscovians. The nobi
lity desiring a conference between the ministers of the reformed churches
and the Antitrinitarians, it wras allowed by Sigismund the king. On the
part of the reformed churches there were four ministers; as many of the
other side came also prepared for the encounter. Being met, after some
discourse the chief marshal of the kingdom, then a Protestant, used these
words, " Seeing the proposition to be debated is agreed on, begin, in the
name of the one God and the Trinity."6 Whereupon one of the opposite
party instantly cried out, " We cannot here say Amen, nor do we know
that God, the Trinity."6 Whereunto the ministers subjoined, "We have
no need of any other proposition, seeing this hath offered itself; for, God
assisting, we will, and are ready to demonstrate that the Holy Ghost doth

1 "Fuitetiam Lselius Socinus Senensis incredibiliter ad contradicendum et varies
nectendos nodos comparatus; nee, nisi post mortem^cognitus hujusmodi perniciosissimis
hseresibus laborare." — Epist. ad Eccles. Orthodox. Ep 81.

2 "Fuit is Lfelms nobili honestaque familia natus, bene Greece et Hebraice doctiis,
vitseque etiam externae inculpatse, quarum rerum causS, mihi quoque intercesserat cum.
illo non vulgaris amicitia ; sed homo fuit plenus diversarum hseresium, quas tamen mild
nunquam proponebat nisi disputandi causa, et semper interrogans, quasi cuperet doceri.
Hanc vero Samosatenianam imprimis annos multos fovit, et quoscunque potuit pertraxit
in eundem errorem ; pertraxit autem non paucos : me quoque ut dixi diversis tentabat
rationibus, si eodem possit errore simul, et asterno exitio secum involvere."— Zanch. Pre-
fat. ad lib. de Tribus Elohim.

3 " Cum amicorum precibus permotus tandem constituisset. atque etiam coepisset, sal
tern inter ipsos. nonnulla in apertum proferre."— Socin. ad Andraeum Dudithium.

* " Cum his Antitrinitariis publicam habuerunt evangelic! disputationem PetricoviiB
in comitiis regni Sigism. 11 Aug., rege permittente, anno 1565. Disputatores fueniut,"
etc. — Regen. ubi supra.

5 "Jam igitur constituta propositione qua de agendum est, in nomine Dei unius et
Trinitatis exordimini."

• " Nos vero hie non dicimus Amen, neque enim nos novimus Deum istum Trinitatem."

22 PKEFACE TO THE KEADEK.

not teach us any other God in the Scripture, but him only who is Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost; that is, one God in trinity."1

This colloquy continued three days. In the first, the ministers who
were the opponents (the other always choosing to answer), by express
texts of Scripture in abundance, confirmed the truth. In the beginning
of their testimonies they appealed to the beginning of the Old and New
Testament;1 and upon both places confounded their adversaries. The
second day the testimonies of the ancient writers of the church were
produced, with no less success. And on the third, the stories of Arius and
some other heretics of old. The issue of the disputation was to the great
advantage of the truth; which Possevine himself cannot deny, though he
affirms a little after that the Calvinists could not confute the Trinitarians,
as he calls them, though they used the same arguments that the Catholics
did, cap. xiv. p. 366.

Possevine confesses that the ministers (as they called themselves) of
Sarmatia and Transylvania, in their book of the False and True ^nowledge
of God, took advantage of the images of the Catholics;3 for whose satisfac
tion, it seems, he subjoins the theses of Thyreus, wherein he labours to
prove the use of those abominable idols to be lawful : of which in the close
of this address.

And this was the first great obstacle that was laid in the way of the
progress of the reformed religion in Poland ; which, by Satan's taking the
advantage of this horrible scandal, is at this day, in those parts of the
world, weak and oppressed. With what power the gospel did come upon
the inhabitants of those countries at the first, and what number of persons
it prevailed upon to forsake their dumb idols, which in Egyptian dark
ness they had long worshipped, is evident from the complaint of Cichovius
the priest, who tells us that " about those times, in the whole parliament
of the dukedom of Lithuania, there were not above one or two Catholics,"
as he calls them, "besides the bishops."* Yea, among the bishops them
selves, some were come off to the reformed churches ; amongst whom Geor-
gius Petrovicius, bishop of Sarmogitia, is reckoned by Diatericus, Chron.
p. 49. Yea, and so far had the gospel influenced those nations, that in the
year 1542, upon the death of King Sigismund II., during the interregnum,
a decree was made in parliament, with general consent, that no prejudice
should arise to any for the protestant religion, but that a firm union should
be between the persons of both religions, popish and protestant; and that
whosoever was chosen king should take an oath to preserve this union and
the liberty of the protestant religion. — Sarricius, Annal. Pol. lib. viii.
p. 403.

1 "Nulla jam alia propositions nobis opus est, cum hsec se obtulerit; nos autem, Deo
volente, et volumus, et parati sumus demonstrate, quod Spiritus Sanctus non alium nos
Deum in Scriptura doceat, nisi solum Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, id est, Deum
unum in trimtate."

" Nos quidem o amici baud difficulter poterimus vobiscum earn rem transigere, nam
ubi primum Biblia aperueritis, et initium veteris et novse legis consideraveritis, statiin
offendetis, id ibi asseri quod vos pernegatis, sic enim Geneseos primo Scriptura loquitur,
Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram. Nostram, inquit, non meam. Postea vero addit,
Fecit Deus. Novae autem legis initium hoc est, Verbum erat apud Deum, et Verbum erat
J)<w. yidetis ut in veteri lege loquatur unus Deus tanquam de tribus; hie vero quod
Films, Verbum aeternum (nam quod ab initio erat, Eeternum est) erat apud Deum, et erat
idem, non alius, uti vos perperam interpretamini, Deus."

" Mox agunt de imaginibus sanctissimae Trinitatis, non content! simpliciorum quo-
rundam picturas convellere, eas item quae ab Ecclesia Catholica rite usurpatte sunt, scom-
matibus et blasphemis carminibus proscindunt." — Anton. Possev. lib. viii. cap. xv. xvi.

'Profecto illis temporibus res catholicorum fere deplorata erat; cum in amplissinio
senatu vix unus aut alter praeter episcopos reperiebatur."— Casper Cicovius Canon, et
Parock. Sardom. Alloquia.

23

And when Henry, duke of Anjou, brother to Charles IX., king of France,
was elected king of Poland1 (being then a man of great esteem in the
world, for the wars which in France he had managed for the Papists
against the Prince of Conde and the never-enough-magnified Gasper
Coligni,2 being also consenting at least to the barbarous massacre of the
Protestants in that nation), and coming to the church where he was to be
crowned, by the advice of the clergy, would have avoided the oath of pre
serving the Protestants and keeping peace between the dissenters in reli
gion, John Shirli, palatine of Cracovia, took up the crown, and making
ready to go away with it out of the convention, cried out, " Si non jurabis,
non regnabis," — "If you will not swear, you shall not reign;" and thereby
compelled him to take the oath agreed upon.

This progress, I say, had the doctrine of the gospel made in those na
tions, so considerable a portion of the body of the people were won over
to the belief of it, when, through the craft and subtilty of the old enemy
of the propagation thereof, by this apostasy of some to Tritheism, as Gre-
gorius Pauli, of some to Arianism, as Erasmus Johannes, of some to Pho-
tinianism, as Statorius and Blandrata, some to Judaism, as Seidelius (of
whom afterward), the foundation of the whole building was loosened, and,
instead of a progress, the religion has gone backwards almost constantly to
this day. When this difference first fell out, the Papists3 not once moved
a mouth or pen for a long time against the broachers of all the blasphemies
mentioned, hoping that by the breaches made by them on the reformed
churches they should at length be able to triumph over both ; for which
end, in their disputes since with Protestants, they have striven to take
advantage of the apostasy of many of those who had pretended to plead
against the Papacy in behalf of the reformed churches and afterward
turned Antitrinitarians, as I remember it is particularly insisted on in an
English treatise which I saw many years ago, called " Micheus, the Con
verted Jew." And indeed it is supposed that both Paulus Alciatus and
Ochinus turned Mohammedans.*

Having thus, then, disturbed the carrying on of the Keformation, many
ministers and churches falling off to Tritheism and Samosatenianism, they
laid the foundation of their meeting at Racovia ; from which place they
have been most known since and taken notice of in the world. The first
foundation of what they call the "church" in that place was made by a con
fluence of strangers out of Bohemia and Moravia, with some Polonians,"
known only by the name of Anabaptists, but professing a community of

1 " Neque vero hoc juramentum pro tuenda pace evangelica prsestitisset, nisi eura.
Johannes Shirli palatinus Cracovicnsis, vir plenus zeli et inagnse cum potentia authori-
tatis, adegisset ; fertur enim cum rex Henncus jam coronandus esset nee pacem inter
dis^identes se conservaturum jurasset, sed silentio eludere vellet, accepta quae regi turn
praeferebatur corona, exitum ex templo parasse, et in hsec prorupisse verba, 'Si non jurabis,
non regnabis.'" — Hist. Eccles. Slayon. Regen. lib. i p 92.

2 " Condaeo succedit Colignius, vir natalibus et militia clarus, qui nisi regi suo moveret
bellum, dissidii fomes et caput, virtutis heroicae exemplar erat, supra antiques duces,
quos mirata est Grsecia, quos Roma extulit."— Gramond. llist. Gal. lib. vi.

s"Quid interea bonus ille Hosius Cardinalis cuin suis Catholicis ? Nempe ridere
suaviter, et quasi ista nihil ad ipsos pertinerent, aliud quidvis a^ere, imo etiam nostros
undique, ad extinguendum hoc incendium accurentes, probrosis libellis arcessere." —
Bcz. Ep. 81.

4 " Cum Gentilis de Paulo Alciato sodali suo rogaretur, ' factus est ' inquit ' Mahome-
tanus.' "— Bez. Ep. ubi supra.

* " Erant alii quoque Antitrinitarii sectas Anabaptisticas per Bohaomiam et Moravian*
longe lateque serperitis sectatores, qui absurdam illam bonorum communionem, obserya-
turi ultro abjectis suis conditionibus Racoviam se contulerunt. Noyam Hierusalem ibi
loci exstracturi (ut aiebant), ad hanc ineptam societatem plurimos invitabant nobiles,"
etc. — Regtvn. lib. i. p. DO.

24 PREFACE TO THE READER.

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

The leaders of these men, who called themselves their " ministers," were
Gregorius Pauli and Daniel Bielenscius : of whom Bielenscius afterward
recanted ; and Gregorius Tauli, being utterly wearied, ran away from
them as from a hard service,1 and, as Faustus Socinus tells us, in his pre
face to his answer to Palaeologus, in his old age left off all study, and be
took himself to other employments. Such were the persons by whom this
stir began.

This Gregorius Pauli, Schlusselburgius very ignorantly affirms to have
been the head of the Antitrinitarians and their captain,2 when he was a
mere common trooper amongst them, and followed after others, running
away betimes, — an enthusiastical, antimagistratical heretic, pleading for
community of goods. But this Gregory had said that Luther did but the
least part of the work for the destruction of antichrist ; and hence is the
anger of Doctor Conradus, who everywhere shows himself as zealous of
the honour of Luther as of Jesus Christ. So was the man, who had some
divinity, but scarce any Latin at all.

Be pleased now to take a brief view of the state of these men before
the coming of Faustus Socinus into Poland and Transylvania, both these
nations, after the death of Sigismund II., being in the power of the
same family of the Bathori. Of those who professed the reformed religion
and were fallen from the Papacy, there were three sorts, — Lutherans, and
Calvinists, and the United Brethren ; which last were originally Bohemian
exiles, but, professing and practising a more strict way of church order
and fellowship than the other, had very many of the nobility of Poland
and the people joined to their communion. The two latter agreed in all
points of doctrine, and at length came, in sundry meetings and synods,
to a fair agreement and correspondency, forbearing one another wherein
they could not concur in judgment. Now, as these grew up to union
amongst themselves, the mixed multitude of several nations that had joined
themselves unto them in their departure out of Egypt fell a lusting after
the abominations mentioned, and either withdrew themselves or were
thrown out from their communion. ,

At first there were almost as many minds as men amongst them, the
tessera of their agreement among themselves being purely opposition to
the Trinity, upon what principle soever. Had a man learned to blaspheme
the holy Trinity, were it on Photinian, Arian, Sabellian, ' yea, Moham
medan or Judaical principles, he was a companion and brother amongst
them! To this the most of them added Anabaptism, with the necessity
of it, and among the Papists were known by no other name. That they
opposed the Trinity, that they consented not to the reformed churches,
was their religion. For Pelagianism, afterward introduced by Socinus,

' " Quid commemorem animosi illius Gregorii Pauli insalutato suo grege fugam."— Bez.
" Novi isli Ariani exorti sunt in Polonia, Lithuania, et ipsa nimirum Transylvania,
ac eorum caput et ducem se profitetur Gregorius Pauii minister ecclesise Racoviensis,
homo impius, ambitiosus, et in blasphemis effutiendis plane effrsenis ; et ita quidem
jactabundus, ut adscribere sibi, cum aliis Arianis, non -vereatur excisionem antichrist! :
et ejusdem extirpationem ab inns fundamentis : Lutherum enim vix miniiuam partem
revelationis antichrist! reliquisse.'1— Schlusselburg. de Antitrin. p. 3.

ut

-,

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 25

there was little or no mention [of it] among them. In this estate, divided
amongst themselves, notwithstanding some attempts in their synods (for
synods they had) to keep a kind of peace in all their diversities of opinions,
spending their time in disputes and quarrellings, were they when Faustus
Socinus came into Poland; who at length brought them into the condition
wherein they are, by the means and ways that shall be farther insisted on.

And this state of things, considering how not unlike the condition of
multitudes of men is thereunto in these nations wherein we live, hath
oftentimes made me fear that if Satan should put it into the heart of any
person of learning and ability to serve his lust and ambition with craft,
wisdom, and diligence, it were not impossible for him to gather the dis
persed and divided opinionatists of our days to a consent in some such
body of religion as that which Socinus framed for the Polonians. But of
him, his person, and labours, by what ways and means he attained his end,
it may not be unacceptable, from his own and friends' writings, to give
some farther account.

That Faustus Socinus, of Sienna, was born of a good and ancient family,
famous for their skill in the law, in the month of December in the year
1539 ; that he lived in his own country until he was about the age of
twenty years ; that then leaving his country after his uncle Lselius, he
went to Leyden, and lived there three years ; that then, upon the death of
his uncle, having got his books, he returned into Italy, and lived in the
court of the great Duke of Tuscany twelve years, about the close of which
time he wrote his book in Italian, " De Authoritate Sacrse Scripturae;"
that leaving his country he came to Basil in Switzerland, and abode there
three years and somewhat more, — are things commonly known, and so
little to our purpose that I shall not insist upon them.

All the while he was at Basil and about Germany he kept his opinions
much to himself, being intent upon the study of his uncle Lailius' notes, as
the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life confesseth;1 whereunto he added
the Dialogues of Bernardus Ochinus, as himself acknowledged, which
about that time were turned into Latin by Castalio,2 as he professed, to
get money by his labour to live upon (though he pleads that he read
Ochinus' Dialogues in Poland,3 and as it seems not before), and from thence
he was esteemed to have taken his doctrine of the mediation of Christ.

The papers of his uncle Lrelius, of which himself often makes mention,

ere principally his comment upon the first chapter of St John, and some
otes upon sundry texts of Scripture giving testimony to the deity of
Christ ; among which Faustus extols that abominable corruption of John
viii. 58, of which afterward I shall speak at large, Socin. Respon. ad Eras.
Johan. His comment on the first of John,* Beza tells us, is the most de
praved and corrupt that ever was put forth, its author having outgone all
that went before him in depraving that portion of Scripture.

1 " Illic solidum triennium quod excurrit theologise studio incubuit, paucissimis LaBlii
patrui scriptis et pluribus ab iis relictis notis muftum adjutus est." — Vita Faust. Socin.

2 " Bernardini Ochini Dialqgos transtuli, non ut judex, sed ut translator; et ex ejus-
modi opera ad alendam familiam qusestum facere solitus." — Castal. Apol.

3 " lllud certissimum est, Gregorium Zarnovecium, ministrum ut vocant evangelicun'
qui nominatim adversus disputationem meam de Jesu Ghristo Salyatore libellum Polo-
nice edidit, in ejus prsefatione asserere, me ex Ochini Dialogis annis abhinc circiter tri-
ginta quinque editis sententiam illius mese disputatinnis accepisse, nam certe in Dialogis
illis, quorum non pauca exempla jamdiu in ipsa Polonia mihi videre contigit," etc. —
Faust. Socin. Ep. ad Martinum Vaidovitum Acad. Craco. Professorem.

4 " Lsolius in Samosateni partes clam transiit ; verbo Dei ut ex quodam ejus scripto
nunc liquet adeo vcteratorie et plane versute depravato, ac praascrtiru primo evansrelii
Johann. capite, ut mihi quidem videatur omnes ejus corruptores superasse."— Bez.

26 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

The comment itself is published by Junius, " in defensione sanctse Tri-
nitatis," and confuted by him ; and Zanchius, at large, "De Tribus Elohim,
lib. vi. cap. ii., et deinceps;" Faustus varying something from his uncle in
the carrying on of the same design.

His book, " De Jesu Christo Servatore," he wrote, as the author of his
life assures us, whilst he was in and about Basil, as also many passages in
his epistles and other writings manifest.

About the year 1575 he began it, which he finished about the year
1578, although the book was not printed till the year 1594;1 for upon
the divulging of it (he then living at Cracovia), a tumult was raised against
him by the unruly and disorderly students, wherein he was dragged up
and down and beaten, and hardly escaped with his life ; [against] which
inhumane procedence he expostulates at large in an epistle to Martin
Vaidovita, a professor of the university, by whose means he was delivered
from being murdered. But this fell out in the year 1598, as is evident
from the date of that epistle, four years after the book was printed.

The book is written against one Covet, whom I know by nothing else
but what of his disputes with Socinus is by him published. Socinus con-
fesseth that he was a learned man, and in repute for learning ; 2 and, in
deed, if we may take an estimate of the man from the little that is there
delivered of him, he was a godly, honest, and very learned man, and spake
as much in the cause as might be expected or was needful, before farther
opposition was made to the truth he did defend. Of all the books of him
concerning whom we speak, this his disputation, " De Jesu Christo Serva
tore," is written with the greatest strength, subtilty, and plausibility,
neither is any thing said afterward by himself or the rest of his followers
that is not comprised in it. Of this book he was wont afterward to boast,
as Crellius informs us, and to say, " That if he might have some excellent
adversary to deal withal upon the point, he then would show what could
farther be spoken of the subject."8

This book, at its first coming out, was confuted by Gregorius Zarno-
vecius (as Socinus testifies in his epistle to Vaidovita) in the Polonian lan
guage: which was afterward translated into Latin by Conradus Huberus,
and printed at Franeker, anno 1618; also by one Otho Casmannus; and
thirdly, at large, by Sibrandus Lubbertus, anno 1611, who, together with
his refutation, printed the whole book itself, I hope to no disadvantage
of the truth, though a late apostate to Rome, whom we called here Hugh
Cressey, but is lately commenced B. Serenus Cressey, a priest of the order
of Benedict, and who would have been even a Carthusian (such high honour
did the man aim at), tells us that some of his scholars procured him to do
it, that so they might get the book itself in their hands.* But the book
will speak for itself with indifferent readers, and for its clearness is ex
tolled by Vossius.5 Generally, all that have since written of that subject,

1 " Cum Basiliae degeret ad annum usque 1575 dum lumen sibi exortum, ad alios pro-
pagnre studet, ab amicis ad alienos sensim dilapso disserendi argumento, disputationem
de Jesu Christo Servatore, ore primum inchoatam, postea scripto complexus est : cui anno
1578 summam msmum imposuit." — Eques. Polon. Vita Socin.

1 " Et sane miram est, cum bonis literis ut audio (et ex sermone quern simul babuimus,
atque ex tuis scriptis conjicere potui), sis admodum excultus, te id non vidisse." — Socin.
de Servatore, lib. i. part i. cap. x.

1 " Audivimus ex iis qui fa'miliariter ipso sunt usi, eum significasse, sicut turn jacta-
batur, excellens sibi si contingeret adversarius, qui librum de Jesu Christo Servatore
adoriretur, turn demum se totum hoc argumentum ab origine explicaturum. " — Grell.
Prsofat. Respon. ad Urot., p. 12.

« Exomologesis of Hugh Paulin de Cressey, etc.

* " Post luculentas Sibrandi Lubberti commentationes adversum Socinum editas."—
Voss. Resp. ad Judicium Ravensp.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 27

in theses, common-places, lectures, comments, professed controversies, have
made that book the ground of their procedure.

One is not to be omitted, which is in the hands of all those who inquire
into these things, or think that they are concerned in the knowledge of
them; this is Grotius' "Defensio Fidei Catholicse de Satisfactione Christi,
adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem." Immediately upon the coming
out of that book, animadversions were put forth against it by Harmanus
Ravenspergcrus, approved, as it seems, by our Doctor Prideaux.1

The truth is, those animadversions of Ravenspergerus are many of them
slight, and in sundry things he was mistaken ; whereby his endeavours
were easily eluded by the learned Vossius,2 in his vindication of Grotius
against him. Not that the dissertation of Grotius is free from being liable
to many and just exceptions, partly in things wherein he was mistaken,
partly wherein he failed in what he undertook (whereby many young stu
dents are deluded, as ere long may be manifested), but that his antagonist
had not well laid his action, nor did pursue it with any skill.

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

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

About the year 1608, Michael Gitichius gathered together the sum of
what is argumentative in that book of Socinus against the satisfaction of
.Christ ; which was answered by Ludovicus Lucius,5 then professor at Ham
burg, and the reply of Gitichius confuted and removed out of the way
by the same hand. In that brief rescript of Lucius there is a clear at
tempt to the enervating of the whole book of Socinus, and that with good
success, by way of a logical and scholastical procedure. Only, I cannot
but profess my sorrow that, having in his first answer laid that solid foun
dation of the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, from the eternal nature
and justice of God, whereby it is absolutely impossible that, upon the con
sideration and supposition of sin committed, it should be pardoned without
a due compensation, in his rejoinder to the reply of Gitichius, he closes
with a commonly known expression of Augustine, " That God could, if he

1 " In eosdem exercuit stylum ut Socinianismi suspicionem amoliretur Hugo Grotius,
sed praevaricantcm aliquoties vellicat, in censura, Ravenspergerus." — Prideaux Lecti. de
Justificatione.

* Voss. Resp. ad Judicium Ravensp.

3 " Prresentissinram ecclesias venenum."

* Triumphus Crucis Autore And. Essen.

• * " De gravissima quaestione, utrum (Jhristus pro peccatis nostris justitioe divinse satis-
feceret necne ? scholastica disputatio."

23 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

would, have delivered us without satisfaction, but he would not;"1 so
casting down the most stable and unmovable pillar of that doctrine which
he so dexterously built up in spite of its adversaries.

I dare boldly acquaint the younger students in these weighty points of
the religion of Jesus Christ, that the truth of this one particular, concern
ing the eternal justice of God indispensably requiring the punishment of
sin, being well established (for which end they have not only the consent
but the arguments of almost all who have handled these controversies with
skill and success), will securely carry them through all the sophisms of the
adversaries, and cut all the knots which, with so much subtilty, they en
deavour to tie and cast upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; as
I have in part elsewhere demonstrated.2 From this book also did Smalcius
take the whole of what he has delivered about the death of Christ in his
Racovian Catechism, not adding any thing at all of his own ; which Cate
chism, as it was heretofore confuted by Frederick Bauldwinus, by order
of the university of Wittenburgh, and is by several parcels by many re
moved out of the way, especially by Altingius and Maccovius, so of late it
is wholly answered by Nicolaus Arnoldus,3 now professor at Franeker ;
which coming lately to my hands prevented me from proceeding to a just,
orderly refutation of the whole, as I was intended to do, although I hope
the reader will not find any thing of importance therein omitted.

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

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

The author of the life of Socinus tells us (as he himself also gives in
the information) that whilst he abode about Switzerland, at Basil and
Tigurum [Zurich], he had a dispute with Puccius ; which also is since pub
lished. This was before his going into Poland in the year 1578.8

The story of this Puccius, because it may be of some use as to the pre
sent estate of the minds of many in the things of God, I shall briefly give

» " Gitichio itaque de absolute Dei potentia seu P9testate (de qua nulla nobis dubitatio)
mamter blateranti, elegantissimis Augustini verbis respondeo, ' Omnia Deus potuit, si
vohnsset, etc.— Lucius ad Gitich. p. 110.

, * Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. Vind. * Religio Sociniani Refutata.

Be™ar(i-. i-P- 190. » Baroni. ad aim. 1140.

Aliam interim cum Francisco Puccio ineunte anno 157s, Ti&uri confecit."— Vita
Faust. Socin.

THE PEEFACE TO THE READER. 29

from Socinus himself (Ep. 3, ad Matt. Radec.), and that as a tremen
dous example of the righteous judgment of God, giving up a person of
a light, unstable spirit to fearful delusions, with a desperate issue. Origi
nally he was a merchant of a good and noble family, but leaving his pro
fession he betook himself to study,1 and for his advantage therein came
hither to Oxford.2 After lie had stayed here until he began to vent some
paradoxes in religion, about the year 1565 (being not able here to prevail
with any to close with him), he went to Basil, where there was a dispute
between him and Socinus, before mentioned; in the issue whereof they
both professed that they could agree in nothing in religion but that there
was a God that made the world. At Basil he maintained universal re
demption and a natural faith, as they then termed it, or an innate power
of believing without the efficacy of the grace of God, for which he was
compelled thence to depart; which doing he returned again into England,
where, upon the same account, he was cast into prison for a season; thence
being released, he went into Holland, from whence by letters he chal
lenged Socinus to dispute, and went one thousand miles (namely, to Cra-
covia in Poland) afterward to make it good. After some disputes there
(both parties condescending to them on very ridiculous conditions), So
cinus seeming to prevail, by having most friends among the judges, as the
other professed, he stayed there a while, and wrote a book, which he
styled " The Shut Bible, and of Elias," wherein he laboured to deny all
ordinances, ministry, and preaching, until Elias should come and restore
all things. His reason was taken from the defection and apostasy of the
church ; wherein, said he, all truth and order was lost, the state of the
church being not again to be recovered, unless some with apostolical au
thority and power of working miracles were immediately sent of God for
that purpose. How far this persuasion hath prevailed with some in our
days, we all know and lament. Puccius at length begins to fancy that he
shall himself be employed in this great restoration that is to be made of
the church, by immediate mission from God ! Whilst he was in expectation
of his call hereunto, there come two Englishmen into Poland, men pre
tending discourse with angels and revelations from God : one of them was
the chief at revelations (their names I cannot learn), the other gave out
what he received, in his daily converse with angels, and the words he heard
from God, about the destruction of all the present frame of the worship
•of God. To these men Puccius joined himself, and followed them to
Prague in Bohemia, though his friends dealt with him to the contrary,
assuring him that one of his companions was a mountebank and the other
a magician ; but being full of his former persuasion of the ceasing of all
ordinances and institutions, with the necessity of their restitution by im
mediate revelation from God, having got companions fit to harden him in
his folly and presumption, he scorned all advice, and away he went to
Prague. No sooner came he thither but his prophet had a revelation by an
angel that Puccius must become Papist, his cheating companion having
never been otherwise. Accordingly he turns Papist ; begs pardon publicly
for his deserting the Roman church, is reconciled by a priest, in whose
society after he had a while continued, and laboured to pervert others to
the same superstition with himself, he died a desperate magician. Have
none in our days been led into the like maze ? hath not Satan led some in

1 " Ex nobili admodum familia, quse etiam trcs cardinales habuit, natus, mercatura
relicta se totum sacrarum literarum studio tradidit."

2 " Quod ut comiuodius facere posset in Angliam se contulit, ibique in Oxoniensi
gymnasio aliquandiu se exercuit," etc.

30

the same circle, setting out from superstition to profaneness, passing
through some zeal and earnestness in religion, rising to a contempt of
ministry and ordinances, with an expectation of revelations and commu
nion with angels ? And how many have again sunk down into Popery,
atheism, and horrible abominations, is known to all in this nation who
think it their duty to inquire into the things of God. I have given this
instance only to manifest that the old enemy of our salvation is not play
ing any new game of deceit and temptation, but such as he hath suc
cessfully acted in former generations. Let not us be ignorant of his
deceits.

By the way, a little farther to take in the consideration of men like-
minded with him last mentioned : of those who denied all ordinances,
and maintained such an utter loss and defection of all church state and
order that it was impossible it should be restored without new apostles,
evidencing their ministry by miracles, this was commonly the issue, that
being pressed with this, that there was nothing needful to constitute a
church of Christ but that there were a company of men believing in Jesus
Christ, receiving the word of God, and taking it for their rule, they de
nied that indeed now there was or could be any faith in Jesus Christ, the
ministers that should beget it being utterly ceased, and therefore it was
advisable for men to serve God, to live justly and honestly, according to
the dictates of the law of nature, and to omit all thoughts of Christ be
yond an expectation of his sending persons hereafter to acquaint the
world again with his worship.

That this was the judgment of Matt. Radecius, his honoured friend,
Socinus informs us;1 though he mollifies his expression, p. 123, ascribing
it to others. Whether many in our days are not insensibly fallen into the
same abominations, a little time will discover. The main of the plea of
the men of this persuasion in those days was taken from the example of the
Israelites under that idolatrous apostasy wherein they were engaged by
Jeroboam. "In the days of Elijah there were," said they, "seven thousand
who joined not with the residue in their false worship and idolatry, but
yet they never went about to gather, constitute, and set up a new church
or churches, but remained in their scattered condition, keeping themselves
as they could from the abominations of their brethren;" — not considering
that there is not the same reason of the Judaical and Christian churches,
in that the carrying on of the worship of God among them was annexed to
one tribe, yea, to one family in that tribe, and chiefly tied to one certain
place, no public instituted worship, such as was to be the bond of com
munion for the church, being acceptable that was not performed by those
persons in that place : so that it was utterly impossible for the godly in
Israel then, or the ten tribes, to set up a new church-state, seeing they
neither had the persons nor were possessed of the place, without which no
such constitution was acceptable to God, as not being of his appointment.
Under the gospel it is not so, either as to the one or other. All places
being now alike, and all persons who are enabled thereunto having liberty
to preach the word in the order by Christ appointed, the erecting of
churches and the celebration of ordinances is recoverable, according to
the mind of God, out of the greatest defection imaginable, whilst unto
any persons there is a continuance of the word and Spirit.

But to proceed with Socinus. Blandrata having got a great interest with
the king of Poland and prince of Transylvania, as hath been declared,
and making it his business to promote the Antitrinitarians, of what sort
1 Ejv ad Radcc. 3, p. 87, 119.

THE PREFACE TO THE EEADER. 31

soever, being in Transylvania, where the men of his own abomination
were exceedingly divided about the invocation and adoration of Jesus
Christ, Franciscus David carrying all before him in an opposition there
unto (of which whole business I shall give a farther account afterward),
he sends for Socinus,1 who was known to them, and, from his dealing with
Puccius; began to be famed for a disputant, to come to him into Transyl
vania, to dispute with and confute Franciscus David, in the end of the
year 1578 ; where what success his dispute had, in the imprisonment and
death of David, shall be afterward related.

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

After way was once made in the minds of men for the farther work of
Satan, by denying the deity of our blessed Lord Jesus, very many quickly
grew to have more contemptible thoughts of him than those seemed to be
willing they should from whose principles they professed, and indeed
righteously, that their mean esteem of him did arise. Hence Franciscus
David, Georgius Enjedinus, Christianus Franken, and sundry others, denied
that Christ was to be tvorshipped with religious worship, or that he might
be invocated and called upon. Against these Socinus, indeed, contended
with all his might, professing that he would not account such as Chris
tians who would not allow that Christ might be invocated and was to be
worshipped; which that he was to be, he proved by undeniable testimonies
of Scripture. But yet when himself came to answer their arguments,
whereby they endeavoured to prove that a mere man (such as on both
sides they acknowledged Christ to be) might not be worshipped with
religious worship or divine adoration, the man, with all his craft and
subtilty, was entangled, utterly confounded, silenced, slain with his own
weapons, and triumphed over, as I shall afterward manifest in the account
which I shall give of the disputation between him and Christianus Franken
about this business: God in his righteous judgment so ordering things,
that he who would not embrace the truth which he ought to have re
ceived should not be able to maintain and defend that truth which he did
receive ; for having, what in him lay, digged up the only foundation of
the religious worship and adoration of Christ, he was altogether unable
to keep the building upright. Nor did this fall out for want of ability in
the man, no man under heaven being able on his false hypothesis to main
tain the worship of Christ, but, as was said, merely by the just hand of
God, giving him up to be punished by his own errors and darkness.

Being hardened in the contempt of Christ by the success they had
against Socinus and his followers, with whom they conversed and dis
puted, some of the men before mentioned stayed not with him at the
affirming of him to be a mere man, nor yet where they began, building on
that supposition that he was not to be worshipped, but proceeded yet far
ther, and affirmed that he was indeed a good man and sent of God, but
yet he spake not by the spirit of prophecy, but so as that whatever was

Francisci Davi-
remcdium qusereiis
prsecipuum factiouis
duccni Franciscum Davidein, a tarn turpi et pernicioso errore abstralieret." — Vita Faust.

Kocin.

32

spoken by him and written by his apostles was to be examined by Moses
and the prophets, whereto if it did not agree it was to be rejected : which
was the sum of the first and second theses of Franciscus David,1 in oppo
sition to which Socinus gave in his judgment in certain antitheses to
Christopher Barthoracus, prince of Transylvania, who had then cast David
into prison for his blasphemy.2

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

In the year 1579, in the beginning of the month of June, he was cast
into prison by the prince of Transylvania, and lived until the end of No
vember.8 That he was cast into prison by the instigation of Socinus him
self and Blandrata, the testimonies are beyond exception ; for this is not
only recorded by Bellarmine and others of the Papists (to whose asser
tions, concerning any adversary with whom they have to do, I confess
much credit is not to be given), but by others also of unquestionable autho
rity.* This, indeed, Socinus denies, and would willingly impose the
odium of it upon others ;fi but the truth is, considering the keenness and
wrath of the man's spirit, and the thoughts he had of this miserable
wretch,6 it is more than probable that he was instrumental towards his
death. The like apology does Smalcius make in his answer to Franzius
about the carriage of the Samosatenians in that business of Franciscus
David; where they accused one another of craft, treachery, bloody cruelty,
treason.7 Being cast into prison, the miserable creature fell into a fre-
netical distemper, through the revenging hand of God upon him, as So
cinus confesseth himself.8 In this miserable condition the devils (saith the
historian) appeared unto him ; whereupon he cried out, " Behold who ex
pect me their companion in my journey,"8 whether really, or in his vexed,
distempered imagination, disordered by his despairing mind, I determine

1 " Homo ille Jes. Nazarenus qui Christus appellatur, non per spiritum propheticum,
sed per Spiritum Sanctum locutus est ; id est, quamvis a Deo legatus fuerit, non tamen
qusecunque vcrha ex ipsius Dei ore provenisse censenda sunt. 2. Hinc fit ut illius et
apostolorum ejus verba, ad Mosaicae legis et aliorum propheticorum oraculorum normam
expendenda sint, et siquid contrarium yel diversum ab his in illis reperitur, aut reperiri
videtur. id aut rejiciendum, aut certe ita interpretandum sit, ut cum Mosis et prophet-
arum doctrina consentiat quas sola morum et divini cultus regula est."

3 " Theses quibus Francisci Davidis sententia de Christ! munere explicatur una cum
antithesibus ecclesiae a Spcino conscriptis, et illustrissimo Transylvaniae principi Chris-
tophero Barthoraep oblatis."

s " Certum est ilium in ipso initio mensis Junii career! inclusum fuisse, et yixisse
usque ad mensem Novembris, nisi vehementer fallor, quo extinctus est." — Socin. ad
Weik. cap. ii. p. 44.

4 " Illud yero notandum, quo_d procurantibus Georgio Blandrata et Fausto Socino, in
Transylvania exuHbus, Franciscus David morti traditus fuit."— Adrian. Regen. Hist.
Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p; 90.

* " Quod si Weikus intelligit damnandi verbo nostros ministros censuisse ilium aliqua
pcena afficiendum, aut vult fallere, aut egregie fallitur : nam certum est, in judicio illo,
cum minister quidam Calvinianus Christophero Principi, qui toti action! interfuit, et
pnefuit, satis longa oratione persuasisset, ut talem hominem e medio tolleret, minitans
iram Dei nisi id fecisset, ministros nostros proprius ad ipsum principem accedentes,
reverenter illi supplicasse, ut miseri hominis misereri vellet, et clementem et benignum
se erga ilium praebere."— Socin. ad Weik. cap. ii. p. 47.

; " Imo plusquam haereticum eum (ecclesiae nostrae) judicaverunt, nam talem homi
nem indignum Christiano nomine esse dixerunt ; quippe qui Christo invocationis cultum
prorsus dctrahendo, et eum curam ecclesiae gerere negando, simul reipsa negaret eum
esse Christum." — Idem ubi supra.

' Kxemplum denique affert nostrorum (thes. 108), quomodo se gesserint in Transyl-
vama, in negotio Francisci Davidis : quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant
vafntias, crudehtatis sanguinariae, proditionis," etc.— Smalc. Refuta Thes de Hypo-
crit. Disp. ix. p. 298.

8 " De phrenesi ista in quam incident, aliquid sane auditum est, non tantum biduo
ante mortem sed pluribus diebus."— Socin. ubi supra.

' "Ecce qui me comitem itineris expectant."— Flor. Raemund, lib. iv cap. xii

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 33

not ; but most certain it is that in that condition he expired, not in tha
year 1580, as Bellarmine, Weik, Raemundus, and some of ours from them,
inform us, but one year sooner, as he assures us who best knew.1 And
the consideration of this man's desperate apostasy and his companions'
might be one cause that about this time sundry of the Antitrinitarians
were converted, amongst whom was Daniel Bielenscius, a man afterward
of good esteem.2

But neither yet did Satan stop here, but improved the advantage given
him by these men to the utter denying of Jesus Christ : for unto the prin
ciple of Christ's being not God, adding another of the same nature, that
the prophecies of the Old Testament were all concerning temporal things,
some amongst them at length concluded that there was no promise of any
such person as Jesus Christ in the whole Old Testament ; that the Messiah
or king promised was only a king promised to the Jews, that they should
have after the captivity, in case they did not offend but walk with God.
" The kingdom," say they, " promised in the Old Testament, is a kingdom
of this world only ; but the kingdom which you assert to belong to Jesus
of Nazareth was a kingdom not of this world, a heavenly kingdom, and
so, consequently, not promised of God or from God;"3 and therefore with
him they would not have aught to do. This was the argument of Martin
Seidelius, in his epistle to Socinus and his companions.

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

" Caeterum ut sciatis cujus sim religionis, quamvis id scripto meo quod
habetis ostenderim, tamen hie breviter repetam. Et primum quidem doc-
trina de Messia, seu rege illo promisso, ad meam religionem nihil pertinet :
nam rex ille tantum Judseis promissus erat, sicut et bona ilia Canaan. Sic
etiam circumcisio, sacrificia, et reliquse ceremonise Mosis ad me non perti
nent, sed tantum populo Judaico promissa, data, et mandata sunt. Neque
ista fuerunt cultus Dei apud Judaeos, sed inserviebant cultui divino, et ad
cultum divinum deducebant Judseos. Verus autem cultus Dei quern meam
religionem appello, est decalogus, qui est aeterna, et immutabilis voluntas
Dei ; qui decalogus ideo ad me pertinet, quia etiam mihi & Deo datus est,
non quidem per vocem sonantem de crelo, sicut populo Judaico, at per
creationem insita est menti meae ; quia autem insitus decalogus, per cor-
ruptionem naturae humanae et pravis consuetudinibus, aliqua ex parte ob-
scuratus est, ideo ad illustrandum eum, adhibeo vocalem decalogum, qui
vocalis decalogus, ideo etiam ad me, et ad omnes populos pertinet, quia
cum insito nobis decalogo consentit, imo idem ille decalogus est. Haec est

1 " Manifesto in ep sunt decepti, qui hoc anno 1580, accidisse scribunt, cum certissi-
mum sit ea facta fuisse uno anno ante, hoc est, anno 1579." — Socin. ad Weik. p. 44.

* " Duces hujus agminis Anabaptistici, et Antitrinitarii erantGregorius Paulus, Daniel
Bielenscius, et alii, quorum tandem aliqui fanatico proposito relicto, ad ecclesiam evan-
gelicam redierunt, ut Daniel Bielenscius, qui Cracoviae omnium suorum errorum publice
pcenitentiam egit, ibidemque, ecclesiaa Dei commode praefuit." — Adrian. Regen. Hist.
Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p. 90.

3 " Ita argumentor, quoties regnum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, tale ne-
cesse fuit, ut posteri ejus, in quibus hsec promissio impleri debebat, haberent: sed reg
num mundanum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, ergo regnum mundanum posteri
Davidis ut haberent necesse est : et per consequens, rex ille, quern prophette ex hac pro-
missione post captivitatem Babylonicam regnaturum promiserunt, perinde ut caeteri
posteri Davidis, mundanum regnum debuit habere. Quod quia Jesus ille non habuit
{non enim regnavit ut David et posteri ejus), sed dicitur habere cceleste regnum, quod est
diversum a mundano regno ; ergo Jesus ille non est rex quern prophetse promiserunt."—
alartin. Seidelius, Ep. 1 ad Sociu.

VOL. XII. 3

34- THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

mea sententia de Messia, seu rege illo promisso, et h?ec est mea religio, quam
coramvobis ingenue profiteer." — Martin. Seidelius Olaviensis Silesius.

To this issue did Satan drive the Socinian principles in this man and
sundry others, even to a full and peremptory denial of the Lord that bought
them. In answering this man, it fell out with Socinus much as it did with
him in his disputation with Franken about the adoration and invocation
of Jesus Christ : for granting Franken that Christ was but a mere man, he
could no way evade his inference thence, that he was not to be invocated ;
so, granting Seidelius that the promises of the Old Testament were all
temporal, he could not maintain against him that Jesus Christ, whose king
dom is heavenly, was the king and Messiah therein promised ; for Faustus
hath nothing to reply but that " God gives more than he promised, of which
no man ought to complain."1 Not observing that the question being not
about the faithfulness of God in his promises, but about the thing pro
mised, he gave away the whole cause, and yielded that Christ was not
indeed the king and Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

Of an alike opinion to this of Seidelius was he of whom we spake be
fore, Franciscus David ; who as to the kingdom of Christ delivered him
self to this purpose : *' That he was appointed to be a king of the Jews,
and that God sent him into the world to receive his kingdom, which was
to be earthly and civil, as the kingdoms of other kings ; but the Jews re
jected him and slew him, contrary to the purpose of God, who therefore
took him from them and placed him in a quiet place, where he is not at

• all concerned in any of the things of the church, but is there in God's de-

• sign a king, and he will one day send him again to Jerusalem, there to
take upon him a kingdom, and to rule as the kings of this world do or
have done." — Thes. Francisci David de Adorat. Jes. Christi.

The reminding of these abominations gives occasion, by the way, to
complain of the carnal apprehensions of a kingdom of Christ, which too many
amongst ourselves have filled their thoughts and expectations withal. For
my part, I am persuaded that, before the end of the world, the Lord Jesus,
by his word and Spirit, will multiply the seed of Abraham as the stars of
heaven, bringing into one fold the remnant of Israel and the multitude of
the Gentiles; and that his church shall have peace, after he hath judged
and broken the stubborn adversaries thereof, and laid the kingdoms of the
nations in a useful subserviency to his interest in this world; and that
himself will reign most gloriously, by a spirit of light, truth, love, and holi
ness, in the midst of them : but that he hath a kingdom of another nature
and kind to set up in the world than that heavenly kingdom which he
hath peculiarly exercised ever since he was exalted and made a ruler and
a saviour, that he should set up a dominion over men as men, and rule,
•either himself present or by his substitutes, as in a kingdom of this world,
•which is a kingdom neither of grace nor glory, I know it cannot be as-
.serted without either the denial of his kingdom for the present, or that he
is or hitherto hath been a king (which was the blasphemy of Franciscus
David before mentioned), or the affirming that he hath, or is to have, upon
the promise of God, two kingdoms of several sorts; of which in the whole
word of God there is not the least tittle.

To return : about the end of the year 1579. Faustus Socinus left Tran
sylvania and went into Poland, which he chose for the stage whereon to

1 " Nam quod dicimus, si Deus mundanum regem mundanumque regnum promisit,
coelcstem autem regem, cpeleste regnum reipsa praestitit plus eum pnestitisse quam pro-
misent, recte omnino dicimus, nam qui plus prsestat quam promisit, suis promissis non
modo non stetisse sed ea etiam cumulate praestitisse est agnoscendus."— Socin Ep. ad
Seidelium, p. 20.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 35

act his design.1 In -what estate and condition the persons in Poland and
Lithuania were who had fallen off from the faith of the holy Trinity was
before declared. True it is, that before the coming of Socinus, Blandrata,
\>y the help of Franciscus David, had brought over many of them from
Sabellianism, and Tritheism, and Arianism, unto Samosatenianism, and a
full, plain denial of the deity of Christ.2

But yet with that Pelagian doctrine that Socinus came furnished
withal unto them, they were utterly unacquainted, and were at no small
difference, many of them, about the Deity. The condition of the first
man to be mortal and obnoxious to death, that there was no original sin,
that Christ was not a high-priest on the earth, that he made no satisfaction
for sin, that we are not justified by his righteousness but our own, that the
wicked shall be utterly consumed and annihilated at the last day, with the
rest of his opinions, which afterward he divulged, they were utterly
strangers unto ; as is evident from the contests he had about these things
with some of them in their synods, and by writing, especially with
Niemojevius, one of the chief patrons of their sect.

In this condition of affairs, the man, being wise and subtile, obtained his
purpose by the ensuing course of procedure : —

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

From these his pretence for abstaining was, their rigid injunction of all
to be rebaptized that entered into their fellowship and communion. But
he who made it his design to gather the scattered Antitrinitarians into a
body and a consistency in a religion among themselves saw plainly that
the rigid insisting upon Anabaptism, which was the first principle of some
of them, would certainly keep them at an unreconcilable distance. Where
fore he falls upon an opinion much better suited to his design, and main
tained that baptism was only instituted for the initiation of them who
from any other false religion were turned to the religion of Christ ; but
that it belonged not to Christian societies, nor to them that were born of
Christian parents, and had never been of any other profession or religion,
though they might use it, if they pleased, as an indifferent thing. And
therefore he refused to join himself with the Eacovians, unless upon this
principle, that they would desist for the time to come from requiring any
to be baptized that should join with them. In a short tune he divided
that meeting by this opinion, and at length utterly dissolved them, as to
their old principles they first consented unto, and built the remainder of
them, by the hand of Valentinus Smalcius, into his own mould and frame.

The author of his life sets it forth as a great trial of his prudence, piety,
and patience, that he was repulsed from the society at Eacovia, and that
with ignominy;3 when the truth is, he absolutely refused to join with them,
unless they would at once renounce their own principles and subscribe to

enim liianunua in iransyivamtuu reujeua in queuuuu
V.13V.UU1 i'aviu, utiuiu uiagis, quam superiores illi ut aiunt providum." — Beza, Ep. ^.

3 " Ecclesiis rolonicis, quse solnm Patrem Domini Jesu summum Deum agnoscunt,
publice adjungi ambivit, sed satis acerbe atque diu repulsam_passus est, qua tamen
ignominia minime accensus, vir, non tarn indole quam animi institute, ad patientiam
compositus, nulla uiiquam alienati animi vestigia dedit.." — Vita Faust. Socin.

36 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

his; which is as hard a condition as can be put upon any perfectly con
quered enemy. This himself delivers at large on sundry occasions,
especially insisting on and debating that business in his epistles to Simon
Ronembergius and to Sophia Siemichovia. On this score did he write his
disputation " De Baptismo AqufE," with the vindication of it from the ani
madversions of A. D. (whom I suppose to be Andrew Dudithius), and of
M. C., endeavouring with all his strength to prove that baptism is not
an ordinance appointed for the use of Christians or their children, but
only for such as were converted from Paganism or Mohammedanism; and
this he did in the year 1580, two years after his coming into Poland, as he
declares by the date of the disputation from Cracovia, at the close thereof.
And in this persuasion he was so fixed, and laid such weight upon it, that
after he had once before broken the assembly at Racovia, in his old days
he encourages Valentinus Smalcius,1 then their teacher, to break them
again, because some of them tenaciously held their opinion; and for those
who, as Smalcius informed him, would thereupon fall off to the reformed
churches, he bids them go, and a good riddance of them. By this means,
I say, he utterly broke up, and divided, and dissolved the meeting at
Racovia, which was collected upon the principles before mentioned, that
there remained none abiding to their first engagement but a few old women,
as Squarcialupus2 tells him, and as himself confesses in his answer for them
to Palaeologus.8 By this course of behaviour, the man had these two
advantages:— (1.) He kept fair with all parties amongst them, and pro
voked not any by joining with them with whom they could not agree ; so
that all parties looked on him as their own, and were ready to make him
the umpire of all their differences, by which he had no small advantage of
working them all to his own principles. (2.) He was less exposed to the
fury of the Papists, which he greatly feared (loving well the things of this
world), than he would have been had he joined himself to any visible
church profession ; and, indeed, his privacy of living was a great means -of
his security.

2. His second great advantage was that he was a scholar, and was able
to defend and countenance them against their opposers, the most of them
being miserably weak and unlearned. One of their best defensatives, before
his joining with them, was a clamour against logic and learning, as himself
confesseth in some of his epistles. Now, this is not only evident by experi
ence, but the nature of the thing itself makes it manifest that so it will
be : whereas men of low and weak abilities fall into by-persuasions in
religion, as they generally at first prevail by clamours and all sorts of re
proaches cast on learning and learned men, yet if God in his providence
at any time, to heighten the temptation, suffer any person of learning and
ability to fall in amongst and with them, he is presently their head and

1 " Nam quod mihi objicis me communionem cum fratribus, et Christi fidelibus sper-
nere, nee curare ut cum ipsis ccenam Domini celebrem, respondeo. me postquam in
folomam veni, nihil antiquius habuisse, quam ut me quam maxime fratribus conjun-
gerem, licet invemssem illos in non parvis religionis nostrse capitibus, a me diversura
sentire; quemadmodum multi hodieque sentiunt : quod si nihilominus aquse baptismum
una cum ilhs non accipio, hoc praeterea fit, quia id bona conscientia facere nequeo.
nisi publice ante protestor, me non quod censeam baptismum aquse mihi meique
simi 11 bus, ullo modo necessarium esse, etc."— Ep. ad Sophiam Siemichoviam, feminam
nobilem.— Ep. 11 ad Valent, Smalc. anno 1604.

* " Dico secessionem Racoviensium ac delirium, esse ab ecclesia ratione seiungen-
lum, nisi velis conciliabula quseque amentium anicularum partes ecclesias Christiana}
aut ecclesiam appellare."-Mar. Squarcialup. Ep. ad Faust. Socin. p. 8

Hucaccedit, quod Racovienses isti, sive ccetus Racovien sis, quern tu petis atque
oppugnas, vel non amphus extat, vel ita hodie mutatus est, et in aliam quodammodo
formam versus, ut agnosci uon queat. "-Socin. Pnefat. ad Paiajolog.

THE PREFACE TO THE HEADER. 87

ruler without control. Some testimony hereof our own days have afforded,
and I wish we may not have more examples given us. Now, how far he
availed himself of this advantage, the consideration of them with whom
he had to do, of the esteem they had of his abilities, and the service he
did them thereby, will acquaint us.

[As] for the leaders of them, they were for the most part unlearned, and
so unable to defend their opinions in any measure against a skilful adver
sary. Blandrata, their great patron, was not able to express himself in
Latin, but by the help of Statorius, who had some learning, but no
judgment;1 and therefore, upon his difference with Franciscus David in
Transylvania,' he was forced to send for Socinus out of Helvetia to
manage the disputation with him. And what kind of cattle those were
with whom he had to do at Cracovia as well as Eacovia, is manifest from
the epistle of Simon Eonembergius, one of the leaders and elders of that
which they called their " church," which is printed, with Socinus' answer
unto it. I do not know that ever in my life I saw, for matter and
form, sense and language, any thing so simple and foolish, so ridiculously
senseless and incoherent, unless it were one or two in our own days,
which with this deserve an eminent place " inter epistolas obscurorum
virorum." And therefore Socinus justly feared that his party would have
the worst in disputes, as he acknowledges it befell Licinius in his con
ference with Smiglecius at Novograde,2 and could not believe Ostorodius
that he had such success as he boasted in Germany with Fabritius ;s and
tells us himself a story of some pastors of their churches in Lithuania,
who were so ignorant and simple that they knew not that Christ was to
be worshipped.* What a facile thing it was for a man of his parts, abilities,
and learning, to obtain a kingdom amongst such as these is easily guessed.
He complains, indeed, of his own lost time in his young days, by the
instigation of the devil, and says that it made him weary of his life to
think of it, when he had once set up his thoughts in seeking honour and
glory by being the head and master of a sect, as Ignatius the father of
the Jesuits did5 (with whom, as to this purpose, he is compared all along
by the gentleman that wrote his life) ; yet it is evident that his learning
and abilities were such as easily promoted him to the dictatorship among
them with whom he had to do.

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

1 " Petro Statorio operam omnem suam fucandis barbarissimi scriptoris Blandrata}
commentis navante." — Beza.

2 " Dolerem equidem mirum in modum si disputatiq ista sic habita fuisset, ut adversarii
affirmant : suspicor tamen nihilominus, quatenus disputationem ab ipsis editam per-
currendo animadvertere ac consequi conjectura potui, Licinii antagonistam arte dispu-
tandi et ipso superiorem esse, et id in ista ipsa disputatione facile plerisque constitisse :
nam etsi (ni fallor) Licinius noster neutiquam in ea hseresi est, in qua non pauci ex
nostris sunt, non esse Christiano homini dandam operam dialecticse," etc.— Ep. ad Bal-
cerovicium, p. 358.

3 " Vpidpvius Ostorodi comes ea ad me scribit, quae vix mihi permittunt ut exitum
disputationis illius eum fuisse credam, quern ipse Ostorodius ad me scripsit." — Ep. ad
Valent. Smalc. quarta, p. 522.

4 " Quod totum fere pondus illius disputationis, adversus eos qui Christum adhuc
ignorare dici possunt, sustinueris, yehementer tibi gratulor : nihil mihi novum fuit, ex
narratione ista perciptre, pastores illos Lithuanicos ab ejusmodi ignoratioiie minime li-
beros deprehensos fuisse." — Ep. 5 ad Smalc.

8 " Me imitari noli, qui nescio quo malo genio ductore, cum jam divinse veritatis
fontes degustassem, ita sum abreptus, ut majorem et potiorem juventutis mese partem,
inanibus quibusdam aliis studiis, imo inertice atque otio dederim, quod cum mecum ipse
repute, reputo autem saepissime, tanto dolore afficior, ut me vivere quodam modo pi-
geat." — Ep. ad Smalc. p. 513.

38 THE PREFACE TO THE READER;

Not only after his death, when they set him forth as the most incom
parable man of his time, but in his own life and to himself, as I know not
what excellent person,1 — that he had a mind suited for the investigation
of truth, was a philosopher, an excellent orator, an eminent divine, that
for the Latin tongue especially he might contend with any of the great
wits of Europe, they told him to his face; such thoughts had they
generally of him. It is, then, no wonder they gave themselves up to his
guidance. Hence Smalcius wrote unto him to consult about the propriety
of the Latin tongue, and in his answer to him he excuses it as a great
crime that he had used a reciprocal relative where there was no occasion
for it.2

And to make it more evident how they depended on him, on this
account of his ability for instructions, when he had told Ostorodius an
answer to an objection of the Papists, the man having afterward forgot it,
sends to him again to have his lesson over once more, that he might re
member it.8

And therefore, as if he had been to deal with school-boys, he would
tell his chief companions that he had found out and discovered such or
such a thing in religion, but would not tell them until they had tried
themselves, and therefore was afraid lest he should through unawares
have told it to any of them ;* upon one of which adventures, Ostorodius
making bold to give in his conception, he does little better than tell him
he is a blockhead.6 Being in this repute amongst them, and exercising
such a dominion in point of abilities and learning, to prevail the more
upon them, he was perpetually ready to undertake their quarrels, which
themselves were not able with any colour to maintain. Hence most of
his books were written, and his disputations engaged in, upon the desire
of one assembly, synod, or company of them or other, as I could easily
manifest by particular instances. And by this means got he no small
advantage to insinuate his own principles ; for whereas the men greedily
looked after and freely entertained the things which were professedly
written in their defence, he always wrought in together therewith some
thing of his own peculiar heresy, that poison might be taken down with
that which was most pleasing. Some of the wisest of them, indeed, as
Niemojevius, discovered the fraud, who, upon his answer to Andrjeus
Yolanus, commending what he had written against the deity of Christ,
which they employed him in, falls foul upon him for his delivering in the
same treatise that Christ was not a priest whilst he was upon the earth ;a

1 " Ad te quod attinet, animo es tu quidem ad omnem doctringe rationem, ac vcritatis
investigationem nato, magna rerum sopliisticarum cognitio, orator summus, et theologus
insignis, linguas tenes maxime Latinam, ut possis cum prsecipuis totius Europss ingeniis
certare."— Marcel. Squarcialup. Ep. ad. Faust. Socin.

" Aliud interim in Latina lingua erratum, gravius quam istud sit, a me est cnmmis-
surn, quod scilicet relative reciproco ubi nullus erat locus usus sum."— Ep. 4 ad Valent.
Smalc. p. 521.

" Memini te mihi hujus rei solutionem cum esses Racovise afierro, scd QUJB mea est
tarditas, vel potius stupiditas, non bene illius recorder."— Ostorod. Ep. ad Faust. Socin
p. 456.

* " Tibi significo me ni fallor invenisse viam quomodo verum esse possit, quod Chria-
tus plane hbere et citra omnem necessitatcm Deo perfectissime obeciiret, et tamen ne-
cessarium omnmo fuerit ut sic obediret ; qua;nam ista via sit, nisi earn ipse per te (ut
plane spero) mveneris, postea tibi aperiam : TO!O enim prius tuum hoc in re et Statorii
ingemum ezpenn, tametsi vereor ne jam earn illi indicaverim."— En. 4 ad Ostorod.
p. 472.

« " De quaestione tibi proposita non bene conjecisti, nee quam affers solutionem ea
probari ullo modo potest."— Ep. 6 ad Ostorod. p. 473.

« " Perlecto scripto tuo contra Volanum animadvert! argumenta ejus satis accurate
a te retutata, locaque scripturoe pleraque examinata, ac elucidata, verum non sine
nuerore (ne quid gravius addarn) incidi inter legendum in quoddam paradoxon, Scripturse

THE PREFACE TO THE READEK 59

which one abominable figment lies at the bottom of his whole doctrine of
the justification of a sinner. The case is the same about his judgment
concerning the invocation of Christ, which was, " That we might do it, but
it was not necessary from any precept or otherwise that so we should do."

And this was nine years after his coming into Poland, as appears from
the date of that epistle; so long was he in getting his opinions to be
entertained among his friends. But though this man were a little wary,
and held out some opposition unto him, yet multitudes of them were taken
with this snare, and freely drank down the poison they loathed, being
tempered with that which they had a better liking to. But this being
discovered, he let the rest of them know that though he was entreated to
write that book by the Eacovians, and did it in their name,1 yet, because he
had published somewhat of his own private opinions therein, they might
if they pleased deny, yea, and forswear, that they were written by their
appointment.

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

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

4. Unto these and the like advantages the man added all the arts and
subtilties, all the diligence and industry, that were any way tending to his end.
Some of his artifices and insinuations, indeed, were admirable, though to
them who now review them in cold blood, without recalling to mind the
then state of things, they may seem of another complexion.2

By these and the like means, though he once despaired of ever getting
his opinions received amongst them, as he professeth, yet in the long con
tinuance of twenty-four years (so long he lived in Poland), with the help of
Valentinus Smalcius, Volkelius, and some few others, who wholly fell in

sacrse contrarium ac plane horrendum, dum Christum in morte sua sive in cruce, sacri-
ficium obtulisse pernegas, miror quid tibi in mentem venerit, ut tarn confidenter (ne

rsenesin Andraj Volani responderem, volui ut si quid in hac responsione vobis minus
recte dictum videretur, non bona conscientia tantum, sed jure etiam, earn semper eju-
rare possetia" — Ep. ad Mar. BalceroVicium, p. 336.

...2 " Spero fore, ut, si quid ilium mecum sentire vetet intellexero, facile viam inveniam
eum in meam sententiam pertrahendi.".— Ep. 2 ad Balcerovicium, . ..

40 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

with him, he at length brought them all into subjection to himself, and got
all his opinions enthroned, and his practice taken almost for a rule ; so that
whereas in former days they accused him for a covetous wretch, one that
did nothing but give his mind to scrape up money, and were professedly
offended with his putting money to usury,1 for his full justification, Ostoro-
dius and Voidovius, in the close of the compendium of their religion which
they brought into Holland, profess that their " churches did not condemn
usury, so that it were exercised with moderation and without oppression."2

I thought to have added a farther account, in particular, of the man's
craft and subtilty; of his several ways for the instilling of his principles
and opinions ; of his personal temper, wrath, and anger, and multiplying
of words in disputes ; of the foils he received in sundry disputations with
men of his own antitrinitarian infidelity; of his aim at glory and renown,
expressed by the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life ; his losses and
troubles, which were not many, — with all which, and the like concern
ments of the man and his business in that generation, by the perusal
of all that he wrote, and of much that hath been written against him,
with what is extant of the conferences and disputations, synods and
assemblies of those days, I have some little acquaintance ; — but being not
convinced of much usefulness in my so doing, I shall willingly spare my
labour. Thus much was necessary, that we might know the men arid their
conversation who have caused so much trouble to the Christian world ; in
which work, having the assistance of that atheism and those corrupted
principles which are in the hearts of all by nature, without the infinite
rich mercy of God sparing a sinful world as to this judgment, for his
elect's sake, they will undoubtedly proceed.

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

After the death of Socinus, his cause was strongly carried on by those
whom in his life he had formed to his own mind and judgment ; among
whom Valentinus Smalcius, Hieronymus Moscorovius, Johannes Volkelius,
Christopherus Ostorodius, were the chief. To Smalcius he wrote eleven
epistles, that are extant, professing his great expectations of him, extolling
his learning and prudence. He afterward wrote the Racovian Catechism,
compiling it out of Socinus' works ; many answers and replies to and with
Smiglecius the Jesuit, and Franzius the Lutheran ; a book of the divinity
of Christ, with sundry others ; and was a kind of professor among them
at Racovia. The writings of the rest of them are also extant. To him
succeeded Crellius, a roan of more learning and modesty than Smalcius,
and of great industry for the defence of his heresy. His defence of
Socinus against Grotius' treatise, " De Causis Mortis Christi, de Effectu
SS.," his comments and ethics, declare his abilities and industry in his way.
After him arose Jonas Schlichtingius, a man no whit behind any of the
rest for learning and diligence, as in his comments and disputations against
Meisnerus is evident. As the report is, he was burned by the procure
ment of the Jesuits, some four years ago, that they might be sure to have
the blood of all sorts of men found upon them. What advantage they

1 " Aliqui fratrum putant consrerendis pecuniis me nunc prorsus intentum esse." — Ep.
*sd Eliam Arcistrium, p. 407. Vide Ep. ad Christoph. Morstinum. pp. 503-505.

3 " Non simpliciter usuram damnant : modo sequitatis et charitatis regula non Yiole-
tur."— Compend. Religionis Ostorod. et Voidovii.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 41

have obtained thereby time will show. I know that generation of men
retort upon us the death of Servetus at Geneva ; but the case was far
different. Schlichtingius lived in his own country, and conversed with
men of his own persuasion, who in a succession had been so before he was
born : Servetus came out of Spain on purpose to disturb and seduce them
who knew nothing of his abominations. Schlichtingius disputed his heresy
without reproaching or blaspheming God willingly, under pretence of
denying the way and worship of his adversaries : Servetus stuffed all his
discourses with horrid blasphemies. Beza tells us that he called the
Trinity tricipitem Cerberum, and wrote that Moses was a ridiculous impos
tor, Beza, Ep. 1 ; and there are passages cited out of his book of the
Trinity (which I have not seen) that seem to have as much of the devil
in them as any thing that ever yet was written or spoken by any of the
sons of men. If, saith he, Christ be the Son of God, " debuissent ergo
dicere, quod Deus habebat uxorem quandam spiritualem, vel quod solus
ipse masculus femineus aut hermaphroditus, simul erat pater et mater,
nam ratio vocabuli non patitur, ut quis dicatur sine matre pater : et si
Logos filius erat, natus ex patre sine matre; die mihi quomodo peperit cum,
per ventrem an per latus."

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

Of these men last named, their writings and endeavours for the propa
gation of their opinions, others having written already, I shall forbear.
Some of note amongst them have publicly recanted and renounced their
heresy, as Vogelius and Peuschelius; whose retractations are answered by
Smalcius. Neither shall I add much as to their present condition. They
have as yet many churches in Poland and Transylvania; and have their
superintendents, after the manner of Germany. Regenvolscius tells us that
all the others are sunk and lost, only the Socinians remain;1 the Arians,
Sabellians, David Georgians, with the followers of Franciscus David, being
all gone over to the confession of Socinus : which makes me somewhat
wonder at that of Johannes Lsetus, who affirms that about the year 1619, in
a convention of the states in Poland, those who denied that Christ ought
to be invocated (which were the followers of Franciscus David, Christianus
Franken, and Palseologus) pleaded that the liberty that was granted to
Antitrinitarians was intended for them, and not for the Socinians ; and
the truth is, they had footing in Poland before ever the name of Socinus
was there known, though he afterward insults upon them, and says that
they most impudently will have themselves called Christians when they
are not so.*

But what numbers they are in those parts of the world, how the poison is

' " Denique Socinistae recensendi mihi veniunt quia Fausto Socino, per Poloniam et
Transylvaniam virus suum disseminante, turn nomen turn doctrinam sumpsere ; atque
hi soli, extinctis Farnesianis, Anabaptistis, et Francisci Davidis sectatoribus supersunt ;
homines ad fallaciaset sophismata facti." — Hist. Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p. 90.

1 " Palseologus praecipuus fuit ex Antesignanis illorum qui Christum nee invocandum,
nee adorandum esse hodie affirmant et interim tamen se Christianos esse impudenter
profitentur, quo vix quidquam scelestius in religione nostra depravanda excogitari posse
existimo."— Socin. ad Weik. Ref. ad cap. iv. cap. ii. p. 42.

42 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

drunk in by thousands in the Papacy, by what advantages it hath [insinu
ated], and continues to insinuate itself into multitudes living in the out
ward profession of the reformed churches, what progress it makes and
what ground it gets in our native country every day, I had Father bewail
than relate. This I am compelled to say, that unless the Lord, in his
infinite mercy, lay an awe upon the hearts of men, to keep them in some
captivity to the simplicity and mystery of the gospel who now strive every
day to exceed one another in novel opinions and philosophical apprehen
sions of the things of God, I cannot but fear that this soul-destroying abo
mination will one day break in as a flood upon us.

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

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

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

Schlusselburgius, in his wonted respect and favour unto the Calvinists,
tells us that from them and their doctrine was the occasion administered
unto this new abomination ; also, that never any turned Arian but he was
first a Calvinist: which he seems to make good by a letter of Adam NeuT

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 43

serus, who, as he saith, from a Sacramentarian turned Arian, and after
ward a Mohammedan, and was circumcised at Constantinople. " This man,"
says he, " in a letter from Constantinople to Doctor Gerlachius, tells him
that none turned Arians but those that were Calvinists first ; and therefore
he that would take heed of Arianism had best beware of Calvinism."1 I
am very unwilling to call any man's credit into question who relates a
matter of fact, unless undeniable evidence enforce me, because it cannot
be done without an imputation of the foulest crime ; I shall therefore take
leave to ask, —

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

2. Out of what kindness was it that this man bare to Gerlachius and his
companions, that he gives them this courteous admonition to beware of
Calvinism ? Is it any honour to Gerlachius, Conradus himself, or any
other Lutheran, that an apostate, an abjurer of Christian religion, loved
them better than he did the Calvinists ? What person this Adam Neu-
serus was, and what the end of him was, we have an account given by
Maresius from a manuscript history of Altingius. From Heidelberg, be
ing suspected of a conspiracy with one Sylvanus, who for it was put to
death, he fled into Poland, thence to Constantinople, where he turned
Mohammedan, and was circumcised, and after a while fell into such miser
able horror and despair, that with dreadful yellings and clamours he died ;
so that the Turks themselves confess that they never heard of a more
horrid, detestable, and tragical end of any man ; whereupon they commonly
called him Satan Ogli, or the son of the devil. And so, much good may it
do Conradus, with his witness.

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

The truth is, many of the persons usually instanced in as apostates
from Calvinism to Arianism were such as, leaving Italy and other parts
of the pope's dominion, came to shelter themselves where they expected
liberty and opportunity of venting their abomination among the reformed

1 " Notatu vcro dignissimum est hisce novis Arianis ad apostasiam seu Arianismum oc-
casionem fuisse, doctrinam Calvinistarum, id quod ipsi Ariani baud obscure professi
sunt. Recitabo hujus rei exemplum memorabile de Adamo Neusero ante paucos annos EC -
clesise Heidelbcrgensis ad S. S. primario pastore nobilissimo sacramentario. Hie ex Zving-
lianisimo per Arianismum ad Makometismum usque, cum aliis non panels Calvinistis
Constantinopolin circumcisionem jud_aicam recipiens et veritatem agnitam abnegans
progressus est. Hie Adamus sequcntia verba dedit Constantinopol. D. Gerlachio, anno
1574, ' nullus nostro tempore mihi notus factus est Arianus qui non antea fuerit Cal-
vinista. Servetus, etc., igitur qui sibi timet ne incidat in Arianismum, caveat Cal-
Tinismum.' "

44 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

churches, and joined themselves -with them in outward profession, most of
them, as afterward appeared, being thoroughly infected with the errors
against the Trinity and about the Godhead before they left the Papacy,
where they stumbled and fell.

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

Hence, when they had left the Papacy and set up their opposition to the
blessed Trinity, in all their books they still made mention of those idols
and pictures, speaking of them as the gods of those that worshipped the
Trinity. This instance makes up a good part of their book, " De Falsa et
Vera Cognitione Unius Dei, Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti," written in the
name of the ministers of the churches in Sarmatia and Transylvania ; a
book full of reproach and blasphemies. But this, I say; was another oc
casion of stumbling to those miserable wretches. They knew what thoughts
the men of their communication had of God, by the pictures made of him,
and the worship they yielded to them, — they knew how abhorrent to the
very principles of reason it was that God should be such as by them re
presented ; and therefore set themselves at liberty (or rather gave up them
selves to the service of Satan) to find out another god whom they might
worship.

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

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

" 0 crux spes unica !
Auge piis constantiam,
Hoc passionis tern pore,
Reisque dona veniam ;"

and whose blasphemy comes not at all short of it. The first is of Clarus
Bonarus the Jesuit, lib. iii. Amphitrial. Honor, lib. iii. cap. ult. ad Divinam
Hallensem et Puerum Jesum, as followeth: —

" Haereo lac inter meditans, interque cruorem ;

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

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

0 Jesu lateris gaudia malo tui.
Rem scio, prensabo si fas erit ubera dextra,

Laeva prensabo vulnera si dabitur.
Lac matris miscere volo cum sanguine nati ;

Non possem antidoto nobiliore frui.
Vulnera restituant turpem ulceribus mendicum,

Testa cui saniem radere sola potest.
Ubera reficient Ismaelem sitientem,

Quern Sara non patitur, quern neque nutrit Agar,
Ista mihi, ad pestem procul et procul expungendam ;

Ista mihi aa longas evalitura febres.
Ira vomit flammas, fumatque libidinis J^tna;

Suffocare queo sanguine, lacte queo.

THE PREFACE TO THE EEADEU. 45

Livor inexpleta rubigine saevit in artus ;

Detergere queo lacte, cruore queo :
Vanus honos me perpetua prurigine tentat;

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

Lac peto, depereo sanguinem, utrumque volo.
0 sitio tamen ! 0 vocem sitis intercludit !

Nate cruore, sitim comprime lacte parens.
Die matri, mcus hie frater sitit, optima mater,

Vis e fonte tuo pro-mere, deque meo.
Die nato, tuus hie frater mi mellee lili

Captivus monstrat vincula, lytron habes.
Ergo Redemptorem monstra te jure vocari,

Nobilior reliquis si tibi sanguis inest.
Tuque parens nionstra, matrem te jure vocari,

Ubera si reliquis divitiora geris.
0 quando lactabor ab ubere, vulnere pascar ?

Deliciisque fruar, mamma latusque tuis."

The other is of Franciscus de Mendoza, in Viridario Utriusque Erudi-
tionis, lib. ii. prob. 2, as ensueth: —

" Ubera me matris, nati me vulnera pascunt

Scilicet haec animi sunt medicina mei,
Nam mihi dum lachrymas amor elicit ubera sugo

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

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

Securse ut variae sint mihi forte vices.
Quis sine lacte precor, vel quis sine sanguine vivat ?

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

Sic me perpetuum vulnus et uber alit."

And this their idolatry is objected to them by Socinus,1 who marvels
at the impudence of Bellarmine closing his books of controversies (as is
the manner of the men of that Society) with " Laus Deo, virginique matri
Marioe," wherein, as he says (and he says it truly), divine honour with
God is ascribed to the blessed Virgin..

The truth is, I see not any difference between that dedication of him
self and his work, by Redemptus Baranzano the priest, in these words,
" Deo, Virginique Matri, Sancto Paulo, Bruno, Alberto, Redempto, Fran
cisco, Clarae, Joannse, Catharinse Senensi, divisque omnibus, quos peculiar!
cultu honorare desidero, omnis meus labor consecratus sit" (Baranzan.
Nov. Opin. Physic. Diglad.), and that of the Athenians, by the advice of
Epimenides, Qto?g 'Affiag, xai'Evguvrris aai A/£u»js, ®su ayvtaffry xai B'svu,
both of them being suitable to the counsel of Pythagoras : —

'AffavKrov; fit* trpu<ra 3-iav;, voftu us 3iaxiirai,

Tifta xai fiSou o,x,cv, 'i<Tli6' rifuns ayauou;.

Tou; r( X.O.TO.^OV'HIU; riSt Saifiavus, 'ivvofta. pi^ui.

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

As to the propagation of their conceptions, they had the advantage not
only of an unsettled time, as to the civil government of the nations of the
world, most kingdoms and commonweals in Europe undergoing in that
age considerable mutations and changes (a season wherein commonly the
envious man hath taken opportunity to sow his tares) ; but also, men bc^

1 " Hoc tantum dicam, cum nuper Bellarmini disputationum primum tomum evol-
verem, supra modum me miratum fuisse, quod ad finem fere smgularum controyer-
eiarum homo alioqui acutus ac sagax ea verba aut curaverit aut permiserit adscribi ;
Laus Deo, virginique matri ; quibus verbis manifesto Virgin! Marise divinus cultus, aut
ex acquo cum ipso Deo, aut certe secundum Deum exhibetur."— Socin. ad Weik. cap. i.
p. 22.

46 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

ing set at liberty from the bondage under which they were kept in the
Papacy, and from making the tradition of their fathers the rule of their
worship and walking, were found indeed to have, upon abiding grounds,
no principles of religion at all, and therefore were earnest in the inquiry
after something that they might fix upon. What to avoid they knew, but
what to close withal they knew not; and therefore it is no wonder if,
among so many (I may say) millions of persons as in those days there
were that fell off from the Papacy, some thousands perhaps (much more
scores) might, in their inquirings, from an extreme of superstition run into
another almost of atheism.

Such was the estate of things and men in those days wherein Socinianism,
or the opposition to Christ of this latter edition, set forth in the world.
Among the many that were convinced of the abominations of Popery before
they were well fixed in the truth, some were deceived by the cunning
sleight of some few men that lay in wait to deceive. What event and issue
an alike state and condition of things and persons hath gone forth unto in
the places and days wherein we live is known to all; and that the saints of
God may be warned by these things is this addressed to them. To what hath
been spoken I had thought, for a close of this discourse, to have given an ac
count of the learning that these men profess, and the course of their studies,
of their way of disputing, and the advantages they have therein ; to have in
stanced in some of their considerable sophisms, and subtile depravations of
Scripture, as also to have given a specimen of distinctions and answers,
which may be improved to the discovering. and slighting of their fallacies in
the most important heads of religion : but being diverted by new and unex
pected avocations, I shall refer these and other considerations unto a pro-
dromus for the use of younger students who intend to look into these con
troversies.

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

1. At the first entrance upon their undertaking, some of them made no
small advantage, in dealing with weak and unwary men, by crying out that
the terms of trinity, person, essence, hypostatical union, communication of pro
perties, and the like, were not found in the Scripture, and therefore were
to be abandoned.

With the colour of this plea, they once prevailed so far on the churches
in Transylvania as that they resolved and determined to abstain from the
use of those words ; but they quickly perceived that though the words
were not of absolute necessity to express the things themselves to the
minds of believers, yet they were so to defend the truth from the opposi
tion and craft of seducers, and at length recovered themselves, by the
advice of Beza :* yea, and Socinus himself doth not only grant but prove
that in general this is not to be imposed on men, that the doctrine they
assert is contained in Scripture in so many words, seeing it sufficeth that

l " Nam ego quidem sic statuo, etsi non pendent aliunde rerum sacrarum veritas quam
ab tmico Dei verbo, et sedulo vitanda est nobis omnis xi^m'.it : tamen sublato essen-
tioe et hypostasesan discrimine (quibuscunque tandem verbis utaris) et abrogate e^oW*,
vix ac ne vix quidem istorum blasphemorum fraudes dctegi, et errores satis perspiciie
coargui posse. Ne?o quoque sublatis vocabulis naturse, proprietatis, hypostatica* uni-
onis, limftMTu» xoHai'ittt posse Nestorii et Eutychei blasphemias commode a quoquam re-
felli : qua iu re si forte hallucinor, hoc age, nobis demonstret qui potest. et nos ilium
coronabimus."— Beza, Ep. 81.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 4f

the thing itself pleaded for be contained therein.1 To which purpose I
desire the learned reader to peruse his words, seeing he gives an instance
of what he speaks somewhat opposite to a grand notion of his disciple,
with whom I have chiefly to do ; yea, and the same person rejects the plea
of his companions, of the not express usage of the terms wherein the doc
trine of the Trinity is delivered in the Scripture, as weak and frivolous.2
And this hath made me a little marvel at the precipitate, undigested con
ceptions of some, who, in the midst of the flames of Socinianism kindling
upon us on every side, would (contrary to the wisdom and practice of all
antiquity, no one assembly in the world excepted) tie us up to a form of
confession composed of the bare words of the Scripture, in the order
wherein they are placed. If we profess to believe that Christ is God
blessed for ever, and the Socinians tell us, " True, but he is a God by
office, not by nature," is it not lawful for us to say, " Nay, but he is God,
of the same nature, substance, and essence with his Father ?" If we shall
say that Christ is God, one with the Father, and the Sabellians shall tell
us, " True, they are every way one, and in all respects, so that the whole
Deity was incarnate" is it not lawful for us to tell them, that though he
be one in nature and essence with his Father, yet he is distinct from him
in person ? And the like instances may be given for all the expressions
wherein the doctrine of the blessed Trinity is delivered. The truth is, we
have sufficient ground for these expressions in the Scripture, as to the
words, and not only the things signified by them : the nature of God we
have, Gal. iv. 8 ; the person of the Father, and the Son distinct from it,
Heb. i. 3 ; the essence of God, Exod. iii. 14, Rev. i. 4 ; the Trinity,
1 John v. 7 ; the Deity, Col. ii. 9.

2. Their whole business, in all their books and disputations, is to take
upon themselves the part of answerers, so cavilling and making exceptions,
not caring at all what becomes of any thing in religion, so they may with
any colour avoid the arguments wherewith they are pressed. Hence al
most all their books, unless it be some few short catechisms and confes
sions, are only answers and exceptions to other men's writings. Beside the
fragments of a catechism or two, Socinus himself wrote very little but of this
kind ; so do the rest. How heavy and dull they are in asserting may be
seen in Yolkelius' Institutions; and here, whilst they escape their adversaries,
they are desperately bold in their interpretations of Scripture, though, for
the most part, it suffices [them to say] that what is urged against them is
not the sense of the place, though they themselves can assign no sense at
all to it. I could easily give instances in abundance to make good this
observation concerning them, but I shall not mention what must neces
sarily be insisted on in the ensuing discourse. Their answers are, " This

1 " Ais igitur adrersus id quod a me affirmatum fuerat, in controversis dogmatibus
probandis, aut improbandis, necesse esse literam adferre, et id quod asseritur manifesto
demonstrate : id quod asseritur manifesto demonstrari debere plane concede ; literam
. autem adferre necesse esse prorsus nego ; me autem jure hoc facere id aperte confirmat,
quod qusedam dogmata in Christi ecclesia receptissima, non solum per expressam literam
non probantur, sed ipsam sibi contrariam habent. Exempli causa, inter cranes fere
Christian! nominis homines receptissimum est, Deum non habere aliqua membra corporis,
ut aures, oculos, nares, brachia, pedes, manus, et tamen non modo expresse et literaliter
(ut vocant) id scriptum in sacris libris non est : verum etiam contrariuta omnino passim
diserte scriptum extat." — Faust. Socin. Frag. Disput. de Ador. Christi cum Fran. David,
cap. x. p. 59.

1 " Simile quod aflers de yocabulis " essentice," et "personarum" a nobis repudiatis, quia
in sanctis literis non inveniantur, non est admittenaum, nemini enim vere cordato per-
euadebitis id quod per ea vocabuli adversarii significare voluerunt, idcirco repudiandum.
esse, quia ipsa vocabula scripta non inveniantur, imo quicunque ex nobis Lac ratione
sunt usi, suspectam apud nonnullos, alioquin ingenio, et eruditione prosstantes viros,
causam uostram reddiuere."— Idem.-ubi sup. p. 62.

48 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

may otherwise be expounded ;" " It may otherwise be understood ;" " Tho
word may have another signification in another place."

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

4. Generally, as we said, in the pursuit of their design and carrying it
on, they begin in exclaiming against the usual words wherein the doctrines
they oppose are taught and delivered. " They are not Scripture expressions,"
etc. ; " For the things themselves, they do not oppose them, but they think
them not so necessary as some suppose," etc. Having got some ground by
this on the minds of men, great stress is immediately laid on this, " That a
man may be saved though he believe not the doctrine of the Trinity, the
satisfaction of Christ, etc., so that he live holily, and yield obedience to the
precepts of Christ ; so that it is mere madness and folly to break love and
communion about such differences." By this engine I knew, not long since,
a choice society of Christians, through the cunning sleight of one lying
in wait to deceive, disturbed, divided, broken, and in no small part of it
infected. If they once get this advantage, and have thereby weakened
the love and valuation of the truth with any, they generally, through the
righteous judgment of God in giving up men of light and vain spiiits to
the imaginations of their own hearts, overthrow their faith, and lead them
captive at their pleasure.

5. I thought to have insisted, in particular, on their particular ways of
insinuating their abominations, of the baits they lay, the devices they have,
their high pretences to reason, and holiness in their lives, or honesty; as also, to
have evinced, by undeniable evidences, that there are thousands in the
Papacy and among the Reformed Churches that are wholly baptized into
their vile opinions and infidelity, though, for the love of their temporal en
joyments, which are better to them than their religion, they profess it not ;
as also, how this persuasion of theirs hath been the great door whereby the
flood of atheism which is broken in upon the world, and which is almost
always professed by them who would be accounted the wits of the times, is
come in upon the nations; farther, to have given general answers and dis
tinctions applicable to the most if not all of the considerable arguments
and objections wherewith they impugn the truth : but referring all these
to my general considerations for the study of controversies in divinity,
with some observations that may be preservatives against their poison,
I shall speedily acquit you from the trouble of this address. Give me
leave, then, in the last place (though unfit and unworthy), to give some
general cautions to my fellow -labourers and students in divinity for the
freeing our souls from being tainted with these abominations, and I have
done : —

1. Hold fast the form of wholesome words and sound doctrine : knovr
that there are other ways of peace and accommodation with dissenters
than by letting go the least particle of truth. When men would accommo-

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. , ' 49

date their own hearts to love and peace, they must not double with their
souls, and accommodate the truth of the gospel to other men's imagina
tions. Perhaps some will suggest great things of going a middle way in
divinity, between dissenters ; but what is the issue, for the most part, of
such proposals ? After they have, by their middle way, raised no less
contentions than was before between the extremes (yea, when things
before were in some good measure allayed), the accommodators them
selves, through an ambitious desire to make good and defend their own
expedients, are insensibly carried over to the party and extreme to whom
they thought to make a condescension unto ; and, by endeavouring to
blanch their opinions, to make them seem probable, they are engaged to
the defence of their consequences before they are aware. Amyraldus
(whom I look upon as one of the greatest wits of these days) will at
present go a middle way between the churches of France and the Armi-
nians. What hath been the issue ? Among the churches, divisions, tumult,
disorder ; among the professors and ministers, revilings, evil surmisings ;
to the whole body of the people, scandals and offences ; and in respect of
himself, evidence of daily approaching nearer to the Arminian party, until,
as one of them saith of him, he is not far from their kingdom of heaven.
But is this all ? Nay, but Grotius, Episcopius, Curcellseus,1 etc. (quanta
nomina ! ) with others, must go a middle way to accommodate with the
Socinians; and all that will not follow are rigid men, that by any means
•will defend the opinions they are fallen upon. The same plea is made by
others for accommodation with the Papists ; and still " moderation," " the
middle way," " condescension," are cried up. I can freely say, that I know
not that man in England who is willing to go farther in forbearance, love,
and communion with all that fear Grod and hold the foundation, than I am ;
but that this is to be done upon other grounds, principles, and ways, by
other means and expedients, than by a condescension from the exactness
of the least apex of gospel truth, or by an accommodation of doctrines by
loose and general terms, I have elsewhere sufficiently declared. Let no
man deceive you with vain pretences ; hold fast the truth as it is in Jesus,
part not with one iota, and contend for it when called thereunto.

2. Take heed of the snare of Satan in affecting eminency by singularity.
It is good to strive to excel and to go before one another in knowledge and
in light, as in holiness and obedience. To do this in the road is difficult.
Ahimaaz had not outrun Cushi but that he took a by-path. Many rinding
it impossible to emerge unto any consideration by walking in the beaten path
of truth (all parts of divinity, all ways of handling it, being carried already
to such a height and excellency, that to make any considerable improve
ment requires great pains, study, and an insight into all kinds of learning),
and yet not able to conquer the itch of being accounted 7ivt$ fteydXoi,
turn aside into by-ways, and turn the eyes of all men to them by scramb
ling over hedge and ditch, when the sober traveller is not at all regarded.

The Roman historian, giving an account of the degeneracy of eloquence
after it once came to its height in the time of Cicero, fixeth on this as the
most probable reason: " Difficilis in perfecto mora est; naturaliterque, quod
procedere non potest, recedit ; et ut primo ad consequendos, quos priores
ducimus, accendimur : ita, ubi aut prseteriri, aut sequari eos posse desperavi-
mus, studium cum spe senescit; et quod adsequi non potest, sequi desinit; et,
velut occupatam relinquens materiam, quserit novam : prseteritoque eo in

1 " Quotquot hactenus theologica tractarunt, id sibi negotii crediderunt solum dari,
nt quam sive sors illis obtulerat, sive judicio amplexi erant sententiam, totis illam viri-
bus tuerentur." — Curcellseus Praefat. ad Opera Episcop.

VOL. XIL 4

50 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

quo eminere non possumus, aliquid in quo nitamur conquirimus ; sequi-
turquc, ut frcquens ac mobilis transitus maximum perfect! operis impedi-
mentum sit." — Paterc. Hist. Rom. lib. i. cap. xvii.

I wish some such things may not be said of the doctrine of the reformed
churches. It was not long since raised to a great height of purity in
itself, and perspicuity in the way of its delivery ; but athletic constitutions
are seldom permanent.1 Men would not be content to walk after others,
and finding they could not excel what was done, they have given over
to imitate it or to do anything in the like kind; and therefore, neglecting
that wherein they could not be eminent, they have taken a course to
have something peculiar wherein to put forth their endeavours. Let us,
then, watch against this temptation, and know that a man may be higher
than his brethren, and yet be but a Saul.

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

He that would re-enforce those arguments, and vindicate them from his
exceptions and the entanglements cast upon them, without some consider
able acquaintance with the principles of logic and artificial rules of argu
mentation, will find himself at a loss. Besides, of all men in the world, in
their argumentations they are most sophistical. It is seldom that they
urge any reason or give any exception wherein they conclude not "a par-
ticulari ad universale," or "ab indefinite ad universale, exclusive," or "ab
aliquo statu Christi ad omnem," or "ab oeconomia Trinitatis ad theologiam
Deitatis," or "ab usu vocis alicubi" to "ubique:" as, " Christ is a man,
therefore not God; he is the servant of the Father, therefore not of the

T *E» reuri 'yvftvaaTixoiffii/ a! \<r uxpot tut^ia.;, ffQaXtpal, r,v tv <ru \ff^a.rta 'iunv ol ya.p
'viiv tv ru KUTta ovdi uTftpiiiv ivti 3s ovx. a.<rpifj.iwfiv oi$i n Suvavrai ttfi <ra
i, \iitwai itri r» %t7par. — Hippocrat. Apkoris. lib. i. sect. 1 1.

61

same nature." And the like instances may be given in abundance ; from
which kind of arguing he will hardly extricate himself who is ignorant
of the rudiments of logic. The frequency of figurative expressions in the
Scripture, which they make use of to their advantage, requires the know
ledge of rhetoric also in him that will deal with them to any good purpose.
A good assistance (in the former of these especially) is given to students
by Keslerus, "in examine Logicaa, Metaphysics, et Physicae Photinianse."
The pretended maxims, also, which they insist on from the civil law, in the
business of the satisfaction of Christ, which are especially urged by Socinus,
and by Crellius in his defence against Grotius, will make him who shall en
gage with them see it necessary in some measure to be acquainted with the
principles of that faculty and learning also.

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

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

5. Diligent, constant, serious reading, studying, meditating on the Scrip
tures, with the assistance and direction of all the rules and advantages for
the right understanding of them which, by the observation and diligence
of many worthies, we are furnished withal, accompanied with continual
attendance on the throne of grace for the presence of the Spirit of truth
with us, to lead us into all truth, and to increase his anointing of us day
by day, " shining into our hearts to give us the knowledge of the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ," is, as for all other things in the course of
our pilgrimage and walking with God, so for our preservation against
these abominations, and the enabling of us to discover their madness and
answer their objections, of indispensable necessity. Apollos, who was
"mighty in the Scriptures," Acts xviii. 24, "mightily convinced the" gain
saying " Jews," verse 28. Neither, in dealing with these men, is there any
better course in the world than, in a good order and method, to multiply
testimonies against them to the same purpose; for whereas they have shifts
in readiness to every particular, and hope to darken a single star, when
they are gathered into a constellation they send out a glory and bright
ness which they cannot stand before. Being engaged myself once in a
public dispute about the satisfaction of Christ, I took this course, in a
clear and evident coherence, producing very many testimonies to the con
firmation of it; which together gave such an evidence to the truth, that
one who stood by instantly affirmed that "there was enough spoken to stop
the mouth of the devil himself." And this course in the business of the
deity and satisfaction of Christ will certainly be triumphant. Let us,
then, labour to have our senses abundantly exercised in the word, that we
inay be able to discern between good and evil ; and that not by studying
the places themselves [only] that are controverted, but by a diligent search
into the whole mind and will of God as revealed in. the word ; wherein the

52 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

sense is given in to humble souls with more life, power, and evidence of truth,
and is more effectual for the begetting of faith and love to the truth, than
in a curious search after the annotations of men upon particular places.
And truly I must needs say that I know not a more deplorable mistake
in the studies of divines, both preachers and others, than their diversion
from an immediate, direct study of the Scriptures themselves unto the
studying of commentators, critics, scholiasts, annotators, and the like helps,
which God in his good providence, making use of the abilities, and some
times the ambition and ends of men, hath furnished us withal. Not that
I condemn the use and study of them, which I wish men were more dili
gent in, but desire pardon if I mistake, and do only surmise, by the ex
perience of my own folly for many years, that many which seriously study
the things of God do yet rather make it their business to inquire after the
sense of other men on the Scriptures than to search studiously into them
themselves.

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

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

Let us not deceive ourselves ; Satan is a crafty enemy. He yet hovers
up and down in the lubricous, vain imaginations of a confused multitude,

THE PREFACE TO THE READER 53

whose tongues are so divided that they understand not one the other. I
dare boldly say, that if ever he settle to a stated opposition to the gospel,
it will be in Socinianism. The Lord rebuke him; he is busy in and by
many, where little notice is taken of him. But of these things thus far.

A particular account of the cause and reasons of my engagement in this
business, with what I have aimed at in the ensuing discourse, you will find
given in my epistle to the university, so that the same things need not here
also be delivered. The confutation of Mr Biddle's Catechism, and Smalcius'
Catechism, commonly called the " Kacovian ; " with the vindication of all
the texts of Scripture giving testimony to the deity of Christ throughout
the Old and New Testament from the perverse glosses and interpretations
put upon them by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations on the Bible, with
those also which concern his satisfaction ; and, on the occasion hereof, the
confirmation of the most important truths of the Scripture, about the nature
of God, the person of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the offices of Christ,
etc., — have been in my design. With what mind and intention, with what
love to the truth, with what dependence on God for his presence and as
sistance, with what earnestness of supplication to enjoy the fruit of the
promise of our dear Lord Jesus, to lead me into all truth by his blessed
Spirit, I have gone through this work, the Lord knows. I only know that
in every particular I have come short of my duty therein, and that a review
of my paths and pains would yield me very little refreshment, but that " I
know in whom I have believed, and am persuaded that even concerning
this also he will remember me for good, and spare me, according to the
greatness of his mercy." And whatever becomes of this weak endeavour
before the Lord, yet " he hath made with me an everlasting covenant,
ordered in all things and sure, and this is all my salvation and all my
desire, although he make it not to grow." What is performed is submitted
humbly to the judgment of them to whom this address is made. About
the thoughts of others, or any such as by envy, interest, curiosity, or fac
tion, may be swayed or biassed, I am not solicitous. If any benefit re
dound to the saints of the Most High, or any that belong to 'the purpose
of God's love be advantaged, enlightened, or built up in their most holy
faith in the least, by what is here delivered, I have my reward.

MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM.

I HAVE often wondered and complained that there was no catechism yet
extant (that I could ever see or hear of) from whence one might learn
the true grounds of the Christian religion, as the same is delivered in the
holy Scripture, all catechisms generally being so stuffed with the sup-
posals and traditions of men that the least part of them is derived from
the word of God : for when councils, convocations, and assemblies of
divines, justling the sacred writers out of their place in the church, had
once framed articles and confessions of faith according to their own fancies
and interests, and the civil magistrate had by his authority ratified the
same, all catechisms were afterward fitted to those articles and confessions,
and the Scripture either wholly omitted or brought in only for a show,
not one quotation amongst many being a whit to the purpose, as will soon
appear to any man of judgment, who, taking into his hand the said cate
chisms, shall examine the texts alleged in them ; for if he do this diligently
and impartially, he will find the Scripture and those catechisms to be at
so wide a distance one from another, that he will begin to question whether
the catechists gave any heed at all to what they wrote, and did not only
themselves refuse to make use of their reason, but presume that their
readers also would do the same. In how miserable a condition, then, as
to spiritual things, must Christians generally needs be, when thus trained
up, not, as the apostle adviseth, " in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord," but in the supposals and traditions of men, having little or no
assurance touching the reality of their religion ! which some observing,
and not having the happiness to light upon the truth, have quite aban
doned all piety whatsoever, thinking there is no firm ground whereon to
build the same. To prevent which mischief in time to come, by bringing
men to a certainty (I mean such men as own the divine authority of the
Scripture), and withal to satisfy the just and pious desires of many who
would fain understand the truth of our religion, to the end they might not
only be built up themselves, but also instruct their children and families
in the same, I have here (according to the understanding I have gotten by
continual meditation on the word of God) compiled a Scripture Catechism ;
wherein I bring the reader to a sure and certain knowledge of the chiefest
things pertaining both to belief and practice, whilst I myself assert nothing
(as others have done before me), but only introduce the Scripture faith
fully uttering its own assertions, which all Christians confess to be of un
doubted truth. Take heed, therefore, whosoever thou art that lightest on
this book, and there readest things quite contrary to the doctrines that
pass current amongst the generality of Christians (for I confess most of
the things here displayed have such a tendency), that thou fall not foul
upon them ; for thou canst not do so without falling foul upon the holy
Scripture itself, inasmuch as all the answers throughout the whole Cate
chism are faithfully transcribed out of it and rightly applied to the ques-

56 MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM.

tions, as thou thyself mayst perceive if thou make a diligent inspection
into the several texts, with all their circumstances. Thou wilt perhaps
here reply, that the texts which I have cited do indeed in the letter hold
forth such things as are contrary to the doctrines commonly received
amongst Christians, but> they ought to have a mystical or figurative inter
pretation put upon them, and then both the doctrines and the texts of
Scripture will suit well enough. To which I answer, that if we once take
this liberty to impose our mystical or figurative interpretations on the
Scripture, without express warrant of the Scripture itself, we shall have
no settled belief, but be liable continually to be turned aside by any one
that can invent a new mystical meaning of the Scripture, there being no
certain rule to judge of such meanings as there is of the literal ones, nor
is there any error, how absurd and impious soever, but may on such terms
be accorded with the Scripture. All the abominable idolatries of the
Papists, all the superstitious fopperies of the Turks, all the licentious opi
nions and practices of the Ranters, may by this means be not only palliated
but defended by the word of God. Certainly, might we of our own heads
figuratively interpret the Scripture, when the letter is neither repugnant
to our senses nor to the scope of the respective texts, nor to a greater
number of plain texts to the contrary (for in such cases we must of neces
sity admit figures in the sacred volume as well as we do in profane ones,
otherwise both they and it will clash with themselves or with our senses,
which the Scripture itself intimates to be of infallible certainty ; see
1 John i. 1-3) ; — might we, I say, at our pleasure impose our figures and
allegories on the plain words of God, the Scripture would in very deed be,
what some blasphemously affirm it to be, " a nose of wax." For instance, „
it is frequently asserted in the Scripture that God hath a similitude or
shape, hath his place in the heavens, hath also affections or passions, as
love, hatred, mercy, anger, and the like ; neither is any thing to the con
trary delivered there unless seemingly in certain places, which neither for
number nor clearness are comparable unto those of the other side. Why
now should I depart from the letter of the Scripture in these particulars,
and boldly affirm, with the generality of Christians (or rather with the
generality of such Christians only as, being conversant with the false philo
sophy that reigneth in the schools, have then* understandings perverted
with wrong notions), that God is without a shape, in no certain place, and
incapable of affections ? Would not this be to use the Scripture like a
nose of wax, and when of itself it looketh any way, to turn it aside at our
pleasure ? And would not God be so far from speaking to our capacity
in his word (which is the usual refuge of the adversaries when in these and
the like matters concerning God they are pressed with the plain words of
the Scripture), as that he would by so doing render us altogether incapable
of finding out his meaning, whilst he spake one thing and understood the
clean contrary ? Yea, would he not have taken the direct course to make
men substitute an idol in his stead (for the adversaries hold that to con
ceive of God as having a shape, or affections, or being in a certain place,
is idolatry), if he described himself in the Scripture otherwise than indeed
he is, without telling us so much in plain terms, that we might not con
ceive amiss of him ? Thus we see that when sleep, which plainly argueth
weakness and imperfection, had been ascribed to God, Ps. xliv. 23, the
contrary is said of him, Ps. cxxi. 4. Again, when weariness had been
attributed to him, Isa. i. 14, the same is expressly denied of him, Isa.
xl. 28. And would not God, think ye, have done the like in those fore-
inentioned things, were the case the same in them as in the others ? This

MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM. 57

consideration is so pressing, that a certain author (otherwise a very learned
and intelligent man) perceiving the -weight thereof, and not knowing how
to avoid the same, took up (though very unluckily) one erroneous tenet
to maintain another, telling us in a late book of his, entitled Conjectura
Cabalistica, " That for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews
entertain a conceit of God as in human shape, was not any more a way to
bring them into idolatry than by acknowledging man to be God, as," saith
he, "our religion does in Christ." How can this consist even with conson-
ancy to his own principles, whilst he holds it to be false that God hath
any shape, but true that Christ is God ; for will a false opinion of God not
sooner lead men into idolatry than a true opinion of Christ ? But it is
no marvel that this author, and other learned men with him, entertain
such conceits of God and Christ as are repugnant to the current of the
Scripture, whilst they set so high a rate on the sublime, indeed, but un
certain notions of the Platonists. and in the meantime slight the plain but
certain letter of the sacred writers, as being far below the Divine Majesty,
and written only to comply with the rude apprehensions of the vulgar,
unless by a mystical interpretation they be screwed up to Platonism. This
is the stone at which the pride of learned men hath caused them continu
ally to stumble, — namely, to think that they can speak more wisely and
worthily of God than he hath spoken of himself in his word. This hath
brought that more than Babylonish confusion of language into the Chris
tian religion, whilst men have framed those horrid and intricate expres
sions, under the colour of detecting and excluding heresies, but in truth to
put a baffle on the simplicity of the Scripture and usher in heresies, that
so they might the more easily carry on their worldly designs, which could
not be effected but through the ignorance of the people, nor the people
brought into ignorance but by wrapping up religion in such monstrous
terms as neither the people nor they themselves that invented them (or at
least took them from the invention of others) did understand. Wherefore,
there is no possibility to reduce the Christian religion to its primitive in
tegrity, — a thing, though much pretended, yea, boasted of in reformed
churches, yet never hitherto sincerely endeavoured, much less effected (in
that men have, by severe penalties, been hindered to reform religion beyond
such a stint as that of Luther, or at most that of Calvin), — but by cashiering
those many intricate terms and devised forms of speaking imposed on our
-religion, and by wholly betaking ourselves to the plainness of the Scrip
ture : for I have long since observed (and find my observation to be true
and certain), that when, to express matters of religion, men make use of
words and phrases unheard of in the Scripture, they slily under them
couch false doctrines and obtrude them on us; for without question the
doctrines of the'Scripture can be so aptly explained in no language as that
of the Scripture itself. Examine, therefore, the expressions of God's being
" infinite and incomprehensible, of his being a simple act, of his subsisting
in three persons or after a threefold manner, of a divine circumincession,
of an eternal generation, of an eternal procession, of an incarnation, of an
hypostatical union, of a communication of properties, of the mother of
God, of God dying, of God made man, of transubstantiation, of consub-
stantiation, of original sin, of Christ's taking our nature on him, of Christ's
making satisfaction to God for our sins, both past, present, and to come,
of Christ's fulfilling the law for us, of Christ's being punished by God for
us, of Christ's merits or his meritorious obedience, both active and passive,
of Christ's purchasing the kingdom of heaven for us, of Christ's enduring
the wrath of God, yea, the pains of a damned man, of Christ's rising from

58 MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM.

the dead by his own power, of the ubiquity of Christ's body, of apprehend
ing and applying Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith, of Christ's
being our surety, of Christ's paying our debts, of our sins imputed to
Christ, of Christ's righteousness imputed to us, of Christ's dying to appease
the wrath of God and reconcile him to us, of infused grace, of free grace,
of the world of the elect, of irresistible workings of the Spirit in bringing
men to believe, of carnal reason, of spiritual desertions, of spiritual incomes,
of the outgoings of God, of taking up the ordinance," etc., and thou shalt
find that as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture, so
neither the things contained in them. How excellent, therefore, was that
advice of Paul to Timothy in his second epistle to him, chap. i. 13, " Hold
fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love
which is in Christ Jesus" ! for if we once let go those forms of sound words
learned from the apostles, and take up such as have been coined by others in
succeeding ages, we shall together [with them] part with the apostles' doc
trine, as woful experience hath taught us ; for after Constantine the Great,
together with the council of Nice, had once deviated from the language of
the Scripture in the business touching the Son of God, calling him " co-
essential with the Father," this opened a gap for others afterward, under a
pretence of guarding the truth from heretics, to devise new terms at plea
sure; which did, by degrees, so vitiate the chastity and simplicity of our
faith, delivered in the Scripture, that there hardly remained so much as
one point thereof sound and entire. So that as it was wont to be disputed
in the schools, whether the old ship of Theseus (which had in a manner
been wholly altered at sundry times, by the accession of new pieces of
timber upon the decay of the old) were the same ship it had been at first,
and not rather another by degrees substituted in the stead thereof : in
like manner there was so much of the primitive truth worn away, by the
corruption that did, by little and little, overspread the generality of Chris
tians, and so many errors in stead thereof tacked to our religion, at several
times, that one might justly question whether it were the same religion
with that which Christ and his apostles taught, and not another since de
vised by men and put in the room thereof. But thanks be to God through
our Lord Jesus Christ, who, amidst the universal corruption of our reli
gion, hath preserved his written word entire (for had men corrupted it,
they would have made it speak more favourably in behalf of their lusts
and worldly interests than it doth) ; which word, if we with diligence and
sincerity pry into, resolving to embrace the doctrine that is there plainly
delivered, though all the world should set itself against us for so doing,
we shall easily discern the truth, and so be enabled to reduce our religion
to its first principles. For thus much I perceive by mine own experience,
who, being otherwise of no great abilities, yet setting myself, with the
aforesaid resolution, for sundry years together upon an impartial search
of the Scripture, have not only detected many errors, but here presented
the reader with a body of religion exactly transcribed out of the word of
God : which body whosoever shall well ruminate and digest in his mind,
may> by the same method wherein I have gone before him, make a farther
inquiry into the oracles of God, and draw forth whatsoever yet lies hid;
and being brought to light, [it] will tend to the accomplishment of godliness
amongst us, for at this only all the Scripture aimeth ; — the Scripture,
which all men who have thoroughly studied the same must of necessity be
enamoured with, as breathing out the mere wisdom of God, and being the
exactest rule of a holy life (which all religions whatsoever confess to be
the way unto happiness) that can be imagined, and whose divinity will

PREFACE OF MB BIDDLE TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 59

never, even to the world's end, be questioned by any but such as are un
willing to deny their worldly lusts and obey the pure and perfect precepts
thereof; which obedience whosoever shall perform, he shall, not only in
the life to come, but even in this life, be equal unto angels.

JOHN BIDDLE.

MR BIDDLE' S PREFACE BRIEFLY EXAMINED.

IN the entrance of Mr Biddle's preface he tells the reader very modestly
" That he could never yet see or hear of a catechism" (although, I presume,
he had seen, or heard at least, of one or two written by Faustus Socinus,
though not completed ; of one by Valentinus Smalcius, commonly called
" The Racovian Catechism," from whence many of his questions and answers
are taken ; and of an " Exposition of the Articles of Faith, in the Creed
called the Apostles', in way of catechism, by Jonas Schlichtingius," pub
lished in French, anno 1646, in Latin, anno 1651) "from whence the true
grounds of Christian religion might be learned, as it is delivered in Scrip
ture ;" and therefore, doubtless, all Christians have cause to rejoice at
the happy product of Mr B.'s pains, wherewith he now acquaints them,
ushered in with this modest account, whereby at length they may know
their own religion, wherein as yet they have not been instructed to
any purpose. And the reason of this is, because " all other catechisms
are stuffed with many supposals and traditions, the least part of them
being derived from the word of God," Mr B. being judge. And this is
the common language of his companions, comparing themselves and their
own writings with those of other men.1 The common language they de
light in is, " Though Christians have hitherto thought otherwise."

Whether we have reason to stand to this determination, and acquiesce
in this censure and sentence, the ensuing considerations of what Mr B.
substitutes in the room of those catechisms which he here rejects will
evince and manifest. But to give countenance to this humble entrance
into his work, he tells his reader " That councils, convocations, and assem
blies of divines, have justled out the Scripture, and framed confessions of
faith according to their own fancies and interests, getting them confirmed
by the civil magistrate; according unto which confessions all catechisms
are and have been framed, without any regard to the Scripture." What
"councils" Mr B. intends he informs us not, nor what it is that in them
he chiefly complains of. If he intend some only, such as the apostatizing
times of the church saw, he knows he is not opposed by them with whom
he hath to do, nor yet if he charge them all for some miscarriages in them
or about them. If all, as that of the apostles themselves, Acts xv., toge
ther with the rest that for some ages followed after, and that as to the
doctrine by them delivered, fall under his censure, we have nothing but

1 "Quicunquc sacras literas assiduamanuversat, quantumvis nescio quos catechismos,
vel locos communes et commentaries quam familiarissimos sibi reddiderit, is statimcum
nostrorum libros vel semel inspexerit, intelliget quantum distant sera lupinis." — Valent.
Smalc. Res. Orat. Vogel. et Peuschel. Rac. anno 1617, p. 34. " Scripta haec, Dei gloriam et
Christi Domini nostri honorem, ac ipsam nostram salutem, ab omni traditionum human,
arum labe, ipsa divina veritate literis sacris comprehensa repurgare nituntur, et expe.
ditissima explicandse Dei glorias, honoris Christo Domino nostro asserendi, et salutis
conscquendae ratione exccrpta, ac omnibus proposita earn ipsissima sacrarum literarum
authoritate sancire et stabilire conantur." — Hieron. Moscorov. Ep. Dedic. Cat. Rac. ad
Jacob. M B. R. nomine et jussu Ecclesise Pplon. " Neque porro quemquam esse arbi-
tror, qui in tot ac tantis Christianas religionis placitis, a reliquis hominibus dissentiat,
in quot quantisque ego dissentio." — Socin. Ep. ad Squarcialup. anno 1581.

60 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

the testimony of Mr B. to induce us to a belief of this insinuation.1 His
testimony in things of this nature will be received only by them who re
ceive his doctrine.

What I have to offer on this account I have spoken otherwhere. That
the confessions of faith which the first general councils, as they are called,
during the space of four hundred years and upward, composed and put
forth, were " framed according to the fancies and interests of men," be
side the word, is Mr B.'s fancy, and his interest to have it so esteemed.
The faith he professeth, or rather the infidelity he has fallen into, was
condemned in them all, and that upon the occasion of its then first com
ing into the world ; " Hinc illse lacrimae : " if they stand, he must fall.
" That the catechisms of latter days" (I suppose he intends those in use
amongst the reformed churches) "did wholly omit the Scripture, or brought
it in only for a show, not one quotation amongst many being a whit to
the purpose," you have the same testimony for as for the assertions fore
going.2 He that will say this, had need some other way evince that he
makes conscience of what he says, or that he dare not say any thing, so
it serve his turn. Only Mr B. hath quoted Scripture to the purpose !
To prove God to be " finite, limited, included in heaven, of a visible shape,
ignorant of things future, obnoxious to turbulent passions and affections,"
are some of his quotations produced ; for the like end and purpose are
the most of the rest alleged. Never, it seems, was the Scripture alleged
to any purpose before ! And these things, through the righteous hand of
God taking vengeance on an unthankful generation, not delighting in the
light and truth which he hath sent forth, do we hear and read. Of those
who have made bold ax/vjjra KivsTv, and to shake the fundamentals of gos
pel truths or the mystery of grace, we have daily many examples. The
number is far more scarce of them who have attempted to blot out those
xoivai evvoiai, or ingrafted notions of mankind, concerning the perfec
tions of God, which Mr B. opposeth. " Fabulas vulgaris nequitia non
invenit." An opposition to the first principles of rational beings must
needs be talked of. Other catechists, besides himself, Mr B. tells you,
" have written with so much oscitancy and contempt of the Scripture,
that a considering man will question whether they gave any heed to
what they wrote themselves, or refused to make use of their reason,
and presumed others would do so also." And so you have the sum of his
judgment concerning all other catechisms, besides his own, that he hath
either seen or heard of. " They are all fitted to confessions of faith, com
posed according to the fancies and interests of men, written without attend
ing to the Scripture or quoting it to any purpose, their authors, like
madmen, not knowing what they wrote, and refusing to make use of their
reason that they might so do." And this is the modest, humble entrance
of Mr B.'s preface.

All that have gone before him were knaves, fools, idiots, madmen. The
proof of these assertions you are to expect. When a philosopher pressed
Diogenes with this sophism, " What J am, thou art not ; I am a man,
therefore thou art not," he gave him no other answer but, " Begin with
me, and the conclusion will be true." Mr B. is a Master of Arts, and
knew, doubtless, that such assertions as might be easily turned upon him
self are of no use to any but those who have not aught else to say. Per
haps Mr B. speaks only to them of the same mind with himself ; and then,

1 "ATDO-OV ya.p, i] t avros itieHfros, •' vovrov \iyei itrevrui -giara't. — Arist. Rhet. lib. iii.
cap. xv.
» "Calumniate fortiter; aliquid adhserebit."

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 61

indeed, as Socrates said, it was no hard thing to commend the Athenians
before the Athenians, but to commend them before the Lacedaemonians
was difficult.1 No more is it any great undertaking to condemn men sound
in the faith unto Socinians ; before others it will not prove so easy.

It is not incumbent on me to defend any, much less all the catechisms
that have been written by learned men of the reformed religion. That
there are errors in some, mistakes in others ; that some are more clear,
plain, and scriptural than others, I grant. All of them may have, have
had, their use in their kind. That in any of them there is any thing
taught inconsistent with communion with God, or inevitably tending to
the impairing of faith and love, Mr B. is not, I presume, such a p/Ao-
irovog as to undertake to demonstrate. I shall only add, that notwith
standing the vain plea of having given all his answers in the express
words of Scripture (whereby, with the foolish bird, he hides his head from
the fowler, but leaves his whole monstrous body visible, the teaching part
of his Catechism being solely in the insinuating, ensnaring, captious ques
tions thereof, leading the understanding of the reader to a misapprehen
sion and misapplication of the words of the Scripture, it being very easy
to make up the grossest blasphemy imaginable out of the words of the
Scripture itself), I never found, saw, read, or heard of any so grossly per
verting the doctrine of the Scripture concerning God and all his ways
as those of Mr B.'s do ; for in sundry particulars they exceed those men
tioned before of Socinus, Smalcius, Schlichtingius, which had justly gotten
the repute of the worst in the world. And for an account of my reason of
this persuasion I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of them.

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

1. What fluctuating persons are they, not yet come to any certainty
in religion, whom Mr B. intends to deal withal ? Those, for the most
part, of them who seem to be intended in such undertakings, are fully
persuaded from the Scripture of the truth of those things wherein they
have been instructed. Of these, some, I have heard, have been unsettled
by Mr B., but that he shall ever settle any (there being no consistency
in error or falsehood) is impossible. Mr B. knows there is no one of the
catechists he so decries but directs them whom he so instructs to the
Scriptures, and settles their faith on the word of God alone, though they
labour to help their faith and understanding by opening of it; whereunto
also they are called. I fear Mr B.'s certainty will at length appear to be
scepticism, and his settling of men to be the unsettling ; that his conver-

1 Oo %a\i<rav 'A4vvx.iovs In 'Afvyaioii lfa.ivt~t, «XX" l» AaxeSa/^ov/a/j. — Socrat. apud Plat,
in Menexen. Cit. Arist. Rhet. lib. iii. cap. xiv.

* " Multa passim ab ultima vetustate vitia admissa sunt, qvue nemoprscter me indicabit."
— Scalig.

62 THE PREFACE OF MR DIDDLE

sions are from the faith ; and that in this very book he aims more to ac
quaint men with his questions than the Scripture answers.1 But he says, —

2. Those whom he aims to bring to this certainty are "such as would
fain understand the truth of our religion." If by " our religion" he means
the religion of himself and his followers (or rather masters), the Socinians,
I am sorry to hear that any are so greedy of its acquaintance. 3 Happily
this is but a pretence, such as his predecessors in this work have commonly
used. [As] for understanding the truth of it, they will find in the issue what
an endless work they have undertaken. " Who can make that straight
which is crooked, or number that which is wanting ?" If by "our religion"
he means the Christian religion, it may well be inquired who they are, with
their "just and pious desires," who yet understand not the truth of Christian
religion ? that is, that it is the only true religion. When we know these
Turks, Jews, Pagans, which Mr B. hath to deal withal, we shall be able
to judge of what reason he had to labour to satisfy their "just and pious
desires." I would also willingly be informed how they came to so high an
advancement in our religion as to desire to be brought up in it, and to
be able to instruct others, when as yet they do not understand the truth
of it, or are not satisfied therein. And, —

3. As these are admirable men, so the way he takes for their satisfac
tion is admirable also; that is, by "asserting nothing!" He that asserts no
thing proves nothing; for that which any one proves, that he asserts. In
tending, then, to bring men to a certainty who yet understand not the
truth of our religion, he asserts nothing, proves nothing (as is the manner
of some), but leaves them to themselves ; — a most compendious way of
teaching (for whose attainment Mr B. needed not to have been Master
of Arts), if > it proves effectual ! But by not asserting, it is evident Mr
B. intends not silence. He hath said too much to be so interpreted.
Only what he hath spoken, he hath done it in a sceptical way of inquiry ;
wherein, though the intendment of his mind be evident, and all his queries
may be easily resolved into so many propositions or assertions, yet as his
words lie, he supposes he may speak truly that he asserts nothing. Of the
truth, then, of this assertion, that he doth not assert any thing, the reader
will judge. And this is the path to atheism which, of all others, is most
trod and beaten in the days wherein we live. A liberty of judgment is
pretended, and queries are proposed, until nothing certain be left, nothing
unshaken. But, —

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

(1.) That by his leading questions, and application of the Scripture to
them, he hath utterly perverted the scope and intendment of the places
urged. Whereas he pretends not to assert or explain the Scripture, he
most undoubtedly restrains the signification of the places by him al
leged unto the precise scope which in his sophistical queries he hath in
cluded. And in such a way of procedure, what may not the serpentine wits

1 " Hoc illis negotium est, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi."— TertuL
de Prescr. ad Hser.

» " Expressere id nobis vota multorutn, multseque etiam a remotissimis orbis partibus
ad nos transmissas preces."— Preefat ad Cat. Rac.

" Nam rex Seleucus me opere oravit maxumo,
Ut sibilatroues cogerem et conscriberem. "

Pyrgopol. in Plaut. Mil Glo. Act. i. ad fin.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 63

of men pretend to a confirmation of from Scripture, or any other book that
hath been written about such things as the inquiries are made after? It
were easy to give innumerable instances of this kind, but we fear God,
and dare not to make bold with him or his word.

(2.) Mr B. pretending to give an account of the " chiefest things per
taining to belief and practice," doth yet propose no question at all con
cerning many of the most important heads of our religion, and whereunto
the Scripture speaks fully and expressly, or proposes his thoughts in the
negative, leading on the scriptures from whence he makes his objections
to the grand truths he opposeth, concealing, as was said, the delivery of
them in the Scripture in other places innumerable ; so insinuating to the
men of "just and pious desires" with whom he hath to do that the Scripture
is silent of them. That this is the man's way of procedure, in reference
to the deity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, the satisfaction and merit
of Christ, the corruption of nature, and efficacy of grace, with many other
most important heads of Christian religion, will be fully manifest in our
consideration of the several particulars as they shall occur in the method
Avherein by him they are handled.

(3.) What can be concluded of the mind of God in the Scripture, by
cutting off any place or places of it from their dependence, connection,
and tendency, catching at those words which seem to confirm what we
would have them so to do (whether, in the proper order wherein of God
they are set and fixed, they do in the least cast an eye towards the thesis
which they are produced to confirm or no), might easily be manifested by
innumerable instances, were not the vanity of such a course evident to all.

On the consideration of these few exceptions to Mr B.'s way of proce
dure, it will easily appear what little advantage he hath given him there
by, and how unjust his pretence is, which by this course he aims to prevail
upon men withal. This he opens, page 6 : "None," saith he, " can fall foul
upon the things contained in this Catechism" (which he confesseth to be
"quite contrary to the doctrine that passeth current among the generality
of Christians"), " as they are here displayed, because the answers are tran
scribed out of the Scriptures." But Mr B. may be pleased to take notice
that the "displaying," as he calls it, of his doctrines is the work of his ques
tions, and not of the words of Scripture produced to confirm them, which
have a sense cunningly and subtilely imposed on them by his queries, or
are pointed and restrained to the things which in the place of their delivery
they look not towards in any measure. We shall undoubtedly find, in the
process of this business, that Mr B.'s questions, being found guilty of treason
against God, will not be allowed sanctuary in the answers which they la
bour to creep into; and that, they disclaiming their protection, they may be
pursued, taken, and given up to the justice and severity of truth, without
the least profanation of their holiness. A murderer may be plucked from
the horns of the altar.

Nor is that the only answer insisted on for the removal of Mr B.'s
sophistry, which he mentions, p. 7, and pursues it for three or four leaves
onward of his preface, namely, " That the scriptures which he urgeth do in
the letter hold out such things as he allegeth them to prove, but yet they
must be figuratively interpreted." For Mr B.'s " mystical sense," I know
not what he intends by it, or by whom it is urged. This is applicable
solely to the places he produceth for the description of God and his attri
butes, concerning whom that some expressions of Scripture are to be so
interpreted himself confesseth, p. 13; and we desire to take leave to
inquire whether some others, beside what Mr B. allows, may not be of the

64 THE PREFACE OF MR BTDDLE

same consideration. In other things, for the most part, vie have nothing
at all to do with so much as the interpretation of the places he mentions,
but only to remove the grossly sophistical insinuations of his queries. For
instance, when Mr B. asks, "Whether Christ Jesus was a man or no?"
and allegeth express Scripture affirming that he was, we say not that the
Scripture must have a figurative interpretation, but that Mr B. is grossly
sophistical, concluding from the assertion of Christ's human nature to the
denial of his divine, and desperately injurious to the persons with whom
he pretends he hath to do, who as yet " understand not the truth of our
religion," in undertaking to declare to them the special " chief things of
belief and practice," and hiding from them the things of the greatest
moment to their salvation, and which the Scripture speaks most plentifully
unto, by not stating any question or making any such inquiry as their
affirmation might be suited unto. The like instance may be given in all
the particulars wherein Mr B. is departed from " the faith once delivered
to the saints." His whole following discourse, then, to the end of p. 13,
wherein he decries the answer to his way of procedure, which himself had
framed, he might have spared. It is true, we do affirm that there are
figurative expressions in the Scripture (and Mr B. dares not say the con
trary), and that they are accordingly to be interpreted ; not that they
are to have a mystical sense put upon them, but that the literal sense is to
be received, according to the direction of the figure which is in the words.
That these words of our Saviour, "This is my body," are figurative, I sup
pose Mr B. will not deny. Interpret them according to the figurative
import of them, and that interpretation gives you the literal, and not a
mystical sense, if such figures belong to speech and not to sense. That
sense, I confess, may be spiritually understood (then it is saving) or other
wise ; but this doth not constitute different senses in the words, but only
denote a difference in the understandings of men. But all this, in hypotlmi,
Mr B. fully grants, p. 9 ; so that there is no danger, by asserting it, to cast
the least thought of uncertainty on the word of God. But, p. 10, he gives
you an instance wherein this kind of interpretation must by no means be
allowed, namely, in the Scripture attributions of a shape and similitude (that
is, of eyes, ears, hands, feet) unto God, with passions and affections like unto
us ; which that they are not proper, but figuratively to be interpreted, he
tells you, p. 10-12, " those affirm who are perverted by false philosophy,
and make a nose of wax of the Scripture, which plainly affirms such things
of God." In what sense the expressions of Scripture intimated concerning
God are necessarily to be received and understood, the ensuing considera
tions will inform the reader. For the present, I shall only say that I do
not know scarce a more unhappy instance in his whole book that he
could have produced than this, wherein he hath been blasphemously in
jurious unto God and his holy word. And herein we shall deal with him
from Scripture itself, right reason,1 and the common consent of mankind.
How remote our interpretations of the places by him quoted for his pur
pose are from wresting the Scriptures, or turning them aside from their
purpose, scope, and intendment, will also in due time be made manifest.

We say, indeed, as Mr B. observes, that in those kinds of expressions God
" condescendeth to accommodate his ways and proceedings" (not his
essence and being) "to our apprehensions;" wherein we are very far from
saying that "he speaks one thing and intends the clean contrary," but only

'O yap -ran dox.ti, TCUTH iiv<x.t Qaftiv. 'O Jf amifut TO.UTIJJI r»jv ir'urriv el vavv furTorifat
1ti. — Ariat. Nicoin. iii.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 65

that the things that he ascribes to himself, for our understanding and the
accommodation of his proceedings to the manner of men, are to be under
stood in him and of them in that which they denote of perfection, and
not in respect of that which is imperfect and weak.1 For instance, when
God says, " his eyes run to and fro, to behold the sons of men," we do
not say that he speaks one thing and understands another ; but only be
cause we have our knowledge and acquaintance with things by our eyes
looking up and down, therefore doth he who hath not eyes of flesh as we
have, nor hath any need to look up and down to acquaint himself with
them, all whose ways are in his own hand, nor can without blasphemy be
supposed to look from one thing to another, choose to express his know
ledge of and intimate acquaintance with all things here below, in and by
his own infinite understanding, in the way so suited to our apprehension.
Neither are these kinds of expressions in the least an occasion of idolatry,
or do give advantage to any of creating any shape of God in their ima
ginations, God having plainly and clearly, in the same word of his wherein
these expressions are used, discovered that of himself, his nature, being,
and properties, which will necessarily determine in what sense these ex
pressions are to be understood; as, in the consideration of the several
particulars in the ensuing discourse, the reader will find evinced. And we
are yet of the mind, that to conceive of God as a great man, with mouth,
eyes, hands, legs, etc., in a proper sense, sitting in heaven, shut up there,
troubled, vexed, moved up and down with sundry passions, perplexed
about the things that are to come to pass, which he knows not, — which
is th$ notion of God that Mr B. labours to deliver the world from their
darkness withal, — is gross idolatry, whereunto the scriptural attributions
unto God mentioned give not the least countenance ; as will in the pro
gress of our discourse more fully appear. And if it be true, which Mr B.
intimates, that "things implying imperfection" (speaking of sleep and being
weary) "are not properly attributed to God," I doubt not but I shall easily
evince that the same line of refusal is to pass over the visible shape and
turbulent affections which are by him ascribed to him. But of these more
particularly in their respective places.

But he adds, pp. 13, 14, " That this consideration is so pressing, that a
certain learned author, in his book entitled 'Conjectura Cabalistica/ affirms
that for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews entertain a conceit
of God as in human shape was not any more a way to bring them into ido
latry than by acknowledging man to be God, as our religion doth in Christ ;"
which plea of his Mr B. exagitates in the pages following. That learned
gentleman is of age and ability to speak for himself: for mine own part, I
am not so clear in what he affirms as to undertake it for him, though other
wise very ready to serve him upon the account which I have of his worth
and abilities ; though I may freely say I suppose they might be better exer
cised than in such cabalistical conjectures as the book of his pointed unto
is full of. But who am I, that judge another ? We must every one give
an account of himself and his labours to God ; and the fire shall try our
works of what sort they are. I shall not desire to make too much work
for the fire. For the present, I deny that Moses in his writings doth give
any occasion to entertain a conceit of God as one of a human shape;
neither did the Jews ever stumble into idolatry on that account. They
sometimes, indeed, changed their glory for that which was not God ; but
whilst they worshipped that God that revealed himself by Moses, Jehovah,

1 "Quse dicuntur de Deo Mfu^naLiZt intclligenda sunt Simplest."1
VOL. XII. 5

€6 THE PREFACE OF MR B.IDDLE

Ehejeh, it doth not appear that ever they entertained in their thoughts any
thing butpurumnumen, a most simple, spiritual, eternal Being, as I shall give
a farther account afterward. Though they intended to worship Jehovah
both in the calf in the wilderness and in those at Bethel, yet that they
ever entertained any thoughts that God had such a shape 'as that which
they framed to worship him by is madness to imagine. For though Moses
sometimes speaks of God in the condescension before mentioned, express
ing his power by his arm, and bow, and sword, his knowledge and
understanding by his eye, yet he doth in so many places caution them
with whom he had to do of entertaining any thoughts of any bodily
similitude of God, that by any thing delivered by him there is not the
least occasion administered for the entertaining of such a conceit as is
intimated. Neither am I clear in the theological predication which that
learned person hath chosen to parallel with the Mosaical expressions of
God's shape and similitude, concerning man being God. Though we
acknowledge him who is man to be God, yet we do not acknowledge man
to be God. Christ under this reduplication, as man, is not a person, and so
not God. To say that man is God, is to say that the humanity and Deity
are the same. Whatever he is as man, he is upon the account of his being
man. Now, that he who is man is also God, though he be not God upon
the account of his being man, can give no more occasion to idolatry than
to say that God is infinite, omnipotent. For the expression itself, it being
in the concrete, it may be salved by the communication of properties; but
as it lies, it may possibly be taken in the abstract, and so is simply false.
Neither do I judge it safe to use such expressions, unless it be when the
grounds and reasons of them are assigned. But that Mr B. should be
offended with this assertion I see no reason. Both he and his associates
affirm that Jesus Christ as man (being in essence and nature nothing but
man) is made a God ; and is the object of divine worship or religious
adoration on that account. I may therefore let pass Mr B.'s following
harangue against "men's philosophical speculations, deserting the Scripture
in their contemplations of the nature of God, as though they could speak
more worthily of God than he hath done of himself;" for though it
may easily be made appear that never any of the Platonical philosophers
spoke so unworthily of God or vented such gross, carnal conceptions of
him as Mr B. hath done, and. the gentleman of whom he speaks be well
able to judge of what he reads, and to free himself from being entangled
in any of their notions, discrepant from the revelation that God hath made
of himself in his word, yet we, being resolved to try out the whole matter,
and to put all the differences we have with Mr B. to the trial and issue
upon the express testimony of God himself in his word, are not concerned
in this discourse.

Neither have I any necessity to divert to the consideration of his com
plaint concerning the bringing in of new expressions into religion, if he
intends such as whose substance or matter, which they do express, is not
evidently and expressly found in the Scripture. What is the " Babylonish
language," what are " the horrid and intricate expressions," which he
affirms to be " introduced under a colour of detecting and confuting here
sies, but indeed to put a baffle upon the simplicity of the Scripture," he
gives us an account of, p. 19, where we shall consider it and them. In
general, words are but the figures of things. It is not words and terms,
nor expressions, but doctrines and things, we inquire after.1 Mr B., I sup-

Ovx iv #£«, ^ttaXXov \i S/ava/a x.iiriii n ul.rjiia Greg. Naz.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. C7

pose, allows expositions of Scripture, or else I am sure he condemns him
self in what he practises. His book is, in his own thoughts, an exposition
of Scripture. That this cannot be done without varying the words and
literal expressions thereof, I suppose will not be questioned. To express
the same thing that is contained in any place of Scripture with such
other words as may give light unto it in our understandings, is to ex
pound it. This are we called to, and the course of it is to continue whilst
Christ continues a church upon the earth. Paul spake nothing, for the
substance of the things he delivered, but what was written in the prophets ;
that he did not use new expressions, not to be found in any of the pro
phets, will not be proved. But there is a twofold evil in these expressions :
" That they are invented to detect and exclude heresies, as is pretended." If
heretics begin first to wrest Scripture expressions to a sense never received
nor contained in them, it is surely lawful for them who are willing to
" contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" to clear the mind of
God in his word by expressions and terms suitable thereunto ;x neither
have heretics carried on their cause without the invention of new words
and phrases.

If any shall make use of any words, terms, phrases, and expressions, in
and about religious things, requiring the embracing and receiving of those
words, etc., by others, without examining either the truth of what by those
words, phrases, etc., they intend to signify and express, or the propriety
of those expressions themselves, as to their accommodation for the signify
ing of those things, I plead not for them. It is not in the power of man
to make any word or expression, not \r\ruc, found in the Scripture, to
be canonical, and for its own sake to be embraced and received. * But
yet if any word or phrase do expressly signify any doctrine or matter
contained in the Scripture, though the word or phrase itself be not
in so many letters found in the Scripture, that such word or phrase may
Hot be used for the explication of the mind of God I suppose will not
easily be proved. And this we farther grant, that if any one shall scruple
the receiving and owning of such expressions, so as to make them the way
of professing that which is signified by them, and yet do receive the thing
or doctrine which is by them delivered, for my part I shall have no con
test with him. For instance, the word O/AOOIKT/O; was made use of by the first
Nicene council to express the unity of essence and being that is in the
Father and Son, the better to obviate Arius and his followers, with their
q'v orav ovx. qv, and the like forms of speech, nowhere found in Scripture,
and invented on set purpose to destroy the true and eternal deity of the
Son of God. If, now, any man should scruple the receiving of that word,
but withal should profess that he believes Jesus Christ to be God, equal
to the Father, one with him from the beginning, and doth not explain him
self by other terms not found in the Scripture, namely, that he was "made
a God," and is " one with the Father as to will, not essence," and the like,
he is like to undergo neither trouble nor opposition from me. We know
what troubles arose between the eastern and western churches about the

1 THv arav eux, «», oftmoinrias. Homo deificatus, etc., dixit Arius. 1. fiov £<• evx OITUII
<yi-ytv7,<r$ai. 2. ETva/ -rort on oi/x jfv, etc. — Sozorn. Hist. Ecclcs. lib. i. cap. xiv. p. 215 ;
Theod. Hist. lib. i. cap. ii. p. 3 ; Socrat. Scholast. Hist. lib. i. cap. iii. etc. ol» faty. yap
tnutriv TOU Koyiu Tau &i»u fpo; oiv@,a'X'ov, dXXa Sua vfoffToifftii it-tyt, xoii oiaipiffiv. E; Si xeii
a^-u'Tov, xai Ssov a.ir'ixa.Xti rat Xpifrov, aXXa. alx 'in u; rtft-i!;, aXXa tn ff%iffii, xai rn
liK'ua/ru, KO.TO. TO TKUTa u.'/./*r,X<ii; apiffxuv 2;a Tttv vwifio\nv T»j{ fiXicc;. Leont. de Sect. U6

Nestorio.
8 Vide Calv. Instit. lib. i. cap. xiii. ; Alting. Theol. Elenct. loc. de Deo.

63

words "hypostasis" and " persona," until they understood on each side that
by these different words the same thing was intended, and that vxoaraaie
with the Greeks was not the same as " substantia" with the Latins, nor
" persona" with the Latins the same with ffgoffuxov among the Greeks, as to
their application to the thing the one and the other expressed by these
terms. That such "monstrous terms are brought into our religion as neither
they that invented them nor they that use them do understand," Mr B.
may be allowed to aver, from the measure he hath taken of all men's under
standings, weighing them in his own, and saying, " Thus far can they go
and no farther," " This they can understand, that they cannot;" — a preroga
tive, as we shall see in the process of this business, that he will scarcely .
allow to God himself without his taking much pains and labour about it.
I profess, for my part, I have not as yet the least conviction fallen upon
me that Mr B. is furnished with so large an understanding, whatever
he insinuates of his own abilities, as to be allowed a dictator of what any
man can or cannot understand. If his principle, or rather conclusion, upon
which he limits the understandings of men be this, " What I cannot under
stand, that no man else can," he would be desired to consider that he is as
yet but a young man, who hath not had so many advantages and helps
for the improving of his understanding as some others have had ; and, be
sides, that there are some whose eyes are blinded by the god of this
world, that they shall never see or understand the things of God, yea,
and that God himself doth thus oftentimes execute his vengeance on them,
for detaining his truth in unrighteousness.

But yet, upon this acquaintance which he hath with the measure of
all men's understandings, he informs his reader that " the only way to
carry on the reformation of the church, beyond what yet hath been done by
Luther or Calvin, is by cashiering those many intricate terms and devised
forms of speaking," which he hath observed slily to couch false doctrines,
and to obtrude them on us ; and, by the way, that "this carrying on of refor
mation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin was never yet so much as sin
cerely endeavoured." In the former passage, having given out himself aa
a competent judge of the understandings of all men, in this he proceeds to
their hearts. " The reformation of the church," saith he, " was never sin
cerely attempted, beyond the stint of Luther and Calvin." Attempted it
hath been, but he knows all the men and their hearts full well who made
those attempts, and that they never did it sincerely, but with guile and
hypocrisy ! Mr B. knows who those are that say, " With our tongue
will we prevail ; our lips are our own." To know the hearts of men and
their frame towards himself, Mr B. instructs us, in his Catechism, that
God himself is forced to make trial and experiments ; but for his own
part, without any great trouble, he can easily pronounce of their sincerity
or hypocrisy in any undertaking! Low and vile thoughts of God will
quickly usher in light, proud, and foolish thoughts concerning ourselves.
Luther and Calvin were men whom God honoured above many in their
generation; and on that account we dare not but do so also. That all
church reformation is to be measured by their line, — that is, that no
farther discovery of truth, in, or about, or concerning the ways or works
of God, may be made, but what hath been made to them and by them, —
was not, that I know of, ever yet affirmed by any in or of any reformed
church in the world. The truth is, such attempts as this of Mr. B.'s to
overthrow all the foundations of Christian religion, to accommodate the
Gospel to the Alcoran, and subject all divine mysteries to the judgment
of that wisdom which is carnal and sensual, under the fair pretence of car-

. TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 69

rying on the work of reformation and of discovering truth from the Scrip
ture, have perhaps fixed some men to the measure they have received be
yond what Christian ingenuity and the love of the truth requireth of them.
A noble and free inquiry into the word of God, with attendance to all
ways by him appointed or allowed for the revelation of his mind, with
reliance on his gracious promise of " leading us into all truth" by his holy
and blessed Spirit, without whose aid, guidance, direction, light, and assist
ance, we can neither know, understand, nor receive the things that are of
God ; neither captivated to the traditions of our fathers, for whose labour
and pains in the work of the gospel, and for his presence with them, we
daily bless the name of our God; neither yet "carried about with every
wind of doctrine," breathed or insinuated by the " cunning sleight of men
who lie in wait to deceive," — is that which we profess. What the Lord
will be pleased to do with us by or in this frame, upon these principles ;
how, wherein, we shall serve our generation, in the revelation of his mind
and will, — is in his hand and disposal. About using or casting off words
and phrases, formerly used to express any truth or doctrine of the Scrip
ture, we will not contend with any, provided the»things themselves signi
fied by them be retained. This alone makes me indeed put any value on
any word or expression not gjjrwg found in the Scripture, namely, my
observation that they are questioned and rejected by none but such as, by
their rejection, intend and aim at the removal of the truth itself which by
them is expressed, and plentifully revealed in the word. The same care
also Avas among them of old, having the same occasion administered. Hence
when Valens,1 the Arian emperor, sent Modestus, his prsetorian prsefect,
to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the man entreated him not to be so rigid
as to displease the emperor and trouble the church, di o\iyrjv doypdruv
dxglZtiav, for an over-strict observance of opinions, it being but one word,
indeed one syllable, that made the difference, and he thought it not pru
dent to stand so much upon so small a business. The holy man replied,
Tot's Pilots Xoyoig svrfdpafAfAsvot irgossdai /&sv ruv §s/ojv doyftdruv olds fj.ia.v ave-
Xovrai ffuAXaCjjv — "However children might be so dealt withal, those who
are bred up in the Scriptures or nourished with the word will not suffer
one syllable of divine truth to be betrayed." The like attempt to this of
Valens and Modestus upon Basil was made by the Arian bishops at the
council of Ariminum,2 who pleaded earnestly for the rejection of one or
two words uot found in the Scripture, laying on that plea much weight,
when it was the eversion of the deity of Christ which they intended and
attempted. And by none is there more strength and evidence given to
this observation than by him with whom I have now to do, who, exclaim
ing against words and expressions, intends really the subversion of all the
most fundamental and substantial truths of the gospel; and therefore, hav
ing, pp. 19-21, reckoned up many expressions which he dislikes, con
demns, and would have rejected, most of them relating to the chiefest
heads of our religion (though, to his advantage, he cast in by the way two
or three gross figments), he concludes " that as the forms of speech by him
recounted are not used in the Scripture, no more are the things signified
by them contained therein." In the issue, then, all the quarrel is fixed
upon the things themselves, which, if they were found in Scripture, the
expressions insisted on might be granted to suit them well enough. What
need, then, all this long discourse about words and expressions, when it is

1 Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xvii. p. 126; Socrat. lib. iv. cap. xxi. xxii. ; Sozom.
lib. vi. cap. xv.-xvii.
8 Theod. Hist. lib. ii. cap. xviii. ; Sozom. lib. iv. cap. xiii. ; Niceph. lib. ix. cap. xxxix.

70 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

the things themselves signified by them that are the abominations decried?
Now, though most of the things here pointed unto will fall under our en
suing considerations, yet because Mr B. hath here cast into one heap many
of the doctrines which in the Christian religion he opposeth and would
have renounced, it may not be amiss to take a short view of the most con
siderable instances in our passage.

His first is of God's being infinite and incomprehensible. This he con
demns, name and thing, — that is, he says " he is finite, limited, of us to
be comprehended; " for those who say he is infinite and incomprehensible
do say only that he is not finite nor of us to be comprehended. What
advance is made towards the farther reformation of the church1 by this new
notion of Mr B.'s is fully discovered in the consideration of the second
chapter of his Catechism; and in this, as in sundry other things, Mr B.
excels his masters.2 The Scripture tells us expressly that "he filleth heaven
and earth;" that the "heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain
him;" that his presence is in heaven and hell, and that " his understanding
is infinite" (which IIOAV the understanding of one that is finite may be, an
infinite understanding cannot comprehend); that he "dwelleth in that light
which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see"
(which to us is the description of one incomprehensible); that he is " eter
nal," which we cannot comprehend. The like expressions are used of him in
great abundance. Besides, if God be not incomprehensible, we may search
out his power, wisdom, and understanding to the utmost ; for if we cannot,
if it be not possible so to do, he is incomprehensible. But " canst thou
by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty to perfec
tion?" " There is no searching of his understanding." If by our lines we
suppose we can fathom the depth of the essence, omnipotency, wisdom,
and understanding of God, I doubt not but we shall find ourselves mis
taken. Were ever any, since the world began, before quarrelled withal
for asserting the essence and being of God to be incomprehensible? The
heathen who affirmed that the more he inquired, the more he admired
and the less he understood,8 had a more noble reverence of the eternal
Being* which in his mind he conceived, than Mr B. will allow us to enter
tain of God. Farther; if God be not infinite, he is circumscribed in some
certain place; if he be, is he there fixed to that place, or doth he move
from it? If he be fixed there, how can he work at a distance, especially
such things as necessarily require divine power to their production ? If
he move up and down, and journey as his occasions require, what a blessed
enjoyment of himself in his own glory hath he! But that this blasphe
mous figment of God's being limited and confined to a certain place is
really destructive to all the divine perfections of the nature and being
of God is afterward demonstrated. And this is the first instance given
by Mr B. of the corruption of our doctrine, which he rejects name
and thing, namely, " that God is infinite and incomprehensible." And
now, whether this man be a " mere Christian" or a mere Lucian, let the
reader judge.

That God is a simple act is the next thing excepted against and de-

1 " Solent quidam miriones aedificari in ruinam."— Tertul. de Prsesc. ad Haeres.
*"Est autem haec magnitude (ut ex iis intelligi potcst, quaade potentia et potestate.
Dei, itemque de sapientia ejus dicta sunt), infinita et incomprehensibilis." — Crell. de Deo,
seu de Vera Rel. praefix. op. Volkel. lib. i. cap xxxvii. p. 273.

• Simonides apud Ciceronem, lib i. de Nat. Deorum, lib. i. 22.

« Vide pnssim quae de Deo dicuntur, apud Araturn, Orpheum, Homerum, Asclepium,
Platonem, Plotinum, Proclum, Psellum, Porphyrium, Jamblichum, Plinium, Tullium,
Senecam, Plutarclium, et quae ex iis omnibus excerpsit. Eugub. de Prim. Philos.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 71

cried, name and thing ; in the room whereof, that he is compounded of
matter 'and form," or the like, must be asserted. Those who affirm God
to be a simple act do only deny him to be compounded of divers prin
ciples, and assert him to be always actually in being, existence, and intent
operation.1 God says of himself that his name isEhejeh, and he is I AM, —
that is, a simple being, existing in and of itself; and this is that which is
intended by the simplicity of the nature of God, and his being a simple
act. The Scripture tells us he is eternal, I AM, always the same, and so
never what he was not ever. This is decried, and in opposition to it
his being compounded, and so obnoxious to dissolution, and his being
in potentia, in a disposition and passive capacity to be what he is not, is
asserted ; for it is only to deny these things that the term " simple" is
used, which he condemns and rejects. And this is the second instance
that Mr B. gives in the description of his God, by his rejecting the re
ceived expressions concerning him who is so : " He is limited, and of us to
be comprehended; his essence and being consisting of several principles,
whereby he is in a capacity of being what he is not." Mr B., solus habeto;
I will not be your rival in the favour of this God.

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

As was, then, intimated before, though simplicity seems to be a positive
term, or to denote something positively, yet indeed it is a pure negation,9
and formally, immediately, and properly, denies multiplication, composi
tion, and the like. And though this only it immediately denotes, yet there
is a most eminent perfection of the nature of God thereby signified to us ;
which is negatively proposed, because it is in the use of things that are
proper to us, in which case we can only conceive what is not to be ascribed
to God. Now, not to insist on the metaphysical notions and distinctions
of simplicity, by the ascribing of it to God we do not only deny that he
is compounded of divers principles really distinct, but also of such as are
improper, and not of such a real distance, or that he is compounded of
any thing, or can be compounded with any thing whatever.

First, then, that this is a property of God's essence or being is manifest
from his absolute independence and fastness in being and operation, which
God often insists upon in the revelation of himself: Isa. xliv. 6, " I am
the first, and I am the last ; and beside me there is no God." Eev. i. 8,
" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
•which is," etc.: so chap. xxi. 6, xxii.13. Which also is fully asserted, Eom.
xi. 35, 36, "Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto
him again? for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things : to whom

1 " Via rcmotionis utendum est, in Dei cpnsideratione : nam divina substantia sua im-
mensitate cxcedit cmnem forniam, quam intellectus roster intelligit, unde ipsum non
possumus exacte cognoscere quid sit, sed quid non sit." — Thorn. Con. Gentes, lib. i. cap.
xiv. " Meiito dictum est a veteribus, potius in hac vita de Deo a nobis cognosci quid
non sit, quam quid sit ; ut enim cognoscamus quid Deus non sit, negatione nimirum
aliqua, quae prppria sit divinse essentiae, satis est unica negatio dependentiaB," etc. —
Socin. ad lib. ii. cap i. ; Metaph. Arist. q. 2, sect. 4.

* Suarez. Metaph. torn. ii. disput. 30, sect. 3; Cajetan. de Ente et Essen, cap. ii.

72 THE PREFACE OF MR EIDDLE

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

Secondly, God is absolutely and perfectly one and the same, and nothing
differs from his essence in it : " The LORD our God is one LORD," Deut. vi. 4 ;
" Thou art the same," Ps. cii. 27. And where there is an absolute oneness
and sameness in the whole, there is no composition by an union of extremes.
Thus is it with God : his name is, " I AM ; I AM THAT I AM," Exod. iii.
14, 15 ; " Which is," Rev. i. 8. He, then, who is what he is, and whose all
that is in him is, himself, hath neither parts, accidents, principles, nor any
thing else, whereof his essence should be compounded.

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

Fourthly, Yea, that God is, and must needs be, a simple act (which ex
pression Mr B. fixes on for the rejection of it) is evident from this one con
sideration, which was mentioned before : If he be not so, there must be some
potentiality in God. Whatever is, and is not a simple act, hath a possibility
to be perfected by act; if this be in God, he is not perfect, nor all-sufficient.
Every composition whatever is of power and act ; which if it be, or might
have been in God, he could not be said to be immutable, which the Scrip
ture plentifully witnesseth that he is.

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

From his being he proceeds to his subsistence, and expressly rejects his
subsisting in three persons, name and thing. That this is no new attempt,
no undertaking whose glory Mr B. may arrogate to himself, is known.
Hitherto God hath taken thought for his own glory, and eminently con
founded the opposers of the subsistence of his essence in three distinct
persons. Inquire of them that went before, and of the dealings of God
with them of old. What is become of Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus,
Theodotus Byzantimis, Photinus, Arius, Macedonius, etc.? Hath not God
made their memory to rot, and their names to be an abomination to all
generations ? How they once attempted to have taken possession of the
churches of God, making slaughter and havoc of all that opposed them,
hath been declared; but their place long since knows them no more. By
the subsisting of God in any person, no more is intended than that person's
being God. If that person be God, God subsists in that person. If you
grant the Father to be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms liim

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 73

to be, Heb. i. 3) and to be God, you grant God to subsist in that person :
that is all which by that expression is intended. The Son is God, or is
not. To say he is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he
be God, he is the Father, or he is another person. If he be the Father,
he is not the Son. That he is the Son and not the Son is sufficiently
contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he
may have the same nature and substance with the Father (for of our God
there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet be distinct from him.
That distinction from him is his personality, — that property whereby and
from whence he is the Son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost.
The thing, then, here denied is, that the Son is God, or that the Holy Ghost
is God : for if they are so, God must subsist in three persons ; of which
more afterward. Now, is this not to be found in the Scriptures ? Is there
no text affirming Christ to be God, to be one with the Father, or that the
Holy Ghost is so ? no text saying, " There are three that bear record in
heaven ; and these three are one?" none ascribing divine perfections, divine
worship distinctly to either Son or Spirit, and yet jointly to one God ?
Are none of these things found in the Scripture, that Mr B. thinks with one
bhist to demolish all these ancient foundations, and by his bare authority
to deny the common faith of the present saints, and that wherein their pre
decessors in the worship of God are fallen asleep in peace? The proper
place for the consideration of these things will farther manifest the abomi
nation of this bold attempt against the Son of God and the Eternal Spirit.

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

Briefly ; by the barbarous term of " mutual circumincession," the school
men understand that which the Greek fathers called I^Tsg/^woTjovg, whereby
they expressed that mystery, which Christ himself teaches us, of " his
being in the Father, and the Father in him," John x. 38, and of the
Father's dwelling in him, and doing the works he did, chap. xiv. 10, —
the distinction of these persons being not hereby taken away, but the dis
junction of them as to their nature and being.

The eternal generation of the Son is in the next place rejected, that he
may be sure to cast down every thing that looks towards the assertion of
his deity, whom yet the apostle affirms to be " God blessed for ever," Rom.
ix. 5. That the Word, which " in the beginning was" (and therefore is)
*.' God," is " the only begotten of the Father," the apostle affirms, John i.
14. That he is also " the only begotten Son of God" we have other plenti
ful testimonies, Ps. ii. 7 ; John iii. 16 ; Acts xiii. 33 ; Heb. i. 4-6 ; — a Son
so as, in comparison of his sonship, the best of sons by adoption are ser
vants, Heb. iii. 5, 6 ; and so begotten as to be an only Son, John i. 14 ;
though, begotten by grace, God hath many sons, James i. 18. Christ, then,
being begotten of the Father, hath his generation of the Father ; for these
are the very same things in words of a diverse sound. The only question
here is, whether the Son have the generation so often spoken of from
eternity or in time, — whether it be an eternal or a temporal generation
from whence he is so said to be " begotten." As Christ is a Son, so by hinx

74 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

the " worlds were made," Heb. i. 2, so that surely he had his sonship be
fore he took flesh in the fulness of time; and when he had his sonship he
had his generation. He is such a Son as, by being partaker of that name,
he is exalted above angels, Heb. i. 5 ; and he is the " first begotten "
before he is brought into the world, verse 6 : and therefore his " goings
forth " are said to be " from the days of eternity," Micah v. 2 ; and he had
" glory with the Father" (as the Son) " before the world was," John xvii. 5.
Neither is he said to be " begotten of the Father" in respect of his incarna
tion, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of
the substance of his mother ; nor is he thence called the " Son of God."
In brief, if Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr B. will not deny him
to have had an eternal generation : if he be not, a generation must be
found out for him suitable to the sonship which he hath ; of which abo
mination in its proper place.

This progress have we made in Mr. B.'s creed: He believes God to be
finite, to be by us comprehended, compounded; he believes there is no
trinity of persons in the Godhead, — that Christ is not the eternal Son of
God. The following parts of it are of the same kind : —

The eternal procession of the Holy Ghost is nextly rejected. The Holy Ghost
being constantly termed the " Spirit of God," the " Spirit of the Father,"
and the " Spirit of the Son" (being also " God," as shall afterward be evinc
ed), and so partaking of the same nature with Father and Son (the apostle
granting that God hath a nature, in his rejecting of them who " by nature
are no gods "), is yet distinguished from them, and that eternally (as no
thing is in the Deity that is not eternal), and being, moreover, said JJCTO-
gi-jzffQa.1, or to " proceed" and " go forth " from the Father and Son, this
expression of his " eternal procession " hath been fixed on, manifesting the
property whereby he is distinguished from Father and Son. The thing in
tended hereby is, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, and is said to be of the
Father and the Son, is by that name, of his being of them, distinguished
from them ; and the denial hereof gives you one article more of Mr B.'s
creed, namely, that the Holy Ghost is not God. To what that expression
of " proceeding " is to be accommodated will afterward be considered.

The incarnation of Christ (the Deity and Trinity being despatched) is
called into question, and rejected. By " incarnation" is meant, as the word
imports, a taking of flesh (this is variously by the ancients expressed, but
the same thing still intended1), or being made so. The Scripture affirming
that " the Word was made flesh," John i. 14 ; that " God was manifest in
the flesh," 1 Tim. iii. 16; that " Christ took part of flesh and blood," Heb.
ii. 14 ; that " he took on him the seed of Abraham," chap. ii. 16 ; that he
was " made of a woman," Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; sent forth " in the likeness of sin
ful flesh," Rom. viii. 3 ; "in all things made like unto his brethren," Heb.
ii. 17, — we thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and that this
expression might have escaped with a less censure than an utter rejection
out of Christian religion. The Son of God taking flesh, and so being
made like to us, that he might be the " captain of our salvation," is that
which by this word (and that according to the Scripture) is affirmed, and
which, to increase the heap of former abominations (or to " carry on the
work of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin"), is here by Mr
B. decried.

Of the hypostatical union there is the same reason. Christ, who as

Ettracpxaffif VifttftJarttflf Itavfyuvrviri;- ft ^nrfenxti IftStifiia- fi •JTafovff'ia,' J) oixovo/uiz"
ft dine ffttfx.es oft.it.ia- « S/ uy^pafirnns <pa,»ipu<rif (i 'i/.ivsi;- f> xivuffif r\ rev Xpifrou ««-

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 75

** concerning the flesh" was of the Jews, and is God to be blessed for
ever, over all, Rom. ix. 5, is one person. Being God to be blessed over all,
that is, God by nature (for such as are not so, and yet take upon them to
be gods, God will destroy), and having " flesh and blood as the children "
have, Heb. ii. 14, that is, the same nature of man with believers, yet
being but one person, one mediator, one Christ, the Son of God, we say
both these natures of God and man are united in that one person, namely,
the person of the Son of God. This is that which Mr B. rejects (now his
hand is in), both name and thing. The truth is, all these things are but
colourable advantages wherewith he laboureth to amuse poor souls. Grant
the deity of Christ, and he knows all these particulars will necessarily
ensue ; and whilst he denies the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend
about any consequences or inferences whatever. And whether we have
ground for the expression under present consideration, John i. 14, 18, xx.
28 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Rom. i. 3, 4, ix. 5 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Phil. ii. 5-8 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 16 ; 1 John i. 1, 2 ; Rev. v. 12-14, with innumerable other testimonies
of Scripture, may be considered. If " the Word, the Son of God, was
made flesh, made of a woman, took our nature," wherein he was pierced
and wounded, and shed his blood, and yet continues " our Lord and our
God, God blessed for ever," esteeming it " no robbery to be equal with
his Father," yet being a person distinct from him, being the " brightness
of his person," we fear not to say that the two natures of God and man
are united in one person ; which is the hypostatical union here rejected.

The communication of properties, on which depend two or three of the
following instances mentioned by Mr B., is a necessary consequent of the
union before asserted ; and the thing intended by it is no less clearly de
livered in Scripture than the truths before mentioned.1 It is affirmed of
" the man Christ Jesus" that he " knew what was in the heart of man," that
he " would be with his unto the end of the world," and Thomas, putting
his hand into his side, cried out to him, " My Lord and my God," etc.,
when Christ neither did nor was so, as he was man.2 Again, it is said
that " God redeemed his church with his own blood," that the " Son of God
was made of a woman," that " the Word was made flesh," none of which
can properly be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word,8 in respect of
that nature whereby he is so ; and therefore we say, that look what pro
perties are peculiar to either of his natures (as, to be omniscient, omnipo
tent, to be the object of divine worship, to the Deity ;* to be born, to bleed,
and die, to the humanity), are spoken of in reference to his person, wherein
both those natures are united. So that whereas the Scriptures say that
" God redeemed his church with his own blood," or that he was " made
flesh ;" or whereas, in a consonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of
Nestorius, who made two persons of Christ, the ancients called the blessed
Virgin the Mother of God, — the intendment of the one and other is no
more but that he was truly God, who in his manhood was a son, had a
mother, did bleed and die. And such Scripture expressions we affirm to
be founded in this " communication of properties," or the assignment of

i " Non ut Deus esset habitator, natura humana esset habitaculum : sed ut naturae
alter! sic misceretur altera, ut quamvis alia sit quae suscipitur, alia vero quse suscipit,
in tantam tamen unitatem conveniret utriusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit Filius,
qui se, et secundum quod unus homo est, Patre dicit minorem, et secundum quod unus
I)eus est, Patri se profitetur aequalem." — Leo Serm. iii. de Nat.

8 Ttli; /j.\v TUfiivovs Xoyoi/s ru IK Manias avfy&wy, THUS ol awy/Ati/ov;, xai Qieffivtii TM

i» ipxy '**' **'<>yy- — Thcod. Dial. 'A<rvy%.

* taJuTo, -jeavra, trvftSo^a rapxos rns «"•« yws tlz.H/tft'ivv;- — Iren. lib. iii. ad. Hseres.

* " Salva proprietate utriusque naturae, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a Yirtute
infirmitas, ab aeternitate modalitas." — Leo. Ep. ad Flavi.

76 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

that unto the person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or
man, which is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one
or other, God on this account being said to do what is proper to man,
and man what is proper alone to God, because he who is both God and
man doth both the one and the other.1 By what expressions and with
what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Christ's personal union
against both Nestorius and Eutyches,2 the one of them dividing his per
son into two, the other confounding his natures by an absurd confusion
and mixture of their respective essential properties (Mr B. not giving
occasion), I shall not farther mention.

And this is all Mr B. instances in of what he rejects as to our doctrine
about the nature of God, the Trinity, person of Christ, and the Holy
Ghost ; of all which he hath left us no more than what the Turks and other
Mohammedans will freely acknowledge.3 And whether this be to be a
" mere Christian," or none at all, the pious reader will judge.

Having dealt thus with the person of Christ, he adds the names of two
abominable figments, to give countenance to his undertaking, wherein he
knows those with whom he hath to do have no communion, casting the deity
of Christ and the Holy Ghost into the same bundle with transubstantiation
and consubstantiation ; to which he adds the ubiquity of the body of Christ,
after mentioned, — self-contradicting fictions. With what sincerity, can
dour, and Christian ingenuity, Mr B. hath proceeded, in rolling up to
gether such abominations as these with the most weighty and glorious
truths of the gospel, that together he might trample them under his feet in
the mire, God will certainly in due time reveal to himself and all the world.

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

Of Christ's taking our nature upon him, which is again mentioned, we
have spoken before. If he was "made flesh, made of a woman, made under
the law ; if he partook of flesh and blood because the children partake of
the same ; if he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like to
us in all things, sin only excepted; if, being in the form of God and equal
to him, he took on him the form of a servant, and became like to us," — he
took our nature on him;5 for these, and these only, are the things which
by that expression are intended.

Owros iffrlv o rpivcs aiii^ufftus, \xa.rifa.; Qvffitts a.vri%ibovffrit rti IxaTifa TO. fJ/a, $/*
«r»» T»; vrnarairttai TavrertiTtf, xeci <riit tig aXXflXa aurut •rifi^uftiffii. — Damas. de Orthod.
Fide, lib. iii. cap. iv.

'AXntHHi, -riXiwj, aSiKifirus, eifvy^uras. — Vide Evagrium, lib. i. cap. ii. iii. ; Socrat.
Hist. lib. vii. cap. xxix. xxxii. xxxiii. ; Niceph. lib. xiv. cap. xlvii. s Vid. lob..

Hen. Hotting. Hist. Oriental., lib. i. cap. iii. ex Alko, sura. 30. * Rom. v. 12, 15, 16,
19 ; Eph. ii. 1-3 ; Ps. Ii 5 ; John i. 5 ; Eph. iv. 18 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; John iii. 5, « ; Eph,
ii. 12; CoL i. 21 ; Rom. viii. 6-& « Jolin L 14; Gal. iv. 4, 5; Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17; PiiiL

-

ii. 6-8.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 77

The most of what follows is about the grace of Christ, which, having
destroyed what in him lies his person, he doth also openly reject ; and
in the first place begins with the foundation, his making satisfaction to
God for our sins, all our sins, past, present, and to come, which also, under
sundry other expressions, he doth afterward condemn. God is a God
of " purer eyes than to behold evil," and it is " his judgment that they
which commit sin are worthy of death ; " yea, " it is a righteous thing with
him to render tribulation" to offenders;1 and seeing we have "all sinned and
come short of the glory of God," doubtless it will be a righteous thing with
him to leave them to answer for their own sins who so proudly and con
temptuously reject the satisfaction which he himself hath appointed and the
ransom he hath found out.2 But Mr B. is not the first who hath " erred,
not knowing the Scriptures " nor the justice of God. The Holy Ghost
acquainting us that " the LORD made to meet upon him the iniquity of
us all ; that he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniqui
ties, and that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his
stripes we are healed ; that he gave his life a ransom for us, and was made
sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him ; that
he was for us made under the law and underwent the curse of it; that
he bare our sins in his body on the tree ; and that by his blood we are
redeemed, washed, and saved,"3 — we doubt not to speak as we believe,
namely, that Christ underwent the punishment due to our sins, and made
satisfaction to the justice of God for them ; and Mr B., who it seems is
otherwise persuaded, we leave to stand or fall to his own account.

Most of the following instances of the doctrines he rejects belong to
and may be reduced to the head last mentioned, and therefore I shall but
touch upon them. Seeing that "he that will enter into life must keep
the commandments, and this of ourselves we cannot do, for in many
things we offend all, and he that breaks one commandment is guilty
of the breach of the whole law,* God having sent forth his Son, made of
a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of children ; and that which was
impossible to us by the law, through the weakness of the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
us; and so we are saved by his life, being justified by his blood, he being
made unto us of God righteousness, and we are by faith found in him, hav-
'ing on not our own righteousness, which is by the law, but that which
is by Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God by faith;"5 — we do affirm
that Christ fulfilled the law for us, not only undergoing the penalty of
it, but for us submitting to the obedience of it, and performing all that
righteousness which of us it requires, that we might have a complete
righteousness wherewith to appear before God. And this is that which
is intended by the active and passive righteousness of Christ, after men
tioned ; all which is rejected, name and thing.

Of Christ's being punished by God, which he rejects in the next place,
and, to multiply his instances of our false doctrines, insists on it again un
der the terms of Christ's enduring the wrath of God and the pains of a
damned man, the same account is to be given as before of his satisfac
tion. That God "bruised him, put him to grief, laid the chastisement of

1 Hab. i. 13 ; Rom. i. 32 ; 2 Thess. i. 6. « Job xxxiii. 24. « Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10, 11 ;
IPet. ii. 24; Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 18, ii. 24;
Eph. i. 7 ; Rev. i. 5, 6, etc. 4 Matt xix. 17; 1 John i. 8; James ii. 10. « Gal. iv.

4, 5 ; Horn. viii. 3, 4, T. 9, x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; Phil. iii. 8-10.

78 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

our peace on him;1 that for us he underwent death, the curse of the law,
which inwrapped the whole punishment due to sin, and that by the will
of God, who so made him to be sin who knew no sin, and in the under
going whereof he prayed and cried, and sweat blood, and was full of heavi
ness and perplexity,"2 — the Scripture is abundantly evident; and what
we assert amounts not one tittle beyond what is by and in it affirmed.

The false doctrine of the merit of Christ, and his purchasing for us the
kingdom of heaven, is the next stone which this master-builder disallows
and rejects. That " Christ hath bought us with a price; that he hath re
deemed us from our sins, the world, and curse, to be a peculiar people,
zealous of good works, so making us kings and priests to God for ever;
that he hath obtained for us eternal redemption, procuring the Spirit for
us, to make us meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, God bless
ing us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in him, upon the
account of his making his soul an offering for sin," performing that obedi
ence to the law which of us is required,8 — is that which by this expression
of the "merit of Christ" we intend, the fruit of it being all the accom
plishment of the promise made to him by the Father, upon his undertaking
the great work of saving his people from their sins. In the bundle of doc
trines by Mr B. at once condemned, this also hath its place.

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

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

His next attempt is upon the way whereby the Scripture affirms that
we come to be made partakers of the good things which Christ hath done
and wrought for us ; and in the first place he falls foul upon that of ap
prehending and applying Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith, that so
there may no weighty point of the doctrine of the cross remain not con
demned (by this wise man) of folly. This, then, goes also, name and thing :
Christ is "of God made unto us righteousness" (that is, "to them that
believe on him," or " receive" or " apprehend" him, John i. 12), God " hav
ing set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare
his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins," and declaring that every one
who " believeth in him is justified from all things from which he could not
be justified by the law," God imputing righteousness to them that so be
lieve ; those who are so justified by faith having peace with God. It being
the great thing we have to aim at, namely, that " we may know Jesus
Christ, and the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power of his resurrection,
and be found in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the

1 Isa. liii. 5, 6, etc. » Heb. ii. 9, 14, x. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21; Luke xxii. 41-44.

» 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Pet. i. 18; Gal. i..4, iii. 13; Titus ii. 14; Eph. v. 26,27; Rev. i. 5, 6;
Heb. it 12-14; Eph. i. 3; Phil. i. 29.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 79

law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, Christ being the
end of the law to every one that believeth,"1 — we say it is the duty of
every one who is called, to apprehend Christ by faith, and apply his righte
ousness to him; that is, to believe on him as " made the righteousness of
God to him," unto justification and peace. And if Mr B. reject this doc
trine, name and thing, I pray God give him repentance before it be too
late, to the acknowledgment of the truth.

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

Our justification by Christ being cashiered, he falls upon our sanctijica-
tion in the next place, that he may leave us as little of Christians as he
hath done our Saviour of the true Messiah. Infused grace is first assault
ed. The various acceptations of the word " grace" in the Scripture this
is no place to insist upon. By " grace infused" we mean grace really be
stowed upon us, and abiding in us, from the Spirit of God. That a new
spiritual life or principle, enabling men to live to God, — that new, gracious,
heavenly qualities and endowments, as light, love, joy, faith, etc., bestowed
on men, — are called " grace" and " graces of the Spirit,"2 1 suppose will not
be denied. These we call " infused grace" and " graces;" that is, we say
God works these things in us by his Spirit, giving us a " new heart and
a new spirit, putting his law into our hearts, quickening us who were dead
in trespasses and sins, making us light who were darkness, filling us with
the fruits of the Spirit in joy, meekness, faith, which are not of ourselves
but the gifts of God." s Mr B. having before disclaimed all original sin,
or the depravation of our nature by sin, in deadness, darkness, obstinacy,
etc., thought it also incumbent on him to disown and disallow all repara
tion of it by grace; and all this under the name of a " mere Christian,"
not knowing that he discovereth a frame of spirit utterly unacquainted
with the main things of Christianity.

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

1 Rom. iii, 25 ; Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; Rom. iv. 5, 8, v. 1 ; Phil. iii. 9, 10 ; Rom. x. 3, 4.
1 Eph. ii. 1, 2 ; Gal. v. 23-25. 3 Phil. i. 6, ii. 13 ; Jer. xxxi. 33, xxxii. 39; Ezek.

xi. 19. xxxvi. 26, 27 ; Heb. viii. 10. * Eph. i. 4 ; John iii. 16 ; 1 John iv. 8, 10 ; Rom.
T. 8 ; Eph. ii. 8 ; Tit. iii. 3-7; James i. 18 ; Rom. ix. 18 ; Heb. viii. 10-12.

80 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

fable? But this was, and ever will be, the condemnation of some, that "light
is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light."

About the next expression, of the world of the elect, I shall not con
tend. That by the name of " the world" (which term is used in the Scrip
tures in great variety of significations), the elect, as being in and of this
visible world, and by nature no better than the rest of the inhabitants
thereof, are sometimes peculiarly intended, is proved elsewhere,1 beyond
whatever Mr B. is able to oppose thereunto.

Of the irresistible working of the Spirit, in bringing men to believe, the
condition is otherwise. About the term "irresistible" I know none that
care much to strive. That " faith is the gift of God, not of ourselves,
that it is wrought in us by the exceeding greatness of the power of God;
that in bestowing it upon us by his Spirit (that is, in our conversion), God
effectually creates a new heart in us, makes us new creatures, quickens us,
raises us from the dead, working in us to will and to do of his own good
pleasure; as he commanded light to shine out of darkness, so shining
into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of his glory;2 begetting us anew
of his own will," so irresistibly causing us to believe, because he effec
tually works faith in us, — is the sum of what Mr B. here rejecteth, that he
might be sure, as before, to leave nothing of weight in Christian religion
uncondemned. But these trifles and falsities being renounced, he com
plains of the abuse of his darling, that it is called carnal reason; which
being the only interpreter of Scripture which he allows of, he cannot but
take it amiss that it should be so grossly slandered as to be called "carnal."
The Scripture, indeed, tells us of a " natural man, that cannot discern
the things which are of God, and that they are foolishness to him ; of a
carnal mind, that is enmity to God, and not like to have any reasons or
reasonings but what are carnal ; of a wisdom that is carnal, sensual, and
devilish ;s of a wisdom that God will destroy and confound;" and that such
is the best of the wisdom and reason of all unregenerate persons ; — but
why the reason of a man in such a state, with such a mind about the
things of God, should be called " carnal," Mr B. can see no reason ; and
some men, perhaps, will be apt to think that it is because all his reason is
still carnal. When a man is " renewed after the image of him that created
him" he is made "spiritual, light in the Lord," every thought and imagina
tion that sets up itself in his heart in opposition to God being led captive
to the obedience of the gospel. We acknowledge a sanctified reason in
such an one of that use in the dijudication of the things of God as shall
afterward be declared.

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

TO HIS CATECHISH EXAMINED. 81

Of spiritual incomes there is the same reason. It is not the phrase of
speech, but the thing itself, we contend about. That God who is the
Father of mercy and God of all consolation gives mercy, grace, joy, peace,
consolation, as to whom, so in what manner or in what degree he pleaseth.
The receiving of these from God is by some (and that, perhaps, not in
aptly) termed "spiritual incomes," with regard to God's gracious distribu
tions of his kindness, love, good-will, and the receiving of them. So that
it be acknowledged that we do receive grace, mercy, joy, consolation, and
peace from God, variously as he pleaseth, we shall not much labour about
the significancy of that or any other expression of the like kind. The
Scriptures mentioning the "goings forth of God," Micah v. 2, leave no just
cause to Mr B. of condemning them who sometimes call any of his works
or dispensations his outgoings.

His rehearsal of all these particular instances, in doctrines that are found
neither name nor thing in Scripture, Mr B. closeth with an " etc.;" which
might be interpreted to oomprise as many more, but that there remain not
as many more important heads in Christian religion. The nature of God
being abased, the deity and grace of Christ denied, the sin of our natures
and their renovation by grace in Christ rejected, Mr B.'s remaining re
ligion will be found scarce worth the inquiry after by those whom he
undertakes to instruct, there being scarcely any thing left by him from
whence we are peculiarly denominated Christians, nor any thing that
should support the weight of a sinful soul which approacheth to God for
life and salvation.

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

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

VOL. XII. 6

&2 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

doubt not but it will appear to every person whatsoever, in the process of
this business, who hath his senses any thing exercised in the word to dis
cern between good and evil, and whose eyes the god of this world hath
not blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel of God should not shine
into their hearts, that Mr B., as wise as he deems and reports himself
to be, is indeed, like the foolish woman that pulls down her house with
both her hands, labouring to destroy the house of God with all his
strength, pretending that this and that part of it did not originally be
long thereto (or like Ajax, in his madness, who killed sheep, and supposed
they had been his enemies1), upon the account of that enmity which he
finds in his own mind unto them.

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

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

What errors he hath detected (though but pretended such, which honour
in the next place he assumes to himself) I know not. The error of the
deity of Christ was detected in the apostles' days by Ebion, Cerinthus, and
others,8 — not long after by Paulus Samosatenus, by Photinus, by Arius,
and others;8 the error of the purity, simplicity, and spirituality of the
essence of God, by Audseus and the Anthropomorphites ; the error of the
deity of the Holy Ghost was long since detected by Macedonius and his
companions; the error of original sin, or the corruption of our nature, by
Pelagius; the error of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, by Abelarclus;
all of them, by Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, etc. What new discoveries
Mr B. hath made I know not, nor is there any thing that he presents us
with, in his whole body of religion, as stated in his questions, but what he
Jiath found prepared, digested, and modelled to his hand by his masters,
the Socinians, unless it be some few gross notions about the Deity ; nor is
so much as the language which here he useth of himself and his discoveries
his own, but borrowed of Socinus, Ep. ad Squarcialupum.

We have not, then, the least reason in the world to suppose that Mr B. was
led into these glorious discoveries by reading of the Scriptures, much less
by "impartial reading of them; " but that they are all the fruits of a deluded

1 Sophoc. in Ajace, /uu-nyt^, 1. 25, 43, etc.

3 Euseb. Hist. lib. iii. cap. xxi. ; Iran, ad Haer. lib. i. cap. xxvi. : Epiphan. User. L
torn. ii. lib. i. ; Ruf. cap. xxvii.

» Euseb. lib. vii. cap. xxii.-xxiv.; August. Hser. xliv. ; Epiphan. Haer. i. lib. ii. ;
Socrat. Hist. lib. 11. cap. xxiv., etc.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 83

heart, given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect of his
word and contempt of reliance upon his Spirit and grace for a right un
derstanding thereof, by the cunning sleights of the forementioned persons,
in some of whose writings Satan lies in wait to deceive. And for the
" body of religion" which he hath collected, which lies not in the answers,
which are set down in the words of the Scripture, but in the interpreta
tions and conclusions couched in his questions, I may safely say it is one
of the most corrupt and abominable that ever issued from the endeavours
of one who called himself a Christian ; for a proof of which assertion I
refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of it. So that whatever pro
mises of success Mr B. is pleased to make unto him who shall ruminate
and digest in his mind this body of his composure (it being, indeed, stark
poison, that will never be digested, but will fill and swell the heart with
pride and venom until it utterly destroy the whole person), it may justly be
feared that he hath given too great an advantage to a sort of men in the
world, not behind Mr B. for abilities and reason (the only guide allowed
by him in affairs of this nature), to decry the use and reading of the Scrip
ture, which they see unstable and unlearned men fearfully to wrest to their
own destruction. But let God be true, and all men liars. Let the gospel
run and prosper ; and if it be hid to any, it is to them whom the god of
this world hath blinded, that the glorious light thereof should not shine
into their hearts.

What may farther be drawn forth of the same kind with what is in
these Catechisms delivered, with an imposition of it upon the Scripture, as
though any occasion were thence administered thereunto, I know not, buc
yet do suppose that Satan himself is scarce able to furnish the thoughts
of men with many more abominations of the like length and breadth with
those here endeavoured to be imposed on simple, unstable souls, unless he
should engage them into downright atheism and professed contempt of
God.

Of what tendency these doctrines of Mr B. are unto godliness, which
he next mentioneth, will in its proper place fall under consideration.
It is true, the gospel is a " doctrine according to godliness," and aims at
the promotion of it in the hearts and lives of men, in order to the ex
altation of the glory of God; and hence it is that so soon as any poor
deluded soul falls into the snare of Satan, and is taken captive under
the power of any error whatever, the first sleight he puts in practice
• for the promotion of it is to declaim about its excellency and useful
ness for the furtherance of godliness, though himself in the meantime be
under the power of darkness, and knows not in the least what belongs to
the godliness which he professeth to promote. As to what Mr B. here
draws forth to that purpose, I shall be bold to tell him that to the accom
plishment of a godliness amongst men (since the fall of Adam) that hath
not its rise and foundation in the effectual, powerful changing of the
whole man from death to life, darkness to light, etc., in the washing off the
pollutions of nature by the blood of Christ ; that is not wrought in us and
carried on by the efficacy of the Spirit of grace, taking away the heart of
stone and giving a new heart circumcised to fear the Lord ; that is not
purchased and procured for us by the oblation and intercession of the
Lord Jesus; a godliness that is not promoted by the consideration of the
viciousness and corruption of our hearts by nature, and their alienation
from God, and that doth not in a good part of it consist in the mortifying,
killing, slaying of the sin of nature that dwelleth in us, and in an opposition
to all the actings and workings of it; a godliness that is performed by

81 PEEFACE OF MR BIDDLE TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED.

our own strength in yielding obedience to the precepts of the -word, that by
that obedience we may be justified before God and for it accepted, etc., — -
there is not one tittle, letter, nor iota, in the whole book of God tending.

Mr B. closeth his preface with a commendation of the Scriptures, their
excellency and divinity, with the eminent success that they shall find who
yield obedience to them, in that they shall be, " even in this life, equal
unto ano-els." His expressions, at first view, seem to separate him from his
companions in his body of divinity, which he pretends to collect from the
Scriptures, whose low thoughts and bold expressions concerning the con
tradictions in them shall afterward be pointed unto ; but 1 fear " latet anguis
in herba:" and in this kiss of the Scriptures, with "hail" unto them, there is
vile treachery intended, and the betraying of them into the hands of men,
to be dealt withal at their pleasure. I desire not to entertain evil surmises
of any (what just occasion soever be given on any other account) concern
ing things that have not their evidence and conviction in themselves. The
bleating of that expression, " The Scriptures are the exactest rule of a holy
life," evidently allowing other rules of a holy life, though they be the ex
actest, and admitting other things or books into a copartnership with them
in that their use and service, though the pre-eminence be given to them,
sounds as much to their dishonour as any thing spoken of them by any
who ever owned them to have proceeded from God. It is the glory of
the Scriptures, not only to be the rule, but the only one, of walking with
God. If you take any others into comparison with it, and allow them in
the trial to be rules indeed, though not so exact as the Scripture, you do
no less cast down the Scripture from its excellency than if you denied it
to be any rule at all. It will not lie as one of the many, though you say
never so often that it is the best. What issues there will be of the en
deavour to give reason the absolute sovereignty in judging of rules of
holiness, allowing others, but preferring the Scripture, and therein, with
out other assistance, determining of all the contents of it, in order to its
utmost end, God in due time will manifest. We confess (to close with
Mr B.) that true obedience to the Scriptures makes men, even in this life,
equal in some sense unto angels ; not upon the account of their perform
ance of that obedience merely, as though there could be an equality be
tween the obedience yielded by us whilst we are yet sinners, and continue
so (for " if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves"), and the exact
obedience of them who never sinned, but abide in doing the will of God :
but the principal and main work of God required in them, and which is
the root of all other obedience whatever, being to " believe on him whom
he hath -sent," to " as many as so believe on him and so receive him power
is given to become the sons of God ;" who being so adopted into the great
family of heaven and earth, which is called after God's name, and in
vested with all the privileges thereof, having fellowship with the Father
and the Son, they are in that regard, even in this life, equal to angels.

Having thus, as briefly as I could, washed off the paint that was put
upon the porch of Mr B.'s fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of
rotten posts and dead men's bones, — whose pargeting being removed, their
abomination lies naked to all, — I shall enter the building or heap itself, to
consider what entertainment he hath provided therein for those whom, in
the entrance, he doth so subtilely and earnestly invite to turn in and par
take of his provisions.

VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

CHAPTER I.

Mr Biddle's first chapter examined — Qf the Scriptures.

MR BIDDLE having imposed upon himself the task of insinuating
his abominations by applying the express words of Scripture in way
of answer to his captious and sophistical queries, was much straitened
in the very entrance, in that he could not find any text or tittle in
them that is capable of being wrested to give the least colour to
those imperfections which the residue of men with whom he is, in
the whole system of his doctrine, in compliance and communion, do
charge them withal: as, that there are contradictions in them,
though in things of less importance;1 that many things are or may
be changed and altered in them; that some of the books of the Old
Testament are lost; and that those that remain are not of any ne
cessity 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 not being
my purpose to pursue his opinions through all the secret windings
and turnings of them, so [as] to drive them to their proper issue,
but only to discover the sophistry and falseness of those insinuations
which grossly and palpably overthrow the foundations of Christi
anity, I shall not force him to speak to any thing beyond what he
hath expressly delivered himself unto.

This first chapter, then, concerning the Scriptures, both in the
Greater and Less Catechisms, without farther trouble I shall pass over,
seeing that the stating of the questions and answers in them may be
sound, and according to the common, faith of the saints, in those
who partake not with Mr B/s companions in their low thoughts
of them, which here he doth not profess; only, I dare not join with
him in his last assertion, that such and such passages are the most

1 Socin. de Author. Sac. Scrip, cap. i. Racov. anno 1611, p. 13 ; Socin. Lect. Sacr.
p. 18 ; Episcop. Disput. de Author. Scrip, thes. 3 ; Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. v.
p. 375. " Socinus autem videtur rectius de SS. opinari." — Ep. ad Eadec. 3, p. 140. " Ego
quidem sentio, nihil in Scriptis, quse communiter ab iis, qui Christian! sunt dicti, rc-
cepta, et pro divinis habita sunt, constanter legi, quod non sit verissimum : hocque ad
divinam providentiam pertinere prorsus arbitror, ut ejusmodi scripta, nunquam depra-
ventur aut corrumpantur, neque ex to to, neque ex parte."

86 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

affectionate in the look of God, seeing we know but in part, and
are not enabled nor warranted to make such peremptory determina
tions concerning the several passages of Scripture, set in comparison
and competition for affectionateness by ourselves.

CHAPTER II.

Of the nature of God.

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

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

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

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

That the intendment of the connection of these queries, and the
suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate some thoughts
against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not questionable, especially
being the work of him that makes it his business to oppose it and
laugh it to scorn. With what success this attempt is managed, a
little consideration of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul
says, " To us there is one God," treating of the vanity and nothing
ness of the idols of the heathen, whom God hath threatened to
deprive of all worship and to starve out of the world. The ques
tion as here proposed, " How many Gods of Christians are there ?"
having no such occasion administered unto it as that expression of
Paul, being no parcel of such a discourse as he insists upon, sounds
pleasantly towards the allowance of many gods, though Christians
have but one. Neither is Mr B. so averse to polytheism as not to
give occasion, on other accounts, to this supposal. Jesus Christ he
allows to be a god. All his companions, in the undertaking against

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 87

his truly eternal divine nature, still affirm him to be " Homo Deifi-
catus" and " Deus Factus,"1 and plead " pro vera deitate Jesu
Christi," denying yet, with him, that by nature he is God, of the
same essence with the Father ; so, indeed, grossly and palpably fall
ing into and closing with that abomination which they pretend
above all men to avoid, in their opposition to the thrice holy and
blessed Trinity. Of those monstrous figments in Christian religion
which on this occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be
an eternal God, of worshipping a mere creature with the worship
due only to the infinitely blessed God, we shall speak afterward.

We confess that to us there is one God, but one God, and let all
others be accursed. " The gods that have not made the heavens and
the earth," let them be destroyed, according to the word of the Lord,
" from under these heavens/' Jer. x. 11. Yet we say, moreover, that
"there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one," 1 John v. 7. And in that
very place whence Mr B. cuts off his first answer, as it is asserted that
there is " one God," so " one Lord" and " one Spirit," the fountain,
of all spiritual distributions, are mentioned; which whether they are
not also that one God, we shall have farther occasion to consider.

To the next query concerning this one God, who he is, the words
are, " The Father, from whom are all things ;" in themselves most
true. The Father is the one God whom we worship in spirit and in
truth ; and yet the Son also is " our Lord and our God," John xx.
28, even " God over all, blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. The Spirit
also is the God "which worketh all in all," 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11. And in
the name of that one God, who is the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,"
are we baptized, whom we serve, who to us is the one God over all,
Matt, xxviii. 19. Neither is that assertion of the Father's being the
one and only true God any more prejudicial to the Son's being so
also, than that testimony given to the everlasting deity of the Son
is to that of the Father, notwithstanding that to us there is but one
God. The intendment of our author in these questions is to answer
what he found in the great exemplar of his Catechism, the Racovian,
two of whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered
and intended by Mr B.a But of these things more afterward.

1 Smalc. de Divinit. Jes. Christ, edit. Eacov. anno 1608, per Jacob. Sienienskia ;
Volkel. de Vera Eelig. lib. v. cap. x. pp. 425, 468, et antea, p. 206 ; Cat. Eac. cap. i.,
de Cognit. Christ, quaest. 3 ; Confession de Foi, des Chrestiens, qui croyent en un seul
Dieu le Pere, etc., pp. 18, 19 ; Jonas Schlichtingius, ad Meisner. artic. de Filio Dei, p.
387 ; Socin. Resp. ad Weik. p. 8 ; et passim reliqui.

2 " Exposuisti quae cognitu ad salutem de essentia Dei sunt prorsus necessaria,
expone quse ad earn rem vehementer utilia esse censeas. R. Id quidem est ut cognos-
camus in essentia Dei unam tantum personam esse. Demonstra hoc ipsum. R. Hoc
sane vel hinc patere potest, quod essentia Dei sit una numero; quapropter plures
numero personse, in ea esse nullo pacto possunt. Qusenam est haec una persona divina ?
R. Eet ille Deusunus, Domini nostri Jesu Christ! Pater, 1 Cor.viii. 6." — Cat. Eac. cap. i.f
de Cognit. Dei, de Dei Essentia.

88 VISDICLE EVANGELICAL

His next inquiry is after the nature of this one God, which he
answers with that of our Saviour in John iv. 24, " God is a spirit."
In this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great
master, Faustus Socinus, and his disciple (as to his notions about the
nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgment of God to be a spirit
frees him from sharing in impudence in this particular with his
master, who will not allow any such thing to be asserted in these
words of our Saviour. His words are (Fragment. Disput. de Adorat.
Christi cum Christiano Franken, p. 60), " Non est fortasse eorum
verborum ea sententia, quam plerique omnes arbitrantur : Deum
scilicet esse spiritum, neque enim subaudiendum esse dicit aliquis
verbum sffri} quasi vox irvtvpat,, recto casu accipienda sit, sed awb
xoivou repetendum verbum fyrs?, quod paulo ante prsecessit, et irvivpu
quarto casu accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quarere et postu-
lare spiritum." Vorstius also follows him, Not. ad Disput. 3, p. 200.
Because the verb substantive " is" is not in the original expressed
(than the omission whereof nothing being more frequent, though I
have heard of one who, from the like omission, 2 Cor. v. 1 7, thought
to have proved Christ to be the "new creature" there intended), con
trary to the context and coherence of the words, design of the argu
ment in hand insisted on by our Saviour (as he was a bold man),
and emphaticalness of significancy in the expression as it lies, he
will needs thrust in the word " seeketh," and render the intention
of Christ to be, that God seeks a spirit, that is, the spirit of men, to
worship him. Herein, I say, is Mr B. more modest than his master
(as, it seems, following Crellius,1 who in the exposition of that place
of Scripture is of another mind), though in craft and foresight he be
outgone by him; for if God be a spirit indeed, one of a pure spiri
tual essence and substance, the image, shape, and similitude, which
he afterwards ascribes to him, his corporeal posture, which he asserts
(ques. 4), will scarcely be found suitable unto him. It is incumbent
on some kind of men to be very wary in what they say, and mindful
of what they have said ; falsehood hath no consistency in itself, no
more than with the truth. Smalcius in the Racovian Catechism is
utterly silent as to this question and answer. But the consideration
of this also will in its due place succeed.

To his fourth query, about a farther description of God by some
of his attributes, I shall not need to subjoin any thing in way of
animadversion ; for however the texts he cites come short of deli
vering that of God which the import of the question to which they

1 " Significat enim Christus id, quod ratio ipsa dictat, Deum, cum spiritus sit, non.
nisi spiritualibus revera delectari." — Crell. de Deo : seu de Vera Relig. lib. i, cap. xv.
p. 108. "Spiritus estDeus : animadverterunt ibi omnespropeS. literarum interpretes,
Dei nomen, quod articulo est in Grseco notatum, subject! locum tenere : vocem, spiritus,
quse articulo caret, prsedicati : et spiritualem significare substantiam. Ita perinde est
ac si dictum fuisset, Deus est spiritus, seu spiritualis substantial' — Idem ibid, p. 107.

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 89

are annexed doth require, yet being not wrested to give countenance
to any perverse apprehension of his nature, I shall not need to insist
upon the consideration of them.

Ques. 5, he falls closely to his work, in these words, "Is not God,
according to the current of the Scriptures, in a certain place, namely,
in heaven?" whereunto he answers by many places of Scripture
that make mention of God in heaven.

That we may not mistake his mind and intention in this query,
some light may be taken from some other passages in his book. In
the preface he tells you "That God hath a similitude and shape" (of
which afterward), "and hath his place in the heavens" (that " God is
in no certain place," he reckons amongst those errors he opposes, in
the same preface; of the same kind he asserteth the belief to be
of God's "being infinite and incomprehensible);" and, Cat. Less. p. 6,
"That God glisteneth with glory, and is resident in a certain place
of the heavens, so that one may distinguish between his right
and left hand by bodily sight." This is the doctrine of the man
with whom we have to do concerning the presence of God. " He
is," saith he, " in heaven, as in a certain place." That which is in
a certain place is finite and limited, as, from the nature of a place
and the manner of any thing's being in a place, shall be instantly
evinced. God, then, is finite and limited ; be it so (that he is infi
nite and incomprehensible is yet a Scripture expi'ession) : yea, he is
so limited as not to be extended to the whole compass and limit of
the heavens, but he is in a certain place of the heavens, yea, so cir
cumscribed as that a man may see from his right hand to his left ; —
wherein Mr B. comes short of Mohammed, who affirms that when
he was taken into heaven to the sight of God, he found three days'
journey between his eye-brows ; which if so, it will be somewhat
hard for any one to see from his right hand to his left, being sup
posed at an answerable distance to that of his eye-brows. Let us
see, then, on what testimony, by what authority, Mr B. doth here
limit the Almighty and confine him to a certain place, shutting
up his essence and being in some certain part of the heavens, cutting
him thereby short, as we shall see in the issue, in all those eternal
perfections whereby hitherto he hath been known to the sons of men.

The proof of that lies in the places of Scripture which, making
mention of God, say, " he is in heaven," and that " he looketh down
from heaven," etc. ; of which, out of some concordance, some twenty
or thirty are by him repeated. Not to make long work of a short
business, the Scriptures say, " God is in heaven." Who ever
denied it? But do the Scriptures say he is nowhere else? Do
the Scriptures say he is confined to heaven, so that he is so
there as not to be in all other places ? If Mr B. thinks this any
argument, " God is in heaven, therefore his essence is not infinite

90 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

and immense, therefore he is not everywhere/' we are not of his
mind. He tells you, in his preface, that he "asserts nothing himself/'
I presume his reason was, lest any should call upon him for a proof
of his assertions. What he intends to insinuate, and what concep
tions of God he labours to ensnare the minds of unlearned and
unstable souls withal, in this question under consideration, hath
been, from the evidence of his intendment therein, and the concurrent
testimony of other expressions of his to the same purpose, demon
strated. To propose any thing directly in way of proof of the truth
of that which he labours insensibly to draw the minds of men unto,
he was doubtless conscious to himself of so much disability for its
performance as to waive that kind of procedure ; and therefore
his whole endeavour is, having rilled, animated, and spirited the
understandings of men with the notion couched in his question, to
cast in some Scripture expressions, that, as they lie, may seem fitted
to the fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any
attempt of direct proof of what he would have confirmed, the man
of reason is utterly silent.

None of those texts of Scripture where mention is made of
God's being in heaven are, in the coherence and dependence of
speech wherein they lie, suited or intended at all to give answer to
this question, or any like it, concerning the presence of God or his
actual existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensa
tions of God and works of his, whose fountain and original he would
have us to consider in himself, and to come forth from him there
where in an eminent manner he manifests his glory. God is, I
say, in none of the places by him urged said to be in heaven in
respect of his essence or being, nor is it the intention of the Holy
Ghost in any of them to declare the manner of God's essential
presence and existence in reference to all or any place ; but only by
the way of eminency, in respect of manifestations of himself and
operations from his glorious presence, doth he so speak of him. And,
indeed, in those expressions, heaven doth not so much signify a place
as a thing, or at least a place in reference to the things there done,
or the peculiar manifestations of the glory of God there ; so that if
these places should be made use of as to the proof of the figment in
sinuated, the argument from them would be a non causa pro causa.
The reason why God is said to be in heaven is, not because his es
sence is included in a certain place so called, but because of the
more eminent manifestations of his glory there, and the regard which
he requires to be had of him manifesting his glory as the first cause
and author of all the works which outwardly are of him.
• 3. God is said to be in heaven in an especial manner, because he
hath assigned that as the place of the saints' expectation of that
enjoyment and eternal frvition of himself which he hath promised

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 91

to bless them withal ; but for the limiting of his essence to a certain
place in heaven, the Scriptures, as we shall see, know nothing, yea,
expressly and positively affirm the contrary.

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

What says the Scripture concerning the essence and presence
of God ? is it confined and limited to a certain place, or is he in
finitely and equally present everywhere ?

Ans. " The LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and
in earth beneath," Joshua ii. 11. "But will God indeed dwell
on the earth ? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot
contain thee ; how much less this house that I have builded ? "
1 Kings viii. 27. "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither
shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou
art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," etc.,
Ps. cxxxix. 7-1 0. " The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool," Isa. Ixvi. 1, Acts vii. 47, 48. "Am I a God at hand,
saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in
secret places that I shall not see him ? saith the LORD. Do not
I fill heaven and earth ? saith the LORD," Jer. xxiii. 23, 24.

It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God that these places
expressly treat ; and whereas it was manifested before that the ex
pression of God being in heaven doth not at all speak to the abomi
nation which Mr B. would insinuate thereby, the naked rehearsal
of those testimonies, so directly asserting and ascribing to the
Almighty an infinite, unlimited presence, and that in direct opposi
tion to the gross apprehension of his being confined to a certain
place in heaven, is abundantly sufficient to deliver the thoughts and
minds of men from any entanglements that Mr B/s questions and
answers (for though it be the word of the Scripture he insists upon,
yet male dum recitas incipit esse tuuni) might lead them into.
On that account no more need be added ; but yet this occasion being
administered, that truth itself, concerning the omnipresence or
ubiquity of God, may be farther cleared and confirmed.

Through the prejudices and ignorance of men, it is inquired
whether God be so present in any certain place as not to be also
equally elsewhere, everywhere?

Place has been commonly defined to be " superficies corporis
ambientis." Because of sundry inextricable difficulties and the impos
sibility of suiting it to every place, this definition is now generally
decried. That now commonly received is more natural, suited to
the natures of things, and obvious to the understanding. A place
is " spatium corporis susceptivum," — any space wherein a body may
be received and contained. The first consideration of it is as to its
fitness and aptness so to receive any body : so it is in the imagina-

92 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

tion only. The second, as to its actual existence, being filled with
that body which it is apt to receive : so may we imagine innumer
able spaces in heaven which are apt and able to receive the bodies
of the saints, and which actually shall be filled with them when
they shall be translated thereunto by the power of God.

Presence in a place is the actual existence of a person in his place,
or, as logicians speak, in his ubi, that is, answering the inquiry after
him where he is. Though all bodies are in certain places, yet per
sons only are said to be present in them. Other things have not pro
perly a presence to be ascribed to them ; they are in their proper
places, but we do not say they are present in or to their placea

This being the general description of a place and the presence of
any therein, it is evident that properly it cannot be spoken at all of
God that he is in one place or other, for he is not a body that
should fill up the space of its receipt, nor yet in all places, taking
the word properly, for so one essence can be but in one place ; and
if the word should properly be ascribed to God in any sense, it would
deprive him of all his infinite perfections.

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

Of this omnipresence of God, two things are usually inquired after:

1. The thing itself, or the demonstration that he is so omnipresent ;

2. The manner of it, or the manifestation and declaring how he is so
present Of this latter, perhaps, sundry things have been over curi
ously and nicely by some disputed, though, upon a thorough search,
their disputes may not appear altogether useless. The schoolmen's

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 93

distinctions of God's being in a place repletivd, immensivd, impletivd,
superexcedenter, conservative, attinctivd, manifestativd, etc., have,
some of them at least, foundation in the Scriptures and right reason.
That which seems most obnoxious to exception is their assertion of
God to be everywhere present, instar puncti; but the sense of that
and its intendment is, to express how God is not in a place, rather
than how he is. He is not in a place as quantitive bodies, that have
the dimensions attending them. Neither could his presence in
heaven, by those who shut him up there, be any otherwise conceived,
until they were relieved by the rare notions of Mr. B. concerning
the distinct places of his right hand and left. But it is not at all
about the manner of God's presence that I am occasioned to speak,
but only of the thing itself. They who say he is in heaven only
speak as to the thing, and not as to the manner of it. When we
say he is everywhere, our assertion is also to be interpreted as to
that only ; the manner of his presence being purely of a philosophi
cal consideration, his presence itself divinely revealed, and necessarily
attending his divine perfections; yea, it is an essential property of
God. The properties of God are either absolute or relative. The
absolute properties of God are such as may be considered without
the supposition of any thing else whatever, towards which their
energy and efficacy should be exerted. His relative are such as, in
their egress and exercise, respect some things in the creatures, though
they naturally and eternally reside in God. Of the first sort is God's
immensity ; it is an absolute property of his nature and being. For
God to be immense, infinite, unbounded, unlimited, is as necessary
to him as to be God ; that is, it is of his essential perfection so to
be. The ubiquity of God, or his presence to all things and persons,
is a relative property of God ; for to say that God is present in and
to all things supposes those things to be. Indeed, the ubiquity of
God is the habitude of his immensity to the creation. Supposing the
creatures, the world that is, God is by reason of his immensity in-
distant to them all ; or if more worlds be supposed (as all things
possible 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 and all that is in them.

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

That this is the doctrine of the Scriptures in the places before
mentioned needs no great pains to evince. In that, 1 Kings viii.

94 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

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

That of Ps. cxxxix. 7-10 is no less evident ; the presence or face
of God is expressly affirmed to be everywhere : " Whither shall I go
from thy face ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there : if I go
into hell, behold, thou art there." As God is affirmed to be in hea
ven, so everywhere else ; now that he is in heaven, in respect of his
essence and being, is not questioned.

Neither can that of the prophet Isaiah, chap. Ixvi. 1, be otherwise
understood but as an ascribing of an ubiquity to God, and a presence in
heaven and earth : " Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot
stool." The words are metaphorical, and in that way expressive of
the presence of a person ; and so God is present in heaven and earth.
That the earth should be his footstool, and yet himself be so incon
ceivably distant from it as the heaven is from the earth (an expres
sion chosen by himself to set out the greatest distance imaginable),
is not readily to be apprehended. " He is not far from every one of
us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being," Acts xvii.
27, 28.

The testimony which God gives to this his perfection in Jer. xxiii.
23, 24, is not to be avoided; more than what is here spoken by God
himself as to his omnipresence we cannot, we desire not to speak :
"Can any hide himself in secret places, that I shall not see him?

OF THE NATUEE OF GOD. 95

saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."
Still where mention is made of the presence of God, there heaven
and earth (which two are comprehensive of, and usually put for
the whole creation) are mentioned : and herein he is neither to be
thought afar off nor near, being equally present everywhere, in the
hidden places as in heaven; that is, he is not distant from any thing
or place, though he take up no place, but is nigh all things, by the
infiniteness and existence of his being.

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

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

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

36 VINDICI.E EV2.NGELHXE.

3. The omnipresence of God is grounded on the infiniteness of his
essence. If God be infinite, he is omnipresent. Suppose him infinite,
and then suppose there is any thing besides himself, and his presence
with that thing, wherever it be, doth necessarily follow ; for if he be
so bounded as to be in his essence distant from any thing, he is not
infinite. To say God is not infinite in his essence denies him to be
infinite or unlimited in any of his perfections or properties; and there
fore, indeed, upon the matter Socinus denies God's power to be in
finite, because he will not grant his essence to be, Cat. chap. xi.
part 1. That which is absolutely infinite cannot have its residence
in that which is finite and limited, so that if the essence of God be
not immense and infinite, his power, goodness, etc., are also bounded
and limited ; so that there are, or may be, many things which in their
own natures are capable of existence, which yet God cannot do for
want of power. How suitable to the Scriptures and common notions of
mankind concerning the nature of God this is will be easily known. It
is yet thecommon faith of Christians that God is a-ygp/yf CWT-OS, xal avtipog.

4. Let reason (which the author of these Catechisms pretends to
advance and honour, as some think, above its due, and therefore can
not decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this gross ap
prehension concerning the confinement of God to the heavens, yea, " a
certain place in the heavens," though he "glister" never so much "in
glory" there where he is. For, (1.) He must be extended as a body is,
that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be cir
cumscribed in a certain place; which though our author thinks no ab
surdity, yet, as we shall afterward manifest, it is as bold an attempt to
make an idol of the living God as ever any of the sons of men engaged
into. (2.) Then God's greatness and ours, as to essence and substance,
differ only gradually, but are still of the same kind. God is bigger
than a man, it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatness, dif
fering from us as one man differs from another. A man is in a cer
tain place of the earth, which he fills and takes up; and God is in a
certain place of the heavens, which he fills and takes up. Only some
gradual difference there is, but how great or little that difference is,
as yet we are not taught. (3.) I desire to know of Mr B. what the
throne is made of that God sits on in the heavens, and how far the
glistering of his glory doth extend, and whether that glistering of
glory doth naturally attend his person as beams do the sun, or shining
doth fire, or can he make it more or less as he pleaseth? (4.)
Doth God fill the whole heavens, or only some part of them? If the
whole, being of such substance as is imagined, what room will there
be in heaven for any body else ? Can a lesser place hold him ? or could
he fill a greater? If not, how came the heavens [to be] so fit for him ?
Or could he not have made them of other dimensions, less or greater?
If he be only in a part of heaven, as is more than insinuated in the

OF THE NATUEE OF GOD. 97

expression that he is " in a certain place in the heavens," I ask why he
dwells in one part of the heavens rather than another?1 or whether he
ever removes or takes a journey, as Elijah speaks of Baal, 1 Kings
xviii. 27, or is eternally, as limited in, so confined unto, the certain place
wherein he is? Again ; 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, as the resurrection of the dead, eta The power of God
doubtless follows his essence, and what this extends not to that can
not reach. But of that which might be spoken to vindicate the in
finitely glorious being of God from the reproach which his own word
is wrested to cast upon him, this that hath been spoken is somewhat
that to my present thoughts doth occur.

I suppose that Mr B. knows that in this his circumscription of God
to a certain place, he transgresses against the common consent of man
kind; if not, a few instances of several sorts may, I hope, suffice for
his conviction. I shall promiscuously propose them, as they lie at
hand or occur to my remembrance. For the Jews, Philo gives their
judgment "Hear/' saith he, "of the wise God that which is most true,
that God is in no place, for he is not contained, but containeth all.
That which is made is in a place, for it must be contained and not
contain/'8 And it is the observation of another of them, that so often
as QiP9, a place, is said of God, the exaltation of his immense and in
comparable essence (as to its manifestation) is to be understood. 3 And
the learned Buxtorf tells us that when that word is used of God, it is
by an antiphrasis, to signify that he is infinite, illocal, received in no
place, giving place to all.4 That known saying of Empedocles passed
among the heathen, "Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubique, cir-
cumferentia nusquam ;" and of Seneca, " Turn which way thou wilt,
thou shalt see God meeting thee. Nothing is empty of him : he fills
his own work/'5 "All things are full of God," says the poet;6 and
another of them : —

" Estque Dei sedes nisi teroe, et pontus, et aer,
Est coelum, et versus superos, quid quaerimus ultra :
Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque moveris." 7

Of this presence of God, I say, with and unto all things, of the in
finity of his essence, the very heathens themselves, by the light of

1 " Si spatium vacat super caput Creatoris, et si Deus ipse in loco est, erit jam locus
ille major et Deo et mundo ; nihil enim non majus est id quod capit, illo quod capitur."
— Tertul. ad Max. lib. i. cap. xv.

8 "Axouffav leetpa. TOU iviff'TUfi'tvov &tav frifn K^tthyrxTnv, on « 6»ay »v%i vew tv yap trtpii-
Xirai, aXXa irtpi'i%ii ra <ra». To §j ytvofttvov It rotrtu- vrtpii%sffl!ui yaf aura, a.X\a. oil ftfi'i^iti
d.ia.yxtt.7n. — Philo, lib. ii. Alleg. Leg.

3 Maimon. Mor. Nevoch. p. 1, cap. viii. * Buxtorf in Lexic.: verbo cnptt.

4 " Quocumque te flexeris, ibi ilium (Deum) videbis occurrentem tibi. Nihil ab illo
vacat : opus suum ipse implet." — Senec. de Benef. lib. iv. cap. viii.

• " Jovis omnia plena,'' — Virg. Eel. iii. 60. 7 Lucan, lib. iii.

VOL. XII. 7

98 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

nature (which Mr B. herein opposes), had a knowledge. Hence did
some of them term him xos/jjoffoibs votf, " a mind framing the uni
verse," and affirmed him to be infinite. " Primus omnium rerum
descriptionem et modum, mentis infinitce vi et ratione designari, et
confici voluit," says Cicero of Anaxagoras, Tull. de Nat. Deor. lib. i.1'1;
— " All things are disposed of by the virtue of one infinite mind."
And Plutarch, expressing the same thing, says he is vovg xadapof,
xal axparog l^i^iy^evos iraai, — " a pure and sincere mind, mixing
itself, and mixed" (so they expressed the presence of the infinite
mind) " with all things." So Virgil, " Jovis omnia plena," — " All
things are full of God," (for God they intended by that name, Acts
xvii. 25, 28, 29 ; and says Lactantius, " Convicti de uno Deo, cum
id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere, affirmant, verum hoc sibi
placere, ut Jupiter nominetur," lib. i. cap. ii.); which, as Servius on
the place observes, he had taken from Aratus, whose words are: —

'Ex ^10; df^taftifSa, roi ev&i <ro<r £*$pis leapt*
"Apprirav" [turriti S« S/oy •jea.fa.t filv nyuia.},
Hairai V avfyuvfui ayapal, fiirrri Ss SaZ.arffa,
Kai Xipiiif, WVTJI §f $10; xi%pvftifa travrtf,

— giving a full description, in his way, of the omnipresence and
ubiquity of God. The same Virgil, from the Platonics, tells us in
another place: —

" Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem." — Mn. vi. 726.

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

Of those, on the other hand, who have, no less grossly and carnally
than he of whom we speak, imagined a diffusion of the substance of
God through the whole creation, and a mixture of it with the crea
tures,1 so as to animate and enliven them in their several forms,
making God an essential part of each creature,3 or dream of an as
sumption of creatures into an unity of essence with God, I am not
now to speak

CHAPTER III.

Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God.
MR BIDDLE'S question : —

Is God in the Scripture said to have any likeness, similitude, person, shape?
The proposition which he would have to be the conclusion of the
answers to these questions is this, That, according to the doctrine of

1 Vide Beza, Ep. ad Philip Marnix.

» Vide Virg. Mn. lib. vi. 724: " Principio cselum," etc., ex Platonicis.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 99

the Scriptures, God is a person shaped like a man ; — a conclusion
so grossly absurd that it is refused as ridiculous by Tully, a heathen,
in the person of Cotta (De Nat. Deor. lib. i. 6), against Velleius the
Epicurean, the Epicureans only amongst the philosophers being so
sottish as to admit that conceit. And Mr B., charging that upon the
Scripture which hath been renounced by all the heathens who set
themselves studiously to follow the light of nature, and, by a strict
inquiry, to search out the nature and attributes of God, principally
attending to that safe rule of ascribing nothing to him that eminently
included imperfection,1 hath manifested his pretext of mere Christi
anity to be little better than a cover for downright atheism, or at
best of most vile and unworthy thoughts of the Divine Being. And
here also doth Mr B. forsake his masters.3 Some of them have had
more reverence of the Deity, and express themselves accordingly, in
express opposition to this gross figment.

According to the method I proceeded in, in consideration of the
precedent questions, shall I deal with this, and first consider briefly
the scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid assertion.
The places urged and insisted on of old by the Anthropomorphites3
were such as partly ascribed a shape in general to God, partly such
as mention the parts and members of God in that shape, his eyes, his
arms, his hands, etc.; from all which they looked on him as an old
man sitting in heaven on a throne, — a conception that Mr B. is no
stranger to. The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by
Mr B., and the attribution of a " likeness, image, similitude, person,
and shape" unto God, is his warrant to conclude that he hath a
visible, corporeal image and shape like that of a man ; which is the
plain intendment of his question. Now, if the image, likeness, or
similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the
sum of the words themselves nor by the intendment of the places
where they are used, in the least ascribe or intimate that there is
any such corporeal, visible shape in God as he would insinuate, but
are properly expressive of some other thing that properly belongs to
him, I suppose it will not be questioned but that a little matter will
prevail with a person desiring to emerge in the world by novelties,
and on that account casting off that reverence of God which the first
and most common notions of mankind would instruct him into, to

1 " Sine corpora ullo Deum vult esse, ut Graeci dicunt K<n»ftart»." — Tull. de Nat.
Deor. lib. i. 12, de Platone. " Mens soluta qusedam et libera, segregata ab omni con-
cretione mortal!." — Id., Tusc. Quaest. lib. i. 27.

3 " Ex his autem intelligitur, membra humani corporis, quse Deo in sacris literia
ascribuntur, uti et partes quaedam aliarum animantium, quales sunt alae, non nisi im-
propriS Deo tribui ; siquidem a spiritus natura prorsus abhorrent. Tribuuntur autem
Deo per metaphoram cum metonymia conjunctam. Nempe quia facultates vel actiones
Deo conveniunt, illarum similes, quse membris illis, aut insunt, aut per ea exercentur."
— Crell. de Deo, sive de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xv. p. 107.

3 Epiph. torn, i. lib. iii. Haeres. Ixx. ; Theod. , lib. iv. cap. x.

100 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

make bold with God and the Scripture for his own ends and pur
poses.

1. I say then, first, in general, if the Scripture may be allowed to
expound itself, it gives us a fair and clear account of its own intend-
ment in mentioning the image and shape of God, which man was
created in, and owns it to be his righteousness and holiness ; in a
state whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man be
ing created is said to be created in the image and likeness of God, —
in a kind of resemblance unto that holiness and righteousness which
are in him, Eph. iv. 23, 24, etc. What can hence be concluded for a
corporeal image or shape to be ascribed unto God is too easily dis
cernible. From a likeness in some virtue or property to conclude
to a likeness in a bodily shape, may well befit a man that cares not
what he says, so he may speak to the derogation of the glory of God.

2. For the particular places by Mr B. insisted on, and the words
used in them, which he lays the stress of this proposition upon : the
first two words are J"1^ and o?X-} both of which are used in Gen. i. 26.
The word rno"! is used Gen. v. 1, and opt, Gen. ix. 6 ; but neither of
these words doth, in its genuine signification, imply any corporeity or
figure. The most learned of all the rabbins, and most critically skilful
in their language, hath observed and proved that the proper Hebrew
word for that kind of outward form or similitude is ">Nn j and if these
be ever so used, it is in a metaphorical and borrowed sense, or at least
there is an amphiboly in the words, the Scripture sometimes using
them in such subjects where this gross, corporeal sense cannot pos
sibly be admitted: vnrrmn niBl.3, — " Like the poison of a serpent,"
Ps. Iviii. 4. There is, indeed, some imaginable, or rather rational,
resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but no corporeal
similitude. Vide Ezek. i. 28, and xxiii. 14 (to which may be added
many more places), where if ^^ shall be interpreted of a bodily
similitude, it will afford no tolerable sense. The same likewise may
be said of o?$. It is used in the Hebrew for the essential form rather
than the figure or shape ; and being spoken of men, signifies rather
their souls than bodies. So it is used, Ps. Ixxiii. 20 ; which is better
translated, " Thou shalt despise their soul," than their " image."
So where it. is said, Ps. xxxix. 6, " Every man walketh in a vain
show" (the same word again), however it ought to be interpreted,
it cannot be understood of a corporeal similitude. So that these testi
monies are not at all to his purpose. What, indeed, is the image of
God, or that likeness to him wherein man was made, I have partly
mentioned already, and shall farther manifest, chap, vl ; 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 ac
count will be given in its proper place.

The sum of Mr B/s reasoning from these places is: " God, in the

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 101

creation of the lower world and the inhabitancy thereof, making
man, enduing him with a mind and soul capable of knowing him,
serving him, yielding him voluntary and rational obedience ; creating
him in a condition of holiness and righteousness, in a resemblance
to those blessed perfections in himself, requiring still of him to be
holy as he is holy, to continue and abide in that likeness of his; giv
ing him in that estate dominion over the rest of his works here
below, — is said to create him in his own image and likeness, he being
the sovereign lord over all his creatures, infinitely wise, knowing,
just, and holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and image, and is
therein like unto a man." " Quod erat demonstrandum/'

His next quotation is from Num. xii. 7, 8, where it is said of
Moses that he shall behold the "similitude of the LORD." The word
is ruiDJji j which, as it is sometimes taken for a corporeal similitude,
so it is at other times for that idea whereby things are intellectually
represented. In the former sense is it frequently denied of God ;
as Deut. iv. 15, " Ye saw no manner of similitude," etc. But it is
frequently taken, in the other sense, for that object, or rather impres
sion, whereby our intellectual apprehension is made; as in Job iv. 16,
" An image was before mine eyes," namely, in his dream ; which is
not any corporeal shape, but that idea or objective representation
whereby the mind of man understands its object, — that which is in
the schools commonly called phantasm, or else an intellectual spe
cies, about the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is
manifest that, in the place here alleged, it is put to signify the clear
manifestation of God's presence to Moses, with some such glorious
appearance thereof as he was pleased to represent unto him; there
fore, doubtless, God hath a bodily shape.

His next quotation is taken from James iii. 9, " Made after the
similitude of God," — Tw$, xad' o^oiuatv Qtou ytywdras. Certainly Mr
B. cannot be so ignorant as to think the word o/toluaii to include in
its signification a corporeal similitude. The word is of as large an
extent as "similitude" in Latin, arid takes in as well those abstracted
analogies which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing
several objects together, as those other outward conformities of figure
and shape which are the objects of our carnal eyes. It is the word
by which the LXX. use to render the word rnEn.; Of which we
have spoken before. And the examples are innumerable in the
Septuagint translation, and in authors of all sorts written in the
Greek language, where that word is taken at large, and cannot sig
nify a corporeal similitude; so that it is vain to insist upon particulars.
And this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former,
— namely, what likeness of God it was that man was created in,
whether of eyes, ears, nose, etc., or of holiness, etc.

His next allegation is from Job xiii. 7, 8, " Will ye accept his

102 VINDICIJE EVANGELICAL

person?" I^L!, irpotuxov aurou, — an allegation so frivolous that to stand
to answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an interroga
tion, and doth not assert any thing. 2. The thing spoken against is
vpoffuKoXqtya,, which hath in it no regard to shape or corporeal per
sonality, but to the partiality which is used in preferring one before
another in justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivatives, is
used in as great or greater variety of metaphorical translations than
any other Hebrew word, and is by no means determined to be a
signification of that bulky substance which, with the soul, concurs
to make up the person of man. It is so used, Gen. xxxiil 18, M?"^,
— "Jacob pitched his tent before" (or " in the face of") " the city."
It is confessed that it is very frequently translated vpoffuKov by the
LXX., as it is very variously translated by them; sometimes 6 opdaX-
t*,6s. See Jer. xxxviii. 26; Neh. ii. 13; Job xvi. 16; Deut. ii. 36;
Prov. xxvii. 23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for
am, SVUVTI, a-^svavn, eirdyu, ivuviov, and in many more senses. So that
to draw an argument concerning the nature of God from a word so
amphibological, or of such frequent translation in metaphorical speech,
is very unreasonable.

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

His last argument is from John v. 37, "Ye have neither heard
his voice at any time, nor seen his shape," — OUTS tJdos at/roD iupa-
xars. But it argues a very great ignorance in all philosophical
and accurate writings, to appropriate e78os to a corporeal shape, it
being very seldom used, either in Scripture or elsewhere, in that
notion; — the Scripture having used it where that sense cannot be
fastened on it, as in 1 Thess. v. 22, 'AKO vavrbs i/dous irovqpou a.'TrtyfiaSt'
which may be rendered, " Abstain from every kind," or " every ap
pearance," but not from every shape " of evil;" and all other Greek
authors, who have spoken accurately and not figuratively of things,
use it perpetually almost in one of these two senses, and very seldom
if at all in the other.

How improperly, and with what little reason, these places are in
terpreted of a corporeal similitude or shape, hath been showed.
"Wherein the image of God consists the apostle shows, as was de
clared, determining it to be in the intellectual part, not in the bodily,1
Col. iii. 10, 'EvdusdfAsvoi rlv vsov (av6pu<rov) rov avaxaivovpfvov tig twiy-
.ar f}x.6va rou Kriaavrog auron. The word here used,

1 Plato said the same thing expressly, apud Stobseum, Eclogae Ethicse, lib. ii. cap.
iii p. 163.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 103

is of a grosser signification than t78os, which hath its original from
the intellectual operation of the mind; yet this the apostle determines
to relate to the mind and spiritual excellencies, so that it cannot,
from the places he hath mentioned, with the least colour of reason,
be concluded that God hath a corporeal similitude, likeness, person,
or shape.1

What hath already been delivered concerning the nature of God?
and is yet necessarily to be added, will not permit that much be pe
culiarly spoken to this head, for the removal of those imperfections
from him which necessarily attend that assignation of a bodily shape
to him which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of Days is not
really one in the shape of an old man, sitting in heaven on a throne,
glistering with a corporeal glory, his hair being white and his rai
ment beautiful, is sufficiently evinced from every property and per
fection 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 com
pared to him. Maimonides hath observed that these words, Aph,
Ira, etc., are never attributed to God but in the case of idolatry;
that never any idolater was so silly as to think that an idol of wood,
stone, or metal, was a god that made the heavens and earth ; but that
through them all idolaters intend to worship God.2 Now, to fancy
a corporeity in God, or that he is like a creature, is greater and more
irrational dishonour to him than idolatry. " To whom will ye liken
God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" Isa. xl. 18. " Have
ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from
the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the
earth? It is he that sitteth," etc. " To whom then will ye liken me, or
shall I be equal? saith the Holy One," verses 21-23, 25. Because the
Scripture speaks of the eyes and ears, nostrils and arms of the Lord,
and of man being made after his likeness, if any one shall conclude
that he sees, hears, smells, and hath the shape of a man, he must,
upon the same reason, conclude that he hath the shape of a lion, of
an eagle, and is like a drunken man, because in Scripture he is
compared to them, and so of necessity make a monster of him, and
worship a chimera.3

Nay, the Scripture plainly interprets itself as to these attributions

1 eta; lffTiftitvft.it natfov,ov» t%o* popQw. — Posidonius apud Stobseum; Eclogse Phy-
sicae, lib. i. cap. i. p. 2. I confess Epicurus said, ' AvUpuvetiStT; MU.I ml; 6eat/j — Stobasus
ibidem, cap. iii. p. 5. And possibly Mr B. might borrow his misshapen divinity from
him and the Anthropomorphites ; and then we have the pedigree of his wild positions.
But the more sober philosophers (as Stobaeus there tells us) held otherwise : 6tiv ol%
O.VTOV aiiSt ifaroii, oli&i (HTfnrov, ovkl ^ittfrarov, ov$i aXX» nn rupctn ofAitov, etc. ; which

Guil. Canterus renders thus, " Quod nee tangi, nee cerni potest Deus, neque sub men-
suram, yel terminum cadit aut alicui est corpori simile."

2 Videsis Rab. M. Maimonid. de Idolat. sect. 2, 3, etc.; et Notas Dionysii Vossii
ibidem.

• " Quse de Deodicuntur in sacro codice attfuvovutuc. interpretanda0""* °-«^«ar«f.''

104 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

unto God. His arm is not an arm of flesh, 2 Chron. xxxiL 8.
Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth, Job
x. 4. Nay, the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of un
derstanding), though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it
infinitely short of a likeness or equality with him. And the Holy
Ghost himself gives a plain interpretation of his own intendment in
such expressions : for whereas, Luke xi. 20, our Saviour says that
he "with the finger of God cast out devils;" Matt, xii. 28, he affirms
that he did it " by the Spirit of God," intending the same thing. It
neither is nor can righteously be required that we should produce
any place of Scripture expressly affirming that God hath no shape,
nor hands, nor eyes, as we have, no more than it is that he is no
lion or eagle. It is enough that there is that delivered of him
abundantly which is altogether inconsistent with any such shape
as by Mr B. is fancied, and that so eminent a difference as that now
mentioned is put between his arms and eyes and ours, as manifests
them to agree in some analogy of the thing signified by them, and
not in an answerableness in the same kind. Wherefore I say, that
the Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends to the na
ture and capacities of men, and speaks for the most part to the
imagination (farther than which few among the sons of men were
ever able to raise their cogitations), yet hath it clearly delivered to
us such attributes of God as will not consist with that gross notion
which this man would put upon the Godhead. The infinity and im
mutability of God do manifestly overthrow the conceit of a shape
and form of God.1 Were it not a contradiction that a body should
be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such a
one as he imagines. The shape of any thing is the figuration of it ;
the figuration is the determination of its extension towards several
parts, consisting in a determined proportion of them to each other ;
that determination is a bounding and limiting of them : so that if it
have a shape, that will be limited which was supposed to be infinite,
which is a manifest contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainly
show that God is infinite and immense, not in magnitude (that were
a contradtction, as will appear anon) but in essence. Speaking to our
fancy, it saith that " he is higher than heaven, deeper than hell,"
Job xi. 8 ; that " he fills heaven and earth," Jer. xxiii. 24 ; that " the
heaven of heavens cannot contain him," 1 Kings viii. 27 ; and it hath
many [such] expressions to shadow out the immensity of God, as was
manifest in our consideration of the last query. But not content to
have yielded thus to our infirmity, it delivers likewise, in plain and
literal terms, the infiniteness of God: "His understanding is infinite,"
Pa cxlvii. 5 ; and therefore his essence is necessarily so. This is a
consequence that none can deny who will consider it till he under-
1 Vid. D. Barnes in 1. partem Aquinatis, qusest. 3, art. 1, et Scholasticos passim.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 105

stands the terms of it, as hath been declared. Yet, lest any should
hastily apprehend that the essence of God were not therefore neces
sarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. cxlv. 3, that " his greatness
hath no end," or is " inconceivable," which is infinite ; for seeing we
can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in 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 greatness, either of magnitude or essence,
which is unsearchable or inconceivable besides that which is actually
infinite. Such, therefore, is the greatness of God, in the strict and
literal meaning of the Scripture ; and therefore, that he should have
a shape implies a contradiction. But of this so much before as I
presume we may now take it for granted.

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

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

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

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

The former argument proved him to be without such a shape as
this catechist would insinuate ; this, that he is without any shape at
all. The same will be proved from the immutability or impassi
bility of God's essence, which the Scripture assigns to him : Mai.
iii. 6, " I am the LORD ; I change not." " The heavens are the work
of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou endurest : they shall be
changed : but thou art the same," Ps. cii. 25, 26.

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

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

Mr B/s great plea for the considering of his Catechism, and
insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himself, is from the
success which himself hath found in the discovery of sundry truths,
of which he gives an account in his book to the reader. That,
among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now

106 YINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume Mr B. knoweth. For
this discovery the world is beholding to one Audseus, a monk, of
whom you have a large account in Epiphanius, torn. i. lib. iii., Hser.
70 ; as also in Theodoret, lib. iv. Eccles. Hist, cap. x., 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 Hser. cap. 1. He that thinks it worth while to
know that we are not beholding to Mr B., but to this Audseus, for all
the arguments, whether taken from the creation of man in the image
of God or the attribution of the parts and members of a man unto
God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible shape, may at
his leisure consult the authors above mentioned, who will not suffer
him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to Mr B/s ingenious
inquiries. How the same figment was also entertained by a com
pany of stupid monks in Egypt, who, in pursuit of their opinion,
came in a great drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus the bishop
on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty
companion deluded them with an ambiguity of expression, with what
learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles.
Hist. lib. vi. cap. vii.1

As this madness of brain-sick men was always rejected by all per
sons of sobriety professing the religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never
embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of heathens, who retained
any impression of those common notions of God which remain in
the hearts of men.2 The Jews to this day do solemnly confess, in
their public worship, that God is not corporeal, that he hath no cor- ,
poreal propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So
one of the most learned of them of old: OUTS yap ai/dpuvopoppog 6 Qtbg,
OIITS Ssotidig avQpuffivov aupa, Phil, de Opificio Mundi ; — " Neither hath
God a human form, nor does a human body resemble him." And in
Sacrifi. Abel. : O-lds rd osa dvdpuffoig, sir! Qtov xvpioXoysTrai, xard^priffig bt
wopdruv sffTi wapqyopouffa rqv riptTtpav dff6si/tiav' — " Neither are those
things which are in us spoken properly of God, but there is an abuse
of names therein, relieving our weakness."

Likewise the heathens, who termed God vow, and -^/{j^uffiv and
<!rveZ[j,a, and dwapowoiov or duva.fj.iv, had the same apprehensions of
him. Thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobseus, serm. 78 :
Qsbv ftev voqaai ^aXfTrlv, ppdffat 8s ddvvarov' rb yap dffuparov ffu/j,a,n
crt^vai ddwarov' xai TO rsXsiov rSi drtXit' xaraXa&cdut ou dvvuroV xal rb
dtdiov rSi o'kiyoy^povi^t avyytvsadai, ftvSKoXov' o /*£? yap aii fffn, rb &s irap'sp-
yira.i' xai rb [itv a\riQtid ian, rb &i v<rb pavraff/ag ffxidfsrar rb de dadsvs-
orspov rov Iff^vporspov, xai rb sXarrov rou xptlrrovog dissrqxt roeovrov, Sffov rb

1 OVTUS ufiMi £/?«y us Qiou •xuHruirti. — Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. viii. cap. xi.
»Minut. Felix, in Octav. Lactan. de Vera Sap. Mutius Pansa Pianensis de Osculo
Ethiiicce et Christianas Theol. c. 25 ; Origen. in Gen. Horn. 3 ; Aug. 1. 83, qusest. 22.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGUEE OF GOD. 107

rou Sslov' rtdi fjAei\ rouruv didffraffig, dftavpo?' rqv rou xa\ou
o/j fj.lv yap rci eu&ara Ssara, yXurry ds rot, opa.ro, \sxrd, rb &a
xa! a<pavi$, xa! aff^rjf^driffrov, xa! {tyre e!~ vXqg vnoxsiftsvov, ivb
ruv ^furiftn ahMjfftw xaraXqpOrjvai ou duvarai. 'Evvoou/^ai tS rdr ivvoov-
pai, o i^siTTsfv oti duvarbv, rovro tariv 6 ©EOJ. And Calicratides apud Stob.,
Serm. 83 : Tb 8s sv sffriv apiarov avrbs, S-Trsp effri xarrav tvvoiav, ^uov
ovpdviov, a<p&aprov, ap^d n xai atria, rag ruv SXuv diaxoffftdffiog.

Of the like import is that distich of Xenophanes in Clemens
Alexan., Strom. 5: —

E/; 6toj it Tl S-loTffi xa,} KV^feafoiffi ft'fyiffTaf
&UTI Sifia; SvvriiTffiv Of&oiios, ou$i vovfta.

" There is one great God among gods and men,
Who is like to mortals neither as to body nor mind."

Whereunto answers that in Cato : —

" Si Deus est animus nobis nt carmina dicunt," etc.
And -^schylus, in the same place of Clemens, Strom. 5 : —

\aps7ri B'vr/Teav TOV &ia> xai firi $oxli
"Oftoiov HUTU ffufxixov xa0io'<ravai.

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

And Posidonius plainly in Stobseus as above : *O ®e6$ Icn w&iia.
votpbv xai Kupudss, oO/c '^ov ,uop<priv — " God is an intelligent fiery spirit,
not having any shape." And the same apprehension is evident in
that of Seneca, " Quid est Deus ? Mens universi. Quid est Deus ?
Quod vides totum, et quod non vides totum. Sic demum magni
tude sua illi redditur, qua nihil majus excogitari potest, si solus est
omnia, opus suum et extra et intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter
naturam Dei et nostrarn? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo
nulla pars extra animum." Natural. Quasst. lib. i. Prasfat. It would
be burdensome, if not endless, to insist on the testimonies that to
this purpose might be produced out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero,
Epictetus, Julius Firmicus, and others of the same order. I shall
close with one of Alcinous, de Doctrina Platon. cap. x. : "Aroxov dz rb»
Qtbv t% 2X»]£ tJvat xai I'idovs' ou yap zffrai a-rXoDj olds dp^ixog' — " It is
absurd to say that God is of matter and form ; for if so, he could
neither be simple, nor the principal cause."

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

103 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

CHAPTER IV.

Of the attribution of passions and affections, anger, fear, repentance, unto God —
In what sense it is done in the Scripture.

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

Ques. Are there not, according to tJie perpetual tenor of the Scriptures, affec
tions and passions in God, as anger, fury, zeal, wrath, love, hatred, mercy, grace,
jealousy, repentance, grief, joy, fear?

Concerning which he labours to make the Scriptures determine in
the affirmative.

1. The mam of Mr Biddle's design, in his questions about the
nature of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct persons, its
omnipresence, prescience, and therein all other infinite perfections,
he endeavours to make him some recompense for all that loss by as
cribing to him in the foregoing query a human visible shape, and in
this, human, turbulent affections and passions. Commonly, where
men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, he gives them
up to assign that unto him which he doth abhor, Jer. xliv. 15-17.
Neither is it easily determinable whether be the greater abomina
tion. By the first, the dependence of men upon the true God is
taken off; by the latter, their hope is fixed on a false. This, on both
sides, at present is Mr B/s sad employment. The Lord lay it not to
his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is
" taken alive at his pleasure" ! 2 Tim. ii. 26.

2. The things here assigned to God are ill associated, if to be un
derstood after the same manner. Mercy and grace we acknowledge
to be attributes of God ; the rest mentioned are by none of Mr B/s
companions esteemed any other than acts of his will, and those meta
phorically assigned to him.1

3. To the whole I ask, whether these things are in the Scriptures
ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections and passions in
him as those in us are which are so termed? or whether they are
assigned to him and spoken of him metaphorically only, in reference
to his outward works and dispensations, correspondent and answering
to the actings of men in whom such affections are, and under the
power whereof they are in those actings? If the latter be affirmed,
then as such an attribution of them unto God is eminently consistent
with all his infinite perfections and blessedness, so there can be no
difference about this question and the answers given thereunto, all
men readily acknowledging that in this sense the Scripture doth
ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God, of which we say as he

1 Crell. de Deo : seu Vera Relig., cap. xxix. p. 295.

OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF PASSIONS, ETC., TO GOD. ] 09

of old, Taura avdpu<ffo<7ra@u$ f^sv \syovrai, ^toffptvug ds voovvrai. But this,
I fear, will not serve Mr B/s turn. The very phrase and manner of
expression used in this question, the plain intimation that is in the
forehead thereof of its author's going off from the common received
interpretation of these attributions unto God, do abundantly manifest
that it is their proper significancy which he contends to fasten on
God, and that the affections mentioned are really and properly in
him as they are in us. This being evident to be his mind and in-
tendment, as we think his anthropopathism in this query not to
come short in folly and madness of his anthropomorphitism in that
foregoing, so I shall proceed to the removal of this insinuation in the
way and method formerly insisted on.

Mr B.'s masters tell us " That these affections are vehement com
motions of the will of God, whereby he is carried out earnestly to
the object of his desires, or earnestly declines and abhors what falls
not out gratefully or acceptably to him."1 I shall first speak of them
in general, and then to the particulars (some or all) mentioned by
MrB.:— '

First, In general, that God is perfect and perfectly blessed, I sup
pose will not be denied ; it cannot be but by denying that he is God.1
He that is not perfect in himself and perfectly blessed is not God.
To that which is perfect in any kind nothing is wanting in that kind.
To that which is absolutely perfect nothing is wanting at all. He
who is blessed is perfectly satisfied and filled, and hath no farther
desire for supply. He who is blessed in himself is all-sufficient for
himself. If God want or desire any thing for himself, he is neither
perfect nor blessed. To ascribe, then, affections to God properly
(such as before mentioned), is to deprive him of his perfection and
blessedness. The consideration of the nature of these and the like
affections will make this evident.

1. Affections, considered in themselves, have always an incomplete,
imperfect act of the will or volition joined with them. They are
something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul and the
execution of that purpose.3 The proper actings of affections lie be
tween these two ; that is, in an incomplete, tumultuary volition. That
God is not obnoxious to such volitions and incomplete actings of the
will, besides the general consideration of his perfections and blessed
ness premised, is evident from that manner of procedure which is
ascribed to him. His purposes and his works comprise all his act
ings. As the Lord hath purposed, so hath he done. " He worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will." " Who hath known his

i " Voluntatis divinse commotiones, praesertim vehementiores, seu actus ejusmodi,
quibus voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur, vel ab eo refugit, atque ab-
horret," etc. — Crell. de Deo : seu Vera Relig., cap. xxix. p. 295. Vid. etiam cap. xxx., xxxi.

z Deut. xxxii. 4 ; Job xxxvii. 16; Rom. i. 25, ix. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 11, vi. 15.

8 Crell. de Deo, ubi supra.

110 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

mind? or who hath been his counsellor ? Of him, and through him,
and to him, are all things."1

2. They have their dependence on that wherewith he in whom
they are is affected; that is, they owe their rise and continuance to
something without him in whom they are. A man's fear ariseth
from that or them of whom he is afraid ; by them it is occasioned,
on them it depends. Whatever affects any man (that is, the stirring
of a suitable affection), in all that frame of mind and soul, in all the
volitions and commotions of will which so arise from thence, he de
pends on something without him. Yea,> our being affected with some
thing without lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves.
Is it thus with God, with him who is I AM? Exod. iii. 14. Is he in
dependence upon any thing without him ? Is it not a most eminent
contradiction to speak of God in dependence on any other thing?
Must not that thing either be God or be reduced to some other with
out and besides him, who is God, as the causes of all our affections
are? " God is in one mind, and who can turn him? what his soul
desireth, that he doeth," Job xxiii. 13.

3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and mu
tability; yea, he who is affected properly is really changed; yea,
there is no more unworthy change or alteration than that which is
accompanied with passion, as is the change that is wrought by the
affections ascribed to God. A sedate, quiet, considerate alteration is
far less inglorious and unworthy than that which is done in and with
passion.3 Hitherto we have taken God upon his testimony, that he
is the "LoKD, and he changeth not," Mai. iii. 6 ; that "with him there
is neither change nor shadow of turning;" — it seems, like the worms
of the earth, he varieth every day.

4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God do eminently de
note impotence; which, indeed, on this account, both by Socinians and
Arminians, is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him
affectionately and with commotion of will to desire many things in
their own nature not impossible, which yet he cannot accomplish or
bring about (of which I have elsewhere spoken) ; yea, it will appear
that the most of the affections ascribed to God by Mr B., taken in a
proper sense, are such as are actually ineffectual, or commotions
through disappointments, upon the account of impotency or defect
of power.

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

Secondly, Let a short view be taken of the particulars, some or all
of them, that Mr B. chooseth to instance in. " Anger, fury, wrath,
zeal" (the same in kind, only differing in degree and circumstances),

i Isa.^xiv. 24; Eph. i. 11; Rom. xi. 33-36; Isa. xl. 13, 14.

T< ni ariStifta ftiT^oy javji<r» TOU vft^.a.^a.nn rt «7-:nr<rav rftvntdti ; — Philo.

OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF PASSIONS, ETC., TO GOD. Ill

are the first he instances in ; and the places produced to make good
this attribution to God are, Num. xxv. 3, 4; Ezek. v. 13; Exod.
xxxii. 11, 12; Rom. i. 18.

1. That mention is made of the anger, wrath, and fury of God in
the Scripture is not questioned. Num. xxv. 4, Deut. xiii. 17, Josh,
vii. 26, Ps. Ixxviii. 31, Isa. xiii. 9, Deut. xxix. 24, Judges ii. 14, Ps.
Ixxiv. 1, Ixix. 24, Isa. xxx. 30, Lam. ii. 6, Ezek. v. 15, Ps. Ixxviii. 49,
Isa xxxiv. 2, 2 Chrou. xxviii. 11, Ezra x. 14, Hab. iii. 8, 12, are
farther testimonies thereof. The words also in the original, in all
the places mentioned, express or intimate perturbation of mind,
commotion of spirit, corporeal mutation of the parts of the body,
and the like distempers of men acting under the power of that
passion. The whole difference is about the intendment of the Holy
Ghost in these attributions, and whether they are properly spoken of
God, asserting this passion to be in him in the proper significancy
of the words, or whether these things be not taken uvdpuvoKaOXig,
and to be understood SioirpfTrus, in such a sense as may answer the
meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them their truth to
the utmost, and yet to be interpreted in a suitableness to divine per
fection and blessedness.

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

(1.) His vindictive justice, or constant and immutable will of ren
dering vengeance for sin.1 So God's purpose of the demonstration of
his justice is called his being " willing to show his wrath" or anger,
Rom. ix. 22 ; so God's anger and his judgments are placed together,
Ps. vii. 6; and in that anger he judgeth, verse 8. And in this sense is
the "wrath of God" said to be "revealed from heaven," Rom. i. 18;
that is, the vindictive justice of God against sin to be manifested in
the effepts of it, or the judgments sent and punishments inflicted on
and throughout the world.

(2.) By anger, wrath, zeal, fury, the effects of anger are denoted :
Rom. iii. 5, " Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ?" The
words are, 6 eimp'epuv rqv opyw, — " who inflicteth or bringeth anger on
man ;" that is, sore punishments, such as proceed from anger ; that is,
God's vindictive justice. And Eph. v. 6, " For these things cometh
the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Is it the pas
sion or affection of anger in God that Mr B. talks of, that comes upon
the children of disobedience? or is it indeed the effect of his justice
for this sin ? * Thus the day of judgment is called the " day of wrath"
and of " anger," because it is the day of the " revelation of the
righteous judgment of God :" Rom. ii. 5, " After thy hardness/'

1 Vid. Andr. Bivetum in Ps. ii. p. 11, et in Exod. iy. p. 14, et Aquinat. 1, part. q. 3,
art. 2, ad secundum. " Ira dicitur de Deo secundum similitudinem effectus, quia pro-
prium est irati punire, ejus ira punitio metaphorice vocatur."

2 " 'H Ipyri TIU emu, Divina ultio, Rom. i. 18, CoL iii. 6." — Grotius in locum.

112 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

etc. In the place of Ezekiel (chap. v. 13) mentioned by Mr B., the
Lord tells them he will " cause his fury to rest upon them," and "ac
complish it upon them." I ask whether he intends this of any passion
in him (and if so, how a passion in God can rest upon a man), or the
judgments which for their iniquities he did inflict ? We say, then,
anger is not properly ascribed to God, but metaphorically, denoting
partly his vindictive justice, whence all punishments flow, partly
the effects of it in the punishments themselves, either threatened or
inflicted, in their terror and bitterness, upon the account of 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 Mr B. For, —

3. Properly, in the sense by him pointed to, anger, wrath, etc.,
are not in God. Anger is denned by the philosopher to be, opi^i;
(MTU Xtwnjs TifAupias paivopevri;, dia paivoftsvrjv oXiyupiav, — " desire joined
with grief of that which appears to be revenge, for an appearing ne
glect or contempt." To this grief, he tells you, there is a kind of
pleasure annexed, arising from the vehement fancy which an angry
person hath of the revenge he apprehends as future,1 — which, saith
he, " is like the fancy of them that dream,"3 — and he ascribes this pas
sion mostly to weak, impotent persons. Ascribe this to God, and
you leave him nothing else. There is not one property of his nature
wherewith it is consistent. If he be properly and literally angry,
and furious, and wrathful, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires
revenge, and is neither blessed nor perfect. But of these things in
our geneial reasons against the propriety of these attributions after
ward.

4. Mr. B. hath given us a rule in his preface, that when any thing
is ascribed to God in one place which is denied of him in another,
then it is not properly ascribed to him. Now, God says expressly
that " fury" or anger "is not in him," Isa, xxvii. 4; and therefore it
is not properly ascribed to him.

5. Of all the places where mention is made of God's repentings,
or his repentance, there is the same reason. Exod. xxxiL 14, Gen.
vi. 6, 7, Judges x. 1 6, Deut. xxx. 9, are produced by Mr. B. That one
place of 1 Sam. xv. 29, where God affirms that he " knoweth no re
pentance," casts all the rest under a necessity of an interpretation suit
able unto it. Of all the affections or passions which we are obnoxious
to, there is none that more eminently proclaims imperfection, weak
ness, and want in sundry kinds, than this of repentance. If not sins,
mistakes, and miscarriages (as for the most part they are), yet dis
appointment, grief, and trouble, are always included in it. So is it
in that expression, Gen. vi. 6, " It repented the LORD that he had

'H «J» T«T» lyyioiftiiin (fetfraff'ta «5avn» faili, uffftf fi ru» i\vriiui. — Arist. Rhet. lib. ii

cap. ii.

ipyhei Ctrl. — Id. ubi sup.

OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF PASSIONS, ETC., TO GOD. 113

made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."1 What
but his mistake and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdom,
foresight, and power, can give propriety to these attributions unto
God? The change God was going then to work in his providence
on the earth was such or like that which men do when they repent
of a thing, being " grieved at the heart" for what they had formerly
done. So are these things spoken of God to denote the kind of the
things which he doth, not the nature of God himself; otherwise
such expressions as these would suit him, whose frame of spirit and
heart is so described : " Had I seen what would have been the issue
of making man, I would never have done it. Would I had never
been so overseen as to have engaged in such a business ! What have
I now got by my rashness ? nothing but sorrow and grief of heart
redounds to me." And do these become the infinitely blessed God ?
6. Fear is added, from Deut. xxxii. 26, 27. "Fear," saith the wise
man, " is a betraying of those succours which reason offereth;"3 — na
ture's avoidance of an impendent evil ; its contrivance to flee and pre
vent what it abhors, being in a probability of coming upon it ; a tur
bulent weakness. This God forbids in us, upon the account of his
being our God, Isa. xxxv. 4 ; "Fear not, O worm Jacob," etc., chap. xli.
14. Everywhere he asserts fear to be unfit for them who depend on
him and his help, who is able in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and
reduce to nothing, all the causes of their fear. And if there ought
to be no fear where such succour is ready at hand, sure there is none
in Him who gives it. Doubtless, it were much better to exclude the
providence of God out of the world than to assert him afraid pro
perly and directly of future events. The schools say truly, " Quod
res sunt futurae, a voluntate Dei est (effectiva vel permissiva)." How,
then, can God be afraid of what he knows will, and purposeth shall,
come to pass ? He doth, he will do, things in some likeness to what
we do for the prevention of what we are afraid of. He will not
'scatter his people, that their adversaries may not have advantage to
trample over them. When we so act as to prevent any thing that,
unless we did so act, would befall us, it is because we are afraid of
the coming of that thing upon us : hence is the reason of that attri
bution unto God. That properly He should be afraid of what comes

1 Theodoret on this place tells us, " "ol> priv, <Js <rm; Qa/riy, etc. Non autem utfuenmt
quidam" (so that Mr B. is not the first that held this opinion), " it-a quadam et poani-

tentia ductUS Deus haec egit : Taura. yap <rm avfya^nva <xa.Qn n $i $'»<*• Qvffis \\tu6ipa, vrufai."

And then he adds, " TJ "Miron <raiwv, etc. Quomodo ergo pcenitentia cadat in Deum ?"
His answer is, " olx oli \n\ Qtou psrapiteia, etc. Quare psenitentia Dei nihil aliud est,
quam mutatio dispensationis ejus. Pcenitet me (inquit) quod constituerim Saul regem,
pro eo quod est, statui ilium deponere. Sic in hoc loco (Gen. vi. 6), Pcenitet fecisse me
hominem; hoc est, decrevi perdere humanum genus." — Theod. in Gen. quaest. 50, torn. i.
pp. 41, 42.

2 "Etrra $t QoSoi, \vfn n; « rKpa%ri IK (favraffix;, /titXXavros KO.X.OU tl <Q$&(rtx.ou, % Z-wrnpou- —
Arist. Ehet. lib. ii. cap. vi.

VOL. XII. 8

114 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

to pass who knows from eternity what will so do, who can with the
breath of his mouth destroy all the objects of his dislike, who is in
finitely wise, blessed, all-sufficient, and the sovereign disposer of the
lives, breath, and ways of all the sons of men, is fit for Mr. B. and
no man else to affirm. " All the nations are before him as the drop
of the bucket, and the dust of the balance, as vanity, as nothing; he
upholdeth them by the word of his power ; in him all men live, and
move, and have their being," and can neither live, nor act, nor be
without him ; their life, and breath, and all their ways, are in his
hands ; he brings them to destruction, and says, " Keturn, ye children
of men ;"1 and must he needs be properly afraid of what they will do
to him and against him ?

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

(1.) Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions can have
place or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted ; for
to what end should we suppose that whereof there can be no use to
eternity? If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred
up or acted, is it not impossible any such should be in him ? The
causes stirring up all affections are the access of some good desired,
whence joy, hope, desire, etc., have their spring ; or the approach of
some evil to be avoided, which occasions fear, sorrow, anger, repent
ance, and the like. Now, if no good can be added to God, whence
should joy and desire be stirred up in him ? if no evil can befall him,
in himself or any of his concernments, whence should he have fear,
Borrow, or repentance ? Our goodness extends not to him ; he
hath no need of us or our sacrifices, Ps. xvi. 2, 1. 8-10 ; Job xxxv.
6-8. " Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be
profitable to himself ? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou
art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways per
fect?" chap. xxii. 2, 3.

(2.) The apostle tells us that God. is " blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5 j

i Acts xv. 18; 2 Sam. xxii. 16; Job iv. 9; Ps. xviii. 15; Rom. i. 25; Gen. xvii. 1;
Horn. ix. 16-18, etc., xi. 34-36; Isa. xl. 15; Heb. i. 3 ; Pa. xxxiii 9- Acts xvii.
24-28 ; Ps. L 8 ; Dan. v. 23 ; Ps. xc. 3; Job xxxiv. 19.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. ] 15

" He is the blessed and only Potentate," 1 Tim. vl 15 ; " God all-
sufficient/' Gen. xvii. 1. That which is inconsistent with absolute
blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to be ascribed to God ; to do
so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be blessed, is
he all-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear,
sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like ? Doth not fear take off
from absolute blessedness ? Grant that God's fear doth not long
abide, yet whilst it doth so, he is less blessed than he was before and
than he is after his fear ceaseth. When he hopes, is he not short in
happiness of that condition which he attains in the enjoyment of
what he hoped for ? and is he not lower when he is disappointed
and falls short of his expectation ? Did ever the heathens speak
with more contempt of what they worshipped ? Formerly the pride
of some men heightened them to fancy themselves to be like God,
without passions or affections, Ps. 1. 21 ; being not able to abide
in their attempt against their own sense and experience, it is now
endeavoured to make God like to us, in having such passions and
affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to speak unto.
Those who have written on the attributes of God, — his self-sufficiency
and blessedness, simplicity, immutability, etc., — are ready to tender
farther satisfaction to them who shall desire it.

CHAPTER V.

Of God's prescience or foreknowledge,

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

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

That we might have had a clearer acquaintance with the intend-
ment of this interrogation, it is desirable Mr Biddle had given us his
sense on some particulars, which at first view present themselves to
the trouble of every ordinary reader ; as, —

1. How we may reconcile the words of Scripture given in answer
to his preceding query with the design of this. There it is asserted
that God " understandeth our thoughts" (which certainly are of our
free actions, if any such there are) " afar off ;" here, that he knows not
our free actions that are future, and not yet wrought or performed.

2 By whom is it " wont to be gathered" from the following scrip.

116 VINDICIJ2 EVANGELICLE.

tures that " God knowetli not our free actions until they come to
pass." Why doth not this "mere Christian," that is of no sect, name
his companions and associates in these learned collections from
Scripture ? Would not his so doing discover him to be so far from
a mere Christian, engaged in none of the sects that are now amongst
Christians, as to be of that sect which the residue of men so called
will scarce allow the name of a Christian unto?1

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

Now in this endeavour of his Mr B. doth but follow his leaders.
Socinus in his Prelections, where the main of his design is to vindi
cate man's free-will into that latitude and absoluteness as none
before him had once aimed at, in his eighth chapter objects to
himself this foreknowledge of God as that which seems to abridge
and cut short the liberty contended for.3 He answers that he
grants not the foreknowledge pretended, and proceeds hi that and
the two following chapters, labouring to answer all the testimonies
and arguments which are insisted on for the proof and demonstra
tion of it, giving his own arguments against it, chap. xi. Crellius
is something more candid, as he pretends, but indeed infected with
the same venom with the other; for after he hath disputed for
sundry pages to prove the foreknowledge of God, he concludes at
last that for those things that are future contingent, he knows only
that they are so, and that possibly they may come to pass, possibly
they may not3 Of the rest of their associates few have spoken ex-

1 Stegman. Photin. Eefut. Disput. 1 q. 2; An Photiniani ullo modo Christian! dici
queant ; Neg. Martin. Smiglec. Jes. Nova Monstra, novi Ariani. cap. 1 ; Arianos nullo
modo Christianos dici posse.

* " Ut ad rationem istam non minus plene quam plane respondeamus, animadverten-
dum est, infallibilem istam Dei praenotionem, quam pro re concessa adversarii sumunt,
a nobis non admitti." — Socin. Praelec. cap. viii. p. 25. "Cum igitur nulla ratio, nullus
sacrarum literarum locus sit, ex quo aperte colligi possit, Deum omnia quse fiunt,
scivisse antequam fierent, concludendum est, minime asserendam esse a nobis istam
Dei pnescientiam : prsesertim, cum et rationes non paucae, et sacra testimonia non
desint, unde earn plane negandam esse apparet." — Idem, cap. xi. p. 38.

8 " Itaque inconsiderate illi faciunt, qui futura contingentia Deum determinate scire

OF GOD'S PEESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 117

pressly to this thing. Smalcius once and again manifests himself to
consent with his masters in his disputations against Franzius, ex
pressly consenting to what Socinus had written in his Prelections,
and affirming the same thing himself, yea, disputing eagerly for the
same opinion with him,1

For the vindication of God's foreknowledge, I shall proceed in
the same order as before in reference to the other attributes of God
insisted on, namely: — 1. What Mr B. hath done, how he hath dis
posed of sundry places of Scripture for the proof of his assertion,
with the sense of the places by him so produced, is to be con
sidered ; 2. Another question and answer are to be supplied in the
room of his ; 3. The truth vindicated to be farther confirmed.

For the first : —

In the proof of the assertion proposed Mr B. finds himself entangled
more than ordinarily, though I confess .his task in general be such as
no man not made desperate by the loss of all in a shipwreck of faith
would once have undertaken. To have made good his proceeding
according to his engagement, he ought at least to have given us texts
of Scripture express in the letter, as by him cut off from the state,
condition, and coherence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they are placed,
for the countenancing of his assertion : but here, being not able to
make any work in his method, proposed and boasted in as signal and
uncontrollable, no apex or tittle in the Scripture being pointed to
wards the denial of God's knowing any thing or all things, past, pre
sent, and to come, he moulds his question into a peculiar fashion, and
asks, whence or from what place of Scripture may such a thing as he
there avers be gathered ; at once plainly declining the trial he had
put himself upon of insisting upon express texts of Scripture only,
not one of the many quoted by him speaking one word expressly to
the business in hand, and laying himself naked to all consequences
rightly deduced from the Scripture, and expositions given to the letter
of some places suitable to "the proportion of faith," Rom. xii. 6. That,
then, which he would have, he tells you is gathered from the places of
Scripture subjoined, but how, by whom, by what consequence, with
what evidence of reason, it is so gathered, he tells you not. An
understanding, indeed, informed with such gross conceptions of the
nature of the Deity as Mr B. hath laboured to insinuate into the
minds of men, might gather, from his collection of places of Scrip
ture for his purpose in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved,

aivmt, quia alias non esset omniscius : cum potius, ideo ilia determinate futura non
concipiat, quia est omniscius." — Crell. de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xxiv. p. 201.

1 " Nam si omnia futura, qualiacunque sunt, Deo ab omni aeternitate determinate
cognita fuisse contendas ; necesse est statuere omnia necessario fieri, ac futura esse.
Unde sequitur, nullam esse, aut fuisse unquam, humanse voluntatis libertatem, ac
porro nee religionem." — Idem ibid, p. 202. Smalcius Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 1.
de Trinitat. p. 3, disput. 12, de Caus. Peccat. p. 428, 429, etc., 435.

118 VINDICL3E EVANGELIC^.

that he repenteth, altereth and changeth his mind to and fro ; but
of his knowledge or foreknowledge of things, whether he have any
such thing or not, there is not the least intimation, unless it be in
this, that if he had any such foreknowledge, he need not put himself
to so much trouble and vexation, nor so change and alter his mind,
as he doth. And with such figments as these (through the infinite,
wise, and good providence of God, punishing the wantonness of the
minds and lives of men, by giving them up to strong delusions and
vain imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish hearts, 2 Thess.
ii. 10-12, so far as to change the glory of the incorruptible God
into the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinful man, Rom.

1. 23), are we now to deal.

But let the places themselves be considered. To these heads they
may be referred: — 1. Such as ascribe unto God fear and being afraid.
Deut. xxxii. 26, 27; Exod. xiii. 17; Gen. iii. 22, 23, are of this sort.

2. Repentance, 1 Sam. xv. 10, 11, ult. 3. Change, or alteration of
mind, Num. xiv. 27, 30; 1 Sam. ii. 30. 4. Expectation whether a
thing will answer his desire or no, Isa. v. 4. Conjecturing, Jer.
xxxvi. 1 -3 ; Ezek. xii. 1-3. 5. Trying of experiments, Judges iii. 1, 4 ;
Dan. xii. 10; 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. From all which and the like it
may, by Mr B/s direction and help, be thus gathered : " If God be
afraid of what is to come to pass, and repenteth him of what he hath
done when he finds it not to answer his expectation ; if he sits divin
ing and conjecturing at events, being often deceived therein, and
therefore tries and makes experiments that he may be informed
of the true state of things : then certainly he knows not the free ac
tions of men, that are not yet come to pass." The antecedent Mr B.
hath proved undeniably from ten texts of Scripture, and doubtless the
consequent is easily to be gathered by any of his disciples. Doubt
less it is high time that the old, musty catechisms of prejudicate
persons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the Scriptures
in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were re
moved out of the way and burned, that this " mere Christian" may
have liberty to bless the growing generation with such notions of God
as the idolatrous Pagans of old would have scorned to have received.

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

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OB FOREKNOWLEDGE. 119

As to the matter under consideration^ I have some few things in
general to propose to Mr B., and then I shall descend to the particu
lars insisted on: —

First, then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned, as
fear, grief, repentance, trouble, conjecturings, making trials of men
for his own information, are ascribed properly to God as they are unto
men, or tropically and figurativelyj with a condescension to us, to ex
press the things spoken of, and not to describe the nature of God.1
If the first be said, namely, that these things are ascribed properly
to God, and really signify of him the things in us intended in them, then
to what hath been spoken in the consideration taken of the foregoing
query, I shall freely add, for mine own part, I will not own nor wor
ship him for my God who is truly and properly afraid of what ah1 the
men in the world either will or can do ; who doth, can do, or hath
done any thing, or suffered any thing to be done, of which he doth or
can truly and properly repent himself, with sorrow and grief for his mis
take; or that sits in heaven divining and conjecturing at what men
will do here below : and do know that he whom I serve in my spirit will
famish and starve all such gods out of the world. But of this before.
If these things are ascribed to God figuratively and improperly, dis
covering the kind of his works and dispensations> not his own nature
or property, I would fain know what inference can be made or con
clusion drawn from such expressions, directly calling for a figurative
interpretation ? For instance, if God be said to repent that he had
done such a thing, because such and such things are come to pass
thereupon, if this repentance in God be not properly ascribed to him
(as by Mr B/s own rule it is not), but denotes only an alteration and
change in the works that outwardly are of him, in an orderly subser
viency to the immutable purpose of his will, what can thence be
gathered to prove that God foreseeth not the free actions of men ?
And this is the issue of Mr B/s confirmation of the thesis couched
in his query insisted on from the Scriptures.

2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the rule he hath
given us in his preface, namely, "That where a thing is improperly as
cribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him," as he instances
in that of his being weary: so that whatever is denied of him in any
one place is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though
God be said, in some of the places by him produced, to repent, yet it
is in another expressly said that he doth not so, and that upon such

'"Poenitentia infert ignorantiam praeteriti, preseritis, et futuri, mutationem volun-
tatis, et errorem in consiliis, quorum nihil in Deum cadere potest : dicitur tamen ille me-
taphorice pcenitentia duci, quemadmodum nos, quando alicujus rei pcenitet, abolemus id
quod antea feceramus : quod fieri potest sine tali mutatione voluntatisi qua nunc homo
aliquid facit, quod post mutato animo, destruit." — Manasseh Ben. Israel, conciliat. in Gen.
vi. q. 23. " Pcenitentia, cum mutabilitatem importet, non potest esse in Deo, dicitur
tamcn poenitere, eo quod ad modum pcenitentis se habet, quando destruit quod fecerat."
—Lyra ad 1 Sam. xv. 35.

120 YENDICLE EVANGELIOE.

a general ground and reason as is equally exclusive of all those other
passions and affections, upon whose assignment unto God the whole
strength of Mr B/s plea against the prescience of God doth depend :
1 Sam. xv. 29, " Also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent :
for he is not a man, that he should repent" The immutability of his
nature, and unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, are as
serted as the reason of his not repenting; which will equally extend its
force and efficacy to the removal from him of all the other human
affections mentioned. And this second general consideration of
the foundation of Mr B/s plea is sufficient for the removal of the
whole.

3. I desire to know whether indeed it is only the free actions of
men that are not yet done that Mr B. denies to be known of God,
or whether he excludes him not also from the knowledge of the pre
sent state, frame, and actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand
affected towards him, being therein like other rulers among men, who
may judge of the good and evil actions of men so far as they are
manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affected to
them, their rule, government, and authority, they know not? To make
this inquiry, I have not only the observation premised from the words
of the close of Mr B/s query being of a negative importance (" Yea,
that there are such actions"), but also from some of the proofs by
him produced of his former assertion being interpreted according to
the literal significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he
insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. xxii. 1, 2, 10-12, where God
is said to tempt Abraham,1 and upon the issue of that trial says to him
(which words Mr B., by putting them in a different character, points
to as comprehensive of what he intends to gather and conclude from
them), "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with
held thy son, thine only son, from me." The conclusion which Mr B.
guides unto from hence is, that God knew not that which he inquired
after, and therefore tempted Abraham that he might so do, and upon
the issue of that trial says, "Now I know." But what was it that God
affirms that now he knew? Not any thing future, not any free ac
tion that was not as yet done, but something of the present condition
and frame of his heart towards God, — namely,, his fear of God ; not
whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If
this, then, be properly spoken of God, and really as to the nature of
the thing itself, then is he ignorant no less of things present than of
those that are for to come. He knows not who fears him nor who
hates him, unless he have opportunity to try them in some such way
as he did Abraham. And then what a God hath this man deline-

1 " Ex hac actione propter quam ab omnibus Devun timens vocaberis, cognoscent
omnes, quantus in te sit timer Dei, et quosque pertingat." — R. Mos. Ben. Maimon.
More Nevoch. p. 3, cap. xxiv.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OB FOREKNOWLEDGE. 121

ated to us! How like the dunghill deities of the heathen, who speak
after this rate!1 Doubtless the description that Elijah gave of Baal
would better suit him than any of those divine perfections which
the living, all-seeing God hath described himself by. But now, if Mr
B. will confess that God knows all the things that are present, and
that this inquiry after the present frame of the heart and spirit of
a man is improperly ascribed to him, from the analogy of his pro
ceedings, in his dealing with him, to that which we insist upon
when we would really find out what we do not know, then I would
only ask of him why those other expressions which he mentions,
looking to what is to come, being of the same nature and kind with
this, do not admit of, yea call for, the same kind of exposition and
interpretation.

Neither is this the only place insisted on by Mr B. where the
inquiry ascribed unto God, and the trial that he makes, is not in
reference to things to come, but punctually to what is present : Deut.
viii. 2, xiii. 3, " The LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye
love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul ;"
2 Chron. xxxii. 31, " God left him, to try him, that he might know
all that was in his heart ;" and Phil. iv. 6, " In every thing let your
requests be made known unto God." Let Mr B. tell us now plainly
whether he supposes all these things to be spoken properly of God,
and that indeed God knows not our hearts, the frame of them, nor
what in them we desire and aim at, without some eminent trial and
inquiry, or until we ourselves do make known what is in them unto
him. If this be the man's mind (as it must be, if he be at any agree
ment with himself in his principles concerning these scriptural attri
butions unto God), for my part I shall be so far from esteeming him
eminent as a mere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him com
parable, as to his apprehensions of God, unto many that lived and
died mere Pagans. To this sense also is applied that property of
•God, that he "trieth the hearts," as it is urged by Mr B. from 1 Thess.
ii. 4 ; — that is, he maketh inquiry after what is in them ; which, but
upon search and trial, he knoweth not ! By what ways and means
God accomplisheth this search, and whether hereupon he comes to
a perfect understanding of our hearts or no, is not expressed. John
tells us that " God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all
things;" and we have thought on that account (with that of such
farther discoveries as he hath made of himself and his perfections
unto us) that he had been said to search our hearts ; not that himself,
for his own information, needs any such formal process by way of
trial and inquiry, but because really and indeed he doth that in

1 " Contigerat nostras infamia temporis aures :
Quam cupiens falsam summo delabor Olympo,
Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine terras." — Oyid. Met. i. 211.

122 VINDICI^l EVANGELIC^.

himself which men aim at in the accomplishment of their most
diligent searches and exactest trials.

And we may, by the way, see a little of this man's consistency with
himself. Christ he denies to be God, — a great part of his religion
consists in that negative, — yet of Christ it is said that " he knew all
men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew
what was in man," John ii. 24, 25 : and this is spoken in reference to
that very thing in the hearts of men which he would persuade us
that God knows not without inquiry; that is, upon the account of his
not committing himself to those as true believers whom yet, upon the
account of the profession they made, the Scripture calls so, and says
they "believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did,"
verse 23. Though they had such a veil of profession upon them that
the Holy Ghost would have us esteem them as believers, yet Christ
could look through it into their hearts, and discover and know their
frame, and whether in sincerity they loved him and believed in his
name or no ; but this God cannot do without inquiry ! And yet Christ
(if we believe Mr B.) was but a mere man, as he is a "mere Christian."
Farther; it seems, by this gentleman, that unless "we make known
our requests to God," he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask
nothing but what is in our thoughts ; and in the last query he in
structs us that God knows our thoughts, — and doubtless he knows Mr
B.'s to be but folly. Farther yet ; if God must be concluded igno
rant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests known
unto him, he may be as well concluded forgetful of what himself hath
spoken, because he bids us put him in remembrance, and appoints
some to be his remembrancers. But to return : —

This is the aspect of almost one-half of the places produced by Mr
B. towards the business in hand. If they are. properly spoken of
God, in the same sense as they are of man, they conclude him not
to know things present, the frame of the heart of any man in the
world towards himself and his fear, nay, the outward, open, notorious
actions of men. So it is in that place of Gen. xviii. 21, insisted on by
Crellius, one of Mr B/s great masters, "I will go down now, and see"
(or know) " whether they have done altogether according to the cry of
it, which is come unto me."1 Yea, the places which, in their letter
and outward appearance, seem to ascribe that ignorance of things
present unto God are far more express and numerous than those that
in the least look forward to what is yet for to come, or was so at

1 " Nimis longe a propria verborum significatione recedendum est, et sententiarum
vis enervanda, si eas cum definita ilia futiirorum contingentium proescientia conciliarc
veils, ut Gen. xviii. 21, xxii. 12. Quicquid enim alias de utriusque loci sententia
statuas. illud tamen facile est cernere, Deum novum quoddam, et insigne experimen-
tum, illic quidem impietatis Sodomiticse et Gomorrhsese, videre voluisse, hie vero
pietatis Abrahamicse vidisse, quod antequam fieret, plane certum et exploratum non
esset." — Crell. de Vera Eelig. cap. xxiv. p. 209.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 123

their delivery. This progress, then, have we made under our catechist,
if we may believe him, as he insinuates his notions concerning God :
" God sits in heaven (glistering on a throne), whereunto he is limited,
yea, to a certain place therein, so as not to be elsewhere ; being
grieved, troubled, and perplexed at the affairs done below which he
doth 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 is
eminently and expressly denied by Mr B., namely, " God's fore
knowledge of our free actions that are future," because many of his
proofs, in the sense by him urged, seem to exclude him from an ac
quaintance with many things present, — as, in particular, the frame and
condition of the hearts of men towards himself, as was observed, — it
may not be amiss a little to confirm that perfection of the knowledge
of God as to those things from the Scripture ; which will abundantly
also manifest that the expressions insisted on by our catechist are
metaphorical and improperly ascribed to God. Of the eminent pre
dictions in the Scripture, which relate unto things future, I shall
speak afterward. He knew, for he foretold the flood, the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, the famine in Egypt, the selling and exal
tation of Joseph, the reign of David, the division of his kingdom, the
Babylonish captivity, the kingdom of Cyrus, the return of his people,
the state and ruin of the four great empires of the world, the wars,
plagues, famines, earthquakes, divisions, which he manifestly foretold.
But farther, he knows the frame of the hearts of men ; he knew that
the Keilites would deliver up David to Saul if he stayed amongst
them, — which probably they knew not themselves, 1 Sam. xxiii. 12 ; he
knew that Hazael would murder women and infants, which he knew
not himself, 2 Kings viii. 12, 13; he knew that the Egyptians would
afflict his people, though at first they entertained them with honour,
Gen. xv. 13 ; he knew Abraham, that he would instruct his house
hold, chap, xviii. 19; he knew that some were obstinate, their neck
an iron sinew, and their brow brass, Isa. xlviii. 4 ; he knew the ima
gination or figment of the heart of his people, Deut. xxxi. 21 ; that the
church of Laodicea, notwithstanding her profession, was lukewarm,
neither cold nor hot, Rev. iii. 15. " Man looketh on the outward ap
pearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart," 1 Sam. xvi. 7. " He
only knoweth the hearts of all the children of men," 1 Kings viii. 39.
" Hell and destruction are before the LORD : how much more then the
hearts of the children of men?" Prov. xv. 11. So also Prov. xxiv. 12 ;
Jer. xvii. 9, 10; Ezek. xi. 5; Pa xxxviii. 9, xciv. 11; Job xxxi. 4;
Matt. vi. 4, 6, 8; Luke xvi. 15; Actsi. 24, etc. Innumerable other
places to this purpose may be insisted on, though it is a surprisal to
be put to prove that God knows the hearts of the sons of men. But
to proceed to that which is more directly under consideration : —

124 VINDICLaS EVANGELIC^.

The sole foundation of Mr B/s insinuation, that God knows not
our free actions that are future, being laid, as was observed, on the
assignation of fear, repentance, expectation, and conjecturing, unto
God, the consideration which hath already been had of those at
tributions in the Scripture and the causes of them is abundantly
sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to let his inference sink
thither whence it came. Doubtless never was painter so injurious to
the Deity (who limned out the shape of an old man on a cloth or
board, and, after some disputes with himself whether he should sell
it for an emblem of winter, set it out as a representation of God the
Father) as this man is in snatching God's own pencil out of his hand,
and by it presenting him to the world in a gross, carnal, deformed
shape. Plato would not suffer Homer in his Commonwealth, for
intrenching upon the imaginary blessedness of their dunghill deities,
making Jupiter to grieve for the death of Sarpedon,1 Mars to be
wounded by Diomedes, and to roar thereupon with disputes and
conjectures in heaven among themselves about the issue of the Trojan
war,3 though he endeavours to salve all his heavenly solecisms by
many noble expressions concerning purposes not unmeet for a deity,
telling us, in the close and issue of a most contingent aftair, A/oc ds
nXshro jSouXjj.3 Let that man think of how much sorer punishment
he shall be thought worthy (I speak of the great account he is one
day to make) who shall persist in wresting the Scripture to his own
destruction, to represent the living and incomprehensible God unto
the world trembling with fear, pale with anger, sordid with grief and
repentance, perplexed with conjectures and various expectations of
events, and making a diligent inquiry after the things he knows not ;
that is, altogether such an one as himself: let all who have the least
reverence of and acquaintance with that Majesty with whom we
have to do judge and determine. But of these things before.

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

Ques. Doth not God know all things, whether past, present, or to

1 Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. n. ver. 431, etc. : —

Tati; Js t'Suv i/.'fr.tri Kpovotr va.7; KyxoKopnTlu.
"jJtiv St •rofitift ....

» Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. E. ver. 859, etc. : —

- i S" i£pa%t x<ilxi/>s "Aptis,
"Off fay r i*mti%iXt>t iwiee%ov, n SEX
'Avipif iv #o\ifttj> .... xafi^ire,
&i7%iv 5' ciftSfarar eitfia xarappiav
Ka/ p eXoipu ofitvotf x. <r. X.

'Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. A. in princip.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 125

come, all the ways and actions of men, even before their accomplish
ment, or is any thing hid from him ? What says the Scripture
properly and directly hereunto ?

Ans. " God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things/'

1 John iii. 20. " Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in
his sight : but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him
with whom we have to do," Heb. iv. 13. "The LORD is a God of know
ledge/' 1 Sam. ii. 3. " Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up
rising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my
path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For
there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it
altogether," Ps. cxxxix. 2-4. "Great is our Lord, and of great power:
his understanding is infinite," Ps. cxlvii. 5. " Who hath directed the
Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? "With
whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in
the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to
him the way of understanding?" Isa. xl. 13, 14. " There is no search
ing of his understanding," verse 28. Rom. xi. 36, " Of him are all
things;" and, " Known unto God are all his works from the begin
ning of the world," Acts xv. 18, etc.

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

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

1. That knowledge is proper to God, the testimony of the Scrip
ture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing itself doth suf
ficiently evince.1 " I cannot tell," says the apostle : "God knoweth,"

2 Cor. xii. 2, 3. It is the general voice of nature, upon relation of
any thing that to us is hid and unknown, that the apostle there
makes mention of : " God knoweth." That he knoweth the things
that are past, Mr B. doth not question. That at least also some
things that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts, are known
to him, he doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in
any curious scholastical discourse about the understanding, science,

1 " Intellectio secundum se ejus est, quod secundum se optimum est." — Julius Petro-
nellus, lib. iii. cap. iv. ex Arist. Metaph. lib. xii. cap. vii. " Sed et intellectum duplicem
video ; alter enim intelligere potest, quamvis non intelligat, alter etiam intelligit
qui tamen nondum est perfectus, nisi et semper intelligat, et omnia ; et ille demum
absolutissimus futurus sit, qui et semper, et omnia, et simul intelligat." — Maxim.
Tyrius, dissert. 1.

" Uno mentis cernit in ictu
- .Quae sint, quse fuerint, veniantque." — Booth.

126 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

knowledge, or wisdom of God, nor of the way of God's knowing
things in and by his own essence, through simple intuition. That
which directly is opposed is his knowledge of our free actions, which,
in respect of their second and mediate causes, may or may not be.
This, therefore, I shall briefly explain, and confirm the truth of it
by Scripture testimonies and arguments from right reason, not to be
evaded without making head against all God's infinite perfections,
having already demonstrated that all that which is insisted on by
Mr B. to oppose it is spoken metaphorically and improperly of God.

That God doth foresee all future things was amongst mere Pagans
so acknowledged as to be looked on as a common notion of mankind.1
So Xenophon tells us, " That both Grecians and barbarians consented
in this, that the gods knew all things, present and to come." a And
it may be worth our observation, that whereas Crellius, one of the
most learned of this gentleman's masters, distinguished between
effofAtva and /ilXXovra, affirming that God knows ra efffatva, which,
though future, are necessarily so, yet he knows not ra. psXXovra,
which are only, says he, likely so to be.8 Xenophon plainly affirms
that all nations consent that he knows ra /AsXXoira. "And this know
ledge of his," saith that great philosopher, " is the foundation of the
prayers and supplications of men for the obtaining of good or the
avoiding of evil." Now, that one calling himself a " mere Christian"
should oppose a perfection of God that a mere Pagan affirms all the
world to acknowledge to be in him would seem somewhat strange,
but that we know all things do not answer or make good the names
whereby they are called.

For the clearer handling of the matter under consideration, the
terms wherein it is proposed are a little to be explained : —

1. That prescience or foreknowledge is attributed to God, the
Scripture testifieth. Acts ii. 23, Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2, 1 Pet. L 2, are

* T/ Si /

KaffopSy, S4i> eiSvffty, — JEschyL Supp. 1071, 2.
£ix.'ill at ftai 0 xct\i ;[£<.•» Qifftor, aVavaroy <rs tivxi xcci volTy vtiyrx, xal opxv, xau dxauuv,

xa.} ti'Stva/, va. ovra, xat TO. /KiXXavT* irtrlleti. — Hippoc. de Princip. To the same pur

pose is that of EjiicliarniUS, OiStv ix^ivyu TO &l~ay, a.lro; Iff it.ft.ay Ifoirrccs, etc. And

the anonymous author in Stobeeus (vid. Excerpta Stobaei, p. 117), speaking of God, adds,

"Ov ev$i if; X'tXr,(iv ayJ« 11 troiuv, oil)' 0,1 tr/iivfuv, ev^t ftToinxu; waXar o $t trapuv aira>ra%i>u,

v&ir i| avayxus «73«, etc. In short, the Pagans' generally received custom of consult
ing oracles, of using their eiavaffxa-iria, their auguria and auspicia, etc., by which they
expected answers from their gods, and significations of their will concerning future things,
are evident demonstrations that they believed their gods knew future contingents.

1 Ouxavt us /ttJ» Kaii "EXX»»lf *«/ fieifGapei rav; S-ttls tiyouira.! •teivrtt, itiitai, TO. n tttra xa.t
TO. p-iXXaira, iwS>jX«». Tleiftti yavi 0.1 •rclus KO.I •ff/itTit TO. tUtn S<« ftxvrtxr,; ivipuTuffi TOV;
Stov;, ri <ri xpYi xxi <ri ov %p)i vroitli. Ka} (triv on yep.i%efi.iv y\ $v>o,<r0at avrous xa.} tu xeci
xaxut irtitiiv, xeci nora tra$if. Harris y>ut atrouvrai revs Stoiis, ret pit 0au>.a a.farfi-rui,
Ta.ya.6it <n ta'oitti, Ourai roivuv el iroivrK p.\t titans, *• r. X. Ata 3i rt XfitiVua.i, xxi o n t%
txdfrau draGtitrtTtti, x. T. X.^Xenoph. 2TMIIO2. Cap. iv. 47.

* " Cum ergo Deus omnia prout reipsa se habent cognoscat, to-^iva seu certo futura
cognoscit ut talia, similiter et /tttXXovTa ut ^£XX«VT«, seu verisimiliter eventura, pro
ratione causarum uade pendent." — CrelL de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xxiv. p. 201.

OF GOD'S PKESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 127

proofs hereof. The term, indeed (foreknowing), rather relates to the
things known, and the order wherein they stand one to another and
among themselves, than is properly expressive of God's knowledge.
God knows all things as they are, and in that order wherein they
stand. Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures which
he hath appointed to them, and the works of providence which out-
Avardly are of him, he knows as past ; not by remembrance, as we do,
but by the same act of knowledge wherewith he knew them from all
eternity, even before they were.1 Their existence in time and being,
cast by the successive motion of things into the number of the things
that are past, denotes an alteration in them, but not at all in the
knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things future. God
knows them in that esse intelligibile which they have, as they may
be known and understood ; and how that is shall afterward be
declared. He sees and knows them as they are, when they have
that respect upon them of being future ; when they lose this respect,
by their actual existence, he knows them still as before. They are
altered ; his knowledge, his understanding is infinite, and changeth
not.

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

Of the world of things possible which God can do, some things,

1 " Sciendum, quod omnino aliter se habet antiqua vel seterna scientia ad ea quae fiunt
et facta sunt, et aliter recens scientia : esse namque rei entis est causa scientiae nostrse,
scientia vero seterna est causa ut ipsa res sit. Si vero quando res est postquam non
erat, contingeret noviter in ipsa scientia antiqua, scientia superaddita, quemadmodum
contingit hoc in scientia nova, sequeretur utique quod ipsa scientia antiqua esset
causata ab ipso ente : et non esset causa ipsius, oportet ergo quod non contingat ib>
mutatio, scilicet in antiqua scientia, quemadmodum contingit in nova : sciendum
autem, quod hie error idcirco accidit, quia scientia antiqua mensuratur ab imperitis
cum scientia nova, cujus mensurationis modus vitiosissimus est : projicit quippe
quandoque hominem in barathrum, undo nunquam est egressurus." — Rab. Aben. Host.
Interpret. Raymund. Martin. Pugi. Fidei. P. P., cap. xxv. sect. 4, 5, p. 201.

2 " In Deo simplex est intuitus, quo simpliciter videntur quae composita sunt, inva-
riabiliter quae variabilia sunt, et siinul quae successiva."

128 VINDICI.E EVANGELICLE.

even all that he pleaseth, are future* The creation itself, and all
things that have had a being since, were so future before their
creation. Had they not some time been future, they had never
been. Whatever is, was to be before it was. All things that shall
be to the end of the world are now future. How things which were
only possible, in relation to the power of God, come to be future, and
in what respect, shall be briefly mentioned. These things God
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 intelligentise," may be considered
in a threefold relation ; that is, "in ordine ad objectum, mensuram,
modum:" — (1.) " Scientia visionis" hath for its object things past,
present, and to come, — whatsoever had, hath, or will have, actual
being. The measure of this knowledge is his will ; because the will
and decree of God only make those things future which were but pos
sible before : therefore we say, " Scientia visionis fundatur in volun-
tate." For the manner of it, it is called " Scientia libera, quia funda
tur 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.) As for that " scientia " which we call " simplicis
intelligentise," the object of it is possible; the measure of it omnipo-
tency, for by it he knows all he can do ; and for the manner of it,
it is " scientia necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, sed potes-
tate " (say the schoolmen), seeing by it he knows not what he will,
but what he can do. Of that late figment of a middle science in
God, arising neither from the infinite perfection of his own being,
as that of simple intelligence, nor yet attending his free purpose and
decree, as that of vision, but from a consideration of the second
causes that are to produce the things foreknown, in their kind,
order, and dependence, I am not now to treat. And with the for
mer 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 affirm
him to know the things that are future, of what sort soever, or all
things before they come to pass.

3. The things inquired after are commonly called contingent.
Contingencies are of two sorts : — (1.) Such as are only so ; (2.)
Such as are also free.

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

1 "Ad hanc legem animus noster aptandus est, hanc sequatur, huic parcat, et quse-
cunque fiunt, dcbuisse fieri putet." — Senec. Ep. 108.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. ] 29

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

God perfectly knows all the free actions of men before they are
wrought by them.1 All things that will be done or shall be to all
eternity, though in their own natures contingent and wrought by
agents free in their working, are known to him from eternity.

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

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

2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is scibile, may be
known, though future, by him that perfectly knows that cause which
doth so determine the thing to be known unto existence. Now, con
tingent things, the free actions of men that yet are not, but in respect
of themselves may or may not be, have such a determinate cause
of their existence as that mentioned. It is true, in respect of their
immediate causes, as the wills of men, they are contingent, and may
be or not be ; but that they have such a cause as before spoken of is
evident from the light of this consideration : in their own time and
order they are. Now, whatever is at any time was future ; before
it was, it was to be. If it had not been future, it had not now been.
Its present performance is sufficient demonstration of the futurition
it had before. I ask, then, whence it came to be future, — that that
action was rather to be than a thousand others that were as possible
as it ? for instance, that the side of Christ should be pierced with

i " Dixit R. Juchanan : Omnia videntur uno intuitu. Dixit Rab. Nachman filius
Isaac! : Sic etiam nos didicimus; quod scriptum est Ps. xxxiii. 15, Formans simul
cor eorum, inteUigens omnia opera eorum : quomodo intelligendum est ? Dicendum est,
dici, Deuni adunare simul corda totius mundi ? Ecce, videmus non ita rem se habere :
sed sic dicendum est, Formans sive Creator videt simul cor eorum, et intelliget omnia
opera eorum." — Talmud. Rosch. Haschana : interpret. Joseph, de Voysin.

VOL. XII. 9

ISO VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

a spear, when it was as possible, in the nature of the thing itself and
of all secondary causes, that his head should be cut off. That, then,
which gives any action a futuritiou is that determinate cause
wherein it may be known, whereof we speak. Thus it may be said
of the same thing that it is contingent and determined, without the
least appearance of contradiction, because it is not spoken with re
spect to the same things or causes.

3. The determinate cause of contingent things, that is, things that
are future (for every thing when it is, and as it is, is necessary),1 is
the will of God himself concerning their existence and being ; either
by his efficiency and working, as all good things in every kind (that
is, that are either morally or physically so, in which latter sense all
the actions of men, as actions, are so) ; or by his permission, which is
the condition of things morally evil, or of the irregularity and obli
quity attending those actions, upon the account of their relation to a
law, which in themselves are entitative and physically good, as the
things were which God at first created.3 Whether any thing come
to pass beside the will of God and contrary to his purpose will not
be disputed with any advantage of glory to God or honour to them
that shall assert it.3 That in all events the will of God is fulfilled
is a common notion of all rational creatures. So the accomplish
ment of his "determinate counsel" is affirmed by the apostle in the
issue of that mysterious dispensation of the crucifying of his Son.
That of James iv. 15, 'Edv 6 Kupios Stuffy, intimates God's will to be
extended to all actions, as actions, whatever. Thus God knew be
fore the world was made, or any thing that is in it, that there would
be such a world and such things in it ; yet than the making of the
world nothing was more free or contingent.4 God is not a necessary
agent as to any of the works that outwardly are of him. Whence,
then, did God know this ? Was it not from his own decree and
eternal purpose that such a world there should be ? And if the
knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all ?
In brief, these future contingencies depend on something for their
existence, or they come forth into the world in their own strength
and upon their own account, not depending on any other. If the
latter, they are God ; if the former, the will of God or old Fortune
must be the principle on which they do depend.

1 " Quicquid enim est, dum est, necessario est." — Aquinas 1. part, quaest. 19, art. 3.

1 Vide Scot, in 1 lib. Sent. dist. 39, quaest. unica ; Durand ibid. dist. 38, quaest. 3;
Jo. Major in 1, dist. 38, 39, quaest. 1, art. 4; Alvarez deAuxiliis. lib. ii. disput. 10, p.
65, etc. ; et Scholasticos in Lombardum ibid. dist. 38, 39 ; quos fuse enumerat Job.
Martines de Ripalda in 1 Sent. p. 127 et 131.

' " Quid mihi scire quae futura sunt ? Quaecunque ille vult, haec futura sunt." —
Origen. Horn. 6, in Jesum Nave. Vid. Freder. Spanhemium Dub. Evang. 33, p. 272,
in illud Matth. " Totum hoc factum est, "»a •x-z.vput)* TO fatit v#o mv Kvfiou." Paul. Fer-
rium Scbol. Orthodox!, cap. xxxi. ; et in Vindiciis. cap. v. sect. 6.

4 Vide Aquinat. 1, queest. 83, art. 1, ad 3.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 131

4. God can work with contingent causes for the accomplishment
of his own will and purposes, without the least prejudice to them,
either as causes or as free and contingent. God moves not, works
not, in or with any second causes, to the producing of any effect
contrary or not agreeable to their own natures. Notwithstanding
any predetermination or operation of God, the wills of men, in the
production of every one of their actions, are at as perfect liberty as
a cause in dependence of another is capable of. To say it is not in
dependence is atheism. The purpose of God, the counsel of his
will, concerning any thing as to its existence, gives a necessity of in
fallibility to the event, but changes not the manner of the second
cause's operation, be [it] what it will.1 That God cannot accomplish
and bring about his own purposes by free and contingent agents,
without the destruction of the natures he hath endued them withal,
is a figment unworthy the thoughts of any who indeed acknowledge
his sovereignty and power.

5. The reason why Mr B/s companions in his undertaking, as
others that went before him of the same mind, do deny this fore
knowledge of God, they express on all occasions to be that the
granting of it is prejudicial to that absolutely independent liberty of
will which God assigns to men : so Socinus pleads, Praslect. Theol.
cap. viii. ; thus far, I confess, more accurately than the Arminians. 3
These pretend (some of them, at least) to grant the prescience of God,
but yet deny his determinate decrees and purposes, on the same pre
tence that the others do his prescience, namely, of their prejudicial-
ness to the free-will of man. Socinus discourses (which was no
difficult task) that the foreknowledge of God is as inconsistent with
that independent liberty of will and contingency which he and they
had fancied as the predetermination of his will; and therefore rejects
the former as well as the latter. It was Augustine's complaint of
old concerning Cicero, that " ita fecit homines liberos, ut fecit etiarn.
sacrileges."3 Cicero was a mere Pagan, and surely our complaint

1 Vide Didac. Alvarez, de Auxiliis Gratise, lib. iii. disput. 25, Aquinat. part. 2,
qujBst. 112, art. 3, E. 1. Part, qusest. 19, art. 8, ad 3.

3 Crell. de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xxiv. Smalc. ad Franz, disput. 12.

8 " In has angustias Cicero coarctat animum religiosum, ut unum eligat e duobus,
— aut esse aliquid in nostra voluntate, aut esse prsescientiam futurorum : quoniam
utrumque arbitratur esse non posse, sed si alterum confirmatur, alterum tolli : si
elegerimus prsescientiam futurorum, tolli voluntatis arbitrium : si elegerimus volun-
tatis arbitrium, tolli prsescientiam futurorum. Ipse itaque ut vir magnus et doctus,
et vitse humanse plurimum et peritissime consulens, ex his duobus elegit liberum vo
luntatis arbitrium. Quod ut confirmaretur, negavit prsescientiam futurorum, atquo
ita dum vult facere liberos, facit sacrileges. Religiosus autem animus utrumque eligit,
utrumque confitetur, et fide pietatis utrumque confirmat. Quomodo inquit : Nam si
est prsescientia futurorum, sequuntur ilia omnia, quse connexa sunt, donee eo perveni-
atur, ut nihil sit in nostra voluntate. Porro, si est aliquid in nostra voluntate, eisdem
recursis gradibus eo pervenitur, ut non sit prsescientia futurorum. Nam per ilia omnia
sic recurritur. Si est voluntatis arbitrium, non omnia fato fiunt. Si non omnia fato
fiunt, non est omnium certua ordo causarum. Si certus causarum ordo non est : neo

132 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

against any that shall close with him in this attempt, under the
name of a "mere Christian," will not be less just than that of Augus
tine. For mine own part, I am fully resolved that all the liberty
and freedom that, as creatures, we are capable of is eminently con
sistent with God's absolute decrees and infallible foreknowledge;
and if I should hesitate in the apprehension thereof, I had rather
ten thousand times deny our wills to be free than God to be omni
scient, the sovereign disposer of all men, their actions, and concern
ments, or say that any thing comes to pass without, against, or con
trary to the counsel of his will. But we know, through the good
ness of God, that these things have their consistency, and that God
may have preserved to him the glory of his infinite perfection, and
the will of man not at all be abridged of its due and proper liberty.

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

1. He who knows all things knows the things that are future,
though contingent.1 In saying they are things future and contingent,
you grant them to be among the number of things, as you do those
which you call things past ; but that God knows all things hath
already been abundantly confirmed out of Scripture. Let the reader
look back on some of the many texts and places by which T gave
answer to the query about the foreknowledge of God, and he will
find abundantly enough for his satisfaction, if he be of those that
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 iii. 20, " God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all
things." Even we know things past and present. If God knows
only things of the same kind, his knowledge may be greater than
ours by many degrees, but you cannot say his understanding is in
finite ; there is not, on that supposition, an infinite distance between
his knowledge and ours, but they stand in some measurable propor
tion. Heb. iv. 13, "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of
him with whom we have to do." "Not that which is to come, not the
free actions of men that are future," saith Mr B. 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

remm certus est ordo praescienti Deo, quaB fieri non possunt nisi prsecedentibus, et
efficientibus causis. Si rerum ordo praescienti Deo certus non est, non omnia sic veni-
unt, ut ea ventura praescivit. Porro, si non omnia sic eveniunt ut ab illo eventura
praescita sunt, non est, inquit in Deo praescientia futurorum. Nos adversus istos
sacrileges ausus, et hnpios, et Deum dicimus omnia scirc antequam fiant ; et voluntate
nos facere, quicquid a nobis non nisi volentibus fieri sentimus et novimus." — August,
de Civit. Dei, lib. v. cap. ix.

. l " Causam quare Deus futura contingentia prsesciat damus hanc, quod sit infinita
ipsius intellectus perfectio omnia cognoscentis. Et sicut Deus cognoscit praeterita
fsecundum esse quod habuerunt, ita etiam cognoscit futura secundum illud esse quod
Wbitura sunt."— Dan. Clasen. Theol. Natural, cap. xxii. p. 128.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. IBB

xv. 18, " Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of
the world." I ask, whether God hath any thing to do in the free
actions of men ? For instance, had he any thing to do in the send
ing of Joseph into Egypt, his exaltation there, and the entertainment
of his father's household afterward by him in his greatness and
power ? all which were brought about by innumerable contingencies
and free actions of men. If he had not, why should we any longer
depend on him, or regard him in the several transactions and con
cernments of our lives ?

" N\illum numen abest,1 si sit prudentia : nos te,
Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam."

If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he affirmed
plainly that " God sent him thither, and made him a father to Pha
raoh and his house," Gen. xlv. 5-8, then the whole was known to God
before, for " Known unto God are all his works from the beginning
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 contingent is equally interested
therein. " A quatenus ad omne valet argumentum." That place of
the psalm before recited, Ps. cxxxix. 2-6, is express as to the know
ledge of God concerning our free actions that are yet future. If any
thing in the world may be reckoned amongst our free actions, surely
our thoughts may ; and such a close reserved treasure are they that
Mr B. doth more than insinuate, in the application of the texts of
Scripture which he mention eth, that God knoweth them not when
present without search and inquiry. But these, saith the psalmist,
"God knoweth afar off," — before we think them, before they enter into
our hearts. And truly I marvel that any man, not wholly given up
to a spirit of giddiness, after he had produced this text of Scripture
to prove that God knows our thoughts, should instantly subjoin a
question leading men to a persuasion that God knows not our free
actions that are future ; unless it was with a Julian design, to im
pair the credit of the word of God, by pretending it liable to self-
contradiction, or, with Lucian, to deride God as bearing contrary
testimonies concerning himself.

2. God hath, by himself and his holy prophets, which have been
from the foundation of the world, foretold many of the free actions
of men, what they would do, what they should do, long before they
were born who were to do them.2 To give a -little light to this ar
gument, which of itself will easily overwhelm all that stands before it,

1 Some read " babes." See Juv. Sat. x. 365. — ED.

* " Pnescientia Dei tot habet testes, quot fecit prophetas." — TertuL lib. ii. contra
Marcionem.

134, VINDICLE EVANGELIC J2.

I shall handle it under these propositions : — (1.) That God hath so
foretold the free actions of men. (2.) That so he could not do unless
he knew them, and that they would be, then when he foretold them.
(3.) That he proves himself to be God by these his predictions. (4.)
That he foretells them as the means of executing many of his judg
ments which he hath purposed and threatened, and the accomplish
ment of many mercies which he hath promised, so that the denial of
his foresight of them so exempts them from under his providence
as to infer that he rules not in the world by punishments and rewards.

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

So also Gen. xv. 13, 14, " And he said unto Abram, Know of a
surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,
and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and after
ward shall they come out with great substance." The Egyptians'
affliction on the Israelites was by their free actions, if any be free.
It was their sin to do it ; they sinned in all that they did for the
effecting of it. And, doubtless, if any men's sinful actions are free,
yet doth God here foretell " They shall afflict them."

Deut. xxxi. 16-18, you have an instance beyond all possible ex
ception: " And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep
with thy fathers ; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after
the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among
them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have
made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in
that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them,
and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall
them ; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 135

us, because our God is not among us?" etc. The sum of a good part
of what is recorded in the Book of Judges is here foretold by God.
The people's going a whoring after the gods of the strangers of
the land, their forsaking of God, their breaking his covenant, the
thoughts of their hearts and their expressions upon the consideration
of the evils and afflictions that should befall them, were of their free
actions; but now all these doth God here foretell, and thereby engages
the honour of his truth unto the certainty of their coming to pass.

1 Kings xiii. 2 is signal to the same purpose : " 0 altar, altar,
behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by
name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places
that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon
thee." This prediction is given out three hundred years before the
birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it you have in the story,
2 Kings xxiii. 17. Did Josiah act freely? was his proceeding at
Bethel by free actions, or no ? If not, how shall we know what
actions of men are free, what not ? If it was, his free actions are
here foretold, and therefore, I think, foreseen.

1 Kings xx ii. 28, the prophet Micaiah, in the name of the Lord,
having foretold a thing that was contingent, and which was accom
plished by a man acting at a venture, lays the credit of his prophecy
(and therein his life, for if he had proved false as to the event he
was to have suffered death by the law) at stake, before all the people,
upon the certainty of the issue foretold : " And Micaiah said, If thou
return at all in peace, the LORD hath not spoken by me. And he
said, Hearken, O people, every one of you."

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

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

(3.) By this prerogative of certain predictions in reference to

J 36 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

things to come, God vindicates his own deity ; and from the want of
it evinces the vanity of the idols of the Gentiles, and the falseness
of the prophets that pretend to speak in his name: Isa. xli. 21-24,
" Produce your cause, saith the LOED ; bring forth your strong rea
sons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and show
us what shall happen: let them show the former things, what they
be; or declare us things for to coma Show the things that are to
come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods. Behold, ye are
of nothing." The Lord calling forth the idols of the Gentiles, devils,
stocks, and stones, to plead for themselves, before the denunciation,
of the solemn sentence ensuing, verse 24, he puts them to the plea
of foreknowledge for the proof of their deity. If they can foretell
things to come certainly and infallibly, on the account of their own
knowledge of them, gods they are, and gods they shall be esteemed.
If not, saith he, " Ye are nothing, worse than nothing, and your
work of nought ; an abomination is he that chooseth you." And
it may particularly be remarked, that the idols of whom he speak-
eth are in especial those of the Chaldeans, whose worshippers pre
tended above all men in the world to divination and predictions.
Now, this issue doth the Lord drive things to betwixt himself and
the idols of the world : If they can foretell things to come, that is,
not this or that thing (for so, by conjecture, upon consideration of
second causes and the general dispositions of things, they may do,
and the devil hath done), but any thing or every thing, they shall go
free; that is, " Is there nothing hid from you that is yet for to be?"
Being not able to stand before this interrogation, they perish before
the judgment mentioned. But now, if it may be replied to the
living God himself that this is a most unequal way of proceeding,
to lay that burden upon the shoulders of others which himself will
not bear, bring others to that trial which himself cannot undergo,
for he himself cannot foretell the free actions of men, because he doth
not foreknow them, would not his plea render him like to the idols
whom he adjudgeth to shame and confusion? God himself there,
concluding that they are "vanity and nothing " who are pretended to
be gods but are not able to foretell 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 fore
show all things whatever that are as yet future. In like manner
doth he proceed to evince what is from himself, what not, in the
predictions of any, from the certainty of the event: Deut. xviii.
21, 22, " If thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word
which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is
the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath
spoken it presumptuously : thou shalt not be afraid of him."

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 137

(4.) The fourth proposition, That God by the free actions of men
(some whereof he foretelleth) doth fulfil his own counsel as to judg
ments and mercies, rewards and punishments, needs no farther proof
or confirmation but what will arise from a mere review of the things
before mentioned, by God so foretold, as was to be proved. They
were things of the greatest import in the world, as to the good or
evil of the inhabitants thereof, and in whose accomplishment as
much of the wisdom, power, righteousness, and mercy of God was
manifest, as in any of the works of his providence whatever. Those
things which he hath [so] disposed of as to be subservient to so great
ends, certainly he knew that they would be. The selling of Joseph,
the crucifying of his Son, the destruction of antichrist, are things of
greater concernment than that God should only conjecture at their
event. And, indeed, the taking away of God's foreknowledge of
things contingent renders his providence useless as to the govern
ment of the world. To what end should any rely upon him, seek
unto him, commit themselves to his care through the course of their
lives, when he knows not what will or may befall them the next
day? How shall he judge or rule the world who every moment is
surprised with new emergencies which he foresaw not, which must
necessitate him to new counsels and determinations? On the con
sideration of this argument doth Episcopius conclude for the pre
science of God, Ep. ii., " ad Beverovicium de termino vitse,"1 which
he had allowed to be questioned in his private Theological Dispu
tations,3 though in his public afterward he pleads for it. The sum
of the argument insisted on amounts to this : —

Those things which God foretells that they shall certainly and in
fallibly come to pass before they so do, those he certainly and infal
libly knoweth whilst they are future, and that they will come to pass;
but God foretells, and hath foretold, all manner of future contin
gencies and free actions of men, good and evil, duties and sins : there
fore he certainly and infallibly knows them whilst they are yet future.

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

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

He foretold that the Egyptians should afflict his people four hun-

1 " Speciem et pondus videtur habere hsec objectio; nee pauci sunt, qui ejus vi adeo
moventur, ut divinam futurorum contingentium praescientiam negare, et quoe pro ea
facere videntur loca, atque argumenta, magno conatu torquere malint, et flectere in
sensus, non minus periculouos quam difficiles. Ad me quod attinet, ego hactenus sive
religione quadam ani mi, sive divinae majestatis reverentia, non potui prorsus in animum
meum inducere, rationem istam allegatam tanti esse, ut propter earn Deo futurorum
contingentium prsescientia detrahenda sit; maxime cum vix videam, quomodo alioquin
divinarum prsedictionum veritas salvari possit, sine aliqua aut incertitudinis macula,
aut falsi possibilis suspicione." — Sim. Episcop. Respons. ad 2 Ep. Johan. Beverovic.

* Episcop. Instit. Thcol. lib. iv. cap. xvii. xviii. ; Episcop. Disput. de Deo, thes. 10.

138 VINDICI^: EVANGELIOE.

dred years, that in so doing they would sin, and that for it he would
punish them, Gen. xv. 13, 14; and surely the Egyptians' sinning
therein was their own free action. The incredulity of the Jews,
treachery of Judas, calling of the Gentiles, all that happened to
Christ in the days of his flesh, the coming of antichrist, the rise of
false teachers, were all foretold, and did all of them purely depend
on the free actions of men ; which was to be demonstrated.

3. To omit many other arguments, and to close this discourse:
all perfections are to be ascribed to God ; they are all in him. To
know is an excellency; he that knows any thing is therein better
than he that knows it not. The more any one knows, the more ex
cellent is he. To know all things is an absolute perfection in the
good of knowledge ; to know them in and by himself who so knows
them, and not from any discourses made to him from without, is an
absolute perfection in itself, and is required where there is infinite wis
dom and understanding. This we ascribe to God, as worthy of him,
and as by himself ascribed to himself. To affirm, on the other side,
— (1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and
so is taught wisdom and understanding, as we are, from the event of
things, for the more any one knows the wiser he is ; (2.) That he
hath, as we have, a successive knowledge of things, knowing that
one day which he knew not another, and that thereupon there is, —
(3.) A daily and hourly change and alteration in him, as, from the
increasing of his knowledge there must actually and formally be;
and, (4.) That he sits conjecturing at events; — to assert, I say, these
and the like monstrous figments concerning God and his knowledge,
is, as much as in them lieth who so assert them, to shut his provi
dence out of the world, and to divest him of all his blessedness, self-
sufficiency, and infinite perfections. And, indeed, if Mr B. believe his
own principles, and would speak out, he must assert these things,
how desperate soever; for having granted the premises, it is stupidity
to stick at the conclusion. And therefore some of those whom Mr
B. is pleased to follow in these wild vagaries speak out, • and say
(though with as much blasphemy as confidence) that God doth only
conjecture and guess at future contingents; for when this argument
is brought, Gen. xviii. 19, " ' I know/ saith God, 'Abraham, that he
will command his children and his household after him/ etc., there
fore future contingents may be certainly known of him," they deny
the consequence ; or, granting that he may be said to know them,
yet say it is only by guess and conjecture, as we do.1 And for the
present vindication of the attributes of God this may suffice.

1 Anonynras adv. cap. priora Matth., p. 28. "Nego consequential! : Dens dicere
potuit se scire quid facturus erat Abraham, etsi id certo non pnenoverit, sed probabi-
liter. Inducitur enim Deus ssepius humano more loquens. Solent autem homines
affirmare se scire ea futura, quse verisimiliter futura sunt," etc.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 139

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

" That future contingents have not in themselves a determinate
truth, and therefore cannot be determinately known/' is the great
plea of those who oppose God's certain foreknowledge of them; "and
therefore," say they, "doth the philosopher affirm that propositions
concerning them are neither true nor false."1 But, —

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

2. As to the falsity of that pretended axiom, this proposition,
" Such a soldier shall pierce the side of Christ with a spear, or he
shall not pierce him," is determinately true and necessary on the one
side or the other, the parts of it being contradictory, which cannot
lie together. Therefore, if a man before the flood had used this pro
position in the affirmative, it had been certainly and determinately
true ; for that proposition which was once not true cannot be true
afterward upon the same account.

3. If no affirmative proposition about future contingents be de
terminately true, then every such affirmative proposition is determi
nately false; for from hence, that a thing is or is not, is a proposition
determinately true or false.2 And therefore if any one shall say
that that is determinately future which is absolutely indifferent, his
affirmation is false ; which is contrary to Aristotle, whom in this they
rely upon, who affirms that such propositions are neither true nor
false. The truth is, of propositions that they are true or false is cer
tain. Truth or falseness are their proper and necessary affections, as
even and odd of numbers; nor can any proposition be given where
in there is a contradiction, whereof one part is true and the other
false.

4. This proposition, " Petrus orat," is determinately true de pras-
senti, when Peter doth actually pray (for " quicquid est, dum est,
determinate est") ; therefore this proposition de futuro, " Petrus
orabit," is determinately true. The former is the measure and rule

1 Arist. lib. i. de Interp. cap. viii.

2 Alphons. de Mendoza. Con. Theol. Scholast. q. 1, p. 534 ; Vasquez. in 1 Tho. disp. 16 ;
Ruvio in 1, Interpret, cap. vi. q. unica, etc.

140 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

by which we judge of the latter. So that because it is true de
presenti, "Petrus orat;" ergo this, de future, " Petrus orabit," was
ab aeterno true (ex parte rei). And then (ex parte modi) because
this proposition, "Petrus orat/' is determinately true de prsesenti;
ergo this, " Petrus orabit," was determinately true from all eternity.1
But enough of this.

Mr B. having made a sad complaint of the ignorance and darkness
that men were bred up in by being led from the Scripture, and im
posing himself upon them for " a guide of the blind, a light of them
which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and a teacher of
babes," doth, in pursuit of his great undertaking, in this chapter
instruct them what the Scripture speaks concerning the being, na-
tiiire, and properties of God. Of his goodness, wisdom, power, truth,
righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, independency, sovereignty, infinite-
ness, men had before been informed by books, tracts, and catechisms,
" composed according to the fancies and interests of men, the Scrip
ture being utterly justled out of the way." Alas ! of these things the
Scripture speaks not at all ; but the description wherein that abounds
of God, and which is necessary that men should know (whatever be
come of those other inconsiderable things wherewith other poor cate
chisms are stuffed), is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to
passions, etc. " Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacri
lege?"

CHAPTER VI.

Of the creation, and condition of man before and after the fall.

MR BIDDLE'S THIRD CHAPTER.

Ques. Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created at a certain
time? and by whom?

Ans. Gen. i. 1.

Q. How long was God a making tJiem 9

A. Exod. xx. 11.

Q. How did God create man ?

A. Gen. ii. 7.

Q. How did he create woman?

A. Gen. ii. 21, 22.

Q. Why was she called woman 9

A. Gen. ii. 23.

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

A. Gen. ii. 24.

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

A. Gen. ii. 8.

1 Vid. Rod. de Arriaga. disp. Log. xiv. sect. 5, subsect. 8, p. 205 ; Suarez. in Opus.
lib. i. de Praescientia Dei, cap. ii. ; Vasquez. 1, Part. disp. 66, cap. ii. ; Pet. Hurtado de
Mend. disp. 9, de Anima. sect. 6.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFOEE AND AFTER THE FALL. 1 41

Q. What commandment gave he to the man when he put him into the garden f

A. Gen. ii. 16, 17.

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

A. 1 Tim. ii. 14.

Q. By whom was the woman deceived?

A. 2 Cor. xi. 3.

Q. How was the woman induced to eat of theforbidden fruit? and how the manf

A. Gen. iii. 6.

Q. What e/ect followed upon their eating?

A. Gen. iii. 7.

Q. Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit bring both
upon them and their posterity the guilt of hell-fire, deface the image of God in
them, darken their understanding, enslave their will, deprive them of power to do
good, and cause mortality ? If not, what are the true penalties that God denounced
against them for the said offence?

A. Gen. iii. 16-19.

EXAMINATION.

Having delivered his thoughts concerning God himself, his nature
and properties, in the foregoing chapters, in this our catechist pro
ceeds to the consideration of his works, ascribing to God the creation
of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now,
although many questions might be proposed from which Mr B.
would, I suppose, be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating to the
impossibility of the proceeding of such a work as the creation of all
things from such an agent as he hath described God to be, so limited
both in his essence and properties, yet it being no part of my busi
ness to dispute or perplex any thing that is simply in itself true and
unquestionable, with the attendancies of it from other corrupt notions
of him or them by whom it is received and proposed, I shall wholly
omit all considerations of that nature, and apply myself merely to
what is by him expressed. That he who is limited and finite in
essence, and consequently in properties, should by his power, without
the help of any intervening instrument, out of nothing, produce, at
such a vast distance from him as his hands can by no means reach
unto, such mighty effects as the earth itself and the fulness thereof,
is not of an easy proof or resolution. But on these things at present
I shall not insist. Certain it is that, on this apprehension of God,
the Epicureans disputed for the impossibility of the creation of the
world.1

His first question, then, is, " Were the heaven and earth from all
eternity, or created at a certain time ? and by whom ?" To which
he answers with Gen. i. 1, " In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth."

1 " Quibus enim oculis animi intueri potuit vester Plato fabricam illam tanti opens,
qua construi a Deo atque sedificari mundum facit ? Quae molitio ? Qua ferramenta ?
Qui vectes ? Quca macbinse ? Qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt ? Quemadmodum
autem obedire et parere voluntati architect! aer, ignis, aqua, terra, potuerunt ? "—
Velleius apud Cicer. de Nat. Deor. lib. L 8.

142 VINDICIj£ EV ANGELICA.

Right. Only in the exposition of this verse, as it discovers the
principal efficient cause of the creation of all things, or the author of
this great work, Mr B. afterward expounds himself to differ from us
and the word of God in other places. By " God" he intends the
Father only and exclusively, the Scripture plentifully ascribing this
work also to the Son and Holy Ghost, manifesting their concurrence
in the indivisible Deity unto this great work, though, by way of
eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as that of redemp
tion is to the Son, and that of regeneration to the Holy Ghost, from
neither of which notwithstanding is the Father excluded.

Perhaps the using of the name of God in the plural number, where
mention is made of the creation, in conjunction with a verb singular,
Gen. i. 1, and the express calling of God our Creators and Makers,
Eccles. xii 1, Ps. cxlix. 2, Job xxxv. 10, wants not a significancy
to this thing.1 And indeed he that shall consider the miserable
evasions that the adversaries have invented to escape the argument
thence commonly insisted on must needs be confirmed in the per
suasion of the force of it.3 Mr B. may haply close with Plato in
this business, who, in his " Timasus," brings in his faifjuoupyos speaking
to his genii about the making of man, telling them that they were
mortal, but encouraging them to obey him in the making of other
creatures, upon the promise of immortality. " Turn you," saith he,
"according to the law of nature, to the making of living creatures,
and imitate my power which I used in your generation or birth;"3 —
a speech fit enough for Mr B/s god, " who is shut up in heaven," and
not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what a sad
success this demiurgus had, by his want of prescience, or foresight
of what his demons would do (wherein also Mr B. likens God unto
him), is farther declared ; for they imprudently causing a conflux of
too much matter and humour, no small tumult followed thereon in
heaven, as at large you may see in the same author. However,
it is said expressly the Son or Word created all things, John i. 3 ;
and, "By him are all things," 1 Cor. viii. 6, Rev. iv. 11. Of the
Holy Ghost the same is affirmed, Gen. i. 2, Job xxvi. 13, Ps. xxxiii.
6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of
principal efficient cause in this work to a condition of instrumentality
only, which is urged (especially in reference to the Spirit), unless we

1 " Poterat et illud de angelis intelligi, Faciamus hominem, etc., sed quia sequitur, ad
imaginem nostram, nefas est credere, ad imagines angelorum hominem esse factum,
aut eandem esse imaginem angelorum et Dei. Et ideo recte intelligitur pluralitas
Trinitatis. Quse tamen Trinitas, quia unus est Deus, etiam cum dixisset, fadamus, et
fecit, inquit, Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei : non vero dixit, fecerunt Dii ad imaginem
Deorum." — Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. xvi. cap. vi.

8 Georg. Enjed. in. Explicat. loc. Ver. et Nov. Testam. in Gen. i. 26.

Tptnffft Kara, (futriv iiftiT; Iwi Tflv Tea? T^uinv anfiioupyittv, (t.i/j,oufj.iioi T»J» tftri» ou»af&n

irtfi T)I> vptripat yintH. — Plato, in Timaso. Dial. p. iii. vol. ii. p. 43.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 143

shall suppose them to have been created before any creation, and to
have been instrumental of their own production. But of these things
in their proper place.

His second question is, " How long was God in making them ?"
and he answers from Exod. xx. 11, "In six days the LORD made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

The rule I formerly prescribed to myself of dealing with Mr B.
causes me to pass this question also without farther inquiry ; although,
having already considered what his notions are concerning the nature
and properties of God, I can scarce avoid conjecturing that by this
crude proposal of the time wherein the work of God's creation was
finished, there is an intendment to insinuate such a gross conception
of the working of God as will by no means be suited to his omnipo
tent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther than
enforced, I shall not insist on this query.

His third is, "How did God create man?" and the answer is,
Gen. ii. 7. To which he adds a fourth, " How did he create woman V
which he resolves from Gen. ii. 21, 22.

Mr B., undertaking to give all the grounds of religion in his Cate
chisms, 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, Mr B.'s answers do express it; but as to the condi
tion and state wherein they were made, of that he is silent, though
he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in delivering the
one than the other. Neither can his silence in this thing be imputed
to oversight or forgetfulness, considering how subservient it is to his
intendment in his last two questions, for the subverting of the doc
trine of original sin, and the denial of all those effects and conse
quences of the first breach of covenant whereof he speaks. He can,
upon another account, take notice that man was made in the image
of God: but whereas hitherto Christians have supposed that that
denoted some spiritual perfection bestowed on man, wherein he
resembles God, Mr B. hath discovered that it is only an expression
of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man ; which yet
he will as hardly persuade us of as that a man hath seven eyes or
two wings, which are ascribed unto God also. That man was created
in a resemblance and likeness unto God in that immortal substance
breathed into his nostrils, Gen. ii. 7, in the excellent rational faculties
thereof, in the dominion he was intrusted withal over a great part of
God's creation, but especially in the integrity and uprightness of his
person, Eccles. vii. 29, wherein he stood before God, in reference to
the obedience required at his hands, — which condition, by the im
planting of new qualities in our soul, we are, through Christ, in some
measure renewed unto, Col. iii. 10, 12, Eph. iv. 24, — the Scripture is

144 VINDICI.E EVANGELKLE.

clear, evident, and full in the discovery of ; but hereof Mr B. con
ceives not himself bound to take notice. But what is farther needful
to be spoken as to the state of man before the fall will fall under the
consideration of the last question of this chapter.

Mr B.'s process in the following questions is, to express the story
of man's outward condition, unto the eighth, where he inquires
after the commandment given of God to man when he put him into
the garden, in these words: — "Q. What commandment gave he to
the man when he put him into the garden?" This he resolves from
Gen. ii. 16, 17. That God gave our first parents the command ex
pressed is undeniable. That the matter chiefly expressed in that
command was all or the principal part of what he required of them>
Mr B. doth not go about to prove. I shall only desire to know of
him whether God did not in that estate require of them that they
should love him, fear him, believe him, acknowledge their dependence
on him, in universal obedience to his will? and whether a suitable
ness unto all this duty were not wrought within them by God? If
he shall say No, and that God required no more of them but only not
to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I desire to know
whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Satan,
and yet been free from the threatening here mentioned, if they had
only forbore the outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted,
I hope I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred, nor to
show how impossible this is, God continuing God, and man a rational
creature. * If he shall say that certainly God did require that they
should own him for God, — that is, believe him, love him, fear him,
and worship him, according to all that he should reveal to them and
require of them, — I desire to know whether this particular command
could be any other than sacramental and symbolical as to the matter
of it, being a thing of so small importance in its own nature, in com
parison of those moral acknowledgments of God before mentioned;
and to that question I shall not need to add more.

Although it may justly be supposed that Mr B. is not without some
thoughts of deviation from the truth in the following questions, yet
the last being of most importance, and he being express therein in
denying all the effects of the first sin, but only the curse that came
upon the outward, visible world, I shall insist only on that, and close
our consideration of this chapter. His question is thus proposed:
" Q. Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit
bring both upon them and their posterity the guilt of hell-fire, deface
the image of God in them, darken their understandings, enslave their
wills, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality? If not,
what are the true penalties denounced against them for that offence?;l
To this he answers from Gen. iii. 16-19.

1 Vid. Diatrib. de Justit. Vindicat.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 145

What the sin of our first parents was may easily be discovered from
\vhat was said before concerning the commandment given to them.
If universal obedience was required of them unto God, according to
the tenor of the law of their creation, their sin was an universal re
bellion against and apostasy from him; which though it expressed
itself in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet
it is far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whose whole
nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin com
monly assigned, Mr B. annumerates and rejects six, sundry whereof
are coincident with, and all but one reducible to, that general head of
loss of the image of God ; but for the exclusion of them all at once
from being any effects of the first sin, Mr B. thus argues: " If there
were no effects or consequences of the first sin but what are expressly
mentioned, Gen. iii. 16-19, then those now mentioned are no effects
of it ; but there are no effects or consequences of that first sin but
what are mentioned in that place : " therefore those recounted in his
query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashiered from any
such place in the thoughts of men.

Ans. The words insisted on by Mr B. being expressive of the
curse of God for sin on man, and on the whole creation here below for
his sake, it will not be easy for him to evince that none of the things
he rejects are not eminently inwrapped in them. Would God have
denounced and actually inflicted such a curse on the whole creation,
which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man himself,
and actually have inflicted it with so much dread and severity as he
hath done, if the transgression upon the account whereof he did it had
not been as universal a rebellion against him as could be fallen into?
Man fell in his whole dependence from God, and is cursed universally^,
in all his concernments, spiritual and temporal.

But is this indeed the only place of Scripture where the effects of
our apostasy from God, in the sin of our first parents, are described ?
Mr B. may as well tell us that Gen. iii. 15 is the only place where
mention is made of Jesus Christ, for there he is mentioned. But a
little to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath
been spoken may suffice to make naked Mr B/s sophistry : —

1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every thing of evil
that, either within or without, in respect of a present or future con
dition, in reference to God and the fruition of him whereto man was
created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God, is come upon
mankind, by the just ordination and appointment of God, where-
unto man was not obnoxious in his primitive state and condition. I
am not at present at all engaged to speak de modo, of what is pri
vative, what positive, in original sin, of the way of the traduction or
propagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sin, and
adhesion of the pollution of our nature defiled thereby, or any other

VOL. XII. 10

146 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

questions that are coincident with these in the usual inquest made
into and after the sin of Adam and the fruits of it; but only as to the
things themselves, which are here wholly denied. Now, —

2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is ob
noxious and liable unto that is hurtful and destructive to him and all
men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or
any title wherewith they were at first intrusted, is all wholly the effect
of the first sin, and is in solidum to be ascribed thereunto, is easily
demonstrated ; for, —

(1.) That which is common to all things in any kind, and is proper
to them only of that kind, must needs have some common cause
equally respecting the whole kind : but now of the evils that are com
mon to all mankind, and peculiar or proper to them and every one
of them, there can be no cause but that which equally concerns them
all; which, by the testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam,
Rom. v. 12, 15-19.

(2.) The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their natural
condition (which what they are shall be afterward considered) were
either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and
fall of our first parents, or they are come upon them since, through
some interposing cause or occasion. That they were not in them or
on them, that they were not liable or obnoxious to those evils which
are now incumbent on them, in their first creation, as they came
forth from the hand of God (besides what was said before of the state
and condition wherein man was created, even "upright" in the sight
of God, in his favour and acceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger
and wrath), is evident by the light of this one consideration, namely,
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 God's creation and institution. Now, it is contrary to all that he
hath revealed or made known to us of himself, that he should be the
immediate author of so much evil as is now, by his own testimony,
in man by nature, and, without any occasion, of so much vanity and
misery as he is subject unto; and, besides, directly thwarting the tes
timony which he gave of all the works of his hands, that they were
exceeding good, it being evident that man, in the condition whereof
we speak, is exceeding evil.

3. If ah1 the evil mentioned hath since befallen mankind, then it hath
done so either by some chance and accident whereof God was not aware,
or by his righteous judgment and appointment, in reference to some
procuring and justly-deserving cause of such a punishment. To affirm
the first, is upon the matter to deny him to be God ; and I doubt not
but that men at as easy and cheap a rate of sin may deny that there
is a God, as, confessing his divine essence, to turn it into an idol, and
by making thick clouds, as Job speaks, to interpose between him and

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 147

the affairs of the world, to exclude his energetical providence in the
disposal of all the works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask,
as before, what other common cause, wherein all and every one of
mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils mentioned,
as the procurement of the wrath and vengeance of God, from whence
they are, but only the fall of Adam, the sin of our first parents, espe
cially considering that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out
this fountain and source of the evils insisted on, Rom. v. 12, 15-19?

4. These things, then, being premised, it will quickly appear that
every one of the particulars rejected by Mr B. from being fruits or
effects of the first sin are indeed the proper issues of it ; and though
Mr B. cut the roll of the abominations and corruptions of the nature
of man by sin, and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it
again, and add many more words of the like importance.

The first effect or fruit of the first sin rejected by Mr. B. is, " its
rendering men guilty of hell-fire ;" but the Scripture seems to be of
another mind, Rom. v. 12, " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned." That all men sinned in Adam, that
they contracted the guilt of the same death with him, that death
entered by sin, the Holy Ghost is express in. The death here men
tioned is that which God threatened to Adam if he did transgress,
Gen. ii. 17; which that it was not death temporal only, yea not at all,
Mr B. contends by denying mortality to be a fruit of this sin, as
also excluding in this very query all room for death spiritual, which
consists in the defacing of the image of God in us, which he with
this rejects : and what death remains but that which hath hell fol
lowing after it we shall afterward consider.

Besides, that death which Christ died to deliver us from was that
which we were obnoxious to upon the account of the first sin ; for he
came to " save that which was lost," and tasted death to deliver us
from death, dying to " deliver them who through fear of death were
all their lifetime subject to bondage," Heb. ii. 15. But that this was
such a death as hath hell-fire attending it, he manifests by affirming
that he " delivers us from the wrath to come." By " hell-fire" we
understand nothing but the "wrath of God" for sin; into whose hands
it is a fearful thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the
guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, that hath both
curse and wrath attending it, and that it is the proper "wages of sin,"
the testimony of God is evident, Rom. vi. 23. What other death
men are obnoxious to on the account of the first sin, that hath not
these concomitants, Mr B. hath not as yet revealed. " By nature,"
also, we are " children of wrath," Eph. ii. 3. And on what foot of
account our obnoxiousness now by nature unto wrath is to be stated,
is sufficiently evident by the light of the preceding considerations.

148 VINDICLE EVANGELIC JE.

The " defacing of the image of God in us" by this sin, as it i<?
usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man was created
in the image of God, and wherein that image of God doth consist,
were before declared. That we are now born with that character
upon us, as it was at first enstamped upon us, must be affirmed, or
some common cause of the defect that is in us, wherein all and every
one of the posterity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of
the first sin, is to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done hath
been already declared. He that shall undertake to make good' the
former must engage in a more difficult work than Mr B., in the
midst of his other employments, is willing to undertake. To insist
on all particulars relating to the image of God in man, how far it is
defaced, whether any thing properly and directly thereunto belonging
be yet left remaining in us ; to declare how far our souls, in respect of
their immortal substance, faculties, and consciences, and our persons,
in respect of that dominion over the creatures which yet, by God's
gracious and merciful providence, we retain, may be said to bear
the image'of God, — is a work of another nature than what I am now
engaged in. For the asserting of what is here denied by Mr B., con
cerning the defacing of the image of God in us by sin, no more is
required but only the tender of some demonstrations to the main of
our intendment in the assertion touching the loss by the first sin, and
our present want, in the state of nature, of that righteousness and
holiness wherein man at his first creation stood before God (in re
ference unto the end whereunto he was created), in uprightness and
ability of walking unto all well-pleasing. And as this will be fully
manifested in the consideration of the ensuing particulars instanced
in by Mr B., so it is sufficiently clear and evident from the renovation
of that image which we have by Jesus Christ ; and that is expressed
both in general and in all the particulars wherein we affirm that
image to be defaced. " The new man," which we put on in Jesus
Christ, which " is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that
created him," Col. iii. 10, is that which we want, by sin's defacing
(suo more) of that image of God in us which we had in knowledge.
So Eph. iv. 23, 24, that new man is said to consist in the " renewing
of our mind, whereby after God we are created in righteousness and
holiness." So, then, whereas we were created in the image of God,
in righteousness and holiness, and are to be renewed again by Christ
into the same condition of his image in righteousness and holiness,
we doubt not to affirm that by the first sin (the only interposition of
general concernment to all the sons of men) the image of God in
us was exceedingly defaced. In sum, that which made us sinners
brought sin and death upon us; that which made us liable to condem
nation, that defaced the image of God in us; and that all this was done
by the first sin the apostle plainly asserts, Rom. v. 12, 15, 17-19, etc.

'Jff MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 149

To the next particular effect of sin by Mr B. rejected, " the dark
ening of our understandings," I shall only inquire of him whether
God made us at first with our understandings dark and ignorant as
to those things which are of absolute necessity that we should be ac
quainted withal, for the attainment of the end whereunto he made
us ? For once I will suppose he will not affirm it ; and shall there
fore proceed one step farther, and ask him whether there be not
such a darkness now upon us by nature, opposed unto that light,
that spiritual and saving knowledge, which is of absolute necessity
for every one to have and be furnished withal that will again attain
that image of God which we are born short of. Now, because this is
that which will most probably be denied, I shall, by the way, only
desire him, —

1. To cast aside all the places of Scripture where it is positively
and punctually asserted that we are so dark and blind, and darkness
itself, in the things of God ; and then,

2. All those where it is no less punctually and positively asserted
that Christ gives us light, knowledge, understanding, which of our
selves we have not. And if he be not able to do so, then,

3. To tell me whether the darkness mentioned in the former
places and innumerable others, and [of which mention is made], as
to the manner and cause of its removal and taking away, in the
latter, be part of that death which passed on all men "by the offence
of one," or by what other chance it is come upon us.

Of the " enslaving of our wills, and the depriving us of power to
do good," there is the same reason as of that next before. It is not
my purpose to handle the common-place of the corruption of nature
by sin: nor can I say that it is well for Mr B. that he finds none of
those effects of sin in himself, nothing of darkness, bondage, or dis
ability, or if he do, that he knows where to charge it, and not on
himself and the depravedness of his own nature; and that because
I know none who are more desperately sick than those who, by a
fever of pride, have lost the sense of their own miserable condition.
Only to stop him in his haste from rejecting the evils mentioned
from being effects or consequences of the first sin, I desire him to
peruse a little the ensuing scriptures; and I take them as they come
to mind : Eph. ii. 1-3, 5 ; John v. 25 ; Matt. viii. 22 ; Eph. v. 8 ;
Luke iv. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26; John viii. 34; Rom. vi. 16; Gen.
vi. 5 ; Rom. vii. 5 ; John iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 12 ; Acts
viii. 31 ; John v. 40 ; Rom. viii. 7; Jer. xiii. 23, etc.

The last thing denied is its " causing mortality." God threaten
ing man with death if he sinned, Gen. ii. 17, seems to instruct us
that if he had not sinned he should not have died ; and upon his
sin, affirming that on that account he should be dissolved and return
to his dust, Gen. iii. 19, no less evidently convinces us that his

150 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

sin caused mortality actually and in the event. The apostle, also,
affirming that " death entered by sin, and passed upon all, inasmuch
as all have sinned," seems to be of our mind. Neither can any
other sufficient cause be assigned on the account whereof innocent
man should have been actually mortal or eventually have died.
Mr B., it seems, is of another persuasion, and, for the confirmation
of his judgment, gives you the words of the curse of God to man
upon his sinning, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return ;"
the strength of his reason therein lying in this, that if God de
nounced the sentence of mortality on man after sinning, and for
his sin, then mortality was not an effect of sin, but man was mortal
before in the state of innocency. Who doubts but that at this rate
he may be able to prove what he pleases ?

A brief declaration of our sense in ascribing immortality to the
first man in the state of innocency, that none may be mistaken in the
expressions used, may put a close to our consideration of this chap
ter. In respect of his own essence and being, as also of all outward
and extrinsical causes, God alone is eminently and perfectly immor
tal; he only in that sense hath "life and immortality."1 Angels and
souls of men, immaterial substances, are immortal as to their intrinsi-
cal essence, free from principles of corruption and mortality ; 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 immor
tality we ascribe to man in innocency is only an assured preservation
by the power of God from actual dying, notwithstanding the possi
bility thereof which he was in upon the account of the constitution
of his person, and the principles thereunto concurring. So that
though from his own nature he had a possibility of dying, and in that
sense was mortal, yet God's institution assigning him life in the way
of obedience, he had a possibility of not dying, and was in that sense
immortal, as hath been declared.3 If any one desire farther satisfaction
herein, let him consult Johannes Junius' answer to Socinus' Pre
lections, in the first chapter whereof he pretends to answer in proof
the assertion in title, " Primus homo ante lapsum natura mortalis
fuit ;" wherein he partly mistakes the thing in question, which re-

1 " Ulud corpus ante peccatum, et mortale secundum aliam, et immortale secundum
aliam causam dici poterat ; id est, mortale quia poterat mori, immortale quia poterat
non mori. Aliud est enim non posse mori, sicut quasdam naturas immortales creavit
Deus, aliud est autem posse non mori ; secundum quern modum primus creatus est
homo immortalis, quod ei prsestabatur de ligno vitae, non de constitutione naturae ; a
quo ligno separatus est cum peccasset, ut posset mori, qui nisi peccasset posset non
mori. Mortalis ergo erat conditione corporis animalis, immortalis autem beneficio con-
ditoris. Si enim corpus animale, utique et mortale, quia et mori pcterat, quamvis et
immortale dico, quia et mori non poterat." — Aug. torn. iii. de Genesi ad literam, lib. vi.
cap. xxiv.

2 " Quincunque dicit Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, ita ut sive peccaret
give non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, hoc est de corpore exiret non peccati merito sed
necessitate natures, anathema sit." — Cone. Milevitan, cap. i-

or MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 151

spects not the constitution of man's nature, but the event of the con
dition wherein he was created,1 and himself in another place states
it better.2

The sum of the whole may be reduced to what follows : — Simply
and absolutely immortal is God only : " He only hath immortality,"
1 Tim. vi. 1 6. Immortal in respect of its whole substance or essence
is that which is separate from all matter, which is the principle of cor
ruption, as angels, or is not educed from the power of it, whither of
its own accord it should again resolve, as the souls of men. The bodies
also of the saints in heaven, yea, and of the wicked in hell, shall be
immortal, though in their own natures corruptible, being changed and
preserved by the power of God. Adam was mortal as to the consti
tution of his body, which was apt to die ; immortal in respect of his
soul in its own substance ; immortal in their union by God's appoint
ment, 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 threatened with death;
and therefore was obedience the tenure whereby he held his grant of
immortality, which on his neglect he was penally to be deprived of.
In that estate he had, — (1.) The immortality mentioned, or a power
of not dying, from the appointment of God ; (2.) An uprightness and
integrity of his person before God, with an ability to walk with him
in all the obedience he required, being made in the image of God
and upright ; (3.) A right, upon his abode in that condition, to an
eternally blessed life ; which he should (4.) actually have enjoyed,
for he had a pledge of it in the " tree of life " He lost it for himself
and us ; which if he never had it he could not do. The death where
with he was threatened stood in opposition to all these, it being
. most ridiculous to suppose that any thing penal in the Scripture
comes under the name of "death" that was not here threatened to
Adam ; — death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortality spoken
of; of the soul spiritually, in sin, by the loss of his righteousness and
integrity; of both, in their obnoxiousness to death eternal; actually
to be undergone, without deliverance by Christ, in opposition to the
right to a better, a blessed condition, which he had. That all these
are penal, and called in the Scriptures by the name of " death," is
evident to all that take care to know what is contained in them.

For a close, then, of this chapter and discourse, let us also propose a
few questions as to the matter under consideration, and see what an
swer the Scripture will positively give in to our inquiries : —

1 " Qusestio est dc immortalitate hominis hujus concreti, ex anima et corpore conflati.
Qua ado loquor de morte, de dissolutione hujus concreti loquor." — Socin. contra Puo-
cium, p. 228.

2 Vid. Rivet. Exercit. in Gen. cap. i. Exercit. 9.

152 ." VlNDICI-E EVANGELIC^.

First, then, —

Ques. 1. In what state and condition was man at first created f

Ans. " God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them," Gen. i. 27. "And
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good," verse 31. " In the image of God made he man," chap. ix. 6.
" Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man UPRIGHT,"
Eccles. vii. 29. "Put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness," Eph. iv. 24. " Put on the new man,
which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created
him," Col. iii. 10.

Q. 2. Should our first parents have died had they not sinned, or
were they obnoxious to death in the state ofinnocency?

A. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Gen. ii. 16, 17. " By
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," Rom. v. 1 2. " For the
wages of sin is death," chap. vi. 23.

Q. 3. Are we now, since the fall, born with the image of God so
enstamped on us as at our first creation in Adam?

A. " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," Rom.
iii. 23. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man
upright ; but they have sought out many inventions," Eccles. vii. 29.
" So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God," Rom. viii. 8.
" And you who were dead in trespasses and sins," Eph. ii. 1. " For
we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived,
serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful,
and hating one another," Titus iii. 3. "The old man is corrupt
according to the deceitful lusts," Eph. iv. 22.

Q. 4. Are we now born approved of God and accepted with him,
as when we were first created, or what is our condition now by
nature? what say the Scriptures hereunto?

A. " We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others/'
Eph. ii. 3. " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king
dom of God," John iii. 3. " He that believeth not the Son, the
wrath of God abideth on him," verse 36. " That which is born of
the flesh is flesh," John ifi. 6.

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

A. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God ; for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 14. "The light
shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," John

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 153

i. 5. " To preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind," Luke iv. 18. "Having the understanding darkened,
being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is
in them, because of the blindness of their heart," Eph. iv. 18. " Ye
were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord," chap.
v. 8. " For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv. 6. " And we
know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under
standing, that we may know him that is true," 1 John v. 20.

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

A. " The carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not subject
to the law of God, neither indeed can be," Rom. viii. 7. " You were
dead in trespasses and sins," Eph. ii. 1. " The imagination of man's
heart is evil from his youth," Gen. viii. 21. " Can the Ethiopian
change his skin, or the leopard his spots ? then may ye also do good,
that are accustomed to do evil," Jer. xiii. 23. " For without me ye
can do nothing," John xv. 5. "Not that we are sufficient of our
selves to think any thing as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency is of
God," 2 Cor. iii. 5. " For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)
dwelleth no good thing," Horn. vii. 18.

Q. 6. How came we into this miserable state and condition ?

A. " Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me," Ps. li. 5. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean? not one," Job xiv. 4. "That which is born of the flesh
is flesh," John iii. 6. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that
all have sinned," Rom. v. 12.

Q. 7- Is, then, the guilt of the first sin of our first parents reckoned
unto us?

A. " But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For through
the offence of one many be dead," Rom. v. 15. " And not as it was
by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to
condemnation," verse 16. " For by one man's offence death reigned,"
verse 17. "Therefore by the offence of one judgment came upon
all men to condemnation," verse 18. " By one man's disobedience
many were made sinners," verse 1 9.

Thus, and much more fully, doth the Scripture set out and declare
the condition of man both before and after the fall ; concerning which,
although the most evident demonstration of the latter lies in the
revelation made of the exceeding efficacy of that power and grace
which God in Christ puts forth for our conversion and delivery from
that state and condition before described, yet so much is spoken of
this dark side of it as will render vain the attempts of any who shall

1 54 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

endeavour to plead the cause of corrupted nature, or alleviate the
guilt of the first sin.

It may not be amiss, in the winding up of the whole, to give the
reader a brief account of what slight thoughts this gentleman and his
companions have concerning this whole matter of the state and con
dition of the first man, his fall or sin, and the interest of all his pos
terity therein, which confessedly lie at the bottom of that whole
dispensation of grace in Jesus Christ which is revealed in the gospel.

First. [As] for Adam himself, they are so remote from assigning
to him any eminency of knowledge, righteousness, or holiness, in the
state wherein he was created, that, —

1. For his knowledge, they say, " He was a mere great baby, that
knew not that he was naked ;"1 so also taking away the difference
between the simple knowledge of nakedness in innocency, and the
knowledge joined with shame that followed sin. " Of his wife he
knew no more but what occurred to his senses;"3 though the ex
pressions which he used at first view and sight of her do plainly argue
another manner of apprehension, Gen. ii. 23. For " the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, he knew not the virtue of it;"3 which
yet I know not how it well agrees with another place of the same
author, where he concludes that in the state of innocency there was
in Adam a real predominancy of the natural appetite, which conquered
or prevailed to the eating of the fruit of that tree.4 Also, that being
mortal, he knew not himself to be so.5 The sum is, he was even a
very beast, that knew neither himself, his duty, nor the will of God
concerning him.

2. [As] for his righteousness and holiness, which, as was said before,
because he was made upright, in the image of God, we ascribe unto
him, Socinus contends in one whole chapter in his Prelections, " that
he was neither just, nor holy, nor ought to be so esteemed nor called."6

And Smalcius, in his confutation of Franzius' " Theses de Peccato
Originali," all along derides and laughs to scorn the apprehension or
persuasion that Adam was created in righteousness and holiness, or
that ever he lost any thing of the image of God, or that ever he had

1 " Adamus instar infantis vel pueri se nudum esse ignoraTit." — Smalc. de Ver. Dei
Fil. cap. vii. p. 2.

2 "De conjuge propria, non nisi sensibus obvia cognovit." — Socin. de Stat. Prim. Horn,
cap. iv. p. 119.

3 " Vim arboris scientiee boni et mali perspectam nonhabuerit." — Idem ibid, p. 197.
* Socin. Prselect. cap. iii. p. 8.

4 " Cum ipse mortalis esset, se tamen mortalem esse nesciverit." — Socin. de Stat.
Prim. Horn. cap. iv. p. 118.

8 " Utrum primus homo ante peccatum justitiam aliquam originalem habuerit ?
Plerique omnes eum illam habuisse affirmant. Sed ego scire velim . . . concludamus
igitur, Adamum, etiam antequam mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, revera justum
non fuisse. Cum nee impeccabilis esset, nee ullum peccandi occasionem habuisset ; vel
certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constet, eum ulla ratione
a peccando abstinuisse." — Socin. Pnelect. cap. iii. p. 8; vid. cap. iv. p. 11.

OF MAN'S CONDTTION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 155

any thing of the image of God beyond or besides that dominion over
the creatures which God gave him.1

Most of the residue of the herd, describing the estate and condition
of man in his creation, do wholly omit any mention of any moral
uprightness in him.3

And this is the account these gentlemen give us concerning the
condition and state wherein the first man was of God created : A
heavy burden of the earth it seems he was, that had neither righteous
ness nor holiness whereby he might be enabled to walk before God
in reference to that great end whereunto he was created, nor any
knowledge of God, himself, or his duty.

Secondly. [As] for his sin, the great master of their family disputes
that it was a bare transgression of that precept of "not eating the fruit
of the tree oi' knowledge of good and evil/' and that his nature was
not vitiated or corrupted thereby:3 wherein he is punctually followed
by the Racovian Catechism, which also giveth this reason why his
nature was not depraved by it, namely, because it was but one act;
— so light are their thoughts and expressions of that great trans
gression ! 4

Thirdly. [As] for his state and condition, they all, with open
mouth, cry out that he was mortal and obnoxious to death, which
should in a natural way have come upon him though he had not
sinned.5 But of this before.

Fourthly. Farther ; that the posterity of Adam were no way con
cerned, as to their spiritual prejudice, in that sin of his, as though they
should either partake of the guilt of it or have their nature vitiated
or corrupted thereby ; but that the whole doctrine of original sin is a
figment of Austin and the schoolmen that followed him, is the con-

1 " Fit mentio destitutionis vel carentiae divinae gloriae, ergo privationis imaginis
Dei et justitiae et sanctitatis, ejusque originalis ; fit mentio carentiae divinae glorias, ergo
in creatione cum homine fuit communicata : o ineptias!" — Smalc. Refut. Thes. dePeccat.
. Orig. disput. 2, p. 42. " Porro ait Franzius, Paulura mox e vestigio imaginem Dei,
seu novum hominem ita explicare, quod fuerit conditus primus homo ad justitiam et
sanctimoniam veram. Hie cum erroribus fallacioe, etiam et fortassis voluntarigc, sunt
commixtse. . . . Videat lector benevolus quanti sit facienda illatio Franzii, dum ait,
ergo imago Dei in homine ante lapsum consistebat in concreata justitia et vera sancti-
monia primorum parentum. Si htec non sunt scopae dissolutse, equidem nescio quid
eas tandem nominabimur." — Smalc. ubi sup. pp. 50, 61.

3 Volkel. de Vera Eelig. lib. ii. cap. vi. p. 9, edit, cum lib. Crell. de Deo.

1 Socin. Praelect. cap. iii. p. 8.

* " Etenim unum illud peccatum per se, non modo universos posteros, sed ne ipsum
quidem Adamum, corrumpendi vim habere potuit. Dei vero consilio, in peccati illius
paenam id factum fuisse, nee usquam legitur, et plane incredibile est, imo impium id
cogitare." — Socin. Praalect. cap. iv. sec. 4, p. 13. " Lapsus . Adami, cum unus actus
fuerit, viin earn, quae depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus posterorum ipsius
posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero in paenam irrogatum fuisse, nee Scriptura docet,
ut superius exposuimus, et Deum ilium, qui omnis aequitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus
est id facere voluisse." — Cat. Eac. de Cognit. Christ, cap. x. ques. 2.

5 " De Adamo, eum immortalem creatum non fuisse, res apertissima est. Nam ex
terra creatus, cibis usus, liberis gignendis destinatus, et animalis ante lapsum fuit." —
Smalc. de Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. vii. de promisso vitae scternas.

156 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^

stant clamour of them all.1 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, decried. On this account is salva
tion granted, by them, without Christ, a power of keeping all the
commandments asserted, and justification upon our obedience. Of
which in the process of our discourse.

Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions, of Mr B.'s masters
concerning this whole matter. Such was Adam in their esteem,
such was his fall, and such our concernment therein.2 He had no
righteousness, no holiness (yea, Socinus at length confesses that he
did not believe his soul was immortal3); we contracted no guilt in
him, derive no pollution from him. Whether these men are in any
measure acquainted with the plague of their own hearts, the severity
and spirituality of the law of God, with that redemption which is
in the blood of Jesus, the Lord will one day manifest; but into their
secret let not my soul descend.

Lest the weakest or meanest reader should be startled with the
mention of these things, not finding himself ready furnished with
arguments from Scripture to disprove the boldness and folly of these
men in their assertions, I shall add some few arguments whereby
the severals by them denied and opposed are confirmed from the
Scriptures, the places before mentioned being in them cast into that
form and method wherein they are readily subservient to the pur
pose in hand : —

First. That man was created in the image of God, in knowledge,

1 " Concludimus igitur, nullum, improprie etiam loquendo, peccatum originate esse ;
id est, ex peccato illo primi parentis nullam labem aut pravitatem universe humano
generi necessario ingenitam esse, sive inflictam quodammodo fuisse." — Socin. Prselect.
cap. iv. sect. 4, pp. 13, 14. " Peccatum originis nullum prorsusest, quare nee liberum
arbitrium vitiare potuit. Nee enim e Scriptura id peccatum originis doceri potest." —

Cat. Rac. de Cognit. Christ, cap. x. de Lib. Arbit. " Quaedam ex falsissimis prin-

cipiis deducuntur. In illo genere illud potissimum est, quod ex peccato (ut vocant)
originali depromitur : de quo ita disputant, ut crimen a primo parente conceptum, in
sobolem derivatum esse defendant, ejusque contagione, turn omnes humanas Tires cor-
ruptas et depravatas, turn potissimum voluntatis libertatem destructam esse asserant.
. . . quae omnia nos pernegamus, utpote et sanae mentis rationi, et divinae Scripturse
contraria." — Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. xviii. pp. 547, 548. " Prior pars thesis
Franzii falsa est. Nam nullum individuum unquam peccato originis fait infectum. Quia
peccatum illud mera est fabula, quam tanquam fcetum alienum fovent Lutherani, et
alii." — Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 2, p. 46, 47. Vid. Compend. Socin. cap. iii.;
Smalc. de Vera Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. vii. " Putas Adatni peccatum et inobedientiam
ejus posteritati imputari. At hoc aeque tibi negamus, quam Christi obedientiam cre-
dentibus imputari." — Jonas Schlichtingius, disput. pro Socino adversus Meisnerum, p.
251 ; vide etiam p. 100. " Quibus ita explicatis, facile eos qui . . . omnem Adami
posteritatem, in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse
commeritum." — IdemfComment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos ad cap. vii. p. 296.

2 " Ista sapientia rerum divinarum, et sanctimonia, quam Adamo ante lapsum tri-
buit Franzius, una cum aliis, idea quaedam est, in cerebro ipsorum nata." — Smalc.
ubi sup.

» Socin. Ep. 5, ad Johan. Volkel., p. 489.

or MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AKD AFTER THE FALL. 157

righteousness, and holiness, is evident on the ensuing considera
tions : —

1. He who was made " very good" and "upright," in a moral con
sideration, had the original righteousness pleaded for; for moral
goodness, integrity, and uprightness, is equivalent unto righteousness.
So are the words used in the description of Job, chap. i. 1; and "righte
ous" and " upright" are terras equivalent, Ps. xxxiii. 1. Now, that
man was made thus good and upright was manifested in the scriptures
cited in answer to the question before proposed, concerning the con
dition wherein our first parents were created. And, indeed, this
uprightness of man, this moral rectitude, was his formal aptitude
and fitness for and unto that obedience which God required of him^
and which was necessary for the end whereunto he was created.

2. He who was created perfect in his kind was created with the
original righteousness pleaded for. This is evident from hence, be
cause righteousness and holiness is a perfection of a rational being
made for the service of God. This in angels is called " the truth," or
that original holiness and rectitude which " the devil abode not in,"
John viii. 44. Now, as before, man was created " very good " and
" upright," therefore perfect as to his state and condition; and what
ever is in him of imperfection flows from the corruption and depra
vation of nature.

3. He that was created in the image of God was created in a state
of righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. That Adam was created
in the image of God is plainly affirmed in Scripture, and is not de
nied. That by the " image of God" is especially intended the qua
lities mentioned, is manifest from that farther description of the
image of God which we have given us in the scriptures before pro
duced in answer to our first question. And what is recorded of
the first man in his primitive condition will not suffer us to esteem
him such a baby in knowledge as the Socinians would make him.
His imposing of names on all creatures, his knowing of his wife on
first view, etc., exempt him from that imputation. Yea, the very
heathens could conclude that he was very wise indeed who first gave
names to things.1

Secondly. For the disproving of that mortality which they ascribe
to man in inuocency the ensuing arguments may suffice: —

1. He that was created in the image of God, in righteousness and
holiness, whilst he continued in that state and condition, was im
mortal. That man was so created lies under the demonstration of
the foregoing arguments and testimonies.- The assertion thereupon,
or the inference of immortality from the image of God, appears on
this double consideration: — (1.) In our renovation by Christ into

p.tv \yu ret d^n/Uffreirov Xayov wtpi ravrav ifvai, u ~S.UKfa.ri;, ftti^u viva, ^VIIKUH
tnrumi <rjjv Siftivti* TO. trpuru ovcftara TIHJ *fu,yii,eurH, — :PlatO in (Jratylo.

158 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

the image of God, we are renewed to a blessed immortality ; and our
likeness to God consisted no less in that than in any other commu
nicable property of his nature. (2.) Wherever is naturally perfect
righteousness, there is naturally perfect life; that is, immortality.
This is included in the very tenor of the promise of the law: "If a
man keep my statutes, he shall live in them/' Lev. xviii. 5.

2. That which the first man contracted and drew upon himself by
sin was not natural to him before he sinned: but that man con
tracted and drew death upon himself, or made himself liable and
obnoxious unto it by sin, is proved by all the texts of Scripture that
were produced above in answer to our second question; as Gen.
ii. 17, iii. 19; Bom. v. 12, 15, 17-19, vi. 23, etc.

3. That which is beside and contrary to nature was not natural
to the first man ; but death is beside and contrary to nature, as the
voice of nature abundantly testifieth : therefore, to man in his pri
mitive condition it was not natural.

Unto these may sundry other arguments be added, from the pro
mise of the law, the end of man's obedience, his constitution and
state, denying all proximate causes of death, etc. ; but these may
suffice.

Thirdly. That the sin of Adam is not to be confined to the mere
eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but
had its rise in infidelity, and comprised universal apostasy from
God, in disobedience to the law of his creation and dependence on
God, I have elsewhere demonstrated, and shall not need here again
to insist upon it.1 That it began in infidelity is evident from the
beginning of the temptation wherewith he was overcome. It was
to doubt of the truth or veracity of God to which the woman was at
first solicited by Satan: Gen. iii. 1, " Hath God said so?" pressing that
it should be otherwise than they seemed to have cause to apprehend
from what God said; and their acquiescence in that reply of Satan,
without revolving to the truth and faithfulness of God, was plain
unbelief. Now, as faith is the root of all righteousness and obe
dience, so is infidelity of all disobedience. Being overtaken, con
quered, deceived into infidelity, man gave up himself to act contrary
to God and his will, shook off his sovereignty, rose up against his
law, and manifested the frame of his heart in the pledge of his dis
obedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally forbidden him.

Fourthly. That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sin is im
puted to all his posterity, is by them denied, but is easily evinced ;
for, —

1. By whom sin entered into the world, so that all sinned in him,
and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sin is called the " sin
of the world," in him all mankind sinned, and his sin is imputed to
1 Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. Yin., vol. x.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 159

them : but that this was the condition and state of the first sin of
Adam the scriptures before mentioned, in answer to our seventh
question, do abundantly manifest; and thence also is his sin called
" the sin of the world," John i. 29.

2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have contracted the
guilt of death and condemnation, in him they have all sinned, and
have his sin imputed to them : but in Adam all are dead, 1 Cor.
xv. 22, as also Rom. v. 12, 15, 17-19; and death is the wages of sin
only, Rom. vi. 23.

8. As by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous, so by
the disobedience of Adam we are made sinners: so the apostle ex
pressly, Rom. v. : but we are made righteous by the obedience of
Christ, by the imputation of it to us, as if we had performed it,
1 Cor. i. 30, Phil. iii. 9 ; therefore we are sinners by the imputation
of the sin of Adam to us, as though we had committed it, which the
apostle also affirms. To what hath been spoken from the consider
ation of that state and condition wherein, by God's appointment, in
reference to all mankind, Adam was placed, namely, of a natural
and political or federal head (of which the apostle treats, 1 Cor. xv.),
and from the loss of that image wherein he was created, whereunto by
Christ we are renewed, many more words like these might be added.

To what hath been spoken there is no need that much should be
added, for the removal of any thing insisted on to the same purpose
with Mr B/s intimations in the Racovian Catechism ; but yet seeing
that that task also is undertaken, that which may seem necessary for
the discharging of what may thence be expected shall briefly be sub
mitted to the reader. To this head they speak in the first chapter,
of the way to salvation, the first question whereof is of the import
ensuing : —

Q. Seeing thou saidst in the beginning that this life which leadeth to immor
tality is divinely revealed, I would know ofthee why thou saidst so?

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

Both question and answer being sophistical and ambiguous, the
sense and intendment of them, as to their application to the matter
in hand, and by them aimed at, is first to be rectified by some few
distinctions, and then the whole will cost us very little farther
trouble : —

1. There is, or hath been, a twofold way to a blessed immortality:
— (1.) The way of perfect obedience to the law ; for he that did it

1 " Cum dixeris initio, hanc viam quas ad immortalitatem ducat esse divinitus pat«-
factam, scire velim cur id abs te dictum sit ? — Propterea, quia ut homo natura nihil
habet commune cum immortalitate, ita earn ipse viam, quae nos ad immortalitatem
duceret, nulla ratione per se cognoscere potuit." — Cat. Rac. de via salut. cap. L

160 VINDICI^: EVANGELICLE.

was to live therein. (2.) The way of faith in the blood of the Son
of God ; for he that believeth shall be saved.

2. Man by nature may be considered two ways: — (1.) As he was in
his created condition, not tainted, corrupted, weakened, nor lost by
sin; (2.) As fallen, dead, polluted, and guilty.

3. Immortality is taken either, (1.) Nakedly and purely in itself
for an eternal abiding of that which is said to be immortal ; or, (2.)
For a blessed condition and state in that abiding and continuance.

4. That expression, " By nature," referring to man in his created
condition, not fallen by sin, may be taken two ways, either, — (1.)
Strictly, for the consequences of the natural principles whereof man
was constituted ; or, (2.) More largely, it comprises God's constitu
tion and appointment concerning man in that estate.

On these considerations it will be easy to take off this head of
our catechists' discourse, whereby also the remaining trunk will fall
to the ground.

I say, then, man by nature, in his primitive condition, was, by the
appointment and constitution of God, immortal as to the continuance
of his life, and knew the way of perfect legal obedience, tending to a
blessed immortality, and that by himself, or by virtue of the law of
his creation, which was concreated with him ; but fallen man, in his
natural condition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death tem
poral and eternal, doth by no means know himself, nor can know,
the way of faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immortality
and glory, Rom. ii. 7-10.

It is not, then, our want of interest in immortality upon the ac
count whereof we know not of ourselves the way to immortality by
the blood of Christ. But there are two other reasons that enforce
the truth of it : —

1 . Because it is a way of mere grace and mercy, hidden from all
eternity in the treasures of God's infinite wisdom and sovereign
will, which he neither prepared for man in his created condition nor
had man any need of ; nor is it in the least discovered by any of the
works of God, nor by the law written in the heart, but is solely reveal
ed from the bosom of the Father by the only-begotten Son, neither
angels nor men being able to discover the least glimpse of that
majesty without that revelation, John i. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii.
8-11; Col. ii. 2, 3; 1 Tim. iil 16.

2. Because man in his fatten condition, though there be retained
in his heart some weak and faint impressions of good and evil, re
ward and punishment, Rom. ii. 14, 15, yet is spiritually dead, blind,
alienated from God, ignorant, dark, stubborn ; so far from being able
of himself to find out the way of grace unto a blessed immortality,
that he is not able, upon the revelation of it, savingly, and to the
great end of its proposal, to receive, apprehend, believe, and walk in

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 161

it, without a new spiritual creation, resurrection from the dead, or
new birth, wrought by the exceeding greatness of the power of God.1
And on these two doth depend our disability to discover and know
the way of grace leading to life and glory. And by this brief re
moval of the covering is the weakness and nakedness of their whole
ensuing discourse so discovered as that I shall speedily take it with
its offence out of the way. They proceed : —

Q. But why hath man nothing to do with (or no interest in) immortality f
A. Therefore, because from the beginning he was formed of the ground, and so
was created mortal ; and then because he transgressed the command given him of
God, and so by the decree of God, expressed in his command, was necessarily
subject to eternal death.*

1. It is true, man was created of the dust of the earth as to his
bodily substance ; yet it is as true that moreover God breathed into
him the breath of life, whereby he became " a living soul," and in
that immediate constitution and framing from the hand of God was
free from all nextly disposing causes unto dissolution. But his im
mortality we place on another account, as hath been declared, which
is no way prejudiced by his being made of the ground.

2. The second reason belongs unto man only as having sinned,
and being fallen out of that condition and covenant wherein he was
created. So that I shall need only to let the reader know that the
eternal death, in the judgment of our catechists, whereunto man was
subjected by sin, was only an eternal dissolution or annihilation (or
rather an abode under dissolution, dissolution itself being not penal),
and not any abiding punishment, as will afterward be farther mani
fest. They go on : —

Q. But how doth this agree with those places of Scripture wherein it is written
that man was created in the image of God, and created unto immortality, and
that death entered into the world by sin, Gen. i. 26 ; Wisd. ii. 23 ; Rom. v. 12 ?

A. As to the testimony which declareth that man was created in the image of
God, it is to be known that the image of God doth not signify immortality
' (which is evident from hence, because at that time when man was subject to eternal
death the Scripture acknowledgeth in him that image, Gen. ix. 6, James iii. 9),
but it denoteth the power and dominion over all things made of God on the earth,
as the same place where this image is treated of clearly showeth, Gen. i. 26.a

1 Eph. ii. 1 ; John i. 5 ; Rom. iii. 17, 18, viii. 7, 8 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; Tit. iii. 3 ; Eph.
ii. 5, iv. 18 ; Col. i. 13, ii. 13, etc,

2 " Cur vero nihil commune babet homo cum immortalitate ? — Idcirco, quod ab initio
de humo formatus, proptereaque mortalis creatus fuerit ; deinde vero, quod mandatum
Dei, ipsi propositum, transgressus sit ; ideoque decreto Dei ipsius in mandate expresso,
seternse morti necessario subjectus fuerit."

3 " Qui vero id conveniet iis Scriptures locis in quibus scriptum extat, hominem ad
imaginem Dei creatum esse, et creatum ad immortalitatem, et quod mors per peccatum
in mundum introierit, Gen. i. 26, 27; Sap. ii. 23 ; Rom. v. 12 ? — Quod ad testimonium
attinet, quod hominem creatum ad imaginem Dei pronunciat, sciendum est, imaginem
Dei non significare immortalitatem (quod hinc patet, quod Scriptura, eo tempore quo
homo aeternse mqrti subjectus erat, agnoscat in homine istam imaginem, Gen. ix. 6, Jacob,
iii. 9), sed potestatem hominis, et dominium in omnes res a Deo conditas, supra terram,
designare ; ut idem locus, in quo de hac eadem imagine agitur, Gen. i. 26, aperte indieat."

VOL. XII. 11

162 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

The argument for that state and condition wherein we affirm 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 look back unto it, and he will
quickly discern how little is here offered to enervate it in the least ;

for, —

1. They cannot prove that man, in the condition and state of sin,
doth retain any thing of the image of God. The places mentioned,
as Gen. ix. 6, and James iii. 9, testify only that he was made in the
image of God at first, but that he doth still retain the image they
intimate not ; nor is the inference used in the places taken from
what man is, but what he was created.

2. That the image of God did not consist in any one excellency
hath been above declared; so that the argument to prove that it did
not consist in immortality, because it did consist in the dominion
over the creatures, is no better than that would be which should con
clude that the sun did not give light because it gives heat. So
that, —

3. Though the image of God, as to the main of it, in reference to
the end of everlasting communion with God whereunto we were
created, was utterly lost by sin (or else we could not be renewed
unto it again by Jesus Christ), yet as to some footsteps of it, in refer
ence to our fellow-creatures, so much might be and was retained as
to be a reason one towards another for our preservation from wrong
and violence.

4. That place of Gen. L 26, " Let us make man in our image, and
let him have dominion over the fish of the sea," etc., is so far from
proving that the image of God wherein man was created did consist
only in the dominion mentioned, that it doth not prove that domi
nion 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
khan a description of that image wherein they were made.

It is evident, then, notwithstanding any thing here excepted to
the contrary, that the immortality pleaded for belonged to the image
of God, and from man's being created therein is rightly inferred ; as
above was made more evident.

Upon the testimony of the Book of Wisdom, it being confessedly
apocryphal, I shall not insist. Neither do I think that in the origi
nal any new argument to that before mentioned of the image of
God is added ; but that is evidently pressed, and the nature of the
image of God somewhat explained. The words are, "Or/ 6 Oto; IKTIGI
rbv avdpuvov lif atpdapffiq, xai tinova r)jg /5/ag /'S/oYjjroj tiroiqetv avr6v'
&86vu ds 5/a£oXou Sayarog «/tf$jX0£v tig rbv xoffftov' qreipdfyvet 81 O.VTOV 01 rqf
txtivov /Atpidog Svres. The opposition that is put between the creation
of man in integrity and the image of God in one verse, and the en-

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 163

trance of sin by the envy of the devil in the next, plainly evinces
that the mind of the author of that book was, that man, by reason
of his being created in the image of God, was immortal in his primi
tive condition. That which follows is of another nature, concerning
which they thus inquire and answer: —

Q. What, moreover, wilt thou answer to the third testimony f

A. The apostle in that place treateth not of immortality [mortality], but of

death itself. But mortality differeth much from death, for a man may be mortal

and yet never die.1

But, — 1. The apostle eminently treats of man's becoming obnoxi
ous to death, which until he was, he was immortal; for he says that
death entered the world by sin, and passed on all men, not actually,
but in the guilt of it and obnoxiousness to it. By what means death
entered into the world, or had a right so to do, by that means man
lost the immortality which before he had.

2. It is true, a man may be mortal as to state and condition, and
yet by almighty power be preserved and delivered from actual dying,
as it was with Enoch and Elijah; but in an ordinary course he that
is mortal must die, and is directly obnoxious to death. But that
which we plead for from those words of the apostle is, that man, by
God's constitution and appointment, was so immortal as not to be
liable or obnoxious to death until he sinned. But they will prove
their assertion in their progress.

Q. What, therefore, is the sense of these words, " that death entered into the
world by sin?"

A, This, that Adam for sin, by the decree and sentence of God, was subject to
eternal death ; and therefore all men, because (or inasmuch as) they are born of
him, are subject to the same eternal death. And that this is so, the comparison
of Christ with Adam, which the apostle instituteth from verse 12 to the end of the
chapter, doth declare.1

1 . Be it so that this is the meaning of those words ; yet hence it
inevitably follows that man was no way liable or obnoxious to death
but upon the account of the commination of God annexed to the
law he gave him. And this is the whole of what we affirm, — namely,
that by God's appointment man was immortal, and the tenure of his
immortality was his obedience, and thereupon his right thereunto he
lost by his transgression.

2. This is farther evident from the comparison between Christ and
Adam, instituted by the apostle; for as we are all dead without

1 " Quid porro ad tertium respondeois ? — Apostolus co in loco non agit de immor-
talitate [mortalitate], verum de morte ipsa. Mortalitas vero a morte multum dissidet;
siquidem potest esse quis mortalis, nee tamen unquam mori."

2 " Quse igitur est horum verborum sententia, quod mors per peccalum introieril in
mundum ? — Hgec, quod Adamus ob peccatum, decreto et sententia Dei, seternae morti
subjectus est ; proinde, omnes homines, eo quod ex eo nati sunt, eidem seternae morti
subjaceant. Bern ita esse, collatio Christi cum Adamo, quam apostolus eodcm capite, a
Ter. 12 ad finem, instituit, indicio est."

164. VINDICLffi EVANGELICAL

Christ and his righteousness, -and have not the least right to life or a
blessed immortality, so antecedently to the consideration of Adam
and his disobedience, we were not in the least obnoxious unto death,
or any way liable to it in our primitive condition.

And this is all that our catechists have to plead for themselves, or
to except against our arguments and testimonies to the cause in
hand ; which how weak it is in itself, and how short it comes of
reaching to the strength we insist on, a little comparison of it with
what went before will satisfy the pious reader.

What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depravation of two
or three texts of Scripture to another purpose than that in hand, I
shall not divert to the consideration of, seeing it will more orderly
fall under debate in another place.

What our catechists add elsewhere about original sin, or their at
tempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a close to this dis
course.

Their lOfeh 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 crea
tion so to do, and having by no way or means lost that liberty or
power, their second question is, —

Q. Is not this free will corrupted by original sin ?

A. There is no such thing as Anginal sin, wherefore that cannot vitiate free
•will, nor can that original sin be proved out of the Scripture ; and the fall of
Adam, being but one act, could not have that force as to corrupt his own nature,
much less that of his posterity. And that it was inflicted on him as a punishment
neither doth the Scripture teach, and it is incredible that God, who is the fountain
of all goodness, would so do.1

1. This is yet plain dealing; and it is well that men who know
neither God nor themselves have yet so much honesty left as to'
speak downright what they intend. Quickly despatched ! — " There
is no such thing as original sin." To us, the denying of it is one argu
ment to prove it. Were not men blind and dead in sin, they could
not but be sensible of it; but men swimming with the water feel
not the strength of the stream.

2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing? Doth it nowhere
teach that we, who were " created upright, in the image of God, are
now dead in trespasses and sins, by nature children of wrath, having
the wrath of God upon us, being blind in our understandings, and
alienated from the life of God, not able to receive the things that

? " Nonne peccato originis hoc liberum arbitrium vitiatum est ? — Peccatum originis
nullum prorsus est : quare nee liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit, nee enim e Scriptura
id peccatum originis doceri potest ; et lapsus Adse cum unus actus fuerit, vim earn quse
depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus vcro posterorum ipsius posset, habere
non potuit. Jpsi vero in poenam irrogatum fuisse, nee Scriptura docet, uti superius
exposuimus ; et Deum ilium, qui omnis aequitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus est, id
facere voluisse." — Cap. x. de lib- arbit. q. 2.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFOEE AND AFTER THE FALL. 1 65

•are of God, which are spiritually discerned, our carnal minds being
enmity to God, not subject to his law, nor can be; that our hearts
are stony, our affections sensual ; that we are wholly come short of
the glory of God ; that every figment of our heart is evil, so that
we can neither think, nor speak, nor do that which is spiritually
good or acceptable to God; that being born of the flesh, we are flesh,
and unless we are born again, can by no means enter into the king
dom of heaven; that all this is come upon us by the sin of one
man, whence also judgment passed on all men to condemnation?"
Can nothing of all this be proved from the Scripture? These gentle
men know that we contend not about words or expressions. Let
them grant this hereditary corruption of our nature, alienation from
God, impotency to good, deadness and obstinacy in sin, want of
the Spirit, image, and grace of God, with obnoxiousness thereon
to eternal condemnation, and give us a fitter expression to declare
this state and condition by in respect of every one's personal interest
therein, and we will, so it may please them, call it " original sin" no
more.

3. It is not impossible that one act should be so high and intense
in its kind as to induce a habit into the subject, and so Adam's na
ture be vitiated by it ; and he begot a son in his own likeness. The
devils upon one sin became obstinate in all the wickedness that their
nature is capable of. (2.) This one act was a breach of covenant with
God, upon the tenor and observation whereof depended the enjoy
ment of all that strength and rectitude with God wherewith, by
the law of his creation, man was endued. (3.) All man's covenant
good, for that eternal end to which he was created, depended upon
his conformity to God, his subjection to him, and dependence on him ;
all which, by that one sin, he wilfully cast away for himself and pos
terity (whose common, natural, and federal head he was), and right
eously fell into that condition which we have described. (4.) The
apostle is much of a different mind from our catechists, Rom. v.
15, 16, etc., as hath been declared.

4. What is credible concerning God and his goodness with these
gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only in itself credibk
which he hath revealed concerning himself, but of necessity to be
believed. That he gave man a law, threatening him, and all his pos
terity in him and with him, with eternal death upon the breach of
it; that upon that sin he cast all mankind judicially out of covenant,
imputing that sin unto them all unto the guilt of condemnation,
seeing it is " his judgment that they who commit sin are worthy of
death;" and that "he is of purer eyes than to behold evil," — is to
us credible, yea, as was said, of necessity to be believed. But they
will answer the proofs that are produced from Scripture in the as
serting of this original sin.

166 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

Q. But that there is original sin these testimonies seem to prove: Gen. vi. 5,
" Every cogitation of the heart of man is only evil every day ;" and Gen. viii. 21,
" The cogitation of man's heart is evil from his youth f"

A. These testimonies deal concerning voluntary sin ; from them, therefore, ori
ginal sin cannot be proved. As for the first, Moses showeth it to be such a sin
for whose sake God repented him that* he had made man, and decreed to destroy
him with a flood ; which certainly can by no means be affirmed concerning a sin
which should be in man by nature, such as they think original sin to be. In
the other, he showeth that the sin of man shall not have that efficacy that God
should punish the world for it with a flood; which by no means agreeth to origi
nal sin.1

That this attempt of our catechists is most vain and frivolous will
quickly appear; for, — 1. Suppose original sin be not asserted in those
places, doth it follow there is no original sin? Do they not know
that we affirm it to be revealed in the way of salvation, and proved
by a hundred places besides? And do they think to overthrow it by
their exception against two or three of them, when if it be taught in
any one of them it suffices? 2. The words, as by them rendered,
lose much of the efficacy for the confirmation of what they oppose
which in the original they have. In the first place, it is not, " Every
thought of man's heart," but, " Every imagination or figment of the
thoughts of his heart." The " motus primo primi," the very natural
frame and temper of the heart of man, as to its first motions towards
good or evil, are doubtless expressed in these words. So also is it in
the latter place.

We say, then, that original sin is taught and proved in these
places; not singly or exclusively to actual sins, not a parte ante, or
from the causes of it, but from its effects. That such a frame of
heart is so universally by nature in all mankind, and in every indi
vidual of them, as that it is ever, always, or continually, casting, coin
ing, and devising evil, and that only, without the intermixture of any
thing of another kind that is truly and spiritually good, is taught in
these places ; and this is original sin. Nor is this disproved by our
catechists; for, —

1. " Because the sin spoken of is voluntary, therefore it is not ori
ginal," will not be granted. (1.) Original sin, as it is taken 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 coining of sin and in the thoughts of
men's hearts, are all voluntary; which are here mentioned to demon
strate and manifest that root from whence they spring, that prevail-

* " Veruntamen esse peccatum originis ilia testimonia docere videntur, Gen. vi. 5,
etc., viii. 21. — Haec testimonia agunt de peccato voluntario ; ex iis-itaque effici nequit
peccatum originis. Quod autem ad primum attinet, Moses id peccatum ejusmodi fuisse
docet cujus causa poenituisse Deum quod hominem creasset, et eum diluvio punire de-
crevisset ; quod certe de peccato quod homini natura inesset, quale peccatum originis
censeat, affirmari nullo pacto potest. In altero vero testimonio docet, peccatum homi-
nis earn vim habiturum non esse, ut Deus mundum diluvio propter illud puniret ; quod
etiam peccato originis nullo modo convenit."

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 167

ing principle and predominant habit from whence they so uniformly
proceed.

2. Why it doth not agree to original sin that the account [is] men
tioned, verse 6, of God's repenting that he had made man, and his
resolution to destroy him, these gentlemen offer not one word of rea
son to manifest. We say, — (1.) That it can agree to no other but
this original sin, with its infallible effects, wherein all mankind were
equally concerned, and so became equally liable to the last judgment
of God ; though some, from the same principle, had acted much more
boldly against his holy Majesty than others. (2.) Its being in men
by nature doth not at all lessen its guilt. It is not in their nature as
created, nor in them so by nature, but is by the fall of Adam come
upon the nature of all men, dwelling in the person of every one;
which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its advantage for provo
cation.

3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to original sin they
inform us not. The words joined with it are an expression of that
patience and forbearance which God resolved and promised to exer
cise towards the world, with a non obstante for sin. Now, what sin
should this be but that which is " the sin of the world"? That actual
sins are excluded we say not; but that original sin is expressed and
aggravated by the effects of it our catechists cannot disprove. There
are many considerations of these texts, from whence the argument
from them for the proof of that corruption of nature which we call
original sin might be much improved ; but that is not my present
business, our catechists administering no occasion to such a discourse.
But they take some other texts into consideration: —

Q. What thinkest thou of that which David speaks, Ps. li. 7, " Behold, I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me f "

A. It is to be observed that David doth not here speak of any men but himself
alone, nor that simply, but with respect to his fall, and uses that form of speaking
which you have in him again, Ps. Iviii. 3. Wherefore original sin cannot be
evinced by this testimony.1

But, — ] . Though David speaks of himself, yet he speaks of himself
in respect of that which was common to himself with all mankind,
being a child of wrath as well as others ; nor can these gentlemen
intimate any thing of sin and iniquity, in the conception and birth
of David, that was not common to all others with him. Any man's
confession for himself of a particular guilt in a common sin doth not
free others from it; yea; it proves all others to be partakers in it
who share in that condition wherein he contracted the guilt.

1 " Quid vero ea de re sentis quod David ait, Ps. li. 7 ? — Animadvertendum est, hie
Davidem non agere de quibusvis hominibus, sed de se tantum, nee simpliciter, sed
habita ratione lapsus sui ; et eo loquendi modo usum esse, cujus exemplum apud eun-
dem Davidem habes Ps. Iviii. 3. Quamobrem nee eo testimonia effici prorsus potest
peccatum originis."

168 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

2. Though David mentions this by occasion of his fall, as Tiaving
his conscience made tender and awakened to search into the root of
his sin and transgression thereby, yet it was no part of his fall, nor
was he ever the more or less conceived in sin and brought forth in
iniquity for that fall ; which were ridiculous to imagine. He here
acknowledges it upon the occasion of his fall, which was a fruit of
the sin wherewith he was born, James i. 14, 15, but was equally
guilty of it before his fall and after.

3. The expression here used, and that of Ps. Iviii. 3, " The wicked
are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born,
speaking lies," exceedingly differ. Here, David expresses what was
his infection in the womb ; there, what is wicked men's constant prac
tice from the womb. In himself, he mentions the root of all actual
sin ; in them, the constant fruit that springs from that root in unre-
generate men. So that, by the favour of these catechists, I yet say
that David doth here acknowledge a sin of nature, a sin wherewith
he was defiled from his conception, and polluted when he was
warmed, and so fomented in his mother's womb ; and therefore this
place doth prove original sin.

One place more they call to an account, in these words: —

Q. But Paul saith that " in Adam all sinned" Rom. v. 12.

A. It is not in that place, " In Adam all sinned ;" but in the Greek the words
are Ip* *>, which interpreters do frequently render in Latin in quo, " in whom,"
which yet may be rendered by the particles quoniam or quatenus, " because," or
"inasmuch," as in like places, Rom. viii. 3. Phil. iii. 12, Heb. ii. 18, 2 Cor. v. 4.
It appeareth, therefore, that neither can original sin be built up out of this place.1

1. Stop these men from this shifting hole, and you may with much
ease entangle and catch them twenty times a day: " This word may
be rendered otherwise, for it is so in another place," — a course of pro
cedure that leaves nothing certain in the book of God. 2. In two
of the places cited, the words are not !f>* $, but Iv w, Rom. viii. 3,
Heb. ii. 18. 3. The places are none of them parallel to this; for
here, the apostle speaks of persons or a person in an immediate pre
cedency; in them, of things. 4. But render tfi c5 by quoniam, "be
cause," or " for that," as our English translation doth, the argument
is no less evident for original sin than if they were rendered by " in
whom." In the beginning of the verse the apostle tells us that
death entered the world by the sin of one man, — that one man of
whom he is speaking, namely, Adam, — and passed upon all men : of
which dispensation, that death passed on all men, he gives you the
reason in these words, " For that all have sinned;" that is, in that

1 " At Paulus ait Bom. v. 12, In Adamo, etc — Non habetur eo loco, In Adamo ornnet
pecc&sse ; verum in Grseco verba sunt itp' », quse passim interpretes reddunt Latine, in
quo, quse tamen reddi possunt per particulas quoniam aut quatmus, ut e locis simili-
bns. Rom. viii. 3, Phil. iii. 12, Heb. ii. 18. 2 Cor. v. 4, videro est. Apparet igitur
neque ex hoc loco extrui posse peocatum originis."

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.

sin of that one man whereby death entered on the world and passed
on them all. I wonder how our catechists could once imagine that
this exception against the translation of those words should enervate
the argument from the text for the proof of all men's guilt of the
first sin, seeing the conviction of it is no less evident from the words
if rendered according to their desire.

And this is the sum of what they have to offer for the acquitment
of themselves from the guilt and stain of original sin, and for answer
to the three testimonies on its behalf which themselves chose to call
forth; upon the strength whereof they so confidently reject it at the
entrance of their discourse, arid in the following question triumph
upon it, as a thing utterly discarded from the thoughts of their cate
chumens. What reason or ground they have for their confidence
the reader will judge. In the meantime, it is sufficiently known
that they have touched very little of the strength of our cause, nor
once mentioned the testimonies and arguments on whose evidence
and strength in this business we rely. And for themselves who
write and teach these things, I should much admire their happiness,
did I not so much as I do pity them in their pride and distemper,
keeping them from an acquaintance with their own miserable con
dition.

CHAPTER VII.

Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God.

MR BIDDLE'S FOURTH CHAPTER.

Ques. How many Lords of Christians are there, by way of distinction from
that one God ?

Ans. Eph. iv. 5.

Q. Who is that one Lord ?

A. 1 Cor. viii. 6.

Q. How was Jesus Christ bornf ,

A. Matt. i. 18; Luke i. 30-35.

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

A. Rom. xiv. 9.

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

A. Acts ii. 32, 33, 36.

Q. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his miracles; and did
he not those miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God him
self? What is the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?

A. Acts ii. 22, x. 38.

Q. Could not Christ do all things of himself ; and was it not an eternal Son
of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the human nature of Christ was
personally united, that wrought all his works ? Answer me to these things in the
words of the Son himself.

A. John v. 19, 20, 30, xiv. 10.

170 VINDICIJE EVANGELIC^.

Q. What reason doth the Son render why the Father did not forsake him
and cast him out of favour? Was it because he was of the same essence with
him, so that it was impossible for the Father to forsake him or cease to love
him?

A. John viii. 28, 29, xv. 9, 10.

Q. Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God because he was
eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him
only as a man ? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

A. Luke i. 30, 32, 34, 35; Johnx. 36; Acts xiii. 32, 33; Eev. i. 5; Col. i. 18;
Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5; Horn. viii. 29.

Q. What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of God the Father
above him f

A. John xiv. 28; Mark xiii. 32; Matt. xxiv. 36.

Q. What saith the apostle Paul f

A. 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28, xi. 3, iii. 22, 23

Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified, as with the title of Lord, so also with that
of God, in the Scripture ?

A. John xx. 28.

Q. Was he so the God of Thomas as that he himself in the meantime did not
acknowledge another to be his God ?

A. John xx. 17; Rev. iii. 12.

Q. Have you any passage of the Scripture where Christ, at the same time that
he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God?

A. Heb. i. 8, 9.

EXAMINATION.

The aim and design of our catechist in this chapter being to de
spoil our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his eternal deity, and to substi
tute an imaginary Godhead, made and feigned in the vain hearts of
himself and his masters, into the room thereof, I hope the discovery
of the wickedness and vanity of his attempt will not be unacceptable
to them who love him in sincerity. I must still desire the reader
not to expect the handling of the doctrine of the deity of Christ at
large, with the confirmation of it and vindication from the vain
sophisms wherewith by others, as well as by Mr B., it hath been
opposed. This is done abundantly by other hands. In the next
chapter that also will have its proper place, in the vindication of
many texts of Scripture from the exceptions of the Racovians. The
removal of Mr B/s sophistry, and the disentangling of weaker souls,
who may in any thing be intricated by his queries, are my present
intendment. To make our way clear and plain, that every one that
runs may read the vanity of Mr B/s undertaking against the Lord
Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks therein, I desire to pre
mise these few observations : —

1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance) doth no
way prove difference of essence between the Father and the Son.
Where Christ, as mediator, is said to be another from the Father or
God, spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least that
he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one essence

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 171

there can be but one person may be true where the substance is
finite and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.

2. Distinction and inequality in respect of office in Christ doth
not in the least take away equality and sameness with the Father
in respect of nature and essence.1 A son of the same nature with
his father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior,
his subject.

3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ as mediator to any
dignity whatever, upon or in reference to the work of our redemp
tion and salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that essential a£/a,
honour, dignity, and worth, which he hath in himself as "God blessed
for ever." Though he humbled himself and was exalted, yet in na
ture he was one and the same, he changed not.

4. The Scripture's asserting the humanity of Christ with the con
cernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby
deny his deity, than, by asserting his deity, with the essential pro
perties thereof, eternity, omniscience, and the like, it denies his
humanity.

5. God's working any thing in and by Christ, as he was mediator,
denotes the Father's sovereign appointment of the things mentioned
to be done, not his immediate efficiency in the doing of the things
themselves.

The consideration of these few things, being added to what I have
said before in general about the way of dealing with our adversaries
in these great and weighty things of the knowledge of God, will
easily deliver us from any great trouble in the examination of Mr
B.'s arguments and insinuations against the deity of Christ; which
is the business of the present chapter.

His first question is, " How many Lords of Christians are there,
by way of distinction from that one God?" and he answers, Eph.
iv. 5, " One Lord."

That of these two words there is not one that looks towards the
confirmation of what Mr B. chiefly aims at in the question proposed,
is, I presume, sufficiently clear in the light of the thing itself inquired
after. Christ, it is true, is the one Lord of Christians ; and therefore
God, equal with the Father. He is also one Lord in distinction from
his Father, as his Father, in respect of his personality, in which re
gard there are three that bear record in heaven, of which he is one ;
but in respect of essence and nature " he and his Father are one."
Farther; unless he were one God with his Father, it is utterly im
possible he should be the one Lord of Christians. That he cannot
be our Lord in the sense intended, whom we ought to invocate and
worship, unless also he were our God, shall be afterward declared.

1 Triv t/faraytiv rns 5»fX/*5]f ftafQvs avj/Xw^aif, vvrip fiftuv ufaraffftrtti riu lettirau

tv <fufu 9-i«T»!Taf, «xx' \iufit popifii; SouX/xS; «» i'XaSi. — Atbanas. Dial. i. contra Maced.

172 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

And although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he
is also our mediator, yet he is " the same God " with him " which
worketh all in all," 1 Cor. xii. 6. His being Lord, then, distinctly in
respect of his mediation hinders not his being God in respect of his
participation in the same nature with his Father. And though here
. he be not spoken of in respect of his absolute, sovereign lordship,
but of his lordship over the church, to whom the whole church is
spiritually subject (as he is elsewhere also so called on the same ac
count, as John xiii. 13 ; Acts vii. 59 ; Rev. xxii. 20), yet were he
not Lord in that sense also, he could not be so in this. The Lord
our God only is to be worshipped. " My Lord and my God," says
Thomas. And the mention of "one God" is here, as in other places,
partly to deprive all false gods of their pretended deity, partly to
witness against the impossibility of polytheism, and partly to mani
fest the oneness of them who are worshipped as God the Father.
Word, and Spirit : all which things are also severally testified unto.

His second question is an inquiry after this Lord, who he is, in
these words, " Who is that one Lord ?" and the answer is from 1 Cor.
viii. 6, " Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." The close of this
second answer might have caused Mr B. a little to recoil upon his
insinuation in the first, concerning the distinction of this "one Lord"
from that " one God," in the sense by him insisted on. Who is he
"by whom are all things" (in the same sense as they are said to be
"of" the Father) ? who is that but God ? " He that made all things
is God," Heb. iii. 4. And it is manifest that he himself was not made
by whom all things were made : for he made not himself, nor
could so do, unless he were both before and after himself; nor was
he made without his own concurrence by another, for by himself are
all things. Thus Mr B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak
against the Lord Jesus Christ, but, by the just judgment of God, he
stops it himself with a testimony of God against himself, which he
shall never be able to rise up against unto eternity.

And it is a manifest perverting and corrupting of the text which
we have in Grotius' gloss upon the place, who interprets the ra
iravra, referred to the Father of all things simply, but the ra cravra
referred to Christ of the things only of the new creation,1 there
being not the least colour for any such variation, the frame and
structure of the words requiring them to be expounded uniformly
throughout : " But to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are
all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him." " The last expression, ' And we by him/
relates to the new creation ; * All things/ to the first." But Grotius
follows Enjedinus in this as well as other things.2

1 Grot. Annot. in 1 Cor. viii. 6.

* Enjedin. Explicat. loc. Vet. et Nov. Testam. in locum.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 1 73

His inquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus Christ; in
answer whereunto the story is reported from Matthew and Luke ;
which relating to his human nature, and no otherwise to the person
of the Son of God but as he was therein " made flesh," or assumed the
"holy thing" so born of the Virgin, Lukei. 35, into personal subsistence
with himself, I shall let pass with annexing unto it the observation
before mentioned, namely, that what is affirmed of the human nature
of Christ doth not at all prejudice that nature of his in respect
whereof he is said to be " in the beginning with God," and to be
"God," and with reference whereunto himself said, "Before Abraham
was I am," John i. 1, 2, viii. 58; Prov. viii. 22, etc. God "possessed
him in the beginning of his way," being then his "only-begotten Son,
full of grace and truth." Mr B. indeed hath small hopes of despoil
ing Christ of his eternal glory by his queries, if they spend themselves
in such fruitless sophistry as this : — " Q. 4. How came Jesus Christ
to be Lord according to the opinion of the apostle Paul?" The
answer is, Rom. xiv. 9. " Q. 5. What saith the apostle Peter also
concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord? — A. Acts
ii. 32, 33, 36."

Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ as mediator, and in respect of the work
of redemption and salvation of the church to him committed, was
made Lord by the appointment, authority, and designation of his
Father, we do not say was the opinion of Paul, but is such a divine
truth as we have the plentiful testimony of the Holy Ghost unto.
He was no less made a Lord than a Priest and Prophet, of his
Father. But that the eternal lordship of Christ, as he is one with
his Father, " God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5, is any way de
nied by the asserting of this lordship given him of his Father as
mediator, Mr B. wholly begs of men to apprehend and grant, but
doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The
sum of what Mr B. intends to argue hence is : Christ "submitting him
self to the form and work of a servant unto the Father, was exalted
by him, and had ' a name given him above every name ;' therefore he
was not the Son of God and equal to him." That his condescension
unto office is inconsistent with his divine essence is yet to be proved.
But may we not beg of our catechist, at his leisure, to look a little
farther into the chapter from whence he takes his first testimony
concerning the exaltation of Christ to be Lord ? perhaps it may be
worth his while. As another argument to that of the dominion and
lordship of Christ, to persuade believers to a mutual forbearance as
to judging of one another, he adds, verse 10, " We shall all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ." And this, verse 11, the apostle
proves from that testimony of the prophet Isaiah, chap. xlv. 23, as he
renders the sense of the Holy Ghost, " As I live, saith the Lord,
eyery knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

17 4s VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

So that Jesus Christ our Lord is that Jehovah, that God, to whom
all subjection is due, and in particular that of standing before his
judgment-seat. But this is overlooked by Grotius, and not answered
to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why should Mr B. trouble himself
with it ?

2. For the time assigned by him of his being made Lord, specified
by the apostle, it doth not denote his first investiture with that office
and power, but the solemn admission into the glorious execution of
that lordly power which was given him as mediator. At his incar
nation and birth, God affirms by the angel that he was then " Christ
the Lord," Luke ii. 11. And when " he brought his first-begotten
into the world, the angels were commanded to worship him ;" which
if he were not a Lord, I suppose Mr B. will not say they could have
done. Yea, and as he was both believed in and worshipped before
his death and resurrection, John ix. 38, xiv. 1, which is to be per
formed only to the Lord our God, Matt. iv. 10, so he actually in
some measure exercised his lordship towards and over angels, men,
devils, and the residue of the creation, as is known from the very
story of the Gospel, not denying himself to be a king, yea, witness
ing thereunto when he was to be put to death, Luke xxiii. 3, John
xviii. 37, as he was from his first showing unto men, chap. i. 49.

" Q. 6. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his
miracles ; and did he not those miracles by a divine nature of his
own, and because he was God himself? What is the determination
of the apostle Peter in this behalf ?— A Acts ii. 22, x. 38."

The intend ment of Mr B. in this question, as is evident by his
inserting of these words in a different character, "By a divine nature
of his own, and because he was God himself/' is to disprove or in
sinuate an answer unto the argument taken from the miracles that
Christ did to confirm his deity. The naked working of miracles, I
confess, without the influence of such other considerations as this
argument is attended withal in relation to Jesus Christ, will not
alone of itself assert a divine nature in him who is the instrument
of their working or production. Though they are from divine power,
or they are not miracles, yet it is not necessary that he by whom
they are wrought should be possessor of that divine power, as " by
whom" may denote the instrumental and not the principal cause oi
them. But for the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said
to do them "by him," because he appointed him to do them, as he
designed him to his offices, and thereby gave testimony to the truth
of the doctrine he preached from his bosom as also because he was
" with him," not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in
the Son, John x. 38 ; so he working these miracles by his own power
and at his own will, even as his Father doth, chap. v. 21, and him
self giving power and authority to others to work miracles by his

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 175

strength and in his name, Matt. x. 8, Mark xvi. 17, 18, Luke x. 19,
there is that eminent evidence of his deity in his working of mira
cles as Mr B. can by no means darken or obscure by pointing to
that which is of a clear consistency therewithal, — as is his Father's
appointment of him to do them, whereby he is said to do them " in
his name," etc., as in the place cited, of which afterward. Acts ii. 22,
the intendment of Peter is, to prove that he was the Messiah of
whom he spake; and therefore he calls him "Jesus of Nazareth," as
pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom,
seven or eight weeks before, they had crucified and rejected. That
this man was "approved of God,"1 he convinces them from the
miracles which God wrought by him ; which was enough for his pre
sent purpose. Of the other place there is another reason ; for though
Grotius expounds these words, "On 6 Qils fa per auroD, "For God was
with him," "God always loved him, and always heard him, according
to Matt. iii. 17" (where yet there is a peculiar testimony given to the
divine sonship of Jesus Christ) " and John xi. 42," yet the words of
our Saviour himself about the same business give us another inter
pretation and sense of them. This, I say, he does, John x. 37, 38,
" If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do,
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." In the doing of
these works, the Father was so with him as that he was in him, and
he in the Father; not only evtpyqnKus, but by that divine indwelling
which oneness of nature gives to Father and Son.

His seventh question is exceeding implicate and involved : a great
deal is expressed that Mr B. would deny, but by what inference from
the scriptures he produceth doth not at all appear. The words of
it are, " Could not Christ do all things of himself; and was it not an
eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the
human nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all
these works ? Answer me to these things in the words of the Son
himself.— A. John v. 19, 20, 30, xiv. 10."

The inference which alone appears from hence is of the same
nature with them that are gone before. That Christ could not do
all things of himself, that he was not the eternal Son of God, that
he took not flesh, is that which is asserted ; but the proof of all this
doth disappear. Christ being accused by the Jews, and persecuted
for healing a man on the Sabbath-day, and their rage being in
creased by his asserting his equality with the Father (of which after-
ward), John 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,
commandment, and appointment, of his Father, with whom he is

1 'AtfoSt^ii-yfiivov, i. C., o'lat /u.ti dft,<piff£ti<rovfttvov, «XX* avr^i^ttyftinoii J;a ruv 'ipyuv uv i
alrou o Qios, ori dva 6i»v nv. — GlUJC. Schol.

176 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

equal, and doth of his own will also the things that he doth ; so that
they had no more to plead against him for doing what he did than
they had against him whom they acknowledged to be God : wherein
he is so far from declining the assertion of his own deity (which that
he maintained the Jews apprehended, affirming that he made him
self equal with God, which none but God is or can be, for between
God and that which is not God there is no proportion, much less
equality) as that he farther confirms it, by affirming that he "doeth
whatever the Father doeth, and that as the Father quickeneth whom
he will, so he quickeneth whom he will." That redoubled assertion,
then, of Christ, that he can do nothing of himself, is to be applied
to the matter under consideration. He had not done, nor could do,
any work but such as his Father did also ; it was impossible he
should, not only because he would not (in which sense rb dZovXqrov
is one kind of those things which are impossible), but also because of
the oneness in will, nature, and power, of himself and his Father,
which he asserts in many particulars. Nor doth he temper his
speech as one that would ascribe all the honour to the Father, and
so remove the charge that he made a man equal to the Father, as
Grotius vainly imagines j1 for although as man he acknowledges his
subjection to the Father, yea, as mediator in the work he had in
hand, and his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all things
from him by divine and eternal communication, yet the action or
work that gave occasion to that discourse being an action of his
person, wherein he was God, he all along asserts his own equality
therein with the Father, as shall afterward be more fully mani
fested.

So that though in regard of his divine personality as the Son he
hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as
mediator doth all things by his appointment and in his name, yet
he in himself is still one with the Father as to nature and essence,
" God to be blessed for evermore." And that it was "an eternal Son
of God that took flesh upon him/' etc., hath Mr. B. never read that
" in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God," that " the
Word was made flesh ;" that " God was manifested in the flesh;"
and that " God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under
the law?" of which places afterward, in their vindication from the
exceptions of his masters.

His eighth question is of the very same import with that going
before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the unity of essence
with his Father, by his obedience to him, and his Father's accepta
tion of him in the work of mediation; which being a most ridiculous

1 " Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur Christus, ita temperat ut omnem honorera
referat ad Patrem, et removeat illud crimen, quasi hominem Patri sequalem faciat." —
Grot. Annot. in Johan. cap. T. 30.

OF THE PEESON OF JESUS CHRIST. ] 77

begging of the thing in question, as to what he pretends in the
query to be argumentative, I shall not farther insist upon it.

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse, and of Mr B/s
design in this chapter, and, indeed, of the greatest design that he
drives in religion, namely, the denial of the eternal deity of the
Son of God ; which not only in this place directly, but in sundry
others covertly, he doth invade and oppose. His question is, " Doth
the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God because he was
eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons
agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this pur
pose." His answer is from Luke i. 31-35; John x. 36; Acts xiii.
32, 33; Eev. i. 5; Col. i. 18; Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5; Rom. viii. 29; most
of which places are expressly contrary to him in his design, as the
progress of our discourse will discover.

This, I say, being the head of the difference between us in this
chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr B/s question, I
shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and
trouble about sundry other ensuing queries. For Mr B/s question,
then, we say not that the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine
essence, but in it, not by an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of
the person of the Father ; which being premised, I shall proceed.

The question that lies before us is, " Doth the Scripture account
Christ to be the Son of God because he was eternally begotten out
of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a
man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose/'

The reasons, as far as I can gather, which Mr B. lays at the bottom
of this appellation, are, — 1. His birth of the Virgin, from Luke i.
30-35. 2. His mission, or sending into the world by the Father,
John x. 36. 3. His resurrection with power, Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev.
i. 5; CoL i. 18. 4. His exaltation, Heb. v. 5; Rom. viii. 29.

For the removal of all this from prejudicing the eternal sonship
of Jesus Christ there is an abundant sufficiency, arising from the
consideration of this one argument: If Jesus Christ be called the
"Son of God" antecedently to his incarnation, mission, resurrection,
and exaltation, then there is a reason and cause of that appellation
before and above all these considerations, and it cannot be on any of
these accounts that he is called the " Son of God ;" but that he is so
called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly mani
fest. Yet a little farther process in this business, as to the particu
lars intimated, may not be unseasonable.

First, then, I shall propose the causes on the account whereof alone
these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called the " Son of God." Of
these the first and chiefest they insist upon is his birth of the Virgin,
— namely, that he was called the " Son of God" because he was con
ceived of the Holy Ghost. This our catechist in the first place pro-

VOL. XIL 12

178 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

poses; and before him, his masters. So the Kacovians, in answer to
that question, " Is therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man?" answer,
" By no means: for he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of
the Virgin; and therefore from his birth and conception was the
Son of God, as we read in Luke i. 35;"1 — the place insisted on by
the gentleman we are dealing withal.

Of the same mind are the residue of their companions. So do
Ostorodius and Voidovius give an account of their faith in their
" Compendium," as they call it, " of the Doctrine of the Christian
Church flourishing now chiefly in Poland." " They teach/' say they,
" Jesus Christ to be that man that was conceived of the Holy Ghost,
and born of the Virgin ; besides and before whom they acknowledge no
only-begotten Son of God truly existing. Moreover, they teach him
to be God, and the only-begotten Son of God, by reason of his con
ception of the Holy Ghost," etc.8 Smalcius hath written a whole
book of the true divinity of Jesus Christ ; wherein he hath gathered
together whatever excellencies they will allow to be ascribed unto
him, making his deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore
is he God, and the Son of God, because the things he there treats of
are ascribed unto him ! Among these, in his third chapter, which is
" Of the conception and nativity of Jesus Christ," he gives this princi
pal account why he is called the "Son of God," even from his concep
tion and nativity. " He was," saith he, " conceived of the Holy Ghost,
and born of the Virgin Mary; because of which manner of concep
tion and nativity he was by the angel called the 'Son of God/ and
so may really be called the ' natural Son of God/ because he was
born such. Only, Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God
his Father without the help of man."8

The great master of the herd himself, from whom, indeed, the rest
do glean and gather almost all that they take so much pains to
scatter about the world, gives continually this reason of Christ's be
ing called the "Son of God" and his "natural Son/' " I say," saith
he, " that Christ is deservedly called the ' natural Son of God/ be
cause he was born the Son of God, although he was not begotten of
the substance of God. And that he was bom the Son of God another

1 " Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo ? — Ans. Nullo pacto; etenim est conceptus
a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei
est, ut de ea re Luc. i. 35 legimus." — Cat. Rac. de persona Christi, cap. i.

2 * Jesum Christum decent esse hominem ilium a Spiritu Sancto conceptum, et natum
ex beata Virgine ; extra vel ante quern nullum agnoscunt esse (aut) fuisse re ipsa exis-
tentem unigenitum Dei Filium. Porro hunc Deum, et Filium Dei unigenitum esse do-
cent turn ratione conceptionis a Spiritu Sancto," etc. — Compendiolum Doctrinse Eccl.
Christianse, etc., cap. i.

8 " Conceptus enim est de Spiritu Sancto, et natus ex Virgine Maria ; ob id genus
oonceptionis, et nativitatis modum, Filius etiam Dei ab ipso angelo vocatus fuit, et ita
naturalis Dei Filius (quia scilicet tails natus fuit) dici vere potest. Solus Jesus Chris-
tus a Deo Patre suo absque opera viri in lumen productus est.'' — Smalc. de Vera
Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. iii.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 1 79

way, and not by the generation of the substance of God, the \vords
of the angel prove, Luke i. 35. Therefore, because that man, Jesus
of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the help of
any man, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of
his mother, he is therefore, or for that cause, called the ' Son of
God/"1 So he against Weik the Jesuit. He is followed by Yol-
kelius, lib. v. cap. xi. p. 468 ; whose book, indeed, is a mere casting
into a kind of a method what was written by Socinus and others,
scattered in sundry particulars, and whose method is pursued and
improved by Episcopius. Jonas Schlichtingius, amongst them all,
seems to do most of himself. I shall therefore add his testimony, to
show their consent in the assignation of this cause of the appellation
of the " Son of God," ascribed to our blessed Saviour. " There
are/' saith he, " many sayings of Scripture which show that Christ
is in a peculiar manner, and on an account not common to any
other, the Son of God ; but yet we may not hence conclude that he
is a Son on a natural account, when besides this, and that more com
mon, another reason may be given which hath place in Christ. Is
he not the Son of God on a singular account, and that which is
common to no other, if of God himself, by the virtue and efficacy of
the Holy Spirit, he was conceived and begotten in the womb of his
mother?"8

And this is the only buckler which they have to keep off the
sword of that argument for the deity of Christ, from his being the
proper Son of God, from the throat and heart of that cause which
they have undertaken. And yet how faintly they hold it is evident
from the expressions of this most cunning and skilful of all their
champions: "There may another reason be given;" which is the
general evasion of them all from any express testimony of Scripture.
" The words may have another sense, therefore nothing from them
can be concluded;" whereby they have left nothing stable or un
shaken in Christian religion; and yet they wipe their mouths, and
say they have done no evil.

But now, lest any one should say that they can see no reason why

1 " Dico igitur, Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalem, quia natus est Dei
Tilius, tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem ilium sub
alia ratione, quam per generationem ex ipsius Dei substantia, probant angeli verba,
Marise matri ejus dicta, Luc. i. 35. Quia igitur homo ille Jesus Nazarenus, qui dic-
tus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti operatione generatus est in
niatris utero, propterea Filius Dei est vocatus." — Faust. Socin. Responsio ad Weik. cap.
iv. p. 202.

5 " Sunt quidem plurima dicta quse ostendunt Christum peculiar! prorsus nee ulli
alio communi ratione esse Dei Filium ; non tamen hinc concludere licet eum esse
natural! ratione filium, cum prseter hanc, et illam communem, alia dari possit,
et in Christo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singular! prorsus ratione, nee ulli com
muni, Dei Filius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi et efficacia Spiritus Sancti, in utero
virginis conceptus fuit et genitus ? "— Schlichtiiig. ad Meisner. artic. de Trinit.
p. 1GO.

180 VINDICLE EVANGELIC M.

Christ should be called the " Son of God" because he was so con
ceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a
peculiar manner, and more .eminently than in respect of any other,
be called the " Father of Christ," to prevent any objection that on
this hand might arise, Smalcius gives an account whence this is, and
why God is called the " Father of Christ," and what he did in his
conception; which, for the abomination of it, I had rather you
should hear in his words than in mine. In his answer to the se
cond part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. xvii. xviii.,
he contends to manifest and make good that Christ was the " Son of
God according to the .flesh," in direct opposition to that of the apostle,
" He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and de
clared to be the Son of God," etc., Rom. i. 3, 4. He says then, cap.
xviii. p. 156, " Socinus affirmat Deum. in generatione Christi vices
patris supplevisse." But how, I pray ? Why, " Satis est ad osten-
dendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si osten-
datur Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in genera
tione hominis ex parte viri ad hominem produeendum adjici solet."
But what is that, or how is that done ? " Nos Dei virtutem in Vir
ginia uterum aliquam substantiam creatam vel immisisse, aut ibi
creasse affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis sub-
stantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias enim homo ille,
Dei Filius a conceptione et nativitate proprie non fuisset," cap. xvii.
p. 150. Very good ; unless this abominable figment may pass cur
rent, Christ was not the Son of God. Let the reader observe, by the
way, that .they cannot but acknowledge -Christ to have been, and to
have been called, the " Son of God" in a most peculiar manner. To
avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that therefore he is
God, of the same substance with his Father, they have only this
shift, to say he is called the " Son of God" upon the account of that
whereof there is not the least tittle nor word in the whole book of
God, yea, which is expressly contrary to the testimony thereof ; and
unless this be granted, they affirm that Christ cannot be called the
" Son of God." But let us hear this great rabbi of Mr B.'s religion
a little farther clearing up this mystery : — " Necessitas magna fuit,
ut Christus ab initio vitse suse esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non
fuisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuisset, quod ad constituen-
dum Christi corpus, una cum Mariae sanguine concurrit. Mansit
autem nihilominus sanguis Marias Virginis purissimus, etiamsi cum
alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo
purius semen, a Deo creari, et proculdubio creatum fuit, quam erat
sanguis Marias. Coinmunis denique sensus et fides Christianorum
omnium, quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit ; primum
communis error censend us est, si sacris literis repugnet: Deinde id
quod omnes sentiunt, facile cum ipsa veritate couciliari potest, ut

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 181

scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, et cum semine Marias con-
junctum fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro profectum sit, vel
ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam opinantur, qui
semen Josephi translatum in Virginis uterum credunt," cap. xviii. p.
158. And thus far are men arrived: Unless this horrible figment
may be admitted, Christ is not the Son of God. He who is the
" true God and eternal life" will one day plead the cause of his own
glory against these men.

I insist somewhat the more on these things, that men may
judge the better whether in all probability Mr B., in his " impartial
search into the Scripture," did not use the help of some of them that
went before him in the discovery of the same things which he boasts
himself to have found out.

And this is the first reason which our catechist hath taken from
his masters to communicate to his scholars why Jesus Christ is called
the " Son of God." This he and they insist on exclusively to his eter
nal sonship, or being the Son of God in respect of his eternal gene
ration of the substance of his Father.

The other causes which they assign why he is called the " Son of
God" I shall very briefly point unto. By the way that hath been
spoken of, they say he was the Son of God, the natural Son of God.
But they say he was the Son of God before he was God. He grew
afterward to be a God by degrees, as he had those graces and excel
lencies and that power given him wherein his Godhead doth consist.
So that he was the Son of God, but not God (in their own sense)
until a while after; and then when he was so made a God, he came
thereby to be more the Son of God. But by this addition to his
sonship he became the adopted Son of God ; as, by being begotten,
as was before revealed, he was the natural Son of God. Let us hear
Smalcius a little opening these mysteries. " Neither," saith he, " was
Christ God all the while he was the Son of God. To be the Son of
God is referred to his birth, and all understand how one may be
called the ''Son of God" for his birth or original. But God none can
be (besides that one God), but for his likeness to God. So that
when Christ was made like God, by the divine qualities which were
in him, he was most rightly so far the Son of God as he was God,
and so far God as he was the Son of God. But before he had
obtained that likeness to God, properly he could not be said to be
God."1

1 " Nee enim omni tempore quo Christus Films Dei fuit, Deus etiam fait. Filium
enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem etiam referri, et ob ortum ipsum aliquem Dei Filium
appellari posse nemo non intelligit. At Deum (prseter unum ilium Deum) nemo esse
potest, nisi propter similitudinem cum Deo. Itaque tune cum Christus Deo similis
factus esset per divinas quae in ipso erant qualitates, summo jure eatenus Dei Filius,
qua Deus, et vicissim eatenus Deus, qua Dei Filius. At ante obtentam illam cum Deo
similitudinem Deus proprie dici non potuit." — Smalc. Respon. ad Smiglec. cap. xvii.
p. 154.

182 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

And these are some of those monstrous figments which, under
pretence of bare adherence to the Scripture, our catechist would
obtrude upon us : First, Christ is the Son of God ; then, growing
like God in divine qualities, he is made a God ; and so becomes the
Son of God. And this, if the 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 Mr B/s conceit,
being all made in the image and likeness of God ; which, says he, by
ein we have not lost.

But what kind of sonship is added to Christ by all these excel
lencies whereby he is made like to God ? The same author tells us
that it is a sonship by adoption, and that Christ -on these accounts
was the adopted Son of God. " If," saith he, " what is the signifi
cation of this word adoptivus may be considered from the Scripture,
we deny not but that Christ in this manner may be called the
' adopted Son of God/ seeing that such is the property and condition
of an adopted son that he is not born such as he is afterward made
by adoption. Certainly, seeing that Christ was not such by nature,
or in his conception and nativity, as he was afterward in his succeed
ing age, he may justly on that account be called the 'adopted Son of
God/"1 Such miserable plunges doth Satan drive men into whose
eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel
should not shine into them ! And by this we may understand,
whatever they add farther concerning the sonship of Christ, that
all belongs to this adopted sonship; whereof there is not one tittle
in the whole book of God. ,

The reasons they commonly add why in this sense Christ is called
the " Son of God" are the same which they give why he is called
" God." " He is the only-begotten Son of God," say the authors of
the Compendium of the religion before mentioned, " because God
sanctified him, and sent him into the world, and because of his ex
altation at the right hand of God, whereby he was made our Lord
and God."3

If the reader desire to hear them speak in their own words, let
him consult Smalcius, De Vera Divinit. Jes. Christ, cap. vii., etc. ;
Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum quatuor antecedent.
Eefut. Disput. de Christi Natura, pp. 14, 15 ; Adversus Weikum,
pp. 224, 225, et passim ; Volkel. De Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. x.-xii. ;

1 " Si quae sit vocabuli ' adoptivus' significatio ex mente sacrarum literarum conside-
retur, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivum Dei Filium ; quia enim
adoptivi filii ea est conditio et proprietas, ut talis non sit natus qualis factus est post
adoptionem. Certe quia Christus talis natura, vel in ipsa conceptione et nativitate non
fuit, qualis postea fuit aetate accedente, sine injuria adoptivus Dei Filius eo modo did
potest.'' — Smalc. ad Smiglec. cap. xx. p. 175.

* " Filium Dei unigenitum esse decent, turn propter sanctificationem, ac missionem in
mundum, turn exaltationem ad Dei dextram, adeo ut factum Dominum et Deum nos
trum affirmant." — Compend. Relig. cap. i. p. 2.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 183

Jonas Schlicht. ad Meisner., pp. 192, 193, etc.; especially the same
person fully and distinctly opening and declaring the minds of his
companions, and the several accounts on which they affirm Christ to
be, and to have been called, the " Son of God," in his Comment on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 16-20, as also his Notes upon Yech-
nerus' Sermon on John i. p. 14, etc. ; Anonym. Respon. ad Centum
Argumenta Cichorii Jesuits, pp. 8-10; Confessio Fidei Christianse,
edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polonia, pp. 24, 25.

Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of
Christ's filiation under four heads : —

1. The first way (saith he) whereby Christ is in the Scripture xar \\»^, called
the " Son of God," is in that as man lie was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born
of a virgin. And I doubt not (saith he) but that God is on this ground called
eminently the "Father of our Lord Jesus 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 prophets, is called
the " Son of God."

3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an immortal life, and, as it were,
born again from the womb of the earth without.the help of any mother.

4. Because being so raised from death, he is made complete heir of his
Father's house, and lord of all his heavenly goods, saints, and angels.1

The like he had written before, in his Apology for the Remon
strants, cap. ii. sect. 2.

Thus he, evidently and plainly from the persons before named.
But yet, after all this, he asks another question, — " Whether, all this
being granted, there do not yet moreover remain a more eminent and
peculiar reason why Christ is called the 'Son of God T' He answers
himself: " There is,— namely, his eternal generation of the Father,
his being God of God from all eternity ;" which he pursues with sundry
arguments, and yet in the close disputes that the acknowledgment
of this truth is not fundamental, or the denial of it exclusive of sal
vation!9 So this great reconciler of the Arminian and Socinian re
ligions, whose composition and unity into an opposition to them
whom he calls Calvinists is the great design of his Theological Insti
tutions; and such at this day is the aim of Curcellaeus and some
others. By the way, I shall desire (before I answer what he offers

1 « Primus modus est, quia quatenus homo ex Spiritu Dei Sancto conceptus est, et
ex virgine natus est. Nee dubium mihi est, quin ob hunc modum, Deus etiam Ka,r
\l»X*i vocetur Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Secundus modus est, quia Jesus
Christus ratione muneris illius, quod a Patre speciali mandato impositum ei fuit, ut
rex Israelis esset, promissus ille per prophetas, et pramsus ante secula Fihus Dei
vocatur. Tertius modus.est, quia a Patre ex mortuis in vitam imrnortalem suscita-
tus et veluti ex utero terrae, nulla mediante matre, denuo genitus est. Quartus modus
est,' quia Jesus Christus ex morte suscitatus, haeres ex asse constitute est in domo
Patris sui, ac proinde bonorum omnium coelestium, et Patris sui ministrorum omni
um sive angelorum dominus."— Episcop. Instit. Theolog. lib. iv. cap. xxxiii. sect. 2,
p. 195.

» Instit. Theol. lib. iv. cap. x*xiii, sect 2, p. 335.

184 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

to confirm his assignation of this fourfold manner of filiation to Jesus
Christ) to ask this learned gentleman (or those of his mind who do
survive him) this one question, Seeing that Jesus Christ was from
eternity the Son of God, and is called so after his incarnation, and
was on that account in his whole person the Son of God, by their
own confessions, what tittle can he or they find in the Scripture of a
manifold filiation of Jesus Christ in respect of God his Father? or
whether it be not a diminution of his glory to be called the Son of
God upon any lower account, as by a new addition to him who was
eternally his only-begotten Son, by virtue of his eternal generation
of his own substance ?

Having thus discovered the mind of them with whom we have to
do, and from whom our catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I
shall briefly do these two [three?] things: — I. Show that the filia
tion of Christ consists in his generation of the substance of his Father
from eternity, or that he is the Son of God upon the account of his
divine nature and subsistence therein, antecedent to his incarnation.
II. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was
called, the Son of God upon any other account but that mentioned ;
and therein answer what by Mr B. or others is objected to the con
trary. III. To which I shall add testimonies and arguments for the
deity of Christ, — whose opposition is the main business of that new
religion which Mr B. would catechise poor unstable souls into, — in
the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.

I. For the demonstration of the first assertion, I shall insist on
some few of the testimonies and arguments that might be produced
for the same purpose: —

1. He who is the true, proper, only-begotten Son of God, of the
living God, he is begotten of the essence of God his Father, and is
his Son by virtue of that generation ; but Jesus Christ was thus the
only, true, proper, only-begotten Son of God : and therefore he is the
Son of God upon the account before mentioned. That Jesus Christ
is the Son of God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly
testifieth : " Lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased," Matt. iii. 17; "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God," chap. xvi. 16, John vi. 69.

Which [latter] place in Matthew is the rather remarkable, because
it is the confession of the faith of the apostles, given in answer to that
question, " Whom say ye that I the Son of man am ?" They an
swer, " The Son of the living God;" and this in opposition to them
who said he was " a prophet, or as one of the prophets," as Mark
expresses it, chap, vi 15, — that is, only so. And the whole confes
sion manifests that they did in it acknowledge both his office of being
the Mediator and his divine nature or person also. " Thou art the
Christ." These words comprise all the causes of filiation insisted on

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 185

by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of the media
tion of Christ; but yet hereunto they add, " The Son of the living
God," expressing his divine nature, and sonship on that account.

" And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us
an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are
in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true
God, and eternal life," 1 John v. 20. " He spared not his own Son/'
Rom. viii. 32. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father/'
John i. ] 4. " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,"
verse 18. " He said also that God was his Father, making himself
equal with God," John v. 18. " God so loved the world, that he
gave his only-begotten Son," John iii. 16. " In this was manifested
the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten
Son into the world," 1 John iv. 9. "Thou art my Son; this day
have I begotten thee," Ps. ii. 7, etc. All which places will be after
ward vindicated at large.

To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two of
these instances: —

1. He who is "dtog vi6$, the "proper son" of any, is begotten of
the substance of his father. Christ is the proper Son of God, and
God he called often "dtov nar^a, 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 tdng, whereby
Christ is distinguished from that kind of sonship which the Jews
kid claim unto.1 Now, the sonship they laid claim unto and en
joyed, so many of them as were truly so, was by adoption ; for " to
them pertained the adoption/' Rom. ix. 4. Wherein this emphasis,
then, and specially of Christ's sonship, should consist, but in what
'we assert of his natural sonship, cannot be made to appear. Grotius
says it is " because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah."
True, but on what account ? Not that common [one] of adoption,
but this of nature, as shall afterward appear.

Again ; he who is properly a son is distinguished from him who
is metaphorically so only ; for any thing whatever is metaphorically
said to be what it is said to be by a translation and likeness to that
which is true. Now, if Christ be not begotten of the essence of his
Father, he is only a metaphorical Son of God by way of allusion,
and cannot be called the proper Son of God, being only one who
hath but a similitude to a proper Son ; so that it is a plain contra
diction that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet not
be begotten of his Father's essence. Besides, in that 8th of the
1 Grot. Annot. Job. v. 18.

186 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

Romans, the apostle had before mentioned other sons of God, who
became so by adoption, verses 15, 16; but when he comes to speak
of Christ in opposition to them, he calls him " God's own" or proper
"Son," — that is, his natural Son, they being so only by adoption. And
in the very words themselves, the distance that is given him by way
of eminence above all other things doth sufficiently evince in what
sense he is called the "proper Son of God:" "He that spared not his
own Son, how shall he not with him give us all things?"

2. The only-begotten Son of God is his natural Son, begotten of
his essence, and there is no other reason of this appellation. And
this is farther clear from the antithesis of this " only-begotten" to
" adopted." They are adopted sons who are received to be such by
grace and favour. He is only-begotten who alone is begotten of the
substance of his father; neither can any other reason be assigned
why Christ should so constantly, in way of distinction from all others,
be called the " only-begotten Son of God." It were even ridiculous
to say that Christ were the only-begotten Son of God and his pro
per Son, if he were his Son only metaphorically and improperly.
That Christ is the proper, only-begotten Son of God, improperly and
metaphorically, is that which is asserted to evade these testimonies of
Scripture. Add hereunto the emphatical, discriminating significancy
of that voice from heaven, "This is he, that well-beloved Son of mine ;"
and that testimony which in the same manner Peter gave to this son-
ship of Christ in his confession, "Thou art the Son of the living God ;"
and the ground of Christ's filiation will be yet more evident. Why
the Son of the living God, unless as begotten of God as the living God,
as living things beget of their own substance? But of that place before.
Christ, then, being the true, proper, beloved, only-begotten Son of
the living God, is his natural Son, of his own substance and essence.

3. The same truth may have farther evidence given unto it from
the consideration of what kind of Son of God Jesus Christ is. He
who is such a son as is equal to his father in essence and proper
ties is a son begotten of the essence of his father. Nothing can
give such an equality but a communication of essence. Then, with
God, equality of essence can alone give equality of dignity and honour ;
for between that dignity, power, and honour, which belong to God
as God, and that dignity or honour that is or may be given to any
other, there is no proportion, much less equality, as shall be evi
denced at large afterward. And this is the sole reason why a son is
equal to his father in essence and properties, because he hath from
him a communication of the same essence whereof he is partaker.
Now, that Christ is such a Son as hath been mentioned, the Scripture
abundantly testifies. "My Father," saith Christ, " worketh hitherto,
and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because
he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 187

Father, making himself equal with God/' John v. 17, 18. Verse 1 7,
having called God his Father in the particular manner before men
tioned, and affirmed to himself an equal nature and power for opera
tion with his Father, the Jews thence inferred that he testified of him
self that he was such a Son of God as that he was equal with God.

The full opening of this place at large is not my present business ;
the learned readers know where to find that done to their hand.
The intendment of those words is plain and evident. Grotius ex
pounds "Iffov saurov r<f> 0£p, by " It was lawful for him to do what
was so to God, and that he Avas no more bound to the Sabbath than
he; which," saith he, "was a gross calumny."1 So verse 19, these
words of our Saviour, " The Son can do nothing of himself but what
he seeth the Father do" (wherein the emphasis lies evidently in the
words ap' favrov, for the Son can do nothing of himself but what
the Father doth, seeing he hath his essence, and so, consequently, will
and power, communicated to him by the Father), he renders to be
an allusion to and comparison between a master and scholar;3 as the
scholar looks diligently to what his master doth, and strives to imi
tate him, so was it with Christ and God; — which exposition was the
very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place, as
Maldonate upon the place makes appear. That it was not an equal
licence with the Father to work on the Sabbath, but an equality of
essence, nature, and power between Father and Son, that the Jews
concluded from the saying of Christ, is evident from this considera
tion, that there was no strength in that plea of our Saviour of work
ing on the Sabbath-day because his Father did so, without the
violation of the Sabbath, unless there had been an equality between
the persons working. That the Jews did herein calumniate Christ
or accuse him falsely, the Tritheists said, indeed, as Zanchius testi
fies;3 and Socinus is of the same mind, whose interest Grotius
chiefly serves in his Annotations: but the whole context and car
riage of the business, with the whole reply of our Saviour, do abun
dantly manifest that the Jews, as to their conclusion, were in the
right, that he made himself such a Son of God as was equal to him.
For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken, and so had ca
lumniated Christ, there be two grand causes why he should have de
livered them from that mistake by expounding to them what manner
of Son of God he was: — First, Because of the just scandal they might
take at what he had spoken, apprehending that to be the sense of
his words which they professed.4 Secondly, Because on that account

1 " Sibi licere prsedicans quicquid Deo licet; neque magis Sabbato se adstringi.
Crossa calumnia." — Grot. Annot. Johan. v. 18.

2 " Comparatio est sumpta a discipulo qui magistrum sibi prseeuntem diligenter in-
tuetur, ut imitari possit." — Id. ibid. v. 19.

8 Zanchius de Tribus Elolrim, lib. v. cap. iv. p. 151.

• "Notemus igitur Christum Judaeos tanquam in verborum suorum intclligentia

188 VINDICLE EV ANGELICA

they sought to slay him ; which if they had done, he should by his
death have borne witness to that which was not true. They sought
to kill him because he made himself such a Son of God as by that
sonship he was equal to God ; which if it were not so, there was a
necessity incumbent on him to have cleared himself of that asper
sion, which yet he is so far from, as that in the following verses he
farther confirms the same thing.

So he " thought it not robbery to be equal with God," Phil. ii. 6-
It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as the Father, as ap
pears in the winding up of that discourse: Verse 11, " That every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father." And to him is Christ equal ; and therefore begotten
of his own essence.

Yea, he is such a Son as is one with his Father: "I and my Father
are one," John x. 30 ; which the Jews again instantly interpret, with
out the least reproof from him, that he being man did yet aver
himself to be God, verse 33.

This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands by
Grotius, though with no better success than the fonner. 'E/w xai
6 UctTtip sv effpsv. " He joineth what he had spoken with what went
before," saith he : " If they cannot be taken from my Father's
power, they cannot be taken from mine, for I have my power of my
Father ; so that it is all one to be kept of me as of my Father : " which
he intends, as I suppose, to illustrate by the example of the power
that Joseph had under Pharaoh, Gen. xli., though the verse he in
tend be false printed.1 But that it is an unity of essence and nature,
as well as an alike prevalency of power, that our Saviour intends,
[is evident,] not only from that apprehension which the Jews had
concerning the sense of those words, who immediately took up stones
to kill him for blasphemy (from which apprehension he doth not at
all labour to free them), but also from the exposition of his mind in
those words, which is given us in our Saviour's following discourse:
for, verse 36, he tells us this is as much as if he had said, " I am
the Son of God" (now, the unity between Father and Son is in
essence and nature principally), and then that "he doeth the works
of his Father," the same works that his Father doeth, verses 37, 38,
which, were he not of the same nature with him, he could not do;
which he closes with this, " That the Father is in him, and he in the
Father," verse 38 : of which words before and afterward.

hallucinates minime reprehendentem se naturalem Dei Filium clare professum esse.
Deinde, quod isto modo colligunt Christum se Deo sequalem facere recte fecerunt ; nee
ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re tanta nos errare
non fuerit passus." — Cartwrightus Har. Eyan. inloc.

" Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribua ; Si Patris potestati eripi non pote-
runt, nee meas poterunt : nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut tan-
tomdem yaleat a me, aut a Patre, custodiri. Vid. Gen. xli. 25, 27."

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 189

He, then (that we may proceed), who is so the Son of God as that
he is one with God, and therefore God, is the natural and eternal
Son of God ; but that such a Son is Jesus Christ is thus plentifully
testified unto in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on sundry
other places to prove the deity of Christ, which also all confirm the
truth under demonstration, I shall here pass them by. The evi
dences of this truth from Scripture do so abound, that I shall but
only mention some other heads of arguments that may be and are
commonly insisted on to this purpose. Then, —

4. He who is the Son of God, begotten of his Father by an eter
nal communication of his divine essence, he is the Son begotten of
the essence of the Father ; for these terms are the same, and of the
same importance. But this is the description of Christ as to his
sonship which the Holy Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the
Father, according to his own testimony : " Thou art my Son ; this
day have I begotten thee," Ps. ii. 7. And he is " the only -begotten
Son of God," John iii. 18. And that he is so begotten by a com
munication of essence we have his own testimony: "Before the
hills, was I brought forth," Prov. viii. 25. He was begotten and
brought forth from eternity. Anpl now he tells you farther, John
v. 26, " The Father hath given to the Son to have life in him
self." It was by the Father's communication of life unto him,
and his living essence or substance ; for the life that is in God
differs not from his being. And all this from eternity : " The LORD
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth ; when there
were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains
were settled, before the hills was I brought forth," etc., Prov. viii.
22, etc., to the end of verse 31. " But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah,
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," Micah
v. 2. " In the beginning was the Word," John i. 1. " And now, O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was," John xvii. 5. " And again,
when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith," etc.,
Heb. i. 6, etc.

5. The farther description which we have given us of this Son
makes it yet more evident : " He is the brightness of his Father's
glory, and the express image of his person," Heb. i. 3. " The image
of the invisible God," Col. i. 1 5. That Christ is the essential image of
his Father, and not an accidental image, an image so as no creature
is or can be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on
another occasion in this treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the
vindication of these texts from the gloss of Grotius is also remitted.

190 VINDICI^ EYANGELICLE.

And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more might be
added) for the demonstration of the first assertion, That Christ's filia
tion ariseth from his eternal generation, or he is the Son of God
upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father
from eternity.

II. That he is and is termed the Son of God solely on this ac
count, and not upon the reasons mentioned by Mr B. and explained
from his companions, is with equal clearness evinced. Nay, I see
not how any thing may seem necessary for this purpose to be added
to what hath been spoken ; but for the farther satisfaction of them
who oppose themselves, the ensuing considerations, through the
grace and patience of God, may be of use : —

1. If, for the reasons and causes above insisted on from the So-
cinians, Christ be the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God
" according to the flesh," or according to his human nature. So he
must needs be, if God be called his Father because he supplied the
room of a father in his conception. But this is directly contrary to
the scriptures calling him the Son of God in respect of his divine
nature, in opposition to the flesh or his human nature : " Concerning
his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with
power," Rom. i. 3, 4. " Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. The same
distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, 1 Pet. iii. 18.
If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Son of David, in contra
distinction to the Son of God, then doubtless he is not called the
Son of God according to the flesh ; but this is the plain assertion of
the Scripture in the places before named. Besides, on the same
reason that Christ is the Son of man, on the same he is not the Son
of God; but Christ was and was called the Son of man upon the
account of his conception of the substance of his mother, and par
ticularly the Son of David, and so is not on that account the Son of
God.

Farther ; that place of Rom. i. 3, 4, passing not without some ex
ceptions as to the sense insisted on, may be farther cleared and vin
dicated. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God : Verses 1, 3, " The
gospel of God concerning his Son Jesus Christ." This Son is farther
described, — (1.) By his human nature: He was " made of the seed of
David according to the flesh." (2.) In respect of his person or divine
nature, wherein he was the " Son of God," and that ev dwd/tu, " in
power," or " existing in the power of God," for so Suva/Lit put abso
lutely doth often signify: as Rom. i. 20; Matt. vi. 13, xxvi. 64; Luke
iv. 36. He had, or was in, the omnipotency of God ; and was this
declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in which he was " made of
a woman," but SKZT& Hvsvpot, ayiuff-jvy; (which is opposed to xarJs

OF THE PERSON" OF JESUS CHEIST. 191

septet), " according to," or " in respect of, his divine holy Spirit;" as
is also the intendment of that word " The Spirit/' in the places above
mentioned. Neither is it new that the deity of Christ should be
called Uvtufj,a ayiuffvvqf himself is called B^li? B'7'P> Dan. ix. 24,
Sanctitas Sanctitatum, as here Spiritus Sanctitatis. And all this,
saith the apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to be
thus the Son of God, in respect of his divine, holy, spiritual being,
which is opposed to the flesh, «| dvaffrdasug vtxpuv, "by the" (or his)
" resurrection from the dead," whereby an eminent testimony was
given unto his deity. He was " declared to be the Son of God "
thereby, according to the sense insisted on.

To weaken this interpretation, Grotius moves, as they say, every
stone, and heaves at every Word ; but in vain. (1.) ' Opisd'evros, he tells
us, is as much as vpoopiffOivroc, as by the Vulgar Latin it is translated
prcedestinatus. So, he pleads, it was interpreted by many of the
ancients. The places he quotes were most of them collected by
Beza in his annotations on the place, who yet rejects their judgment
therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luke xxii. 22, Actsx. 42,
xvii. 31, are also urged by him to evince the sense of the word; in
each of which places it may be rendered " declared," or " to de
clare," and in neither of them ought to be by "predestinated." Though
the word may sometimes signify so (which is not proved), yet that it
here doth so will not follow. 'Opo$, a " definition" (from whence that
word comes), declares what a thing is, makes it known ; and 6p /'£w
may best be rendered " to declare," Heb. iv. 7. So in this place. T/
oZv sariv opisdevrog rov ©sou; dsi^dsvras, diropawdivrog, says Chrysostom on
the place. And so doth the subject-matter require, the apostle
treating of the way whereby Christ was manifested eminently to be
the Son of God.

But the most learned man's exposition of this place is admirable.
" Jesus," saith he, " is many ways said to be the ' Son of God/ "
This is begged in the beginning, because it will not be proved in the
end. If this be granted, it matters not much what follows. " But
most commonly, or most in a popular way, because he was raised
unto a kingdom by God." Not once in the whole book of God !
Let him, or any one for him, prove this by any one clear testi
mony from Scripture, and take his whole interpretation. The Son
of God, as Mediator, was exalted to a kingdom, and made a Prince
and Saviour: but that by that exaltation he was made the Son
of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved ; yea, it is
most false. He goes on: " In that sense the words of the second
Psalm were spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdom,
which are applied to Christ, Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5." But it is not
proved that these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the
type, nor any of the words from verse 7 to the end of the psalm.

192 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

-f

If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the manifestation t
not constitution of him ; and so they are applied to our Saviour, when
they relate to his resurrection, as one who was thereby manifested
to be the Son of God, according as God had spoken of him. But
now how was Christ predestinated to this sonship? "This kingly
dignity, or the dignity of a Son, of Jesus, was predestinated and pre
figured, when, leading a mortal life, he wrought ' signs and wonders ;'
which is the sense of the words tv dwdpei." The first sense of the
word opiffdsvTog is here insensibly slipped from. Predestinated and
prefigured are ill conjoined as words of a neighbouring significancy.
To predestinate is constantly ascribed to God as an act of his fore-
appointing things to their end ; neither can this learned man give
one instance from the Scripture of any other signification of the
word. And how comes now opieQwros to be "prefigured"? Is there the
least colour for such a sense ? " Predestinated to be the Son of
God with power ;" that is, " The signs he wrought prefigured that
he should be exalted to a kingdom." He was by them in a good
towardliness for it. It is true, 8vydfj.fi;, and sometimes 5uva^/j, being in
construction with some transitive verb, doth signify "great" or "mar
vellous works;" but that iv bwd^n, spoken of one declared to be so,
hath the same signification, is not proved. He adds, " These signs
Jesus did by ' the Spirit of holiness;' that is, that divine efficacy
wherewith he was sanctified from the beginning of his conception,
Luke i. 35 ; Mark ii 8 ; John ix. 36." In the two latter places
there is not one word to the purpose in hand ; perhaps he intended
some other, and these are false printed. The first shall be afterward
considered ; how it belongs to what is here asserted I understand
not/ That Christ wrought miracles by the " efficacy of the grace of
the Spirit," with which he was sanctified, is ridiculous. If by the
" Spirit" is understood his "spiritual, divine nature," this whole inter
pretation falls to the ground. To make out the sense of the words,
he proceeds, " Jesus therefore is showed to be noble on the mother's
side, as coming of an earthly king ; but more noble on his Father's
part, being made a heavenly king of God, after his resurrection,
Heb. v. 9 ; Acts ii. 30, xxvi. 23." * And thus is this most evident
testimony of the deity of Christ eluded, or endeavoured to be so.

1 " Jesus Filius Dei multis modis dicitur ; maxime populariter, ideo quod in regnum
a Deo evectus est ; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad regnum
pervenit, Christo aptantur, Act. xiii. 33, et ad Hebraeos i. 5, et T. 5. Haac autem Filii
sive regia dignitas Jesu praedestinabatur et praefigurabatur turn cum mortalem agens
vitam magna ilia signa et prodigia ederet, quse liniapiuv voce denotantur, ssepe et singu-
lariter lu*a.p.tus, ut Marci vi. 5, ix. 39 ; Luc. iv. 36, v. 17, vi. 19, viii. 46, ix. 1 ; Act.
iii. 12, iv. 33, vi. 8, x. 38. Hsec signa edebat Jesus, per Spiritum ilium sanctitatis, id
est, vim divinam, per quam ab initio conceptionis sanctificatus fuerat, Luc. i. 35 ; Marci
ii. 8 ; Job., ix. 36. Ostenditur ergo Jesus nobilis ex materna parte, utpote ex Rege ter-
reno ortus ; sed nobilior ex Paterna parte, quippe a Deo factus rex coelestis post resur-
rcctionem, Heb. v. 9; Act. ii, 30, xxvi. 23."— Grot. Annot. in Horn. i. 3, 4.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 193

Christ on the mother's side was the " son of David/' — that is, " ac
cording to the flesh," — of the same nature with her and him. On
the Father's side he was the " Son of God," of the same nature with
him. That God was his Father, and he the Son of God, because
" after his resurrection he was made a heavenly king," is a hellish
figment, neither is there any one word or tittle in the texts cited to
prove it ; so that it is a marvel to what end they are mentioned, one
of them expressly affirming that he was the Son of God before his
resurrection, Heb. v. 8, 9.

2. He who was actually the Son of God before his conception,
nativity, endowment with power or exaltation, is not the Son of God
on these accounts, but on that only which is antecedent to them.
Now, by virtue of all the arguments and testimonies before cited, as
also of all those that shall be produced for the proof and evincing
of the eternal deity of the Son of God, the proposition is unmove-
ably established, and the inference evidently follows thereupon.

But yet the proposition, as laid down, may admit of farther con
firmation at present. It is, then, testified to, Prov. xxx. 4, " What is
his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" He was,
therefore, the Son of God, and he was incomprehensible, even then
before his incarnation. Ps. ii. 7, " Thou art my Son ; this day have I
begotten thee." Isa. ix. 6, " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlast
ing Father, The Prince of Peace." He is a Son, as he is the everlast
ing Father. And to this head of testimonies belongs what we urged
before from Prov. viii. 22, eta " He is the image of the invisible
God, the first-born of every creature," CoLi. 15, which surely as to his
incarnation he was not. " Before Abraham was, I am," John viii. 58.
But of these places, in the following chapter, I shall speak at large.

3. Christ was so the Son of God that he that was made like him
was to be without father, mother, or genealogy: Heb. vii. 3, "With
out father, without mother, without descent, having neither begin
ning of days nor end of life ; but made like unto the Son of God."
But now Christ, in respect of his conception and nativity, had a
mother (and one, they say, that supplied the room of father), had a
genealogy that is upon record, and beginning of life, etc.; so that
upon these accounts he was not the Son of God, but on that wherein
he had none of all these things, in the want whereof Melchisedec was
made like to him. I shall only add, —

4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ is not the
cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which gives it its being.
The manifestation of it is only that which declares it to be so. That
all things insisted on as the causes of Christ's filiation, by them with
whom we have to do, did only declare and manifest him so to be

VOL. XIL 13

194 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

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 born of thee shall
be called the Son of God," Luke i. 35. He shall be called so, — there
by declared to be so: " And great was the mystery of godliness: God
was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
into glory," 1 Tim. iii 16. All the causes of Christ's filiation as
signed by our adversaries are evidently placed as manifestations of
God in him, or of his being the Son of God : " Declared to be the Sou
of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resur
rection from the dead," Rom. i. 3, 4. The absurdity of assigning dis
tinct and so far different causes of the same effect of filiation, whether
you make them total or partial, need not be insisted on.

Farther (to add one consideration more), says Socinus, " Christ was
the Son of God upon the account of his holiness and righteousness,
and therein his likeness to God." Now, this he had not, according to
his principles, in his infancy. He proves Adam not to have been
righteous in the state of innocency, because he had yielded actual
obedience to no law: no more had Christ done in his infancy.
Therefore, — (1.) He was not the Son of God upon the account of his
nativity; nor (2.) did he become the Son of God any otherwise than
we do, namely, by hearing the word, learning the mind, and doing
the will of God. (3.) God did not give his only- begotten Sou for
us, but gave the son of Mary, that he might (by all that which we
supposed he had done for us) be made the Son of God. And so
(4.) this sending of Christ doth not so much commend the love of
God to us as to him, that he sent. him to die and rise that he might
be made God and the Son of God. (5.) Neither can any eximious
love of Christ to us be seen in what he did and suffered ; for had he
not done and suffered what he did, he had not been the Son of God.
(6.) And also, if Christ be, on the account of his excellencies, graces,
and gifts, the Son of God (which is one way of his filiation insisted
on), — and to be God and the Son of God is, as they say, all one, and
as it is indeed, — then all who are renewed into the image of God, and
are thereby the sons of God (as are all believers), are gods also!

And this that hath been spoken may suffice for the confirmation
of the second assertion laid down at the entrance of this discourse.

To the farther confirmation of this assertion two things are to be
annexed: — First, The eversion of that fancy of Episcopius before
mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians, that Christ
is called the " Son of God," both on the account of his eternal son-
ship and also of those other particulars mentioned from him abova
Secondly, To consider the texts of Scripture produced by Mr B. for
the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the "Son

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 195

of God" because of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father.
The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing arguments : —

1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may be renewed;
for if Christ be the Son of God partly upon the account of his eter
nal generation, and so he is God's proper and natural Son, and
partly upon the other accounts mentioned, then, —

(1.) He is partly God's natural Son, and partly his adopted Son ;
partly his eternal Son, partly a temporary Son ; partly a begotten
Son, partly a made Son ; — of which distinctions, in reference to Christ,
,there is not one iota in the whole book of God.

(2.) He is made the Son of God by that which only manifests
him to be the Son of God, as the things mentioned do.

(3.) Christ is equivocally only, and not univocally, called the Son
of God ; for that which hath various and diverse causes of its being
so is so equivocally. If the filiation of Christ hath such equivocal
causes as eternal generation, actual incarnation, and exaltation, he
hath an equivocal filiation ; which whether it be consistent with the
Scripture, which calls him the proper Son of God, needs no great
pains to determine.

2. The Scripture never conjoins these causes of Christ's filiation
as causes in and of the same kind, but expressly makes the one the
sole constituting, and the rest causes manifesting only, as hath been
declared. And, to shut up this discourse, if Christ be the Son of
man only because he was conceived of the substance of his mother,
he is the Son of God only upon the account of his being begotten of
the substance of his Father.

Secondly, There remaineth only the consideration of those texts
of Scripture which Mr B. produceth to insinuate the filiation of
Christ to depend on other causes, and not on his eternal generation
of the essence of his Father; which, on the principles laid down and
proved, will receive a quick and speedy despatch.

] . The first place named by him, and universally insisted on by
the whole tribe, is Luke i. 30-35. It is the last verse only that I
suppose weight is laid upon. Though Mr B. names the others, his
masters never do so. That of verses 31, 32 seems, to deserve our
notice in Mr B/s judgment, who changes the character of the words
of it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are, " Thou
shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his
name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest." What Mr B. supposes may be proved from hence, at
least how he would prove what he aims at, I know not. That Jesus
Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was a son of the Highest we
contend. On what account he was so the place mentioneth not; but
the reason of it is plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been
declared.

106 VINDICI^E EVANGELIC^.

The words of verse 35 are more generally managed by them:
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." But neither
do these particles, 8ib xai, render a reason of Christ's filiation, nor
are [they] a note of the consequent, but only of an inference or conse
quence that ensues from what he spake before : " It being so as I
have spoken, even that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God." There is weight also in that expression,
"\yiov rb ytwtofjMvov, " That holy thing that shall be born of thee/'
" \yiov is not spoken in the concrete, or as an adjective, but substan-
tively, and points out the natural essence of Christ, whence he was
" that holy thing." Besides, if this be the cause of Christ's filiation
which is assigned, it must be demonstrated that Christ was on that
account called the " Son of God," for so hath it been said that he
should be ; but there is not any thing in the New Testament to give
light that ever Christ was on this account called the " Son of God,"
nor can the adversaries produce any such instance.

2. It is evident that the angel in these words acquaints the blessed
Virgin that in and by her conception the prophecy of Isaiah should
be accomplished, which you have, chap, vii 14, "Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, an^l bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,"
as the express wprds of Luke declare, being the same with those
of the prophecy, " Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
bring forth a son, and shalt call," etc., verses 31, 32. And Matt.
i. 20, 21, this very thing being related, it is said expressly to be done
according to what was foretold by the prophet, verses 22, 23, repeating
the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned
before. Now Isaiah foretelleth two things :—-(!.) That a virgin
should conceive ; (2.) That he that was so conceived should be Im
manuel, God with us; or the Son of God, as Luke here expresses
it And this is that which the angel here acquaints the blessed
Virgin withal upon her inquiry, verse 34, even that, according to the
prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive and bear a son, though a
virgin, and that that son of net's should be called the " Son of God."

By the way, Grotius' dealing with this text, both in his annota
tions on Isa. vii., as also in his large discourse on Matt. L 21-23, is
intolerable and full of offence to all that seriously weigh it. It is
too large here to be insisted on. His main design is to prove that
this is not spoken directly of Christ, but only applied to him by a
certain general accommodation. God may give time and leisure
farther to lay open the heap of abominations which are couched in
those learned annotations throughout. Which also appears, —

3. From the emphaticalness of the expression 3/i xal, " even also."
" That holy thing which is to be born of thee, even that shall be called

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 197

the Son of God, and not only that eternal Word that is to be incarnate.
That ay/ov rb yiwuptvov, being in itself anvdararov, shall be called the
Son of God." " Shall be called so/' that is, appear to be so, and be
declared to be so with power. It is evident, then, that the cause of
Christ's filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the
Virgin's conception declared ; that which was " born of her should
be called the Son of God."

And this Socinus is so sensible of that he dares not say that Christ
was completely the Son of God upon his conception and nativity;
which, if the cause of his filiation were here expressed, he must be.
" It is manifest," saith he, " that Christ before his resurrection was
not fully and completely the Son of God, being not like God before
in immortality and absolute rule."1

Mr B.'s next place, whereby the sonship of Christ is placed on
another account, as he supposes, is John x. 36, " Say ye of him, whom
the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphem-
est ; because I said, I am the Son of God ? "

That this scripture is called to remembrance not at all to Mr B.'s
advantage will speedily appear ; for, —

1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or for what
cause it is, that Christ is the Son of God, but only that he is so, he
being expressed and spoken of under that description which is used
of him twenty times in that Gospel, " He who is sent of the Father."
This is all that is in this place asserted, that he whom the Father
sanctified and sent into the world counted it no robbery to be equal
with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himself his Son.

2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himself to be
such a Son of God as the Jews charged him with blasphemy for
affirming of himself that he was ; for he justifies himself against
their accusation, not denying in the least that they rightly appre
hended and understood him, but maintaining what he had spoken
to be most true. Now, this was that which the Jews charged him
withal, verse 33, "That he, being a man, blasphemed in making him
self God ; " for so they understood him, that in asserting his sonship
he asserted also his deity. This Christ makes good, namely, that
he is such a Son of God as is God also ; yea, he makes good what
he had said, verse 30, which was the foundation of all the following
discourse about his blasphemy, " I and my Father are one." So
that,—

3. An invincible argument for the sonship of Christ, to be placed
only upon the account of his eternal generation, ariseth from this very
place that was produced to oppose it ! He who is the Son of God

1 " Const at igitur (ut ad propositum revert amur), Christum ante resurrectionem Dei
Filium plene et perfecte non fuisse : cum illi et immortalitatis et absoluti dominii
cum Deo similitude deesset." — Socin. Respon. ad Weikum, p. 225.

198 VINDICLE EVANGELIC JE.

because he is " one with the Father," and God equal to him, is the
Son of God upon the account of his eternal relation to the Father:
but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears
witness to the Jews, although they are ready to stone him for it ;
and of his not blaspheming in this assertion he convinces his adver
saries by an argument a minori, verses 34-36.

A brief analysis of this place will give evidence to this interpreta
tion of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given the reason why
the Jews believed not on him, namely, " because they were not of
his sheep," verse 26, describes thereupon both the nature of those
sheep of his, verse 27, and their condition of safety, verse 28. This
he farther confirms from the consideration of his Father's greatness
and power, which is amplified by the comparison of it with others,
who are all less than he, verse 29 ; as also from his own power and
will, which appears to be sufficient for that end and purpose from
his essential unity with his Father, verse 30. The effect of this dis
course of Christ by accident is the Jews taking up of stones, which
is amplified by this, that it was the second time they did so, and that
to this purpose, that they might stone him, verse 31. Their folly
and madness herein Christ disproves with an argument ab absurdo,
telling them that it must be for some good work that they stoned
him, for evil had he done none, verse 32. This the Jews attempt
to disprove by a new argument a disparatis, telling him that it was
" not for a good work, but for blasphemy," that he "made himself to
be God," whom they would prove to be but a man, verse 33. This
pretence of blasphemy Christ disproves, as I said before, by an argu
ment a minori, verses 34-36, and with another from the effects or
the works which he did, which sufficiently proved him to be God,
verses 37, 38, still maintaining what he said and what they thought
to be blasphemy; so that they attempt again to kill him, verse 39.
It is evident, then, that he still maintained what they charged him
with.

4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent in the
Scripture, of God's sending his Son into the world, and that he
came down from heaven, and came into the world, Gal. iv. 4,
John iii. 13 ; all evincing his being the Son of God antecedently to
that mission or sanctification whereby in the world he was declared
so to be. Otherwise, the Son of God was not sent, but one to be
his Son.

Acts xiii. 32, 33, is also insisted on: "We declare unto you glad
tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath
raised up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the second psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

1. He that can see in this text a cause assumed of the filiation of

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 199

Christ that should relate to the resurrection, I confess is sharper
sighted than I. This I know, that if Christ were made the Son of
God by his resurrection from the dead, he was not the Son of God
who died, for that preceded this his making to be the Son of God.
But that God gave his only-begotten Son to die, that he spared
not his only Son, but gave him up to death, I think is clear in
Scripture, if any thing be so.

2. Paul seems to interpret this place to me, when he informs us
that "Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the
resurrection from the dead," Rom. i. 4. Not that he was made so,
but he was "declared" or made known to be so, when, being "cruci
fied through weakness, he lived by the power of God," 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ;
which power also was his own, John x. 18.

According as was before intimated, Grotius interprets these words,
" Thou art my Son, this day have , I begotten thee," " I (have made
thee a king ; which," he says, " was fulfilled in that, when all power
was given him in heaven and earth, Matt, xxviii. 18 ; as Justin in
his colloquy with Trypho : lore yiviffiv aiiT-ou "Ktyuv ytvsG&at, t%6rou n
yvuffig alrou ipsXXs ysvssSat."1 (1.) But then he was the Son of God
before his resurrection, for he was the Son of God by his being be
gotten of him : which as it is false, so contrary to his own gloss on
Luke i. 35. (2.) Christ was a king before his resurrection, and owned
himself so to be, as hath been showed. (3.) Justin's words are suited
to our exposition of this place. He was said to be then begotten,
because then he was made known to be so the Son of God. (4.) That
these words are not applied to Christ, in their first sense, in respect of
his resurrection, [is evident] from the pre-eminence assigned unto him
above angels by virtue of this expression, Heb. i. 5, which he had
before his death, chap. i. 6. Nor, (5.) Are the words here used to
prove the resurrection, which is done in the verses following, out of
Isaiah and another psalm, " And as concerning that he raised him up
from the dead," etc., Acts xiii. 34, 35. But then, —

3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that passage in
the psalm which Paul, Acts xiii., insists on, but the proving that
Christ was the Son of God, as in that psalm he was called, by his
resurrection from the dead ; which was the great manifesting cause
of his deity in the world.

What Mr B. intends by the next place mentioned by him I know
not. It is Rev. i. 5, " And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, and the first begotten of the dead." That Christ was the
first who was raised from the dead to a blessed and glorious immor
tality, and is thence called the first-begotten of them, or from the
dead, and that all that rise to such an immortality rise after him,

1 " 0 fill mi, hodie te genui, id est, Regem te fed. Hoc in Christo impletum, cum «»'
data omnis potestas in coelo ei in terra, Matt, xxviii. 18," etc. — Grot, in loc.

200 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

and by virtue of his resurrection, is most certain and granted ; but
that from thence he is that only-begotten Son of God, though
thereby he was only " declared" so to be, there is not the least tittle
in the text giving occasion to such an apprehension.

And the same also is affirmed of the following place of Col. i. 18,
where the same words are used again: "He is the head of the church,
who is the beginning, vpur6roxo$ sx TUV vsxpuv, — the first-born of the
dead." Only I shall desire our catechist to look at his leisure a little
higher into the chapter, where he will find him called also vpuToroxos
KOLCIIS xriffsus, " the first-born of all the creation;" so that he must
surely be vrpuroToxos before his resurrection. Nay, he is so the first
born of every creature as to be none of them;1 for by him they were
all created, verse 16. He who is so before all creatures as to be
none of them, but that they are all created by him, is " God blessed
for ever:" which when our catechist disproves, he shall have me for
one of his disciples.

Of the same kind is that which Mr B. next urgeth from Heb. i.
4, 5, only it hath this farther disadvantage, that both the verses going
immediately before and that immediately following after do inevit
ably evince that the constitutive cause of the sonship of Jesus Christ,
d, priori, is in his participation of the divine nature, and that it is
only manifested by any ensuing consideration. Verses 2, 3, the
Holy Ghost tells us that " by him God made the worlds, who is the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;" and
this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as mediator.
And verse 6, "He bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, and
saith, Let all the angels of God worship him/' He is the first-be
gotten before his bringing into the world ; and that this is proved by
the latter clause of the verse shall be afterward demonstrated. Be
tween both these, much is not like to be spoken against the eternal
sonship of Christ. Nor is the apostle only declaring his pre-emi
nence above the angels upon the account of that name of his, the "Son
of God," which he is called upon record in the Old Testament, but
the causes also of that appellation he had before declared.

The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import. It is
Heb. v. 5, " So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have
I begotten thee." When Mr B. proves any thing more towards his
purpose from this place, but only that Christ did not of his own ac-

1 So that xfOTorfxot yeiifftt; uriffiia; is, I <ri%h}; <jrpl vfiifns Kritrius, qui genitus est prior
omni creatura, vel ante omnem creaturam, for so itfuras sometimes signifies compara
tively. Arist. Ayibus. 484, vefurot tutfiiov, id est, xf'orifoi, Johan. i. 15; <jt(uT<n pou >?», that
is, vrporiftf and 1 Johan. iv. 19, vpu-rm Yiya.^n<rtv. that is, xfortfos. His generation was
before the creation, indeed eternal. Tertullian saith so too, Lib. de Trinitate : " Quo-
modo primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quia secundum divinitatem ante omnem creaturam
ex Deo Patre Sermo processit."

OF THE PERSON OF JESUG CHRIST. 201

cord undertake the office of a mediator, but was designed to it of
God his Father, who said unto him, "Thou art my Son, to-day
have I begotten thee," declaring him so to be with power after his
resurrection, I shall acknowledge him to have better skill in disput
ing than as yet I am convinced he is possessed of.

And thus have I cleared the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ, and
evinced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein upon
any other account, not doubting but that all who love him in sin
cerity will be zealous of his glory herein. For his growing up to be
the Son of God by degrees, to be made a God in process of time, to be
the adopted Son of God, to be the Son of God upon various accounts
of diverse kinds, inconsistent with one another, to have had such a
conception and generation as modesty forbids to think or express,
not to have been the Son of God until after his death, and the like
monstrous figments, I hope he will himself keep his own in an ever
lasting abhorring of.

The farther confirmation of the deity of Christ, whereby Mr
B/s whole design will be obviated, and the vindication of the tes
timonies wherewith it is so confirmed from his masters, is the work
designed for the next chapter.

There are yet remaining of this chapter two or three questions
looking the same way with those already considered, which will, upon
the principles already laid down and insisted on, easily and in very
few words be turned aside from prejudicing the eternal deity of the
Son of God. His 10th, then, is, —

"What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of God the
Father above him ? " and answer is given John xiv. 28 ; Mark xiii. 32 ;
Matt. xxiv. 36: whereunto is subjoined another of the same, "What
saith the apostle Paul?— A. 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28, xi. 3, iii. 22, 23."

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, namely, that of a divine
nature therein, the whole of Mr B/s aim in them is sufficiently
already disappointed. It is true, there is an order, yea, a subordi
nation, in the persons of the Trinity themselves, whereby the Son, as
to his personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being be
gotten of him; but that is not the subordination here aimed at by
Mr B., but that which he underwent by dispensation as mediator, or
which attends him in respect of his human nature. All the diffi
culty that may arise from these kinds of attribution to Christ the
apostle abundantly salves in the discovery of the rise and occasion of
them, Phil. ii. 7-9. He who was in the form of God, and equal to
him, was in the form of a servant, whereunto he humbled himself,
his servant, and less than he. And there is no more difficulty in the
questions wherewith Mr B. amuses himself and his disciples than

202 VINDICLE EVANGELIC.E.

there was in that wherewith our Saviour stopped the mouth of the
Pharisees, — namely, how Christ could be the son of David, and yet
his Lord, whom he worshipped. For the places of Scripture in
particular urged by Mr B., [such as] John xiv. 28, says our Saviour,
" My Father is greater than I" (mittens misso, says Grotius himself,
referring the words to office, not nature), which he was and is in
respect of that work of mediation which he had undertaken; but
" inaBqualitas officii non tollit sequalitatem naturas."1 A king's son
is of the same nature with his father, though he may be employed by
him in an inferior office. He that was less than his Father as to the
work of mediation, being the Father's servant therein, is equal to
him as his Son, as God to be blessed for ever. Mark xiii. 32, Matt,
xxiv. 36, affirm that the Father only knows the times and seasons
mentioned, not the angels, nor the Son ; and yet, notwithstanding,
it was very truly said of Peter to Christ, " Lord, thou knowest all
things," John xxi. 17. He that in and of the knowledge and wis
dom which as man he had, and wherein he grew from his infancy,
knew not that day, yet as he knew all things knew it; it was not
hidden from him, being the day by him appointed. Let Mr B.
acknowledge that his knowing all things proves him to be God, and
we will not deny but his not knowing the day of judgment proves
him to have another capacity, and to be truly man.

As man he took on him those affections which we call pvaixa xai
a5/a£A?jra cra^, amongst which, or consequently unto which, he might
be ignorant of some things.2 In the meantime, he who made all
things, as Christ did, Heb. i. 2, knew their end as well as their be
ginning. He knew the Father, and the day by him appointed; yea,
all things that the Father hath were his, and " in him were hid all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3.

Paul speaks to the same purpose, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. The king
dom that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise is his economical
mediatory kingdom ; which shall have an end put to it when the
whole of his intendment in that work shall be fulfilled and accom
plished. But that he is not also sharer with his Father in that uni
versal monarchy which, as God by nature, he hath over all, this doth
not at all prove. All the argument from this place is but this :
" Christ shall cease to be mediator; therefore he is not God." And
that no more is here intended is evident from the expression of it,
"Then shall the Son himself be subject;" which if it intend any

1 " Ideo autem nusquam Rcriptum est, quod Dens Pater major sit Spiritu Sancto, vel
Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo Patre ; quia non sic assumpta est creatura in qua appare-
ret S. S. sicut assumptus est films hominis, in qua forma ipsius Verbi Dei persona prse-
sentaretur." — August, lib. i. de Trinit. cap. vi.

A.UTO; (frit o ng xai ftevof vltf, a vrfiv » A£?a.apt, yiviffdtt uv xai itri If^areav, tfioxo~
i^ftt.; foifitf xai v\tx.ia. xa.ro, au.px.a.- ?£«/ yaf till Storns ttvrau ro <ri>.tiov. — ProcluS. Epis-

cop. Constan. Ep. ad Armenios.

OF THE PEESON OF JESUS CHRIST. 203

thing but the ceasing from the administration of the mediatory
kingdom, wherein the human nature is a sharer, it would prove that,
as Jesus Christ is mediator, he is not in subjection to his Father,
which himself abundantly hath manifested to be otherwise. Of
1 Cor. xi. 3, and iii. 22, 23, there is the same reason, both speaking
of Christ as mediator; whence that no testimony can be produced
against his deity hath been declared.

He adds, 12th, " Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified, as with the
title of Lord, so also with that of God, in the Scripture? — A. [John
xx. 28,] Thomas said, " My Lord and my God." Verily, if Thomas
said that Christ was his God, and said true, Mr B. is to blame who
denies him to be God at all. With this one blast of the Spirit of
the Lord is his fine fabric of religion blown to the ground. And it
may be supposed that Mr B. made mention of this portion of Scrip
ture that he might have the honour of cutting his own throat and
destroying his own cause; or rather, that God, in his righteous judg
ment, hath forced him to open his mouth to his own shame. What
ever be the cause of it, Mr B. is very far from escaping this sword of
the Lord, either by his insinuation in the present query, or diversion
in the following. For the present, it was not the intent of Thomas to
dignify Christ with titles, but to make a plain confession of his faith,
being called upon by Christ to believe. In this state he professes
that he believes him to be his Lord and his God. Thomas doubtless
was a Christian ; and Mr B. tells us that Christians have but one
God, chap. i. ques. 1, Eph. iv. 6. Jesus Christ, then, being the God
of Thomas, he is the Christians' one God, if Mr B. may be believed.
It is not, then, the dignifying of Christ with titles (which it is not for
men to do), but the naked confession of a believer's faith, that in these
words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a believer ; ergo
the only true God, as 1 John v. 20. Mr B. perhaps will tell you
he was made a God ; so one abomination begets another, — infidelity
idolatry ; — of this afterward. But yet he was not, according to his
companions, made a God before his ascension, which was not yet
when Thomas made his solemn confession.

Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. Kai 6 Qtic,
pov. " Here first," saith he, " in the story of the gospel, is this word
found ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus Christ" (which Maldonate
before him observed for another purpose), "to wit, after he had by his
resurrection proved himself to be him from whom life, and that eter
nal, ought to be expected. And this custom abode in the church,
as appears not only in the apostolical writings, Rom. ix. 5, and of
the ancient Christians, as may be seen in Justin Martyr against
Trypho, but in the Epistle also of Pliny unto Trajan, where he says
that the Christians sang verses to Christ as to God j"1 or, as the

1 " Hie primum ea vox in narratione Evangelic* reperitur ab Apostolis Jesu tributa,

204- VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

words are in the author, " Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum.
invicem." What the intendment of this discourse is is evident to
all those who are a little exercised in the writings of them whom our
author all along in his Annotations takes care of. That Christ was
now made a God at his resurrection, and is so called from the power
wherewith he was intrusted at his ascension, is the aim of this dis
course. Hence he tells us it became a " custom" to call him God
among the Christians, which also abode amongst them ; and to
prove this " custom" he wrests that of the apostle, Rorn. ix. 5, where
the deity of Christ is.spoken of, in opposition to his human nature or
his flesh, that he had of the Jews, plainly asserting a divine nature in
him, calling him God subjectively, and not only by way of attribution.
But this is, it seems, a "custom," taken up after Christ's resurrection?
to call him God, and so continued ; though John testifies expressly
that he was God in the beginning. It is true, indeed, much is not to
be urged from the expressions of the apostles before the pouring out
of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance Avith
spiritual things ; yet they had before made this solemn confession
that Christ was the " Son of the living God," Matt. xvi. 16-18, which
is to the full as much as what is here by Thomas expressed. That
the primitive Christians worshipped Christ and invocated him not
only as a god, but professing him to be " the true God and eternal
life," we have better testimonies than that of a blind Pagan, who
knew nothing of them nor their ways, but by the report of apostates,
as himself confesseth. But learned men must have leave to make
known their readings and observations, whatever become of the sim
plicity of the Scripture.

To escape the dint of this sword, Mr B. nextly queries: " Q.
Was he so the God of Thomas as that he himself in the meantime
did not acknowledge another to be his God? — A. John xx. 17; Rev.
iii. 12."

True, he who, being partaker of the divine essence, in the form of
God, was Thomas' God, as he was mediator, the head of his church,
interceding for them, acknowledged his Father to be his God ; yea,
God may be said to be his God upon the account of his sonship and
personality, in which regard he hath his deity of his Father, and
is "God of God." Not that he is a secondary, lesser, made god, a
hero, semideus, as Mr B. fancies him, but " God blessed for ever," in
order of subsistence depending on the Father.

Of the same nature is the last question, namely, " Have you any
passage in the Scripture where Christ, at the same time that he

postquam scilicet sua resurrectione probaverat, se esse a quo vita et quidem setcrna
exspectari deberet, Vide supra, xi. 25. Mansit deinde ille mos in ecclcsia, ut apparet
non tantum in scriptis Apostolicis ut, Rom. ix. 5, et veterum Christianorum, ut videre
est apud Justinum Martyrem contra Tryphonem, sed et in Plinii ad Trajanum Epis-
tola, ubi ait Christianos Christo, ut Deo, carmina cecinisse." — Grot, in loc.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 205

hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God ? —
A. Heb. i. 8, 9."

By Mr B/s favour, Christ is not said to have a God, though God
be said to be his God. Verse 8, Christ, by Mr B/s confession, is
expressly called God. He is, then, the one true God with the Father,
or another. If the first, what doth he contend about ? If the second,
he is a god that is not God by nature,' — that is, not the one God of
Christians, — and consequently an idol ; and indeed such is the Christ
that Mr B. worshippeth. Whether this will be waived by the help
of that expression, verse 9, " God, thy God," where it is expressly
spoken of him in respect of his undertaking the office of mediation,
wherein he was " anointed of God with the oil of gladness above his
fellows," God and his saints will judge.

Thus the close of this chapter, through the good, wise hand of the
providence of God, leaving himself and his truth not without witness,
hath produced instances and evidences of the truth opposed abun
dantly sufficient, without farther inquiry and labour, to discover the
sophistry and vanity of all Mr B/s former queries and insinuations;
for which let him have the praise.

CHAPTER Till.

An entrance into the examination of the Racovian Catechism in the business of
the deity of Christ — Their arguments against it answered ; and testimonies

of the eternity of Christ vindicated.

III. ALTHOUGH the testimonies and arguments for the deity -of
Christ might be urged and handled to a better advantage, if liberty
might be used to insist upon them in the method that seems most na
tural for the clearing and confirmation of this important truth, yet that
I may do two works at once, I shall insist chiefly, if not only, on those
texts of Scripture which are proposed to be handled and answered by
the author or authors of the Racovian Catechism ; which work takes
up near one-fourth part of their book, and, as it is well known, there
is no part of it wherein so much diligence, pains, sophistry, and cun
ning are employed as in that chapter, "Of the person of Christ," which
by God's assistance we are entering upon the consideration of.

Those who have considered their writings know that the very sub
stance of all they have to say for the evading of the force of our
testimonies for the eternal deity of Christ is comprised in that
chapter, there being not any thing material that any of them have
elsewhere written there omitted. And those who are acquainted
with them, their persons and abilities, do also know that their great
strength and ability for disputation lies in giving plausible answers,

206 VINDICLE EVANGELICJS.

and making exceptions against testimonies, cavilling at every word
and letter ; being in proof and argument for the most part weak and
contemptible. And therefore, in this long chapter, of near a hundred
pages, all that themselves propose by way of argument against the
deity of Christ is contained in two or three at the most, the residue
being wholly taken up with exceptions to so many of the texts of
Scripture wherein the deity of Christ is asserted as they have been
pleased to take notice of, — a course which themselves are forced to
apologize for as unbecoming catechists.1

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 them
selves, or to plead against the deity of Christ, as also what they
bring forth for their defence against the evidence of the light that
shineth from the texts whose consideration they propose to them
selves, to which many of like sort may be added.

I shall only inform the reader that this is a business quite beyond
my first intention in this treatise, to whose undertaking I have been
prevailed on by the desires and entreaties of some who knew that
I had this other work imposed on me.

Their first question and answer are : —

Ques. Declare now to me ivhat I ought to know concerning Jesus Christ f

Ans. Thou must know that of the things of which thou oughtest to know, some
belong to the essence of Christ and some to his office.

Q. WTiat are they which relate to his person ?

A. That only that by nature he is a true man, even as the Scriptures do often
witness, amongst others, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; such a one as God of old
promised by the prophets, and such as the creed, commonly called the Apostles',
witnesseth him to be; which, with us, all Christians embrace.2

Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature like unto
us, sin only excepted, we believe, and do abhor the abominations
of Paracelsus, Wigelius, etc., and the Familists amongst ourselves,
who destroy the verity of his human nature. But that the Soci-
nians believe the same, that he is a man in heaven, whatever he
was upon earth, I presume the reader will judge that it may be
justly questioned, from what I have to offer (and shall do it in its
place) on that account. But that this is all that we ought to know
concerning the person of Christ is a thing of whose folly and vanity
our catechists will be one day convinced. The present trial of it
between us depends in part on the consideration of the scriptures

1 Interpres Lect. Prefat. ad Cat. Eac.

8 " Rogatum te velim, ut mihi ca de Jesu Christo exponas, quse me scire oporteat ?
— Sciendum tibi est, quaedam ad essentiam Jesu Christi, qusedam ad illius munus re-
ferri, quse te scire oportet.

" Quaenam ea sunt quse ad personam ipsius referuntur ? — Id solum, quod natura sit
homo verus, quemadmodum ea de re crebro Scripturse sacrae testantur, inter alias,
1 Tim. ii. 5, et 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; qualem olim Deus per prophetas promiserat, et qualem
etiam esse testatur fidei symbolum, quod vulgo Apostolicum vocant, quod nobiscunx
universi Christian! amplectuntur."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 207

which shall afterward be produced to evince the contrary, our plea
from whence shall not here be anticipated. The places of Scripture
they mention prove him to be a true man, — that as man he died and
rose ; but that he who was man was not also in one person God (the
name of man there expressing the person, not the nature of man only)
they prove not. The prophets foretold that Christ should be such
a man as should also be the Son of God, begotten of him, Ps. ii. 7 ;
"The mighty God," Isa. ix. 6, 7; "Jehovah," Jer. xxiii. 6; "The LORD
of hosts," Zech. ii. 8, 9. And the Apostles' Creed also (as it is un
justly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord,
and requires us to believe in him as we do in God the Father; which
if he were not God were an accursed thing, Jer. xvii. 5.

Q. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) man ?

A. By no means ; for he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God, as
we read, Luke i. 35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt after
ward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare that the Lord
Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure (or mere) man.1

Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated that Christ neither
was nor was called the Son of God upon the account here men
tioned, nor any other whatever intimated in the close of the answer,
but merely and solely on that of his eternal generation of the es
sence 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 belongs to
his person. If Christ be by essence only man, let him have what
dignity or honour he can have possibly conferred upon him, let him
be born by what means soever, as to his essence and nature he is
a man still, but a man, and not more than a man, — that is, purus
homo, a " mere man," — and not <p vest Qsoe, " God by nature," but
such a god as the Gentiles worshipped, Gal. iv. 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 mere man. This, then, is but a flourish to de
lude poor simple souls into a belief of their honourable thoughts of
Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of than the Turks do of
Mohammed, nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians,
than as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols of
the heathen, that they were not gods by nature, may, according to
the apprehension of these catechists, be spoken of Christ ; notwith-

1 " Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo ? — Nullo pacto ; etenim est conceptus e
Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei
est, ut ea de re Luc. i. 35 legimus, ubi angelus Mariam ita alloquitur, Spiritus Sanc-
tus superveniet in te, etc., ut alias causas non afieram, quas postmodum in Jesu Christi
persona deprehendes, quse evidentissime ostendunt Dominum Jesum pro puro homine
nullo modo accipi posse."

208 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

standing any exaltation or deification that he hath received, he is
by nature no god. Yea, the apprehensions of these gentlemen
concerning Christ and his deity are the same upon the matter with
those of the heathen concerning their worthies and heroes, who,
by au avodeutfig, were translated into the number of their gods, as
Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them gods, indeed; but
put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but
one God, but that these men were honoured as being, upon [account
of] their great worth and noble achievements, taken up to blessedness
and power. Such an hero, an Hermes or Mercury, do they make of
Jesus Christ, who, for his faithful declaring the will of God, Avas
denied; but in respect of essence and nature, which here is inquired
after, if he be any thing according to their principles (of making
which supposal I shall give the reader a fair account), he was, he is,
and will be, a mere man to all eternity, and no more. They allow
him no more, as to his essence, than that wherein he was like us
in all things, sin only excepted, Heb. ii. 17.

Q. You said a little above that the Lord Jesus is by nature man; hath he also
a divine nature f

A. No ; for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, but also to the
Scriptures.1

But this is that which is now to be put to the trial, Whether the
asserting of the deity of Christ be repugnant to the Scriptures or
no. And as we shall see in the issue that as these catechists haye
not been able to answer or evade the evidence of any one testimony
of Scripture, of more than an hundred that are produced for the-
confirmation of the truth of his eternal deity, so, notwithstanding
the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able
to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance,
rising up against it. [As] for that right reason, which in this matter
of mere divine revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence
in their disputes against the person of Christ above the Scripture,
unless they discover the consonancy of it to the word, to the law and
testimony, whatever they propose, on that account may be rejected
with as much facility as it is proposed. But yet, if by " right reason"
they understand reason so far captivated to the obedience of faith as
to acquiesce in whatever God hath revealed, and to receive it as
truth, — than which duty there is not any more eminent dictate of
right reason indeed, — we for ever deny the first part of this assertion,
and shall now attend to the proof of it. Nor do we here plead that
reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot dis
cern the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves

1 " Dixeras paulo superius Dominum Jesum natura esse homlnem ; an idem habet
naturam divinam ? — Nequaquam ; nam id lion soluin ratioiii gauge, verum etiam di-
viuis litcris repugnat."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 209

regenerate before we admit them to judge of the truth of the pro
positions under debate; which though necessary for them who would
know the gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation,
yet it being the grammatical and literal sense of propositions as laid
down in the word of the Scripture 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 undeni
able demonstration compel them to), " Whatever God, who is prima
veritas, hath revealed is true, whether we can comprehend the
things revealed or no ; " which being granted, we proceed with our
catechists in their attempt.

Q. Declare how it is contrary to right reason.

A. I. In this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot
meet in one person ; such as are to be mortal and immortal, to have a beginning
and to want a beginning, to be changeable and unchangeable. 2. Because two
natures, each of them constituting a person, cannot likewise agree or meet in one
person; for instead of one there must (then) be two persons, and so also two
Christs would exist, whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and
his person one.1

And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good their
assertion that the deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason ; which,
therefore, upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly ap
pear.

1. It is true that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two
substances with such diverse properties as by that union to make an
exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties ; but that there
may not be such a concurrence and meeting of such different sub
stances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves
their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing
pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such
an union is to beg the thing in question against the evidence of many
express testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least induce
ment for any to grant their request.

2. In calling these properties of the several natures in Christ " ad
verse" or " contrary," they would insinuate a consideration of them as
of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove de
structive to the one, if not both, or, by a mixture, cause an exurgency
of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties
such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject; but [they
are] inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never

1 " Cedo qui ration! sanae repugnat ? — Primo, ad eum modum, quod duae substantiae,
proprietatibus adversae, coire in unam personara nequeant ; ut sunt mortalem et im-
mortalem esse, principium habere et principio carere, mutabilem et immutabilem ex-
istere. Deinde, quod duae naturae, personam singulaa constituentes, in unam personam
convenire itidem nequeant ; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, atque ita duos
Christos existere, quern unum esse, et unam ipsius personam omnes citra omnem con-
troversiam agnoscunt."

VOL. XII. 14

210 VINDICLE EVANGELIC JS.

mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to eternity, nor
ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not
•unto, though all of them do denominate the person wherein both the
natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they
pretended they would, they do nothing, in this first part of their
answer, but beg the thing in question ; which, being of so much im
portance and concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted
them on any such terms. Will Christ, on their entreaties, cease to be
God?

Neither is their second pretended argument of any other kind.

1. We deny that the human nature of Christ had any such subsist
ence of its own as to give it a proper personality, being from the
time of its conception assumed into subsistence with the Son of God.
This we prove by express texts of Scripture, Isa. vii. 1 4, ix. 6 ; John
i. 14 ; Horn. i. 3, ix. 5 ; Heb. ii. 16 ; Luke i. 35 ; Heb. ix. 14 ; Acts
iii. 15, xx. 28 ; Phil. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8, etc. ; and by arguments
taken from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them men
tioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, etc.
That we would take it for granted that this cannot be, is the modest
request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do.

2. If by natures constituting persons they mean those who, ante
cedently 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 " constitut
ing" they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next pos
sibility of constituting a person, then, as before, they only beg of us
that we would not believe that the person of the Word did assume
the human nature of Christ, that " holy thing that was born of the
Virgin," into subsistence with itself; which, for the reasons before
mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.

And this is the substance of all that these men plead and make a
noise with in the world, in an opposition to the eternal deity of the
Son of God ! This pretence of reason (which evidently comes short
of being any thing else) is their shield and buckler in the cause they
have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being
hungry and dying, we say it was in the human nature, wherein he
was obnoxious to such things no less than we, being therein made
like unto us in all things, sin only excepted ; — when of his submis
sion and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the
office of mediator, which he willingly undertook, and that his in
equality unto him as to that office doth no way prejudice his equality
with him in respect of his nature and being. But when, with the
Scriptures and arguments from thence, as clear and convincing as if
they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 211

Jesus, in respect of a divine nature, whereof he was partaker from
eternity, to be God, blessed for ever, they tell us it cannot be that
two such diverse natures as those of God and man should be united
in one person ; and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, — there is
no such union among other things! And these things must be, that
those who are approved may be tried. But let us hear them out.

Q. But whereas they show that Christ consisteth of a divine and human nature,
as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be answered them?

A. That here is a very great difference ; for they say that the two natures in
Christ are so united that Christ is both God and man. But the soul and body
are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body ; for
neither soul nor body doth singly of itself constitute a person. But as the di
vine nature by itself constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the human nature
should do.1

Ans. 1. In what sense it may be said that Christ, that is, the
person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human nature, was be
fore declared. The person of the Son of God assumed the human
nature into subsistence with itself, and both in that one person are
Christ.

2. If our catechists have no more to say, to the illustration given
of the union of the two natures in the person of Christ by that of the
soul and body in one human person, but that there is " a great dif
ference" in something between them, they do but filch away the
grains that are allowed to every similitude, and show wherein the
comparates differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.

3. All that is intended by this similitude is, to show that besides
the change of things, one into another, by the loss of one, as of
water into wine by Christ, and besides the union that is in physi
cal generation by mixture, whereby and from whence some third
thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial -union, whereby one
thing is not turned into another nor mixed with it. And the end of
using this similitude (which, to please our catechists, we can forbear,
acknowledging that there is not among created beings any thing
that can fully represent this, which we confess " without controversy
to be a great mystery") is only to manifest the folly of that assertion
of their master on John i., " That if the 'Word be made flesh' in our
sense, it must be turned into flesh ; for," saith he, " one thing cannot
be made another but by charge, conversion, and mutation into it:"
the absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced by the sub
stantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alter-

1 " Cum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina et humana constare, quem-
admodum homo ex animo et corpore constet, quid illis respondendum ? — Permagnum
hie esse discrimen ; illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, ut Christus
sit Deus et homo. Anima vero et corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut
nee anima nee corpus ipse homo sit, nee enim anima nee corpus sigillatim personam
constituunt. At ut natura divina per se constituit personam, ita humana constituat
per se necesse est."

212 VINDTCLE EVANGELIOE.

ation and Change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is
the Word made flesh by alteration, but by union.

4. It is confessed that the soul is not said to be made the body,
nor the body said to be made the soul, as the Word is said to be
made flesh; for the union of soul and body is not a union of distinct
substances subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two
parts of one nature, whereof the one is the form of the other. And
herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that pre
dication be justified in Christ, " The Word was made flesh," without
any change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunto the
flesh or human nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to
them both. And so it is in accidental predications. When we say
a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not intend that he is as
to his substance changed into whiteness, etc., but that he who is a
man is also become white.

5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body, but a
person is the exurgency of their conjunction : and therefore we do
not say that herein the similitude is [to be] urged, for the divine
nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union ;
nor is the union of his person the union of several parts of the same
nature, but the concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.

6. That it is " of necessity that Christ's human nature should of
itself constitute a person," is urged upon the old account of begging
the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we
deny, and produce all the proofs before mentioned to make evident
the reason of our denial ; but our great masters here say the contrary,
and our under- catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a
true man, because he had the true essence of a man, soul and body,
with all their essential properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not
to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither
do we deny Christ to have a person as a man, but to have a human
person: for the human nature of Christ subsisteth in that which,
though it be in itself divine, yet as to that act of sustentatiou which
it gives the human nature, is the subsistence of a man ; on which
account the subsistence of the human nature of Christ is made more
noble and excellent than that of any other man whatever.

And this is the whole plea of our catechists from reason, that where
to they so much pretend, and which they give the pre-eminence unto in
their attempts against the deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only
engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main
body of then: forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from
Scripture, — whereof, indeed, they have the meanest pretence and show
that ever any of the sons of men had who were necessitated to make a
plea from it in a matter of so great concernment as that now under
consideration, — will quickly disappear. Thus, then, they proceed: — |

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC.

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

A. First, Because that the Scripture proposeth to us one only God by nature,
whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, The same
Scripture testifieth that Jesus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it taketh from
him any divine nature. Thirdly, Because whatever divine thing Christ hath, the
Scripture plainly teacheth that he had it by a gift of the Father, Matt, xxviii. 18 ;
Phil. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 ; John v. 19, x. 25. Lastly, Because the same Scripture
most evidently showing that Jesus Christ did not vindicate and ascribe all his
divine works to himself, or to any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes
it plain that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vain, and would have been
without any cause.1

And this is that which our catechists have to pretend from Scrip
ture against the deity of Christ, concluding that any such divine
nature in him would be superfluous and needless, — themselves being
judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set
themselves to evade the evidence of near fifty express texts of Scrip
ture, by themselves produced and insisted on, giving undeniable tes
timony to the truth they oppose. Let, then, what they have brought
forth be briefly considered : —

1 . The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us " one only God by
nature," and we confess that that only true God is the " Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ ; " but we say that the Son is partaker of the
Father's nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper
Son, and, by his own testimony, one with him. He is such a Son (as
hath been declared) as is begotten of the essence of his Father ; and
is therefore God, blessed for ever. If the Father be God by nature,
so is the Son ; for he is of the same nature with the Father.

2. To conclude that Christ is not God because he is man, is plainly
and evidently to beg the thing in question. We evidently disco
ver in the person of Christ properties that are inseparable adjuncts
of a divine nature, and such also as no less properly belong to a
human nature. From the asserting of the one of these to conclude
to a denial of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to
dig for.

3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the Son : —
(1.) By eternal generation. So the Son receives his personality, and
therein his dmne nature, from him who said unto him, " Thou art
my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." And this is so far from dis-

1 " Doce etiara, qui id rcpugnet Scripturae Christum habere divinam naturam. —
Primum, ea ratione, quod Scriptura nobis unum tantum natura Deum proponat, quern
superius demonstravimus esse Christ! Patrem. Secundo, eadem Scriptura testatur,
Jesum Christum natura esse hominem, ufc superius ostensiim est ; quo ipso illi naturam
adimit divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Christus habeat, Scriptura eum Patris
dono habere aperte doceat, Matt, xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 27; John v. 19,
x. 25. Denique cum eadem Scriptura apertissime ostendat, Jesum Christum omnia sua
facta divina non sibi, ncc alicui naturae divinse suse, sed Patri suo vindicare solitum
fuisse, planum facit, cam divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine
causa futuram fuisse."

214 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

proving the deity of Christ that it abundantly confirms it. And thi?
is mentioned, John v. 19-23. This Christ hath by nature. (2.) By
collation of gifts, honour and dignity, exaltation and glory, upon,
him as mediator, or in respect of that office which he humbled him
self to undergo, and for the full execution whereof and investiture
[where] with glory, honour, and power were needful; which is men
tioned, Matt, xxviii. 18, Phil. ii. 9, 1 Cor. xv. 27: which is by no means
derogatory to the deity of the Son ; for inequality in respect of office
is well consistent with equality in respect of nature. This Christ
hath by grace. Matt, xxviii. 18, Christ speaks of himself as tho
roughly furnished with authority for the accomplishing of the work
of mediation which he had undertaken. It is of his office, not of
his nature or essence, that he speaks. Phil. ii. 9, Christ is said to be
exalted ; which he was in respect of the real exaltation given to his
human nature, and the manifestation of the glory of his divine,
which he had with his Father before the world was, but had eclipsed
for a season. 1 Cor. xv. 27 relates to the same exaltation of Christ
as before.

4. It is false that Christ doth not ascribe the divine works which
he wrought to himself and his own divine power, although that he
often also makes mention of the Father, as by whose appointment he
wrought those works, as mediator: John v. 17, " My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work;" verse 19, " For what things soever the Father
doeth, these also doeth the Son;" verse 21, " For as the Father rais-
eth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth
whom he will." Himself wrought the works that he did, though as
to the end of his working them, which belonged to his office of me
diation, he still relates to his Father's designation and appointment.

And this is the whole of our catechists' plea from reason and
Scripture against the deity of Christ. [As] for the conclusion, of
the superfluousness and needlessness of such a divine nature in the
Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scriptures, and of
the righteousness of God, and of the nature of sin, so it might ad
minister occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the necessity
which there was that he who was to be mediator between God and
man should be both God and man, but that I aim at brevity, and
the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account, so
that here I shall not insist thereon.

Nextly, then, they address themselves to that which is their proper
work (wherein they are exceedingly delighted), — namely, in giving
in exceptions against the testimonies produced for the confirmation
of the truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon: —

Q. But they endeavour to assert the divine nature of Christ from the Scrip
tures.

A. They endeavour it, indeed, diverse ways ; and that whilst they study either to

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 215

evince out of certain scriptures what is not in them, or whilst they argue per
versely from those things which are in the scriptures, and so evilly bring their
business to pass.1

These, it seems, are the general heads of our arguments for the
deity of Christ; but before we part we shall bring our catechists to
another reckoning, and manifest both that what we assert is expressly
contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by ratiocination
from them hath an evidence in it which they are not able to resist.
But they say, —

Q. What are those things which they labour to evince concerning Christ out of
the Scriptures, which are not contained in them ?

A. Of this sort is, as they speak, his pre-eternity ; which they endeavour to con
firm with two sorts of scriptures: — 1. Such as wherein they suppose this pre-
eternity is expressed ; 2. Such as wherein, though it be not expressed, yet they
think that it may be gathered from them.2

That we do not only " suppose," but have also as great an assurance
as the plain, evident, and redoubled testimony of the Holy Ghost
can give us of the eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in
the ensuing testimonies, both of the one sort and the other, especially
by such as are express thereunto ; for in this matter we shall very little
trouble the reader with collections and arguings, the matter inquired
after being express and evident in the words and terms of the Holy
Ghost himself. They say, then, —

Q. Which are those testimonies of Scripture which seem to them to express his
pre-eternity ?

A. They are those in which the Scripture witnesseth of Christ that he was in
the beginning, that he was in heaven, that he was before Abraham, John i. 1,
vi. 62, viii. 58.3

Before I come to the consideration of the particular places pro
posed 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 con
cerning Christ if we prove him to have been existent before his
incarnation, whether the testimonies whereby we prove it reach ex
pressly to the proof of his eternity or no. That which they have
undertaken to maintain is, that Christ had no existence before his
conception and birth of the Virgin ; — which if it be disproved, they
do not, they cannot, deny but that it must be on the account of a

1 " Atqui illi e Scripturis illam divinam in Christo naturam asserere conantur ? — Co-
nantur quidem variis modis; idque dum student aut e scripturis quibusdam evincere
quae in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis quae in scripturis habentur perperam ratio-
cinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt."

2 " Quae vero sunt ilia quae illi de Christo e Scripturis evincere laborant quae illic non
habentur ? — Est illius, ut loquuntur, prseaeternitas, quam duplici scripturarum genere
approbare nituntur. Primum ejusmodi est, in quo prae-aeternitatem bane expressam
putant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, earn tamen colligi arbitran'tur."

5 " Quaenam sunt testimonia Scriptures quae videntur ipsis earn prae-setemitatem ex-
primere ? — Sunt ea in quibus Scriptura testatur de Christo, ipsum fuisse in principle,
fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante Abrahamum, Jon. i. 1, vi. 62, viii. 58."

2 1 6 VINDICLE EVAN GELICLE.

divine nature; for as to the incarnation of any pre-existing creature
(which was the Arians' madness), they disavow and oppose it.

2. That those three places mentioned are very far from being all
wherein there is express confirmation of the eternity of Christ ; and
therefore, when I have gone through the consideration of them, I
shall add some others also, which are of no less evidence and perspi
cuity than those whose vindication we are by them called unto.

To the first place mentioned they thus proceed: —

Q. What dost thou answer to the first 9

A. In the place cited there is nothing about that pre-eternity, seeing here is
mention of the beginning, which is opposed to eternity. But the word " beginning "
is almost always in the Scripture referred to the subject-matter, as may be seen,
Dan. viii. 1 ; John xv. 27, xvi. 4; Acts xi. 15: and therefore, seeing the subject-
matter here is the gospel, whose description John undertakes, without doubt,
by his word " beginning," John understood the beginning of the gospel.

This place being express to our purpose, and the matter of great
importance, I shall first confirm the truth contended for from thence,
and then remove the miserable subterfuge which our catechists have
received from their great apostles, uncle and nephew.

1. That John, thus expressly insisting on the deity of Christ in the
beginning of his Gospel, intended to disprove and condemn sundry
that were risen up in those days denying it, or asserting the creation
or making of the world to another demiurgus, we have the unques
tionable testimony of the first professors of the religion of Jesus
Christ, with as much evidence and clearness of truth as any thing
can be tendered on uncontrolled tradition ; which at least will give
some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.3

2. That by 6 Aoyog, howsoever rendered, Verbum or Sermo, or on
what account soever he be so called, either as being the eternal Word
and Wisdom of the Father, or as the great Kevealer of his will unto
us (which yet of itself is not a sufficient cause of that appellation, for
others also reveal the will of God unto us, Acts xx. 27, Heb. i. 1),
Jesus Christ is intended, is on all hands confessed, and may be unde
niably evinced from the context. This o A.6yog came into the world
and was rejected by his own, verse 11 ; yea, expressly, he " was made
flesh," and was " the only-begotten of the Father/' verse 14.

1 " Quid vero ad primum respondes ? — In loco citato nihil habetur de ista prseaetei-
nitate, cum hie principii mentio fiat, quod prae-seternitati opponitur. Printipii vero
vox in Scripturis fere semper ad subjectam refertur materiam, ut videre est, Dan. viii. 1 ;
Job. xv. 27, xvi. 4; Act. xi. 15: cum igitur hie subjecta sit materia evangelium, cujus
descriptionem suscepit Johannes, sine dubio per vocem hanc principii, principium evan-
gelii Johannes intellexit."

J Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. iii. cap. xi. ; Epiphan. lib. i. torn. ii. haeres. 27, 28, 30, etc., lib.
ii. torn. ii. haeres. 69 ; Theod. Epitom. Haeret. lib. ii. ; Euseb. Hist. lib. iii. cap. xxvii.
" Causam post alios haec scribendi praecipuam tradunt omnes (veteres), ut veneno in
Ecclesiam jam turn sparso, authoritate sua, quse apud omnes Christianum nomen pro-
fitentes non poUerat non esse maxima, medicinam faceret." — Grot. Praefat. ad Annotat.
in Evang. Johan.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED,' ETC. 217

8. That the whole of our argument from this place is very far from
consisting in that expression, " In the beginning," though that, re
lating to the matter whereof the apostle treats, doth evidently evince
the truth pleaded for. It is part of our catechists' trade so to divide
the words of Scripture that their main import and tendence may not
be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, " In the
beginning;" in another, to "He was with God, and he was God;"
in a third, to that, "All things were made by him ;" in a fourth (all at
a great distance one from another), to " The Word was made flesh:"
which desperate course of proceeding argues that their cause is also
desperate, and that they durst not meet this one testimony, as by the
Holy Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our 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 the
words are placed in the contexture by the Holy Ghost, and vindicate
them from what, in several places, they have excepted against several
parcels of them. Thus, then, from these words (these divine words,
Avhose very reading reclaimed as eminent a scholar as the world en
joyed in his days from atheism1) we proceed.

He that was in the beginning before the creation of the world,
before any thing of all things that are made was made, who was
then with God, and was God, who made all things, and without
whom nothing was made, in whom was life, — he is God by nature,
blessed for ever ; nor is there, in the whole Scripture, a more glorious
and eminent description of God, by his attributes, names, and works,
than here is given of him concerning whom all these things are
spoken. But now all this is expressly affirmed of the " Word that
was made flesh;" that is, confessedly, of Jesus Christ: therefore he
is God by nature, blessed for ever. Unto the several parts of this
plain and evident testimony, in several places they except several
things ; thinking thereby to evade that strength and light which each
part yields to other as they lie, and all of them to the whole. I shall
consider them in order as they come to hand.

Against that expression, " In the beginning," they except, in the
place mentioned above, that it doth not signify pre-eternity, which
hath no beginning. But, —

1. This impedes not at all the existence of Jesus Christ before
the creation, although it denies that his eternity is expressly asserted.
Now, to affirm that Christ did exist before the whole creation, and
made all things, doth no less prove him to be no more a creature,

1 " Novum Testamentum diviiiitus oblatum aperio. Aliud agenti exhibet se mihi
OKpectu primo augustissimum illud caput Johannis evangelistas et apostoli, In prin
ciple erat Ve.rbum. Lego partem capitis, et ita commoveor legens, ut repente diviuita~
tern arguinenti, et script! majestatem, auctoritatemque senserim, longo intervallo omni
bus eloquentiae humanse viribus pneeuntem. Horrebat corpus, stupebat animus, et
totum ilium diem sic afficiebar, ut qui esscm, ipsi mihi incertus viderer esse." — Fran-
cisc. Juiiius.

218 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

but the eternal God, than the most express testimony of his eternity
doth or can do. 2. Though eternity has no beginning, and the
sense of these words cannot be, " In the beginning of eternity," yet
eternity is before all things, and " In the beginning" may be the de
scription of eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. viii. 23. " From everlast
ing," and " In the beginning, before the earth was," are of the same
import. And the Scripture saying that " In the beginning the Word
was," not " was made," doth as evidently express eternity as it doth
in these other phrases of, " Before the world was," or " Before the
foundation of the world," which more than once it insists on, John
xvii. 5. 3. By " In the beginning" is intended before the creation
of all things. What will it avail our catechists if it do not expressly
denote eternity? Why, the word "beginning" is to be interpreted
variously, according to the subject-matter spoken of, as Gen. i. 1 ;
which being here the gospel, it is the beginning of the gospel that
is intended! But, — •

Be it agreed that the word "beginning" is to be understood accord
ing to the subject-matter whereunto it is applied, yet that the apostle
doth firstly and nextly treat of the gospel, as to the season of its
preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the
person of the author of the gospel, of the Word that was God and was
made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended
is clear; for, — 1. The apostle evidently alludes to the first words of
Genesis, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;"
and the Syriac translation from the Hebrew here places J"i^13. So
here, "In the beginning the Word made all things." 2. The following
words, " The Word was with God, and the Word was God," manifest
the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare what and where
the Word was before the creation of the world, even with God. 3. The
testimony that he was God in the beginning will no way agree with
this gloss. Take his being God in their sense, yet they deny that he
was God in the beginning of the gospel or before his suffering, as
hath been showed. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this
place is indee.d senseless. " In tlie beginning" say they, " that is,
when the gospel began to be preached by John Baptist" (which is
plainly said to be before the world was made), "the Word, or the man
Jesus Christ" (the Word being afterward said to be made flesh, after
this whole description of him as the Word), "was with God, so hidden
as that he was known only to God" (which is false, for he was known
to his mother, to Joseph, to John Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to
others), " and the Word was God; that is, God appointed that he
should be so afterward, or made God" (though it be said he was God
then when he was with God). " And all things were made by him;
the new creature was made by him ; or the world by his preaching,
and teaching, and working miracles, was made, or reformed" (that is,

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 219

something was mended by him). Such interpretations we may at any
time be supplied withal at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther :
" In the beginning, — that is, when John preached Jesus, and said,
'Behold the Lamb of God/ — was the Word, or Jesus was;" that
is, he was when John preached that he was. " Egregiarn vero lau-
dem !" He was when he was! " The Word was in the beginning;"
that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then was afterward made
flesh, and dwelt among us, when he had dwelt amongst us ! And
this is that interpretation which Faustus Socinus, receiving from his
uncle Laelius, first set up upon, in the strength whereof he went forth
unto all the abominations which afterward he so studiously vented.

Passing by these two weighty and most material passages of this
testimony, " The Word was God," and " The Word was with God,"
the one evidencing his oneness of nature with, and the other his dis
tinctness of personality from, his Father, our catechists, after an in
terposition of near twenty pages, fix upon verse 3, and attempt to
pervert the express words and intendment of it, having cut it off
from its dependence on what went before, that evidently gives light
into the aim of the Holy Ghost therein. Their words concerning
this verse are, —

Q. Declare to me with what testimonies they contend to prove that Christ cre
ated the heaven and the earth ?

A. With those where it is written, that " by him all things were made, and
without him was nothing made that was made," and " the world was made by
him," John i. 3, 10; as also Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10-12.

Q. But how dost thou answer to the first testimony?

A.I. It is not, in the first testimony, they were created, but they were "made."
2. John says " They were made by him;" which manner of speaking doth not ex
press him who is the first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause.
Lastly, The word "all things" is not taken for all things universally, but is alto
gether related to the subject-matter; which is most frequent in the Scriptures,
especially of the New Testament, whereof there is a signal example, 2 Cor. v. 17,
wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to this whereof John treats, where
it is said " All things are made new," whereas it is certain that there are many
things which are not made new. Now, whereas the subject-matter in John is the
gospel, it appeareth that this word " all things" is to be received only of all those
things which belong to the gospel.

Q. Hut why doth John add, that " without him nothing was made that was
made?"

A. John added these words that he might the better illustrate those before spoken,
"All things were made by him;" which seem to import that all those things were
made by the Word or Son of God, although some of them, and those of great
moment, were of such sort as were not done by him but the apostles, — as the call-
•ing of the Gentiles, the abolishing of legal ceremonies : for although these things
had their original from the preaching and works of the Lord Jesus, yet they were
not perfected by Christ himself, but by his apostles; but yet not without him, for
the apostles administered all things in his name and authority, as the Lord him
self said, " Without me ye can do nothing," John xv. 5.1

1 " Expone igitur mihi quibus testimoniis approbare contendunt Christum ccdum

220 VINDICLE EV ANGELICA.

Thus to the third verse, of which afterward. We shall quickly
see how these men are put to their shifts to escape the sword of this
witness, which stands in the way to cut them off in their journeying
to curse the church and people of God by denying the deity of their
blessed Saviour.

The connection of the words is wholly omitted, " He was God, and
he was in the, beginning with God, and all things were made by
him/' The words are an illustration of his divine nature by divine
power and works. He was God, and he made all things. " He that
made all things is God," Heb. iii. 4; " The Word made all things,"
John i. 3 : therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered.

1. "It is not said they were created by him, but ' made.' " But the
word here used by John is the same that in sundry places the LXX.
(whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the
creation ; as Gen. i. 3, Ka/ sJvsv 6 Qtbg, Tfvrid^ru <pue, xa/ iyivero <pu$,
and verse 6, 'Eyivtro ertpiupa.. And if, as it is affirmed, he was in the
beginning (before all things), and made them all, he made them out
of nothing ; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce
something out of nothing, " nothing " supplying the term from
whence of their production. But, —

2. " They are said to be made ' by him:' it is Bi' airov, which de
notes not the principal, but mediate or instrumental 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 help the Arians, who fancied Christ to be created
or made before all things, and to have been the instrumental cause
whereby God created all other things ; but how this , concerns them

et terram creasse ? — lis ubi ecriptum extat, quod per eum omrda facia sint, et fine eo
faction sit nihil quad factum sit, John i. 3 ; et iterum, Mundus per if sum foetus est, ver.
10, et rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita, etc., Col. L 16, et quod Deua per eum
scecula fecerit, Heb. i. 2, denique, et ex eo, Tu in principio, etc., ver. 10-12.

" Qui vero ad primum testimonium respondes ? — Primum, non habetur in primo testi-
monio creata sunt, verum facta sunt. Deinde, ait Johannes, facta esse per eum, qui
modus loquendi, non eum qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam secundam
aut mediam exprimit. Denique, vox omnia non pro omnibus prorsus rebus hie sumitur,
sed ad subjectam materiam restringitur omnino, quod frequentissimum est in libris
divinis, praesertim Novi Testament!, cujus rei exemplum singulare extat, 2 Cor. v. 17,
in quo habetur sermo de re, huic, de qua Johannes tractat, admodum simili, ubi dicitur,
omnia nova facta esse, cum certum sit multa extare, quae nova facta non sunt. Cum
vero subjecta apud Johannem materia sit evangelium, apparet vocem omnia de iis omni
bus quae quoquo modo ad evangelium pertinent accipi debere.

"Cur vero addidit Johannes, quod sine eo factum est nihil quod factum est ? — Addidit
haec Johannes, ut eo melius illustraret ilia superiora, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quas
cam vim habere videntur, per solum Verbum vel Filium Dei omnia ilia facta esse, licet
ejus generis qusedem, et quidem magni momenti, non per ipsum, verum per apostolos
facta fuerint, — ut est vocatio Gentium, et legalium ceremoniarum abolitio : licet enim
hsec originem ab ipsis sermonibus et operibus Domini Jesu traxerint, ad efiectum tamen
non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, sed per ipsius apostolos, non tamen sine ipso;
apostoli enim omnia nomine et authoritate ipsius administrarunt, ut etiam ipse Do-
minus ait, Sine me nihil facere potestis, Job., xv. 5."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 221

to insist on who deny that Christ had any existence at all before the
world was some thousands of years old is not easy to be apprehended.

(2.) In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but expressly
contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of answer
to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say he is not the
principal efficient cause, but the second or mediate; there, that all
things were either done by him or in his name and authority, which
certainly denotes the principal cause of the things done. But, —

(3.) This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the
Father himself, whom our catechists will not therefore deny to have
been the principal efficient cause of the things ascribed to him : Rom.
xi. 36, "From him, and di" aurov, by him are all things;" 1 Cor. i. 9,
" God is faithful, di' o5, by whom ye were called;" Gal. i. 1, "Paul,
an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but dia 'ljj<rou Xpiarou, nai
og, by Jesus Christ and God the Father;" Eph. i. 1, A/a

Qsou, " By the will of God." So that this also is frivolous.
Thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But, —

3. " ' All things' are to be referred to the gospel, all things of the
gospel whereof John treats ; so are the words to be restrained by the
subject-matter." But, —

(1.) This is merely begged. John speaks not one word of the gos
pel as such, gives no description of it, its nature or effects ; but evi
dently, plainly, and directly speaks of the Word that was God, and
that made all things, describing him in his eternity, his works, his
incarnation, his employment, his coming into the world, and his
business; and treats of the gospel, or the declaration of the will of
God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterward, from verse 15 and forwards.

(2.) For the expression, 2 Cor. v. 17, "All things are become new,"
it is expressly restrained to the " new creature," to them that are " in
Christ Jesus ;" but as to this general expression here, there is no colour
why it should be so restrained, the expression itself everywhere signi
fying the creation of all things. See Gen. ii. 1, 2 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6, cxxi. 2 ;
Isa xxxvii. 16, xliv. 24, Ixvi. 1, 2; Jer. xxxii. 17; Acts xiv. 15, xvii. 24

And this is it which they plead to the first part of the verse, " All
things were made by him."

4. The other expression, they say, is added to manifest that " what
was done after by the apostles was not done without him; and that
is the meaning of these words, ' And without him was not any thing
made that was made.'" But, —

(1.) Their vpurov -^wdog, of referring the whole passage to the de
scription of the gospel, whereof there is not the least tittle nor inti
mation in the text, being removed out of the way, this following fig
ment falls of itself.

(2.) This gloss is expressly contrary to the text. The " all things"
here mentioned are the " all things" that were made in the beginning

222 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

of the world, but this gloss refers it to the things made in the erW.
of the world.

(3.) It is contradictory to itself, for by the "beginning" they un
derstand the beginning of the gospel, or the first preaching of it, but
the things that they say here were made by Christ are things that
were done after his ascension.

(4.) It is true, the apostles wrought not any miracles, effected no
mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with them (though the
text cited to prove it, John xv. 5, be quite of another importance,
as speaking of gospel obedience, not works of miracles or conver
sions) ; but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here in
tended, is not offered to proof by our catechists. And this is the
sense of the words they give : " Christ in the beginning of the gospel
made all things, or all things were made by him, even those which
he made by others after his ascension into heaven;" or thus, "All
things, that is, some things, were made, that is, mended, by him,
that is, the apostles, in the beginning of the gospel, that is, after
his ascension."

(5.) Our sense of the words is plain and obvious. Says the apostle,
"He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things;"
which he first expresseth positively, and then by an universal nega
tive confirms and explains what was before asserted in an universal
affirmative, " Without him was not any thing made that was made."

And this is the sum of what they have to except against this part of
our testimony, than which nothing can be more vain and frivolous.

The 10th verse is also by them taken under consideration, and
these words therein, " The world was made by him;" against which
this is their procedure: —

Q. What dost thou answer to the second ?

A. 1. That John doth not write here that the world was created, but "made."
2. He uses the same manner of speech which signifieth the mediate cause ; for he
saith " The world was made by him." Lastly, This word mundus, the world, as
others of the same import, doth not only denote heaven and earth, but, besides other
significations, it either signifieth human kind, as the present place manifesteth, " He
was in the world, and the world knew him not," and John xii. 19, or also future
immortality, as Heb. i. 6 ; which is to be understood of the world to come, as it
appears from chap, ii., where he saith, " He hath not put the world to come into
subjection to the angels, of which we speak," but he had nowhere spoken of it but
chap. i. 6. Furthermore, you have a place, chap. x. 5, where, speaking of Christ,
he saith, " Wherefore coming into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not have, but a body," etc. ; where, seeing it is evident that he speaks
of that world into which Jesus being entered was made our priest, as all the cir
cumstances demonstrate, it appears that he speaks not of the present, but of tho
world to come, seeing, chap. viii. 4, he had said of Christ, " If he were on earth
he should not be a priest."1

1 " Quid vero respondes ad secundum ? — Primum, quod hie non scribat Johannes
mundum esse creatum, sed factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui mediam
causam designat, ait enim, mundum per eum factum. Denique, ha?c vox mun<iusi

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 223

The first two exceptions have been already cashiered ; those which
follow are of as little weight or consideratioa: for, —

1. It is confessed that the word " world" hath in Scripture various
acceptations, and is sometimes taken for men in the world ; but that
it can be so taken when the world is said to be made or created, when
it is equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place where-
unto one comes, and where he is, as is the state of the expression
here, there can nothing more absurd or foolish be imagined.

2. Heb. i. 6 speaks not of the world to come, nor is there any place
in the Scripture where the word "world" doth signify immortality
or the world to come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. ii. 5,
mention is made not simply of the world, but of the " world to come ;"
nor doth that expression of the apostle relate unto that of chap. i. 6,
where the word " world" is used, but to what goes before and after in
the same chapter, where the thing itself is insisted on in other terms.
Nor is future immortality intended there, by the " world to come,"
but the present state of the Christian church, called the " world to
come," in reference to that of the Jews, which was past in that use
of speech whereby it was expressed before it came; as also chap,
vi. 5. Nor is the " world to come" life eternal or' blessed immortality;
life is to be had in it, but " immortality" and the " world to come" are
not the same. Nor is that world ever said to be made, nor is it any
where described as made already, but as to come : as Matt. xii. 32 ;
Luke xviii. 30, xx. 35 ; Eph. i. 21. Nor can it be said of the world to
come that it knew not Christ, as it is of this that he made; nor
can Christ be said to come into that world in the beginning, which
he did not until after his resurrection ; nor is the world to come that
whereof it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, " He came
fie TO. 7dia," "to his own," for then "'his own," o/ 7<5/o/, "knew him
not." So that there is not the least colour or pretence of this foppery
that here they would evade the testimony of the Holy Ghost withal.

3. These words, Heb. x. 5, " Coming into the world, he saith," etc.,
do not in the least intimate any thing of the world to come, but
express the present world, into which Christ came when God pre
pared a body for him at his incarnation and birth ; which was in order

quemadmodum et aliae quae prorsus idem in Scripturis valent, non solum coelum et
terrain denotat, verum prseter alias significationes, vel genus humanum designat, u*
locus pnesens ostendit, ubi ait, In mundo erat, et mundus eum non agnovit, John i. 10,
et Mundus eum secutus est, John xii. 19, aut etiam futuram immortalitatem, ut apparet,
Heb. i. 6, ubi ait, Et eum iterum introdudt primogenitum in mundum, ait, Et adorent eum
omncs angeli Dd, quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet e cap. ii. ejusdem epistolae, ubi
ait, Etenim non angeUs subjecit miendum futurum, de quo loquimur, at nusquam de eo
locutus fuerat, nisi ver. 6, cap. i. Praeterea, habes locum, cap. x. ver. 5, ubi de Christo
loquens, ait, Propterea ingrediens in mundum, ait, Hostiam et oblationem noluisti, verum
corpus adaptasti mild; ubi cum palam sit eum loqui de mundo in quern ingressus Jesus,
sacerdos noster factus est (ut circumstantise omnes demonstrant) apparet, non de prae-
senti, sed de futuro mundo agi, quandoquidem, cap. viii. ver. 4, de Christo dixerat, Si
in terris esset, ne sacerdos quidem esset."

224 VINDICI^E EVANGELICAL

to the sacrifice which he afterward offered in this world, as shall l>o
evidently manifested when we come to the consideration of tho
priesthood of Christ.

It remains only that we hear their sense of these words, which
they give as followeth : —

Q. But what dost thou understand by these words, " The world was made by
him" ?

A. A twofold sense may be given of them : — First, that human kind was reformed
by Christ, and as it were made again, because he brought life, and that eternal, to
human kind, which was lost, and was subject to eternal death (which also John
upbraideth the world withal, which being vindicated by Christ from destruction
acknowledged him not, but contemned and rejected him) ; for that is the manner
of the Hebrew speech, that in such terms of speaking, the words to " make" and
" create" are as much as to " make again" or to "create again," because that tongue
•wants those words that are called compounds. The latter sense is, that that im
mortality 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 angels." r

1. That these expositions are destructive to one another is evi
dent, and yet which of them to adhere unto our catechists know not,
such good builders are they for to establish men in the faith. Pull
down they will, though they have nothing to offer in the room of
what they endeavour to destroy.

2. That the latter sense is not intended was before evinced. The
world that was made in the beginning, into which Christ came, in
which he was, which knew him not, which is said to be made, is a
world, is not immortality or life eternal ; nor is there any thing in
the context that should in the least give countenance to such an ab
surd gloss.

3. Much less is the first sense of the words tolerable; for, —

(1.) It is expressly contradictory to the text. " He made the world,"
that is, he reformed it; and, " The world knew him not," when the
world is not reformed but by the knowledge of him !

(2.) To be made doth nowhere simply signify to be renewed or re
formed, unless it be joined with other expressions restraining its
significancy to such renovation.

(3.) The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was in it; nor
can it be said to be renewed by him only on the account of laying
the foundation of its renovation in his doctrine. " 'By him the world

1 " Quid vero per hsec, Mundus per eumfactus est, intelligis ? — Duplex eorum sensus
dari potest : Prior, quod genus humanum per Christum reformatum, et quasi denuo
factum sit, eo quod ille generi humano, quod perierat, et seternae morti subjectum erat,
vitam attulit, eamque sempiternam- (quod etiam mundo Johannes exprobrat, qui per
Christum ab interitu vindicatus, eum non agnoverit, sed spreverit et rejecerit) ; is
enim mos Hebraic! sermonis, quod in ejusmodi loquendi modis, verba facere, creare,
idem valeant, quod denuo facere, et denuo creare, idque propterea, quod verbis quse
composita vocant ea liugua careat. Posterior vero sensus est, quod ilia immortalitas
quam expectamus per Christum, quantum, ad nos, facta sit; quemadmodum eadera
futurum sceculum, habita ratione nostri, vocatur, licet jam Christo et angelis sit
praesens."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 225

•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 Hebraism of " making" for " re-forming" is commonly pre
tended, without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in
Greek, 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 testimony
insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine na
ture antecedently to his incarnation, and that is verse 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 consideration of his eternal
sonship, and shall not again insist thereon. This, after the interpo
sition of sundry questions, our catechists take thus into considera
tion : —

Q. How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate ?

A. From those testimonies where, according to their translation, it is read,
" The Word was made flesh," John i. 14, etc.

Q. How dost thou answer it ?

A. On this account, because in that testimony it is not said (as they speak)
God was incarnate, or the. divine nature assumed the human. " The Word was
made flesh" is one thing, and God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed
the human, another. Besides, these words, " The Word was made flesh," or
rather, " The Speech was made flesh," may and ought to be rendered, " The
Word was flesh." That it may be so rendered appears from the testimonies in
which the word iy'inn (which is here translated " was made") is found rendered
by the word " was," as in this chapter, verse 6, and Luke xxiv. 19, etc. Also, that it
ought to be so rendered the order of John's words teacheth, who should have spoken
very inconveniently, '• The Word was made flesh," — that is, as our adversaries in
terpret it, the divine nature assumed the human, — after he had spoken those things
of the Word which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus : such as are
these, "John bare witness of him;" "he came into the world;" "he was not received
of his own ;" that " to them that received him, he gave power to become the sons
of God." »

1 "E quibus vero testimoniis Scripturse demonstrare conantur Christum (ut loqmm-
tur) incarnatum esse? — Ex iis ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur Verbum caro
factum esse, Job. i. 14; Phil. ii. 6, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 16, etc.

" Quomodo ad primum respondes? — Ea ratione, qxiod in eo testimonio non habeatur
Deum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpserit humanam.
Aliud enim est, Verbum caro factum est, aliud, Deus incarnatus est (ut loquuntur) vcl
natura divina assumpsit humanam. Praeterea, haec verba, Verbum caro factum est, vel
potius, Sermo caro factus est, possunt et debent ita reddi, Sermo caro fuit. Posse ita
reddi, e testimoniis in quibus vox ly'mra (quae hie per factum est translata est) verbo
fuit reddita invenitur, apparet; ut in eodem cap., ver. 6, et Luc. xxiv. 19 : Fuit homo
missus a Deo, etc. ; et, Qui fuit vir propheta, etc. Debere vero reddi per verbum fuit,
ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter loquutus fuisset, Sermoncm
earnem factum esse, — id est, ut adversarii interpretantur, naturam divinain assumpsisse

VOL. XIL 15

226 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

This is the last plea they use in this case. The dying groans of
their perishing cause are in it, which will provide them neither with
succour nor relief; for, —

1. It is not words or expressions that we contend about. Grant
the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living about
the expressions wherein it is by any man delivered. By the " incar
nation of the Son of God," and by the " divine nature assuming the
human," we intend no more than what is here asserted, — the Word,
who was God, was made flesh.

2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on is, that the word
ty'snro may, yea ought to be, translated fuit, " was," and not factus
est, " was made." But, —

(1.) Suppose it should be translated "was."what would it avail them?
He that was a man was made a man. In that sense it expresses
what he was, but withal denotes how he came so to be. He who was
the Word before was also a man. Let them show us any other way
how he became so but only by being made so, and, upon a suppo
sition of this new translation, they may obtain something. But, —

(2.) How will they prove that it may be so much as rendered by
fuit, " was." They tell you it is so in two other places in the
New Testament ; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so
rendered here ? The proper sense and common usage of it is, " was
made," and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sense, may
it be so rendered here, where nothing requires that it be turned aside
from its most usual acceptation, yea much enforcing it thereunto ?

(3.) That it ought to be rendered by fuit, " was," they plead the
mentioning before of things done after Christ's incarnation (as we
call it), so that it cannot be " He was made flesh." But, —

[1.] Will 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 humiliation ?" and yet
how much is that which in their sense was last expressed before
that which went before it ? Or will they say, in him was the life of
man before he was made flesh, when the life of man, according to
them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after he ceased
to be flesh in their sense ? Or what conscience have these men, who
in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others which
they must receive and embrace for the establishing of their own ?

[2.] The order of the words is most proper. John having asserted
the deity of Christ, with some general concomitants and consequences

butnanam, — postquam ea jam de illo Sermone exposuisset, quse nativitatem hominis Jesu
Christ! subsecuta sunt : ut sunt haec, Johannem Baptistam de illo testatum esse; ilium
in mundofuisse; a suis non fuisse receptumj quod iis, a quibus receptus fuisset, potestatem
dedcrit, ut filii Dei fierent.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 227

of the dispensation wherein he undertakes to be a mediator, in his
14th verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance upon
his employment, and his carrying it on, by the revelation of the will
of God ; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sense and
intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearly in the words.

3. It is evident that' the word neither may nor ought to be trans
lated according to their desire ; for, —

(1.) It being so often said before that the Word was, the word is
still jji/, and not sysvero. " In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was 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 terms
would not be changed without exceedingly obscuring the sense ; and
therefore lylvgro must signify somewhat more than %v.

(2.) The word lymro, applied to other things in this very place, de
notes their making or their original; which our catechists did not
question in the consideration of the places where it is so used : as
verse 3, " All things were made by him, and without him was
not any thing made that was made;" and verse 10, " The world was
made by him."

(3.) This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places: as Bom.
1. 3, Toy ytvofitvtjv ix ffyrepfAurog Aa£/5 xara ffdpxa, — " Made of the seed
of David according to the flesh ;" and Gal. iv. 4, TSVOJAIVOV ex ywaixog,
" Made of a woman." But they think to salve all by the ensuing
exposition of these words : —

Q. How is that to be understood, " The Word was flesh?"

A. That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, who is therefore called
" Sermo" by John, was a man, subject to all miseries and afflictions, and lastly to
death itself: for the Scripture useth the word " flesh" in that sense, as is clear from
those places where God speaks. " My Spirit shall not always contend with man,
seeing he is flesh," Gen. vi. 3; and Peter, "All flesh is grass," 1 Pet. i. 24. l

This is the upshot of our catechists' exposition of this first chapter
of John, as to the person of Christ ; which is, —

1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions; for the testimonies pro
duced affirm every man to be flesh, so that to say he is a man is to
say he is flesh, and to say that man was flesh is to say that a man
was a man, inasmuch as every man is flesh.

2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the Holy Ghost ;
for he was made flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst us ;
which immediately follows in the text. Nor is his being made flesh

1 "Qua ratione illud intelligendum est, Sermonem carnem fuisse ? — Quod is per quern
Deus voluntatem suam omnem perfecte exposuisset, et propterea a Johanne Sermo
appellatus fuisset, homo fuerit, omnibus miseriis et afflictionibus, ac morti denique
subjectus : etenim vocem caro eo sensu Scriptura usurpat, ut ex iis locis perspicuum,
est, ubi Dcus loquitur, Non contendet Spiritus meus cum homine in (Sternum, quia caro estt
Gen. vi. 3; et Fetrus, Omnis caro utfoenum, 1 Pet. i. 24."

228 ; VINDICI^E EVANGELIC^;.

suited to any thing in this place but his conversation with men;
which answers his incarnation, not his mediation ; neither is this ex
position confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures of the like
expression used concerning Jesus Christ, as that we urge is, Rom.
i. 3, Gal. iv. 4, and other places. The place evidently affirms the
Word to be made something that he was not before, when he was the
Word only, and cannot be affirmed of him as he was man, in
which sense he was always obnoxious to miseries and death.

And this is all which our catechists, in several places, have thought
meet to insist on, by way of exception or opposition to our undeniable
and manifest testimonies from this first chapter of John unto the
great and sacred truth contended for ; which I have at large insisted
on, that the reader from this one instance may take a taste of their
dealing in the rest, and of the desperateness of the cause which they
have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts for the main
tenance and protection of it. In the residue I shall be more brief.

John vi. 62 is in the next place taken into consideration. The
words are, " What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up
where he was before ?" What we intend from hence, and the force
of the argument from this testimony insisted on, will the better
appear if we add unto it those other places of Scripture wherein the
same thing is more expressly and emphatically affirmed ; which our
catechists cast (or some of them) quite into another place, on pre
tence of the method wherein they proceed, but indeed to take off from
the evidence of the testimony, as they deal with what we plead from
John i. The places I intend are : —

John iii. 13, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven." Verse 31, ""He thatcometh from above is above all : he
that cometh from heaven is above all." Chap. viii. 23, " Ye are from
beneath ; I am from above/' Chap. xvi. 28, " I came forth from
the Father, and am come into the world : again, I leave the world,
and go to the Father."

Hence we thus argue : — He that was in heaven before he was on
the earth, and who was also in heaven whilst he was on the earth, is
the eternal God ; but this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirm con
cerning himself : therefore he is the eternal God, blessed for ever.

In answer to the first place our catechists thus proceed : — -

Q. What answerest thou to the second testimony, John vi. 62 ?

A. Neither is here any mention made expressly of pre-eternity ; for in this place
the Scripture witnesseth that the Son of man, that is a man, was in heaven, who
without all controversy was not eternally pre-existent. l

1 "Ad secundum autem quid respondes ? — Neque hie ullam prse-seternitatis men-
tioncm factam expresse ; nam hoc in loco Filium hominis, id est, homincm in ccelis
fuisse testatur Scriptura, quern citra ullam controversiam prae-geternum non extitisse
certum est."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 229

So they. 1. It is expressly affirmed that Christ was in heaven be
fore his coming into the world. And if we evince his pre-existence
to his incarnation against the Socinians, the task will not be difficult
to prove that pre-existence to be in an eternal divine nature against
the Arians. It is sufficient, as to our intendment in producing this
testimony, that it is affirmed that Christ %v vporspov in heaven before
his coming forth into the world ; in what nature we elsewhere prove.

2. It is said, indeed, that the Son of man was in heaven ; which
makes it evident that he who is the Son of man hath another nature
besides that wherein he is the Son of man, wherein he is the Son of
God. And by affirming that the Son of man was in heaven before,
it doth no more assert that he was eternal and in heaven in that
nature wherein he is the Son of man, than the affirmation that God
redeemed his church with his own blood doth prove that the blood
shed was the blood of the divine nature. Both the affirmations are
concerning the person of Christ. As he who was God shed his blood
as he was man, so he who was man was eternal and. in heaven as
he was God. So that the answer doth merely beg the thing in
question, namely, that Christ is not God and man in one person.

3. The insinuation here of Christ's being in heaven as man before
his ascension mentioned in Scripture, shall be considered when we
come to the proposal made of that figment by Mr. B., in his chapter
of the prophetical office of Christ. In answer to the other testimonies
cited, they thus proceed, towards the latter end of their chapter
concerning the person of Christ : —

Q. What answerest thou to John iii. 13, x. 36, xvi. 28, xvii. 18 ?

A. That a divine nature is not here proved appeareth, because the words of the
first testimony. " He came down from heaven," may be received figuratively: as
James i. 17, " Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comethdown
from the Father of lights ;" and Rev. xxi. 2, 10, " I saw the holy city Jerusalem
coming down from God." But if the words be taken properly, which we willingly
admit, it appears that they are not spoken of any other than the Son of man, who,
seeing he hath necessarily a human person, cannot by nature be God. More
over, 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
alleged; as John xvii. 18, " As thou hast sent me into the world, I have sent
them into the world." And these words, " Christ came forth from the Father,"
are of the same import with " He descended from heaven." " To come into the
world" is of that sort as the Scripture manifests to have been after the nativity of
Christ, John xviii. 37, where the Lord himself says, " For this I am born, and
come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth ;" and 1 John iv. 1,
it is written, " Many false prophets are gone forth into the world." Wherefore
from this kind of speaking a divine nature in Christ cannot be proved ; but in all
these speeches only what was the divine original of the office of Christ is described.1

1 " Ubi vero Script ura de Christo ait, quod de coclo descendit, a Patre exivit, et in
munditm venit, Job. iii. 13, x. 36, xvi. 28, xvii. 18, quid ad hsec respondes ? — Ex iis
uon probari divinam naturam hinc apparere, quod primi testimonii verba, Descendit de
ccelo, possint figurate accipi ; quemadmodum, Jac. i. 17, Omne datum bonum et donum

2uO VINDICLE EVANGELIC^

1. That these expressions are merely figuratively to be expounded
they dare not assert ; nor is there any colour given that they may
be so received from the instances produced from James i. 17 and
Rev. xxi. 2, 10; for there is only mention made of descending or
coming down, which word we insist not on by itself, but as it is con
joined with the testimony of his being in heaven before his descend
ing, which takes off all pretence of a parity of reason in the places
compared.

2. All that follows is a perfect begging of the thing in question.
Because Christ is the Son of man, it follows that he is a true man,
but not that he hath the personality of a man, or a human person
ality. Personality belongs not to the essence but to the existence of
a man. So that here they do but repeat their own hypothesis in
answer to an express testimony of Scripture against it. Their con
fession of the proper use of the word is but to give colour to the fig
ment formerly intimated ; which shall be in due place (God assisting)
discovered.

3. They utterly omit and take no notice of that place where Christ
says he so came from heaven as that he was still in heaven; nor do
they mention any thing of that which we lay greatest weight on, — of
his affirming that he was in heaven before, — but merely insist on the
word "descending" or " coming down;" and yet they can no other
way deal with that neither but by begging the thing in question.

4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christ's being sent
into the world, but in this conjunct consideration that he was so sent
into the world as that he was in heaven before, and so came forth
from the Father, and was with him in heaven before his coming
forth ; and this our catechists thought good to oversee.

5. The difference of Christ's being sent into the world, and the
apostles by him, which they parallel as to the purpose in hand, lies in
this, that Christ was so sent of the Father that he came forth from
the Father, and was with him in heaven before his sending; which
proves him to have another nature than that wherein he was sent.
The similitude alleged consists quite in other things. Neither, —

6. Doth the scripture in John xviii. 37 testify that Christ's send-

perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum; et Apoc. xxi. 2, 10, Vidi civitatem
sanctam, Ilierusalem novam, descendentem de codo a Deo, etc. Quod si proprie accipi de-
beant, quod nos perlibenter admittimus, apparet non de alio ilia dicta quam de Filio
hominis, qui cum personam humanam necessario habeat, Deus natura esse non potest.
Porro, quod Scriptura testatur de Christo, quod Pater eum miserit in mundum, idem
de apostolis Christi legimus in iisdem verbis citatis superius : Qmmadmodum me misisti
in mundum, et ego mist eos in mundum, Job. xvii. 18. Ea vero verba, quod Christus a
Patre exierit, idem valent, quod de ccelo descendit. Venire vero in mundum, id ejusmodi
est, quod Scriptura post nativitatem Christi extitisse ostendit, Job., xviii. 37, ubi ipse
Dominus ait, Ego in hoc natus sum, et in mundum veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati;
et 1 Job. iv. 1, scriptum est, Multos falsos prophetas exiisse in mundum. Quare ex ejus
modi loquendi modis natura divina in Christo probari non potest. In omnibus vero
bis locutionibus, quam divinum muneris Christi principium fuerit, duntaxat dcscribitur. "

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 231

ingr into the world was after his nativity, but only that the end of
Khemboth was to "bear witness to the truth." And, indeed, "I was
born," and " came into the world," are but the same, the one being
exegetical of the other. But his being born and his coming into the
world are, in the testimonies cited, plainly asserted in reference to an
existence that he had in heaven before. And thus as our argument
is not at all touched in this answer, so is their answer closed as it
began, with the begging of that which is not only questioned but
sufficiently disproved,— namely, that Christ was, in his human nature,
taken up into heaven and instructed in the will of God before his
entrance upon his prophetical office.

And this is the whole of what they have to except against this
evident testimony of the divine nature of Christ. He was in heaven
with the Father before he came forth from the Father, or was sent
into the world, and xa.ru, aXXo xai «XXo, was in heaven when he was
on the earth, and at his ascension returned thither where he was be
fore. And so much for the vindication of this second testimony.

John vi. 62 is the second place I can meet with, in all the annota
tions of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union of the human
nature of Christ with the eternal Word,— if he do so. It is not with
the man that I have any difference, nor do I impose any thing on
him for his judgment ; I only take liberty, having so great cause
given, to discuss his Annotations.

There remains one more of the first rank, as they are sorted by our
catechists, for the proof of the eternity of Christ, which is also from
John, chap. viii. 58, "Before Abraham was, I am," that they insist on:—
In this place the pre-eternity of Christ is not only not expressed, seeing it is one
thing to be before Abraham, and another to be eternal, but also, it is not so much
as expressed that he was before the Virgin 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 used, chap. xiii. 19, xiv. 29.

Q. What then would be the sense of this reading?

A. Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jews, who would have ensnared
him in his speech, that whilst they had time, they should believe in him as the light
of the world, before the divine grace which Christ offered to them should be taken
from them and be carried to the Gentiles. But that these words, " I am," are to
be supplied in that manner as if himself had added to them, " I am the light of the
world," appears, because that in the beginning of his speech, verse 12, he had twice
in these words, " I am," called himself the light of the world, verses 24, 28. And
that these words, " Before Abraham be," do signify that which we have said, may
be perceived from the notation of that word " Abraham ;" for it is evident that
" Abraham" denotes " the father of many nations." Seeing, then, that Abram was
not made Abraham before the grace of God manifested in Christ redounded to
many nations, for Abraham before was the father of one nation only, it appears
that that is the very sense of the words which we have given.1

" In hoc loco non solum non exprimitur prae-asternitas Christi, cum aliud sit, ante
Abrahamum fuisse, aliud, pras-reternum ; verum ne hoc quidem expressum est, ipsum

£32 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

If our adversaries can well quit themselves of tliis evidence, I be
lieve they will have no small hopes of escaping in the whole trial ;
and if they meet with judges so partially addicted to them and their
cause as to accept of such manifest juggling and perverting of the
Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for,
especially seeing how they exult and triumph in this invention, as
may be seen in the words of Socinus himself in his answer to Eras
mus Johannes, p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says, " I confess in my
whole life I never met with any interpretation of Scripture more
wrested, or violently perverting the sense of it ;" the other replies,
" I hoped rather that thou wouldst confess that in thy whole life
thou hadst never heard an interpretation more acute and true than
this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced
more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light conjec
tures that he who brought it first to light in our age (now this was
he who in this age renewed the opinion of the original of Christ,
which I constantly defend)" (that is, his uncle LaBlius) " obtained it of
Christ by many prayers. This truly I do affirm, that whereas God
revealed many things to that man at that time altogether unknown
to others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them all that may
seem more divine than this interpretation."1

'Of this esteem is this interpretation of these words with them.
They profess it to be one of the best and most divine discoveries that
ever was made by them ; whereto, for my part, I freely assent, though

ante Mariam Virgincm fuisse. Et enim ea verba aliter legi posse (nimirum hac ratione,
Amen, amen, dico vobis, Priusquam Abraham fiat, ego sum) apparet ex iis locis apud eundem
evangelistam, ubi similis et eadem locutio Grceca habetur, cap. xiii. 19, Et modo dico
vobis, priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis; et cap. xiv. 29, Et nunc dixi vobis pri
usquam fiat, etc.

" Quae vero ejus sententia forct lectionis ? — Admodura egregia : etenim admonet
Christus Judseos, qui eum in sermone capere volebant, ut dum tempus haberent, crede-
rent ipsum esse mundi lucem, antequam divina gratia, quam Christus iis offerebat, ab
iis tolleretur, et ad Gentes transferretur. Quod vero ea verba, ego sum, sint ad eum
modum supplenda, ac si ipse subjecisset iis, Ego sum lux mundi, superius e principio
ejus orationis, ver. 12, constat et hinc, quod Christus bis seipsum iisdem verbis, ego sum,
lucem mundi vocaverit, ver. 24, 28. Ea vero verba, Priusquam Abraham fiat, id signi-
ficare quod diximus, e notatione nominis Abraham deprehendi potest ; constat inter
omnes Abrahamum notare patrem multarum gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factua
prius Abraham, quam Dei gratia, in Christo manifcstata, in multas gentes redunda-
ret, quippe quod Abrahamus unius tantum gentis antea pater fuerit, apparet senten-
tiam horum verborum, quam attulimus, esse ipsissimam."

1 " Fateor me per omnem vitam meam non magis contortam scripturae interpreta-
tionem audivisse; ideoque earn penitus improbo." — Eras. Johan. "Cum primum fa-
tendi verbum in tuis verbis animadverti, sperabam te potius nullam in tua vita scrip-
turse interpretationem audivisse, quas hac sit acutior aut verier : quseque magis divinum
quid sapiat, et a Deo ipso patefactum fuisse prae se ferat. Ego quidem certe non levcs
conjecturas habeo, ilium, qui primus setate nostra earn in lucem pcrtulit (hie autem is
fuit, qui primus quoque sententiam de Christi origine, quam ego constanter defendo
renovavit) precibus multis ab ipso Christo impetrasse. .Hoc profecto affirmare ausim,
cum Deus illi viro permulta, aliis prorsus tune temporis incognita, patefecerit, vix
quidquam inter ilia omnia esse quod interpretatione hac divinius videri queat." — Socin.
l>isput. cum Eras. Johan. arg. 4, p. 67.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 233

withal I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture and
corrupting of the word of God as the world can bear witness to.

Let the Christian reader, without the least prejudicial thought
from the interpretation of this or that man, consult the text and con
text. The head of the discourse which gives occasion to these words
of Christ concerning himself lies evidently and undeniably in verse
51, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he
shall never see death." Upon this the Jews rise up against him, as
one that boasted of himself above measure, and preferred himself
before his betters: Verse 52, "Then said the Jews unto him, Now
we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the pro
phets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste
of death;" and, verse 53, "Art thou greater than our father Abra
ham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest
thou thyself?" Two things are here charged on him by the Jews :
First, in general, That he preferred, exalted, and honoured himself.
Secondly, in particular, That he made himself better than Abraham
their father. To both which charges Christ answers in order in the fol
lowing words. 1. To the first or general charge of honouring himself :
Verses 54, 55, " Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is
nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom^ye say, that
he is your God. Ye have not known him ; but I know him : and if I
should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you : but I
know him, and keep his saying." His honour he had from God, whom
they professed [to know,] but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he
replies, verse 56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and
he saw it, and was glad ;" — " Though Abraham was so truly great, and
the friend of God, yet his great joy was from his belief in me, where
by he saw my day." To this the Jews reply, labouring to convince
him of a falsehood, from the impossibility of the thing that he had
asserted, verse 57, " Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou
seen Abraham ?" — " Abraham was dead so many hundi el years before
thou wast born, how couldst thou see him, or he thee?" To this, in
the last place, our Saviour replies, verse 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, verse 59, as was their perpetual manner, to attempt to kill him
under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his deity; as John
v. 18, " Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he
said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

This naked and unprejudicate view of the text is sufficient to ob
viate all the operose and sophistical exceptions of our catechists so

234 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

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 human
nature was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another
respect existing before him; he had an existence before his birth, as
to his divine nature. Now this doth Christ expressly affirm con
cerning himself; and nothing else is pretended but only his divine
nature wherein he should so exist. They say, then, —

1. That these words do not signify pre-eternity, but only some
thing before Abraham. It is enough that his existence so many
hundred years before his nativity is evidently asserted; his eternity
from thence will evidently be concluded; and they will not deny that
he may as well be eternal as be before Abraham. But, —

2. The words may be rendered, " Priusquam Abraham fiat, ego
sum," " Before Abraham be made." But that they may be so ren
dered is no proof at all that they ought to be so; and, as was be
fore observed, if this be sufficient to evade the sense of a place, that
any word in it may be otherwise rendered, because it is or may be
so in some other place, nothing certain can be concluded from any
testimony of the Scriptures whatever. But that they may not be
so rendered is evident, — (1.) From the context, as before declared;
(2.) From the opposition between lyw 1 1,0,1, " I am," and " Abraham
was," which evidently denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison
with what Christ says of himself; and, (3.) The words in such a con
struction as this require an interpretation as to the time past; and,
(4.) Because this interpretation of the words corrupts the whole sense
of the place, and wrests it contrary to the design and intendment of
our Saviour. But then they say, —

3. "The sense is excellent; for 'Before Abraham be made' is as
much as before he be Abraham, or the father of many nations, which
he was when the gospel was preached to the conversion of the Gen
tiles. 'I am/ that is, 'I am the light of the world/ which you should
do well to walk in and attend unto/"

(1.) That this interpretation in general is altogether alien and
strange from the scope of the place, the Christian reader, upon the
bare view of it, will be able to judge. (2.) It is false: — [].] Because
Abraham was the father of many nations, Jews and proselytes, be
fore the preaching of the gospel, as Gen. xv. 5. [2.] It is false that
Abram was not Abraham until after the ascension of Christ and
preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. He was made Abraham
from his first enjoyment of his name and seed in Isaac, and is con
stantly so called. [3.] It is frivolous ; for if Christ was before Abrara
was made Abraham, we obtain what we plead for, for he was made
so when God gave him that name. But it should be, " Before Abram
be made Abraham," or there is no sense in the words ; nor then neither,
unless Abraham be taken as a common appellative for " the father of

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 235

many nations," and not as a proper name, whereof in Scripture there is
not any example. [4.] It is horribly wrested, — 1st. In making the
words " I am" elliptical, whereas there is neither need of nor colour
for such a pretence. 2dly. In supplying the feigned ellipsis with a
word at such a distance as from verse 12 to verse 58. Sdly. In mak
ing Christ to say he is the light of the world before the preaching
of the gospel to the Gentiles, when the " world " is everywhere in the
gospel taken quite in another sense, for the Jews and Gentiles, and
not for the Jews only, which according to this interpretation it must
be. 4thly. It leaves no reason of the following attempt of the Jews
to stone him, upon the particular provocation of this assertion, he hav
ing before affirmed himself to be the light of the world, which they
were not moved at. There is indeed no end of the falsities, follies,
and corruptions of this perverting and corrupting of the word of
God.

For the grammatical vindication of the words, and the translation
of the word yweffQai in a sense of that which is past, there is no occa
sion administered by our catechists; and therefore I shall not trouble
the reader therewith.

And of the first sort of testimonies which they except against, and
their exceptions, thus far.

A little animadversion upon the catechists' good friend Grotius
shuts up this discourse and chapter. In the end he agrees with
them, but fixes on a new medium for the accomplishment of it, not
daring to espouse an interpretation so absurd in itself, and so ab
horrent from the common sense of all men that ever professed the
name of Christ. He takes, then, another course, yet no less aiming
than they to disappoint this evidence of the pre-existence of Christ
before his nativity. " Upiv Afyaa/j, ysvzaQai, antequam esset," saith he,
" before he was;" and he gives many instances to prove the propriety
of so translating that expression: " 'E/w £/>/, pnesens pro imper-
fecto, eram, Syrus; 'Ey& viXov, Nonnus. Sic in Graeco: Ps. xc. 2,
Tlpb TOU npri ysvqdqvai <ru t7." Very good : before Abraham was, or was
born, Christ was; as in that of the psalm, "Before the mountains
were made, thou art." And, a little to help a friend at so good a
work, it is no new thing for this evangelist to use the present for
the preterimperfect tense ; as chap. xiv. 9, ToaoZrov yjdvov pid' Ipuv si>j,i,
xai ovx tyvuxds p? — " I am so long," for " I was," or " I have been
SO long with you," etc. And chap. XV. 27, "On a* ap^ris ftsr s/tou
tars' — " Because ye have been with me from the beginning." Thus
far, then, we are agreed. But how should this be, that Christ thus
was before Abraham was ? " Fuerat," saith he, " autem ante Abra-
hamum Jesus divina constitutione;" — "In God's appointment iesus
was before Abraham was born." Yea, and so was Grotius, and Socinus,
aud every man in the world ; for " known unto God are all his works

236 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

from the beginning of the world/' And this is that great privilege,
it seems, that our Saviour vindicates to himself, without any occasion,
to no purpose, insisting on that which is common to him with all tlie
elect of God in the best sense of the words! Of that other text of
Scripture, John xvii. 5, which together with this he labours to cor
rupt, I shall speak afterward. I shall only add, that our great doc
tors do not in this business agree. Grotius here makes no mention
of Socinus' gloss, and Socinus beforehand rejects this of Grotius as
absurd and fond ; and as such let it pass, as having no occasion given
from the words foregoing, nor colour from the matter or phrase of
words, nor significancy to the business in hand.

CHAPTER IX.

The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced — Sundry texts of Scripture vindicated.

IN the consideration of the ensuing testimonies, I shall content
myself with more brief observations upon and discoveries of the cor
ruptions of our adversaries, having given a large testimony thereof in
the chapter foregoing. Thus, then, they proceed : —

Ques. What are the testimonies of Scripture wherein they think that this pre-
eternity of Christ is not indeed expressed, but yet may thence be proved?

Ans. Those which seem to attribute to the Lord Jesus some things from eter
nity, and some things in a certain and determinate time.1

Let the gentlemen take their own way and method ; we shall meet
with them at the first stile, or rather brazen wall, which they endea
vour to climb over.

Q. What are the testimonies which seem to attribute some things to the Lord
Jesus from eternity f

A. They are those from which they endeavour to confirm that Christ was be
gotten from eternity of the essence of his Father.2

These are some of the places wherein this property of the God
head, eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour, if is confessed.

Q. But from what places do they endeavour to prove that Christ was from
eternity begotten of the essence of his Father?

A. From these chiefly, Mic. v. 2 ; Ps. ii. 7, ex. 3 ; Prov. viii. 23.*

1. These are only some of the testimonies that are used to this pur
pose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ eternal if we prove him be
gotten of his Father, for no such thing can be new in God. 3. That

1 " Quae vero sunt testimonia Scripturse in quibus putant non exprimi quidem prse-
eeternitatem Christi, ex iis tamen effici posse ? — Ea quae videntur Domino Jesu quasdam
res attribuere ab aeterno, quasdam vero tempore certo et definite."

* " Quaenam sunt testimonia quse Domino Jesu ab aeterno res quasdam attribuere
videntur ? — Sunt ea ex quibus conantur exstruere Christum ab aeterno ex essentia
Patris genitum."

8 " Ex quibus vero locis exstruere conantur Christum ab seterno ex essentia Patris
genitum ? — Ex bis potissimumi Mic. v. 2 ; Ps. ii. 7, ex. 3 ; Prov. viii 23." '

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 237

he is the only-begotten Son of the Father, which is of the same im
port with that here opposed by our catechists, hath been before de
clared and proved, chap. vii.

Q. But how must we answer these testimonies ?

A, Before I answer to each testimony, it is to be known that this generation of
the essence of the Father is impossible ; for if Christ were begotten of the essence
of his Father, either he took his whole essence or but part. Part of his essence he
eould not take, for the divine essence is impartible ; nor the whole, for it being one
in number is incommunicable.1

And this is the fruit of measuring spiritual things by carnal, in
finite by finite, God by ourselves, the object of faith by corrupted
rules of corrupted reason. But, — 1. That which God hath revealed
to be so is not impossible to be so.3 Let God be true, and all men
liars. That this is revealed hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What
is impossible in finite, limited essences, may be possible and conve
nient to that which is infinite and unlimited, as is that whereof we
speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the sense wherein that word must
here be used, if any thing be signified by it. " It is not, it cannot be so
in limited things, therefore not in 'things infinite ;" — "We cannot com
prehend it, therefore it cannot be so;" — " But the nature of the thing
about which it is is inconsistent with it." This is denied, for God hath
revealed the contrary. 4 For the parting of the divine essence, or
receiving a part of the divine essence, our catechists might have left
it out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way of
that horn of their dilemma. 5. We say, then, that in the eternal gene
ration of the Son, the whole essence of the Father is communicated
to the Son as to a personal existence in the same essence, without
multiplication or division of it, the same essence continuing still one
in number; and this without the least show of impossibility in an
infinite essence, all the arguments that lie against it being taken
from the properties and attendancies of that which is finite.

Come we to the particular testimonies. The first is Micah v. 2,
" But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou bd little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that
is to be ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting," or " the days of eternity."

Q. Hoiv must this first testimony of the Scripture be answered f
A. This testimony hath nothing at all of his generation of the essence of his
Father, and a pre- eternal generation it no way proves; for here is mention of be
ginning and days, which in eternity have no place. And those words, which in

1 " Qui vero ad hoec testimonia respondendum est ? — Ahtequam ad singula testimonia
respondeam, sciendum est, earn ex essentia Patris gencrationem esse impossibilem ;
nam si Christus ex esseutia Patris genitus fuisset. aut partem essentiae sumpsisset, aut
totam. Essentiae partem sumere non potuit, eo quod sit impartibilis divina essentia;
neque totam, cum sit una numero. ac proinde incommunicabilis."

2 " Nisi Scriptura dixisset, non licuisset dicerc, sed ex quo scriptum est dici potest."
— Rabb. Ruben, apud Galat. lib. iii.

238 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

the Vulgar are " from the days of eternity," in the Hebrew are " from the days of
seculi," — the days of an age ; and " dies seculi " are the same with " dies antiqui,"
as Isa. Ixiii. 9, 11 ; Mai. iii. 4. The sense of this place is, that Christ should have
the original of his nativity from the beginning-, and from the ancient years ; that
is, from that time wherein God established a king among his people, which was
done really in David, who was a Bethlehemite, and the author of the stock and
family of Christ.1

Ans. 1. Who necessitated our catechists to urge this place to
prove the generation of Christ, when it is used only to prove his
generation to be eternal, the thing itself being proved by other
testimonies in abundance ? That he was begotten of the Father is
confessed : that he was begotten of the essence of his Father was
before proved. Yea, that which is here called VTiiWic^ his "goings
forth/' is his generation of his Father, or somewhat else that our
adversaries can assign ; that it is not the latter shall immediately be
evinced.

2. Here is no mention of the B^PP, "beginning;" and those who in
the latter words reject the Vulgar edition cannot honestly insist on
the former from thence because it serves their turn. Yet how that
word is sometimes used, and in what sense it may be so, where "eter
nity" is intended, hath been declared in the last chapter.

3. That "days" are not used with and to express " eternity" in Scrip
ture, though strictly there be no days or time in eternity, is absurd
negligence and confidence to affirm : Job x. 5, "Are thy days as the
days of man? are thy years as man's days?" Hence Cod is called
" The Ancient of days," Dan. vii. 9. " Thou art the same, and thy
years shall not fail," Heb. i. 1 2.

4. For the word gnolam [D?^], translated "seculi," it hath in the
Scripture various significations. It comes from a word signifying " to
hide,"3 and denotes an unknown, hidden duration. Principally " per-
petuum, sternum, sempiternum," — that which is pre-eternal and
eternal. Sometimes a very long time, Gen. ix. 12, and verse 16,
that is perpetual : so Gen. xvii. 13, and in other places, with a re
ference to the sovereignty of God. Gen. xxi. 33, it is ascribed to
God as a property of his, and signifies " eternal," Jehova gnolam

so Ps. Ixxxix. 2, as also Isa. xlv. 17. Let all places where

1 " Qui tamen ad primum Scripturse testimom'um respondendum est ? — Id testimo-
nium de generatione ex essentia Patris nihil prorsus habet ; generationem vero pne-
seternam nulla probat ratione : hie enim mentio fit initii et dierum, quae in soternitate
locum non habent. Et verba hsec, quae in Vulgata Icguntur, a diebus xternitatis, in
Haebraeo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vero seculi idem quod dies antiqui notant, ut Esa.
Ixiii. 9, 11 ; Mai. iii. 4. Sententia vero loci hujus est, Christum originem nativitatis
suae ab ipso principle et annis antiquis ducturum ; id est, ab eo tempore, quo Deus in
populo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui et Bethlchemita fuit,
et autor stirpis et farnilise Christi."

* thy, latere, abscondere, occultare, 2 Chron. ix. 2, Lev. iv. 13; in nipbal latuit,
absconditus, occultatus fuit ; in hiphil abscondit, celavit, occultavit: inde n1^?, Virgo,
quia viro occulta, Gen. xxiv. 43.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 239

the word in Scripture in this sense is used be reckoned up (which
are above three hundred), and it will appear that in far the greatest
number of them it signifies absolutely " eternity." In the places of
Isa. Ixiii. 9, 11, and Mai. iii. 4, only a long time, indeed, is signified,
but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing or matter treated
of. And upon the same rule, where it is put absolutely it signifies
" eternity." So doth aiwv in the New Testament, by which the
LXX. often render gnolam [^r^J; whence <rpo ^povuv aiuviuv may be
" from eternity/' 2 Tim. i. 9, Tit. i. 2 ; wherein, also, with a like ex
pression to that under consideration, the " times of eternity" are
mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at
the beginning of the world. This, then, is here expressed: He that
was in the fulness of time born at Bethlehem, had his goings forth
from the Father from eternity.

5. The pretended sense of our adversaries is a bold corruption of
the text ; for, — (1.) It applies that to David and his being born at
Bethlehem which the Holy Ghost expressly applies to Jesus Christ,
Matt. ii. 5, 6, and John vii. 42. (2.) The goings forth of Christ in this
sense are no more from everlasting than every other man's 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 original from an ancient stock. (4.) If only
Christ's original of the tribe of Judah and of the house of David
were intended, why was not that expressed in plain terms, as it is
in other places, and as the place of his birth, namely, Bethlehem, is
in this? So that we have already met our catechists and stopped 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 Weik, cap.
vii. p. 424; Smalcius against Smiglecius, cap. xxvi. ; Ostorod. Instit.
cap. vii., with the rest of them. He, then, who was born at Beth
lehem in the fulness of time, of the house of David as concerning
the flesh, Rom. i. 3, had also his " goings forth," his birth or gene
ration of the Father, " of old, from the days of eternity;" which is
that which this testimony confirms.

Grotius on this place, according to his wont, outgoes his com
panions one step at least (as he was a bold man at conjectures), and
applies this prophecy to Zerubbabel : " Natus ex Bethlehemo Zoro-
babel recte dicitur, qubd ex Davidis familia esset, quse orta Beth
lehemo;" — "Zerubbabel is rightly said to be born at Bethlehem,
being of the family of David, which had its original from Beth
lehem."

That Zerubbabel is here at all intended he doth not attempt to
prove, either from the text, context, circumstances of the place,
design of the prophecy, or any thing else that might give light into

210 VINDICIJ2 EVANGELIC^.

the intenclraent of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to
Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us than Grotius or any
of his rabbins, Matt ii. 4-6. 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 ex
pressly fitting them to him. And if Zerubbabel, who was born at
Babylon, may be said to be born at Bethlehem because David, from
whom he descended, was born there, what need all that labour
and trouble that our Saviour might be born at Bethlehem ? If it
could not be said of Christ that he was born at Bethlehem, though
he were of the lineage of David, unless he had actually been born
there indeed, certainly Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, could
not be said, on the account of his progenitor five hundred years be
fore, to be born there.

For the second part of this text, or the words we insist on for the
proof of our intention, he useth the same shift in the same words
with our catechists, " Origo ipsi ab olim, a temporibus longis; id est,
originem trahit a domo illustri antiquitus, et per quingentos annos
regnatrice ; " — " His original is from of old, from a long time ; that
is, he hath his original from an ancient illustrious house that had
reigned five hundred years."

Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall only add,
that the use of this note is to confute the other ; for if his being
born at Bethlehem signify his being of the family of David, and
nothing else, he being not indeed born there, what need this addi
tion, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken
before ? Yea, and herein the learned man forsaketh his masters, all
generally concluding that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended.
The Chaldee paraphrast expressly puts in the name of Messiah.
His words are, " Out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before
me." And some of them do mystically interpret kedem [Dli?] of
the mind of God, from whence the word or wisdom of God is brought
forth ; because, as they say, the word denotes the first numeration
of the crown, or of that name of God which signifies his essence.

The second is Ps. ii. 7, " The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art
my Son ; this day have I begotten thee."

Q. To this second ivhat is to be answered?

A. Neither in that is there any thing of generation of the essence of the Father,
nor of a pre-eternal generation; for the word "to-day," signifying a certain time,
cannot denote pre-eternity. But that God begot him doth not evince that he was
begotten of his essence; which appears from hence, 1. That the same words, ''This
day have I begotten thee," are in the first sense used of David, who was begotten
neither from eternity nor of the essence of the Father. 2. Because the apostle
Paul brings these words to prove the resurrection of Christ, Acts xiii. 33. And
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews cites them for the glorifying of the Lord
Jesus, Heb. i. 5, and v. 6. And lastly, from hence, that it is manifest that God

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 241

otherwise begets than by his essence, seeing the Scripture declares believers to be
begotten of God, as is to be seen, John i. 13; 1 John iii. 9; James i. 18. l

1. There is mention in these words of Christ's generation of his
Father, of being " begotten" of him before his incarnation, this being
spoken of him under the old testament ; and to deny that there is
any such thing in the text as that which, upon this consideration, we
urge it to prove, is only to beg the thing in question.

2. "This day/' being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, to whom
all time is so present as that nothing is properly yesterday nor to
day, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time as is in
timated, but is expressive of an act eternally present, nor past nor
future.

3. It cannot be proved that these words are spoken at all of David
so much as typically, nor any thing else in that psalm from verse 7
to the end : yea, the contrary is evident from every verse following,
especially the 12th, where kings and rulers are called to worship
him of whom he speaks, and threatened with destruction if they do
not; and they are pronounced blessed who put their trust in him;
which cannot be spoken of David, God declaring them to be cursed
who put their trust in man, Jer. xvii. 5-8.

4. It is granted that the apostle makes use of these words when
he mentions the resurrection and exaltation of Christ; not that
Christ was then begotten, but that he was then declared to be the
only-begotten Son of God, his resurrection and exaltation being
manifestations of his sonship, not causes of his filiation, as hath been
at large declared. So the sun is said to arise when it doth first to
us appear.

5. True, " God hath other sons, and believers are said to be be
gotten of God ;" but how ? By regeneration, and turning from sin,
as in the places quoted is evident That Christ is so begotten of God
is blasphemous once to imagine. Besides, he is the only-begotten.
Son of the Father, so that no other is begotten with a generation
of the same kind with him. It is evident, then, by this testimony,
and from these words, that Christ is so the Son of God as no angels
are his sons in the same kind : for that the apostle produceth these
words to prove, Heb. i. 5, " For unto which of the angels said he at
any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And

1 " Ad secundum vero quid ? — Neque in ea de generatione ex essentia Patris, nee
de generatione prae-aeterna prorsus quicquam haberi ; etenim vox hodie, cum certura
tempus designet, prae-aeternitatem denotare non potest. Quod vero Deus eum genuerit,
non evincit eum ex essentia ejus genitum ; id quod patet ex eo, quod haec eadem verba,
Ego hodie genui te, prime sensu de Davide dicantur, quern constat neque ab aeterno, nee
ex essentia Dei genitum. Deinde, quod Paulus apostolus eadem verba ad approban-
dam Christi resurrectionem afferat, Act. xiii. 33, et autor ad Hebraeos ad glorifica-
tionem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. i. 5, v. 5. Denique, ex ea re, quod constet Deura aliter
quam ex essentia generare, dum a Deo genitos credentes Scriptura pronunciat, ut
videre est, Johan. i. 13 ; 1 Johan. iii. 9 ; Jac. i. 18."

VOL. XII. 16

242 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
Now, the angels are the sons of God by creation, Job i. 6, xxxviii. 7.
He is also such a Son and so begotten as believers are not ; for
they are begotten by regeneration from sin and adoption into the
family of God. Therefore Christ, who is the Son of God in another
kind than angels and men, who are so by creation, regeneration, and
adoption, is the natural Son of God by eternal generation ; which is
also proved from this place.

In this whole psalm Grotius takes no notice of Jesus Christ : in
deed, in the entrance he tells us that a mystical and abstruse sense
of it may belong to Christ, and so the rabbins acknowledge, and so
the apostle took it ;l but throughout the whole doth he not make
the least application of it to Christ, but merely to David, although so
many passages of it are urged in the New Testament to have had their
accomplishment in Christ and the things which concerned him.
These words, " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," he
says may be thus rendered, " 0 fili mi, hodie (id est, hoc tempore)
ego tegenui: novam vitam, scilicet regalem tibi contuli." But, 1. That
the words may not aptly be so translated, that they are not so ren
dered by the apostle, Heb. i. 5, he knew well enough. ™K Vf
is filius meus tu, not /Hi mi. Nor doth the rendering of it by the
vocative any way answer the words going before, " ' I will declare
the decree : the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son : ' that is
the thing I will declare." 2. That " hodie" should be " hoc tem
pore," relating to any certain time of David's reign, cannot be re
conciled to the apostle's application of that expression on sundry oc
casions, as hath been manifested. 3. " I have given thee a ' new or a
regal life,'" is somewhat an uncouth exposition of " genui te," without
warrant, without reason or argument ; and it is inconsistent with the
time of the psalm's writing, according to Grotius himself. He refers it
to 2 Sam. viiL, when David had been king over Israel many years.

To serve his hypothesis, the last two verses are miserably wrested.
The command of worshipping Christ, verse 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, meas) se per-
mittunt." " They are blessed," says David, "who commit themselves
to my faith and care." Doubtless the thought of any such thing was
as remote from the heart of the holy man as this gloss is from the
sense of the place. That they are blessed who trust in the Lord, that
is, " commit themselves to his care," he everywhere declareth, yea,
this he makes always the property of a blessed man ; but that they

are so who trust in him, not the least word to that purpose did the

i

1 " Sensus primus et apertus ad Davidem pertinet : mysticus et abstrusior ad Messiam,
ut hie agnoscit David Kimchi, et ad Danielem Saadius Gaon, quo modo sumsere apo-
etoli." — Annot. in ver. 1.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 243

holy person ever utter. He knew they are cursed of God who put
their trust in man. The word here is <l?in) frOm n?9, " to repair to
any one for protection •" and it is used to express our trusting in God,
Ps. xviii. 30, as also Ps. xxxi. 19, on which men are frequently pro
nounced blessed ; but that it should be applied to David, dnd a
blessing annexed thereunto, we were to learn.

The third testimony, of Ps. ex. 3, we pass over with our adver
saries, as not to the purpose in hand, being a mistake of the Vulgar
Latin.

The fourth is Prov. viii. 23, " I was set up from everlasting, from
the beginning, or ever the earth was."

Q. What dost thou answer to this testimony f

A. That thou mayst understand the matter the better, know that from this place
they thus dispute: " The Wisdom of God is begotten from eternity; Christ is the
Wisdom of God: therefore he is begotten from eternity, 1 Cor. i. 24." That this
argument is not firm appears from hence, that, — 1. Solomon treats of wisdom
simply and absolutely considered, without the addition of the word " God;" Paul not
simply and absolutely, but with the addition of the word "God." 2. Solomon treats
of wisdom, which neither is a person nor can be, as appears from the diverse effects
ascribed to this wisdom, chap. vii. viii. ix.; amongst which are these words, " By
me kings rule, and princes decree righteousness;" and in the beginning of the 9th
chapter, he brings in wisdom sending her maidens, and inviting all to her : but Paul
treateth of that Wisdom which is a person. 3. The words which are rendered " from
everlasting," in the Hebrew are "a seculo;" but that "from everlasting" and "a se-
culo" are diverse, Isa. Ixiv. 4, Jer. ii 20, Luke i. 70, with many like places, do declare.1

1. Our argument hence is: "Christ, the second person of the Tri
nity, is spoken of, Prov. viii. 23, under the name of Wisdom ; now,
it is said expressly there of Wisdom that it was ' begotten from ever
lasting:' and therefore the eternal generation of Christ is hence
confirmed." Our reasons are: — (1.) Because the things here spoken
of can be applied to no otber. (2.) Because the very same things are
affirmed of Christ, John i. 1. (3.) Because Christ is the Wisdom of
God, and so called in the Scripture, not only in the expression of
6 Ao'yoj, but farug, 1 Cor. i. 30. (4.) That by Wisdom Solomon in
tended the Wisdom of God, and that that word may be supplied, is
most evident, from what is spoken of it. Let the place be read.
(5.) Christ is called not only the "Wisdom of God," but also Wisdom
absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. i. 20, but Matt. xi. 19.

1 "Ad quartum vero quid ? — Ut rem melius accipias, scito eos ex hoc loco ad eum
modum argumentari : ' Sapientia Dei ab seterno est genita ; Christus est Dei Sapicntia :
ergo ab aeterno est genitus, 1 Cor. i. 24.' Id argumentum firmum non esse hinc patet ;
Primum, quod Solomon agat de sapientia simpliciter et absolute considerata, sine ad-
ditione vocis Dei ; Paulus vero non simpliciter et absolute, sed cum additione, nempe,
Dei. Deinde, Solomon agit de sapientia, quae neque est persona, nee esse potest, ut e
variis effectis quae huic sapientiae attribuit, apparet, et hoc vii. viii. ix. cap., ex quibus sunt
ea, Per me reges regnant, et principes justa decernunt; et initio cap. ix , introducit sapien-
tiam omnes ad se invitantem, et mittentem virgines suas. Paulus vero agit de Sapien
tia quae persona est. Tertio, verba hsec, quae sunt reddita ab xterno, in Hebrseo extant,
a seculo: aliud vero esse ab aiterno, aliud a seculo, indicant loci, Esa. Ixiv. 4, Jer. ii. 20,
Luc. i. 70, et alii permulti similes."

. 214 VINDICLE EVANGELIC.E.

(6.) The Wisdom that Solomon treats of is evidently a person, and
such things are ascribed thereunto as can be proper to none but
a person. Such are these, chap. viii. 30, 31, "I was by him, one
brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always
before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth," etc. That
it is the same wisdom spoken of chap. vii. and here is not evident ; yet
is there not any thing in that attributed to it but what suits well
unto a person, — much less in the beginning of the 9th chapter, the
invitation there being such as may be made by a person only. It
is a person who sends out messengers to invite to a banquet, as
Christ doth in the gospel. " Kings rule and princes decree justice"
by the authority of a person, and without him they can do nothing.

2. The word translated " from everlasting" is the same with that
considered before, Micah v. 2. The words following do so evidently
confirm the meaning of the word to be as expressed that it is mar
vellous the gentlemen durst venture upon the exception in this place :
" The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his
works of old;" that is, before the creation, as is at large expounded,
verses 23-29.

And this is all, the whole sum of what any of our adversaries, or
rather the adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to object in their cause
against these testimonies; whence we thus argue: —

He who was begotten of God the Father with an eternal genera
tion is eternal, and so, consequently, God ; but so is Jesus Christ be
gotten of God the Father with an eternal generation : therefore he
is eternal, and God blessed for ever.

To clear what hath been spoken, I shall close my considerations
of this text of Scripture with a brief parallel between what is spoken
in this place of Wisdom and what is asserted of Jesus Christ in the
New Testament: —

1. It is Wisdom that is spoken of: so is Christ, Hatt, XL 19;
1 Cor. i. 24; Col. ii. 3. 2. " Wisdom was set up from everlasting,"
chap. viii. 23 : " Grace is given in Christ, irp b %p6vuv aiuvluv, from ever
lasting," 2 Tim. 19; " He is the beginning," CoL i. 18; " The first
and the last," Rev. L 1 7. 3. " The LORD possessed me in the begin
ning of his way," says Wisdom, verse 23 : " In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God," John L 1. 4. " Before the
mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth," verse
25 : " He is the first-born of every creature," Col. i. 15 ; " He is be
fore all," verse 17. 5. "I was daily his delight, rejoicing always
before him," verse 30 : " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased," Matt, iil 17; " The only-begotten Son is in the bosom of
the Father," John i. 18. 6. " By me kings reign, and princes," etc.,
verses 15, 16; He is "the Prince of the kings of the earth," Rev.
i 5; the " King of kings, and Lord of lords," Rev. xix. 16. 7. " Re-

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 245

joicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with
the sons of men/' verse 31 : " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-be
gotten of the Father/' John i. 14. 8. Compare also verse 34 with
John xiii. 17, Luke xi. 28, John x. 9; and verses 35, 36 with John
vi. 44, 47. And many the like instances might be given.

Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea, he seems evi
dently to exclude him from being here intended. His first note on
verse 1 is, " Hsec de ea sapientia quae in Lege apparet exponunt
Hebraei : et sane ei, si non soli, at praecipue, haec attributa conve-
niunt ;" — " The Hebrews expound these things of that wisdom which
appears in the law ; and truly these attributes agree thereunto, if not
only, yet chiefly." Of this assertion he gives no reason. The con
trary is evident from what is above said and proved. The authority
of the modern rabbins, in the exposition of those places of Scripture
which concern the Messiah, is of no value. They do not only, as
their forefathers, err, not knowing the Scriptures, but maliciously
corrupt them, out of hatred to Jesus Christ In the meantime, one
no less versed in the Hebrew authors than our annotator, expound
ing this place, from them concludes, " Nee dubito, hinc Johannem
augustum illud et magnificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse, ' In
principio erat Verbum;' nam Verbum et Sapientia idem sunt, et
secundam Trinitatis personam indicant;" — "I doubt not but that
John took that reverend and lofty entrance of his Gospel, ' In the
beginning was the Word' from hence; for the Word and Wisdom are
the same, and denote the second person of the Trinity."1

Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall add some of them
which are produced and insisted on usually for the same end and
purpose with those mentioned before, and which in other places are
excepted against by the catechists with whom we have to do, but
properly belong to this head.

Of those is John xvii. 5, "And -now, 0 Father, glorify me with
thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was." To this they put in their exceptions towards the end
of the chapter under consideration, saying, —

Q. What answerest thou to thisf

A. Neither is here a divine nature proved ; for that one may have glory with
the Father before the world was made and yet not be God appeareth from that
of 2 Tim. i. 9, where the apostle says of believers that grace was given unto them
before the world began. Besides, it is here written that Jesus asked this glory,
.which is repugnant to the divine nature. But the sense of the place is, that Christ
asked God that he would really give him that glory which he had with God in his
decree before the world was.*

1 Mercer, in loc. ver. 22.

* " Quid ad hoc respondes ? — Neque hinc naturam divinam probari ; posse enim
aliquem gloriam habere antequam mundus fieret, apud Patrem, nee tamen hinc effici

246 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

1. A divine glory proves a divine nature. This Christ had from
eternity, for he had it before the world began ; therefore he had a
divine nature also. It is the manifestation of his glory, which he
had eclipsed and laid aside for a season, that here he desires of God,
Phil. ii. 6—11. He glorified his Father by manifesting the glory of
his deity, his name, to others ; and he prays the Father to glorify
him as he had glorified him on the earth. 2. There is not the same
reason of what is here asserted of Christ and what is said of the
elect, 2 Tim. i. 9. Christ here positively says he had " siyyv (glory)
with his Father before the world was ;" nor is this anywhere, in any
one tittle in the Scripture expounded to be any otherwise but in a
real having of that glory. The grace that is given to believers is not
said to be before the world was, but wpo xpovuv aiuviuv, which may
denote the first promise, Gen. iii. 15, as it doth Tit. i. 2 ; and if it
be intended of the purpose of God, which was from eternity (as the
words will bear), it is so expounded in twenty places. 3. Though
the divine nature prayed not, yet he who was in the form of God, and
humbled himself to take upon him the form and employment of a ser
vant, might and did pray. The Godhead prayed not, but he who was
God prayed. 4. For the sense assigned, let them once show us, in the
whole book of God, where this expression, " I had t7x,ov" may be pos
sibly interpreted, " I had it in purpose," or " I was predestinated to
it," and not " I had it really and indeed," and they say something
to the purpose. In the meantime, they do but corrupt the word of
God (as many do) by this pretended interpretation of it. 5. If pre
destination only be intended, here is nothing singular spoken of
Christ, but what is common to him with all believers, when evidently
Christ speaks of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The
very express tenor of the words will not admit of this gloss (let what
violence can be used) : Ka/ vw do^affov fit, ffv Hdrtp, irapa fftavrfi, rf)
$6%$ ft ffyov, <!fpb rov rbv xoa/tov tJvai, Kapa eoi' — " 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 : " Tfi 86% »j p sfyov, Destinatione
tua; ut 1 Pet. i. 20, Apoc. xiii. 8, sic et Eph. i. 3, 4, et infra, ver. 24.
Simile loquendi genus. Sic Legem fuisse ante mundum aiunt He-
braei." Again, "Ilapa not, refer ad illud tfyov, et intellige, ut diximus,
in decreto tuo."

But what intends the learned man by those places of 1 Pet. i. 20,
Rev. xiii. 8? Is it to expound the thing that he supposes to be ex
pressed ? or to intimate that the phrase here used is expounded by
the use of it in those other places? If the first, he begs that to be

cum esse Deum, apparet, 2 Tim. i. 9, iibi ait apostolus de credentibus, illis datam fuisse
gratiam ante tempora secularia. Praeterea, hie scriptum est, Jesum rogare hanc glo-
riam, quod naturae divinse prorsus repugnat. Loci vero sententia est, Christum ro
gare Deum, ut ei gloriam reipsa det, quain habuerit apud Deum in ipsius decreto an-
tequam mundus fieret."

DEITY OF CHRIST PEOVED, ETC. 247

the sense of this place which is the sense of them, though neither the
scope of the places nor the sense of the words themselves will bear
it. If the latter, it is most false. There is not one word, phrase, or
expression, in any one of the places pointed unto, at all coincident
with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of
very different senses, the one speaking of God's purpose appointing
Christ to be a mediator, the other of the promise given presently
after the fall. 2. We grant that Christ, in respect of his human
nature, was predestinated unto glory ; but that he calls God's pur
pose his " glory/' " the glory which he had," " which he had with
God," wherewith he desires to be " glorified with him again," is to
be proved from the text, or context, or phrase of speech, or parallel
place, or analogy of faith, or somewhat, and not nakedly to be im
posed on us. Let Prov. viii. 22-31, Phil. ii. 6-11, be consulted, as
parallel to this place. Eph. i. 3, 4, speaks indeed of our predestination
in Christ, " that we should be holy/' and so come to glory, but of the
glory that Christ had before the world was it speaks not; yea, verse 3,
we are said to be actually " blessed," or to have the heavenly blessings,
when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, verse 4. What the
Jews say of the Law, and the like, we must allow learned men to
tell us, that they may be known to be so, although the sense of
the Scripture be insensibly darkened thereby.

To the same purpose is that of Peter, 1 Epist. i. 10, 11, "Of
which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently,
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : searching
what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them
did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and
the glory that should follow." To which add that more clear place,
1 Pet. iii. 18-20, " Quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went
and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were dis
obedient in the days of Noah." He who was in the days

of the prophets of old, and in the days of Noah, so long before his
being born according to the flesh, he was from everlasting, or had
an existence antecedent to his incarnation ; but this is expressly
affirmed of our Saviour. It was his Spirit that spake in the pro
phets ; which if he were not, could not be, for of him who is not
nothing can be affirmed. He preached by his Spirit in the days of
Noah to the spirits that are in prison.

Of this latter place our catechists take no notice ; about the first
they inquire, —

Q. What answerest thou to this?

A. Neither is a divine nature proved from hence : for the Spirit which was
in the prophets may be said to be " the Spirit of Christ," not that he was given of
Christ, but because he fore-declared the things of Christ, as Peter there speaks ;
" he testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should fol-

248 VINDICLE EVANGELIC.E.

low." Which manner of speaking we have, 1 John iv. 6, " Hence know we the spirit
of truth, and the spirit of error ;" where it is not called the spirit of truth and error
because truth and error as persons do bestow the spirit, but because the spirit of
truth speaks the things of truth, and the spirit of error the things of error.1

1. It is confessed that if the Spirit that was in the prophets was
the Spirit of Christ, then he hath a divine nature; for the only
evasion used is, that it is not, or may not (possibly) be, so meant in
this place, not denying but that if it be so, then the conclusion in
tended follows. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 John
iv. 6 there is no colour nor pretence. Christ is a person ; he was so
when Peter wrote: truth and error are not, and the spirit of them
is to be interpreted according to the subject-matter. 3. The Spirit
in other places is called the Spirit of Christ in the same sense as he
is called the Spirit of God, Rom. viii. 9, Gal. iv. 6. 4. The Spirit of
Christ is said directly to take of his and show it to his apostles,
John xvi. 15; and so he did to the prophets. They may as well, on
the pretence of 1 John iv. 6, deny him to be the Spirit of God the
Father as the Spirit of Christ, as being of him and sent by him.

And thus far of the testimonies proving the pre-existence of
Christ unto his incarnation, and so, consequently, his eternity : whence
it follows that he is God over all, blessed for ever, having this evi
dence of his eternal power and Godhead. Sundry others of the
same tendency will fall under consideration in our progress.

CHAPTER X.

Of the names of God given unto Christ.

IN the next place, as a third head, our catechists consider the
scriptural attributions of the names of God unto our Saviour, Jesus
Christ; whence this is our argument: —

" He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, he is God properly
by nature ; but Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true God, etc. : therefore
he is God properly by nature/'

The proposition is clear in itself. Of the innumerable testimonies
which are or may be produced to confirm the assumption, our cate
chists fix upon a very few, — namely, those which are answered by

1 " Quid ad hoc respondes ? — Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici ; nam
hie Spiritus qui in prophetis erat, Christ! dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fuerit,
sed quod ea quae Christi fuerunt praenunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, praenuncians illaa
in Christum passiones, et post haec glorias. Quern loquendi modum etiam, 1 Joh. iv.
6, habes, Hinc cognosdmus spiritum veritatis, et spiritum erroris ; ubi non propterea
spiritus veritatis et erroris spiritus dicitur, quod veritas et error, tanquam personre,
eum spiritum conferant ; verum eo, quod spiritus veritatis loquatur quae veritatis
sunt, et spiritus erroris qusa sunt erroria."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 249

Socinus against Weik the Jesuit, whence most of their exceptions
to these witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these
they thus proceed : —

Ques. What are those places of Scripture which seem to attribute something
to Christ in a certain and definite time f

Ans. They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the names, others the works,
which they suppose in the Scriptures to be attributed to Christ.

Q. Which are they that respect the names of Christ ?

A. Those where they suppose in the Scripture that Christ is called "Jehovah,"
etc., Jer. xxiii. 6; Zech. ii. 8; Uohnv. 20; Jude 4; Tit. ii. 13; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8;
Acts xx. 28; 1 John iii, 16.1

The first testimony is Jer. xxiii. 6, in these words, " In his days
Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his
.name whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."
To which add the next, Zech. ii. 8.

Before I come to consider their exceptions to these texts in par
ticular, some things in general may be premised, for the better under
standing of what we are about, and what from these places we in
tend to prove and confirm : — . ^

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

2. It is granted that Jehovah is the proper and peculiar name of
the one only true God of Israel ; — a name as far significant of his
nature and being as possibly we are enabled to understand ; yea, so-
far expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it is incompre
hensible, so many have thought the very word itself to be ineffable,
or at least not lawful to be uttered. This name God peculiarly ap
propriates to himself in an eminent manner, Exod. vi. 2, 3 ; so that
this is taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is Jehovah
is the only true God, the God of Israel. Whenever that name is used
properly, without a trope or figure, it is used of him only. What the
adversaries of Christ except against this shall be vindicated in its
proper place.

3. Our catechists have very faintly brought forth the testimonies
that are usually insisted on hi this cause, naming but two of them;
wherefore I shall take liberty to add a few more to them out of the
many that are ready at hand : Isa. xl. 3, " The voice of him that
crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight

1 " Quaenam ca loca Scripturse quae videntur Christo quaedam tempore certo et defi
nite attribuere ? — Ea sunt duplicia ; quorum alia nomina, alia facta respiciunt, quaa
Christo a Scriptura attribui opinantur.

" Qusenam sunt quse Christ! nomina respiciunt ? — Ea, ubi arbitrantur Jesum a Scrip
tura vocari Jehovam ; Dominum exercituum ; Deum verum ; solum verum ; Deum magnum ;
Dominum Deum omntpotentem, qui fait, qui est, et qui venturus est ; Dettm qui acquisivit
proprio sanguine ecclesiam ; Deum qui animam posuit pro noliis, — Jer. xxiii. 6 ; Zech. ii. 8 ;
1 Joh. v. 20; Jude 4; Tit. ii 13; Apoc. i. 8, iv. 8; Act. xx. 28; 1 JoL iii. 16.

250 VINDICIJ3 EVANGELIC^.

in the desert a highway for our God." That it is Christ who is here
called Jehovah is clear from that farther expression in Mai. iii. 1, and
from the execution of the thing itself, Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 2, 3, John
i. 23. Isa. xlv. 22-25, " Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends
of the earth : for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn
by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and
shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in Jehovah have I righteous
ness and strength : even to him shall men come ; and all that
are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In Jehovah shall all
the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." The apostle ex
pressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. xiv. 10-12, etc.
Hos. xiii. 14 is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55. He that
would at once consider all the texts of the Old Testament, chiefly
ascribing this name to Christ, let him read Zanchius " De Tribus
Elohim," who hath made a large collection of them.

Let us now see what our catechists except against the first testi
mony : —

Q. What dost thou answer to the first testimony ?

A. First, that hence it cannot be necessarily evinced that the name of Jehovah
is attributed to Christ. For these words, " And this is his name whereby they
shall call him, The LORD our righteousness," may be referred to Israel, of whom
he spake a little before, " In his days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely," etc., as from a like place may be seen in the same prophet, chap, xxxiii.
15, 16, where he saith, " In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch
of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and right
eousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall
dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our
righteousness." For in the Hebrew it is expressly read, " They shall call her;"
which last words are referred of necessity to Jerusalem, and in this place answereth
to Israel, which is put in the first place. It seems, therefore, likely that also, in
the first place, these words, " They shall call him," are referred to Israel. But
although we should grant that the name of Jehovah may be referred unto Christ,
yet from the other testimonies it appears that it cannot be asserted that Christ is
called Jehovah simply, neither doth it thence follow that Christ is really Jehovah.
Whether, therefore, these last words in this testimony of Jeremiah be understood
of Christ or of Israel, their sense is, " Thou Jehovah, our one God, wilt justify us;"
for at that time when Christ was to appear God would do that in Israel.1

1 " Quid vero tu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad primum ? — Primum, quod
ex eo confici non possit necessario nomen Jehovse Christo attribui. Ea enim verba,
Et hoc est nomen ejus quo vocabunt eum, Jehovah justitia nostra, referri possunt ad Israe-
lem, de quo paulo superius eodem versu loquitur, In diebus ejus servabitur Judo, et
Israel habitabit secure, et hoc est nomen ejus, etc., ut e loco simili conspici potest apud
eundem prophetam, cap. xxxiii. 15, 16, ubi ait, In diebus illis, et in illo tempore, faciam
ut existat Davidi Surculus justitise, et faciet judicium et justitiam in terra. In diebus illis
servabitur Juda, et Jerusalem habitdbit secure: et hoc (supple nomen) quo vocabunt earn,
Jehovam justitise, nostra. Etenim in Hebrseo expresse legitur, Vocabunt earn, quam vocem
posteriorem ad Hierusalem referri prorsus est necesse, et hoc quidem loco Israeli, qui
in priori loco positus est, respondet. Videtur igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in priori
etiam loco, hsec verba, Vocabunt earn, ad Israelem referantur. At licet concedamus
nomen Jehovaa ad Christum posse referri, ex altero tamen testimonio apparet asseri non

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 251

The sum of this answer is: — 1. It may be these words are not
spoken of Christ, but of Israel; 2. The same words are used of that
which is not God ; 3. If they be referred to Christ, they prove him
not to be God ; 4. Their sense is, that God will justify us in the days
of Christ. Of each briefly : —

1. The subject spoken of all along is Christ: — (1.) He is the sub
ject-matter of whatever here is affirmed: " I will raise up a righteous
Branch to David; he shall be a king, and he shall reign, and his
name shall be called The LORD our righteousness." (2.) Why are
these words to be referred to Israel only, and not also to Judah (if
to any but Christ), they being both named together, and upon the
same account (yea, and Judah hath the pre-eminence, being named
in the first place) ? And if they belong to both, the words should be,
" This is their name whereby they shall be called." (3.) Israel was
never called " our righteousness," but Christ is called so upon the
matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so, 1 Cor. i. 30;
so that, without departing from the propriety of the words, intend-
ment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing itself, these
words cannot be so perverted. The violence used to them is noto
riously manifest.

2. The expression is not the same in both places, neither is Je
rusalem there called " The LORD our righteousness," but He who
calls her is "The LORD our righteousness;" and so are the words
rendered by Arias Montanus and others. And if what Jerusalem
shall be called be intimated, and not what His name is that calls
her, it is merely by a metonymy, upon the account of the presence
of Christ in her ; as the church is called " Christ" improperly, 1 Cor.
xii. 1 2 : Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be
rendered, " This is the name whereby she shall be called," but, " This
is the name whereby he shall call her, The LORD our righteous
ness;" that is, he who is the LORD our righteousness shall call her to
peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our righte
ousness; Jerusalem is not.

3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in this as
well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more ; and
it hence evidently follows that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is
called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply says
his name is Jehovah, we believe him ; and where he says the name
of the Branch of the house of David is Jehovah, we believe him also.
And we say hence that Christ is Jehovah, or the words have not a
tolerable sense. Of this again afterward.

posse Jehovam simpliciter Christum vocari, neque ex eo sequi, Christum reipsa esse
Jehovam. Sive igitur de Christo, sive de Israele postrema verba in testimonio Hieremise
accipiantur, sententia ipsorum est, Turn Jehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum,
etenim illo tempore cum Christus appariturus esset Deus id in Israele facturus erat."

252 VINDICI.E EVANGELKLE.

4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse and
opposite to the meaning of them. The prophet says not that " Je
hovah the one God shall be our righteousness/' but, " The Branch of
David shall be the LOED our righteousness." The subject is the
Branch of David, not Jehovah. "The Branch of David shall be called
The LORD our righteousness;" that is, say they, "The LORD shall jus
tify us when the Branch of David shall be brought forth." Who could
have discovered this sense but our catechists and their masters, whose
words these are ! It remaineth, then, that the Branch of David, who
ruleth in righteousness, is Jehovah our righteousness; — our right
eousness, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as being so in himself.

Grotius expounds this place, as that of Mic. v. 2, of Zerubbabel,
helping on his friends with a new diversion Avhich they knew not of;
Socinus, as he professes, being not acquainted with the Jewish doc
tors, — though some believe him not.1 And yet the learned annotator
cannot hold out as he begins, but is forced to put out the name
Zerubbabel, and to put in that of the people, when he comes to the
name insisted on; so leaving no certain design in the whole words
from the beginning to the ending.

Two things doth he here oppose himself in to the received inter
pretation of Christians: — 1. That it is Zerubbabel who is here in
tended. 2. That it is the people who are called " The LORD our righte
ousness."

For the first, thus he on verse 15, " Germen justum, — a righteous
Branch:" — " Zorobabelem, qui nP-f ut hie appellatur, ita et Zecharise
vi. 12, nimirum quod velut surculus renatus esset ex arbore David is,
quasi praecisa. Justitiss nomine commendatur Zorobabel etiam apud
Zechariam ix. 9;" — "Zerubbabel, who is here called the Branch,
as also Zech. vi. 12, because as a branch he arose from the tree of
David, which was as cut off. Also, Zerubbabel is commended for
justice (or righteousness), Zech. ix. 9."

That this is a prophecy of Christ the circumstances of the place
evince. The rabbins were also of the same mind, as plentiful collec
tions from them are made to demonstrate it, by Joseph de Voysin,
Pug. Fid. par. 3, dist. 1, cap. iv. And the matter spoken of can be
accommodated to no other, as hath been declared. Grotius' proofs
that Zerubbabel is intended are worse than the opinion itself. That
he is called the Branch, Zech. vi. 12, is most false. He who is called
the Branch there is a king and a priest, " He shall rule upon his
throne, and he shall be a priest;" which Zerubbabel was not, nor
had any thing to do with the priestly office, which in his days was
administered by Joshua More evidently false is it that he is spoken
of Zech. ix. 9 ; which place is precisely interpreted of Christ, and
the accomplishment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded,
1 Socin. de Servat. p. 3, cap. iv. ; Franz, de Sacrif. p. 786.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC- 253

Matt. xxi. 5. The words are : " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ;
shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King cometh unto thee :
he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and
upon a colt the foal of an ass." That a man professing Christian
religion should affirm any one but Jesus Christ to be here intended
is somewhat strange.

Upon the accommodation of the next words to Zerubbabel, "A
King shall reign and prosper," etc., I shall not insist. They contain
not the matter of our present contest, though they are pitifully
wrested by the annotator, and do no ways serve his design.

For the particular words about which our contest is, this is his
comment : " ' And this is the name whereby they shall call him/
nempe populum ; " — namely, the people. " They shall call the
people." How this change comes, " In his days Judah shall be
saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be called," — that is, the
people shall be called, — he shows not. That there is no colour of
reason for it hath been showed ; what hath been said need not to be
repeated. He proceeds, " Dominus justitia nostra," that is, " Deus
nobis bene fecit," — " God hath done well for us, or dealt kindly with
us." But it is not about the intimation of goodness that is in the
words, but of the signification of the name given to Jesus Christ,
that here we plead. In what sense Christ is " The LORD our right
eousness" appears, Isa. xlv. 22-25, 1 Cor. i. 30.

The second testimony is Zech. ii. 8, in these words, " For thus
saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the
nations which spoiled you : for he that toucheth you toucheth the
apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them,"
etc., verses 9-12.

Briefly to declare what this witness speaks to, before we permit
him to the examination of our adversaries : The person speaking is
the LORD of hosts : " Thus saith the LORD of hosts." And he is the
person spoken of. "After the glory," saith he (or, "After this glorious
deliverance of you, my people, from the captivity wherein ye were
among the nations"), " hath he sent me;" — " Even me, the LORD of
hosts, hath he sent." " Thus saith the LORD of hosts, He hath sent
me." And it was to the nations, as in the words following. And who
sent him? "Ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me;" —
" The people of Israel shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent
me, the LORD of hosts, to the nations." But how shall they know
that he is so sent ? He tells them, verse 11, it shall be known by the
conversion of the nations: "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD
in that day." And what then ? "They shall be my people ;" — " mine
who am sent ; my people ; the people of the LORD of hosts that was
sent;" that is, of Jesus Christ. "And I" saith he whose people they
are, "will dwell in the midst of them " (as God promised to do), "and

254 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

tliou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me." I omit the
circumstances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by our
catechists : —

Q. What dost thou answer to this second testimony ?

A. The place of Zechariah they thus cite : " This saith the LORD of hosts ; After
the glory hath he sent rae to the nations which spoiled you : for he that toucheth
you toucheth the apple of mine eye;" which they wrest unto Christ, because here,
as they suppose, it is said that the Lord of hosts is sent from the Lord of hosts. But
these things are not so; for it is evident that these words, " After the glory hath he
sent me," are spoken of another, namely, of the angel who spake with Zechariah and
the other angel. The same is evident in the same chapter a little before, beginning
at the fourth verse, where the angel is brought in speaking ; which also is to be
seen from hence, that those words which they cite, " This saith the LORD of
hosts," in the Hebrew may be read, " Thus saith the LORD of hosts ; " and those,
" Toucheth the apple of mine eye," may be read, " The apple of his eye ; " which
of necessity are referred to his messenger, and not to the Lord of hosts." *

These gentlemen being excellent at cavils and exceptions, and
thereunto undertaking to answer any thing in the world, do not
lightly acquit themselves more weakly and jejunely in any place
than in this ; for, —

1. We contend not with them about the translation of the words,
their exceptions being to the Vulgar Latin only ; we take them as
they have rendered them. To omit that, therefore, —

2. That these words are spoken by him who is called the angel
we grant ; but the only question is, Who is this angel that speaks
them ? It is evident, from the former chapter and this, that it is
the man who was upon the red horse, chap. i. 8, who is called
" Angelus Jehovae," verse 11, and makes intercession for the church,
verse 1 2 ; which is the proper office of Jesus Christ. And that he
is no created angel, but Jehovah himself, the second person of the
Trinity, we prove, because he calls himself "The LORD of hosts;"
says he will destroy his enemies with the shaking of his hand ;
that he will convert a people, and make them his people ; and that
he will dwell in his church. And yet unto all this he adds three times
that he is sent of the Lord of hosts. We confess, then, all these
things to be spoken of him who was sent; but upon all these testi
monies conclude that he who was sent was the Lord of hosts.

Grotius interprets all this place of an angel, and names him to

1 "Ad secundum vero quid respondes ? — Locum Zechariae ad hunc modum citant :
Hoc dicit Dominus exerctiuum • Post gloriam misit me ad gentes, qux. vos spoliarunt : qui
enim vos tangit, tangit pupillam oculi mei, etc. ; quas ad Christum torquent, quod hie,
ut arbitrantur, dicatur Dominum exercituum missum esse a Domino exercituum.
Vermn ea hie non habentur ; quod hinc perspicuum est, quod ea verba, Post gloriam
misit me, etc., sunt ab alio prolata, nempe ab angelo qui cum Zecharia et alio angelo
colloquebatur, ut i dem eodem capite paulo ante planum est, a versu quarto initio facto,
ubi is angelus loquens introducitur. Quod idem ea ex re videre est, quod ea quae
citant verba, Hoc dicit Dominus exercituum, in Hebraeo legantur, Sic dicit Daminus exer
cituum ; item ilia, Tangit pupillam oculi mei, legantur Pupillam oculi ejus ; quae non ad
Dominum exercituum, sed ad legatum referri necesse est."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 255

boot! Michael it is; but who that Michael is, and whether he be
no more than an angel (that is, a messenger), he inquires not. That
the ancient Jewish doctors interpreted this place of the Messiah is
evident.1 Of that no notice here is taken ; it is not to the purpose
in hand. To the reasons already offered to prove that it is no mere
creature that is here intended, but the Lord of hosts who is sent by
the Lord of hosts, I shall only add my desire that the friends and
apologizers for this learned annotator would reconcile this exposition
of this place to itself, in those things which at first view present
themselves to every ordinary observer. Take one instance : " Ye
shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me," — that is, Michael;
"and I will dwell in the midst of thee." " Templum meum ibi
habebo," — " I will have my temple there." If he who speaks be
Michael, a created angel, how comes the temple of Jehovah to be
his ? And such let the attempts of all appear to be who manage any
design against the eternal glory of the Son of God.

The third testimony is 1 John v. 20, "And we know that the Son of
God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know
him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus
Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

Q. What dost thou answer to this f

A. These words, " This is the true God," I deny to be referred to the Son
of God. Not that I deny Christ to be true God, but that place will not ad
mit those words to be understood of Christ; for here he treats not only of the
true God, but of the only true God, as the article added in the Greek doth declare.
But Christ, although he be true God, he is not yet of himself that one God, who
by himself, and upon the most excellent account, is God, seeing that is only God
the Father. Nor doth it avail the adversaries, who would have those words re
ferred to Christ, because the mention of Christ doth immediately go before those
words, " This is the true God:" for pronoun relatives, as " this" and the like, are
not always referred to the next antecedent, but often to that which is chiefly
spoken of, as Acts vii. 19, 20, x. 6, John ii. 7; from which places it appears that
the pronoun relative " this " is referred not to the next, but to the most remote
person.1

1. It is well it is acknowledged that the only true God is here in
tended, and that this is proved by the prefixed article. This may
be of use afterward.

J Bereschith Rab. ad Gen xxv. 28.

3 " Quid respondes ad tertium ? — In hoc testimonio, Scimus Filiwm Dei venisse, etc.
hsec verba, Hie est verus Deus, nego referri ad Dei Filium. Non quod negem Christum
esse verum Deum, sed quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat. Etenim hie
agitur non solum de vero Deo, sed de illo uno vero Deo, ut articulus in Grseco additus
indicat. Christus vero, etsi verus Deus sit, non est tamen ille ex se unus Deus, qui per
-se et perfectissima ratione Deus est, cum is Deus tantum sit Pater. Nee vero quic-
quam juvat adversaries, qui propterea hsec ad Christum referri volunt, quod verba, Hie
est verus Deus, et Christ! mentio proximo antecesserit ; etenim pronomina relativa, ut
hie et similia, non semper ad proxime antecedentia, verum ssepenumero ad id de quo
potissimum sermo est referuntur, ut patet ex his locis, Act. vii. 19, 20, et x. 6, Job.
ii. 7 ; e quibus locis apparet pronomen relativum hie non ad proxime antecedentes
personas, sed ad remotiores referri."

256 VINDICIJE EVANGELICLE.

2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be a true God we
know ; — a made God, a God by office, not nature ; a man deified with
authority : so making two true Gods, contrary to innumerable express
texts of Scripture and the nature of the Deity.

3. That these words are not meant of Christ they prove, because
" he is not the only true God, but only the Father." But, friends,
these words are produced to prove the contrary, as expressly affirm
ing 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 relate
to the more remote antecedent, but that in this place that mentioned
ought to do so they pretend not once to urge ; yea, the reason they
give is against themselves, namely, that " it refers to him chiefly
spoken of," which here is eminently and indisputably Jesus Christ.
In the places by them produced it is impossible, from the subject-
matter in hand, that the relative should be referred to any but the
remoter antecedent ; but that therefore here we must offer violence
to the words, and strain them into an incoherence, and transgress
all rules of construction (nothing enforcing to such a procedure), is
not proved.

5. In the beginning of the 20th verse it is said, " The Son of God
is come, and hath given us an understanding;" and we are said
to be " in him/' even " in Jesus Christ ; " on which it immediately
follows, o$ro$, "This," this Jesus Christ, " is the true God, and eter
nal life."

6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called " life," and
" eternal life," is evident both from his Gospel and this Epistle ; and
without doubt, by the same term, in his usual manner, he expresses
here the same person. Chap. i. 2, v. 12, 20, " The Son of God is life,
eternal life : he that hath the Son hath life : we are in him, in his Son
Jesus Christ : this is the true God, and eternal life." So he began,
and so he ends his Epistle.

And this is all our adversaries have to say against this most ex
press testimony of the divine nature of Jesus Christ ; in their en
trance whereunto they cry, "Hail, master!" as one before them did
(" He is a true God"), but in the close betray him, as far as lies in
them, by denying his divine nature.

Even at the light of this most evident testimony, the eyes of Grotius
dazzled that he could not see the truth. His note is, " O5r6s £0™ »
a^rjdi^s Qe6s, Is nempe quern lesus monstravit colendumque docuit,
non alius. of rot ssepe refertur ad aliquid prsecedens non aptsug,
Act. viii. 19, x. 6." The very same plea with the former; only Acts
viii. 19 is mistaken for Acts vii. 19, the place urged by our catechists,

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 257

and before them by Socinus against Weik, to whom not only they
but Grotius is beholden. That citation of Acts x. 6 helps not the
business at all. oSrog is twice used, once immediately at the begin
ning of the verse, secondly being guided by the first; the latter is
referred to the same person, nor can possibly signify any other.
Here is no such thing, not any one circumstance to cause us to put
any force upon the constructure of the words, the discourse being
still of the same person, without any alteration ; which in the other
places is not.

Of the next testimony, which is from these words of Jude, " Deny
ing the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," verse 4 (not to
increase words), this is the sum : There being but one article prefixed
to all the words, it seems to carry the sense that it is wholly spoken
of Christ. The catechists reckon some places where one article
serves to sundry things, as Matt. xxi. 12; but it is evident that they
are utterly things of another kind and another manner of speaking
than what is here : but the judgment hereof is left to the reader, it
being not indeed clear to me whether Christ be called Atffirorys any
where in the New Testament, though he be [called] Lord, and God,
and the true God, full often.

The second [chapter] of Titus, verse 13, must be more fully insisted
on : " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of
the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Q. What dost thou answer to this?

A. In this place they strive to evince by two reasons that the epithet of the
" great God" is referred to Christ. The first is the rule forementioned, of one article
prefixed to all the words ; the other, that we do not expect that coming of the
Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an answer already in the answer
to the fourth testimony; to the other 1 answer, Paul doth not say, "Expecting the
coming of the great God," but, "Expecting the appearance of the glory of the great
God." But now the words of Christ show that the glory of God the Father may
be said to be illustrated when Christ comes to judgment, when he saith that
he shall come in glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Matt. xvi. 27;
Mark viii. 38. Besides, what inconvenience is it if it shall be said that God the
Father shall come (as they cite the words out of the Vulgar), when the Son comes
to judge the world ? Shall not Christ sustain the person of the Father, as of him
from whom he hath received this office of judging?1

About the reading of the words we shall not contend with them.

1 " Ad quintum quid respondes ? — Quintum testimonium est, Expectantes beatam spem,
etc. Quo in loco epitheton magni Dei ad Christum referri duabus rationibus evincere
conantur. Prior est, superius de articulo uno praefixo regula ; posterior, quod adven-
tum non expectemus Patris, sed Filii. Verum ad primum argumentum responsum
Jiabes in responsione ad quartum testimonium. Ad alterum respondeo, Paulum non
dicere, Expectantes adventum magni Dei, verum dicere, Expectantes apparitionem glorice
magni Dei. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei Patris illustratam iri, cum Christus ad judi-
cium venerit, verba Christ! ostendunt, cum ait, quod venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum
gloria Dei Patris sui, Matt. xvi. 27 ; Marc. viii. 38. Praeterea, quod est inconveniens
si dicatur, Deus Pater venturus (prout illi e Vulgata citant) cum Filius ad mundum
judicandum venerit ? An Christus Dei Patris personam, in judicio mundi, tanquain
ejus a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sustinebit ?"

VOL. XII. 17

258 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

It is the original we are to be tried by, and there is in that no am
biguity. That 'Evipavsiu TJJS M&e, " The appearance of the glory," is
a Hebraism for " The glorious appearance" cannot be questioned.
A hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament may
be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed hope
looked for is the thing hoped for, the resurrection to life and im
mortality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the subject
spoken of be Jesus Christ and his coming to judgment. The sub
ject is one; his epithets here two: — 1. That belonging to his essence
in himself, he is " the great God;" 2. That of office unto us, he is
" our Saviour." That it is Christ which is spoken of appears, —
1. From the single article that is assigned to all the words, ToD ^ya.\w
Qiov x.ai 2wr5jpo£ ^uv 'Ijj<ro3 Xpiffrofr which no less signifies one person
than that other expression, 'O ®tb$ xai Tlarrip 'I»jffou xpiarou, — "The
God and Father of Jesus Christ." Should I say that one person is
here intended, and not two (God and the Father of Jesus Christ
being the same), our catechists may say, "No ; for it is found in another
place that there is but one article prefixed where sundry persons are
•after spoken of." But is it not evident in those places, from the sub
ject-matter, that they are sundry persons, as also from the several
conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Matt, xxl 12, "He cast
out the sellers and buyers?" The proper force, then, of the expression
enforces this attribution to Jesus Christ. 2. Mention is made rys
fvipaveiai;, — of the glorious appearance of him of whom the apostle
speaks. That Christ is the person spoken of, and his employment
of coming to judgment, primarily and directly, is confessed This
.word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and
that, in particular, in respect of the things here spoken of; yea, it is
properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first
coming, under contempt, scorn, and reproach: 1 Tim. vi. 14, "Keep
this commandment, (jfr/j>i rq$ i-Tri<pa,vsia$ ro\> XputTov." 2 Tim. iv. 8,
"Which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day:
and not to me only, but unto all them that love T^V evipavftav avrov."
Neither, as was said, is it ever used of the Father, but is the word
continually used to express the second coming of Jesus Christ. Some
times irapovffia, 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," Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38;
but it is nowhere said that the glory of the Father shall come or
appear. 5. Their whole interpretation of the words will scarce admit
of any good sense ; nor can it be properly said that two persons come

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 259

when only one comes, though that one have glory and authority from
the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own name, and by the
laws which, as Lord, he hath given. 7. There is but the same way
of coming and appearance of the great God and our Saviour : which
if our Saviour come really and indeed, and the great God only be
cause he sends him, the one comes and the other comes not ; which
is not, doubtless, they both come.

Grotius agrees with our catechists, but says not one word more for
the proof of his interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, than
they say, as they say no more than Socinus against Bellarmine, nor
he much more than Erasmus before him, from whom Grotius also
borrowed his comment of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition
of this place ; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus,
I would say were not honestly done, himself having proved that
comment under the name of Ambrose to be a paltry, corrupted, de
praved, foisted piece: but Grotius hath not a word but what hath
been spoken to.

The next testimony mentioned is Rev. i. 8, " I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;" to which is added
that of chap. iv. 8, " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which
was, and is, and is to come."

Q. What sayest thou to this ?

A. This place they say refers to Christ, because they suppose none is said to
come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be
noted, that that word which they have rendered " to come," may equally be ren
dered " is to be," as John xvi. 13, where the Lord says of the Spirit, which he
promised to the apostles, that he should " show them things to come ; " and Acts
xviii. 21, we read that the feast day was " to be," in which place the Greek word
is ipxopitaf. Lastly, Who is there that knows not that seeing it is said before,
" which was, and is," this last which is added may be rendered " to be," that
the words in every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two former
of existence, in the latter of coming? Neither is there any one who doth not ob
serve that the eternity of God is here described, which comprehendeth time past,
present, and to come. But that which discovers this gross error is that which
we read in Rev. i. 4, 5, " Grace be to you, and peace, from him which is, which
was, and which is to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness ; " — from which testimony it
appears that Jesus Christ is quite another from him which is, and was, and is to
be, or, as they think, is to come.1

* " Quid ad sextum respondes ? — Eum vero locum propterea ad Christum referunt,
* quod arbitrentur neminem venturum, nisi Christum ; is enim venturus est ad judi-
.candum vivos et mortuos. Verum tenendum est, earn vocem quam illi reddidere ven-
turus est, reddi seque posse futurus est, ut Johan. xvi. 13, ubi Dominus ait de Spiritu,
quem apostolis promittebat, quod illis esset futura annunciaturus ; et Act. xviii. '21 ,
ubi legimus, diem festum futurum : in quibus locis duobus, vox Grseca est Ipx'op'.vo;.
Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prius dictum sit, qui erat, et qui est, et posterius hoc
quod additum est per futurum esse reddi debere, et ubique de existentia ea oratio acci-
piatur, et non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in postrcmo de adventu?
Nee est quisquam qui non animadvertat hie describi setermtatem Dei, quce teinpus

260 VINDICLE EVANGELIC2E.

1. There is not one place which they have mentioned wherein the
word here used, ep^oftevog, may not properly be translated "to come;"
which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ.
But, 2. These gentlemen make themselves and their disciples merry
by persuading them that we have no other argument to prove these
words to be spoken of Christ but only because he is said to be 6 ip'/j>-
pivos : which yet, in conjunction with other things, is not without its
weight, being as it were a name of the Messiah, Matt. xi. 3, from Gen.
xlix. 10,1 though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no less
triumphant, doubtless, in their following answer, that these words
describe the eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ; when
the argument is, that Christ is God, because, amongst other things,
these words ascribe eternity to him. Is this an answer to us, who
not only believe him, but prove him eternal ? 4. And they are upon,
the same pin still in their last expression, that these words are as
cribed to the Father, verse 4, when they know that the argument
which they have undertaken to answer is, that the same names are
ascribed to the Son as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal
with him. Their answer is, " This name is not ascribed to Christ, be
cause it is ascribed to the Father." Men must beg when they can
make no earnings at work. 5. "We confess Christ to be " alius,"
"another," another person from the Father; not another God, as our
catechists pretend.

Having stopped the mouths of our catechists, we may briefly consi
der the text itself. 1. That by this expression, "Who is, and who was,
and who is to come," the apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh
['T'??]? Exod. iii. 14, which, as the rabbins say, is of all seasons, and
expressive of all times, is evident. To which add that other name
of God, " Almighty," and it cannot at all be questioned but that he
who is intended in these words is " the only true God." 2. That the
words are here used of Jesus Christ is so undeniable from the context
that his adversaries thought good not once to mention it. Verse 7, his
coming is described to be in glory: " Behold, he cometh with clouds;
and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and
all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him ;" whereupon him
self immediately adds the words of this testimony, " I am Alpha and
Omega." For, (1.) They are words spoken to John by him who gave
him the Revelation, which was Jesus Christ, verse 1. (2.) They are
the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Jesus Christ,
verse 18. (3.) Jesus Christ twice in this chapter afterward gives

prseteritum, praesens, et futurum comprehendit. Sed quod crassum errorem hunc de-
tegit, est quod Apoc. i. 4, 5, legimus, Gratia vobis, et pax, db eo qui cst, et qui erat, et qui
futurus est; et a septem spiritibus qui sunt ante faciem throni ejus; et a Jesu Christo, qui est
testis fidelis. E quo testimonio apparet, Jesum Christum ab eo qui est, qui erat, et
qui futurus est, vel, ut illi credunt, venturus, esse longe alium."

1 "Eas !«» Jfxfy y uroxtn-ai, Gen. xlix. 10. 2u iT i ip%ofti»ii, Matt. xi. 3.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 261

himself the same title, verse 11, "I am Alpha and Omega;" and
verse 17, "I am the first and the la st." But who is he? "I am he that
liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I live for evermore, Amen ; and
have the keys of hell and of death," verse 18. He gave the Revelation,
he is described, he speaks all always, he gives himself the same title
twice again in this chapter.

But our catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all
this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the words as
they are placed, chap. i. 8, considering the same words in chap.iv. 8,
where they want some of the circumstances which in this place give
light to their application. They are not there spoken by any one that
ascribes them to himself, but by others are ascribed " to him that
sitteth upon the throne;" who cry (as the seraphims, Isa. vi. 3),
" Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
to come." But yet there wants not evidence to evince that these
Avords belong immediately in this place also to Jesus Christ; for, —
1. They are the naine, as we have seen, whereby not long before he
revealed himself. 2. They are spoken of " him who sitteth upon the
throne" in the midst of the Christian churches here represented.
And if Christ be not intended in these words, there is no mention of
his presence in his church, in that solemn representation of its as
sembly, although he promised to be in the " midst " of his " to the
end of the world." 3. The honour that is here ascribed to him that
is spoken of is because he is oifyog, " worthy," as the same is assigned
to the Lamb by the same persons in the same words, chap. v. 12.
So that in both these places it is Jesus Christ who is described: " He
is, he was, he is to come" (or, as another place expresses it, " The
same yesterday, to-day, and for ever"), "the Lord God Almighty."

I shall not need to add any thing to what Grotius hath observed
on these places. He holds with our catechists, and ascribes these
titles and expressions to God in contradistinction to Jesus Christ,
and gives in some observations to explain them: but for the reason
of his exposition, wherein he knew that he dissented from the most
of Christians, we have oii<3g yp 6, so that I have nothing to do but to
reject his authority; which, upon the experience I have of his design,
I can most freely do.

Proceed we to the next testimony, which is Acts xx. 28, " Feed
the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
He who purchased the church with his blood is God ; but it was
Jesus Christ who purchased his church with his blood, Eph. v. 25-27,
Tit, ii. 14, Heb. ix. 14: therefore he is God.

Q. What dost thou answer to this ?

A. I answer, the name of" God" is not necessarily in this place referred to Christ,
but it may be 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

262 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

for which cause the prophet says, " He who toucheth you toucheth the apple of
the eye of God himself." For the great conjunction that is between Father and
Son, although in essence they are altogether diverse, is the reason why the blood
of Christ is called the blood of God the Father himself, especially if it be considered
as shed for us ; for Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the
world, whence the blood shed to that purpose may be called the blood of God
himself. Nor is it to be passed by in silence, that in the Syriac edition, in the
place of God, Christ is read.1

There is scarce any place in returning an answer whereunto the
adversaries of the deity of Christ do less agree among themselves
than about this. 1. Some say the name of God is not here taken ab
solutely, but with relation to office, and so Christ is spoken of, and
called " God by office :" so Socin. ad Bellar. et Weik. p. 200, etc.
Some say that the words are thus to be read, "Feed the church of God,
which Christ hath purchased by his own blood:" so Ochinus and Lse-
lius Socinus, whom Zanchius answers, " De Tribus Elohim," lib. iii.
cap. vi. p. 456. Some flee to the Syriac translation, contrary to the
constant consenting testimony of all famous copies of the original, all
agreeing in the word Qeov, some adding rou Kvplov? So Grotius would
have it, affirming that the manuscript he used had roD Kvplov, not tell
ing them that it added Qtov, which is the same with what we affirm;
and therefore he ventures at asserting the text to be corrupted,
and, in short writing, Sou to be crept in for yw [manuscript contrac
tions for Qeov and x/5/<rrou], 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 re
ferred to Christ ; it may be referred to God the Father." Give an
instance of the like phrase of speech, and take the interpretation.
Can it be said that one's blood was shed when it was not shed, but
another's? and there is no mention that that other's blood was shed.
3. If the Father's blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because
Christ's blood was shed, then you may say that God the Father died,

1 " Quid ad septimum respondes ? — Respondeo, nomen Dei hoc loco non referri ad
Christum necessario, sed ad ipsum Deum Patrem referri posse, cujus apostolus eum
sanguinem, quern Christus fudit, sanguinem vocat, eo genere loquendi, et earn ob causam,
quo genere loquendi, et quam ob causam propheta ait, Eum qui tangit populum Dei,
tangere pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Etenim summa quae est inter Deum Patrem et Chris
tum conjunctio, etsi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, cur Christi sanguis,
sanguis ipsius Dei Patris dicatur, prsesertim si quis expendat quatenus is est pro nobis
fusus: etenim Christus est Agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi. Unde sanguis in eum
finem fusus, ipsius Dei sanguis jure vocari potest. Nee vero praetereundum est silentio,
quod in editione Syriaca loco Dei legatur Christi."

3 It is necessary to state that this is far from being correct. Eminent critics, such
as Bengel, Matthiii, and Scholz, it is true, decide for Stuv, but Griesbach, Lachman. and
Tischendorf, give nv Kvp'iov as the proper reading. The leading manuscripts A, C, D, E,
are in favour of the latter ; but Tischendorf has now proved that manuscript B, com-
monly known as the Vatican manuscript, and formerly supposed to agree with them,
on the contrary, has &teu, aprima manu. All the evidence cannot be weighed and dis
cussed in this note, but the authority for et»u is, on the whole, sufficient to establish it
as the true reading. — ED.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 263

and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and that God the Father rose
from the dead; that he was dead, and is alive ; that that blood that
was shed was not Christ's, but somebody's else that he loved, and was
near unto him. 4. There is no analogy between that of the prophet,
of the " apple of God's eye," and this here spoken of. Uncontrol
lably a metaphor must there be allowed ; — here is no metaphor in
sisted on ; but that which is the blood of Christ is called the blood of
God, and Christ not to be that God is their interpretation. There,
divers persons are spoken of, God and believers; here, one only, that
did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies
in this, " There is a figurative expression in one place, the matter
spoken of requiring it, therefore here must be a figure admitted also/'
where there is not the same reason. What is this but to " make the
Scripture a nose of wax?" The work of "redeeming the church with
his blood " is ever ascribed to Christ as peculiar to him, constantly,
without exception, and never to God the Father; neither would our
adversaries allow it to be so here, but that they know not how to
stand before the testimony wherewith they are pressed. 5. If, be
cause of the conjunction that is between God the Father and Christ,
the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father, then
the hunger and thirst of Christ, his dying and being buried, his
rising again, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father,
his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and
proper Son who hath a quite different nature and essence from his
own proper Father, as is here affirmed. 6. Christ is called " The
Lamb of God," as answering and fulfilling all the sacrifices that were
made to God of old; and if the blood of Christ may be called the
blood of God the Father because he appointed it to be shed for
us, then the blood of any sacrifice was also the blood of the man that
appointed it to be shed, yea, of God, who ordained it. The words
are, ' Exxhrifflav roi; Qsou, jjv KfpisiroiqaaTO 810, rov i&iou a//z.aroj. If any
words in the world can properly express that it is one and the same
person who is intended, that it is his own blood properly that bought
the church with it, surely these words do it to the full. Christ,
then, is God.

The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to this head
of testimonies about the names of God, is 1 John iii. 1 6, " 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.

Q. To the eighth what sayest thou ?

A. First take this account, that neither in any Greek edition (but only the Com-
plutensis) nor in the Syriacthe word " God" is found. But suppose that this word
were found in all copies, were therefore this word " he" to be referred to " God" ? No,
doubtless; not only for that reason which we gave a little before, in answer to the

264 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

third testimony, that such words are not always referred to the next person, but,
moreover, because John doth often in this epistle refer the Greek word ixi7»at to
him who was named long before, as in the 3d, 5th, and 7th verses of this chapter.1

1. Our catechists do very faintly adhere to the first exception,
about the word ©soy3 in the original, granting that it is in some
copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and that
the sense in this place necessarily requires the presence of that word.

2. Supposing it as they do, we deny that this is a very just exception
which they insist upon, that as a relative may sometimes, and in some
cases, where the sense is evident, be referred to the remote antece
dent, therefore it may or ought to be so in any place, contrary to the
propriety of grammar, where there are no circumstances enforcing
such a construction, but all things requiring the proper sense of it.

3. It is allowed of only where several persons are spoken of immediately
before, which here are not, one only being intimated or expressed.

4. They can give no example of the word " God" going before, and
ixeftos following after, where sxeTvos is referred to any thing or per
son more remote; much less here, where the apostle, having treated
of God and the love of God, draws an argument from the love of
God to enforce our love of one another. 5. In the places they point
unto, tKiTvog m every one of them is referred to the next and imme
diate antecedent, as will be evident to our reader upon the first
view.

Give them their great associate and we have done: "'Exe/yo; hie
est Christus, ut supra ver. 5, subintelligendum hie autem est, hoc
Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est,
Rom. v. 8." That sxfftos is Christ is confessed ; but the word being
a relative, and expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it
relates unto Qtov, the word going immediately before it. No, says
Grotius, but " the sense is, 'Herein appeared the love of God, that by
his appointment Christ died for us/ " That Christ laid down his life
for us by the appointment of the Father is most true, but that that
is the intendment of this place, or that the grammatical construction
of the words will bear any such sense, we deny.

And this is what they have to except to the testimonies which
themselves choose to insist on to give in their exceptions to, as to

1 " Ad octavum vero quid ? — Primum igitur sic habeto, neque in Graaca editions ulla
(excepta Complutensi), nee in editione Syriaca, vocem Deus haberi. Verum etiamsi
haec vox haberetur in omnibus exemplaribus, num idcirco ea vox ille ad Deum erit re
ferenda ? Non certe ; non solum ob earn causam quam paulo superius attulimus, in
responsione ad testimonium tertium, quod verba ejusmodi non semper ad propinquiores
personas referantur, verum etiam quod ixiTvo; vocem Graecum Johannes in hac epistola
saepe ad eum refert, qui longe antea nominatus fuerat, ut et 3, 5, et 7, versu ejusdem
capitis in Graeco apparet."

3 It cannot now be questioned that there is no authority for the insertion of Qua.
Even our authorized version consigns it to Italics, as a supplement, and not in the ori
ginal. — ED.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 2G5

the names of Jehovah and God being ascribed unto Jesus Christ ;
which having vindicated from all their sophistry, I shall shut up
the discourse of them with this argument, which they afford us for
the confirmation of the sacred truth contended for : He who is Je
hovah, God,. the only true God, etc., he is God by nature; but thus
is Jesus Christ God, and these are the names the Scripture calls and
knows him by: therefore he is so, God by nature, blessed for ever.

That many more testimonies to this purpose may be produced,
and have been so by those who have pleaded the deity of Christ
against its opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that
inquire after such things. I content myself to vindicate what they
have put in exceptions unto.

CHAPTER XL

Of the work of creation assigned to Jesus Christ, etc. — The confirmation of his
eternal deity from thence.

THE scriptures which assign the creating of all things to Jesus
Christ they propose as the next testimony of his deity whereunto
they desire to give in their exceptions. To these they annex them
wherein it is affirmed that he brought the people of Israel out of
Egypt, and that he was with them in the wilderness; with one par
ticular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the
gospel, about the prophet's seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which
are of the first sort they instance in John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16, 17;
Heb. i. 2, 10-12.

The first and second of these I have already vindicated, in the
consideration of them as they lay in their conjuncture with them
going before in verse 1 ; proceed we therefore to the third, which is
Col. i. 16, 17, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by
him, and for him : and he is before all things, and by him all things
consist."

1. That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ is acknowledged.
The verses foregoing prevent all question thereof : " He hath trans
lated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : in whom we have re
demption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the
image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: for by
him were all things/' etc.

2. In what sense Christ is the " image of the invisible God," even
the "express image of his Father's person/' shall be afterward declared.
The other part of the description of him belongs to that which we

266 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

nave in hand. He is irpuroroxos Kdffr,$ XTISSM;, — " the first-born 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 -/r^wroxr/oros, first
created, but irpuroroxo;, the first-born. Now, the term "first" in the
Scripture represents either what follows, and so denotes an order in
the things spoken of, he that is the first being one of them, as Adam
was the first man; or it respects things going before, in which sense
it denies all order or series of things in the same kind. So God is
said to be the " first," Isa. xli. 4, because before him there was none,
Isa. xliii. 1 0. And in this sense is Christ the " first-born," — so the
first-born as to be the "only-begotten Son of God," John iii. 18. 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 pre
mised: —

1. Though he speaks of him who is Mediator, and describes him,
yet he speaks not of him as Mediator; for that he enters upon verse
18, " And he is the head of the body, the church," etc.

2. That the things whose creation is here assigned unto Jesus
Christ are evidently contradistinguished to the things of the church,
or new creation, which are mentioned verse 18. Here he is said to
be the " first-born of every creature ; " there, the " first-born from the
dead ;" — here, to make all things ; there, to be "the head of the body,
the church."

3. The creation of all things simply and absolutely is most em
phatically expressed : — (1.) In general : " By him all things were
created." (2.) A distribution is made of those " all things" into " all
things that are in heaven and that are in earth ; " which is the com
mon expression of all things that were made at the beginning, Exod.
xx. 11, Acts iv. 24. (3.) A description is given of the things so
created according to two adjuncts which divide all creatures what
ever, — whether they are " visible or invisible." (4.) An enumeration
is in particular made of one sort, of things invisible ; which being of
greatest eminency and dignity, might seem, if any, to be exempted
from the state and condition of being created by Jesus Christ :
"Whether they be thrones," etc. (5.) This distribution and enume
ration being closed, the general assumption is again repeated, as
having received confirmation from what was said before : "All things
were created by him," of what sort soever, whether expressed in the
enumeration foregoing or no ; all things were created by him. They
were created for him tl$ O.VTOV, as it is said of the Father, Rom. xi. 36;
which, Rev. iv. 1 1, is said to be for his will and " pleasure." (6.) For a
farther description of him, verse 1 7, his pre-existence before all things,
and his providence in supporting them and continuing that being to
them which he gave them by creation, are asserted : " And he is be-
.fore all things, and by him all things consist."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 267

Let us consider, then, what is excepted hereunto by them with
w horn we have to do. Thus they, —

Q. What dost tliou answer to this place f

A. Besides this, that this testimony speaks of Christ as of the mediate and
second cause, it is manifest the words " were created" are used in Scripture, not
only concerning the old, but also the new creation ; of which you have an example,
Eph. ii. 10, 15, James i. 18. Moreover, that these words, " All things in heaven
and in earth," are not used for all things altogether, appeareth, not only from the
words subjoined a little after, verse 20, where the apostle saith, that " by him are
all things reconciled in heaven and in earth," but also from those words them
selves, wherein the apostle said not that the heavens and earth were created, but
" all things that are in heaven and in earth."

Q. But how dost tliou understand that testimony?

A. On that manner wherein all things that are in heaven and in earth were re
formed by Christ, after God raised him from the dead, and by him translated into
another state and condition; and this whereas God gave Christ to be head to angels
and men, who before acknowledged God only for their lord.1

What there is either in their exceptions or exposition of weight to
take off this evident testimony shall briefly be considered.

1. The first exception, of the kind of causality which is here ascribed
to Christ, hath already been considered and removed, by manifesting
the very same kind of expression, about the same things, to be used
concerning God the Father. 2. Though the word creation be used
concerning the new creation, yet it is in places where it is evidently
and distinctly spoken of in opposition to the former state wherein
they were who were so created. But here, as was above demon
strated, the old creation is spoken of in direct distinction from the
new, which the apostle describes and expresses in other terms, verse
20 ; if that may be called the new creation which lays a foundation
of it, as the death of Christ doth of regeneration ; and unless it be in
that cause, the work of the new creation is not spoken of at all in this
place. 3. Where Christ is said " to reconcile all things unto himself,
whether things in earth, or things in heaven," he speaks plainly and
evidently of another work, distinct from that which he had described
in these verses ; and whereas reconciliation supposes a past enmity,
the " all things" mentioned in the 20th verse can be none but those
which were sometime at enmity with God. Now, none but men

1 " Quid ad tertium ? — Prseter id, quod et hoc testimonium loquatur de Christo tan-
quam media et secunda causa, verbum creata sunt, non solum de vetere, venim etiam
de nova creatione in Scriptura usurpari constat ; cujus rei exempla babes, Eph. ii. 10, 15,
Jac. i. 18. Praeterea, ea verba, Omnia in coelis et in terra, non usurpari pro omnibus
prorsus, apparet non solum ex verbis paulo inferius subjectis, ver. 20, ubi apostolus
ait, quod per eum reconciliata sint omnia in coelis et in terra, verum etiam ex iis ipsis verbis,
in quibus apostolus non ait, ccelum et terrain creata esse, verum ea omnia quce in coelis
et in terra sunt.

" Qui vero istud testimonium intelligis ? — Ad eum modum quo per Christum omnia
quse sunt in coelis et in terra postquam eum Deus a mortuis excitavit, reformata sunt,
et in alium statum et conditionem translata ; id vero cum Deus et angelis et hominibus
Christum caput dcderit, qui antca tantum Dcum solum pro domino agnoverunt."

2G8 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

that ever had any enmity against God, or were at enmity with him,
were ever reconciled to God. It is, then, men in heaven and earth,
to whose reconciliation, in their several generations, the efficacy of
the blood of Christ did extend, that are there intended. 4. Not [only]
heaven and earth are named, but " all things in them," as being
most immediately expressive of the apostle's purpose, who, naming
all things in general, chose to instance in angels and men, as also
insisting on the expression which is used concerning the creation
of all things in sundry places, as hath been showed, though he men
tions not all the words in them used.

[As] for the exposition they give of these words, it is most ridicu
lous ; for,— 1. The apostle doth not speak of Christ as he is exalted
after his resurrection, but describes him in his divine nature and
being. 2. To translate out of one condition into another is not to
create the thing so translated, though another new thing it may be.
When a man is made a magistrate, we do not say he is made a man
but he is made a magistrate. 3. The new creation, which they here
affirm to be spoken of, is by no means to be accommodated unto
angels. In both the places mentioned by themselves, and in all
places where it is spoken of, it is expressive of a change from bad to
good, from evil actions to grace, and is the same with regeneration
or conversion, which cannot be ascribed to angels, who never sinned
nor lost their first habitation. 4. The dominion of Christ over
angels and men is nowhere called a new creation, nor is there any
colour or pretence why it should be so expressed.1 5. The new
creation is "in Christ," 2 Cor. v. 17; but to be "in Christ" is to be
implanted into him by the Holy Spirit by believing, which by no
means can be accommodated to angels. 6. If only the dominion of
Christ be intended, then, whereas Christ's dominion is, according to
our adversaries (Smalc. de Divin. Christi, cap. xvi.), extended over
all creatures, men, angels, devils, and all other things in the world,
men, angels, devils, and all things, are new creatures ! 7. Socinus says
that by " principalities and powers" devils are intended. And what
advancement may they be supposed to have obtained by the new
creation? The devils were created, that is, delivered! There is no
end of the folly and absurdities of this interpretation : I shall spend
no more words about it Our argument from this place stands firm
and unshaken.

Grotius abides by his friends in the interpretation of this place,
•wresting it to the new creature and the dominion of Christ over all,
against all the reasons formerly insisted on, and with no other argu-

1 " Ea quse in ccelis sunt person® (quae subjectae sunt Christo), sunt angeli, iique
tarn boni quam mali : quae in coelis sunt, et personae non sunt, omnia ilia continent
quaecunque extra angelos vel sunt, vel etiam esse possuut." — Smalc. de Diyin. Christi,
cap. xvi. de regno Christi super angelcs.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 269

ment than what he was from the Socinians supplied withal. His
words on the place are: — " It is certain that all things were created
by the Word ; but those things that go before show that Christ is
here treated of, which is the name of a man, as Chrysostom also
understood this place. But he would have it that the world was
made for Christ, in a sense not corrupt; but on the account of that
which went before, sxrlffdrj is better interpreted ' were ordained/ or
' obtained a certain new state/"1 So he, in almost the very words of
Socinus. But, —

1. In what sense "all things were created by the Word," and what
Grotius intends by the "Word," I shall speak elsewhere. 2. Is Christ
the no/me of a man only ? or of him who is only a man? Or is he
a man only as he is Christ? If he would have spoken out to this,
we might have had some light into his meaning in many other places
of his Annotations. The apostle tells us that Christ is " over all, God
blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5 ; and that Jesus Christ was " declared
to be the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead," chap. i. 4.
If "Christ" denote the person of our mediator, Christ is God, and what
is spoken of Christ is spoken of him who is God. But this is that
which is aimed at: The Word, or Wisdom of God, bears eminent
favour towards that man Jesus Christ; but that he was any more
than a man, that is, the union of the natures of God and man in one
person, is denied. 3. The words before are so spoken of Christ as
that they call him the Son of God, and the image of the invisible
God, and the first-born of the creation ; which though he was who
was a man, yet he was not as he was a man. 4. All the arguments
we have insisted on, and farther shall insist on (by God's assistance),
to prove the deity of Christ, with all the texts of Scripture wherein
it is plainly affirmed, do evince the vanity of this exception, " Christ
is the name of a man ; therefore the things spoken of him are not
proper and peculiar to God." 5. Into Chrysostom's exposition of
this place I shall not at present inquire, though I am not without
reason to think he is wronged; but that the word here translated
" created" may not, cannot be rendered ordained, or placed in a new
state and condition, I have before sufficiently evinced, neither doth
Grotius add any thing to evince his interpretation of the place, or to
remove what is objected against it.

] . He tells us that of that sense of the word xrlfyiv he hath spoken in
his Prolegomena to the Gospels; and urges Eph. ii. 10, 13, iii. 9, iv. 24,
to prove the sense proposed. (1.) It is confessed that God doth some
times express the exceeding greatness of his power and efficacy of his

1 " Certum est per Verbum create omnia; sed quse prsecedunt, ostendunthic de Christo
agi, quod hominis est nomen; quomodo etiam Chrysostomus hunc accepit locum. Sed
ille intelligit mundum creatum propter Christum, sensu non malo : sed propter id quod
prsecessit, rectius est ixr!<r0v hie interpretari, ordinata aunt, — novum quendam statum
sunt consecula." — Grot, in Col. i. 16.

270 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

grace in the regeneration of a sinner, and enabling him to live to God,
by the word "create," — whence such a person is sometimes called the
" new creature," — according to the many promises of the Old Testa
ment, of creating a new heart in the elect, whom he would take into
covenant with himself, — a truth which wraps that in its bowels
whereunto Grotius was no friend ; but that this new creation can
be accommodated to the things here spoken of is such a figment as
so learned a man might have been ashamed of. The constant use
of the word in the New Testament is that which is proper, and that
which m this place we insist on: as Rom. i. 25; 1 Tim. iv. 3; Rev.
iv. 11. (2.) Eph. ii. 10 speaks of the " new creature" in the sense
declared; which is not illustrated by verse 13, which is quite of an
other import. Chap. iv. 24 is to the same purpose. Chap. iii. 9,
the creation of all things, simply and absolutely, is ascribed to God ;
which to wrest to a new creation there is no reason, but what arises
from opposition to Jesus Christ, because it is ascribed also to him.

2. The latter part of the verse he thus illustrates, or rather ob
scures : " Td -/raira di' avrov, intellige omnia qua ad novam creationem
pertinent." How causelessly, how without ground, how contrary to the
words and scope of the place, hath been showed. " Ka/ sis avrbv ?x-
TI a7at} propter ipsum, ut ipse omnibus illis prseesset, Rev. v. 1 3, Heb.
ii. 8." This is to go forward in an ill way. (1.) What one instance
can he give of this sense of the expression opened? The words, as
hath been showed, are used of God the Father, Rom. xi. 36, and
are expressive of absolute sovereignty, as Rev. iv. 11. (2.) The texts
cited by him to exemplify the sense of this place (for they are not
instanced in to explain the phrase, which is not used in them) do
quite evert his whole gloss. In both places the dominion of Christ
is asserted over the whole creation; and particularly, in Rev. v. 13,
things in heaven, earth, under the earth, and in the sea, are re
counted. I desire to know whether all these are made new crea
tures or no. If not, it is not the dominion of Christ over them that
is here spoken of; for he speaks only of them that he created.

Of the 17th verse he gives the same exposition: " Ka/ auro'g hn
Kpb navruv, id est, A et n, ut ait Apoc. i. 8, vpb vav-uv, intellige ut
jam diximus." Not contented to pervert this place, he draws an
other into society with it, wherein he is more highly engaged than
our catechists, who confess that place to be spoken of the eternity of
God : " Ka/ rd cravra Iv avTp euv'iGrqxi' Et hsec vox de veteri creatione
ad novam traducitur. Vid. 2 Pet. iii. 5." Prove it by any one in
stance; or, if that may not be done, beg no more in a matter of this
importance. In Peter it is used of the existence of all things by the
power of God, in and upon their creation ; and so also here, but
spoken with reference to Jesus Christ, who is " God over all, blessed
for ever." And so much for the vindication of this testimony.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 271

Heb. i. 2 is nextly mentioned, " By whom also he made the
worlds."

That these words are spoken of Christ is not denied. They are
too express to bear any exception on that account. That God is said
to make the world by Christ doth not at all prejudice what we in
tend from this place. God could no way make the world by Christ
but as he was his own eternal Wisdom ; which exempts him from the
condition of a creature. Besides, as it is said that God made the
world by him, denoting the subordination of the Son to the Father
and his being his Wisdom, as he is described Prov. viii. ; so also the
Word is said to make the world, as a principal efficient cause him
self, John i. 3 and Heb. L 10. The word here used is aiuvag. That
aiuv is of various acceptations in the New Testament is known. A
duration of time, an age, eternity, are sometimes expressed thereby ;
the world, the beginning of it, or its creation, as John ix. 32. In
this place it signifies not " time" simply and solely, but the things
created in the " beginning of time" and " in all times;" and so ex
pressly the word is used, Heb. xi. 3. The framing aiuvuv, is the
creation of the world ; which by faith we corne to know. " The
worlds," that is, the world and all in it, were made by Christ.

Let us now hear our catechists: —

Q. How dost thou answer to this testimony ?

A, On this manner, that it is here openly written, not that Christ made, but
that God by Christ made the worlds. It is also confessed that the word " secula"
may signify not only the ages past and present, but also to come. But that here it
signifies things future is demonstrated from hence, that the same author affirm-
eth that by him whom God appointed heir of all things he made the worlds : for
Jesus of Nazareth was not made heir of all things before he raised him from the
dead; which appears from hence, because then all power in heaven and in earth
was given him of God the Father; in which grant of power, and not in any other
thing, that inheritance of all things is contained.1

1. For the first exception, it hath been sufficiently spoken to al
ready; and if nothing else but the pre-existence of Christ unto the
whole creation be hence proved, yet the cause of our adversaries is
by it destroyed for ever. This exception might do some service to
the Arians; to Socinians it will do none at all. 2. The word " secula"
signifies not things future anywhere. 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

1 " Qui respondes ad quartum testimonium ? — Eo pacto, quod hie palam scriptum
sit, non Christum fecisse, sed Deum per Christum fecisse secula. Vocem vero secula
' non solum praesentia et prseterita, verum etiam futura significare posse, in confesso
est. Hie vero de futuris agi id demonstrat, quod idem autor affirmet per eum quern
haeredem universorum constituent Deus, etiam secula esse condita ; nam Jesus Na-
zarenus non prius constitutus hseres universorum fuit, quam eum Deus a mortuis ex-
citavit, quod bine patet, quod turn demum omnis potestas in ccelo et in terra eidem
data a Deo Patre fuerit, cujus potestatis donatione, et non alia re, ista universorum
haereditas continetur."

272 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

place is evident from these considerations: — (1.) These words, "By
whom he made the worlds," are given as a reason why God made
him " heir of all things," — even because by him he made all things ;
which is no reason at all, if you understand only heavenly things by
" the worlds" here : which also removes the last exception of our cate-
chists, that Christ was appointed heir of all things antecedently to
his making of the world; which is most false, this being given as a
reason of that, — his making of the world of his being made heir of
all things. Besides, this answer, that Christ made not the world
until his resurrection, is directly opposite to that formerly given by
them to Col. i. 1 6, where they would have him to be said to make
all things because of the reconciliation he made by his death, verse
20. (2.) The same word or expression in the same epistle is used
for the world in its creation, as was before observed, chap. xi. 3;
which makes it evident that the apostle in both places intends
the same. (3.) Aiuv is nowhere used absolutely for " the world to
come;" which being spoken of in this epistle, is once called oixovptvriv
rqv fjt.s'h.Xovffav, chap. ii. 5, and aiuva /isAAoi/Ta, chap. vi. 5, but nowhere
absolutely aiuva, or aiuvag. (4.) " The world to come" is nowhere
said to be made, nor is this expression used of it. It is said, chap,
ii. 5, to be put into subjection to Christ, not to be made by him; and
chap. vi. 5, 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 uphold-
eth all things by the word of his power," chap. i. 3. (6.) This plainly
answers the former expressions insisted on, " He made the world,"
" He made all things," etc. So that this text also lies as a two-
edged sword at the very heart of the Socinian cause.

Grotius seeing that this interpretation could not be made good,
yet being no way willing to grant that making of the world is as
cribed to Christ, relieves his friends with one evasion more than
they were aware of. It is, that di' o£, " by whom," is put for 8f ov, " for
whom," or for whose sake; and fitoiyat is to be rendered by the
preterpluperfect tense, " he had made." And so the sense is, " God
made the world for Christ;" which answereth an old saying of the
Hebrews, " That the world was made for the Messiah."

But what will not great wits give a colour to ! 1. Grotius is not able
to give me one instance in the whole New Testament where 5/' o5
is taken for £/' ov: and if it should be so anywhere, himself would
confess that it must have some cogent circumstance to enforce that
construction, as all places must have where we go off from the pro
priety of the word. 2. If &' cS be put for di" ov, 6/d must be put
for ei;} as, in the opinion of Beza, it is once in the place quoted by
Grotius, and so signify the final cause, as he makes fa' ov to do. Now,
the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two in

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 273

this business of making the world, Rom. xi. 36, A/ ai/rou xat sif
avrbv TO, irdvra : so that, doubtless, in the same matter, one of these
is not put for the other. 3. Why must Ivoi^at be " cpndiderat?" and
what example can be given of so rendering that aoristus? If men
may say what they please, without taking care to give the least pro
bability to what they say, these things may pass. 4. If the apostle
must be supposed to allude to any opinion or saying of the Jews, it
is much more probable that he alluded, in the word aiuvag, which
he uses, to the threefold world they mention in their liturgy, — the
lower, middle, and higher world, or [residence of the] souls of the
blessed, — or the fourfold, mentioned by Rab. Alschech : " Messias
prosperabitur, vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos complectitur;
qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus angelorum, mundus sphaerarum,
et mundus supremus/' etc. But of this enough.

Though this last testimony be sufficient to confound all gainsayers,
and to stop the mouths of men of common ingenuity, yet it is evi
dent that our catechists are more perplexed with that which follows
in the same chapter ; which, therefore, they insist longer upon than
on any one single testimony besides,— with what success comes now
to be considered.

The words are, Heb. i. 10-12, "Thou, LORD, in the beginning
hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the
works of thine hands: they shall perish, but thou remainest; and
they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou
fold them up, and they shall be changed : but thou art the same
and thy years shall not fail." That these words of the psalmist are
spoken concerning Christ we have the testimony of the apostle ap
plying them to him ; wherein we are to acquiesce. The thing also
is clear in itself, for they are added in his discourse of the deliver
ance of the church ; which work is peculiar to the Son of God, ancj
•where that is mentioned, it is he who eminently is intended. Now,
very many of the arguments wherewith the deity of Christ is con
firmed are wrapped up in these words:—!. His name, Jehovah, is
asserted : " Thou, LORD ;" for of him the psalmist speaks, though,
he repeats not that word. 2. His eternity and pre-existence to his
incarnation : " Thou, LORD, in the beginning," — that is, before the
world was made. 3. His omnipotence and divine power in the crea
tion of all things: " Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and
the heavens are the works of thine hands." 4. His immutability :
"Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail ;" as Hal. iii. 6. 5. His
sovereignty and dominion over all : " As a vesture shalt thou fold
them up, and they shall be changed." Let us now see what dark
ness they are able to pour forth upon this sun shining in its strength.

Q. What dost thou answer to this testimony f

A. To this testimony I answer, that it is not to be understood of Christ, but of

VOL. XII. 18

274 . VINDICLffl EVANGELIC^.

God. But because this writer refers it to the Son of God, it is to be considered
that the discourse in this testimony is expressly about not one, but two things
chiefly. The one is the creation of heaven and earth; the other, the abolishing of
created things. Now, that that author doth not refer the first unto Christ is
hence evident, because in that chapter he proposeth to himself to demonstrate the
excellency of Christ above the angels ; not that which he hath of himself, but that
which he had by inheritance, and whereby he is made better than the angels, as
is plain to any one, verse 4; of which kind of excellence seeing that the creation
of heaven and earth is not, nor can be, it appeareth manifestly that this testimony
is not urged by this writer to prove that Cbrist created heaven and earth. See
ing, therefore, the first part cannot be referred to Christ, it appeareth that the
latter only is to be referred to him, and that because by him God will abolish
heaven and earth, when by him he shall execute the last judgment, whereby the
excellency of Christ above angels shall be so conspicuous that the angels them
selves shall in that very thing serve him. And seeing this last speech could not
be understood without those former words, wherein mention is made of heaven
and earth, being joined to them by this word " they," therefore the author had a
necessity to make mention of them also; for if other holy writers do after that
manner cite the testimonies of Scripture, compelled by no necessity, much more
was this man to do it, being compelled thereunto.

Q. But where have the divine writers done this f

A. Amongst many other testimonies take Matt. xii. 18-21, where it is most ma
nifest that only verse 19 belongeth to the purpose of the evangelist, when he would
prove why Christ forbade that he should be made known. So Acts ii. 17-21,
where also verses 17^ 18, only do make to the apostle's purpose, which is to prove
that the Holy Ghost was poured forth on the disciples; and there also, verses 25-28,
where verse 27 only is to the purpose, the apostle proving only that it was im
possible that Christ should be detained of death. Lastly, in this very chapter,
verse 9, where these words, " Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity,"
are used, it is evident that they belong not to the thing which the apostle proveth,
which is that Christ was made more excellent than the angels.1

That in all this discourse there is not any thing considerable but
the horrible boldness of these men, in corrupting and perverting the
word of God, will easily to the plainest capacity be demonstrated ;
for which end I offer the ensuing animadversions : —

1. To say these things are not spoken of Christ, because they are
spoken of God, is a shameless begging of the thing in question. We
prove Christ to be God because those things are spoken of him that
are proper to God only.

* " Ad quintum quid respondes ? — Ad id testimonium id respondeo, quod non de
Christo, verum de Deo accipiendum sit. Quia vero idem scriptor illud ad Filium Dei
referat, expendendum est sermouem in testimonio, non de una re sed de duabus, potis-
simum haberi expresse. Una est co3li et terrae creatio ; altera rerum creatanun abo-
litio. Quod vero is autor priorem ad Christum non referat. bine perspicuum est, quod
in eo capite prsestantiam Christi demonstrare sibi proposuerit; non earn quam a
Beipso habeat, verum earn quam hsereditavit, et qua praestantior angelis efiectus sit,
ut e ver. 4, cuivis planum est; cujus generis praestantia, cum creatio cceli et terrse non
sit, nee esse possit, apparet manifeste non in eum finem testimonium ab eo scriptore
allatum, ut Christum creasse coelum et terrain probaret. Cum igitur prior ad Chris
tum referri nequeat, apparet posteriorem tantum ad eum referendam esse, id vero
propterea quod Deus coelum et terram per eum aboliturus sit, turn cum judicium
extremum per ipsum est executurus, quo quidem tantopere praestantia Christi prae
Angelis conspicua futura est, ut ipsi angeli sint ei ea ipsa in re ministraturi. Quse

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC.

2. It is one thing in general that is spoken of, namely, the deity
of Christ; which is proved by one testimony, from Ps. cii., concerning
one property of Christ, namely, his almighty power, manifested in
the making of all things, and disposing them in his sovereign will,
himself abiding unchangeable.

3. It is shameless impudence in these gentlemen, to take upon
them to say that this part of the apostle's testimony which he pro-
duceth is to his purpose, that not; as if they were wiser than the
Holy Ghost, and knew Paul's design better than himself.

4. The foundation of their whole evasion is most false, — namely,
that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ above angels, insisted
on by the apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to receive by
inheritance. The design of the apostle is to prove the excellency
of Christ in himself, and then in comparison of angels: and there
fore, before the mention of what he received by inheritance, he affirms
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 directly subservient.

5. Christ also hath his divine nature by inheritance, — that is, he
was eternally begotten of the essence of his Father, and is thence by
right of inheritance his Son, as the apostle proves from Ps. ii. 7.

6. Our catechists speak not according to their own principles
when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself
and what he had from inheritance, for they suppose he had nothing
but by divine grant and voluntary concession, which they make the
inheritance here spoken of; nor according to ours, who say not that
the Son, as the Son, is a seipso, or hath any thing a seipso; and so
know not what they say.

7. There is not, then, the least colour or pretence of denying this
first part of the testimony to belong to Christ. The whole is spoken
of to the same purpose, to the same person, and belongs to the same
matter in general ; and that first expression is, if not only, yet
mainly and chiefly, effectual to confirm the intendment of ther
apostle, proving directly that Christ is better and more excellent

posterior oratio, cum sine verbis superioribua, in quibus fit coeli temeque mentio, in-
telligi non potuerit, cum sit cum iis per vocem ipsi conjuncta, e't eadem ilia verba
priora idem autor commemorare necesse habuit. Nam si alii scriptores sacri ad cum
modum citant testimonial Scripturae, null§, adacti necessitate, multo magis huic, neces
sitate compulso, id faciendum fuit.

" Ubi vero scriptores sacri id fecerunt ? — Inter alia multa testimonia, babes Matt,
xii. 18-21, ubi nimis apertum est versiculum 19, tantum ad propositum evangelistsa
. Matthsei pertinere, cum id voluerit probare cur Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret.
Deinde, Act. ii. 17-21, ubi etiam tantum, ver. 17, 18, ad propositum Petri apostoli
faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum supra discipulos doceat;
et ibidem ver. 25-28, ubi palam est, versum tantum 27, ad propositum facere, quan-
doquidem id approbet apostolus, Christum a morte detinere fuisse impossible. Denique,
in hoc ipso capite, ver. 9, ubi verba hsec, Dilexisti justitiam, et odio habuisti iniquitatem,
apparet nihil pertinere ad rem quam probat apostolus, quse est, Christum prsestan-
tiorem factum angelis." .

27ft '-. VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

than the angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made heaven and
earth, they are but his creatures, — as God often compares himself
with others. In the psalm, the words respect chiefly the making of
heaven and earth; and these words are applied to our Saviour. That
the two works of making and abolishing the world should be as
signed distinctly unto two persons there is no pretence to affirm.
This boldness, indeed, is intolerable.

: 8. To abolish the world is no less a work of almighty power than
to make it, nor can it be done by any but him that made it, and
this confessedly is ascribed to Christ ; and both alike belong to the
asserting of the excellency of God above all creatures, which is here
aimed to be done.

9. The reason given why the first words, which are nothing to the
purpose, are cited with the latter, is a miserable begging of the thing
in question ; yea, the first words are chiefly and eminently to the
apostle's purpose, as hath been showed. We dare not say only; for
the Holy Ghost knew better than we what was to his purpose, though
our catechists be wiser in their own conceits than he. Neither is
there any reason imaginable why the apostle should rehearse more
words here out of the psalm than were directly to the business he
had in hand, seeing how many testimonies he cites, and some of them
very briefly, leaving them to be supplied from the places whence
they are taken.

10. That others of the holy writers do urge testimonies not to their
purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in itself, and a bold im
putation of weakness to the penmen of the Holy Ghost. The in
stances hereof given by our adversaries are not at all to the .purpose
which they are pursuing ; for, —

(1.) In no one of them is there a testimony cited whereof one
part should concern one person, and another another, as is here pre
tended ; — and without farther process this is sufficient to evince this
evasion of impertinency ; for nothing will amount to the interpreta
tion they enforce on this place but the producing of some place of
the New Testament where a testimony is cited out of the Old, speak
ing throughout of the same person, whereof the one part belongs to
him and the other not, although that which they say doth not belong
to him be most proper for the confirmation of what is affirmed of
him, and what the whole is brought in proof of.

(2.) There is not any of the places instanced in by them wherein
the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose in hand, al
though some of them are more immediately suited to the occasion
on which the whole testimony is produced, as it were easy to mani
fest by the consideration of the several places.

(3.) These words, " Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated ini
quity " are not mentioned to prove immediately the excellency of

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED,. ETC. 277

Christ above angels, but his administration of his kingdom, on which
account, among others, he is so excellent; and thereunto they are
most proper.

And this is the issue of their attempt against this testimony ; which,
being thus briefly vindicated, is sufficient alone of itself to consume
with its brightness all the opposition which, from the darkness of
hell or men, is made against the deity of Christ.

And yet we have one more to consider before this text be dis
missed. Grotius is nibbling at this testimony also. His words are :
"Again, that which is spoken of God he applies to the Messiah; be
cause it was confessed among the Hebrews that this world was cre
ated for the Messiah's sake (whence I should think that sdtpeMugaf is
rightly to be understood, 'Thou wast the cause why it was founded;'
— and, ' The heavens are the works of thy hands;' that is, ' They
were made for thee'), and that a new and better world should be
made by him." x . So he.

This is not the first time we have met with this conceit, and I
wish that it had sufficed this learned man to have framed his Old
Testament annotations to rabbinical traditions, that the New might
have escaped. But jacta est alea. 1. I say, then, that the apostle
doth not apply that to one person which was spoken of another, but
asserts the words in the psalm to be spoken of him concerning whom
he treats, and thence proves his excellency, which is the business
he hath in hand. It is not to adorn Christ with titles which were
not due to him (which to do were robbery), but to prove by testi
monies that were given of him that he is no less than he affirmed
him to be, even " God, blessed for ever." 2. Let any man in his
right wits consider this interpretation, and try whether he can per
suade himself to receive it : 'E^/isX/Wa? si) Kiipie, — " For thee, O Lord,
were the foundations of the earth laid, and the heavens are the
works of thy hands;" that is, "They were made for thee." Any
man may thus make quidlibet ex quolibet ; but whether with due
reverence to the word of God I question. 3. It is not about the
sense of the Hebrew particles that we treat (and yet the learned
man cannot give one clear instance of what he affirms), but of the
design of the Holy Ghost in the psalm and in this place of the
Hebrews, applying these words to Christ. 4. I marvel he saw not
that this interpretation doth most desperately cut its own throat,
the parts of it being at an irreconcilable difference among them
selves : for, in the first place, he says the words are spoken of God,

1 " Rursum, quod de Deo dictum fuerat Messiae aptat ; quia constabat inter Hebneos,
et Mundum liunc Messise caus& conditum (unde I0ip.i\liairas recte intelligi putem, Causa
fuisti cur fundarelur, et opus manuum tuarum; id est, propter te factum: ~t*> by Hebraeis

et Chaldaeis etiam propter significat), et fore, ut novus meliorque Mundus condatur per
ipsum."

278 VJNDICI,£ EVANGELIC^.

and applied to the Messiah, and then proves the sense of them to be
such that they cannot be spoken of God at all, but merely of the
Messiah ; for to that sense doth he labour to wrest both the Hebrew
and Greek texts. Methinks the words being spoken of God, and not
of the Messiah, but only fitted to him by the apostle, there is no
need to say that " Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth,"
is, " It was laid for thy sake •" and, " The heavens are the works
of thy hands," that is, " They were made for thee," seeing they are
properly spoken of God. This one rabbinical figment of the world's
being made for the Messiah is the engine whereby the learned man
turns about and perverts the sense of this whole chapter. In brief,
if either the plain sense of the words or the intendment of the Holy
Ghost in this place be of any account, yea, if the apostle deals
honestly and sincerely, and speaks 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 gloss is
directly contrary to the text.

And these are the testimonies given to the creation of all things
by Christ, which our catechists thought good to produce to exami
nation.

CHAPTER XII.

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

THAT Christ is that God who made all things hath been proved
by the undeniable testimonies in the last chapter insisted on. That,
as the great and wise Creator of all things, he doth also govern, rule,
and dispose of the things by him created, is another evidence of his
eternal power and Godhead, some testimonies whereof, in that order
of procedure which by our catechists is allotted unto us, come now to
be considered.

The first they propose is taken from Heb. i. 3, where the words
spoken of Christ are, <bepuv re ra, iravrtx. ru> p^a,7i r^c, dvvd/j,su$ avrov
— " Upholding all things by the word of his power."

He who " upholdeth all things by the word of his power" is God.
This is ascribed to God as his property ; and by none but by him who
is God by nature can it be performed. Now, this is said expressly
of Jesus Christ: " Who being the brightness of his Father's glory,
and the express image of his person, upholding all things by the word
of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins," etc.

This place, or the testimony therein given to the divine power of
Jesus Christ, they seek thus to elude : —

The word here, " all things," doth not, no more than in many other places, sig
nify all things universally without exception, but is referred to those things only

PROVIDENCE ASSIGNED TO CHRIST. 27$

which belong to the kingdom of Christ ; of which it may truly be said that the
Lord Jesus " beareth," that is, conserveth, " all things by the word of his power."
But that the word " all things" is in this place referred unto those things only
appeareth sufficiently from the subject-matter itself of it. Moreover, the word
which this writer useth, " to bear," doth rather signify governing or administra
tion than preservation, as these words annexed, " By the word of his power," seem
to intimate.1

This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, if any
thing may be said so to be; for, — 1. Why is rd irdvTu here " the things
of the kingdom of Christ"? It is the express description of the
person of Christ, as " the brightness of his Father's glory, and the ex
press image of his person," that the apostle is treating of, and not at
all of his kingdom as mediator. 2. It expressly answers the "worlds"
that he is said to make, verse 2 ; which are not " the things of the
kingdom of Christ," nor do our catechists plead them directly so to
be. This term, " all things," is never put absolutely for all the'
things of the kingdom of Christ. 3. The subject-matter here treated
of by the apostle is the person of Jesus Christ and the eminency
thereof. The medium whereby he proves it to be so excellent is his
almighty power in creating and sustaining of all things. Nor is
there any subject-matter intimated that should restrain these words
to the things of the kingdom of Christ 4. The word <pip uv, 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 admi
nistering," nor can our catechists give any one instance of that signi
fication there. It is properly " to bear, to carry, to sustain, 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 sense they have from that expression, " By the word of his
power," I know not. " By the word of his power" is " By his power
ful word." And that that word or command is sometimes taken for
the effectual strength and efficacy of God's dominion, put forth for the
accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not much proving.

Grotius would have the words duva^/j ai/rou to refer to the power of
the Father, " Christ upholdeth all things by the word of his Father's
power," without reason or proof, nor will the grammatical account
bear that reddition of the relative mentioned.

About that which they urge out of Jude 5 I shall not contend.
The testimony from thence relies on the authority of the Vulgar
Latin translation; which, as to me, may plead for itself.

1 " Hie verbum, omnia, non minus quam in pluribus aliis locis, non omnia in univer-
sum sine ulla exceptione designare, verum ad ea tantum quse ad Christi regnum
pertineant referri ; de quibus vere dici potest, Dominum Jesum omnia verbo virtutia
suae portare, id est, conservare. Quod vero vox, omnia, hoc loco ad ea duntaxat re-
feratur, ex ipsa materia subjecta satis apparet. Praeterea, verbum quo hie utitur
scriptor, portare, magis gubernandi vel administrandi rationem quam conservandi signi-
ficat, quemadmodum ilia quae annexa sunt, verbo virtutis WE, innuere videntur."

280 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. x. shall I insist on any
fhing, but only the 9th verse, the words whereof are, " Neither let
us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed
of serpents." The design of the apostle is known. From the ex
ample of God's dealing with the children of Israel in the wilderness
upon their sins and provocations, there being a parity of state and
condition between them and Christians as to their spiritual partici
pation of Jesus Christ, verses 1-4, he dehorts believers from the ways
and sins whereby God was provoked against them. Particularly in
this verse he insists on the tempting of Christ; for which the Lord
sent fiery serpents among them, by which they were destroyed,
Num. xxi. 6. He whom the people tempted in the wilderness, and
for which they were destroyed by serpents, was the Lord Jehovah ;
now, this doth the apostle apply to Christ : he therefore is the Lord
Jehovah. But they say, —

From those words it cannot be proved that Christ was really tempted in the
wilderness, as from the like speech, if any one should so speak, may be apprehended.
" Be not refractory to the magistrates, as some of our ancestors were." You would
not thence conclude straightway that the same singular magistrates were in both
places intended. And if the like phrases of speech are found in Scripture, in
which the like expression is referred to him whose name was expressed a little be
fore, 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 of here,
Deut. vi. 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 Num. xxi. 5.1

1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, " Do not tempt
Christ, as some of them tempted/' and, " Be not refractory against
the magistrates, as some of them were " ? " Christ " is the name of one
singular individual person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being
proper only to him. "Magistrate" is a term of office, as it was to him
that went before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him.

2. They need not to have puzzled their catechumens with their
long rule, which I shall as little need to examine, for none can be
understood here but Christ. That the word " God" should be here
understood they do not plead, nor if they had 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

1 " Ex iis verbis doceri non potest, apostolum affirmare, Christum in deserto revera
tentatum fuisse ; ut e simili oratione, siquis ita diceret, deprehendi potest. ' Ne sitis
refractarii magistratui, quemadmodum quidam majorum nostrorum fuerunt ;' non illico
concluderes eundem numero magistratum utrobique designari. Quod si reperiuntur
in Scripturis ejusmodi loquendi modi, in quibus similis oratio ad eum cujus nomen
paulo ante expressum est, sine ulla illius ejusdem repetitione referatur, turn hoc ibi
sit, ubi ullus alius prseter eum cujus expressum est nomen, subintelligi possit : ut ex-
emplum ejus rei babes in illo testimonio, Deut. vi. 16, Non tentabis Dominum Deum
tuum, quemadmodum tentasti in loco tentationis. Verum in ea oratione apostoli, de qua
agimus, potest subintelligi alius praeter Christum, ut Moses, Aaron, etc.; de quo vide
Num. xxi. 5."

PROVIDENCE ASSIGNED TO CHRIST. 281

have expressed it; nor, if it had been expressed, would the apostle's
argument have been of any force unless Christ had been God, equal
to him who was so tempted.

3. It is false that the Israelites tempted Moses or Aaron, or that
it can be said they tempted them. It is God they are everywhere
said to tempt, Ps. Ixxviii. 18, 56, cvi. 14; Heb. iii. 9. It is said, in
deed, " that they murmured against Moses, that they provoked him,
that they chode with him;" but to tempt him, — which is to require
a sign and manifestation of his divine power, — that they did not, nor
could be said to do, Num. xxi. 5.

Grotius tries his last shift in this place, and tells us, from I know
not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, "Let us not tempt Christ,"
but, "Let us not tempt God:" "Error cormnissus ex notis 0v. et
Xv." That neither the Syriac, nor the Vulgar Latin translation,
nor any copy that either Stephanus in his edition of the New Testa
ment or in his various lections had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Eras
mus' (who would have been ready enough to have laid hold of the
advantage), should in the least give occasion of any such conjecture
of an alteration, doth wholly take off, with me, all the authority
either of the manuscript or of him that affirms it from thence.1

As they please to proceed, the next place to be considered is
John xii. 41, " These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and
spake of him."

The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the apostle, mani
fest that it is the vision mentioned Isa. vi. that the apostle relates
unto. Whence we thus argue : He whose glory Isaiah saw, chap,
vi., was " the Holy, holy, holy, LORD of hosts," verse 3, " the King,
the LORD of hosts," verse 5 ; but this was Jesus Christ whose glory
Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of
John xii. 41. What say our catechists ?

First, it appears that these words are not necessarily referred to Christ, be
cause they may be understood of God the Father ; for the words a little before
are spoken of him, " He hath blinded, hardened, healed." Then, the glory that
Isaiah saw might be, nay was, not present, but future ; for it is proper to pro
phets to see things future, whence they are called " seers," 1 Sam. ix. 9. Lastly,
although these words should be understood of that glory which was then present
and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the glory of one and to see himself are far different
things. And in the glory of that one God Isaiah saw also the glory of the Lord
Christ ; for the prophet says there, " The whole earth is full of the glory of
God," verse 3. But then this was accomplished in reality when Jesus appeared
to that people, and was afterward preached to the whole world.2

1 It is now well known that tliere are manuscripts which give Kvfin instead of
y.fifr'oi, and one or two which sanction &ti>\> as the reading. Xpurron is retained by
Tiscbendorf, as having a great preponderance of evidence in its favour. — ED.

2 " Primum, ea verba ad Christum non necessario referri hinc apparet, quod de Deo
Fatre accipi possint ; etenim verba paulo superiora de eodem dicuntur, exccccavit,
induravit, sanavit. Deinde, gloriam quam Esaias vidit poterat esse, imo erat, non
praesens, sed futura ; etenim proprium est vatibus futura videre, undo etiarn videntes

282 VINDICLE EVANGELIC M.

It is most evident that these men know not what to say nor what
to stick to in their interpretation of this place. This makes them
heap up so many several suggestions, contradictory one to another,
crying that " It may be thus," or " It may be thus." But, — 1 . That
these words cannot be referred 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 account is given of what was
spoken verse 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 other words of
" blinding" and " hardening" are evidently alleged to give an account
of the reason of the Jews' obstinacy in their unbelief, not relating
immediately to the person spoken of. The subject-matter treated of
is Christ. The occasion of mentioning this testimony is Christ.
Of him here are the words spoken. 2. The glory Isaiah saw was
present ; all the circumstances of the vision evince no less. He tells
you the time, place, and circumstances of it; — when he saw the sera-
phims ; when he heard their voice ; when the posts of the door moved
at the voice of him that cried ; when the house was filled with glory;
and when he himself was so terrified that he cried out, " Woe is me,
for I am undone ! " If any thing in the world be certain, it is cer
tain that he saw that glory present. 3. He did not only see his
glory, but he saw him ; or he so saw his glory as that he saw him,
so as he may be seen. So the prophet says expressly, " I have seen
the King, the LORD of hosts." And what the prophet says of seeing
the Lord of hosts, the apostle expresses by seeing "his glory;" because
he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious representa
tion of his presence. 4. He did, indeed, see the glory of the Lord
Christ in seeing the glory of the one God, he being the true God of
Israel; and on no other account is his glory seen than by seeing the
glory of the one true God. 5. The prophet doth not say that " the
earth was full of the glory of God," but it is the proclamation that
the seraphims made one to another concerning that God whose pre
sence was then there manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared
to the people of the Jews, there was no great manifestation of glory.
The earth was always full of the glory of God. And if those words
have any peculiar relation to the glory of the gospel, yet withal they
prove that he was then present whose glory in the gospel was after
ward to fill the earth.

Grotius hath not aught to add to what was before insisted on by

appellati fuere, 1 Sam. ix. 9. Denique, etiamsi de gloria ea quse turn praesens erat,
Esaiae visa, haec verba accipias, longe tamen aliud est gloriam alicujus videre, et aliud
ipsummet videre. Et in gloria illius unius Dei vidit etiam Esaias gloriam Christi
Domini. Ait enim ibidem vates, Plena est terra gloria Dei, Esa. vi. 3. Turn autem hoc
reipsa factum est, cum Jesus Christus illi populo primum apparuit, et post toti mundo
amiunciutus est."

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 283

his friends. A representation he would have this to be of God's deal
ing in the gospel, Avhen it is plainly his proceeding in the rejection
of the Jews for their incredulity, and tells you, " Dicitur Esaias
vidisse gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus diem ejus;" — " Isaiah saw
his glory, as Abraham saw his day/' Well aimed, however! Abra
ham saw his day by faith ; Isaiah saw his glory in a vision. Abra
ham saw his day as future, and rejoiced ; Isaiah so saw his glory as
God present that he trembled. Abraham saw the day of Christ all
the days of his believing ; Isaiah saw his glory only in the year that
king Uzziah died. Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise
of his coming ; Isaiah saw his glory with the circumstances before
mentioned. Even such let all undertakings appear to be that are
against the eternal deity of Jesus Christ!

In his annotations on the 6th of Isaiah, where the vision insisted on
is expressed, he takes no notice at all of Jesus Christ or the second
person of the Trinity ; nor (which is very strange) doth he so much
as once intimate that what is here spoken is applied by the Holy
Ghost unto Christ in the gospel, nor once name the chapter where
it is done ! With what mind and intention the business is thus car
ried on God knows; I know not.

CHAPTER XIII.

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

THE testimonies of Scripture which affirm Christ to have been
incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably proves his pre-
existence in another nature to his so doing, they labour, in their next
attempt, to corrupt, and so to evade the force and efficacy which
from them appeareth so destructive to their cause ; and herein they
thus proceed : —

Ques. From what testimonies of Scripture do they endeavour to demonstrate
that Christ was, as they speak, incarnate?

Ans. From these, John i. 14; Phil. ii. 6, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ii. 16;
1 John iv. 2, 3 ; Heb. x. 6.1

Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the handling of the
beginning of that chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it from all their
exceptions ; so that we may proceed immediately to the second.

Q. What dost thou answer to the second?

A. Neither is that here contained which the adverse party would prove : for
it is one thing which the apostle saith, " Being in the form of God, he took the

1 "E quibus testimoniis Scripturse demonstrate conantur Christum (ut loquuntur)
incarnatum esse ? — Ex iis ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur, Verbum caro fac-
tum est, Johan. i. 14; Et qui (Christus) cumesset in forma Dei, etc.; Phil. ii. 6, 7; 1 Tim.
iii. 16; Heb. ii. 16; 1 Johan. iv. 2, 3 ; Heb. x. 5.".

234 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

form of a servant;" another, that the divine nature assumed the human; for the
"form of God" cannot here denote the divine nature, seeing the apostle writes that
Christ exinanivit, — made that form of no reputation, but God can no way make his
nature of no reputation; neither doth the " form of a servant" denote human nature,
seeing to.be a servant is referred to the fortune and condition of a man. Neither
is that also to be forgotten, that the writings of the New Testament do once only,
it may be, use that word "form" elsewhere, namely, Mark xvi. 12, and that in
that sense wherein it signifies not nature, but the outward appearance, saying,
" Jesus appeared in another form unto two of his disciples."

Q. But from those words which the apostle afterward adds, " He was found
in fashion as a man" doth it not appear that he was, as they say, incarnate f

A. By no means ; for that expression contains nothing of Christ's nature : for
of Samson we read that he should be "as a man," Judges xvi. 7, 11; and, Ps.
Ixxxii., Asaph denounced to those whom he called " sons of the Most High," that
they " should die like men ;" — of whom it is certain that it cannot be said of them
that they were, as they speak, incarnate.

Q. How dost thou understand this place f

A. On this manner, that Christ, who in the world did the works of God,
to whom all yielded obedience as to God, and to whom divine adoration was
given, — God so willing, and the salvation of men requiring it, — was made as a
servant and a vassal, and as one of the vulgar, when he had of his own accord per
mitted himself to be taken, bound, beaten, and slain. l

Thus they. Now, because it is most certain 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 legs of this witness, we must seek out the other
parts of it and lay them together before we may proceed to remove
this heap out of our way. Our argument from this place is not
solely from hence, that he is said to be " in the form of God," but
also that he was so in the form of God as to be " equal with him," as
is here expressed ; nor merely that " he, took upon him the form of a
servant," but that he took it upon him when he was " made in the
likeness of men," or " in the likeness of sinful flesh," as the apostle

1 " Ad secundum quid respondes ? — Ncque hie extare quod adversa pars confectum
velit. Aliud enim est quod hie apostolus ait, Cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi
assumpsit; aliud vero natura divina assumpsit humanam, Etenim hie forma Dei de-
signare non potest Dei naturam, cum apostolus scribat earn formam Christum exin-
anivisse. Deus vero naturam suam nullo modo exinanire potest ; nee vero forma
servi denotat naturam humanam, cum servum esse ad fortunam et conditionem hominis
referatur. At ne id quoque dissimulandum est, scripta Novi Testamenuti hanc vocem
forma semel fortassis tantum alibi usurpare, Marc. xvi. 12, idque eo sensu quo non
naturam, sed exteriorem speciem significat, cum ait, Jesum duobus discipulis suis appa-
ruisse in alia forma.

" Ex iis vero verbis, quae apostolus paulo post subjecit, Habitu invenfus est id homo,
nonne apparet eum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse ? — Nullo modo ; etenim ea oratio
nihil in se habet ejusmodi. De Samsone enim in literis sacris legimus, quod idem
futurus erat ut homo, Judic. xvi. 7, 11 ; et Ps. Ixxxii., Asaph iis hominibus quos deos
et filios Altissimi vocaverat, denunciat, quod essent morituri ut homines; de quibus
certum est non posse dici eos (ut adversarii dicunt) incarnates fuisse.

" Qua ratione locum mine totum intelligis ? — Ad eum modum, quod Christus, qui
in mundo, instar Dei, opera Dei efficiebat, et cui, sicut Deo, omnia parebant, et cui divina
adoratio exhibebatur, — ita volente Deo, et hominum salute exigente, — factus est tan-
quam servus et mancipium, et tanquam unus ex aliis vulgaribus hominibus, cum ultro
Be capi, vinciri, caedi, et occidi permiserat."

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 285

expresses it, Rom. viii. 3. Now, these things our catechists thought
good to take no notice of in this place, nor of one of them any more
in any other. But seeing the very head of our argument lies in this,
that " in the form of God" he is said to be " equal with God," and
that expression is in another place taken notice of by them, I must
needs gather it into its own contexture before I do proceed. Thus,
then, they: —

Q. How dost thou answer to those places where Christ is said to be equal to
God, John v. 18, Phil ii. 6?

A. That Christ is equal to God doth no way prove that there is in him a divine
nature. Yea, the contrary is gathered from hence ; for if Christ be equal to
God, who is God by nature, it follows that he cannot be the same God. But the
equality of Christ with God lies herein, that, by that virtue that God bestowed on
him, he did and doth all those things which are God's, as God himself.1

This being the whole of what they tender to extricate themselves
from the chains which this witness 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 intendrnent and design of the apostle in this place being evi
dently to exhort believers to self-denial, mutual love, and condescen
sion one to another, he proposes to them the example of Jesus Christ;
and lets them know that he, being " in the form of God," and " equal
with God" therein (l-ffdp^uv, existing in that form, having both the
nature and glory of God), did yet, in his love to us, "make himself of
no reputation," or lay aside and eclipse his glory, in this, that " he
took upon him the form of a servant," being made man, that in
that form and nature he might be " obedient unto death" for us and
in our behalf. Hence we thus plead : —

He that was " in the form of God," and "equal with God," exist
ing therein, and " took on him the" nature and " form of a servant,"
he is God by nature, and was incarnate or made flesh in the sense be
fore spoken of; now all this is affirmed of Jesus Christ : ergo.

1. To this they say (that we may consider that first which is first
in the text), " That his being equal to God doth not prove him to be
God by nature, but the contrary," etc., as above. But, — (1.) If none
is, nor can be, by the testimony of God himself, like God, or equal to
him, who is not God by nature, then he that is equal to him is so. But,
"To whom will ye liken me? or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things,"
Isa. xl. 25, 26. None that hath not created all things of nothing can
be equal to him. And, "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal,

' * " Qui porro ad ea loca respondes, etc. ? — Quod Christus sit sequalis Deo, id divinam in
eo naturam nullo modo probat : imo hinc res adversa colligitur ; nam si Christus Deo,
qui natura Deus est, tequalis est, efficitur, quod is idem Deus esse non possit. .<Equa-
litas vero Christ! cum Deo in eo est, quod ea virtute quam in cum contulit Deus, ea
oinnia efficeret, et efficiat, quse ipsius Dei sunt, tanquam Deus ipse.

286 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

and compare me, that we maybe like?" chap. xlvi. 5. (2.) Between
that which is finite and that which is infinite, that which is eternal
and that which is temporal, the creature and the Creator, God by
nature and him who by nature is not God, it is utterly impossible
there should be any equality. (3.) God having so often avouched
his infinite distance from all creatures, his refusal to give his glory
to any of them, his inequality with them all, it must have been the
highest robbery that ever any could be guilty of, for Christ to make
himself equal to God if he were not God. (4.) The apostle's argu
ment arises from hence, that he was equal to God before he took on
him the form of a servant ; which was before his working of those
mighty works wherein these gentlemen assert him to be equal to God.

2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousness of their begging
the thing in question, when they would argue that because he was
equal to God he was not God. He was the same God in nature and
essence, and therein equal to him to whom he was in subordination as
the Son, and in office a servant, as undertaking the work of mediation.

3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality be
tween Christ and God in the works he wrought; for, — (1.) God doth
the works in his own name and authority, Christ in God's. (2.) God
doth them by his own power, Christ by God's. (3.) God doth them
himself, Christ not, but God in him, as another from him. (4.) He
doth not do them as God, however that expression be taken : for, ac
cording to these men, he wrought them neither in his own name,
nor by his own power, nor for his own glory ; all which he must do
who doth things as God.

He is said to be " equal with God," not as he did such and such
works, but as If poppfi ©fou virdpxuv, — being in the form of God ante
cedently to the taking in hand of that form wherein he wrought the
works intimated.

To work great works by the power of God argues no equality
with him, or else all the prophets and apostles that wrought miracles
were also equal to God. The infinite inequality of nature between the'
Creator and the most glorious creature will not allow that it be said,
on any account, to be equal to him. Nor is it said that Christ was
equal to God in respect of the works he did, but, absolutely, " He
thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

And so is their last plea to the first part of our argument ac
counted for: come we to what they begin withal.

]. We contend not, as hath been often said, about words and ex
pressions. (1.) That the divine nature assumed the human we thus far
abide by, that the Word, the Son of God, took to himself, into per
sonal subsistence with him, a human nature ; whence they are both
one person, one Christ. And this is here punctually affirmed, namely,
he that was and is God took upon him the form of a man. (2.) The

OP THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 287

apostle doth not say that Christ made that form of no reputation, or
Christ ixivuts that form; but Christ, being in that form, sauTov sxsvute,
"made himself of no reputation," not by any real change of his divine
nature, but by taking to himself the human, wherein he was of no repu
tation, it being he that was so, in the nature and by the dispensation
wherein he was so. And it being not possible that the divine nature
of itself, in itself, should be humbled, yet he was humbled who was
in the form of God, though the form of God was not.

2. It is from his being " equal with God," " in the form of God,"
whereby we prove that his being in the form of God doth denote his
divine nature ; but of this our catechists had no mind to take notice.

3. The " form of a servant" is that which he took when he was
made ev o^o/w/x-ar/ avdpuKuv, as Adam begat a son in his own likeness.
(1.) Now, this was not only in condition a servant, but in reality a
man. (2.) The form of a servant was that wherein he underwent death,
the death of the cross ; but he died as a man, and not only in the ap
pearance of a servant. (3.) The very phrase of expression manifests
the human nature of Christ to be deno'ted hereby: only, as the apostle
had not before said directly that he was God, but " in the form of
God," expressing both his nature and his glory, so here he doth not
say he was a man, but in the "form of a servant," expressing both his
nature and his condition, wherein he was the servant of the Father.
Of him it is said ev poppfj Qeou vvdp^uv, but fioppqv SovXov Xa£wv, — he
was in the other, but this he took. (4.) To be a servant denotes the
state or condition of a man ; but for one who was " in the form of
God, " and "equal with him," to be made in the " form of a servant,"
and to be " found as a man," and to be in that form put to death,
denotes, in the first place, a taking of that nature wherein alone he
could be a servant. And this answers also to other expressions, of
the " Word being made flesh," and " God sending forth his Son,
made of a woman." (5.) This is manifest from the expression,
Saucer/ svptQeis uf avdpuirof, — " He was found in fashion as a man ;"
that is, he was truly so : which is exegetical of what was spoken be
fore, " He took on him the form of a servant."

But they say, " This is of no importance, for the same is said of
Samson, Judges xvi. 7, 11, and of others, PA Ixxxii., who yet we do
not say were incarnate."

These gentlemen are still like themselves. Of Christ it is said
that he humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a servant
and was found in likeness as a man ; of Samson, that being stronger
than a hundred men, if he were dealt so and so withal, he would " be
come as other men," for so the words expressly are, — no stronger than
another man. And these places are parallel ! Much good may these
parallels do your catechumens ! And so of those in the psalm, that
though in this world they are high in power for a season, yet they

288 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

should die as other men do. Hence, in a way of triumph and
merriment, they ask if these were incarnate, and answer themselves
that surely we will not say so. True, he who being as strong as
many becomes by any means to be as one, and they who live in
power but die in weakness as other men do, are not said to be in
carnate ; but he who, " being God, took on him the form of a ser
vant, and was in this world a very man," may (by our new masters'
leave) be said to be so.

[As] for the sense which they give us of this place (for they are
bold to venture at it), it hath been in part spoken to already. 1. Christ
was in the world, as to outward appearance, no way instar Dei, but
rather, as he says of himself, instar vermis. That he did the works
of God, and was worshipped as God, was because he was God ; nor
could any but God either do the one, as he did them, or admit of
the other. 2. This is the exposition given us : " ' Christ was in the
form of God, counting it no robbery to be equal to him;' that is,
whilst he was here in the world, in the form of a servant, he did the
works of God, and was worshipped." 3. Christ was in the form of
a servant from his first coming into the world, and as one of the
people ; therefore he was not made so by any thing afterward. His
being bound, and beat, and killed, is not his being made a servant ; for
that by the apostle is afterward expressed, when he tells us why, or
for what end (not how or wherein), he was made a servant, namely,
" He became obedient to death, the death of the cross."

And this may suffice for the taking out of our way all that is
excepted against this testimony by our catechists ; but because the
text is of great importance, and of itself sufficient to evince the
sacred truth we plead for, some farther observations for the illustra
tion of it may be added.

, The sense they intend to give us of these words is plainly this,
" That Christ, by doing miracles in the world, appeared to be as God,
or as a God ; but he laid aside this form of God, and took upon him
the form of a servant, when he suffered himself to be taken, bound,
and crucified. He began to be," they say, "in the form of God,
when, after his baptism, he undertook the work of his public ministry,
and wrought mighty works in the world ; which form he ceased ta
be in when he was taken in the garden, and exposed as a servant to
all manner of reproach."

That there is not any thing in this whole exposition answering the
mind of the Holy Ghost is evident, as from what was said before,
so also, 1. Because it is said of Christ, that ev poppf! ®io\J Ivdp^uv^
he was " in the form of God," before he " took the form of a ser-<
vant." And yet the taking of the form of a servant in this place doth
evidently answer his being "made flesh," John i. 14 ; his being
made " in the likeness of sinful flesh," Rom. viii. 3 ; his coming or

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 289

being sent into the world, Matt. x. 40, xx. 28; John iii. 16, 17, etc.
2. Christ was still in the form of God, as taken essentially, even
then when he was a servant ; though, as to the dispensation he had
submitted to, he emptied himself of the glory of it, and was not
known to be the " Lord of glory," 2 Cor. viii. 9. 3. Even all the
while that they say he was in the form of God, he was in the form
of a servant ; that is, he was really the servant of the Father, and was
dealt withal in the world as a servant, under all manner of reproach,
revilings, and persecutions. He was not more in the form of a ser
vant when he was bound than when he had not where to lay his
head. 4. The state and condition of a servant consists in this, that
he is 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. ii. 6, 7 ; of Ochinus and Lselius Socinus, by Zanchius in locum,
et de Tribus Elohim, p. 227, etc. ; of Faustus Socinus, by Beckman,
Exercitat. p. 168, et Johan. Jun. Examen Kespou. Socin. pp. 201, 202 ;
of Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul, ad Phil. cap. ii. ; of
Ostorodius, by Jacobus a Porta, Fidei Orthodox. Defens. pp. 89, 150,
etc. That which I shall farther add is in reference to Grotius,
whose Annotations may be one day considered by some of more
time and leisure for so necessary a work.

Thus then he : nOs h poppy ®to\J vvdp^uv. " Moppq in nostris libris
non significat internum et occultum aliquid, sed id quod in oculos
incurrit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sanandi morbos omnes,
ejiciendi dsemonas, excitandi mortuos, mutandi rerum naturas, quse
vere divina sunt ; ita ut Moses, qui tarn magna non fecit, dictus ob
id fuerit deus Pharaonis. Vocem (topffis quo dixi sensu habes, Marc,
xvi. 12, Esa xliv. 13, ubi in HebraBo"^^; Dan. iv. 33, v. 6, 10,
vii. 28, ubi in Chaldaso 1\T; Job. iv. 16, ubi in Hebrseo ru«Dri;"__
" Moppq in our books doth not signify an internal or hidden thing,
but that which is visibly discerned, such as was that eminent power
in Christ of healing all diseases, casting out of devils, raising the
dead, changing the nature of things, which are truly divine ; so that
Moses, who did not so great things, was therefore called the god
of Pharaoh. The word (J*op<pf), in the sense spoken of, you have
Mark xvi. 12, Isa. xliv. 13, where in the Hebrew it is n^Iiri; Dan.
iv. 33, etc., where in the Chaldee it is Y7; Job iv. 16, where in the
"Hebrew it is ruttMji."

Ans. 1. A form is either substantial or accidental, — that which is
indeed, or that which appears. That it is the substantial form of
God which is here intended, yet with respect to the glorious mani
festation of it (which may be also as the accidental form), hath been

VOL. XII. 19

290 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

formerly declared and proved. So far it signifies that which is in
ternal and hidden, or not visibly discerned, inasmuch as the essence
of God is invisible. The proofs of this I shall not now repeat.
2. Christ's power of working miracles was not visible, though the
miracles he wrought were visible, insomuch that it was the great
question between him and the Jews by what power he wrought his
miracles; for they still pleaded that he cast out devils by Beelzebub,
the prince of the devils. So that if the power of doing the things
mentioned were pop <pfi Qsov, that form was not visible and exposed to
the sight of men ; for it was "aliquid internum et occultum," — a thing
internal and hidden. 3. If to be " in the form of God," and there
upon to be "equal with him," be to have power or authority of healing
diseases, casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like, then the
apostles were in the form of God, and equal to God, having power
and authority given them for all these things, which they wrought
accordingly, casting out devils, healing the diseased, raising the
dead, etc. ; which whether it be not blasphemy to affirm the reader
may judge. 4. It is true, God says of Moses, Exod. vii. 1, " I have
made thee a god to Pharaoh;" which is expounded chap. iv. 16, where
God tells him that " Aaron should be to him instead of a mouth, and
he should be to him instead of God;" that is, Aaron should speak
and deliver to Pharaoh and the people what God revealed to Moses,
Moses revealing it to Aaron, — Aaron receiving his message from
Moses as other prophets did from God ; whence he is said to be to
him "instead of God." And this is given as the reason of that expres
sion, chap. vii. 1, of his being '•' a god to Pharaoh," even as our Saviour
speaks, because the word of God came by him, because he should re
veal the will of God to him : " Thou shalt be a god to Pharaoh : and
Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that
I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh."
He is not upon the account of his working miracles called God, or
said to be in the form of God, or to be made equal to God ; but re
vealing the will of God to Aaron, who spake it to Pharaoh, he is
said to be " a god to Pharaoh," or " instead of God," as to that
business. 5. It is truth, the word poppy, or " form," is used, Mark
xvi. 12, for the outward appearance ; and it is as true the verb of the
same signification is used for the internal and invisible form of a
thing, Gal. iv. Id, "A^pig o5 poptpudfj Xpiffrb$ ev Ipti, " Until Christ be
formed in you." So that the very first observation of our annotator,
that " in our books" (that is, the Scriptures, for in other authors it is
acknowledged that this word signifies the internal form of a thingf)

o o o/

" this word poppy signifies not any thing internal or hidden," is true
only of that one place, Mark xvi. 12. In this it is otherwise, and
the verb of the same signification is evidently otherwise used. And,
which may be added, other words that bear the same ambiguity of

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 291

signification, as to things substantial or accidental, being applied to
Christ, do still signify the former, not the latter, yea, where they
expressly answer what is here spoken, as eJxuv, Col. i. 15, and
•jvoaraffts, Heb. i. 3 ; both of the same import with poppy here, save
that the latter adds personality. 6. As for the words mentioned out
of the Old Testament, they are used in businesses quite of another
nature, and are restrained in their signification by the matter they
speak of. JT'Jari is not poppy properly, but eixuv, and is translated
" imago" by Arias Montanus. "^h is rather poppy, Gen. xxix. 1 7,
1 Sam. xxviii. 14. n^DJji is used ten times in the Bible, and hath
various significations, and is variously rendered : opolupa, Deut. iv. 1 5 ;
y\virrl>v opoiupa, verse 1 6 ; so most commonly. VT in Daniel is
" splendor," fi&ga, not poppy. And what all this is to the purpose in
hand I know not. The " form of God," wherein Christ was, is that
wherein he was " equal with God," — that which, as to the divine na
ture, is the same as his being in the " form of a servant," wherein he
was obedient to death, was to the human. And, which is sufficiently
destructive of this whole exposition, Christ was then in the " form of
a servant," when this learned man would have him to be " in the
form of God;" which two are opposed in this place, for he was the
servant of the Father in the whole course of the work which he
wrought here below, Isa. xlii. 1.

He proceeds on this foundation : Ou^ apiraypov yyyffaro rb sTvai Ida.
Qsifj. "'Apxaypov r,yt7<5&ai est locutio Syriaca. In Liturgia Syriaca,
Johannes Baptista Christo baptismum ab ipso expetenti, dicit, * non
assumam rapinam.' Solent qui aliquid bellica virtute peperere, id
omnibus ostentare, ut Romani in triumpho facere solebant. Non
multb aliter Plutarchus in Timoleonte: Qu% &f vayw yyyaaTo. Sensus
est: Non venditavit Christus, nonjactavit istam potestatem; quin
ssepe etiam imperavit ne quod fecerat vulgaretur. rlaa hie est ad-
verbium ; sic Odyss. O : Tbv vuv 7<fa ®tto, etc. 'iffoOeu ppovsTv, dixit
scriptor, 2 Mace. ix. 12. E7ra/ 7<ra 0£j5 est spectari tanquam Deum."
The sum of all is, " He thought it no robbery," that is, he boasted
not of his power, "to be equal to God, so to be looked on as a God/'

The words, I confess, are not without their difficulty. Many in
terpretations are given of them ; and I may say, that of the very many
which I have considered, this of all others, as being wrested to
countenance a false hypothesis, is the worst. To insist particularly
on the opening of the words is not my present task. That Grotius
is beside the sense of them may be easily manifested ; for, — 1. He
brings nothing to enforce this interpretation. That the expression is
Syriac in the idiom of it he abides not by, giving us an instance of the
same phrase or expression out of Plutarch, who knew the propriety of
the Greek tongue very well, but of the Syriac not at all. Others also
give a parallel expression out of Thucydides, lib. vhi., "Sxsvr, dpr

292 VIXDICLE EVANGELIdfc.

2. I grant 7tfa may be used adverbially, and be rendered
"sequaliter ;" but now the words are to be interpreted "pro subjecta
materia." He who was in the form of God, and counted it no robbery
(that is, did not esteem it to be any wrong, on that account of his
being in the form of God) to be equal to his Father, did yet so sub
mit himself as is described. This being " equal with God" is spoken
of Christ accidentally to his " taking on him the form of a servant,"
which he did in his incarnation, and must relate to his being " in the
form of God ; " and if thereunto it be added that the intendment
reaches to the declaration he made of himself, when he declared
himself to be equal to God the Father, and one with him as to
nature and essence, it may complete the sense of this place.

'AXX' eavrbv sxivuee he renders " libenter duxit vitam inopem," re-
ferring it to the poverty of Christ whilst he conversed here in the
world. But whatever be intended by this expression, 1. It is not the
same with pop^v douXou AaCwn, which Grotius afterward interprets to
the same purpose with what he says here of these words. 2. It must
be something antecedent to his " taking the form of a servant;" or
rather, something that he did, or became exceptively to what he was
before, in becoming a servant. He was " in the form of God," dXX'
saurov sxsvuffi, but "he humbled," or "bowed down himself," in
" taking the form of a servant ;" that is, he condescended thereunto,
in his great love that he bare to us, the demonstration whereof the
apostle insists expressly upon. And what greater demonstration of
love, or condescension upon the account of love, could possibly be
given, than for him who was God, equal to his Father, in the same
Deity, to lay aside the manifestation of his glory, and to take upon
him our nature, therein to be a servant unto death ?

He proceeds: Mopp qv flouXou Xa£wv. "Similisfactus servis, qui nihil
proprium possident;" — "He was made like unto servants, who possess
nothing of their own." Our catechists, with their great master,
refer 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 sense of
these words is that place of Matt. viii. 20 better accommodated than
to the clause foregoing, for whose exposition it is produced by our
annotator.

But, — 1. It is most certain that the exposition of Grotius will not,
being laid together, be at any tolerable agreement with itself, if we
allow any order of process to be in these words of the apostle. His
aim is acknowledged to be an exhortation to brotherly love, and
mutual condescension in the same, from the example of Jesus Christ ;
for he tells you that " he, being in the form of God, made himself
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant." Now,
if this be not the gradation of the apostle, that being " in the form
of God," free from any thing of that which follows, he then debased

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 293

and humbled himself, and " took upon him the form of a servant/'
there is not any form of plea left from this example here proposed
to the end aimed at. But now, says Grotius, " his being in the form
of God was his working of miracles; his debasing himself, his being
poor, his taking the form of a servant, possessing nothing of his own."
But it is evident that there was a coincidence of time as to these
things, and so no gradation in the words at all ; for then when
Christ wrought miracles, he was so poor and possessed nothing of his
own, that there was no condescension nor relinquishment of one con
dition for another discernible therein. 2. The " form of a servant"
that Christ took was that wherein he was like man, as it is ex
pounded in the words next following: he was "made in the likeness
of men." And what that is the same apostle informs us, Heb. ii. 1 7>
*Odev utpeihs KKTO. -rdi/ra rot's adeX<po?g oftoiudqvw, — " Wherefore he ought
in all things to be made like his brethren:" that is, ev opoiupart
avdpuiruv yevopevos, he was " made in the likeness of men ; " or, as it
is expressed Rom. viii. 3, ev opoiupart aapxtg, " in the likeness of
flesh;" which also is expounded, GaL iv. 4, ysvopwos ex ywuixos, "made
of a woman ;" — which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of
that, John i. 14, 'O Aoyos tap% ey'evero, "The Word was made flesh."
3. The employment of Christ in that likeness of man is confessedly
expressed in these words ; not his condition, that he had nothing,
but his employment, that he was the servant of the Father, accord
ing as it was foretold that he should be, Isa. xlii. 1, 19, and which
he everywhere professed himself to be. He goes on, —

'Ev ofioiupan avdpuvuv yevoftevos. "Cum similis esset hominibus, illis
nempe primis, id est, peccati expers," 2 Cor. v. 21; — "Whereas he
was like men, namely, those first ; that is, without sin."

That Christ was without sin, that in his being made like to us there
is an exception as to sin, is readily granted. He was Snog, cixaxos,
upicivros MxupifffAtvos o.vl ruv apapru'kuv, Heb. vii. 26. But, — 1. That
Christ is ever said to be made like Adam on that account, or is
compared with him therein, cannot be proved. He was devrepoc,
avdpuvos and sg^aros ' Addfj,, but that he was made ev o^o/w^ar; row
'Addp is not said. 2. This expression was sufficiently cleared by the
particular places formerly urged. It is not of his sinlessness 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 like
ness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, that these words are used. It is
a likeness of nature to all men, and not a likeness of innocency to
the first, that the apostle speaks of ; a likeness, wherein there is a
raurorqs, as to the kind, a distinction in number, as, "Adam begat a
son in his own likeness," Gen. v. 3.

All that follows in the learned annotator is only an endeavour to
make the following words speak in some harmony and conformity

294 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

to what he had before delivered; which being discerned not to be
suited to the mind of the Holy Ghost in the place, I have no such
delight to contend about words, phrases, and expressions, as to insist
any farther upon them. Return we to our catechists.

The place they next propose to themselves to deal withal is 1 Tim.
iii. 16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness :
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
revealed unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory."

If it be here evinced that by "God" is meant Christ, it being spoken
absolutely, and in the place of the subject in the proposition, this
business is at a present close, and our adversaries' following attempt
to ward themselves from the following blows of the sword of the
word, which cut them in pieces, is to no purpose, seeing their death's
wound lies evident in the efficacy of this place. Now, here not only
the common apprehension of all professors of the name of Christ in
general, but also the common sense of mankind, to be tried in all
that will but read the books of the New Testament, might righte
ously be appealed unto; but because these are things of no import
ance with them with whom we have to do, we must insist on other
considerations: —

First, then, That by the word Osog, "God," some person is intended,
is evident from hence, that the word is never used but to express some
person, nor can in any place of the Scriptures be possibly wrested to
denote any thing but some person to whom that name doth belong
or is ascribed, truly or falsely. And if this be not certain and to be
granted, there is nothing so, nor do we know any thing in the world
or the intendment of any one word in the book of God. Nor is
there any reason pretended why it should have any other acceptation,
but only an impotent begging of the thing in question. " It is not so
here, though it be so everywhere else ; because it agrees not with our
hypothesis." Arjpoi ! Secondly, That Christ, who is the second person
[of the Trinity], the Son of God, is here intended, and none else, is evi
dent from hence, that whatever is here spoken of Qsog, of this "God,"
was true and fulfilled in him as to the matter ; and the same expres
sions, for the most of the particulars, as to their substance, are used con
cerning him and no other; neither are they possible to be accommo
dated to any person but him. Let us a little accommodate the words
to him : 1. He who as "God" was " in the beginning with God," in his
own nature invisible, sipavipudri sv ffapxi, " was manifested in the flesh,"
when 0ap% eyevsro, when he was " made flesh," John i. 14, and made
ev opoiu/j,a.n eapKog, Rom. viii. 3, " in the likeness of flesh," ysvopsvcx;
sx <tvepfj,aTo<; AaC/5 xara ffdpxa, chap. i. 3 ; so made " visible and con
spicuous," or spavtpuQq, when eg^vuffiv sv r\i^iv, " dwelling among men;
who also saw his glory, as the glory of the only-begotten of the

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 295

Father/' John i. 14. Being thus "manifest in the flesh/' having taken
our nature on him, he was reviled, persecuted, condemned, slain, by
the Jews, as a malefactor, a seditious person, — an impostor. But,
2. 'Edixaiufy sv Hvtv/tan, he was "justified in the Spirit" from all their
false accusations and imputations. He was justified by the eternal
Spirit, Avhen he was raised from the dead, and " declared to be the
Son of God with power" thereby, Rom. i. 4; for though he was
" crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God,"
2 Cor. xiii. 4. So he also sent out his Spirit to " convince the world
of sin, because they believed not on him, and of righteousness, be
cause he went to his Father," John xvi. 8-10; which he also did,
justifying himself thereby to the conviction and conversion of many
thousands who before condemned him or consented to his condem
nation, upon the account formerly mentioned, Acts ii. 47. And this
is he who, 3. u<p 6y dyysXois, 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 charge to worship him, by Him who
said, Upoffxvvqffaruffav avrfi wuvreg uyyiKoi auroD, Heb. i. 6, one came
down at his nativity to declare it, to whom he was seen, and in
stantly a multitude of the heavenly host saw him, Luke ii. 9-14,
and afterward went away into heaven, verse 15. In the beginning
also of his ministry, angels were sent to him in the wilderness, to
minister to him, Matt. iv. 11; and when he was going to his agony
in the garden, an angel was sent to comfort him, Luke xxii. 43,
and he then knew that he could at a word's speaking have more
than twelve legions of angels to his assistance, Matt. xxvi. 53 ; and
when he rose again the angels saw him again, and served him therein,
chap, xxviii. 2. And as he shall come again with his holy angels
to judgment, Matt. xxv. 31, 2 Thess. i. 7, so no doubt but in his
ascension the angels accompanied him ; yea, that they did so is evi
dent from Ps. Ixviii. 17, 18. So that there was no eminent concern
ment of him wherein it is not expressly affirmed that &<p8ri ayysXois.
At his birth, entrance on his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension,
&<p8r) dyysXof?. 4. 'Exjjpu;^ ev tdvtffiv, He was " preached unto the
Gentiles," or among the people or Gentiles ; which, besides the fol
lowing accomplishment of it to the full in the preaching of the gos
pel concerning him throughout the world, had a signal entrance
in that declaration of him to " devout men dwelling at Jerusalem,
out of every nation under heaven," Acts ii. 5. And hereupon,
5. 'E-r/ffTfL/^ ev xoa/i^, He was " believed on in the world." He that
had been rejected as a vile person, condemned and slain, being thus
justified in the Spirit and preached, was believed on, many thousands
being daily converted to the faith of him, — to believe that he was
the Messiah, the Son of God, — whom before they received not, John
;i 10, 11. And, for his own part, 6. uvthqipdr) Iv dogy, he was "received

296 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

up into glory ;" the story whereof we have, Acts i. 9-11, "When he
had spoken to his disciples, he was taken up, and a cloud received
him:" of which Luke says briefly, as Paul here, avehtjpOii, Acts
i 2 ; as Mark also doth, chap. xvi. 19, avt\qtpQi) sl( TOV ovpavov, — that
is, ave\Ji<p6ri sv 86%y, "he was taken up into heaven," or "to glory/'
' AnsXjjpdjj is as much as avu !X^p0?j, " he was taken up" (ev for els)
" into glory."

This harmony of the description of Christ here, both as to his per
son and office, with what is elsewhere spoken of him (this being
evidently a summary collection of what is more largely in the gospel
spoken of), makes it evident that he is "God" here intended; which
is all that is needful to be evinced from this place.

Let us now hear our catechists pleading for themselves : —

Q. What dost thou answer to 1 Tim. iii. 16?

A. 1. That in many ancient copies, and in the Vulgar Latin itself, the word " God"
is not read ; wherefore from that place nothing certain can be concluded. 2. Al
though that word should be read, yet there is no cause why it should not be re
ferred to the Father, seeing these things may be affirmed of the Father, that he
appeared in Christ and the apostles, who were flesh. And for what is afterward
read, according to the usual translation, " He was received into glory," in the
Greek it is, " He was received in glory," — that is, " with glory," or " gloriously."

Q. What, then, is the sense of this testimony ?

A. That the religion of Christ is full of mysteries : for God, — that is, his will
for the saving of men, — was perfectly made known by infirm and mortal men; and
yet, because of the miracles and various powerful works which were performed by
such weak and mortal men, it was acknowledged for true; and it was at length per
ceived by the angels themselves; and was preached not only to the Jews but also to
the Gentiles : all believed thereon, and it was received with great glory, after an
eminent manner. '

Thus they, merely rather than say nothing, or yield to the truth.

Briefly to remove what they offer in way of exception or assertion, —

1. Though the word " God," be not in the Vulgar Latin,3 yet the

1 " Ad tertium vero quid respondes ? — Primum quidem, quod in multis exemplaribus
vetustis, et in ipsa Vulgata, non legatur vox Deus ; quare ex eo loco certum nihil con-
cludi potest. Deinde, etiamsi ea vox legeretur, nullam esse causam cur ad Patrem referri
lion possit, cum hsec de Patre affirmari possint, cum apparuisse in Christo, et apostolis,
qui caro f uerunt. Quod autem inferius legitur, secundum usitatam versionem, Receptus
est in gl&riam, id in Grseco habetur, Receptus est in gloria, — id est, cum gloria, aut glorioso.

" Quae vero futura est hujus testimonii sententia ? — Religionem Christ! plcnam esse
mysteriis : nam Deus, id est, voluntas ipsius de servandis hominibus, per homines in-
firmos et mortales perfecte patefacta est ; et mhilominus tamen propter miracula et
virtutes varias quse per homines illos infirmos et mortales edita fuerant, pro vera est
agnita; eadem ab ipsis angelis fuit demum perspecta ; non solum Judseis, rerun etiam
Gentibus fuit prsedicata : omnes ei crediderunt, et insignem in modum, et summa cum
gloria recepta fuit."

J Griesbach, Lachman, and Tischendorf, have decided for ?j as the true reading.
Knapp, Tittmann, Scholz, Henderson, Bloomfield, and Moses Stuart, abide by 6sos.
Tischendorf refers to seven manuscripts, — four of them being in uncial characters, —
as his authority for & . Upwards of one hundred and fifty manuscripts have *»«*. It
is a question, however, to be determined not by the number of the manuscripts merely,
but by their value and authority ; and the reader is referred on this subject to Dr
Henderson's dissertation, « The Great Mystery of Godliness Incontrovertible," and the
second edition of Tischendorf 's New Testament. — ED.

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 297

unanimous, constant consent of all the original copies, confessed to be
so both by Beza and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince that the loss of
that translation is not of any import to weaken the sense of the place.
Of other ancient copies, whereof they boast, they cannot instance one.
In the Vulgar also it is evident that by the " mystery " Christ is un
derstood.

2. That what is here spoken may be referred to the Father, is a
very sorry shift against the evidence of all those considerations which
show that it ought to be referred to the Son.

3. It may not, it cannot with any tolerable sense be, referred to the
Father. It is not said that " in Christ and the apostles he appeared/'
and was " seen of angels," etc. ; but that " God was manifested in
the flesh," etc. : nor is any thing that is here spoken of God anywhere
ascribed, no not once in the Scripture, to the Father. How was he
" manifested in the flesh"? how was he "justified in the Spirit"? how
was he " taken up into glory" ?

4. Though sv 86%7) may be rendered " gloriously," or " with glory,"
yet avsMi<p 6q may not, " receptus est," but rather "assumptus est," and
is applied to the ascension of Christ in other places, as hath been
showed.

[As] for the sense they tender of these words, let them, —
1. Give any one instance where " God" is put for the " will of God,"
and that exclusively to any person of the Deity, or, to speak to their
own hypothesis, exclusively to the person of God. This is intoler
able boldness, and argues something of searedness. 2. The " will of
God for the salvation of men" is the gospel. How are these things
applicable to that? — how was the gospel "justified in the Spirit"? how
was it " received up into glory" ? how was it " seen of angels, ucp&n
ayyeXois"1 In what place is any thing of all this spoken of the gospel?
Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In sum, " the will of
God" is nowhere said to be " manifested in the flesh ;" Christ was so.
That "the will of God" should be "preached by weak and mortal men"
was no " great mystery ;" that God should assume human nature
is so. The " will of God" cannot be said to " appear to the angels ;"
Christ did so. Of the last expression there can be no doubt raised.

Grotius insists upon the same interpretation with our catechists, in,
the whole and in every part of it; nor doth he add any thing to
what they plead but only some quotations of Scripture not at all to
the purpose, or at best suited to his own apprehensions of the sense
of the place, not opening it in the least, nor evincing what he em-
• braces to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, to any one that is otherwise
minded. What he says, because he says it, deserves to be considered.

Qib$ stpavspufy sv ffap-/.!. " Suspectam nobis hanc lectionem faciunt
interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Ambrosius, qui omnes
legunt, o tyavipudri." Addit Hincmarus Opusculo 55. illud &s6;,

298 VINDICLffi EVANGELIC^.

" hie positUm a Nestorianis." 1. But this suspicion might well have
been removed from this learned man by the universal consent of all
original copies, wherein, as it seems, his own manuscript, that some
times helps him at a need, doth not differ. 2. One corruption in
one translation makes many. 3. The Syriac reads the word " God,"
and so Tremellius hath rendered it;1 Ambrose and Hincmarus fol
lowed the Latin translation; and there is a thousand times more
probability that the word ®s6g was filched out by the Arians than
that it was foisted in by the Nestorians. But if the agreement of all
original copies may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing cer
tain left us. But, saith he, " Sensum bonuni facit illud, 8 spavepudq.
Evangelium illud cceleste innotuit primum non per angelos, sed per
homines mortales, et quantum extera species ferebat infirmos, Chris
tum, et apostolos ejus. 'Epctvepudq, bene convenit mysterio, id

est, rei latenti. Sic et Col. i. 26; 0ap% hominem significat mortalem,
2 Cor. v. 1 6. Vide 1 John iv. 2, et quae ad eum locum dicentur."

1. Our annotator, having only a suspicion that the word Qs6$ was
not in the text, ought, on all accounts, to have interpreted the words
according to the reading whereof he had the better persuasion, and
not according unto that whereof he had only a suspicion. But then
it was by no means easy to accommodate them according to his in
tention, nor to exclude the person of Christ from being mentioned
in them ; which, by joining in with his suspicion, he thought himself
able to do. 2. He is not able to give us any one instance in the
Scripture of the like expression to this, of " manifest in the flesh/'
being referred to the gospel. When referred to Christ, nothing is
more frequent, John i. 14, vi. 53; Acts ii. 31; Rom. i. 3, viii. 3,
ix. 5; Eph. ii. 14, 15 ; Col. i. 22; Heb. v. 7, x. 19, 20; 1 Pet. iii. 18,
iv. 1 ; 1 John iv. 2, etc. Of the " flesh of the gospel," not one word.
3. There is not the least opposition intimated between men and
angels as to the means of preaching the gospel; nor is this any mys
tery, that the gospel was preached by men. 'Epavepufy is well applied
to a "mystery" or "hidden thing;" but the question is, what the
" mystery" or " hidden thing" is. We say it was the great matter of
the Word's being made flesh, as it is elsewhere expressed. In the
place urged out of the Corinthians, whether it be the 5th or llth chap
ter that is intended, there is nothing to prove that cdp% signifies a mor
tal man. And this is the entrance of this exposition. Let us proceed.

'Edixaiudq Iv Hvivpari. " Per plurima miracula approbata est ea
veritas. IlvsiJ^ct sunt miracula divina, per [itruvvpiav quae est, 1 Cor.
ii. 4, et alibi." "* Justified in the Spirit;' that is, approved by

1 In the Syriac version, as edited by Tremellius, the word " God" is certainly to
be found. It seems, however, to be one of the emendations which that learned Jewish
convert to Christianity professed to make in the Syriac original, which unquestionably
supports the other reading. — ED.

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 299

many miracles, for TlvtZpa is miracles by a metonymy." Then let
every tiling be as the learned man will have it. It is in vain to
contend; for surely never was expression so wrested. That
simply is " miracles" is false; that to have a thing done sv
signifies " miracles" is more evidently so, 1 Cor. ii. 4. The apostle
speaks not at all of miracles, but of the efficacy of the Spirit with
him in his preaching the word, to " convince the world of sin, right
eousness, and judgment," according to the promise of Christ. For the
application of this expression to Jesus Christ see above. He adds,
Stxaiouadai is here "approbare," ut Matt. xi. 19. It is here to " ap
prove;" and that because it was necessary that the learned annotator
should douXwuv virodsast. In what sense the word is taken, and how
applied to Christ, with the genuine meaning of the place, see above.
See also John i. 33, 34. Nor is the gospel anywhere said to be
"justified in the Spirit;" nor is this a tolerable exposition, "'Justified
in the Spirit/ — that is, it was approved by miracles."

*£i<p dq ayyeXo^. " Nempe cum admiratione maxima. Angeli hoc
arcanum per homines mortales didicere, Eph. iii. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 12." How
eminently this suits what is spoken of Jesus Christ was showed before.
It is true, the angels, as with admiration, look into the things of the
gospel ; but that it is said the gospel wf Qq dyysXo/g is not proved.

It is true, the gospel was preached to the Gentiles; but yet this
word is most frequently applied to Christ. Acts iii. 20, viii. 5, 25, ix.
20, xix. 13; 1 Cor. i 23, xv. 12; 2 Cor. i. 19, iv. 5, xi. 4; Phil. i. 15,
are testimonies hereof.

'EmffTtvdi) sv xofffj^tfi. " Id est, in magna mundi parte, Rom. i. 8,
Col. i. 6." But then, I pray, what difference is between zdixatudq sv
Ilvt{jj*aTi and s<7riffTtv8r) h xoa/jufil The first is, "It was approved by
miracles;" the other, " It was believed." Now, to approve the truth
of the gospel, taken actively, is to believe it. How much more
naturally this is accommodated to Christ, see John iii. 17, 18, and
verses 35, 36, vi. 40 ; Acts x. 43, xvi. 31 ; Rom. iii. 22, x. 8, 9 ; Gal.
il 16 ; 1 John v. 5, etc.

The last clause is, avsXfi<pdri Iv d6%y. "Gloriose admodum exaltatuin
est, nempe quia multo majorem attulit sanctitatem, quam ulla ante-
hac dogmata." And this must be the sense of the word amXafj,-
Gdvopou in this business: see Luke ix. 51; Mark xvi. 19; Acts i.
2, 11, 22. And in this sense we are indifferent whether sv d6%p be
t/s (>6%av, " unto glory," which seems to be most properly intended ;
or ff-jv do%ri, " with glory," as our adversaries would have it; or " glo
riously," 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 gospel is glorious in its doctrine of holiness is true, but not at all
spoken of in this place.

Heb. ii. 16 is another testimony insisted on to prove the incarna-

800 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

tion of Christ; and so, consequently, his subsistence in a divine nature
antecedently thereunto. The words are, " For verily he took not
on him the nature of angels ; but he took on him the seed of Abra
ham." To this they answer, that —

Herein not so much as any likeness of the incarnation, as they call it, doth ap
pear ; for this writer doth not say that " Christ took" (as some read it, and com
monly they take it in that sense), but " he takes." Nor doth he say " human nature,"
but the "seed of Abraham;" which in the holy Scriptures denotes them who believe
in Christ, as Gal. iii. 29.

Q. What then is the sense of this place ?

A. This is that which this writer intends, that Christ is not the Saviour of
angels, but of men believing; who, because they are subject to afflictions and death
(which he before expressed by the participation of flesh and blood), therefore did
Christ willingly submit himself unto them, that he might deliver his faithful ones
from the fear of death, and might help them in all their afflictions.1

The sense of this place is evident, the objections against it weak.
1. That the word is tiriXapGan-ai, not wreXaCsro, " assumit," not " as-
sumpsit," is an enallage of tense so usual as that it can have no force
as an objection ; and, verse 14, it is twice used in a contrary sense,
the time past being put for the present, as here the present for that
which is past, xixoivur/ixi for xoivuveT, and f^srsg^e for fj^r'^n. See John
iii. 31, xxi. 13. 2. That by the " seed of Abraham " is here intended
the human nature of the seed of Abraham, appears, — (1.) From the
expression going before, of the same import with this, "He took part
of flesh and blood," verse 14. (2.) From the opposition here made to
angels or the angelical nature ; the Holy Ghost showing that the
business of Christ being to save his church by dying for them, he was
not therefore to take upon him an angelical, spiritual substance or
nature, but the nature of man. 3. The same thing is elsewhere in
like manner expressed, as where he is said to be " made of the seed
of David according to the flesh," Rom. i. 3, and to "come of the
fathers as concerning the flesh," chap. ix. 5. 4. Believers are called
Abraham's seed sometimes spiritually, in relation to the faith of
Abraham, as Gal. iii. 29, where he is expressly spoken of as father
of the faithful by inheriting the promises ; but take it absolutely,
to be of the " seed of Abraham" is no moie but to be a man of his
posterity : John viii. 37, " I know that ye are Abraham's seed."
Rom. ix. 7, " Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are
they all children." Verse 8, " That is, They are the children of the

1 " In eo ne similitudinem quidem incarnationis (ut vocant) apparere, cum is scriptor
non dicat, Christum assumpsisse (ut quidam reddunt, et vulgo eo sensu accipiunt) sed"
assumere. Nee dicit, naturam humanam, sed semen Abrahce, quod in literis sacris notat
eos qui in Christum crediderunt, ut Gal. iii. 29, videre est.

" Quid vero sensus hujus erit loci ? — Id sibi vult is scriptor, Christum non esse Ser-
vatorem angelorum, sed hominum credentium, qui quoniam et afflictionibus et morti
subject! sunt (quam rem superius expressit per participationem carnis et sanguinis),
propterea Christus ultro illis se submisit, ut fideles suos a mortis metu liberaret, et in
omni afflictione iisdem opem afferret."

OF THE INCAKNATION OF CHKIST. 301

flesh." So Kom. xi. 1. "Are they the seed of Abraham ? so am I,"
2 Cor. xi. 22.

[As] for the sense assigned, — 1. It is evident that in these words
the apostle treats not of the help given, but of the way whereby
Christ came to help his church, and the means thereof ; his actual
helping and relieving of them is mentioned in the next verse. 2.
Here is no mention in this verse of believers being obnoxious to
afflictions and death ; so that these words of theirs may serve for an
exposition of some other place of Scripture (as they say of Gregory's
comment on Job), but not of this. 3. By " partaking of flesh and
blood" is not meant, primarily, being obnoxious to afflictions and
death, nor doth that expression in a\iy place signify any such thing,
though such a nature as is so obnoxious be intended.

The argument, then, from hence stands still in its force, that
Christ, subsisting in his divine nature, did assume a human nature
of the seed of Abraham into personal union with himself.

Grotius is still at a perfect agreement with our catechists. Saith
he, "'EKtXapZavsffQai apud Platonem et alios est solenniter vindicare;
hie autem ex superioribus intelligendum est, vindicare, seu asserere
in libertatem manu injectd;" — "This word in Plato and others is to
vindicate into liberty ; here, as is to be understood from what went
before, it is to assert into liberty by laying hold with the hand." Of
the first, because he gives no instances, we shall need take no farther
notice. The second is denied. Both the help afforded and the means
of it by Christ are mentioned before. The help is liberty ; the means,
partaking of flesh and blood, to die. These words are not expressive
of nor do answer the latter, or the help afforded, but the means of
the obtaining of it, as hath been declared. But he adds, " The word
signifies to lay hold of with the hand, as Mark viii. 23," etc. Be
it granted that it doth so. " To lay hold with the hand, and to take
to one's self," this is not to assert into liberty, but by the help of a
metaphor ; and when the word is used metaphorically, it is to be in
terpreted "pro subjecta materia," according to the subject-matter,
which here is Christ's taking a nature upon him that was of Abra
ham, that was not angelical. The other expression he is singular in
the interpretation of.

" He took the seed of Abraham." " Id est, Id agit ut vos Hebrceos
liberet a peccatis et metu mortis. Eventus enim nomen saape datur
operae in id impensse;"— " That is, ' He doth that that he may deliver
you Hebrews from sin and fear of death/ The name of the event is
'often given to the work employed to that purpose." But, — 1. Here,
I confess, he takes another way from our catechists. The " seed of
Abraham" is with them believers; with him only Jews. But the
tails of their discourse are tied together with a firebrand between
them, to devour the harvest of the church. 2. This taking the seed

302 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

of Abraham is opposed to his not taking the seed of angels. Now
the Jews are not universally opposed to angels in this thing, but
human kind. 3. He " took the seed of Abraham" is, it seems, he
endeavoured to help the Jews. The whole discourse of the help
afforded, both before and after this verse, is extended to the whole
church; how comes it here to be restrained to the Jews only? 4. The
discourse of the apostle is about the undertaking of Christ by death,
and his being fitted thereunto by partaking of flesh and blood;
which is so far from being in any place restrained or accommo
dated only to the Jews, as that the contrary is everywhere asserted,
as is known to all.

[The next place is] 1 John iv.'2, " Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." He who comes into the
world, or comes into flesh or in the flesh, had a subsistence before he
so came. It is very probable that the intendment of the apostle was
to discover the abomination of them who denied Christ to be a true
man, but assigned him a fantastical body; which yet he so doth as
to express his coming in the flesh in such a manner as evidences him
to have another nature (as was said) besides that which is here syn-
ecdochically called " flesh." Our catechists to this say, —

That this is not to the purpose in hand ; for that which some read, " He came
into the flesh," is not in the Greek, but "He came in the flesh." Moreover, John
doth not write, " That spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ, which came in the
flesh, is of God ;" but that " That spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ, who is come
in the flesh, is of God." The sense of which words is, that the spirit is of God
which confesseth that Jesus Christ, who performed his office in the earth without
any pomp or worldly ostentation, with great humility as to outward appearance,
and great contempt, and lastly underwent a contumelious death, is Christ, and
King of the people of God.1

I shall not contend with them about the translation of the words.
1. 'Ev ffctpxi seems to be put for sis ffdpxa, but the intendment is the
same; for the word "came" is JXjjXyfloYa, that is, "that came," or "did
come." 2. It is not rbv !X?jXu0oYa, " who did come," that thence any
colour should be taken for the exposition given by them, of con
fessing that Christ, or him who is the Christ, is the King of the people
of God, or confessing him to be the Christ, the King of the people
of God ; but it is, " that confesseth him who came in the flesh,"
that is, as to his whole person and office, his coming, and what he
came for. 3. They cannot give us any example nor any one reason

1 " Etiam in eo nihil prorsus de incarnatione (quam vocant) haberi ; etenim quod
apud quosdam legitur, Venit in carnem, in Grseco habetur, In came, venit. Propterea non
scribit Johannes, quod spirits qui confitetur Jesum Christum, qui in came venit, ex Deo
est; verum quod ille spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in came venisse ex Deo est.
Quorum verborum sensus est, eum spiritum ex Deo esse qui confitetur Jesum ilium,
qui munus suum in terris sine ulla pompa et ostentatione mundana, summa cum
humilitate (quoad exteriorem speciem) summoque cum contemptu obiverit, mortem
denique ignominiosam oppetierit, esse Christum, et populi Dei Regem."

OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 303

to evince that that should be the meaning of sv ffapxi which here
they pretend. The meaning of it hath above been abundantly de
clared, so that there is no need that we should insist longer on this
place, nor why we should trouble ourselves with Grotius' long dis
course 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 proof, without evidence. " Flesh" may sometimes be taken
so ; but that to " come in the flesh" is to come in such a condition,
we have not the least plea pretended.

The last place they mention to this purpose is Heb. x. 5, " Where
fore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." He who
had a body prepared for him when he came into the world, he sub
sisted in another nature before that coming of his into the world.
To this they say, —

Neither is there here any mention made of the incarnation (as they call it),
seeing that world, into which the author says Christ entered, is the world to
come, as was above demonstrated ; whence to come into the world doth not sig
nify to be born into the world, but to enter into heaven. Lastly, in these words,
" A body hast thou prepared me," that word, " a body " (as appeared from what
was said where his entering this world was treated of), may be taken for an
immortal body.

Q. What is the sense of this place ?

A. That God fitted for Jesus such a body, after he entered heaven, as is fit
and accommodate for the discharging of the duty of a high priest.1

But, doubtless, than this whole dream nothing can be more fond
or absurd. 1. How many times is it said that Christ came into this
world, where no other world but this can be understood ! " For this
cause," saith he, " came I into the world, that I might bear witness
unto the truth," John xviii. 37. Was it into heaven that Christ came
to bear witness to the truth ? " Jesus Christ came into the world to
save sinners," 1 Tim. i. 15. Was it into heaven? 2. These words,
" A body hast thou prepared rne," are a full expression of what is
synecdochically spoken of in the Psalms in these words, " Mine ears
hast thou opened," expressing the end also why Christ had a body
prepared him, — namely, that he might yield obedience to God
therein ; which he did signally in this world when he was " obedient
unto death, the death of the cross." 3. As I have before manifested
the groundlessness of interpreting the word " world," put absolutely,

1 " Ne hie quidem de incarnatione (ut vocant) ullam mentionem factam, cum is
" mundus, in quern ingressum Jesum is autor ait, sit ille mundus futurus, ut superius
demonstratum est ; . unde etiam ingredi in ilium mundum, non nasci in mundum, sed
in coelum ingredi significat. Deinde, illis verbis, Corpus aptasti mihi, corporis vox (ut
ex eo apparuit ubi de ingressu hoc in mundum actum est) pro corpore immortal! accipi
potest.

" Quse sententia ejus est ? — Deum Jesu tale corpus aptasse, postquam in coelum est
ingressus, quod ad obeundum munus pontificis sumim aptum et accommodatum foret."

304 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

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 Christ's
being a priest and offering sacrifice in this world before he entered
into heaven, I shall remove what farther here they pretend unto.
In the meantime, such expositions as this, that have no light nor
colour given them from the texts they pretend to unfold, had need
of good strength of analogy given them from elsewhere ; which here
is not pretended. " ' When he cometh into the world/ that is, when
he enters heaven, he says, ' A body hast thou prepared me/ that is,
an immortal body thou hast given me/' And that by this immortal
body they intend indeed no body I shall afterward declare.

Grotius turns these words quite another way, not agreeing with
our catechists, yet doing still the same work with them ; which, be
cause he gives no proof of his exposition, it shall suffice so to have
intimated. In sum, verse 4, he tells us how the blood of Christ
takes away sin, namely, " 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 chapter ix., where he wholly
excludes the satisfaction of Christ. His coming into the world is, he
says, " His showing himself to the world, after he had led a private
life therein for a while," contrary to the perpetual use of that expres
sion of the New Testament And so the whole design of the place is
eluded, the exposition whereof I shall defer to the place of the satis
faction of Christ.

And these are the texts of Scripture our catechists thought good
to endeavour a delivery of themselves from, as to that head or argu
ment of our plea for his subsistence in a divine nature antecedently
to his being born of the Virgin, — namely, because he is said to be
incarnate or " made flesh."

CHAPTER XIV.

Sundry other testimonies given to the deity of Christ vindicated.

IN the next place they heap up a great many testimonies con
fusedly, containing scriptural attributions unto Christ of such things
as manifest him to be God ; which we shall consider in that order, or
rather disorder, wherein they are placed of them.

Their first question here is : —

Ques. In what scriptures is Christ called God f

Ans. John i. 1, "The Word was God;" John xx. 28, "Thomas saith unto
Christ, My Lord and my God;" Rom. ix. 6, the apostle saith that "Christ is
God over all, blessed for ever."

Q. What can be proved by these testimonies f

A. That a divine nature cannot be demonstrated from them, besides the things

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF 6HEIST VINDICATED. 305

that are before produced, is hence manifest, that in the first testimony the Word
is spoken of, and John saith that he was " with God ;" in the second, Thomas calleth
him " God" in whose feet and hands he found the print of the nails, and of the spear
in his side; and Paul calleth .him who according to the flesh was of the fathers,
" God over all, blessed 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 other ; and these things, to have the prints of wounds and to be of the fathers,
belong wholly to a man, which were absurd to ascribe to him who is God by na
ture. And if any one shall pretend that veil of the distinction of natures, we have
above removed that, and have showed that this distinction cannot be maintained. 1

That in all this answer our catechists do nothing but beg the thing
in question, and flee to their own hypothesis, not against assertions
but arguments, themselves so far know as to be forced to apologize
for it in the close. 1. That Christ is not God because he is not
the person of the Father, that he is not God because he is man,
is the sum of their answer; and yet these men knew that we in
sisted 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 affirm there are two
Gods, — one who is so by nature, and another made so; one indeed
God, and no man ; the other a man, and no God. The Lord our God
is one God. 3. In particular, John i. 1, the Word is Christ, as hath
been above abundantly demonstrated, — Christ, in respect of another
nature than he had before he took flesh and dwelt with men,
verse 1 4. Herein is he said to be with the Father, in respect of his
distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the Father as to his
nature and essence. And this is that which we prove from his testi
mony, which will not be warded with a bare denial : " The Word
was with God, and the Word was God ;" — God by nature, and with
God in his personal distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his
Lord and God in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nails,
as God is said to redeem the church with his own blood. He was
the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his human nature shed his

1 " In quibus scripturis Christus vocatur Deus? — Johan. i. 1, Et Verbum fuit Deus,
et cap. xx. 28, Thomas ad Christum ait, Dominus mem et Deus meus; et Rom. ix. 5, apos-
tolus scribit Christum Deum (esse) supra omnes benediclum in secula.

" Quid his testimoniis effici potest ? — Naturam divinam in Christo ex iis demonstrari
non posse, prseter ea quse superius allata sunt, hinc manifestum est, quod in primo tes-
timonio agatur de Verbo, quod Johannes testatur apud ilium Deum fuisse ; in secundo,
Thomas eum appellat Deum, in cujus pedibus et manibus, clavorum, in latere lancese
vestigia deprehendit ; et Paulus eum qui secundum camera a patribus erat, Deum supra
omnia benedictum vocat. Quse omnia dici de eo qui natura Deus sit, nullo modo posse,
planum est, etenim ex illo sequeretur duos esse Decs, quorum alter apud alterum
fuerit. Haec vero, vestigia vulnerum habere, eque patribus esse, hominis sunt prorsus,
quse ei, qui natura Deus sit, ascribi nimis absonum esset. Quod si illud distinctionis
naturarum velum quis pnetendat, jam superius illud amovimus, et docuimus hanc dis-
tinctionem nullo modo posse sustineri."

VOL. XII. 20

306 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

blood, aud had the print of the nails in his hands and feet. Of this
confession of Thomas I have spoken before, and therefore I shall
not now farther insist upon it. He whom Thomas, in the confession
of his faith as a believer, owned for his Lord and God, he is the
true God, God by nature. Of a made god, a god by office, to be con
fessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same
is affirmed of Rom. ix. 5. The apostle distinguishes of Christ as to
his flesh and as to his deity : as to his flesh or human nature, he says
he was of the fathers; but in the other regard he is " over all, God
blessed for ever." And as this is a signal expression of the true
God, " God over all, blessed for ever," so there is no occasion of that
expression, rb Kara ffdpxa, " as to the flesh," but to assert something
in Christ, which he afterward affirms to be his everlasting deity, in
regard whereof he is not of the fathers. He is, then, of the fathers,
TO Kara edpxa, o &v IK! irdvruv ®tb$ giiXoyjjT-^g st$ roi/s dtuvog, d/Aqv.
The words are most emphatically expressive of the eternal deity
of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the fathers.
*O uv, even then when he took flesh of the fathers, then was he, and
now he is, and ever will be, " God over all," that is, the Most High
God, " blessed for ever." It is evident that the apostle intends to as
cribe to Christ here two most solemn attributes of God, — the Most
High, and the Blessed One. Nor is this testimony to be parted with
for their begging or with their importunity. 6. It is our adversaries
who say there are two Gods, as hath been showed, 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 per
son of Christ hath already been considered, and manifested to be
false and frivolous.

I could wish to these testimonies they had added one or two more,
as that of Isa, liv. 5, " Thy Maker is thine husband ; the LOED of
hosts is his name ; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel ; The
God of the whole earth shall he be called." That Jesus Christ is
the husband and spouse of the church will not be denied, Eph. v. 25,
Rev. xxi. 9 ; but he who is so is " The LORD of hosts, the Holy One
of Israel, the God of the whole earth." And Heb. iii. 4, the apostle
says, " 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, verse 3. But this is not my present
employment

The learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the last two places
urged by our catechists. Of his sleight in dealing with that of John
xx. 28, I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his
insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christ's resurrection, it

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 307

grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom.
ix. 5 ; but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not
serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling him God that
there is mentioned, but the blessed apostle plainly affirming that he
is " God over all, blessed for ever ;" and therefore, forgetting what
he had said before, he falls upon a worse and more desperate evasion,
affirming that the word Qi6$ ought not to be in the text, because
Erasmus had observed that Cyprian and Hilary, citing this text, did
not name the word ! And this he rests upon, although he knew that
all original copies whatever, constantly, without any exception, do read
it, and that Beza had manifested, against Erasmus, that Cyprian
adver. Judseos, lib. ii. cap. vi., and Hilary ad Ps. xii., do both cite this
place to prove that Christ is called God, though they do not express
the text to the full ; and it is known how Athanasius used it
against the Arians, without any hesitation as to the corruption of the
text. This way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be
pardoned. I am well contented with all who, from what he writes
on John i. 1 (the first place mentioned), do apprehend that when he
wrote his annotations on that place he was no opposer of the deity
of Christ ; but I must take leave to say, that, for mine own part, I
am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words that
he doth at all assert the assuming of the human nature into personal
subsistence with the Son of God. I speak as to the thing itself, and
not to the expressions which he disallows. But we must proceed
with our catechists: —

Q. Where doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with the Father f

A. John x. 29-31, " My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and
no man is able to pluck them out of his hand. I and my Father are one. Then
the Jews took up stones again to stone him."

Q. How dost thou answer this testimony?

A. That from hence, that Christ is said to be one with the Father, it cannot
be proved that he is one with him in nature, the words of Christ to his Father of
the disciples do show: John xvii. 11, " That they may be one, as we are;" and a
little after, verse 22, " That they may be one, even as we are one." That Christ is
one with the Father, this ought to be understood either of will or power in the
business of our salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved is mani
fest from those places where Christ saith his Father is greater than all, and, con
sequently, than Christ himself, as he expressly confesseth, and that he gave him
his sheep, John xiv. 28.1

Of this place I have spoken before. That it is an unity of
essence that is here intended by our Saviour appears, — 1. From the
apprehension the Jews had of his meaning in those words, who im-

1 " Ubi vero Scriptura testatur Christum cum Patre esse unum? — Johan. x. 29-31,
ubi Dominus ait, Pater, qui mihi (oves) dedit, major omnibus est; et nemo eas rapere po-
test e manibus Patris mei. Ego et Pater umim sumus.

" Qua ratione respondes ad id testimonium ? — Ex eo, quod dicatur Christus esse cum
Patre unum, effici non posse esse unum cum eo natura, verba Christi, quse ad Patrem
de discipulis liabuit, dcmonstrant : Johan. xvii. 11, Pater sancte, serva illos in nomine

808 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

mediately upon them took up stones to stone him for blasphemy, ren
dering an account of their so doing, verse 33, " Because he, being a
man, did make himself God." 2. From the exposition he makes
himself of his words, verse 36, " I am the Son of God ;" — " That is it
I intended ; I am so one with him as a son is with his father," — that
is, one in nature and essence. 3. He is so one with him as that the
Father is in him, and he hi him, by a divine immanency of persons-

Those words of our Saviour, John xvii. 11, 22, 1. Do not argue a
parity in the union of believers among themselves with that of him
and his Father, but a similitude (see John xvii. 20), — that they may
be one in affection, as his Father and he are in essence. We are to
be holy, as God is holy. 2. If oneness of will and consent be the
ground of this, that the Son and Father are one, then the angels and
God are one, for with their wills they always do his. 3. Oneness
of power with God in any work argues oneness of essence. God's
power is omnipotent, and none can be one with him in power but he
who is omnipotent, — that is, who is God. And if it be unity of power
which is here asserted, it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any
particular kind of thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater
than Christ, as is affirmed John xiv. 28, in respect of his office of
mediation, of which there he treats ; but they are one and equal in
respect of nature. Neither is God in this place said to be greater
than all in respect of Christ, who is said to be one with him, but in
reference to all that may be supposed to attempt the taking of his
sheep out of his hands. 5. Christ took or received his sheep, not
simply as God, the eternal Son of God, but as mediator; and so his
Father was greater than he. This testimony, then, abides : He that
is one with the Father is God by nature ; Christ is thus one with
the Father. " One" is the unity of nature; " are," their distinction
of persons. " I and my Father are one."

Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our catechists, only
he goes one step farther in corrupting the text. His words are :
" 'Eycj xal 6 liarr^p ev Ic^gx. Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus.
Si Patris potestati eripi non poterunt, nee mese poterunt ; nam mea
potestas a Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me,
aut a, Patre, custodiri. Vid. Gen. xli. 25, 27." I suppose he means
verse 44, being the words of Pharaoh delegating power and authority
immediately under him to Joseph ; — but, as it is known, potestas is
i^ovffia, "authority," and may belong to office; but potentia is duvK^tg,
"force," "virtue," or " power," and belongs to essence. It is not

tuo, tit tint tinum, quemadmodum et nos unum sumus; et paulo inferius, ver. 22, Ego
ffloriam, quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis; ut sint unum, quemadmodum nos unum sumus. Quod
vcro Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de voluntate aut de potentia in salutis nostna
ratione accipi debet. Unde naturam divinam non probari ex eodem loco constat ubi
Christus ait, Patrem omnibus esse nmjorem, ac proinde etiam ipso Domino, quemadmo
dum idem Dominus expresse fatetur, et quod eas oves ei dederit, Johan. xiv. 28."

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. S09

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 doth not prove unity of
essence in men, yet unitas potentice, which is here spoken of, in God
evidently doth ; yea, none can have unitatem potestatis with God
but he who hath unitatem essentice.

What they except in the next place against Christ's being equal
with God, from John v. 18, Phil. ii. 6, 7, hath been already removed,
and the places fully vindicated. They proceed: —

Q. But where is it that Christ is called the " Son of the living God," the "proper"
and " only- begotten Son of God ?"

A. Matt. xvi. 16; Rom. viii. 32; John iii. 16, IS.

Q.- But how are these places answered ?

A. From all these attributes of Christ a divine nature can by no means be
proved; for as to the first, it is notorious that Peter confessed that the Son of
man was Christ and the Son of the living God, who, as it is evident, had not
such a divine nature as they feign. Besides, the Scripture testifieth of other men
that they are the sons of the living God, as the apostle out of Hosea, Rom.
ix. 26. And as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we read
that the " proper" and " only-begotten Son of God" was delivered to death; which
cannot be said of him who is God by nature. Yea, from hence, that Christ is the
Son of God, it appears that he is not God, for otherwise he should be Son to
himself. But the cause why these attributes belong to Christ is this, that he is
the chiefest and most dear to God among all the sons of God: as Isaac, because
he was most dear to Abraham, and was his heir, is called his " only-begotten son,"
Heb. xi. 17, although he had his brother Ishmael; and Solomon the " only-begotten
of his mother," although he had many brethren by the same mother, 1 Chron. iii.
1-6, etc. ; Prov. iv. 3.1

I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore shall
be very brief in the vindication of them in this place. On what
account Christ is, and on what account alone he is called, the Son
of God, hath been sufficiently demonstrated, and his unity of nature
with his Father thence evinced. It is true, — 1. That Peter calls

i " Filium autem Dei viventis, Filium Dei proprium et unigenitum esse Christum,
ubi habetur? — De hoc Matt. xvi. 16, legimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Christus, Filius Dei
viventis; et Rom. viii. 32, ubi apostolus ait, Qui (Deus) proprio Filio, nonpepercit, verum
cumpropter nos tradidit; et Johan. iii. 16, Sic Deus dilexit mundum, vt Filium suum uni
genitum daret; et ver. 18, Nomen unigenili Filii Dei.

" Quomodo vero ad hsec loca respondctur ? — Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo
modo probari posse naturam ejus divinam ; nam quod ad primum attinet, notissi-
mum est Petrum fateri, quod Filius hominis sit Christus, et Filius Dei viventis, quern
constat divinam naturam, qualem illi comminiscuntur, non habuisse. Prseterea, tes-
tatur Scriptura de aliis hominibus quod sint filii Dei viventis, ut ex Hosea, Rom.
ix. 26, Et erit loco ejus, ubi eis dictum est, Non populus meus (estis) vos, illic vocabuntur
filii Dei viventis. Quod vero secundum et tertium locum attinet, in his legimus pro
prium et unigenitum Dei Filium in mortem traditum, quod eo qui natura Deus sit,
dici non potest. Imo vero ex eo quod Christus Dei Filius sit, apparet Deum ilium non
esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius esset. Causa vero cur Christo ista attributa competant
hsec est, quod inter omnes Dei filios et praecipuus sit et Deo charissimus, quemadmodum
Isaac, quia Abrahamo charissimus et hneres exstitit, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. xi. 17,
licet fratrem Ismaelem habuerit ; et Solomon unigenitus coram matre sua, licet plures
ex eadem matre fratres fuerint, 1 Paral. iii. 1-6, etc., Prov. iv. 3."

310 VINDICIJE EVANGELICLE.

Christ, who was the Son of man, the " Son of the living God ;" not in
that or on that account whereon he is the Son of man, but because
he is peculiarly, in respect of another nature than that wherein he is
the Son of man, the Son of the living God. And if Peter had in
tended no more in this assertion but only that he was one among
the many sons of God, how doth he answer that question, " But
whom say ye that I am ? " being exceptive to what others said, who
yet affirmed that he was a prophet, one come out from God, and
javoured of him. It is evident that it is something much more
noble and divine that is here affirmed by him, in this solemn confes
sion of him on whom the church is built. It is true, believers are
called " children of the living God" Rom. ix. 26, in opposition to the
idols whom they served before their conversion; neither do we argue
from this expression barely, " Of the living God," but in conjunction
with those others that follow, and in the emphaticalness of it, in this
confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a rock
which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the
"proper" and "only-begotten Son of God" hath been already abun
dantly evinced. Nor is it disproved by saying that the proper and
only Son of God was given to death, for so he was; and thereby
" God redeemed his church with his own blood." He that is the
proper and only-begotten Son of God was given to death, though not
in that nature and in respect of that wherein he is the proper and
only-begotten Son of God. 3. Christ is the Son of the Father, who
is God, and therein the Son of God, without any danger of being
" the Son of himself," that is, of God as he is the Son. This is a beg
ging of the thing in question, without offering any plea for what they
pretend to but their own unbelief and carnal apprehensions of the
things of God. 4. Our catechists have exceedingly forgotten them
selves and their masters, in affirming that "Christ is called the proper
and only-begotten Son of God, because he is most dear to God of all
his sons ;" themselves and then: master having, as was showed at large
before, given us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation,
which we have discussed and disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be
the only-begotten Son of God only on this account, because he is
most dear among all the sons of God, then he is the Son of God
upon the same account with them, — that is, by regeneration and
adoption; which that it is most false hath been showed elsewhere.
Christ is the proper, natural, only-begotten Son of God, in contra
distinction to all others, the adopted sons of God, as was made mani
fest. Isaac is called the "only-begotten son" of Abraham, not abso
lutely, but in reference to the promise; he was his only- begotten son
to whom the promise did belong: "He that had received the promises
offered up his only-begotten son." Solomon is not said to be the "only-
begotten of his mother," Prov. iv. 3, but only " before the face" or " in

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 311

the sight of his mother," eminently expressing his preferment as to her
affections. How little is this to what the gospel says of Jesus Christ !
I have only to say concerning Grotius in this matter, that from
none of these expressions, in any place, doth he take the least notice
of what is necessarily concluded concerning the deity of Christ;
wherein he might use his own liberty. The opening, interpretation,
and improvement of these testimonies to the end aimed at, I desire
the reader to see, chap. vii. They proceed : —

Q. What scripture calls Christ the "first-born of every creature" f

A. Col. i. 15.

Q. What dost thou answer thereunto?

A. Neither can it hence be gathered that Christ hath a divine nature: for seeing
Christ is the " first-born of every creature," it is necessary that he be one of the
number of the creatures ; for such is the force of the word " first-born" in the Scrip
tures, that it is of necessity that he who is first-born be one of the number of
them of whom he is the first-born, Col. i. 18 ; Rom. viii. 29 ; Rev. i. 5. Neither
that our Lord Jesus was one of the things created in the old creation can our ad
versaries grant, unless they will be Arians. It behoveth them that they grant him
to be one of the new creation. From whence not only the divine nature of Christ
cannot be proved, but also that Christ hath no such divine nature is firmly evinced.
But now that Jesus is called by that name by the apostle, it is from hence, that in
time and worth he far exceedeth all other things of the new creation.1

1. That by the " creation" in this verse, and the things enumerated
to be created in the verses following, are intended the creation of the
world, and all things therein, "visible and invisible," was before abun
dantly evinced, in the consideration of the ensuing verses, and the
exceptions of these catechists wholly removed from being any hin-
derance to the embracing of the first obvious sense of the words. All,
then, that is here inferred from a supposition of the new creation
being here intended (which is a most vain supposition) falls to the
ground of itself; so that I shall not need to take the least farther
notice of it. 2. That Christ is so the first-born of the old creation
as to be a prince, heir, and lord of it, and the things thereof (which
is the sense of the word as here used), and yet not one of them, is
evident from the context. The very next words to these, "He is the
first-born of every creature," are, " For by him were all things
created." He by whom all things, all creatures, were created, is no
creature; for he else must create himself. And so we are neither
Arians nor Photinians. Though the former have more colour of saving

1 " Quae scriptura eum vocat primogenitum omnis creaturae ? — Col. i. 1 5.

" Quid ad earn respondes? — Neque hlnc naturam divinam Christum habere exsculpi
posse, etenim cum Christus primogenitus omnis creatures sit, eum unum e numero
creaturarum esse oportere necesse est ; ea enim in Scripturis vis est primogeniti, ut
primogenitum unum ex eorum genere, quorum primogenitus est, esse necesse sit, Col.
i. 18 ; Rom. viii. 29 ; Apoc. i. 5. Ut vero unus e rebus conditis creationis veteris ex-
istat Dominus Jesus, nee adversarii quidem concedent, nisi Ariani esse veliiit. Unum
igitur esse e novae creationis genere Dominum Jesum concedant oportet. Unde non
solum divina Christi natura effici non potest, verum etiam quod nullam divinam na
turam Christus habeat firmiter conficitur. Quod vero eo nomine vocatur ab apostolo
Jesus, eo fit, quod tempore et prsestantia res omnes novas creationis longe antecedat."

312 VINDICI^ EVANGELICLE.

themselves from the sword of the word than the latter, yet they
both perish by it. 3. The word vp UTOTOXOS, " first-born," in this place
is metaphorical, and the expression is intended to set out the excel
lency of Christ above all other things. That that is the design of
the Holy Ghost in the place is confessed. Now, whereas the word
may import two things concerning him of whom it is spoken, — (1.)
that he is one of them in reference to whom he is said to be the
first-born, or, (2.) that he hath privilege, pre-eminence, rule, and
inheritance of them and over them, — I ask, Which of these significa
tions suits the apostle's aim here, to set out the excellency of Christ
above all creatures? that which makes him one of them, or that
which exalts him above them? 4. ItywroVoxoj vdc^g /C~/<T£WJ, is "be
gotten before all creatures," or "every creature." The apostle doth not
say Christ was -npuroc, xrufdei;, " the first of them made," but, he was
born or begotten before them all, — that is, from eternity. His being
begotten is opposed to the creation of all other things; and though
the word, where express mention is made of others in the same kind,
may denote one of them, yet where it is used concerning things so
far distant, and which are not compared, but one preferred above
the other, it requires no such signification. See Job xviii. 13; Ps.
Ixxxix. 27; Jer. xxxi. 9.

Grotius is perfectly agreed with our catechists, and uses their very
words in the exposition of this place ; but that also hath been con
sidered, and his exposition called to an account formerly.

The next testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to this
question : —

Q. What scriptures affirm that Christ hath all things that the Father hath?

A. John xvi. 15, xvii. 10.

Q. What sayest thou to these 9

A. We have above declared that the word omnia, " all things," is almost always
referred to the subject-matter; wherefore from these places that which they intend
can no way be proved. The subject-matter, chap, xvi., is that which the Holy
Spirit was to reveal to the apostles, which belonged to the kingdom of Christ ;
and, chap, xvii., it is most apparent that he treateth of his disciples, whom God
gave him, whom he calls his. Moreover, seeing that whatever Christ hath, he
hath it by gift from the Father, and not of himself, it hence appeareth that he can
by no means have a divine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things
of himself.1

1 "TJbi vero scriptura eum omnia quas Pater habeat habere asserit ? — John xvi. 15,
Christus ait, Omnia quce Pater habet mea sunt; et infra capite xvii. 10, Mea omnia tua
aunt, et lua mea,

" Quid tu ad hsec ? — Vox omnia, ad subjectam materiam ut superius aliquoties de-
monstravimus fere semper refertur; quare ex ejusmodi locis non potest ullo modo
quod volunt effici. Matcria vero subjecta, cap. xvi., est, id nimirum, quod Spiritus
Sanctus apostolis ad Christi regnuin spectans revelaturus erat ; et xvii. cap. constat
apertissime agi de discipulis ipsius Jesu quos ipsi Deus dederat, unde eos etiam sues
vocat. Prseterea, cum quicquid Christus habeat, habeat Patris dono, non autem a seipso,
hinc apparet, ipsum divinam naturam habere nullo modo posse, cum natura Deus omnia
a seipso babeat."

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OP CHRIST VINDICATED. 313

Of these texts the consideration will soon be despatched. 1. John
xvi. 15, Christ saith, "All things that the Father hath are mine: there
fore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you."
Now, if all things that the Father hath are his, then the divine na
ture 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 reveal to the apostles.
Let, then, 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 concerning the
kingdom of Christ, that he was thus to show to the apostles. But
look, whence the Holy Ghost hath his knowledge, thence he hath
his essence; for those things do not really differ in a divine nature.
The Spirit, then, having his knowledge of the Son, hath also his
essence of the Son, as he hath of the Father. And by this it is most
evidently confirmed, that among the " all things" that the Father
hath, which the Son hath, his divine nature is also, or else that could
be no reason why he should say that the Spirit should take of his,
and show to them.

2. John xvii. 1 0, a reason is rendered why those who are Christ's
are also God's, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things
(TO, spa cravra) were the Father's, and all the Father's his. It is not,
then, spoken of the disciples ; but is a reason given why the disciples
are so in the love of God, because of the unity of essence which is be
tween Father and Son, whence all the Son's things are the Father's,
and all the Father's are the Son's.

3. Christ's having all things not from himself, but by gift from the
Father, may be understood two ways. Either it refers to the nature
of Christ as he is God, or to the person of Christ as he is the Son
of God. In the first sense it is false; for the nature of Christ being
one with that of the Father hath all things, without concession, gift,
or grant made to it, as the nature. But as the person of the Son, in
which regard he receives all things, even his nature, from the Father,
so it is true (those words being expounded as above) ; but this only
proves him to be the Son of God, not at all that he is not God.

Grotius on the first place, Hdvra, oaa e%si o Karfy, tpd hrr —
" Etiam prsescientia et decreta de rebus futuris, quatenus ecclesiam
.spectant." Did he truly intend what the first words do import, we
should judge ourselves not a little beholding to him. The fore
knowledge of God is not in any who is not God, nor his decrees.
The first is an eternal property of his nature; the latter are eternal
acts of his will. If Christ have these, he must have the nature of
God. But the last words evidently take away what the first seem to

314 VINDICI^ EVANGELIOE.

grant, by restraining this participation of Christ in the foreknowledge
and decrees of God to'things concerning the church ; in which sense
Socinus grants the knowledge of Christ to be infinite, namely, in
respect of the church, Disput. de Adorat. Christi cum Christiano
Franken, p. 15. But it being certain that he whose the prescience
of God and his purposes are properly as to any one thing, his they
are universally, it is too evident that he intends these things to be
long to Christ no otherwise but as God revealeth the things that are
to come concerning his church to him; which respects his office as
Mediator, not his nature as he is one with God, blessed for ever.
Of the deity of Christ, neither in this nor the other place is there
the least intimation in that author.

Q. But what scripture calleth Christ " the eternal Father " ?

A. Isa. ix. 6.

Q. What sayest thou thereunto ?

A. From thence a divine nature cannot be proved, seeing Christ is called the
" Father of eternity" for a certain cause, as may be seen from the words there a little
before expressed. But it is marvellous that the adversaries will refer this place to
the Son, which treats of the eternal 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 eternal life,
which is future.

It were well for our adversaries if they could thus shift off this
testimony. Let the words be considered, and it will quickly appear
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 born, unto us a Son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace."

1. Our catechists, confessing that this is spoken of Christ, and that
he is here called " The everlasting Father" (they are more modest
than Grotius, whose labour to corrupt this place is to be bewailed,
having ventured on the words as far as any of the modern rabbins,
who yet make it their business to divert this text from being applied
to the Messiah), have saved me the labour of proving from the text
and context that he only can possibly be intended. This, then, being
taken for granted, that is that which is here affirmed of him, that
" his name shall be called," or " he shall be," and " shall be known
to be" (for both these are contained in this expression), " Wonder
ful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince

1 " At quse scriptura Christum Patrem scternitatis vocat ? — Isa. ix. 6.

" Tu vero quid ad haec ? — Ex eo naturam divinam probari non posse, cum certain ob
causam Pater aeternitatis Christus sit vocatus, ex ipsis verbis ibidem paulo superius
expressis videre est. Mirum vero est adversarios hunc locum, ubi agitur de Patre
seterno, ad Filium referre, quern constat secundum eos ipsos Patrem non esse. Pater
vero seternitatis aut futuri seculi propterea dictus est Christus, quod sit princeps et
autor vitae aeternae, quse futura est."

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 315

of Peace." He who is " The mighty God" and " The everlasting
Father" is God by nature; but so is Jesus Christ. The expression
here used of '"'The mighty God" is ascribed to God, Deut. x. 17,
Nehem. ix. 32, Jer. xxxii. 18; and is a most eminent name of God,
— a name discriminating him from all that are not God by nature.
And this may be added to the other names of God that are attri
buted to Christ: as " Adonai," Ps. ex. 1 ;— " Elohim," Ps. xlv. 6;
Heb. i. 8; — "Jehovah," Jer. xxiii. 6, xxxiii. 16; Mai. iii. 1; Ps.
Ixxxiii. 18;— "God," John i. 1;— "The true God," 1 John v. 20;
— "The great God," Titus ii. 13, (of which places before); — and
here " The mighty God, The everlasting Father."

2. What say our catechists to all this ? They fix only on that ex
pression, " The eternal Father," and say that we cannot intend the
Son here, because we say he is not the Father ; and yet so do these
gentlemen themselves ! They say Christ is the Son of God, and no
way the same with the Father-; and yet they say that upon a peculiar
account he is here called " The eternal Father."

3. On what account, then, soever Christ is called " The eternal
Father," yet he is called so, and is eternal. Whether it be because
in nature he is one with the Father, or because of his tender and
fatherly affections to his church, or because he is the author of eternal
life, or 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
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace," is God by nature; which
was to be confirmed.

So much for them. But our other friend must not be forgotten.
The place is of great importance, the testimony in it evident and
clear; and we must not suffer ourselves, on any pretence, to be de
prived of the support thereof. Thus, then, he proceeds in the exposi
tion of this place : —

" For unto us a child is born." " Id est, nascetur. Nam Hebreea
prseterita sumuntur pro futuris;" — " That is, shall be born," etc. Of
this we shall have use in the very next words.

" Unto us a Son is given." " Dabitur. Ezechias patri Achazo mul-
tum dissimilis. Sic tamen ut multo excellentius hsec ad Messiam
pertinere, non Christiani tantum agnoscant, sed et Chaldseus hoc
loco;" — that is, " Shall be given. Hezekiah, most unlike his father
Ahaz. Yet so that these things belong more excellently to the
Messiah, not only as the Christians acknowledge, but the Chaldee in
this place."

Here begins the exposition. Hezekiah is intended. So, indeed,
say some of the rabbins. But, — 1. This prophecy is evidently a con
tinuance of that which is begun chap, vii., and was given at the time
of the invasion of Judah by Rezin and Pekah ; which was after Ahaz
had reigned some years, as is evident, 2 Kings xvi. 1-5. Now, he

316 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

reigned but sixteen years in all, and when Hezekiah came to the
crown, in succession to him, he was twenty-five years of age,
2 Kings xviii. 1, 2; so that he must needs be born before this pro
phecy. There is, then, already an inconsistency in these annotations,
making the prophet to speak of that which was past as future and
to come.

2. It is true that the Chaldee paraphrast applies this prophecy
unto the Messiah, whose words are, " Dicit propheta domui David ;
quoniam parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis, et suscepit
legem super se, ut servaret earn ; et vocabitur nomen ejus, a facie
admirabilis consilii Deus, vir permanens in jeternum ; Christus cujus
pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus." He not only refers
the whole to Christ, without any intimation of Hezekiah, but says
also that his name shall be " The God of counsel."

3. Neither is he alone, but the ancient rabbins generally are of
the same judgment, as Petrus Galatinus and Raymundus Martinus
abundantly manifest. To repeat what is or may be collected from
them to that purpose is not much to mine.

4. The present difference between us and the learned annotator is,
whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no. To what hath been
spoken we have that to add in opposition to him which we chiefly
insist upon, namely, that none of the things ascribed to the person
here spoken of can be attributed to Hezekiah, as expressing some
what more divine than can be ascribed to any mere man what
ever. Indeed, as Grotius wrests the words in his following inter
pretation, they may be ascribed to any other ; for he leaves no
name of God, nor any expression of any thing divine, to him that is
spoken of.

Among the rabbins that interpret this place of Hezekiah, one of
the chief said he was the Messiah indeed, and that they were to
look for no other ! This is the judgment of Rabbi Hillel in the Tal
mud. Hence, because Maimonides said somewhere that the faith of
the. Messiah to come is the foundation of the law, it is disputed by
Rabbi Joseph Albo, Orat. i. cap. i., whether Hillel were not to be
reckoned among, the apostates and such as should have no portion
in the world to come ; but he resolves the question on HillePs side,
and denies that the faith of the Messiah to come is the foundation
of the law. Others, who apply these words to Hezekiah, say he
should have been the Messiah, but that God altered his purpose
upon the account which they assign. This they prove from verse 6,
where, in the word '"l?")?r, " mem clausum" is put in the middle
of a word. This Grotius takes notice of, and says, " Eo stabili-
tatem significari volunt Hebraei, ut per mem apertum in fine rup-
turam." Perhaps sometimes they do so, but here some of them
turn it to another purpose, as they may use it to what purpose

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. SI 7

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, etistud n?"]P?, Esa. ix. 6, clausum est? Qusesivit Deus sanctus
benedictus facere Ezechiam Messiam,et Sennacheribum Gog et Magog.
Dixit proprietas judicii coram eo, ' Domine mundi, et quid Davidem,
qui dixit faciei tuse tot cantica et laudes, non fecisti Messiam, Eze
chiam vero, cui fecisti omnia signa hsec, et non dixit canticum faciei
tuae, vis facere Messiam?' Propterea clausum fuit statim, etc. Egressa
est vox ccelestis, 'Secretum meurn mihi ;'" — " Rabbi Tanchum said,
Seeing every mem that is in the middle of a word is open, how comes
that in nann? to be closed ? The holy, blessed God sought to make
Hezekiah to be the Messiah, and Sennacherib to be Gog and Magog.
Propriety of judgment" (that is, the right measure of judgment), "said
before him, ' Lord of the whole earth, why didst thou not make David
Messiah, who spake so many songs and praises before thee ? and
wilt [thou] make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, for whom thou hast
wrought those great signs, and he spake no song before thee?' In
stantly mem was shut, and a heavenly voice went forth, ' My secret
belongs to me.'"

And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a song ! And
these are good masters in the interpretation of prophecies concern
ing Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned anno-
tator about this business : " Non incredibile est," says 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 than 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 six hundred, it denotes the space of
time at the end whereof Christ was to be born, which was so many
years from the fourth of Ahaz, wherein this prophecy, as is supposed,
was given.

I have not insisted on these things as though they were of any
importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, when men are
dealing seriously about the things of God, but only to show what
little cause Grotius had to follow the modern rabbins in their ex
position of this place, whose conceits upon it are so foolish and ridi
culous.

Return we to the Annotations. The first passage he fixes on is,
" And the government shall be upon his shoulder." Saith he, '*Id
est, erit Koptpvpoy'vrirof, db ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, ut in
regnum natus. Confer Ezech. xxviii. 13;" — "He shall be born to
purple ; from his very cradle he shall wear the kingly purple, being
born to the kingdom."

SIS VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

1. But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah. His son Manasseh was
all this as well as he ; and how this, being in itself a light and trivial
thing, common to all other kings' sons with him, should be thus pro
phesied 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 wear a purple coat?" which the prophet, when he
gave forth this prophecy, perhaps saw him playing in every day. Cer
tainly it is a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to
a man's own understanding in the exposition of the Scripture. That
the government, the principality here mentioned, which is said to be
upon the shoulder of him concerning whom the words are spoken, —
that is, committed to him as a weighty thing, — is the whole rule and
government of the church of God, committed to the management of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator, to the inconceivable benefit and
consolation of his people, the reader may find evinced in all exposi
tors on the place (unless some one or other of late, persons of note,
who, to appear somebodies, have ventured to follow Grotius) ; it is not
my business to insist on particulars.

His next note is on these words, " His name shall be called." " In
Hebraeo est vocabit; supple quisque. Etiam Chaldseus vocabitur
transtulit. Notum autem Hebrseis did sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui
tales tituli aut svlQfra conveniunt." I delight not to contend at all,
nor shall do it without great cause. For the sense of these words, I
am content that we take up thus much : The titles following are his
names, and 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 follows, are divided. Some of them
not seeing how it is possible that the names following should be as
cribed to Hezekiah, some of them directly terming him " God," they
pervert the words, and read them thus: "The wonderful Counsellor,
the mighty God, etc., 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 place. But as this is expressly
contrary to the judgment of the old doctors,1 as hath been abun
dantly proved out of their Targum and Talmud, where Hezekiah is
called the " lord of eight names," and is opposed to Sennacherib, who
they say had eight names also, so it is contrary to all their own
rules of grammar to place the name of him who calls after the verb
calling, of which there is not one instance to be given. Grotius,
therefore, takes in with them who apply all these names to Heze
kiah, shift with them afterward as well as he can. So he proceeds : —

" Wonderful." " Ob summas quse in eo erunt virtutes ;" — " For the
1 Vide Pet. Gal. lib. iii. cap. xix. ; Raymun. Martin, iii. p. dist. 1, cap. ix.

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 319

excellent virtues that shall be in him." But, I pray, why more than
David or Josiah? " This is his name, ' Wonderful;' that is, he shall
be very virtuous, and men shall admire him." How much better this
name agrees to Him, and how much more proper it is, whose person
is so great a mystery, 1 Tim. iii. 16, and whose name is so abstruse,
Prov. xxx. 4, and that upon the wonderful conjunction of two natures
in one person, here mentioned (he who is " The mighty God" being
also "a child given" unto us), is evident to all.

"Counsellor, The mighty God." " Imo consultatorDeifortis; id
est, qui in omnibus negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per Prophetas sci
licet, ut jam sequetur ;" — "Yea, 'he who asketh counsel of the mighty
God;' that is, who in all his affairs asks counsel of God, namely, by
the prophets."

And is not this boldness thus to correct the text, " Counsellor,
The mighty God," "Yea, he who asketh counsel of the mighty God?"
What colour, what pretence, what reason or plea, may be used for
this perverting the words of the text, our annotator not in the least
intimates.

The words are evidently belonging to the same person, equally
parts of that name whereby he is to be called; and the casting of
them, without any cause, into this construction, in a matter of this
importance (because it is to be said), is intolerable boldness. It is,
not without great probability of truth, pleaded by some, that the
first two words should go together, " The wonderful Counsellor," as
those that follow do ; — not that &\?S>, " admirabilis," is an epithet, or
an adjective, it being a substantive, and signifying a wonder or a
miracle ; but that the weight of what is said being laid much upon
the force of " Counsellor," setting out the infinite wisdom of Christ,
in all his ways, purposes, and counsels concerning his church, this
other term seems to be suited to the setting forth thereof. But this
corruption of the text is the more intolerable in our annotator, be
cause, 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 plain than that which he hath insisted on; so that
had he been any friend to the deity of Christ he would not have
endeavoured to have robbed him of his proper name, " The mighty
God," in this place. But this was necessary, that the rabbinical ac
commodation of this place to Hezekiah might be retained.

That this place, then, is spoken of Christ we have evinced, nor can
it be waived without open perverting of the words; and he is here
called " The mighty God," as was before declared.

Grotius proceeds to apply the residue of this glorious name to
Hezekiah : " The everlasting Father," or, as it is in the Vulgar Latin,
" Pater futuri seculi." " In Hebrseo non estfuturi. Pater seculi est
qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, et in longum tempus;" — "In

320 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^!.

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 Latin translation we do not contend. Of the
meaning and use of the word E^itf I have spoken already. When it
is applied to God, it signifies " eternity/' But the word here is not
tfyy,1 but *W, properly "eternity," when applied to God: Ps. x. 16,
" The LORD is King ^ a?ty" — "seculi et 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 sons he left, besides one, and him a wicked one
for the most part of his days, is uncertain. Within one hundred and
thirty years, or thereabout, his whole posterity was carried captive.
How exceedingly unsuited this appellation is to him is evident. " The
Father of eternity ;" that is, one that leaves a son behind him, and a
possibility for his posterity to continue in the condition wherein he
was for one hundred and thirty years ! Many such everlasting fathers
may we find out. What in all this is peculiar to Hezekiah, that this
should so emphatically be said to be his name?

The next is, " Princeps Pacis;"— " The Prince of Peace." " Prin-
ceps pacificus, et in pace victums;" — " A peaceable prince, and one
that should live in peace."

1. On how much better, more noble and glorious account this title
belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of Peace is not only a
peaceable prince, but the author, giver, procurer, establisher of peace.
3. Neither did Hezekiah reign in peace all his days. His kingdom
was invaded, his fenced cities taken, and himself and chief city de
livered by a miraculous slaughter of his enemies.

" Of the increase of his government, and of peace no end;" which
he reads according to the Vulgar Latin, " Multiplicabitur ejus im-
perium, et pacis ejus non erit finis." Literally, "For the multiplying
of his kingdom, and of peace no end." As to the first part, his ex
position is, " Id est, durabit per annos 29 ;" — " His kingdom should
continue for twenty-nine years." Who would believe such gross
darkness should cover the face of so learned a man? " Of the in
crease of his government there shall be no end ;" that is, he shall
reign nine and twenty years ! This might almost twice as properly
be spoken of his son Manasseh, who reigned fifty-five.

And now let him that hath a mind to feed on such husks as these
go on with his annotations in this place ; I am weary of considering
such trash. And let the pious reader tremble at the righteous judg
ment 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 sense
must needs abhor.

1 Ps. xlviii. 14, ix. 6, 7, etc.

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 321

It appears, then, that we have here a description of Jesus Christ,
and of him only, and that the names here ascribed to him are pro
per to him, and declare who he was and is, even " The mighty God,
The Prince of Peace," etc. Let us proceed with our catechists.

In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they return
slight answers unto ; and yet to provide them in such manner as that
they might be the easier dealt withal, they cut off parcels and expres
sions in the middle of sentences, and from the context, from whence
the greatest evidence, as to the testimony they give in this matter,
doth arise. I shall consider them apart as they are proposed : —

Christ is called the Word of God, John i 1, Rev. xix. 13. They
say,—

From hence, that Christ is called " The Word of God," a divine nature in Christ
cannot be proved, yea, the contrary may be gathered; for seeing he is the Word of
the one God, it is apparent that he is not that one God. But Jesus is therefore
called the Word of God, because he expounds to us the whole will of God, as
John there declares a little after, John i. 18 ; as he is also in the same sense said
to be life and truth.1

1. Christ is the Word of God. The Word, or 6 Ao/og, is either *p o-
<popix6f, or the word which outwardly is spoken of God ; or evdiddt-rog,
his eternal, essential Word or Wisdom. Let our catechists prove
another acceptation of the word in any place. That Christ is not
the word spoken by God they will grant ; for he was a person, that
revealed to us the word of God. He is, then, God's eternal Word or
Wisdom ; and so, consequently, God. 2. Christ is so called the Word
of God, John i 1, as that he is in the same place said to be God.
And our adversaries are indeed too impudent, whereas they say, " If
he be the Word of the one God, he cannot be that one God," the
Holy Ghost affirming the flat contrary, namely, that he was " The
Word, and was with God, and was God ;" that is, doubtless, the one
true God, verses 1-3. He was " with God " in his person as the
Son ; and he "was God" as to his nature. 3. Christ is not called the
Word, John i. 1, upon the account of his actual revealing the word
of God to us in his own person on the earth (which he did, verse
18), because he is called so in his everlasting residence with the
Father before the world was, verse 1 ; nor is he so called on that
account, Rev. xix. 13, it being applied to him in reference to the
work of executing judgment on his enemies as a king, and not to his
revealing the word of God as a prophet. So that notwithstanding
this exception, this name of the " Word of God/' applied to Christ,

* " Ex eo quod Verbum Dei sit Christus doceri divina in Christo natura non potest,
imo adversum potius colligitur, cum enim ipsius unius Dei Verbum sit, apparet eum
non esse ipsum unum Deum. Quod etiam ad singula haec testimonia simul responderi
potest. Verbum vero, vel Sermo Dei Jesus ideo nuncupatur, quod omnem Dei volunta-
tem nobis exposuerit, ut ibidem Johannes inferius exposuit, Johan. i. 18. Quemadmo-
dum etiam eodem sensu et vita et veritas dicitur."

VOL. XII. 21

822 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

as in the places mentioned, proves him to have a divine nature, and
to be God, blessed for ever.

The next place is Col. i. 15, " Christ is the image of the invisible
God." To which they say only, —

The same may be said of this as of that foregoing.1

But an image is either an essential image or accidental, — a re
presentation of a thing in the same substance with it, as a son is the
image of his father, or a representation in some resemblance, like
that of a picture. That Christ cannot be the latter is evident. Our
catechists refer it to his office, not his person. But, — 1. It is the
person of Christ that is described in that and the following verses,
and not his office. 2. The title given to God, whose image he is,
" The invisible God," will allow there be no image of him but what
is invisible ; nor is there any reason of adding that epithet of God
but to declare also the invisible spiritual nature of Christ, wherein
he is like his Father. And the same is here intended with what
is mentioned in the third place : —

Heb. i 3, " He is the express image of his person."

This is to be understood that whatever God hath promised, he hath now really
exhibited in Christ.1

Well expounded ! Christ is the character of his Father's person;
that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ ! Would not any
man admire these men's acumen and readiness to interpret the Scrip
tures? The words are part of the description of the person of the
Son of God, " He is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the ex
press image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his
power;" that is, he reveals the will of God! This the apostle had
expressly affirmed, verse 2, in plain and familiar terms ; that he
should now repeat over the same thing again, in words so exceed
ingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The
apostle speaks of the hypostasis of the Father, not of his will ; of
his subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We do not deny that
Christ doth represent his Father to us, and is to us the " express
image of his person;" but, antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in
himself. Grotius' corruption of this whole chapter was before dis
covered, and in part removed.

John xiv. 9, " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father/' is
next proposed. To which they say, —

Neither can any divine nature be proved from hence, for this " seeing " cannot
be spoken of the essence of God, which is invisible, but of the knowledge of the
things that Christ did and spake.3

1 " Hoc idem dici potest de eo, quod imago Dei inconspicui vocatur."

3 " Quod vero character hypostaseos ejus dictus sit, hoc intelligi debet : ' Deus quic-

quid nobis promisit, jam reipsa in eo exhibuisse.' "

3 " Quod vero attinet ad dictum Domini Jesu, Qui me videt videt Patrem, nequa

hinc naturam divinam probari cerium cuique esse potest, cum ea ratio videndi non

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 323

Christ so speaks of his and his Father's oneness, whereby he that
saw one saw both, as he describes it to be in the verse following,
where he says "the Father is in him, and he in the Father." Now,
that the Father is in him and he in the Father, and that he and
the Father are one in nature and essence, hath been before suffi
ciently demonstrated. The seeing here intended is that of faith,
whereby both Father and Son are seen unto believers.

Col. ii. 9 is the last in this collection, " In whom dwelleth all the
fulness of the Godhead bodily." To this they say, —

That this word divinitas may signify the will of God. And seeing the apostle
opposeth that speech not to persons, but to philosophy and the law, it is manifest
that it is to be understood of the doctrine, and not of the person- of Christ. Of
this word "bodily" thou shalt hear afterward.1

But, — 1. It is not divinity but deity, not SwoVjjs but Ssor»jc, that
is here spoken of ; and that not simply neither,
"the fulness of the Godhead." 2. That Siorys, or
is ever taken for the will of God, they do not, they cannot prove.

3. How can it be said that the will of God xaroixtT eufianxug, " doth
dwell bodily " in any, or what can be the sense of that expression ?
Where they afterward interpret the word "bodily" I do not re
member ; when I meet with their exposition it shall be considered.

4. That the words are to be referred to the person of Christ, and not
to his doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words themselves, that
will not bear any such sense as whereunto they are wrested, but also
from the context ; for not only the whole order and series of words
before and after do speak of the person of Christ (for " In him are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," verse 3 ; " Him we
receive," verse 6 ; "In him we are built up," verse 7 ; "In him we
are complete," verse 10; "In him we are circumcised," verse 11;
" With him we are buried," verse 12 ;" Together with him are we
quickened," verse 13 ; and it was he that was crucified for us,
verses 14, 15), but also the design of the Holy Ghost enforces this
sense, it being to discover a fulness and sufficiency in Christ of all
grace and wisdom, that men should not need to seek relief from
either law or philosophy. The fulness of the Godhead inhabiting in
the person of Christ substantially, he is God by nature. And of these
places so far. The three following, of John xvii, 5, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11,
John iii. 13, have been in their proper places already vindicated.

Grotius interprets that of Col. ii. 9 according to the analogy of the
faith of our catechists: "Christi doctrina non modo philosophic sed et

possit de essentia Dei accipi, quae invisibilis sit prorsus, verum de cognitione eorum,
quae dixit et fecit Christus."

1 " Nee illisdenique verbis, quod plenitude divinttatis in eo habitat corpordliter, probatur
natura divina. Primum enim, vox hsec divinitas designare potest voluntatem Dei.
Eamque orationem cum apostolus opponat non personis, sed philosophise et legi, hino
perspicuum est, earn de doctrina Domini Jesu non de persona accipi. De hac vero voce
corporaliter, quid ea notet, inferius suo loco audies."

324 VINDICI.E EVANGELIOE.

/

Legi Mosis plurimum prasstat." That <?rav TO x\qpufj.a rr,$ ^tory-os should
be doctrina, and XUTOIKS? lv "X.pi<STu should make it " the doctrine of
Christ," and ffw/iar/xwg should be no man knows what, is but a cross
way of interpretation. And yet Augustine is quoted, with a saying
from him to give countenance unto it; which makes me admire
almost as much as at the interpretation itself. The words our anno-
tator mentions are taken from his Epist. 57 ad Dardan., though he
mentions it not. The reason will quickly appear to any one that
shall consult the place ; for notwithstanding the expression here
cropped off from his discourse, he gives an interpretation of the words
utterly contrary to what this learned man would here insinuate, and
perfectly agreeing with that which we have now proposed !

Our catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places where
Christ is called "The only Lord, the Lord of glory, the King of kings,
the Lord of lords," — all which being titles of the one true God, prove
him to be so ; — and the first proposed is, " To us there is one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him/' 1 Cor. viii. 6.

A little to give light to our argument from hence, and that the
strength of it may appear, some few observations concerning the con
text and the words themselves will be necessary: —

1. Verse 5, the apostle, speaking of the heathens and their opinion
of the Deity, says, " There be," that is, to them, in their appre
hension, " gods many, and lords many ;" that is, many supreme
powers, who are gods and lords. The terms of " gods many, and
lords many," are not expressive of several kinds of deities, but of
the same. Whom they esteemed lords they esteemed gods, and so on
the contrary. In opposition to this polytheism 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 Christians, in the different
persons of the Father and Son, he had not spoken in such an oppo
sition as the adversative dXXa at the beginning of the words and the
comparison instituted do require.

2. That this " one Lord" of Christians is the only true God is ma
nifest from Deut. vi 4, " The LORD our God is one LORD." So the
apostle here, " To us there is one Lord :" not many gods, as the
heathens fancied ; in opposition also to whose idolatry is that asser
tion of Moses. And so Thomas, in his confession, joins these two to
gether, intending one and the same person, - ' My Lord and my God."

3. Kvpiog, being put to signify God, is the word which the LXX.
render Jehovah by, and so e7s Kvpiog is that " only Jehovah."

4 The attribution of the same works in this verse to Father and
Son manifests 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: —

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 325

Hence a divine nature cannot be proved ; for, — 1. He doth manifestly difference
him from 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," shows 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 means be spoken of him '
who is God by nature. And though the Scriptures do sometimes say of the
Father, " By him are all things," yet these words are to be taken otherwise of the
Father than of the Son. It is manifest that this is said of the Father, because all
mediate causes by which any thing is done are not from any other, but from him
self, nor are they such as that he cannot work without them ; but it is spoken of
Christ, because by him another, namely, God, worketh all things, as it is expressly
said, Eph. iii. 9.- That I need not to remember, that the word " all things," as
was showed above, is to be referred to the subject-matter ; which that it so
appeareth hence, that the apostle dealeth of all those things which belong to the
Christian people, as these two words " to us" and " Father" do declare. Whence
it is proved that Christ is not simply and absolutely, but in some certain respect,
called the " one Lord, by whom are all things." Wherefore his divine nature is
not proved from hence.1

It is very evident that they are much entangled with this testi
mony, which necessitates them to turn themselves into all manner of
shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no.
Their several attempts to evade shall be considered in their order.

1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearly from the Father as to his
person, here spoken of; but that they have proved the Father to be
the only God by nature, exclusively to the Son and Holy Ghost, is
but a boasting before they put off their harness. It is true, the
Father is said here to be the " one God ;" which no more hinders the
Son from being so too than the assertion that the Son is the " one
Lord " denies the Father's being so also.

2. That cavil at the word "lay" hath been already considered and
removed. It is enough for us to manifest that this assignation of
the creation of all things to Christ by the expression of, " By him
are all things," doth by no means depose him from the honour of
principal efficient cause in that work, the same attribution being
made to the Father in the same words. And to say, as our catechists
do, that this expression is ascribed to the Father in such a sense,

1 " Ex eo quod Christum apostolus Dominum sunm vocet, natura divina effici ne-
quit ; nam eum prime manifesto ab illo Patre, quern ibidem Deum unum fatetur,
secernit, quum solum natura Deum esse superius docuimus. Deinde, hoc ipsum quod
de eo dicit, omniaper ipsum, eum natura Deum esse non ostendit, cum, ut superius
demonstratum est, hac particula 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 tamen haec de Patre quam de
Christo accipiuntur. De Patre enim haec ideo dici constat, quod omnes causae mediae
per quas fit aliquid, non aliunde sint, nisi ab ipso, nee sint ejusmodi, ut sine iis ille
' agere non possit ; de Christo vero dicuntur, quod per eum alius quis, nempe Deus
omnia operetur, ut Eph. iii. 9 expresse habetur. Ne commemorandum mihi sit ver-
bum omnia (uti superius ostensum est) ad subjectam materiam referri ; quod ita
habere inde apparet, quod apostolus agit de iis omnibus rebus quae ad populum
Christianum pertinent, ut duo haec verba demonstrant, nobis, et Pater. Unde efficitur
Christum non simpliciter et absolute, verum certa de causa vocatum Dominum unum,
per quern omnia. Quare hinc natura divina non probatur."

326 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

and not to Christ, is purely, without any pretence of proof, to beg the
thing in question. Neither is that any thing to the purpose which
is urged from Eph. iii. 9, for we confess that as Christ is equal with
his Father as to his nature, wherein he is God, so as he is the 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 consi
deration, is the demonstration of the one God and Lord of Christians,
asserted in opposition to the many gods and lords of the heathen,
from the effects or works of that one God and Lord, " of him and
by him are all things;" and this is the difference that God elsewhere
puts between himself and idols, Jer. x. 10, 11. And if there be any
such subject-matter as proves Christ not to be the one Lord abso
lutely, but in some respect, it proves also that the Father is not the
one God absolutely, but in some respect only.

4. The words " to us" and " Father" do one of them express the
persons believing the doctrine proposed concerning the one true God
and Lord, the other describes that one true God by that name
whereby he revealed himself to those believers; neither of them at
all 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 needlessly multiply words, particularly to animadvert
on Grotius' annotations on this place. I do it only where he seems
to add some new shifts to the interpretation of our adversaries, or
varies from them in the way, though he agrees in the end; neither of
which reasons occurring in this place, I shall not trouble the reader
with the consideration of his words. By 5/' o5 TO. irdvra, to maintain
his former expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things
of the new creation only intended ; but without colour or pretence of
proof, or any thing to give light to such an exposition of the words.

Our catechists next mention 1 Cor. ii. 8, " For had they known 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, Acts vii. 2, " The God of glory appeared unto our father Abra
ham, when he was in Mesopotamia;" and Ps. xxiv. 8, " Who is this
King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in
battle." Christ, therefore, is this God; and, indeed, is intended in
that psalm. But they say, —

A divine nature cannot be proved from hence, seeing it treateth of him who was
crucified, which cannot be said of a divine nature, but of a man ; who is therefore
called the " Lord of glory," that is, the glorious Lord, because he is crowned of
God with glory and honour.1

1 " Cum in eo agatur de eo qui crucifixus sit, apparet ex eo naturam divinam non
probari, cum de hac illud dici nequeat, verum de homine, qui ideo Dominus gloria di-
citur, hoc est, Dominus gloriosus, quod a Deo gloria et honore coronatus sit."

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 327

But, — 1. Though the divine nature could not be crucified, yet he
that had a divine nature might be and was crucified in the nature
of a man, which he also had. Our catechists know they do but beg
in these things, and would fain have us grant that because Christ
had a human nature, he had not a divine. 2. He is called " The
Lord of glory," as God is called "The God of glory;" and these
terms are equivalent, as hath been showed. 3. He was the Lord of
glory when the Jews crucified him, or else they had not crucified
him who was the Lord of glory, but one that was to be so ; for he
was not crowned with glory and honour until after his crucifying.

Grotius' annotation on this place is worth our observation, as hav
ing somewhat new and peculiar in it " Kvpiov TTJS &6%ris. Eum
quern Deus vult esse omnium judicem. Nam gloria Christi maxime
ilium diem respicit, 1 Pet. iv. 13. Christus Kuptog dofyg, prsefiguratus
per arcam, quae Itoan '=!?*?> Ps. xxiv. 9." For the matter and sub
stance of it, this is the same plea with that before mentioned : the
additions only deserve our notice. 1. Christ is called " The Lord of
glory," as God is called " The God of glory;" and that term is given
him to testify that he is the God of glory. If his glory at the day
of judgment be intended, the Jews could not be said to crucify the
Lord of glory, but him that was to be the Lord of glory at the end
of the world. Our participation of Christ's glory is mentioned 1 Pet.
iv. 13, not his obtaining of glory. He is essentially the Lord of
glory ; the manifestation whereof is various, and shall be eminent at
the day of judgment. 2. That the ark is called *N33n 1]?O is little less
than blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of hosts who is
called " The Lord of glory," Ps. xxiv. 9. But this is another shift
for the obtaining of the end designed, — namely, to give an instance
where a creature is called " Jehovah," as that king of glory is; than
which a more unhappy one could scarce be fixed on in the whole
Scripture. The annotations of the learned man on that whole psalm
are very scanty. His design is to refer it all to the story of David's
bringing home the ark, 2 Sam. vi. That it might be occasioned
thereby I will not deny; that the ark is called " The King of glory"
and " The LORD of hosts," and not he of whose presence and favour
the ark was a testimony, no attempt of proof is offered. Neither, by
the way, can I assent unto his interpretation of these words, " ' Lift
up your heads, 0 ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors:'
that is, Ye gates of Zion, made of cedar, that are made . hanging
down, and when they are opened, they are lifted up." Certainly
something more sublime and glorious is intended.

The process of our catechists is unto Rev. xvii. 14, xix. 16; in both

' which places Christ is called " The Lord of lords and King of kings."

This also is expressly the name of God: 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16, " Who is

the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

328 VINDICLE EVANGEUCLE.

who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light," etc. To this
they say : —

In this testimony he is treated of who is the Lamb, who hath garments, who
was killed, and redeemed us with his blood, as John evidently testifieth ; which can
by no means be referred to a divine nature, and therefore a divine nature cannot
hence be proved. But all things that in these testimonies are attributed to Christ
do argue that singular authority which God hath given unto Christ in those things
that belong to the new covenant.1

These are but drops ; the shower is past. Because he who is the
Lamb who was slain is King of kings and Lord of lords, we prove
him to have another nature, in respect whereof he could be neither
killed nor slam; therefore he is God, God only is so. And the
answer is, " Because he was the Lamb he was killed and slain, there
fore he is not God," — that is, he is not King of kings and Lord of
lords; — which the Holy Ghost, who gave him this name, will prove
against them. 2. Our adversaries have nothing to except against
this testimony, but that the King of kings and Lord of lords is not
God; which they do not prove, nor labour to disprove our confirma
tion of it. 3. Kings and lords of the world are not of the things
of the new covenant, so that Christ's absolute sovereignty over them
is not of the grant which he hath of his Father as Mediator, but as
he is God by nature.

And so much for this collection concerning these several names of
God attributed to Christ.

What follows in the three questions and answers ensuing relates
to the divine worship attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, though
it be marvellous faintly urged by them. Some few texts are named,
but so much as the intendment of our argument from them is not
once mentioned. But because I must take up this elsewhere, namely,
in answer to Mr Biddle, chap, x., I shall remit the consideration of
what here they except to the proper place of it ; where, God assist
ing, from the divine worship and invocation of Jesus Christ, I shall
invincibly demonstrate his eternal power and Godhead.

In the last place, they heap up together a number of testimonies,
— each of which is sufficient to cast them down to the sides of the pit
in the midst of their attempts against the eternal deity of the Son of
God, — and accommodate a slight general answer to them all. The
places are worth the consideration ; I shall only propose them, and
then consider their answer.

The first is Isa. viii. 13, 14, " Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself;
and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall

1 " In tertio testimonio, cum agatur de eo qui Agnus est, et qui vestimenta habet
quern et occisum, et sanguine suo nos redimisse, apertissime idem Johannes fatetur, quae
referri ad divinam naturam nulla ratione possunt, apparet eo naturam divinam Christ!
astrui non posse. Omnia vero quae hie Christo in iis testimom'is tribuuntur, singula-
rem ipsius potestatem quam Deus Christo in iis quae ad novum fcedus pertinent, dedit,
arguunt."

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 329

be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of
offence to both the houses of Israel." He that is to be for a rock of
offence and a stone of stumbling is the Lord of hosts, whom we must
sanctify in our hearts, and make him our dread and our fear. But
this was Jesus Christ: Luke ii. 34, " This child is set for the fall and
rising again of many in Israel." " As it is written, Behold, I lay in
Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence : and whosoever believeth
on him shall not be ashamed," Rom. ix. 33. " The stone which the

builders refused, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,"

1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. In all which places that prophecy is repeated. Christ,
therefore, is the LORD of hosts, whom we are to sanctify in 6ur heart,
and to make him our dread and our fear.

Isa. xlv. 22, 23, " I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn
by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and •
shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall swear." He who is God, and none else, is God by nature. But
now " we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. For
it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God," Rom. xiv. 10, 11. It is the
judgment-seat of Christ that men must appear before when they bow
their knee to him, — that is, to him who is God, and none else.

Isa. xli. 4, " I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last ; I am he."
Chap. xliv. 6, " I am the first, and I am the last ; and beside me
there is no God." So chap, xlviii. 1 2. That this is spoken of Christ
we have his own testimony, Rev. i. 17, "Fear not; I am the first
and the last." He who is the first and the last, he is God, and there
is none besides him.

Zech. xii. 10, "I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced." He that
speaks is unquestionably Jehovah, the Lord of hosts. So the whole
context, so the promising of the Spirit in this verse, evinces. But that
Jesus Christ is here intended, that it is he who is spoken of, is evi
dent, Rev. i. 7, " Every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced
him." He, then, is Jehovah, the Lord of hosts. " These things
were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall
not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look
on him whom they pierced," John xix. 36, 37. It is, as I said,
beyond dispute that it is Jehovah, the only true God, that spake ;
and what he spoke of himself is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
• Ps. Ixviii. 17, 18, " The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even
thousands of angels : the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the
holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity
captive : thou hast received gifts for men ; that the LORD God might
dwell among them." This also is a glorious description of the tri-

S30 VINDICL& EVANGELIC2E.

umpliant majesty of God; and yet the God here intended is Jesus
Christ: Eph. iv. 8-10, " Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up
on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto 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 also that ascended/'

Grotius on both these places says that what is properly spoken
of God is by Paul mystically applied to Christ ; to the same purpose
with what our catechists afterward insist on. That it is the same
person who is intended in both places, and not that applied to one
which was spoken of another (which is most evident in the context),
he takes no notice. There being nothing of plea or argument in his
annotations against our testimonies from hence, but only an endea
vour to divert the meaning of the places to another sense, 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 it may appear that a divine nature
in Christ cannot from them be proved : for those things which are spoken of
God under the law may be spoken of Christ under the gospel, as also they are
spoken, for another cause, — namely, because of that eminent conjunction that is be
tween God and Christ, on the account of dominion, power, and office ; all which
the scriptures of the New Testament do frequently witness that he received by
gift from God. And if the Scripture delivers this of Moses, that he brought
Israel out of Egypt, Exod. xxxii. 7, and that he was the redeemer of the people,
Acts vii. 35, and of others the same things, that were evidently written of God,
when neither Moses nor others had so near a conjunction with God as was be
tween God and Christ, much more justly may those things which in the first
respect are spoken of God be accommodated to Christ, because of the eminent
and near conjunction that was between them.'

And this is their defence, the answer they fix upon to all the tes
timonies recited ; wherein how little truth or strength there is will
quickly appear. 1. These scriptures perhaps may be answered thus
or thus, as what will not the serpentine wits of men find out to
wrest the word withal to their own destruction ? but the question
is, How ought they to be interpreted, and what is their sense and in-
tendment? 2. We do not say that what is spoken of God under the
law is accommodated to Christ under the gospel, but that the thin^
instanced in, that were spoken of God, were then spoken of Chris

1 " Ad omnia ita responderi potest, ut appareat nullo modo ex iis effici divinam in
Christo esse naturam ; etenim aliam ob causam ea quae de Deo dicta sunt sub lege,
dici potuerunt de Christo sub evangelio, quemadmodum et dicta sunt, nimirum
propter illam summam quae inter Deum et Christum est, ratione imperil, potestatis
atque muneris, conjunctionem, quas omnia ilium Dei dono consecutum esse scriptures
Novi Testament! passim testantur. Quod si Scriptura ea tradit de Mose, eum Israelem
ex uEgypto eduxisse, Exod. xxxii. 7, et quod redemptor illius populi fuerit, Act. vii.
35, et de aliis idem quod de ipso Deo apertissime scriptum erat, cum nee Moses
neque alii tantam cum Deo conjunctionem haberent, quanta inter Deum et Christum
intercessit, multo justius hsec quse de Deo primo respectu dicta sunt, Christo accommo-
dari possunt, propter summam illam et arctissimam inter Deum et Christum conjunc
tionem."

TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 331

as to his nature wherein he is God ; which appears by the event,
expounded in the books of the New Testament. The Scripture
doth not say in the New Testament of Christ what was said in the
Old of God, but evinces those things which were so spoken of God
to have been spoken of Christ. So that, 3. The folly of that pre
tence, that what was spoken of God is referred to Christ upon the
account of the conjunction mentioned, — which, whatever it be, is a
thing of nought in comparison of the distance that is between the
Creator and a mere creature, — is manifest; for let any one be in never
so near conjunction with God, yet if he be not God, what is spoken
of God, and where it is spoken of God, and denoting God only, can
not be spoken of him, nor, indeed, accommodated to him. 4. The in
stances of Moses are most remote from the business in hand. It is
said of Moses that he brought the children of Israel out of Egypt ;
and so he did, as then: chief leader and ruler, so that he was a re
deemer to that people, as he was instrumental in the hand of God,
working by his power and presence with him those mighty works
which made way for their deliverance and redemption. But where
is it said of Moses or any one else that he was God ; that what God
said of himself was said of Moses and accomplished in him? or
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 principal efficient, they as the instru
mental cause, — and so may every other creature in the world, as the
sun gives light and heat ; but shall therefore that which God speaks
in his own name of himself be so much as accommodated unto them?
6. The conjunction that is between God and Christ, according to our
catechists, is but of love and favour on the part of God, and of obe
dience and dependence on the part of Christ; but this in the same
kind, though not in the same degree, is between God and all be
lievers, so that of them also what is spoken of God may be spoken.

And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through with
the consideration of all the testimonies given in the Scripture of the
deity of Christ which these catechists thought good to take notice
of, with a full answer to their long chapter " De persona Christ!"
The learned reader knows how much all the arguments we insist on
and the testimonies we produce in this cause might have been im
proved to a greater advantage of clearness and evidence, had I taken
liberty to handle them as they naturally fall into several heads,
from the demonstration of all the names and properties, all the
works and laws, all the worship and honour of God, to be given and
ascribed to Jesus Christ ; but the work I had to do cast my endea
vour in this business into that order and method wherein it is here
presented to the reader.

332 VINDICLE EVANGELIC-E.

The conclusion of our catechists is a long harangue, wherein they
labour to insinuate the prejudicial ness of our doctrine to the true
knowledge of Christ and the obtaining of salvation by him, with
the certain foundation that is laid in theirs for the participation of
all the benefits of the gospel. The only medium they fix upon for
to gain both these ends by is this, that we deny Christ to be a true
man, which they assert That the first of these is notoriously false is
known to all other men, and is acknowledged in their own con
sciences ; of the truth of the latter elsewhere. He that had a perfect
human nature, soul and body, with all the natural and essential pro
perties of them both, he who was born so, lived so, died so, rose again
so, was and is a perfect man ; so that all the benefits that we do or may
receive from Jesus Christ as a perfect man, like unto us in all things,
sin only excepted, there is a way open for in this our confession of him.
In the meantime, the great foundation of our faith, hope, and expec
tation, lies in this, that " he is the Son of the living God ;" and so that
" God redeemed his church with his own blood," he who was of the
fathers " according to the flesh being God over all, blessed for
ever : " which if he had not been, he could not have performed the
work which for us he had to do. It is true, perhaps, as a mere man
he might do all that our catechists acknowledge him to have done,
and accomplish all that they expect from him ; but for us, who flee
to him as one that suffered for our sins, and made satisfaction to
the justice of God for them, who wrought out a righteousness that
is reckoned to all that believe, that quickens us when we are dead,
and sends the Holy Ghost to dwell and abide in us, and is himself
present with us, etc., it is impossible we should ever have the least
consolation in our fleeing for refuge to him unless we had this
grounded persuasion concerning his eternal power and Godhead.
We cannot think he was made the Son of God and a God upon the
account of what he did for us; but that being God, and the Son of
God, herein was his love made manifest, that he was " made flesh,"
" took upon him the form of a servant," and became therein for us
" obedient unto death, the death of the cross." Many, indeed, and
inexpressible, are the encouragements unto faith and consolation in
believing that we do receive from Christ's being made like to us, a
perfect man, wherein he underwent what we were obnoxious unto,
and whereby he knows how to be compassionate unto us; but that
any sweetness can be hence derived unto any who do refuse to own
the fountain whence all the streams of love and mercy that run in
the human nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea, that our
adversaries in this business have any foundation for faith, love, or
hope, or can have any acceptance with God or with Jesus Christ,
but rather that they are cursed, on the one hand for robbing him of
the glory of his deity, and on the other for putting their confidence

SS3

in a man, we duly demonstrate from innumerable testimonies of
Scripture. And for these men, the truth is, as they lay out the
choicest of all their endeavours to prove him not to be God by na
ture, and so not at all (for a made god, a second-rank god, a deified
man, is no God, the Lord our God being one, and the conceit of it
brings in the polytheism of the heathen amongst the professors of
the name of Christ), so they also deny him to be true man now he
is in heaven, or to retain the nature of a man ; and so, instead of a
Christ that was God from eternity, made a man in one person unto
eternity, they believe in a Christ who was a man, and is made a
god, who never had the nature of God, and had then the nature of
man, but hath lost it. This, Mr B., after his masters, instructs his
disciples in, in his Lesser Catechism, chap, x., namely, that although
Christ rose with his fleshly body, wherein he was crucified, yet now
he hath a spiritual body, not in its qualities, but substance, — a body
that hath neither flesh nor bones. What he hath done with his
other body, where he laid it aside, or how he disposeth of it, he doth
not declare.

CHAPTER XV.

Of the Holy Ghost, his deity, graces, and operations.

MR BIDDLE'S FIFTH CHAPTER EXAMINED.

Ques. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there ?

Ans. Eph. iv. 4.

Q. Wherein consists the prerogative of that Holy Spirit above other spirits?

A. 1 Cor. ii. 10,11.

Q. Whence is the Holy Ghost sent?

A. 1 Pet. i. 12.

Q. By whom ?

A. Gal. iv. 6.

Q. Doth not Christ affirm that he also sends himf how speaketh he?

A. John xvi. 7.

Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the- Holy Ghost, or did he ob
tain it at a certain time ?

A. Acts. ii. 32, 33 ; John vii. 39.

Q. What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?

A. 1 Cor. xii. 13; Eom. viii. 16, 26, 27, V. 6; Col. i. 8; Eph. i. 17j Rom.
xv. 13, xiv. 17; Acts ix. 31; Eph. iii. 16.

Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the apostles by the Holy Ghost ?
what saith Christ to them hereof?

A. John xv. 26, xvi. 13.

Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of himself,
and imparting of his own fulness? what saith Christ concerning him?

A. John xvi. 13, 14.

Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world and in their
natural condition, to the end that they may become the children of God, may

334 VINDICI^E EVANGELIOE.

receive the word, may believe, may repent, may obey Christ; or after they art
"become the children of God, have received the word, do believe, do repent, do
obey Christ f

A. John xiv. 16, 17; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; Acts viii. 14-16 ; John vii.
38, 39 ; Acts xix. 1, 2; Eph. i. 13; Gal. iii. 14; Acts xv. 7, 8, ii. 38, v. 32.

EXAMINATION.

THE fifth chapter of our catechist is concerning the Holy Ghost,
for reducing of whom into the order and rank of creatures Mr Biddle
hath formerly taken great pains j1 following therein the Macedonians of
old, and leaving his new masters the Socinians, who deny him his per
sonality, and leave him to be only the efficacy or energy of the power
of God. The design is the same in both ; the means used to bring
it about differ. The Socinians, not able to answer the testimonies
proving him to be God, to be no creature, do therefore deny his per
sonality.3 Mr B., being not able to stand before the clear evidence of
his personality, denies his deity. What he hath done in this chap
ter I shall consider ; what he hath elsewhere done hath already met
with a detection from another hand.

" Q. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there? — A. 'One
Spirit/ Eph. iv. 4."

I must take leave to put one question to Mr B., that we may the
better know the mind and meaning of his; and that is, what he
means by the "Holy Spirits of Christians?" If he intend that
Spirit which they worship, invocate, believe, and are baptized 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. iv. 4; and this Spirit 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 Christians" he intend
created spiritual beings, sent out from God for the good of Christians,
of those that believe, there are then an innumerable company of holy
spirits of believers ; for all the angels are " ministering spirits, sent
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation," Heb. i. 14.
So that by this one testimony, that there is but one Holy Spirit
of Christians, that Holy Spirit is exempted from the number of
all created spirits, and reckoned as the object of their worship with
the "one God" and " one Lord," Eph. iv. 4-6; when yet they wor
ship the Lord their God alone, and him only do they serve, Matt.
iv. 10.

His second question is, " Wherein consists the prerogative of that
Holy Spirit above other spirits? — A. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11."

1 See his confession in his Epistle to his book against the Deity of Christ.

2 Cloppenburgius Vindiciae pro Deitate S. S. adversus Pneumatomach. Bedellum
Anglum.

OF THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST, AND HIS WORK. 335

The prerogative of that Holy Spirit of whom we speak is that of
God above his creatures, — the prerogative of an infinite, eternal, self-
subsisting being. Yea, and that this is indeed his prerogative we
need not seek for proof beyond that testimony here produced by Mr
B. (though to another purpose) in answer to his question. He that
" searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God," is God. To
" search all things" is the same with knowing all things; so the apostle
interprets it in the next verse, " The things of God knoweth no man,
but the Spirit of God." To know all things is to be omniscient;
but he that is omniscient is God. His angels he charged with folly.
Omniscience is an essential attribute of God ; and therefore Socinus,
in his disputation with Franken, durst not allow Christ to be omni
scient, lest he should also grant him to be infinite in essence.1 Again,
he that searches or knows rd [3ddri rov Qsov, the " deep things of
God," is God. None can know the deep things of an infinite wis
dom and understanding but he that is infinite. All creatures are
excluded from an acquaintance with the deep things of God, but
only as he voluntarily revealeth them : Rom. xi. 34, " Who hath
known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" that
is, no creature hath so been. Qeov ovdiig supaxs irwiroTt, John i. 38.
Now the Spirit doth not know the deep things of God by his volun
tary revelation of them ; for as the spirit of a man knows the things
of a man, so doth the Spirit of God know the things of God. This is
not because they are revealed to the spirit of a man, but because
that is the principle of operation in a man, and is conscious to all
its own actions and affairs. And so it is with the Spirit of God :
being God, and having the same understanding, and will, and power,
with God the Father and Son, as the spirit of a man knows the
things of a man, so doth he the things of God. Thus in the begin
ning of this, as in the close of the last chapter, Mr B. hath provided
sufficiently for his own conviction and scattering of all his paralo
gisms and sophistical insinuations, running through them both.

The design of this present chapter being to pursue what Mr B. hath
some years since publicly undertaken, namely, to disprove the deity
of the Holy Ghost, — his aim here being to divert the thoughts of
his catechumens from an apprehension thereof, by his proposal and
answer of such questions as serve to his design, pretending to de
liver the doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost from the Scripture,
and not once producing any of those texts which are most usually
insisted on for the confirmation of his deity (with what Christian
candour and ingenuity is easily discovered), — I shall briefly, from the
Scripture, in the first place establish the truth concerning the eter
nal deity of the person of the Holy Ghost, and then consider his
questions in their order, so far as shall be judged meet or necessary.
1 De Adoratione Jesu Christi disputatio, pp. 18, 19.

336 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

I shall not go forth unto any long discourse on this subject: some
plain testimonies of Scripture will evince the truth we contend for,
being the heads of as many arguments, if any one shall be pleased
to make use of them in that way.

First, then, the Spirit created, formed, and adorned this world,
and is therefore God : " He that made all things is God," Heb. iii. 4.
" By the word of the LORD were the heavens made ; and all the host
of them by the Spirit of his mouth," Ps. xxxiii. 6. " By his Spirit
hath he garnished the heavens," Job xxvi. 13. " The Spirit of God
hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life,"
chap, xxxiii. 4; Ps. civ. 30. He that makes the heavens and gar-
nisheth them, he that maketh man and giveth him life, is God.
So in the beginning I"1?1™?? motdbat se, moved himself, as a dove
warming its young, as he afterward appeared in the form of a dove.
And hence that which is ascribed unto God absolutely in one place
is in another ascribed to the Spirit absolutely: as, Exod. iv. 15, Num.
xii. 8, what it is affirmed that God doth, will do, or did, is affirmed
of the Spirit, Acts i. 16, xxviii. 25: so Num. xiv. 22, Deut. vi. 16,
what is said of God is affirmed of the Spirit, Isa. Ixiii. 10, Acts vii.
51: so also Deut. xxxii. 12, compared with Isa. Ixiii. 14. Innumer
able other instances of the same kind might be added.

Secondly, He regenerates us. " Except we be born of water and
of the Spirit, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John iii. 5 ;
2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2. He also "searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things of God," as was before observed, 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. From
him is our illumination, Eph. i. 17, 18 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18. John xiv. 26,
" The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach you all
things." Chap. xvi. 13, " The Spirit of truth will guide you into all
truth." " The Holy Ghost shall teach you," Luke xii. 12. And he
foretelleth " things to come," John xvi. 13, 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; which is a
property of God, whereby he will be known from all false gods, Isa.
xli. 22, 23, etc. And he is in some of these places expressly called
God, as also 1 Cor. xii. 5, 6, compared with verse 11; and he is
immense, who dwells in all believers.

Thirdly, He dwelleth in us, as God in a temple, Rom. viii. 9, 1 Cor.
iil 16 ; thereby sanctifying us, chap. vi. 11; comforting us, John xvi. 7;
and helping our infirmities, Rom. viii. 26; mortifying our sins, chap,
viii. 13; creating in us Christian graces, Gal. v. 22, 23; yea, he is the
author of all grace, as is evident in that promise made of his presence
with the Messiah, Isa. XL 2. I say, with the Messiah, for of him only
are those words to be understood; to which purpose I cannot but add
the words of an old friar, to the shame of some amongst us who
should know more, or be more Christian in their expositions of Scrip
ture. Saith he, speaking of this place, " Note that in innumerable
places of the Talmud this is expounded of the Messiah, and never of

OF THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST, AND HIS WORK. 337

any other, by any one who is of any authority among the Hebrews.
AVherefore it is evident that some amongst us, too much Judaizing,
do err, whilst they fear not to expound this literally of Josiah. But
that this is to be understood of the Messiah only is showed by Rabbi
Solomon, who expounds it of him, and not of Josiah ; which, accord
ing to his way, he would never have done, if, without the injury of
his Talmud and Targum, and the prejudice of all his predecessors,
he could have expounded it otherwise."1 So far he.

It is not a little strange that some Christians should venture far
ther in perverting the testimonies of Scripture concerning the Mes
siah than the Jews dare to do.

4. He makes and appoints to himself and his service ministers
of the church, Acts xiii. 2, giving unto them powers, and working
various and wonderful works, as he pleaseth, 1 Cor. xii. 8—11.

5. He is sinned against, and so offended with sin that the sin
against him shall never be forgiven, Matt. xii. 31 ; though it be
not against his person, but some especial grace and dispensation of
his.

6. He is the object of divine worship? we being baptized into his
name, as that of the Father and Son, Matt, xxviii. 19. And grace
is prayed for from him as from Father and Son, 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Rev.

1. 4, 5; Rom. x. 14. He is to be head of churches, Rev. ii. iii. ; but
God will not give this glory to another, Isa. xiii. 8. Also, he hath
the name of God given him, Isa. vi. 8, 9, compared with Acts xxviii.
25, 26; and Isa. Ixiii. 13, 14, with Ps. Ixxviii. 41, 52; 2 Sam. xxiii.

2, 3; Acts v. 3, 4.

7. And the attributes of God are ascribed to him, as, — (1.) Ubi
quity, or omnipresence, Ps. cxxxix. 7; 1 Cor. iii. 16. (2.) Omni
science, 1 Cor. ii. 10; John xvi. 13. His omnipotency and eternity
are both manifest from the creation.

8. To all this, in a word, it may be added that he is a person, the
denial whereof is the only xpwyvysTov of the Socinians. They ac
knowledge that if he be a person, he is God. But, (1 .) He is a
person who hath a name, and in whose name something is done, as
we are said to be baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, Matt,
xxviii. 19. And, (2.) He is conjoined with the other divine per sons as
one of them, 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Rev. i. 4, 5 ; Matt, xxviii. 19. (3.) He

1 " Nota quod in locis innumeris in Talmud hoc exponitur de Messia, et nunquam
de alio, ab ahquo qui alicujus apud Hebrceos authoritatis sit. Quare patet quod errant,
minium judaizantes nostri, qui hoc de Josia ad literarn non verentur exponere. De solo
'quippe Messia hoc intelligendum fore ostenditur per R. Solomon, qui hoc de ipso non
de Josia exponit ; quod juxta morem suum nunquam egisset, si absque injuria sui
Talmud et Targum, et sine praedecessorum suorum omnium praejudicio, aliter exponere
potuisset." — Raymund. Martin. Pug. Fid. p. 3, d. 1, c. xi.

2 Ouroi o Ste; lioziz'^oftiva; ly ixxXniria, ^rurrip aii, via; dil, vtivfim ciyioi an. — Epiphfin.
Ancorat. cap. Ixxiii. Ta Tlnvfi» ra ayuiv, ro ffvv Harp} xat flu ft/ft'rpairxvtau/^ivav, xa»
ewSol-a^^tsvav. — Symbol. Cone. Constant.

VOL. xii. 22

338 VINDICI,E EVANGELIC^.

bath an understanding, 1 Cor. ii. 11; and a will, chap. xiL 11.
(4.) To him are speaking and words ascribed, and such actions as
are peculiar to persons, Acts xiii. 2, xx. 28, etc.

What remains of this chapter will be of a brief and easy despatch.
The next question is, " Whence is the Holy Ghost sent ? — A. 1 Pet.
i. 12, ' Down from heaven/ "

1. This advantageth not at all Mr B/s design against the Holy
Ghost, to prove him not to be God, that he is " sent down from
heaven ;" whereby he supposeth that his coming from one place to
another is intimated, seeing he supposes God to be so in heaven,
yea, in some certain place of heaven, as at the same time not to be
elsewhere, so that if ever he be in the earth he must come down
from heaven.

2. Nor is there any thing in his being sent prejudicial to the pre
rogative of his divine being : for he who is God, equal in nature to
the Father and Son, yet, in respect of the order of that dispensation
that these three who are in heaven, who are also one, 1 John v. 7,
have engaged in for the salvation of men, may be sent of the Father
and the Son, having the execution of that work, which they respec
tively concur in, in an eminent manner to him committed.

3. Wherever the Spirit -is said to descend from heaven, it is to be
understood according to the analogy of what we have already spoken
concerning the presence of God in heaven, with his looking and
going down from thence; which I shall not repeat again. Essenti
ally he is everywhere, Ps. cxxxix. 7.

4. In that place of Peter alleged by Mr R, not the person of the
Spirit, but his gifts on the apostles, and his operations in them,
whose great and visible foundations were laid on the day of Pente
cost, Acts ii., are intended.

The two next questions leading only to an expression of the send
ing of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, though Mr B/s
Christians differ about the interpretation of the places produced for
the proof thereof, and there lie no small argument and evidence of
the deity of Christ in his sending of the Holy Ghost as the Father
sends him, yet there being an agreement in the expressions them
selves, I shall not insist upon them. He proceeds : — " Q. Had Jesus
Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain it
at a certain time ? — A. Acts ii 32, 33 ; John vii. 39."

1. The intendment of this query is, to conclude from some certain
respect and manner of sending the Holy Ghost to the thing itself, —
from the sending him in a visible, glorious, plentiful, eminent man
ner,1 as to the effusion of his gifts and graces, to the sending of him
absolutely; which methinks a Master of Arts should know to be a
sophistical way of arguing. 2. It endeavours, also, from the exercise

OF THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST, AND HIS WORK. 339

of power to conclude to the receiving of the power itself; and that
not the absolute exercise of it neither, but in some certain respect, as
was spoken. 3. This, then, is that which Mr B. concludes : " Because
Christ, when he was exalted, or when he ascended into heaven, had
the accomplishment of the promise actually, in the sending forth of
the Spirit in that abundant and plentiful manner which was prophe
sied of by Joel, chap. ii. 28-31, therefore he then first received power
to send the Spirit:" which, 4. By the testimony of Christ himself is
false, and not the sense of the Holy Ghost in the places mentioned,
seeing that before his ascension he breathed on his disciples, and
bade them receive the Holy Ghost, John xx. 22. Nay, 5. That he
had the power of sending the Holy Ghost, and did actually send him,
not only before his ascension and exaltation, but also before his in
carnation, is expressly affirmed, 1 Pet. L 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 days of the old disobe-
dient world: which places have been formerly vindicated at large.
So that, 6. As that place, Acts ii. 32, 33, is there expounded to be
concerning the plentiful effusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in
the times of the gospel, according to the prophecy of Joel, so also
is that of John vii. 39, it being positively affirmed as to the thing itself
that he gave the Holy Ghost before his exaltation, though not in
that abundant manner as afterward ; and so neither of them concludes
any thing as to the time of Christ's receiving power to send the
Spirit; which, upon the supposition of such a work as for the accom
plishment whereof it was necessary the Holy Ghost should be sent,
he had from eternity.

About the next question we shall not contend. It is: — " Q. What
were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?"
whereunto sundry texts of Scripture that make mention of the Holy
Ghost, his graces, and gifts, are subjoined. Upon the whole I have
only some few things to animadvert: —

] . If by the words " general benefits " he limits the receiving of
those benefits of the Holy Ghost to any certain time (as suppose the
time of his first plentiful effusion, upon the ascension of Jesus Christ,
and the preaching of the gospel to all nations thereupon), as it is a
sacrilegious conception, robbing believers of after ages to the end of
the world of all the fruits of the efficacy of the Spirit, without which
they can neither enjoy communion with God in this life nor ever
be brought to an eternal fruition of him, so it is most false, and con-
'trary to the express prayer of our Saviour, desiring the same things
for them who should believe on his name to the end of the world
as he did for those who conversed with him in the days of his flesh.
But I will suppose this is not his intention, because it would plainly
deny that there are any Christians in the world (which yet was the

34*0 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

opinion of some of his friends heretofore1), for " if we have not the
Spirit of Christ we are none of his/' Rom. viii. 9.

2. The things enumerated may be called "general benefits/' because
they are common to all believers as to the substance, essence, or
being of them, though in respect of their degrees they are commu
nicated variously to the several individuals, the same Spirit dividing
to every one as he will, 1 Cor. xii. 11. They are so general to them
all that every particular believer enjoys them all.

3. The enumeration here given us is very far and remote from
being complete, there being only some few fruits of the Spirit and
privileges which we receive by our receiving of him recounted, and
that in a very confused manner, one thing being added after another
without any order or coherence at all. Yea, of the benefits we re
ceive by the Spirit, of the graces he works in us, of the helps he
affords us, of that joy and consolation he imparts unto us, of the
daily assistances we receive from him, of the might of his power put
forth in us, of the efficacy of his operations, the constancy of his pre
sence, the privileges by him imparted, there is not by any in this
life a full account to be given. To insist on particulars is not my
present task ; I have also in part done it elsewhere.2

4. I desire Mr B. seriously to consider whether even the things
which he thinks .good to mention may possibly be ascribed to a mere
creature, or that all believers are by such an one " baptized into one
body," or that we " are all made to drink into one Spirit/' etc. But
of these things before. Unto this he adds: " Q. What are the spe
cial benefits accruing to the apostles by the Holy Ghost? what saith
Christ to them hereof? — A. John xv. 26, xvi. 13."

Besides the graces of the Spirit, which the apostles, as believers,
received in a plentiful manner, they had also his presence by his
extraordinary gifts, to fit them for that whole extraordinary work
whereunto of him they were called: for as by his authority they were
separated to the work, and were to perform it unto him, Acts xiii. 2,
so whatever work they were to perform, either as apostles or as pen
men of the scripture of the New Testament, they had suitable gifts
bestowed on them by him, 1 Cor. xiL, — inspiration from him suitable
to their work ; the Scripture being of inspiration from God, because the
holy men that wrote it were inspired or moved by the Holy Ghost,
2 Pet. i 21, 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.3 And as this Holy Ghost, who is God,
working all in all, divideth of his gifts as he will, 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11,
and giveth all gifts whatever to the church that it doth enjoy, so did
he in an especial manner with the apostles.

Now, our Saviour, Christ, being to leave the world, giving gracious

1 Socin. Epist. iii. ad Matth. Ead.

1 Perseverance of Saints, chap. \iii. [voi. xi j

8 'Tari wivfizrsf ayitu

341

promises to his disciples, lie considered them under a twofold capa
city or condition: — 1. Of believers, of such as followed him and be
lieved in him; wherein their estate was common with that of all
them who were to believe on him to the end of the world, John
xvii. 20. 2. Of apostles, and of such as he intended to employ in
that great work of planting his church in the world, and propagating
his gospel to the ends of it. Under both these considerations doth,
he promise the Spirit to his disciples, John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi 7, 13,
praying his Father for the accomplishment of those promises, chap,
xvii. ; — that as believers they might be kept in the course of their
obedience to the end (in which regard he made those promises no
less to us than to them); and that as apostles they might be fur
nished for their work, preserved, and made prosperous therein. Of
this latter sort some passages in the verses here mentioned seem
to be, and may have a peculiar regard thereunto, and yet in their
substance they are of the first kind, and are made good to aE be
lievers. Neither is there any more said concerning the teaching and
guidance of the Spirit into the truth in John xv. 26, xvi. 13, than
is said in 1 John ii. 20, 27, where it is expressly assigned to all
believers. Of that unction and teaching of the Spirit, of his pre
serving us in all truth needful for our communion with God, of his
bringing to mind what Christ had spoken, for our consolation and
establishment, with efficacy and power (things, I fear, despised by
Mr B.), this is not a season to treat.

That which follows concerns the order and way of procedure in
sisted on by the Son and Holy Ghost in carrying on the work of
our salvation and propagation of the gospel, whose sovereign foun
tain is in the bosom of the Father. His query is, " Q. Should the
Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of himself, and
imparting of his own fulness? what saith Christ concerning him? —
A. John xvi. 13, 14."

1. The Scripture proposeth the Holy Ghost, in the communication
of his gifts and graces, under a double consideration: — (I.) Absolutely,
as he is God himself; and so he speaketh of himself, and the churches
are commanded to attend to what he so saith, Rev. ii. 29. And he
imparts of his own fulness, "the self-same Spirit dividing to every man
severally as he will," 1 Cor. xii. 11. And in this sense, what the pro
phets say in the Old Testament, " The word of the LORD," and
" Thus saith the LORD," in the New they are said to speak by the
Spirit, Matt. xxii. 43; Acts i. 16; 2 Pet. i. 21. (2.) Relatively,
and that both in respect of subsistence and operation, as to the
great work of saving sinners by Jesus Christ. And as in the first
of these senses he is not of himself, being the Spirit of the Father
and the Son, proceeding from them both, so neither doth he speak
of himself, but according to what he receiveth of the Father and

342 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^*

the Son. 2. Our Saviour, Christ, says here, "He shall not speak
of himself;" but he nowhere says, " He shall not impart of his own
fulness," which is Mr B/s addition. To " speak of himself" shows
the original authority of him that speaks, whereby he speaks to be
in himself; which, as to the words and works pointed to, is not in the
Holy Ghost personally considered, and as in this dispensation. But
to impart of his own fulness, is to give out of that which is emi
nently in himself; which the Holy Ghost doth, as hath been shown.
3. Christ, in the words insisted on, comforting his disciples with the
promise of the presence of his Spirit when he should be bodily
absent from them, acquaints them also with the works that he should
do when he came to them and upon them, in that clear, eminent,
and abundant manner which he had promised ; — which is not any
new work, nor any other than what he had already acquainted them
with, nor the accomplishment of any thing but what he had laid the
foundation of; yea, that all the mercy, grace, light, guidance, direc
tion, consolation, peace, joy, gifts, that he should communicate to
them and bless them withal, should be no other but what were pro
cured and purchased for them by himself. These things is the Spirit
said to hear and speak, to receive and communicate, as being the
proper purchase and inheritance of another; and in so doing to glorify
him whose they are, in that peculiar sense and manner. All that
discourse which we have of the mission and sending of the Holy
Ghost, and his proceeding or coming forth from the Father and Son
for the ends specified, John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 13, concerns not
at all the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and
Son, as to his distinct personality and subsistence, but belongs to
that economy, or dispensation, or ministry, that the whole Trinity
proceedeth in for the accomplishment of the work of our salvation.

The last query, by the heap of scriptures that is gathered in an
swer to it, seems to have most weight laid upon it ; but it is indeed,
of all the rest, most weakly sophistical. The words of it are, " Q. Do
men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world and in their
natural condition, to the end that they may become the children of
God, may receive the word, may believe, may repent, may obey
Christ; or after they are become the children of God, have received
the word, do believe, do repent, do obey Christ?" The answer is as
above. To the same purpose is that of the Racovian Catechism : —

Ques. Is there not need of the internal gift of the Spirit, that we may believe
the gospel f

Ans. By no means; for we do not read in the Scripture that that gift is conferred
on any but him that believes the gospel.1

Remove the ambiguity of that expression, " Believe the gospel,"

1 " Nonne ad credendum Evangelic S. S. interfere dono opus est ? — Nullo modo ;
non enim in Scripturis legimus, cuiquam id conferri donum, nisi credenti evangelic."
— Cap. vl de premiss. S. S.

OF THE DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST, AND HIS WOEK. 343

and these two questions perfectly fall in together. It may, then, be
taken either for believing the doctrine of the gospel in opposition to
the law, and in this sense it is not here inquired after ; or for the
power of believing in the subject, and in that sense it is here denied.

1. Now, the design of this question is, to deny the effectual opera
tion of the Holy Ghost for and in the conversion, regeneration, and
sanctification of the elect, and to vindicate the whole work of faith,
holiness, quickening, etc., to ourselves. The way designed for the
proof and establishment of this insinuation consists in producing
sundry testimonies wherein it is affirmed that those who do believe
and are the children of God do receive the Spirit for other ends and
purposes than those here enumerated. The sum of his argument
is this : " If they who do believe and are the children of God do
receive the Spirit of God for their adoption, and the carrying on
of the work of their sanctification, with the supply of new grace,
and the confirmation and enlargement of what they have received,
with joy, consolation, and peace, with other gifts that are necessary
for any work or employment that they are called unto, then the
Holy Spirit doth not quicken or regenerate them, nor work faith in
them, nor make them the children of God, nor implant them into
Christ/' Now, when Mr. B. proves this consequence, I will confess
him to be master of one art which he never learned at Oxford, unless
it were his business to learn what he was taught to avoid.

2. But Mr B. hath one fetch of his skill more in this question.
He asks whether men do receive the Holy Ghost when they are of
the world ; and for a confutation of any such apprehension produceth
testimonies of Scripture that the world cannot receive the Holy
Ghost, nor the natural man the things of God. But who told this
gentleman that we say men whilst they are in and of the world do
receive the Spirit of God, or the things of the Spirit, in the Scripture
sense or use of that word " receiving?" The expression is meta
phorical, yet always, in the case of the things of the gospel, denoting
the acting of faith in them who are said to " receive" any thing from
God. Now, if this gentleman could persuade us that we say that
we receive the Spirit by faith, to the end that we may have faith, he
might as easily lead us about whither he pleased as the Philistines
did Samson when they had put out his eyes. A little, then, to 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 men
tioned, with many such others as might be added ; but yet, before
men's being enabled to receive it, that Spirit, by his power and the
efficacy of his grace, quickeneth, regenerateth, and worketh faith in
their hearts. In brief, the Spirit is considered and promised either
as a Spirit of regeneration, with all the concomitants and essential
consequents thereof, or as a Spirit of adoption, with the consequents

344 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

thereof. In the first sense he works in men in order of nature
antecedent to their believing, faith being a fruit of the Spirit ; in the
latter, and for the ends and purposes thereof, he is received by faith,
and given in order of nature upon believing.

3. That the world cannot receive the Spirit, nor the natural man
the things of God, is from hence, that the Spirit hath not wrought
in them that which is necessary to enable them thereunto; which is
evident from what is affirmed of the impotency of the natural man
as to his receiving the things of God : for if the reason why he can
not receive the things of God is because he is a natural man, then,
unless there be some other power than what is in himself to translate
him from that condition, it is impossible that he who is a natural
man should ever be otherwise, for he can only alter that condition
by that which he cannot do. But, —

4. That the Spirit is given for and doth work regeneration and
faith in men, I shall not now insist on the many testimonies whereby
it is usually and invincibly confirmed. There is no one testimony
given to our utter impotency to convert or regenerate ourselves, to
believe, repent, and turn to God ; no promise of the covenant to give
a new heart, new obedience through Christ; no assertion of the grace
of God and the efficacy of his power, which is exalted in the voca
tion and conversion of sinners, — but sufficiently evinces the truth
thereof. That one eminent instance shall close our consideration of
this chapter, which we have Titus iii. 5, 6, " Not by works of right
eousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost ;
which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour."

Of the first head made by men professing the religion of Jesus
Christ against the deity of the Spirit, attempting to rank him among
the works of his own hand; of the peculiar espousing of an enmity
against him by Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, from whom
the ensuing irvsv^aro/^d^oi took then: name; of the novel inven
tions of Faustus Socinus and his followers, denying the personality
of the Spirit, making him to be nothing but the efficacy of the
power of God, or the power of God, — this is no place to treat. Be
sides, the truth is, until they will speak clearly what they mean by
the "Spirit of God," and so assert something, as well as deny, they may
justly be neglected. They tell us it is virtus Dei; but whether that
virtus be substantia, or accidens they will not tell us. It is, they
say, potentia Dei. This we confess; but we say he is not potentia
tvepyrinxq, but vToffrar/xTj, and that because we prove him to be God.

What, then, hath been spoken of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I
shall shut up with that distich of Greg. Naz. Sanct. Spir. lib. ill v*

navTa ftlt «(tv aftfTtt &tf*ft*\s 'ipya, n^iifftu
'H ol rpiazf -rtitrut »$«£* ffai (tit.irot.

OF SALVATION BY CHRIST. 345

CHAPTER XVI.

Of salvation by Christ.

MR BIDDLE'S SIXTH CHAPTER CONSIDERED.

THIS is a short chapter, and will speedily receive its consideration.
That Christ is a Saviour, and that he is so called in Scripture, is
confessed on all hands. Mr Biddle's masters were the first who
directly called into question amongst Christians on what account
principally he is so called. Of his faith in this business and theirs
we have the sum, with the reasons of it, in the book of their great
apostle, " De Jesu Christo Servatore." This book is answered
throughout with good success by Sibrandus Lubbertus ; the nerves
of it cut by Grotius, " De Satisfactione Christi;" and the reply of
Crellius thereunto thoroughly removed by Essenius, in his " Trium-
phus Crucis." The whole argumentative part of it, summed up into
five heads by Michael Gitichius, is answered by Ludovicus Lucius,
and that answer vindicated from the reply of Gitichius. And ge
nerally 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 business to remove its sophistry and unmask
its pretensions.

Mr B. is very slight and overly hi this business, being not able, in
the method of procedure imposed on himself, so much as to deliver his
mind significantly as to what he does intend. The denial and rejec
tion of the satisfaction and merit of 'Christ is that which the man
intends, as is evident from his preface, where he denies them, name
and thing. This he attempts partly in this chapter, partly in that
concerning the death of Christ, and also in that of justification. In
this he would attempt the notion of salvation, and refer it only to de
liverance from death by a glorious resurrection. Some brief animad
versions may possibly rectify the man's mistakes. His first question
we pass, as a principle in the terms of it on all sides confessed, namely,
that " Christ is our Lord and Saviour." His second is: —

Ques. Is Christ our Saviour originally and of himself, or because he was given,
exalted, and raised up by another to be a Saviour?
Ans. Acts iv. 12, v. 31, xiii. 23.

The intendment of this query is to pursue the former insinuations
of our catechist against the deity of Christ, as though his appoint
ment to his office of mediation were inconsistent with his divine
iiiiture ; the vanity of which pretence hath been sufficiently already
disco ;Tered. In brief, Christ is considered either absolutely with re-
ppcwt to his divine nature and person, as he is God in himself, and
£>o he is a Saviour originally of himself ; for " as for our Redeemer,

346 VINDICLE EV ANGELICA.

the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel," Isa. xlvii. 4.
" Thy Maker is thine husband ; the LORD of hosts is his name ; and
thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel," chap. liv. 5. In this sense
was Christ a Saviour originally and of himself. But as he took flesh,
to accomplish the work of our redemption by tasting death for us,
though his own merciful and gracious will did concur therein, yet was
he eminently designed to that work and given, by his Father, in love
and mercy, contriving the work of our salvation. And this latter is
mentioned not onty in the places cited by our catechist, but also in
a hundred more, and yet not one of them lying in the least subservi
ency to Mr B/s design. His last query is : —

Q. How do the saints expect to be saved by Christ?
A. Rom. v. 10; Phil. iii. 20, 21.

The intendment of this question must be to answer the general
proposal, in what sense Christ is our Saviour, and how his people
are saved by him. Now, however that be true in itself which is
here asserted, and is the exurgency of the question and answer as
connected, the saints expecting salvation by Christ in the complete
accomplishment of it by his power in heaven, yet as here proposed to
give an account of the whole sense wherein Christ is our Saviour, [it]
is most false and deceitful. Christ is a Saviour principally as he was
promised, and came to " save his people from their sins," — whence
he had his name of Jesus, or a Saviour, Matt. i. 21, — and that by
his death, Heb. ii. 14, 15, or laying down his life a ransom for us,
Matt. xx. 28, and giving himself a price of redemption for us, 1 Tim.
ii. 6, " in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgive
ness of sins/' Eph. i. 7, so saving or delivering us from the wrath
that is to come, 1 Thess. L 10. The salvation which we have by
Christ, which this chapter in title pretends to discover, is from sin,
the world, Satan, death, wrath, curse, the law, bearing of us unto
acceptation with God, peace, reconciliation, and glory. But that the
doctrines before mentioned, without which these things cannot once
be apprehended, may be obscured or lost, are these wholly omitted.
Of the sense of Rom. v. 1 0, and what is there intended by the "life of
Christ," I shall farther treat when I come to speak about justification,
and of the whole business under our consideration of the death of
Christ

CHAPTER XVII.

Of the mediation of Christ.

IN his seventh chapter he proposeth two questions in general
about the mediation of Christ, answering, first, that he is a " mediator,"
from 1 Tim.ii. 5 ; second, that he is the "mediator of the new covenant,"

OF THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST. 347

Heb. viii. 6, xii. 24. But as to his work of mediation, what it is,
wherein it doth consist, on what account principally Christ is called
our mediator, whether he be a mediator with God for us, as well as
a mediator with us for God, and how he carries on that work, —
wherein he knows the difference between us and his masters about
this matter doth lie, — he speaks not one word, nor gives any occasion
to me to enter into the consideration of it. What I suppose neces
sary to offer to this head, I shall do in the ensuing discourse of the
death of Christ, the ends thereof, and the satisfaction thereby.

And therefore I shall hereunto add his ninth chapter also, which
is concerning remission of sins by Jesus Christ. The difference
between his masters and us being about the meritorious and pro
curing cause of remission of sins by Christ, which here he men
tions not, what is farther to be added thereabout will fall in also
under the consideration of the death of Christ, and our justification
thereby.

His first question is altogether out of question, namely, " Who
shall have remission of sins by Christ ? " It is granted all, and only,
believers. " He that believeth shall be saved ; and he that believeth
not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 16. " To as many as receive him,
power is given to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name," John i. 12.

To his next question an answer may be given that will suit that
following also, which is the whole of this chapter. The question is,
" Doth not Christ forgive sins? — A. ' Christ forgave you/ Col. iii. 13."

That Christ forgives sins is taken for granted ; and yet forgiveness
of sin is the supremest act of sovereign, divine power that God exer-
ciseth in the world. Now, Christ may be considered two ways: —
1. Absolutely, as "God over all, blessed for ever." So he forgave sins
by his own original authority and power, as the lawgiver who is able
to save and to destroy. 2. As Mediator, God and man ; and so his
power was delegated to him by God the Father, as himself speaks,
Matt xxviii. 18, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth ;" and chap. ix. 6, he saith that he had " power on earth to for
give sins," — that is, given unto him. Now, forgiveness of sins is either
authoritative or declarative. The latter Christ delegated to his apostles
and all their successors in the work of preaching the gospel, and it is
such a power as a mere man may be invested withal. That forgive
ness of sins which we term " authoritative," being an act of sovereign,
divine power, exercised about the law and persons concerned therein,
may be said to be given to Christ two ways: — (1.) As to the posses
sion of it ; and so he hath it from his Father as God, as he hath his
nature, essence, and life from him. Whence, whatever works the Fa
ther doth, he doth likewise, — quicken as he quickens, pardon as he
pardons, — as hath been declared. (2.) As to the execution of it, for

348 VINDICLS! EVANGELIC^.

such an end and purpose as the carrying on of the work of mediation,
committed to him ; and so it is given him in commission from the
Father, who sent him into the world to do his will ; and in this sense
had he, the Son of man, power to forgive sins whilst he was on the
earth. And to Mr B/s ninth chapter this may suffice.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Of Christ's prophetical office.

THE eighth chapter in Mr Biddle is of Christ's prophetical office,
or his entrance into a dealing with Christ in respect of his offices, as
he hath done with him in respect of his person already.

His first question is, —

Ques. Is not Christ dignified, as with the title of mediator, so also with that of
prophet?

Ans. Acts iii. 20, 22.

1. Mr B. tells us, chap, iv., that Christ is dignified with the title of
God, though he be not so ; and here that he is dignified with the
title of a prophet, but leaves it at large whether he were so indeed
or no. We are resolved in the case. The first promise made of him
by God to Adam was of him generally as a mediator, particularly as
a priest, as he was to break the head of Satan by the bruising of his
own heel ; the next solemn renovation of it to Abraham was of him
as king, taking all nations to be his inheritance ; and the third by
Moses, after the giving of the law, as a prophet to teach and instruct
his redeemed people, Gen. iii. 15, xii. 2, 3, Deut. xviii. 18. And a
prophet he is, the great prophet of his church; not only dignified
with that title, but so he is indeed.

2. But says Mr B., " He is dignified with the title of a prophet
as well as of mediator," — as though his being a prophet were con
tradistinguished from his being a mediator. Christ's teaching of his
people is part of the mediation he hath undertaken. All that he
doth on their part in offering gifts and sacrifices to God for them,
all that he doth on the part of God towards them by instructing
and ruling of them, he doth as he is the mediator between God and
man, the surety of the covenant. He is not, then, a mediator and a
prophet, but he who is the mediator is the high priest and prophet
of his church. Nor are there any acts that he exerciseth on the one
or other of these accounts but they are all acts of his mediation, and
of him as a mediator. Mr B., indeed, tells us not what he under
stands by the mediation of Christ. His masters so describe it as to
make it all one with his prophetical office, and nothing else ; which
makes me somewhat to wonder why this man seems to distinguish
between them.

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 349

3. Many more notions of Mr B.'s masters are Lere omitted ; as,
that Christ was not the prophet of his people under the old testa
ment, though by his Spirit he preached even to those that were dis
obedient in the days of Noah, and it was the Spirit of Christ that
was in all the prophets of old, whereby God instructed his church,
1 Pet. iii. 19, 20, i. 11 j — that he is a prophet only because he
hath given unto us a new law, .though he promise effectually to open
blind eyes, and to send his Spirit to teach us and to lead us into all
truth, giving us understanding that we may know him that is true,
Isa. Ixi. 1 ; Luke iv. 18; John xvi. 7-13 ; 1 John v. 20. But he lays
dirt enough in our way, so that we shall not need farther to rake into
the dunghill.

4. I should not have thought that Mr B. could have taken ad
vantage for his end and purpose from the place of Scripture he men
tions, Acts iii. 20, 22, "Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto
me," but that I find him in his next query repeating that expression,
" Like unto me," and wresting of it to be the foundation of a 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, and had
that likeness to them which the antitype (as the thing typified is
usually but improperly called) hath to the type: but that there
fore he must not only be like them in the general office wherein the
correspondency doth consist, but also in all the particular concern
ments of the office as by them administered, is to confound the type
and the antitype (or rather thing typified.) Nor do the words used,
either by Moses, Deut. xviii. 18, or by Peter, Acts iii. 22, intimate
any such similitude or likeness between Christ and Moses as should
extend to such particulars as are afterward intimated. The words
of Peter are, " God shall raise you up a prophet, us !//,£," rather " as
he raised up me," than " like unto me," not the least similitude being
intimated between them but in this, that they were both prophets,
and were both to be hearkened unto. And so the word used by God
to Moses, li°|, "sicut te" ("a prophet as thou art"), doth import,
" I will raise up one that shall be a prophet as thou art a prophet."
The likeness is only in the office. For such a similitude as should
give the least occasion to Mr B/s following figments there is no
colour. And so the whole foundation being rooted up, the totter
ing superstruction will easily fall to the ground. But then to pro
ceed: —

Q. Forasmuch as Christ was to be a prophet like unto Moses, and Moses had
the privilege above otlier prophets that God made not himself known to him in a
vision, nor spake to him in a dream, but face to face, as a man speaketh to his
friend, and showed to him the similitude of the Lord, Exod. xxxiii. 11, Num.

850 YIXDICLffl EVANGELIOE.

xii. 6-8, can you tell any passage of Scripture which intimateth that Christ did
see God before the discharge of kis prophetical office f

A. John vi. 45, 46, " Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which
is from God, he hath seen the Father."

1. This passage is indeed very pretty, whether the principles or
the inferences of it are considered.

The principles of it are sundry: — (1.) That God hath a bodily shape
and similitude, face and hands, and the like corporeal properties j1
(2.) That Moses saw the face of God as the face of a man ;a (3.) That
Christ was in all things like Moses, so that what Moses did he must
do also. Therefore, (1.) Christ did see the face of God as a man;
(2.) He did it before he entered on his prophetical office; whereunto
add, (3.) The proof 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, and of Moses seeing his face, I have
already spoken that which Mr B. will not take out of his way. Of
Christ's being like Moses something also hath now been delivered.

That which, Exod. xxxiii. 11, in the Hebrew is OV?'? D<I?S, panim
el panim, the LXX. have rendered IVWT/OJ Ivwovw, — that is, " prse-
sens prsesenti," "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 terror, and gave him an intimate
acquaintance with his mind and will. And the same expression is
used concerning God's speaking to all the people, Deut. v. 4; of whom
yet it is expressly said that they saw no likeness at all, chap. iv. 12.8

If from the likeness mentioned there must be a sameness asserted
unto the particular attendances of the discharge of that office, then
Christ must divide the sea, lift up a brazen serpent, and die in a
mountain, and be buried by God where no man could ever know.
Moses, indeed, enjoyed an eminency of revelation above other pro
phets, which is called his conversing with God as a friend, and be
holding him face to face, but even in that wherein he is exalted above
all others, he is infinitely short of the great Prophet of his church : for
Moses, indeed, as a servant was faithful in all the house of God, but
this man is over his own house ; whose house we are, Heb. iii. 5, 6.

3. This figment is for ever and utterly everted by the Holy Ghost,
John i. 17, 18, where he expressly urges a dissimilitude between
Moses and the only-begotten Son in that particular wherein this
gentleman would have the likeness to consist. "Herein," says Mr B.,

1 See chap. iii.

* 'Airo iixivo; eii yrufi^irxi, aQtalftoTs tl% lpa.ra.1, ouSlt't faixt. — AntiphaneS. de Deo.

* " Facie in faciem, ita ut homines cum hominibus colloquentes solent : quod refer
ad vocum perceptionem distinctam ; non ad conspicuum aliquod. Nihil enim viderunt."
—Grot. Annot. in loc.

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 351

" 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, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him." It is true that it is said of Moses that " God' spake to him
face to face," — that is, in a more clear and familiar manner than he
did to other prophets, — though he told him plainly that he should
not, or could not, see his face, Exod. xxxiii. 18-23, though he
gave him some lower manifestations of his glory: so that notwith
standing the revelations made to him, " no man hath seen God at
any time, but the only-begotten Son." He who is of the same nature
and essence with the Father, and is in his bosom love, he hath seen
him, John vi. 46; and in this doth Moses, being a man only, come
infinitely short of the only-begotten Son, in that he could never see
God, which He did : which is also asserted in the place of Scripture
cited by Mr B.

4. To lay this axe, then, also to the root of Mr B/s tree, to cut it
down for the fire : The foundation of Christ's prophetical office, as
to his knowledge of the will of his Father, which he was to reveal,
doth not consist in his being " taken up into heaven," and there
being taught the will of God in his human nature, but in that he
was the " only-begotten Son of the Father," who eternally knew him
and his whole will and mind, and, in the dispensation which he un
dertook, revealed him and his mind, according as it was appointed to
him. In respect, indeed, of his human nature, wherein he declared
and preached the will of God, he was taught of God, being filled with
wisdom and understanding by the Spirit, whereby he was anointed
for that purpose; but as the only-begotten Son in the bosom of
the Father, he always saw him, knew him, and revealed him, Luke
iv. 18;Isa.lxi. l;Heb. i. 9.

I shall only add, that this fancy of Mr B. and the rest of the So-
cinians (Socinianism being, indeed, a kind of modest and subtile
Mohammedanism1), of Christ's seeing God, as did Moses, seems to
be taken from, or taken up to comply with, the Alcoran, where the
same is affirmed of Mohammed. So Beidavi on these words of the
Alcoran, "Et sunt ex iis quibuscum locutus est ipse Deus." Saith he,
"Est hie Moses; aut juxta alios Moses et Manumed, super quibus
Pax ; Mosi Deus locutus est ea nocte, qua in exstasi quasi fuit in
monte Sinai. Mahumedi vero locutus est ilia nocte, qua scalis ccelo
admotis, angelos vidit ascendere, tune enim vix jactum duarum sagit-
tarum ab eo fuit." How near Moses came is not expressed, but
Mohammed came within two bow-shots of him ! How near the So-
cinian Christ came I know not, nor doth Mr B. inform us.

1 " Socinismus est verecundior aut subtilior Mahumetismus. Censemus scripta So-
cinianorum ad Turcismum proximo accedere." — Censu. Facult. TheoL Leyd., anno 1598.

352 V1NDICI2E EVANGELICJE.

But yet as Mr B. eats his word as to Moses, and after lie Lad
amrnied that he saw the face of God, says he only saw the face of
an angel, so do the Mohammedans also as to the vision of their
prophet, who tell us that indeed he was not able to see an angel in
his own proper shape, as Socinus says we cannot see a spiritual body,
tho gh Mr B. thinks that we may see God's right hand and his left.
But of this you have a notable story in Kessseus. Saith he, " They
report of the prophet that on a certain day, or once upon a time, he
said to Gabriel, O Gabriel, I desire to see thee in the form of thy great
shape or figure, wherein God created thee. Gabriel said to him, 0 be
loved of God, my shape is very terrible; no man can see it, and so
not thou, but he will fall into a swoon. Mohammed answered, Al
though it be so, yet I would see thee in a bigger shape. Gabriel there
fore answered, O beloved of God, where dost thou desire to see me?
Mohammed answered, Without the city of Mecca, in the stony vil
lage. Says Gabriel, That village will not hold me. Therefore an
swered Mohammed, Let it be in mount Orphath. That is a larger
and fitter place, says Gabriel. Away, therefore, went Mohammed
to mount Orphath, and, behold, Gabriel with a great noise covered
the whole horizon with his shape; which when the prophet saw, he
fell upon the earth in a swoon. When, therefore, Gabriel, on whom
be peace, had returned to his former shape, he came to the prophet,
and embracing and kissing him, said to him, Fear not, 0 beloved of
God, I am thy brother Gabriel. The prophet answers, Thou speak-
est truly, O my brother Gabriel ; I could never have thought that
any creature of God had had such a figure or shape. Gabriel an
swered, 0 beloved of God, what wouldst thou say if thou sawest the
shape of the angel Europhil?"1

They who know any thing of the Mohammedan 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 Mr B/s mind, that it was not God indeed, but an

1 " Tradunt de propheta quod die quodam dixerit Gabrieli, 0 Gabriel, optem te in
specie figurse tuse magnse videre, secundum quam Deus creavit te. Dixit Gabriel, 0
dilecte Deo, est figura mea valde terribilis ; nemo earn poterit videre, et sic neque tu,
quin animi deliquium passus concidat. Reponit Mahumed, Etsi maxime ita sit, velim
tamen te videre in figura majori. Eespondit ergo Gabriel, 0 dilecte Deo, ubi me videre
desideras ? Extra urbem Meccam, respondit Mahumed, in villa lapidosa. Dixit Gab
riel, Villa ista me non capiet. Ergo respondit Mahumed, In monte Orphath. Hie, in-
quit Gabriel, locus aptior erit et capacior. Abiit ergo Mahumed in montem Orphath,
et ecce Gabriel, cum magno fragore et strepitu, totum figura sua operiens horizontem ;
quod cum propheta vidisset, concidit, deliquium passus, in terrain. Ubi vero Gabriel,
super quo pax, ad priorem rediisset figuram, accessit ad prophetam, eumque amplexus
et osculatus, ita compellavit, Ne timeas, 0 dilecte Deo, sum enim frater tuus Gabriel.
Dixit propheta, Vera dixisti, 0 frater mi Gabriel : nunquam existimassem ullum esse
Dei creaturam tanta prseditain figura. Eespondit Gabriel, 0 dilecte Deo, quid si igitur
Tidcres figuram Europhil angeli ?" — Kessaeus Vit. Patr. p. 12, Interpret. Hotting.

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 353

angel, that appeared to Moses on mount Sinai; and thence is this
tale, which came to pass " once upon a time." He proceeds :~ —

Q. From whence doth it appear that Christ, like Moses, heard from God the,
things that he spake f

A. John viii. 26, 28, 40, xiv. 10.

All the difficulty of this question ariseth from these words, " Like
Moses;" and the sense by Mr B. put upon them, — how falsely, how
inconsistently with himself, with what perverting of the Scripture, —
hath been declared. The scriptures in the answer affirm only that
Christ " heard and was taught of the Father;" which is not at all
denied, but only the modus that Mr B. would impose upon the
words is rejected. Christ " heard of the Father,"1 who taught him,
as his servant in the work of mediation, by his Spirit, wherewith
he was anointed; but it is his " going into heaven" to hear a lesson
with his bodily ears which Mr B. aims at, and labours under the
next query to prove, — how unsuccessfully shall briefly be demon
strated. Saith he, —

Q. Can you farther cite any passage to prove that Christmas a man ascended
into heaven, and was there, and came from God out of heaven, before he showed
himself to the world and discharged his prophetical office, so that the talking of
Moses with God, in the person of an angel bearing the name of God, was but a
shadow of Christ's talking with God ?

A. John iii. 13, 30-32, vi. 29, 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58, 62, viii. 29, 42,
xiii. I, 3, xvi. 27-30, xvii. 8.

We are come now to the head of this affair, to that which has been
aimed at all along in the former queries. The sum is : " Christ until
the time of his baptism was ignorant of the mind and will of God,
and knew not what he was to do or to' declare to the world, nor
what he came into the world for, at least only in general; but then
when he was led into the wilderness to be tempted, he was rapt
up into heaven,3 and there God instructed him in his mind and will,
made him to know the message that he came to deliver, gave him
the law that he was to promulge, and so sent him down again to the
earth to preach it." Though the Scripture says that he knew the will
of God, by being his " only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth," and
that he was " full of the Holy Ghost" when he went to the wilderness,
being by him " anointed to preach the gospel •" though at his solemn
entrance so to do " the heavens were opened, and the Spirit of God
descended on him in the form of a dove," God giving solemn testi
mony to him and charge to " hear him ;" 3 yet, because Mr B.'s masters
are not able to answer the testimonies of Scripture for the divine
nature of Christ, which affirm that he was in heaven before his in
carnation, and came down to his work by incarnation, this figment

1 Isa. xlii. 1, 19; Phil. ii. 7; Isa. Iii. 13, Ixi. 1.
* Smalc. de Divin. Christi, cap. iv.
» John i. 18; Luke iv. 1; Isa. Ixi. 1; ilatt. Hi- 15-17.
VOL. XII. 23

354 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

is set on foot, to the unspeakable dishonour of the Son of God. Be
fore I proceed farther in the examination of this invention and de
tection of its falsehood, that it may appear that Mr B. made not
this discovery himself by his impartial study of the Scripture (as he
reports), it may not be amiss to inquire after the mind of them in
this business whose assistance Mr B. has in some measure made
use of.

The Racovian Catechism gives us almost the very same question
and answer : —

Q. Whence is it manifest that Christ revealed the will of God perfectly unto us ?

A. Hence, because Jesus himself was in a most perfect manner taught it of
God in heaven, and was sent from heaven magnificently for the publishing of it
to men, and did perfectly declare it to them.

Q. But where is it written that Christ was in heaven, and was sent from heaven ?

A. John vi. 38, — l

— and so do they proceed with the places of Scripture here cited by
Mr B. The same Smalcius spends one whole chapter in his book of
the Divinity of Christ, whose title is, " De Initiatione Christi ad Mu-
nus Propheticum," to declare and prove this thing, that Christ was so
taken up into heaven, and there taught the mind of God, Smalc. de
Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. iv. ; only in this he seems to, be at variance
with Mr B., that he denies that Moses saw the face of God, which this
man makes the ground of affirming that Christ did so. But here
Mr B. is at variance also with himself in the end of the last question,
intimating that Moses saw only the face of an angel that bare the
name of God; which now serves his turn as the other did before. Os-
torodius, in his Institutions, cap. XVL, pursues the same business with
vehemency, as the manner of the man was : but Smalcius is the man
who boasts himself to have first made the discovery; and so he did, as
far as I can find, or at least he was the first that fixed the time of this
rapture to be when he was in the wilderness. And saith he, " Hoc
mysterium nobis a Deo per sacras literas revelatum esse plurimum
gaudemus," Idem ibid. And, of all his companions, this man lays
most weight on this invention. His eighth chapter, in the refutation
of Martinus Smiglecius, de Verbi Incarnationis Natura, is spent in
>he pursuit of it; so also is a good part of his book against Ravens-
pergerus. Socinus himself ventures at this business, but so faintly
and slightly as I suppose in all his writings there is not any thing to
be found wherein he is less dogmatical; his discourse of it is in his
first answer to the Parsenesis of Volanus, pp. 38-40. One while he
says the words are to be taken metaphorically ; then, that Christ was

1 " Unde apparet Christum nobis Dei voluntatem perfect^ manifestasse ? — Hinc,
quod ipse Jesus perfectissima ratione earn a Deo in coelis sit edoctus, et ad earn homi-
nibus publicandam e coalo magnifice sit missus, et earn perfecte iisdem amrantiavit.

" Ubi vero scriptum est Christum fuisse in ccelo, et a coelo missum ? — Johan. vi. 38,
iii- 13." — Cat. Kac. de offic. Christi prophetico, q. 4, 5.

t OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 355

in heaven in his mind and meditation ; and at last, it may be, " was
taken into heaven," as Paul was.1

To return to our catechists and to the thing itself, the reader may
take of it this brief account : —

1. There is, indeed, in the New Testament abundant mention of
our Saviour's coming down from heaven, of his coming forth from
God, which in what sense it is spoken hath been fully before de
clared ; but of his being taken up into heaven after his incarnation
before his death, and being there taught the mind of God and the
gospel which he was to preach, there is not one word nor syllable.
Can it be supposed that, whereas so many lesser things are not only
taken notice of, but also to the full expressed, with all their circum
stances, this, which, according to the hypothesis of them with whom
we have to do, is of such importance to the confirmation of his doc
trine, and, upon a supposition of his being a mere man, eminently
suited to the honour of his ministry above all the miracles that he
wrought, [should not have been mentioned,] — that he and all his
followers should be utterly silent therein; that when his doctrine
was decried for novelty and folly, and whatever is evil and contemp
tible, that none of the apostles in its vindication, none of the ancients
against the Pagans, should once make use of this defensative, that
Christ was taken up into heaven, and there instructed in the mind of
God? Let one word, testimony, or expression, be produced to this
purpose, that Christ was taken up into heaven to be instructed in the
mind of God before his entrance upon his office, and let our adver
saries take the cause. If not, let this story be kept in the old golden
legend, as a match for any it contains.

2. There was no cause of this rapture or taking of Christ into
heaven. That which is assigned, that there he might be taught the
gospel, helps not in any measure; for the Scripture not only assigns
other causes of his acquaintance with the mind and will of God, —
namely, his oneness with the Father, being his only-begotten Son,
his Word and Wisdom, as also (in respect of his condescension to
the office of mediation) his being anointed with the fulness of the
Spirit, as was promised and prophesied of him, — but also affirms that

1 " Aut verba Christ! sine ullo prorsus tropo interpretanda sunt, et proinde ex ipsia
ducta argumentatio vestra, penitus dissolvetur: aut si tropus aliquis in Christi verbis
admittendus est, non videmus cur non potius dicamus, ideo dixisse Christum filium
hominis fuisse in coelo antequam post resurrectionem eo ascenderet, quia jam ante illud
tempus, non modo in ccelo mente, et cogitatione perpetuo vcrsabatur, verum etiam
omnia coelestia, id est arcana quaeque divinissima, et ipsa omnia quse in coelo sunt, et
fiunt, adeo cognita et perspecta habebat, ut ea tanquam praesentia intueretur : et ita
quamvis in terris degens, in ipso tamen coelo commorari dici possit. Nam in ccelo an
tequam moreretur revera esse potuit, postquam ex Maria natus est : nee solum potuit,
sed (ut ita dicamus) debuit ; si enim homo ille Paulus Christi seryus, ad tertium usque
coelum ante mortem raptus est, nullo pacto nobis verisimile sit, Christum ipsum ante
mortem in coelo non fuisse." — Socin. Resp. prior, ad Par. VoL pp. 38-40.

356 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

this was accomplished both on him and towards him before such
time as this fiction is pretended to fall out, John i. 1, 18; Prov.
viii 14-16; Col. ii. 3; Heb. i. 9; John iii. 34.

Instantly upon his baptism Luke tells you that he was K^ripqs
Tlvtvpuros ayiw, " full, of the Holy Ghost," chap. iv. 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 ex
presses to be necessary for the discharge of his prophetical office:
Tl^pns Ilvsvpciros ay!ov is as much as Y^ nin^ V'"1^ ^, Isa. Ixi. 1 ; and
upon that he says, " He hath sent me to preach." God also so
lemnly bare witness to him from heaven to the same purpose, Matt,
iii. 1 7. And before this John affirmed that he was " the Light of the
world, the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world/' John i. 9 ; which how he should be, and yet himself be in
darkness, not knowing the will of God, is not easily to be appre
hended.

3. To what purpose served all that glory at his baptism, that so
lemn inauguration, when he took upon him the immediate admini
stration of his prophetical office in his own person, if after this he
was to be taken up into heaven to be taught the mind of God ? To
what end were the heavens opened over him? to what end did the
Holy Ghost descend upon him in a visible shape, which God had
appointed as a sign whereby he should be known to be the great
prophet, John i. 32-34 ? 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 gos
pel and of the will of God, and was to be taken up into heaven to
be instructed?

4. If this must be supposed to be without any mention, yet why
is it said always, that Christ came from heaven to the earth ? If he
was first on the earth, and was taken into heaven, and came again
to the earth, he had spoken to the understanding of men if he had
said, " I am returned from heaven;" and not, as he doth, " I am come
from heaven." This in lesser matters is observed. Having gone
out of Galilee to Jordan, and come again, it is said he " returned
from Jordan," Luke iv. I;1 and having been with the Gadarenes,
upon his coming to the other side, from whence he went, it is said
he returned from the Gadarenes back again, Luke viii. 40.' But
where is it said that he returned from heaven, which, on the suppo
sition that is made, had alone in this case been proper ? which pro
priety of speech is in all other cases everywhere observed by the
holy writers.

5. It is said that Christ " entered once into the holy place," and
that " having obtained eternal redemption," Heb. ix. 1 2 ; yea, and

1 'Ttrifrpnjrtt. z 'Ev rtf uiroffrfi'4'eu.

OF CHEIST'S PEOPHETICAL OFFICE. 357

expressly that lie ought to suffer before he so entered, Luke xxiv.
26. But, according to these men, he went twice into heaven, — once
before he suffered and had obtained eternal redemption, and once
afterward. It may also be observed, that when they are pressed to
tell us some of the circumstances of this great matter, being silent
to all others, they only tell us that they conjecture the time to be in
the space of that forty days wherein he was in the wilderness;1 — on
purpose, through the righteous judgment of God, to entangle them
selves in their own imaginations, the Holy Ghost affirming expressly
that he was the whole " forty days in the wilderness, with the wild
beasts," Mark i. 13.2

Enough being said to the disprovement of this fiction, I shall
very briefly touch upon the sense of the places that are produced to
give countenance thereunto.

1. In most of the places insisted on there is this expression, " He
that came down from heaven," or, "I came down from heaven:"
so John vi. 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58, iii. 30-32. Hence this
is the conclusion, " If our Saviour came down from heaven, then,
after he had lived some time in the world, he was taken up into
heaven, there to be taught the mind of God." He that hath a mind
to grant this consequence is willing to be these men's disciple. The
Scripture gives us another account of the intendment of this phrase,
— namely, " That the Word was with God, and the Word was
God, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and
his glory was seen, as the glory of the only-begotten of the Fa
ther," John i. 1, 2, 14; so that it is not a local descension> but a
gracious condescension, that is intimated, with his voluntary hu
miliation, when he who was " in the form of God humbled himself
to take upon him the form of a servant," therein to learn obedi
ence. So that these expressions yield very little relief to our ad
versary.

2. The second sort are those wherein he is said to " come forth
from God," or " from the Father," — this is expressed, John viii. 42,
xiii. 1, 3, xvi. 27-30, xvii. 8, — from whence an argument of the
same importance with the former doth arise: " If Christ came
from God, from the Father, then, after he had been many years in
the world, he was taken into heaven, and there taught the gospel,
and sent again into the world." With such invincible demonstra
tions do these men contend ! That Christ came from God, from the
Father, — that is, had his mission and commission from God, as he
was mediator, the great prophet, priest, and king of his church. —
none denies, and this is all that in these places is expressed ; of
which afterward.

1 Smalc. dc Divin. Christ, cap. iv.

2 Kai r,» ixii 11 rrt ivfty, fiftla; TlffctpccxavTit.

S58 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

3. Some particular places are yet remaining. The first is John
iii. 13, " No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, the Son of man, which is in heaven." That " which is"
Mr B. renders rather " which was," whether with greater prejudice
to his cause or conscience I know not ; — to his cause, in that he
manifests that it cannot be defended without corrupting the word of
God ; to his conscience, by corrupting it to serve his own end and
turn accordingly. The words are, i> uv ev rift ovpavp, which will by no-
means admit of his corrupting gloss.

I say, then, let the words speak [for] themselves, and you need no
other [sword] to cut the throat of the whole cause that this man hath
undertaken to manage. He that speaks is the Son of man, and all
the time of his speaking he was in heaven. " He," saith he, " is in
heaven." In his human nature he was then on the earth, not in
heaven ; therefore he had another nature, wherein at that time he
was in heaven also, he who was so being the Son of man. And
what, then, becomes of Mr B/s Christ ? and what need of the rap
ture whereof he speaks ?

[As] for the " ascending into heaven," mentioned in the begin
ning of the verse, that it cannot be meant of a local ascent of Christ
in his human nature antecedent to his resurrection is evident, in
that he had not yet " descended into the lower parts of the earth,"
which he was to do before his local ascent, Eph. iv. 9, 10. The ascent
there mentioned answers the discourse that our Saviour was then
upon ; which was to inform Nicodemus in heavenly things. To this
end he tells him (verse 12) that they were so slow of believing that
they could not receive the plainest doctrine, nor understand even
the visible things of the earth, as the blowing of the wind, nor the
causes and issue of it ; much less did they understand the heavenly
things of the gospel, which none (saith he, verse 13) hath pierced
into, is acquainted withal, -hath ascended into heaven, in the know
ledge of, but he who is in heaven, and is sent of God into the world
to instruct you. He who is in heaven in his divine nature, who is
come down from heaven, being sent of God, having taken flesh, that
he might reveal and do the will of God, he, and none but he, hath so
ascended into heaven as to have the full knowledge of the heavenly
things whereof I speak. Of a local ascent, to the end and purpose
mentioned, there is not the least syllable.

Thus, I say, the context of the discourse seems to exact a meta
phorical interpretation of the words, our Saviour in them inform
ing Nicodemus of his acquaintance with heavenly things, whereof he
was ignorant. But yet the propriety of the words may be observed
without the least advantage to our adversaries, for it is evident that
the words are elliptical: OlbsTg uva&Sqxtv ei$ T&V olpavov, e! pri 6 v!6g.
"Ascend" must be repeated again to make the sense complete; and

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 359

why may not /A=XXE/ ava^vat be inserted as well as dwGs&jxs? So are
the words rendered by Theophylact;1 and in that sense [they] relate
not to what was before, but what was to be. And an instance of
the necessity of an alike supplement is given in Matt. xi. 27. More
over, some suppose that ava&Qqx,ev, affirming the want of a potential
conjunction, as civ, or the like (which the following exceptive 11 M
require), in the place, is not to be taken for the act done, but for the
power of doing it, of which examples may be given : so that the pro
priety of the words may also be preserved without the least counte
nance afforded to the figment under consideration.

The remaining place is John vi. 62, " What and if ye shall see the
Son of man ascend up where he was before?" 'OKOV %v rb irportpov.
That Christ was in heaven before his local ascent thither in his
human 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 prophetical office of Christ: " He did not know the will of God as
the only-begotten Son of the Father in his bosom ; he was not fur
nished for the declaring of it in his own immediate ministry by the
unction of the Holy Ghost, and his being filled therewith; he was
not solemnly inaugurated thereinto by the glorious presence of the
Father and the Holy Ghost with him, one in a voice, and the other
in a bodily shape, bearing witness to him to be the prophet sent
from God ; but being for many years ignorant of the gospel and the
will of God, or what he came into the world to do, he was, no man
knows where, when, nor how, rapt into heaven., and there taught and
instructed in the mind of God (as Mohammed pretended he was also),
and so sent into the world, after he had been sent into the world
many a year."

Here the Eacovians add : —

Q. What is that will of God which by Christ is revealed?
A. It is the new covenant, which Christ, in the name of God, made with
human kind; whence also he is called " the mediator of the new covenant."2

1. It seems, then, that Christ was taken into heaven to be taught
the new covenant, of which before he was ignorant ; though the very
name that was given him before he was born contained the substance
of it, Matt. i. 21. 2. Christ did not make the covenant with us as
mediator, but confirmed and ratified it, Heb. ix. 15-17. God gave
him in the covenant which he made, and therefore is said to "give him
for a covenant," Isa. xlii 6. 3. The covenant of grace is not made
with all mankind, but with the seed of the woman, Gen. iii 15 ;

1 OiS«/f T»V irpofvraii ctnzS'Suxii i/; rov ovpettot, li fin \yu jUiXXai ayccSr,yai, xai x.a,Tr>\6 01 .

Theoph. in loc.

2 " Quae vero est ilia voluntas Dei per Jesum nobis patefacta ? — Est illud foedus
novum, quod cum genere humano Christus nomine Dei pepigit, unde etiam mediator
ttavi Jcederit vocatur, Heb. viii. 6, 1 Tim. ii. 5." — Cat. Eac. de prophet, mun. Chribti.

360 VINDICI^ EVANGELICJE.

Gal. iii. 16; Rom. ix. 7, 8. 4. Christ is not called the mediator of the
new covenant because he declared the will of God concerning it, but
because he gave his life a ransom for those with whom it is made,
1 Tim. ii. 5, 6 ; and the promises of it were confirmed in his blood,
Heb. ix. 15, x. 16-20. 5. This covenant was not first made and re
vealed when Christ taught in his own person. It was not only
made but confirmed to Abraham in Christ four hundred and thirty
years before the law, Gal. iii. 17; yea, ever since the entrance of sin,
no man hath walked with God but in the same covenant of grace,
as elsewhere is declared.

Let us see what follows in Mr B. Says he, —

Q. You have already showed that Christ was like unto Moses in seeing God,
and hearing from him the things which he spake : but Moses exceeded all other
prophets likewise in that he only was a lawgiver; was Christ therefore like unto
Moses in giving of a, law also, and is there any mention of this law?

A. Gal. vi. 2, " Fulfil the law of Christ;" Rom. iii. 27, " By the law of faith;"
James ii. 12, "By the law of liberty;" James i. 25.

1. That Moses did not see the face of God hath been showed, and
Mr B. confesseth the same. That Christ was not rapt into heaven
for any such end or purpose as is pretended, that he is not com
pared to Moses as to his initiation into his prophetical office, that
there is not one word in the Scripture giving countenance to any of
these figments, hath been evinced ; nor hath Mr B. showed any
such thing to them who have their senses exercised to discern good
and evil, what apprehensions soever his catechumens may have of
his skill and proofs.

2. What is added to this question will be of an easy despatch.
The word " law" may be considered generally, as to the nature of
it, in the sense of Scripture, for a revelation of the mind of God ; and
so we say Christ did give a law, in that he revealed fully and clearly
the whole mind of God as to our salvation and the obedience he
requireth of us. And so there is a law of faith, that is, a doctrine
of faith, opposite to the law as to its covenant ends, simply so called.
And he also instituted some peculiarly 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 peculiarly called " a
new commandment," John xiii. 34, and "the law of Christ," Gal. vi. 2,
even that which he did so eminently practise. As he was a teacher,
a prophet come out from God, he taught the mind, and will, and
worship of God, from his own bosom, John L 18, Heb. i 1, 2. And as
he was and is the king of his church, he hath given precepts, and
laws, and ordinances, for the rule and government thereof, to which
none can add, nor from them any detract. But take the word " law "
strictly in reference to a covenant end, so that he which performs it
shall be justified by his performance thereof, so we may say he gava

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 361

the law originally as God, but as mediator he gave no such law, or
no law in that sense, but revealed fully and clearly our justification
with God upon another account, and gave no new precepts of obe
dience but what were before given in the law, written originally in
the heart of man by nature, and delivered to the church of the Jews
by Moses in the wilderness; of which in the chapter of justification.

For the places quoted by Mr B., that of Gal. vi. 2, " Bear ye one
another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ," speaks only of
that one command of brotherly love and forbearance which is called
peculiarly, as I said, " a new commandment/' though the Jews had
it from the beginning, and the " law of Christ," because of the emi
nent accomplishment of it by " him who loved us, and gave himself
for us," transmitting it anew to us with such new motives and in
ducements as it had not received before, nor ever shall again. The
" law of faith," mentioned Horn. iii. 27, is no more but the doctrine
of the gospel, and of justification without the works of the law, — that
is, all works commanded, by what law soever; as the whole doc
trine of the word of God is called " the law " near an hundred times
in the Psalms. The "law of faith" is that which is opposed to the
" law of works," as a means of obtaining righteousness, which is not
by obedience to new commands.

The places in James ii. 12, i. 25, speak directly of the moral law;
which is manifest by that particular enumeration of its precepts
which we have subjoined, chap. ii. 10-12.

3. But Mr B/s masters have a farther reach in the asserting Christ
to have given a new law, — nam'ely, whereas they place justification
as a consequent of our own obedience, and observing how impossible
it is to do it on the obedience yielded to the moral law, the apostle
having so frequently and expressly decried all possibility of justifica
tion thereby, they have therefore feigned to themselves that Christ
Jesus hath given a new law, in obedience whereunto we may be jus
tified ; which when they attempt to prove, it will be needful for
them to produce other manner of evidences than that here by Mr B.
insisted on, which speaks not one word to the purpose in hand. But
that this is the intendment of the man is evident from his ensuing
discourse.

Having reckoned up the expositions of the law, and its vindication
given by our Saviour, Matt, v., in the next query he calls them, very
ignorantly, " the law of faith, or the new covenant." If Mr B. knows
no more of the new covenant but that it is a new law given by
our Saviour, Matt, v.-vii. (as upon other accounts), I pity the man.
He proceeds, —

Q. Doth not Christ, then, partly perfect, partly correct the law of Moses? What
is the determination of CJirist concerning this matter f
A. Matt. v. 21-45.

362 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

1. The reason of this query I acquainted the reader with before.
These men, seeking for a righteousness, as it were, by the works of
the law,1 and not daring to lay it upon that which the apostle doth
so often expressly reject, they strive to relieve themselves with this,
that our Saviour hath so dealt with the law as here is expressed ;
so that to yield obedience to it now, as mended, perfected, and re
formed, must needs be sufficient to our justification.

2. Two things are here affirmed to be done by the Lord Christ in
reference to the " law of Moses," as it is called, — that is, the moral
law, as is evident by the following instances given to make good the
assertion, — first, That he perfects it ; secondly, That he corrects it :
and so a double imputation is laid on the law of God, (1.) Of im
perfection ; (2.) Of corruption, that needed amendment or correction.

Before I proceed to examine the particular instances whereby the
man attempts to make good his insinuation, the honour of God and
his law requires of us that it be vindicated from this double calumny,
and demonstrated to be neither imperfect nor to stand in need of
correction : —

1. For its perfection, we have the testimony of God himself ex
pressly given thereunto : Ps. xix. 7, " The law of the LORD is PERFECT,
converting the soul;" it is the " perfect law of liberty/' James i. 25;
yea, so perfect as that God hath forbidden any thing to be added to
it or to be taken from it, Deut. xii. 32.

2. If the law wants perfection, it is in respect of its essential parts,
or its integral parts, or in respect of degrees. But for its essential
parts, it is perfect, being, in matter and form, in sense and sentence,
divine, holy, just, good, Rom. vii. 12. For its integrals, it com-
priseth "the whole duty of man," Eccles. xii. 1 3 ; which doing he was
to live. And for the degrees of its commands, it requireth that we
love the Lord our God with all our hearts and all our souls, and our
neighbours as ourselves; which our Saviour confirms as a rule of
perfection, Matt. xxii. 36-40.

3. If the law of God was not perfect, but needed correction, it is
either because God could not or would not give a perfect and com
plete law. To say the first is blasphemy; for the latter, there is no
pretence for it. God giving a law for his service, proclaiming his
wisdom and holiness to be therein, and that if any man did perform
it, he should live therein, certainly would not give such a law as, by
its imperfection, should come short of any of the ends and purposes
for which it was appointed.

4. The perfection of the law is hence also evinced, that the pre
cepts of Christ, wherein our obedience requires us to be perfect, are
the same and no other than the precepts of the law. His new com
mandment of love is also an old one, 1 John ii. 7, 8, which Christ calls

1 'fls 1% ipyay top™, Rom. ix. 32.

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 363

his new commandment, John xiii. 34; and the like instances might
be multiplied. Neither will the instance of Mr B. evince the con
trary, which he argues from Matt. v. ; for that Christ doth not in that
chapter correct the law, nor add any new precept thereunto, but ex
pounds and vindicates it from the corrupt glosses of the scribes and
Pharisees, appears, —

(1.) From the occasion of the discourse, and the proposition which
our Saviour makes good, establisheth, and confirmeth therein, which
is laid down, verse 20, " Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into
the kingdom of heaven." In pursuit of this proposition, he manifest-
eth what their righteousness was, by examining their catechism upon
the commandments, and the exposition they made therein of them.
It is not the righteousness of the law that our Saviour rejects, and re
quires 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 pass away, and he that keeps it shall be called great, or be
of great esteem, in the kingdom of God ; and the good works that our
Saviour then required in his disciples are no other but those that
were commanded in the law.

(2.) The very phraseology and manner of speech here used by our
Saviour manifests of whom and concerning what he speaks : " Ye
have HEARD that it was SAID to THEM OF OLD TIME ;" — " Ye have
heard," not " Ye have read." " Ye have heard it of the scribes and
Pharisees out of Moses5 chair; they have told you that it was thus
said." And, " Ye have heard that it was said to them of old ;" not
" that it was written, that it was written in the law," the expression
whereby he citeth what was written. And, " It was said to them of
old" — the common pretence of the Pharisees, in the imposing their
traditions and expositions of the law. " It is the tradition of the
elders; it was said to them by such and such blessed masters of old."

(3.) Things are instanced in that are nowhere written in the law,
nor ever were ; as that, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate
thine enemy;" which is so remote from the law as that the contrary
is directly commanded, Lev. xix. 18; Exod. xxiii. 4, 5; Prov. xx. 22.
To them who gave this rule, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy," doth Christ oppose himself. But those were the
scribes and Pharisees in their corrupt glosses, from which God's law
is vindicated, not in itself before corrupted.

(4.) Whose sayings Christ rejects, their sayings he did not come
to fulfil; but he came to fulfil and accomplish the law: and therefore
it is not the law and the sentence thereof that he rejects in that
form of speech, " But I say unto you."

Before I come to the consideration of the particular instances given
by Mr B., a brief consideration of what is offered to this purpose by

364 TINDICLSJ EVANGELIC^

Smalcius, in bis Racovian Catechism, may be premised. His first chap
ter, about the prophetical office of Christ, is " De praeceptis Christi,
quae legi addidit;" — "Of the precepts of Christ, which he added to
the law." And therein this is his first question and answer: —

Q. WTiat are the perfect commands of God revealed by Christ f

A. Part of them is contained in the precepts given by Moses, with those which

are added thereunto in the new covenant ; part is contained in those things which

Christ himself prescribed.1

The commands of God revealed by Jesus Christ are here referred
to three heads: — 1. The ten commandments given by Moses; for so
that part is explained in the next question, where they are said to
be the decalogue. 2. The additions made by Christ thereunto.
3. His own peculiar institutions.

1. As to the first, I desire only to know how the ten command
ments 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 reveal 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 commandment" is not so
termed in respect of the matter of it, but its new enforcement by
Christ. We grant Christ revealed that law of Moses, with its new
covenant ends, as he was the great prophet of his church, by his
Spirit, from the foundation of the world ; but this Smalcius denies.

2. That Christ made no new additions to the moral law hath
been partly evidenced from what hath been spoken concerning the
perfection thereof, with the intention of our Saviour in that place,
and those things wherein they say these additions are found and do
consist, and shall yet farther be evinced from the consideration of
the particulars by them instanced in.

3. It is granted that our blessed Saviour did, for the times of the
new testament, institute the two ordinances of baptism and the
Lord's supper, in the room of them which, together with their re
presentation 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 design in them. (2.) Though there is
an obedience in their performance yielded to God and Christ, yet
they belong rather to the promises than the precepts of Christ; to
our privilege, — before, unto our duty.

In the progress of that catechist, after some discourse about the
ceremonial and judicial law, with their abolition, and his allowance
of magistrates among Christians notwithstanding (which they do

1 " Qusenam sunt pcrfecta mandata Dei per Christum patefacta ? — Pars eorum con-
tinetur in prseceptis a Mose traditis, una cum iis quae sunt eis in novo fcedere addita;
pars vero continetur in iis quas peculiariter ipse Christus prajscripsit."

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 365

upon condition they shed no blood, for any cause whatever), he at
tempts in particular to show what Christ added to the moral law in
the several precepts of it. And to the first he says that Christ added
two things: — 1. In that he prescribed us a certain form of prayer;
of which afterward, in the chapter designed to the consideration of
what Mr B. speaks to the same purpose. 2. That we acknowledge
himself for God, and worship him; of which also in our discourse of
the kingly office of Christ. To the second, he says, is added in the
New Testament, not only that we should not worship images, but
avoid them also; which is so notoriously false, the avoiding of images
of our own making being no less commanded in the Old Testament
than in the New, that I shall not insist thereon. The residue of his
plea is the same with Mr B/s from Matt, v., where what they pretend
shall be considered in order.

To consider, then, briefly the particular instances. 1. The first is in
reference to the sixth commandment, " Thou shalt not kill" This
the Pharisees so interpreted as that if a man kept himself from
blood and from causing the death of another, he was righteous as to
the keeping of this commandment. Our Saviour lets his disciples
know that there is a closer and nearer sense of this law : " I say unto
you, in the exposition of this commandment, that any rash anger,
anger without a cause, all offence given proceeding from thence, in
light, vilifying expressions, such as ' Raca/ much more all provoking
taunts and reproaches, as ' Thou fool/ are forbidden therein, so as to
render a man obnoxious to the judgment of God, and condemnation
in their several degrees of sinfulness;"1 as there were amongst them
selves several councils, according to several offences, — the judgment,
the council, and utter cutting off as a child of hell. Hence, then,
having manifested the least breach of love or charity towards our
brother to be a breach of the sixth commandment, and so to render
a man obnoxious to the judgment of God in several degrees of sin,
according as the eruptions of it are, he proceeds in the following
verses to exhort his disciples to patience, forbearance, and brotherly
love, with readiness to agreement and forgiveness, verses 23-26.

2. In the next place, he proceeds to the vindication and exposition
of the seventh commandment, verse 27, " Thou shalt not commit
adultery;" which the Pharisees had so expounded as that if a man
kept himself from actual uncleanness, however loosely he lived, and
put away his wife at his pleasure, he was free from the breach
thereof. To give them the true meaning and sense of this com
mandment, and farther to discover the hypocrisy of the Pharisees,
he lets them know, —

(1.) That the concupiscence of the heart or inordinate desire of

1 See a full and clear exposition of this place by Dr Lightfoot, in his preface to the
" Harmony of the Gospels."

366 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

any person is the adultery here no less forbidden than that of actual
uncleanness, which the law made death. And certainly he must
needs be as blind as a Pharisee who sees not that the uncleanness
of the heart and lust after woman was forbidden by 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 himself thereunto at all,
but only shows that that permission of divorce is to be interpreted
according to the rule and instruction given in the first institution of
marriage (as afterward, on another occasion, he explains himself,
Matt, xix.), and not that men might therefore, for every cause that
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 himself that he did : " I put away my wife," saith he, " because
she did not please me." "No," saith our Saviour; "that permission
of Moses is not to be extended beyond the just cause of divorce, as it
is by the Pharisees, but made use of only in the case of fornication,"
verses 31, 32; and he thereupon descends to caution his disciples
to be careful and circumspect in their walking in this particular, and
not be led by an offending eye or hand (the beginning of evil) to
greater abominations, verses 28-30.

3. In like manner doth he proceed in the vindication of the third
commandment. The scribes and Pharisees had invented or approved
of swearing by creatures, the temple, altar, Jerusalem, the head, and
the like ; and thereupon they raised many wicked and cursed distinc
tions, on purpose to make a cloak for hypocrisy and lying, as you may
see, Matt, xxiii. 16-19. " If a man swear by the temple, it is nothing,
he is not bound by his oath ; but if he swear by the gold of the temple,
he is obliged." In like manner did they distinguish of the altar and
the gift. And having mixed these swearings and distinctions in their
ordinary conversation, there was nothing sincere or open and plain
left amongst them. This wicked gloss of theirs (being such as their
successors abound withal to this day) our blessed Saviour decries,
and commands his disciples to use plainness and simplicity in their
conversation, in plain affirmations and negations, without the mix
ture of such profane and cursed distinctions, verses 34-37, which
that it was no new duty, nor unknown to the saints of the old tes
tament, is known to all that have but read it.

4. In matter of judgment between man and man, he proceeds ii
the same manner. Because the law had appointed the magistrate
exercise talionem in some cases, and to take an eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth, the blind Pharisees wrested this to countenance
private men in revenging themselves, and pursuing them who Ini
injured them with a hostile mind, at least until the sentence of the

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 367

law was executed on them. To root the rancour and malice out of
the minds of men which by this means were nourished and fo
mented in them, our Saviour lets them know that notwithstanding
that procedure of the magistrate by the law, yet indeed all private
revenges were forbidden and all readiness to contend with others,
which he amplifieth in the proposal of some particular cases; and all
this by virtue of a rule which himself affirms to be contained in the
law, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself/' verses 38-42, press
ing also lending and giving, as works of charity, whereunto a blessing
is so often pronounced in the Old Testament.

5. His last instance is in the matter of love, concerning which the
Pharisees had given out this note, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy;" for whereas there were certain nations
whom God had appointed to utter destruction at his people's first
coming into Canaan, he commanded them to show them no mercy,
but utterly to destroy them, Deut. vii. 2. This the wretched hypo
crites laid hold of to make up a rule and law for private men to
walk by in reference to them whom they accounted their enemies,
in express contradiction to the command of God, Exod. xxiii. 4, 5,
Lev. xix. 18. Wherefore our blessed Saviour vindicates the sense
of the law from this cursed tradition also, and renews the precept of
loving and doing good to our enemies, verses 43-47. So that in none
of the instances mentioned is there the least evidence of what was
proposed to be confirmed by them, — namely, that our Saviour gave
a new law, in that he did partly perfect, partly correct the law of
Moses, — seeing he did only vindicate the sense and meaning of
the law, in sundry precepts thereof, from the false glosses and tradi
tions of the scribes and Pharisees, invented and imposed on their
disciples to be a cloak to their hypocrisy and wickedness. And this
also may fully suffice to remove what on this account is delivered by
the Racovian Catechism. But on this foundation Mr B. proceeds : —

Q. You have made it appear plainly that the law of faith or the new covenant,
whereof Christ was the mediator, is better than the law of works or the old cove
nant, whereof Moses was the mediator, in respect of precepts; is it also better in
respect of promises?

A. Heb. viii. 6, vii. 19.

This is indeed a comfortable passage ! for the better understanding
whereof I shall single out the several noble propositions that are
insinuated therein, and evidently contained in the words of it ; as, —

1. Christ was the mediator of the law of faith, the new law, in the '
same sense as Moses was mediator of the old law, the law of works.

2. Christ's addition of precepts and promises to the law of Moses
is the law of faith, or the new covenant.

3. The people or church of the Jews lived under the old covenant,
or the law of works, whereof Moses, not Christ, was the mediator.

363 VINDICLE EVANGELIdE.

4. The difference between the old and the new covenant lies in
this, that the new hath more precepts of obedience and more pro
mises than the old.

And now, truly, he that thinks that this man understands either
the old covenant or the new, either Moses or Christ, either faith or
works, shall have liberty from me to enjoy his opinion, for I have
not more to add to convince him of his mistake than what the man
himself hath here delivered.

For my part, I have much other work to do, occasioned by Mr
B., and therefore I shall not here divert to the consideration of the
two covenants and their difference, with the twofold administration
of the covenant of grace, both before and after Christ's coming in the
flesh; but I shall content myself with some brief animadversions
upon the forernentioned propositions and proceed : —

1. In what sense Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, I
shall, God assisting, at large declare, when I come to treat of his
death and satisfaction, and shall not here prevent myself in any
thing of what must then and there be delivered.

2. That there are precepts and promises attending the new cove
nant is granted ; but that it consists in any addition of precepts to
the Mosaical law, carried on in the same tenor with it, with other
promises, is a figment directly destructive of the whole gospel and
the mediation of the Son of God. By this means, the whole under
taking of Jesus Christ to lay down his life a ransom for us, — our jus
tification by his blood, his being of God made righteousness to us,
the free pardon of our sins and acceptation with God by and for
him, as he is the end of the law for righteousness ; all communication
of effectual grace to work in us new obedience, the giving of a new,
clean heart, with the law of God written in it by the Spirit; in a
word, the whole promise made to Abraham, the whole new covenant,
is excluded from the covenant, and men left yet in their sins. The
covenant of works was, " Do this, and live ;" and the tenor of the
law, " If a man do the things thereof, he shall live thereby, — that is,
if a man by his own strength perform and fulfil the righteousness
that the law requires, he shall have eternal life thereby. " This
covenant," saith the apostle, " God hath disannulled, because no man
could be saved by it," Heb. vii. 18. " The law thereof, through sin, was
become weak and insufficient as to any such end and purpose," Rom.
viii. 3. What, then, doth God substitute in room thereof? Why, a
new covenant, that hath more precepts added to the old, with all
those of the old continued that respected moral obedience ! But is
this a remedy? is not this rather a new burden ? If the law could
not save us before, because it was impossible, through sin, that we
should perfectly accomplish it, and therefore " by the deeds of the
law shall no flesh be justified/' is it a likely way to relieve us by

OF CHRIST'S PROPHETICAL OFFICE. 369

making an addition of more precepts to them which before we could
not observe? But that, through the righteous hand of God, the in
terest of men's immortal souls is come to be concerned therein, I
should think the time exceedingly lavished that is spent in this dis
course. " Let him that is ignorant be ignorant still," were a sufficient
answer. And this that hath been said may suffice to the fourth par
ticular also.

o. That Moses was a mediator of a covenant of works, properly
and formally so called, and that the church of the Jews lived under
a covenant of works, is a no less pernicious figment than the former.
The covenant of works was, " Do this, and live;" — " On perfect
obedience you shall have life." Mercy and pardon of sins were utter
strangers to that covenant; and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells
us that no man could be saved. The church of old had the pro
mises of Christ, Rom. ix. 4, Gen. iii. 15, xii. 3; were justified by
faith, Gen. xv. 6, Rom. iv., Gal. iii. ; obtained mercy for their sins,
and were justified in the Lord, Isa. xlv. 24, 25 ; had the Spirit for
conversion, regeneration, and sanctification, Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26;
expected and obtained salvation by Jesus Christ ; — things as remote
from the covenant of works as the east is from the west.

It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they
lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which
we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh ;
but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein
we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham
their father the pattern of ours, Rom. iv. 4, 5.

Let us now see what answer Mr B. applies to his query. The
first text he mentions is Heb. viii. 6, " But now hath he obtained a
more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a
better covenant, which was established upon better promises." That
which the Holy Ghost here affirms is, that the new covenant, where
of Christ is the mediator, is better than the old, and that it hath
better promises; which, I suppose, none ever doubted. The cove
nant is better, seeing that could by no means save us, while by this
Christ doth to the uttermost. The promises are better, for it hath
innumerable promises of conversion, pardon, and perseverance, which
that had not at all; and the promise of eternal life, which that had,
is given upon infinitely better and surer terms. But all this is
nothing at all to Mr B/s purpose.

No more is the second place which he mentioneth, Heb. vii. 19,
""The law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did."

Not that by " the law" in that place the covenant of works is in
tended, but the legal administration of the covenant of grace. "This,"
saith the apostle, " made nothing perfect." Men were kept under

VOL. xii. 24

370 VINDICI^E EVANGELICLE.

types and shadows ; and though they were children of God by adop
tion, yet in comparison they were kept as servants, being under
age, until the fulness of time came, when the bringing in of Jesus
Christ, that "better hope/' made the administration of grace perfect
and complete, Gal. iv. 1-6. Mr B. all along obscures himself under the
ambiguous term of "the law," confounding its covenant and subse
quent use. As for the covenant use of the law, or as it was the tenor of
the covenant of works, the saints of the old testament were no more
concerned in it than are we. The subsequent use of it may be con
sidered two ways, — 1. As it is purely moral, exacting perfect obedi
ence, and so the use of it is common to them and us; 2. As attended
with ceremonial and judicial institutions in the administration of
it, and so it was peculiar to them. And this one observation will
lead the reader through much of the sophistry of this chapter, whose
next question is, —

Q. Were those better promises of God touching eternal life and immortality
hidden in the dark and not brought to light under the law?

A. "Jesus Christ hath brought life and immortality to light through the gos
pel," 2 Tim. i. 10.

The whole ambiguity of this question lies in these expressions,
" Hidden in the dark and not brought to light/' If he intend com
paratively, in respect of the clear revelation made of the mind and
will of God by Jesus Christ, we grant it. If he mean it absolutely,
that there were no promises of life and immortality given under the
law, it is absolutely false ; for, —

1. There are innumerable promises of life and immortality in the
Old Testament given to the church under the law. See Heb. xL 14;
Deut. xii. 1, xxx. 6; Ps. xvi. 10, 11; Deut. xxxii. 29; Ps. cxxx. 8;
Isa. xxv. 8, 9, xlv. 17, xxvi. 19; Jer. xxiiL 6; Ps. iL 12, xxxii. 1, 2,
xxxiii. 12.

2. They believed in eternal life, and therefore they had the promise
of it; for faith relieth always on the word of promise. Thus did Job,
chap. xix. 25-27; and David, Ps. xvii. 15; so did Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, Heb. xi. 10, 13, 14; yea, and some of them, as a pattern
and example, without dying obtained it, as Enoch and Elijah.

3. The covenant of Abraham was that which they lived in and
under. But this covenant of Abraham had promises of eternal life,
even that God would be his God, dead and alive, Gen. xvii. 1, 7.
And that the promises thereof were promises of eternal life, Paul
manifests, Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iii. 14. But this hath been so abundantly
manifested by others that I shall not longer insist upon it. We are
come to the last query of this chapter, which is:—

Q. Though the promises of the gospel be better than those of the law, yet are they
not, as well as those of the law, proposed under conditions of faith and per sever-

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 871

ance therein, of holiness and obedience, of repentance, and suffering for Christ f
how speak the Scriptures?

A. John iii. 14-16, 18, 36; Hab. ii. 4; Heb. xi. 6; 2 Tim. ii. 11 ; Rom. viii. 13;
Acts iii. 19; Rev. ii. 5, 16; John v. 14.

Neither will this query long detain us. In the new testament,
there being means designed for the attainment of an end, — faith,
obedience, and perseverance, for the attainment of salvation and en
joyment of God through Christ, — the promises of it are of two sorts.
Some respect the end, or our whole acceptation with God ; some the
means, or way whereby we come to be accepted in Christ. The
first sort are those insisted on by Mr R, and they are so far condi
tional as that they declare the firm connection and concatenation of
the end and means proposed, so that without them it is not to be
attained ; but the other, of working faith, and new obedience, and
perseverance, are all absolute to the children of the covenant, as I
have so fully and largely elsewhere declared that I shall not here
repeat any thing there written, nor do I know any necessity of -add
ing any thing thereunto.1 I thought to have proceeded with the
Racovian Catechism also, as in the former part of the discourse ; but
having made this process, I had notice of an answer to the whole
by Arnoldus, the professor of divinity at Franeker; and therefore,
that I may not actum agere, nor seem to enter another's labour,
I shall not directly and xara -7680. 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 consideration.

CHAPTER 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 investiture
with it, his administration of it, with the efficacy of that power which
therein he puts forth, both towards his elect and others, Mr Biddle
doth not administer any occasion to discourse. It is acknowledged
by him that he was, or at least is, a king, by the designation and
appointment of the Father, to whom, as he was mediator, he was
subject ; that he abides in his rule and dominion as such, and shall
do so to the end of the world ; and I shall not make any farther in
quiry as to these things, unless farther occasion be administered.
Upon the account of this authority they say he is God. But whereas
it is certain that this authority of his shall cease at the end of the
1 Perseverance of the Saints, vol. xi.

372 VINDICI^ EVANGELICAL

world, 1 Cor. xv. 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 to
intimate that Christ was not invested in his kingdom before his
ascension into heaven. So question the second, " Is Christ already
invested in his kingdom, and did he, after his ascension and sitting
down at the right hand of God, exercise dominion and sovereignty
over men and angels?" and question third, " For what cause and to
what end was Jesus Christ exalted to his kingdom?" — to which he
answers from PhiL ii. 8-10 in both places; intimating that Christ
was not invested with his kingly power until after his exaltation.
(As for the ends of his exaltation, these being some mentioned,
though not all, nor the chief, I shall not farther insist on them.)
But this, as it is contrary to the testimony that himself gave of
his being a king in a kingdom which was not of this world, it being
a great part of that office whereunto he was of his Father anointed,
so it is altogether inconsistent with Mr B/s principles, who maintains
that he was worshipped with religious worship and honour whilst
he was upon the earth ; which honour and worship, says he, are due
t.o him and to be performed merely upon the account of that power
and authority which is given him of God, as also say all his com
panions; and certainly his power and authority belong to him as
king. The making of him a king and the making of him a god is
with them all one; but that he was a god whilst he was upon the
earth they acknowledge from the words of Thomas to him, " My
Lord and my God."

And the title of the 12th chapter of Smalcius' book, "De Vera
Jesu Christi Divinitate," is, " l)e nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus
in terris mortalis degens habuit;"1 which in the chapter itself he
seeks to make good by sundry instances, and in the issue labours to
prove that the sole cause of the attribution of that name to him is
from his office; but what office, indeed, he expresseth not. The
name of God, they say, is a name of office and authority ; the autho
rity of Christ, on which account he is to be worshipped, is that which
he hath as king. And yet the same author afterward contends that
Christ was not a king until after his resurrection and ascension.3 For
my part, I am not solicitous about reconciling him to himself; let
them that are so take pains, if they please, therein. Some pains, I
conceive, it may cost them, considering that he afterward affirms

1 " Divinitas autem Jesu Christi qualis sit, discimus ex sacris literis, netnpe talis,
quse propter munus ipsius dmnum tota ei tribuitur." — Smalc. de Divin. Jesu. Chris.
cap. xii.

3 "Nee enim prius D. Jesus Rex reipsa factus est, quam cum consedit ad dextram Dei
Patris, et regnare reipsa in coelo, et in terra coepit." — Idem, cap. xiii. sect 3. "Dominus
et Deus proculdubio a Thoma appellatur, quia sit talis Dominus, qui divino modo in
homines imperium habeat, et divino etiam illud modo exercere possit, et exerceat." —
Idem, cap. xxiv. de Fid. in Christum, etc.

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 873

expressly that he was called Lord and God of Thomas because of
his divine rule or kingdom; which, as I remember, was before his
ascension.

As for his exaltation at his ascension, it was not by any investiture
in any new office, but by an admission to the execution of that part
of his work of mecliatorship which did remain, in a full and glorious
manner, the whole concernment of his humiliation being past. In
the meantime, doubtless, he was a king when the Lord of glory was
crucified, 1 Cor. ii. 8.

But that which remains of this chapter is more fully to be considered.

Question 4 is, " How ought men to honour the Son of God?"

From hence to the end of the chapter, Mr B. insists on the reli
gious worship and invocation of Jesus Christ ; which, with all his com
panions, he places as the consequent of his kingly office and of that
authority wherewith, for the execution and discharge thereof, from
God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider what is tendered
by Mr B. to the purpose in hand, and then take liberty a little more
largely to handle the whole business of the worship of Jesus Christ,
with the grounds, reasons, and motives thereof.

His fourth question to this matter is, " How ought men to honour
the Son of God, Christ Jesus?" and it is answered, " John v. 23,
' Even as they honour the Father/ "

This, then, is consented unto on both sides, that Jesus Christ is to
be worshipped and honoured with the same worship and honour
wherewith the Father is worshipped and honoured ; that is, with that
worship and honour which is divine and religious, — with that subjec
tion of soul, and in the performance of those duties, which are due
to God alone.1 How Socinus himself doubled in this business and
was entangled shall be afterward discovered. What use will be made
of this in the issue of this discourse the reader may easily conjecture.

His next question, discovering the danger of the non-perform
ance of this duty of yielding divine honour and worship to Christ,
strengthens the former assertion, and therefore I have nothing to
except or add thereunto.

In question the sixth, Mr B. labours to defend the throat of his
cause against the edge of that weapon which is sharpened against it
by this concession, that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with divine
worship as the Father is, by a diversion of it, with a consideration
of the grounds of the assignation of this worship to Christ. His
.words are: —

Q. Ought men to honour the Son as they honour the Father because he hath
the same essence with tlie Father, or because he hath the same judiciary power f
ivhat is the decision of the Son himself concerning thit point f

A. John v. 22, 23.

1 OL xnfrc} <r/>i>uv 3 Xoy«(, OTI -rfiffxliinrtt. — Epiphan. in Ancorat.

574 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

The sum is : The same worship is to be given to the Father and the
Son, but upon several grounds; — to the Father, because he is God by
nature, because of his divine essence; to the Soli, because of a dele
gated judiciary power committed to him by the Father. For the
discovery of the vanity of this assertion, in the close of our consider
ation of this matter, I shall manifest, —

1. That there neither is nor can be any more than one formal
cause of the attribution of the same divine worship to any one ; so
that to whomsoever it is ascribed, it is upon one and the same indi
vidual account, as to the formal and fundamental cause thereof.

2. That no delegated power of judgment is or can be a sufficient
ground or cause of yielding that worship and honour to him to whom
it is delegated which is proper to God.

For the present, to the text pleaded, "The Father judgeth no man,
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should
honour the Son, even as they honour the Father," I say in brief, that
Iva vavreg rifiusi is not expressive of the formal cause of the honour
ing and adoration of Christ, but of an effectual motive to men to
honour him, to whom, upon the account of his divine nature, that
honour is due; — as in the first commandment, "I am the LORD thy
God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods before me," that expres
sion, " That brought thee out of the land of Egypt," is a motive to
the worship of God, but not the formal cause of it, that being due to
him as he is by nature God, blessed for ever, though he had never
brought that people out of Egypt. But of this more afterward.

Question 7, a farther diversion from the matter in hand is at
tempted by this inquiry: —

Q. Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he had in him the
divine nature personally united to the human, or because he was the Son of man?
what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point also f

A. " He hath given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of
man," John v. 27.

1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision inquired after,
wherein there is no such difference at all. Nor do we say that God
gave Christ the judiciary power, wherewith as mediator he is in
vested, because he had in him the divine nature personally united to
the human. The power that Christ hath upon the account of his
divine nature is not delegated, but essential to him. Nor can Mr B.
name any that have so stated the difference as he here proposes it.

2. We say not that Christ had in him the divine nature personally
united to the human, but that the human nature was personally
united to the divine, his personality belonging to him upon the ac
count of his divine nature, not his human.

3. We grant that the judiciary power that was delegated to

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 375

Christ as mediator, he being appointed of God to judge the world,
was given him " because he is the Son of man," or was made man
to be our mediator, and to accomplish the great work of the salvation
of mankind ; but that divine worship, proper to God the Father, is
due, and to be yielded and ascribed to him, on this ground and
reason, " because he is the Son of man," Mr B. cannot prove, nor
doth attempt it.

The 8th, 9th, and 10th questions belong not to us. We grant it was
and is the will and command of God that Jesus Christ, the mediator,
should be worshipped of angels and men, and that he was so wor
shipped even in this world, for " when he brought the first-begotten
into the world, he said, Let all the angels of God worship him," Heb.
i. 6 ; and that he is also to be worshipped now, having finished his
work, being exalted on the right hand of God ; — but that the bot
tom, foundation, and sole formal cause of the worship which God
so commands to be yielded to him, is any thing but his being "God,
blessed for evermore," or his being the " only-begotten Son of God,"
there is not in the places mentioned the least intimation.

The llth and 12th look again the same way with the former, and
with the same success. Saith he, —

Q. When men ascribe glory and dominion to Jesus CJirist in the Scripture, and
withal intimate the ground thereof, is it because they conceive him to be very God,
and to have been eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or because he gave him
self to death ? let me hear how they explain themselves ?

A. Rev. v. 9.

Q. Are the angels of the same opinion with the saints, when they also ascribe
the glory and dominion to him? let me hear how they also explain themselves?

A. Rev. v. 11, 12.

Of both these places afterward.

At present, — 1. Christ as a lamb is Christ as mediator, "both God
and man, to whom all honour and glory is due.

2. Neither saints nor angels do give, nor pretend to give, the reason
why Christ is to be worshipped, or what is the formal reason why
divine worship is ascribed to him, but only what is in their thoughts
and considerations a powerful and effectual motive to love, fear,
worship, and ascribe all glory to him ; as David often cries, " Bless
the LORD, 0 my soul ! " (or assigns glory and honour to him), because
he had done such or such things, intimating a motive to his wor
ship, and not the prime foundation and cause why he is to be
worshipped.

Having spoken thus to the adoration of Christ, his last question is
about his invocation, which he proves from sundry places of Scripture,
not inquiring into the reasons of it; so that, adding that to the for
mer concession of the worship and honour due to him, I shall close
these considerations with this one syllogism : " He who is to be
worshipped by angels and men with that divine worship which is

376 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

due to God the Father, and to be prayed unto, called on, believed
in, is God by nature, blessed for ever ; but, according to the confes
sion of Mr B., Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by angels and men
with that divine worship which is due even to God the Father, and
to be prayed unto : therefore is he God by nature, over all, blessed
for ever." The inference of the major proposition I shall farther
confirm in the ensuing considerations of the worship that is ascribec
to Jesus Christ in the Scripture.

In the endeavour of Faustus Socinus to set up a new religion, there
was not any thing wherein he was more opposed, or wherewith he
was more exercised by the men of the same design with himself,
than in this, about the worship and invocation of Jesus Christ. He
and his uncle Lselius urging amongst others this proposition, " That
Christ was not God," Franciscus David, Budseus, Christianus Fran-
ken, Palgeologus, with others, made the conclusion that he was not
to be worshipped as God, nor called upon. With some of these he
had sundry disputes and conferences, and was miserably intricated
by them, being unable to defend his opinion upon his hypothesis of
the person of Christ. That Christ is to be worshipped and invocated,
indeed, he proves well and learnedly, as in many places, so especially
in his third epistle to Matthias Radecius; but coming to knit his
arguments to his other opinion concerning Christ, he was perpetually
gravelled, as more especially it befell him in his dispute with Chris
tianus Franken, anno 1584, as is evident in what is extant of that
dispute, written by Socinus himself. Of the chief argument insisted
on by Franken I shall speak afterward: see " Disput. cum Fran-
ken," pp. 24, 25, 28, 35, etc. Against Franciscus David he wrote
a peculiar tract, and to him an epistle, to prove that the words of
Thomas, " My Lord and my God," were spoken of Christ, and there
fore he was to be worshipped (Epist. p. 186); wherein he positively
affirms that there was no other reading of the words (as David vainly
pretended) but what is the common use, because Erasmus made
mention of no such thing, who would not have omitted it could he
have made any discovery thereof, being justly supposed to be no good
friend to the Trinity.1 That men may know what to judge of some
of his annotations, as well as those of Grotius, who walks in the same
paths, is this remarked. Wherefore he and his associates rejected
this Franciscus David afterward as a detestable heretic, and utterly

1 " Primum igitur quod attinet ad priorem rationem dice, diversam illam lectionem
non extare, ut arbitror, neque in ullo probato codice, neque apud ullum probatum
scriptorem, quod vel ex eo constare potest, quod Erasmus in suis Annotationibus
quamvis de hoc ipso loco agat, ejus rei nullam prorsus mentionem facit. Qui Erasmus,
cum hoc in genere nusquam non diligentissirne versatur; turn in omnibus locis in
quibus Christus Deus appellari videtur, adeo diligenter omnia verba expendit, atque
examinat, ut non immerito et Trinitariis Arianismi suspectus fuerit, et ab Antitrini-
tariis inter eos relatus, qui subobscure Trinitati reclamaverint."— Faust. Socin. Ep. ad
Franc. David, pp. 136, 187.

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 377

deserted him when he was cast into prison by the prince of Transyl
vania, where he died miserably, raving and crying out that the devils
expected and waited for his company in his journey which he had to
go (Florim. Rem. lib. iv. cap. xii.) ; the account whereof Smalcius also
gives us in his refutation of Franzius, Theses de Hypocrit. disput. 9,
p. 298.1

After these stirs and disputatious, it grew the common tenet of
Socinus and his followers (see his epistle to Enjedinus) that those
who denied that Christ was to be worshipped and invocated were
not to be accounted Christians (which how well it agrees with other
of his assertions shall instantly be seen). So Socinus himself leads
the way, Respon. ad Niemojevium, Ep. 1 ; who is followed by Volke-
lius.s " Unless," saith he, " we dare to call on the name of Christ,
we should not be worthy of the name of Christians."3 And he is
attended by the Racovian Catechism, De prsecept. Christi, cap. i.,
whose author affirms plainly that he esteemed them not Christians
who worshipped him not, and accounted that indeed they had not
Christ, however in word they durst not deny him.4

And of the rest the same is the judgment; but yet with what
consistency with what they also affirm concerning this invocation of
Christ, we shall now briefly consider.

Socinus, in his third epistle to Matthias Radecius, whom he every
where speaks honourably of, and calls him " excellent man," " friend,"
" brother," and " much-to-be-observed lord"5 (because he was a great
man), who yet denied and opposed this invocation of Christ, lays
this down in the entrance of his discourse, that there is nothing of
greater moment in Christian religion than the demonstration of this,

1 "Exemplum denique affert nostrorum, Thes. 108. Quomodo se gesserint in Tran
sylvania in negotio Francisci Davidis, quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos
agant vafricise, perfidies, crudelitatig, sanguinarise proditionis, etc., sed his primum
regero : non exemplis, sed legibus judicandum esse : si nostri ita se gesserunt ut scribit
Frantzius, etc. Deinde dico falso ista objecta fuisse ab autoribus script!, quod citat
Frantzius nostris : nee enim fraterne tractarunt Franciscum Davidem, usque ad ipsum
agonem, quanquam eum ut fratrem tractare non tenebantur, qui in Jesu Christi veram
divinitatem tarn impie involabat, ut dicere non dubitaret, tantum peccatum esse eum
invocare, quantum est, si Virgo Maria invocetur," etc. — Sinalc. Eefut. Thes. Franz,
disput. 9, p. 298.

2 " Recte igitur existimasti, mini quoque verisimile videri, eum qui Dominum Jesum
Christum invocare non vult, aut non audet, vix Christian! nomine dignum esse : nisi
quod non rnodo vix, sed ne vix q'uidem, et non modo verisimile id mihi videtur, sed
persuasissimum mihi est."

3 " Eum invocare si non audeamus, Christiano nomine baud satis digni merito ex-
istimari possemus." — Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. iv. cap. xi. De Christi invocatione,
p. 221.

4 " Quid vero sentis de iis hominibus qui Christum non invocant, nee invocandum
censent ? — Prorsus non esse Christianos sentio : cum reipsa Christum non habeant, et
licet verbis id negare non audeant, reipsa tamen negent." — Cat. Rac. De prtecept.
Christi, cap. i. p. 126.

6 " Eruditione, virtute, pietate, pnestantissimo viro D. Matthseo Radecio, amico, et
domino mihi plurimum observando, etc. Prsestantissime vir, amice, frater, ac domine
plurimum observande."

378" VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

" That invocation and adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ,
although he be a created thing."1 And in the following words he
gives you the reason of the importance of the proof of this assertion,
namely, " Because the Trinitarians' main strength and argument lies
in this, that adoration and invocation are due to Christ, which are
proper only to the most high God."2 Which makes me bold on the
other side to affirm, that there is nothing in Christian religion more
clear, nor more needful to be confirmed, than this, that divine worship
neither is, can, nor ought, by the will of God, to be ascribed to any
who by nature is not God, to any that is a mere creature, of what
dignity, power, and authority soever. But yet now, when this zealous
champion for the invocation of Christ comes to prove his assertion,
being utterly destitute of the use of that which is the sure bottom
and foundation thereof, he dares go no farther, but only says that we
may call upon Christ if we will, but for any precept making it ne
cessary so to do, that he says there is none. '

And therefore he distinguisheth between the adoration of Christ
and his invocation? For the first, he affirms that it is commanded,
or at least that things are so ordered that we ought to adore him;
but of the latter, says he, " There is no precept, only we may do so
if we will." The same he had before affirmed in his answer to
Franciscus David.4 Yea, in the same discourse he affirms, that " if
we have so much faith as that we can go with confidence to God
without him, we need not invocate Christ."5 "We may/' saith he,
" invocate Christ ; but we are not bound so to do." Whence Niemoje-
vius falls upon him, and tells him that he had utterly spoiled their
cause by that concession;6 to deliver himself from which charge,

1 " Video enim nihil hodie edi posse in tota Christiana religione majoris momenti
quam hoc sit, demonstratio, videlicet, quod Christo licet creature tamen invocatio et
adoratio seu cultus divinus coaveniat." — Socin. Ep. 3 ad Rad. p. 143.

* " Si enim hoc demonstratum fuerit, concident omnes Trinitariorum munitiones,
quse revera uno hoc fundamento nituntur adhuc, quod Christo adoratio et invocatio
conveniunt, quse solius Dei illius altissimi omni ratione videtur esse propria." — Id ibid.

3 "Hie primum adorationem cum invocatione confundis, quod tamen fieri non debet,
cum utriusque sit diversa quaedam ratio, adeo ut ego, quamvis nihil prorsus dubitem,
praeceptum extare de adorando Christo, et etiamsi non extaret, tamen cum a nobis ado-
rari omnino debere, non idem tamen existimem de eodem invocando, cum videlicet
invocatio pro ipsa opis imploratione, et directione precum nostrarum accipitur. Hie
enim statuo id quidem merito a nobis fieri posse, id est, posse nos jure ad ipsum Chris
tum preces nostras dirigere, nihil tamen esse quod nx>s id facere cogat." — Socin. Ep. 3
ad Rad. p. 151.

4 " Christum Dominum invocare possumus, sed non debemus, sive non tenemur."

6 " Quod si quis tanta est fide praeditus, ut ad Deum ipsum perpetuo recte accedere
audeat, huic non opus est ut Christum invocet." — Disput. cum Fran. p. 4.

8 " Legi quoque diligenter responsionem tuam ad argumenta Francisci Davidis, ubi
Christi Domini invocationem honoremque nomini ejus sacrosancto convenientem asseris,
ac contra calumnias Francisci Davidis defendis. Attamen videris mini, paucis ver-
bis, optimam sententiam non tantum obscurasse, sed quasi in dubium revocasse, adver-
sariosque in errore confirmasse. Quaeris quid sit quod tantum malum secum impor.
tare possit? Breviter respondeo, verba ilia quse saapius addis, Christum Dominum
invocare possumus, sed non debemus, sive non tenemur, etc., ruinam negotio, causaequa

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 379

how pitifully he intricates himself may be seen in his answer to that
epistle. Now, whether this man hath sufficient cause to exclude any
from being Christians for the non-performance of that which himself
dares not affirm that they ought to do, and with what consistency of
principles these things are affirmed, is easy to judge.

Of the same judgment with him is Volk. de Vera Relig. lib. iv.
cap. xi. de Christi invocatione, Schlichting. ad Meisner., pp. 206, 207,
and generally the rest of them ; which again how consistent it is with
what they affirm in the Racovian Catechism, — namely, that this is
an addition which Jesus Christ hath made to the first commandment,
that he himself is to be acknowledged a God, to whom we are bound
to yield divine honour,1 — I see not; for if this be added to the first
commandment, that we should worship him as God, it is scarce,
doubtless, at our liberty to call upon him or no. Of the same mind
is Smalcius, de Divinitate Jesu Christi, — a book that he offered to
Sigismund III., king of Poland, by the means of Jacobus Sienienska,
palatine of Podolia, in the year 1608; who, in his epistle to the king,
calls him his pastor.2 And yet the same person doth, in another
place of the same treatise, most bitterly inveigh against them who
will not worship nor invocate Christ, affirming that they are worse
than the Trinitarians themselves,3 — than which, it seems, he could in
vent nothing more vile to compare them with, — and yet again [he
says] that there is no precept that he should be invocated, Cat. Rac.
(that is, the same person with the former), cap. v. De prascep. Christi,
qua3 legein prefecerunt.4 So also Ostorodius, Compendiolum Doc-
trinse Ecclesiae Christianas nunc in Polonia potissimum florentis,
cap. i. sect 2.

tuae minantur. Non possum percipere quomodo haec conciliari possint : non debemus,
sed possumus, quasi in negotio salutis nostrse liberum sit facere vel omittere, prout
nobis aliquid magis necessarium, vel e contra visurn fuerit." — Niemojevius, Ep. 1 ad
Faust. Socin. anno 1587.

1 " Quid prseterea huic praecepto primo Dominus Jesus addidit ? — Id quod etiam Do-
minum Jesum pro Deo agnoscere tenemur ; id est, pro eo qui in nos potestatem habet
divinam et cui nos divinum exhibere honorem obstricti sumus." — Cat. Rac. cap. i. De
praecep. Christi.

z " Cum itaque nuper, libellus de Christi divinitate conscriptus, esset mihi a pastore
meo, viro cum primis pio et literato, oblatus, in quo — disseruit." — Ep. Dedic. ad Sigis
mund.

3 " Videtur autem hoc imprimis modo diabolus insidias struere Domino Jesu, dum
scilicet tales excitat, qui non dubitant affirmare Dominum Jesum nunc plane esse
otiosum in coelis, et res humanas vel salutem hominum non aliter curare, quam Moses
curat salutem Judasorum. Qui quidem homines, professione videri volunt Christiani,
interne vero Christum abnegarunt, et spiritu judaicc, qui semper Christo fuit inimi-
cissimus, inflati sunt ; et si quis jure cum eis agere velit, indigni plane sunt, qui inter

' Christianos numerentur, quantumvis ore tenus Christum profiteantur, et multa de eo
garriant ; adeo ut multo tolerabilior sit error illorum qui Christum pro illo uno Deo
habent et colunt, quam istorum : et praestet, ex duobus malis minus quod aiunt eli-
gendo, Trinitarium quam hujusmodi blasphemum esse." — Smalc. de Ver. Christi Divin.
cap. xv. De regn. Christi moderno.

4 " Est enim invocatio Jesu Christi, ex numero earum rerum, quas praecipere nullo
modo opus est." — Idem. cap. xxiv. De fide in Christum, et de adorat. et invocat.
Christi.

880 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

It is, then, on all hands concluded that Jesus Christ is to be wor
shipped with divine and religious worship, due to God only.

Fixing this as a common and indisputable principle, I shall sub
join and prove these two assertions: — 1. In general, Divine worship
is not to be ascribed to any that is not God by nature, who is not
partaker of the divine essence and being. 2. In particular, Jesus
Christ is not to be worshipped on the account of the power and
authority which he hath received from God as mediator, but solely
on the account of his being " God, blessed for ever/'1 And this is
all that is required in answer to this tenth chapter of Mr B. What
follows on the heads mentioned is for the farther satisfaction of the
reader in these things upon the occasion administered, and for his
assistance to the obviating of some other Socinian sophisms that he
may meet withal. I shall be brief in them both.

For the first, Divine worship is not to be ascribed to them whom
God will certainly destroy. He will not have us to worship them
whom himself hateth. But, now, all gods that have not made the
heavens and the earth he will destroy from under these heavens: Jer.
x. 11, "Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not
made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the
earth, and from under these heavens." It is a thing that God would
have the nations take notice of, and therefore is it written in the
Chaldee dialect in the original, that they who were principally con
cerned in those days might take the more notice of it. And it is an
instruction that God put into the mouths of the meanest of his people,
that they should say it to them : " Say ye to them." And the asser
tion is universal, to all whomsoever that have not made the heavens
and earth, — and so is applicable to the Socinians' Christ. A god they
say he is, as Elijah said of Baal, 1 Kings xviii. 27; he is made so:
but that he made the heavens and earth they deny; and therefore
he is so far from having any right to be worshipped, that God hath
threatened he shall be destroyed.

Again ; the apostle reckons it among the sins of the Gentiles that
"they worshipped them who by nature were no gods/' Gal. iv. 8,*
from which we are delivered by the knowledge of God in the gospel,
And the weight of the apostle's assertion of the sin of the Gentiles lies
in this, that by nature they were not gods who were worshipped. So
that this is a thing indispensable, that divine worship should not be
given to any who is not God by nature ; and surely we are not
called in the gospel to the practice of that which is the greatest sin
of the heathens, that know not God. And to manifest that this is a

' N»iV/o?, orris avxxra &isu \oyov ailv eovra
. Ou ff'iSsr' IffoQ'iaf ira.'rpb; Ifoupaviov.

TSrtKios, otr-Til Hva-xnt Xnyov fiportiy 'itSa. ^aiitrit

Ou triStT IfoQia; oupavioii l.'oyau. — Gregor. TheoL
' 'E^ov^tvfXTt To7; f/.ri ifurii ouffi S-lo7;.

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 381

thing which the law of nature gives direction in, not depending on
institution, Rom. i., it is reckoned among those sins which are against
the light of nature. They " worshipped the creature" (besides, or)
"more than" (or with) "the Creator/'1 verse 25, "who is God, blessed
for evermore." To worship a creature, him who is not the Creator,
God, blessed for ever, is that idolatry which is condemned in the
Gentiles as a sin against the light of nature ; which to commit God
cannot (be it spoken with reverence !) dispense with the sons of men
(for he cannot deny himself), much less institute and appoint them
so to do.3 It being, then, on all hands confessed that Christ is
to be worshipped with divine or religious worship, it will be easy
to make the conclusion that he is God by nature, blessed for ever
more.

That also is general and indispensable which you have, Jer. xvii.
5, 6, " Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh
his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall
be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh."
That which we worship with divine worship we trust in, and make
it our arm and strength. And these words, " And whose heart de
parteth from the LORD," are not so much an addition to what is
before cursed as a declaration of it. All trust in man, who is no
more but so, with that kind of trust wherewith we trust in Jehovah
(as by the antithesis, verse 7, is evident that it is intended), is here
cursed. If Christ be only a man by nature, however exalted and
invested with authority, yet to trust in him as we trust in Jehovah,
• — which we do if we worship him with divine worship, — would, by
this rule, be denounced a cursed thing.

Rev. xix. 10 and xxii. 8, 9, do add the command of God to the ge
neral 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 of thy brethren that have the testimony of
Jesus : worship God." So again, chap. xxii. 9. There are evidently
two reasons assigned by the angel why John ought not to worship
him : — 1. Because he was a servant. He that is a servant of God,
and is no more, is not to be worshipped. Now, he that is not God
at his best estate, however exalted, is but a servant in respect of God,
and a fellow-servant of the saints, and no more, chap. vi. 11. All
his creatures serve him, and for his will they were made. Such and
no other is the Socinians' Christ, who is clearly deprived of all wor
ship by this prohibition and reason of it. 2. From the command,
and the natural and eternal obligation of it, in these repeated words,
TSj Qi$ vpoex-jvriffov.3 It is the word of the law that our Saviour hirn-

"E>.u<rptvfftt.v T« xriifit vrapa. <ro* xrifftttra. a Vid. Diatrib. de Just. Div. vol. X.

'Y^'idaffKi us !>\ KO.} rot Siov potty di7 *-pofficv»t7v, ilvuv ftiyirrn ivr^/.jj Iff-n, xipisv T«»

t you rfmvffrutt **' ai--» (tova }.»Tfiufftis- — Justin. Mar. Apol.

382 VINDICI^ EVANGELIOE.

self insists on, Matt. iv. 10, that is here repeated; and the force
of the angel's reason for the strengthening his prohibition is from
hence, that no other but he who is God, that God intended by the
law and by our Saviour, Matt, iv., is to be worshipped. For if the
intendment of the words were only positive, that God is to be wor
shipped, and did not also at the same time exclude every one what
ever from all divine worship who is not that God, they would be of
no force for the reproof of John in his attempt to worship the angel
nor have any influence into his prohibition. And thus that angel,
who, chap. v. 9-13, shows John all creatures in heaven and on earth
yielding divine worship and adoration to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus
Christ, in the close of all appropriates all that worship to God him
self alone, and for ever shuts out the most glorious creature from our
thoughts and intentions in the performance of any divine worship or
religious adoration.

And it may hence appear how vain is that plea of the adversaries,
to avoid the force of this reproof, which is managed by Schlichtin-
gius against Meisnerus. " To those places/' saith he, " where men
tion is made of God as alone to be worshipped, I answer, that by those
exclusive particles, 'alone/ and the like, when they are used of God,
they are not simply excluded who depend on God in that thing
which is treated of. So is he said to be only wise, only powerful,
only im.mortal, and yet those who are made partakers of them from
God ought not simply to be excluded from wisdom, power, and im
mortality. Wherefore, when it is said that God alone is to be wor
shipped and adored, he ought not to be simply excluded who herein
dependeth on God, because of that divine rule over all which he
hath of him received, yea, he is rather included."1 So the most
learned of that tribe. But, —

1. By this rule nothing is appropriated unto God, nor any thing
excluded from a participation with him, by that particle mentioned :
and wherever any thing is said of God only, we are to understand
it of God and others; for on him, in all things, do all other things
depend.

2. When it is said that God only is wise, etc., though it doth not
absolutely deny that any other may be wise with that wisdom which
is proper to them, yet it absolutely denies that any one partakes with
God in his wisdom, — is wise as God is wise, with that kind of wisdom
wherewith God is wise. And so where it is said that God only is to

1 " Kespondeo particulis istis exclusivis, quails et solus, et similis, cum de Deo usur-
pantur, nunquam eos simpliciter excludi, qui a Deo, in ea re de qua agitur, dependent.
Sic dicitur solus Deus sapiens, solus potens, solus immortalis, neque tamen simpliciter
a sapientia, a potentia, ab immortalitate excludi debent et alii, qui istarum rerum parti-
cipes sunt effecti. Quare jam cum solus Deus adorandus aut invocandus esse dicitur,
excludi simpliciter non debet is, qui hac in parte a Deo pendet, propter divinum ab
ipso in cuncta acceptum imperium, sed potius tacite simul includendus est." — Schlich-
ting, ad Meisner. artic. de Deo, pp. 206, 207- .

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 38$

be worshipped and honoured, though it doth not exclude all others
from any kind of worship and honour, but that they may have that
which is due to them by God's appointment, from their excellency
and pre-eminence, yet it doth absolutely exclude any from being
worshipped with divine worship ; that is due and proper to God.

3. We shall show afterward that whatever dignity, rule, and do
minion they say is given to Christ, and whatever excellency in him
doth thence arise, yet it is quite of another kind, and stands upon
another foot of account, than that essential excellency that is in God ;
and- so cannot nor doth require the same kind of worship as is due
to God.

4. Angels and men are depending on God in authority and power,
and therefore, if this rule be true, they are not excluded from divine
and religious worship in the command of worshipping God only ; and
so they may be worshipped with divine and religious adoration and
invocation as well as Jesus Christ. Neither is it any thing but a
mere begging of the thing in question, to say that it is divine power
that is delegated to Christ, which that is not that is delegated to
angels and men. That power which is properly divine and the for
mal cause of divine worship is incommunicable, nor can be delegated,
nor is in any who is not essentially God. So that the power of Christ
and angels being of the same kind, though his be more and greater
than theirs as to degrees, they are to be worshipped with the same
kind of worship, though he may be worshipped more than they.

5. This is the substance of Schlichtingius' rule, " When any thing
is affirmed of God exclusively to others, — indeed others are not ex
cluded, but included"!

6. We argue not only from the exclusive particle, but from the
nature of the thing itself. So that, this pretended rule and excep
tion notwithstanding, all and every thing whatever that is not God
is by God himself everlastingly excluded from the least share in di
vine or religious worship, with express condemnation of them who
assign it to them.

The same evasion with that insisted on by Schlichtingius, Socinus
himself had before used, who professes that this is the bottom and
foundation of all his arguments in his disputation with Franciscus
David about the invocation of Christ, that others as well as God
may be worshipped and invocated, in his third epistle to Volkelius,
where he labours to answer the objection of John's praying for grace
from " the seven spirits that are before the throne of Christ," Kev. i. 4,
" But why, I pray, is it absurd to affirm that those seven spirits
(supposing them mere creatures) were invocated of John ? Is it be
cause God alone is to be invocated ? But that this reason is of no
value that whole disputation doth demonstrate, not only because it
is nowhere forbidden that we should invocate any other but God" (os

384 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

durum), "but also, and much rather, because those interdictions never
exclude those who are subordinate to God himself."1 That is, as was
observed before, they exclude none at all ; for all creatures whatever
are subordinate to God. To say that they are subordinate as to this
end, that under him they may be worshipped, is purely to beg the
question. We deny that any is or may be in such a subordination
to God. And the reasons the man adds of this his assertion contain
the grand plea of all idolaters, heathenish and antichristian : " What
ever is given to them," saith he, " who are in that subordination is
given to God."3 So said the Pagans of old, so say the Papists at this
day; all redounds to the glory of God, when they worship stocks and
stones, because he appoints them so to do. And so said the Israel
ites when they worshipped the golden calf: " It is a feast to Jehovah."
But if John might worship and invocate (which is the highest act of
worship) the seven spirits, Rev. i. 4, 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 book, chap,
xxii. 8, 9, who was no less subordinate to God ? Was the matter so
altered during his visions, that whom he might invocate in the en
trance he might not so much as worship in the close ?

The Racovian Catechism takes another course, and tells you that
the foundation of the worship and adoration of Christ is because
" Christ had added to the first commandment that we should ac
knowledge him for God;"3 that is, he who hath divine authority over
us, to whom we are bound to yield divine honour. But, — 1. That
Jesus Christ, who is not God by nature, did add to the command of
God that he himself should be acknowledged God, is intolerable
blasphemy, asserted without the least colour or pretence from the
Scripture, and opens a door to downright atheism. 2. The exposi
tion of his being God, that is, one who hath divine authority over
us, is false. God is a name of nature, not of office and power, Gal.
iv. S. 3. Christ was worshipped, and commanded to be worshipped,
before his coming in the flesh, Pa il 12; Gen. xlviil 16; Exod.
xxiii. 21.

But if this be added to the first commandment, that Christ be
worshipped as God, then is he to be worshipped with the worship re-

1 " Sed cur quaeso absurdum est affirmare septem illos spiritus a Johanne fuisse in-
vocatos ? An quia solus Deus est invocandus ? Atqui hanc rationcm nihili esse tota
ilia disputations demonstratur, non modo quia nunquam diserte interdictum est, quem-
quam alium praeter Deum ipsum invocare, sed etiam, et multo magis, quia ejusmodi
interdictiones (ut sic loquar) nunquam eos excludunt qui ipsi Deo sunt subordinati."
— Socin. Ep. 3 ad Volk.

J " Quicquid enim ab eo qui subordinationem istam recte novit et mente sua illam
probat, in istos confertur, in Deum ipsum confertur."

* " Quid praeterea Dominus Jesus huic prsecepto primo addidit ? — Id quod etiamnum
Dominum Jesum pro Deo cognoscere tenemur, id est, pro eo qui in nos potestatem
habet divinam, et cui nos dirinum exhibere honorem obstricti sumus." — Cat. Eac. de
prsecep. Christi.

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 385-

quired in the first commandment. Now, this worship is that which
is proper to the only true God, as the very words of it import,
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." How, then, will Smalcius
reconcile himself with his master, who plainly affirms that Jesus
Christ is not to be worshipped with that divine worship which is due
to God alone, and strives to answer that place of John v. 23 to the
contrary, that " all men should honour the Son, even as they honour
the Father?"1 That Christ should be commanded to be worshipped
in the first commandment (or by an addition made thereto), which
commands us to have only one God, and not be worshipped with the
worship which is due to that one God, is one of the mysteries of these
men's religion. But to proceed: —

Where the formal cause of divine worship is not, there divine wor
ship ought not to be exhibited; but in no creature there is, nor can
be, the formal cause of divine worship: therefore no "creature, who is
only such, can be worshipped without idolatry. The formal reason
of any thing is but one; the reason of all worship is excellency or
pre-eminence. The reason of divine or religious worship is divine
pre-eminence and excellency. Now, divine excellency and pre-emi
nence is peculiar unto the divine nature. Wherein is it that God is
so infinitely excellent above all creatures? Is it not from his infi
nitely good and incomprehensible nature? Now, look what difference
there is 'between the essence of the Creator and the creature, the
same is between their excellency. Let a creature be exalted to ever
so great a height of dignity and excellency, yet his dignity is not at
all nigher to the dignity and excellency of God, because there is no
proportion between that which is infinite and that which is finite and
limited. If, then, excellency and pre-eminence be the cause of wor
ship, and the distance between the excellency of God and that of
the most excellent and most highly-advanced creature be infinite, it
is impossible that the respect and worship due to them should be of
the same kind. Now, it is religious or divine adoration that is due
to God, whereof the excellency of his jiature is the formal cause:
this, then, cannot be ascribed to any other; — and to whomsoever it is
ascribed, thereby do we acknowledge to be in him all divine perfec
tions ; which, if he be not God by nature, is gross idolatry. In sum,
adorability, if I may so say, is an absolute, incommunicable pro
perty of God; adoration thence arising, a respect that relates to
him only.

I shall, for a close of this chapter, proceed to manifest that Christ
himself is not by us worshipped under any other formal reason but as
he is God ; which will add some light to what hath already been spoken.

1 " Nos paulo ante ostendimus divinum cultum, qui Christo debetur, et directe ipsum
Christum respicit, non esse ilium qui uni illi soli Deo convenit." — Socin. ad Weik. Re-
.spon. ad cap. x. Class. 5, Arg. 6, pp. 422, 423.

VOL. XII.

$86 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

And here, lest there should be any mistake among the meanest in
a matter of so great consequence, I shall deliver my thoughts to the
whole of the worship of Christ in the ensuing observations: —

1. Jesus Christ, the mediator, being Qsdv6pu<roe, God and man, the
Son of God having assumed rb yiwuptvov ayiov, Luke i. 35, " that holy
thing" that was born of the Virgin, awnoffrarov, having no subsistence
of its own, into personal subsistence with himself, is to be worshipped
with divine, religious worship, even as the Father. By " worshipped
with divine worship/' I mean believed in, hoped in, trusted in, invo-
cated as God, as an independent fountain of all good, and a sovereign
disposer of all our present and everlasting concernments: by doing
whereof we acknowledge in him, and ascribe to him, all divine per
fections, — omnipotency, omniscience, infinite goodness, omnipresence,
and the like.

This proposition was sufficiently confirmed before. In the Reve
lation you have the most solemn representation of the divine, spi
ritual 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: "Unto him" (to Jesus Christ) "that loved
us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, be glory and do
minion for ever and ever, Amen," chap. i. 5, 6. So again, the same
church, represented by four living creatures and twenty-four elders,
falls down before the Lamb, chap. v. 8, 12, " Worthy is the Lamb
that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing;" and, verse 13, joint worship
is given to him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb by the
whole creation, "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that
are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and
power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the
Lamb for ever and ever," etc. And this also is particularly done
by the church triumphant, chap. vii. 9, 10. Now, the Lamb is
neither Christ in respect of the divine nature nor Christ in respect
of the human nature, but it is Christ the mediator. That Christ
was mediator in respect of both natures shall in due time be demon-
•strated. It is, then, the person of the mediator, God and man, who is
the " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," to whom
'all this honour and worship is ascribed. This the apostle perfectly
confirms, Rom. xiv. 8-1 1, " Whether we live, we live unto the
Lord ; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord : whether we live
therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both
died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead
and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost
thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord,

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 387

every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
To Christ, exalted in his dominion and sovereignty, we live and die;
to him do we bow the knee and confess, that is, perform all worship,
and stand before him, as at his disposal; we swear by him; — as in
the place from whence these words are taken.

2. That our religious, divine, and spiritual worship, hath a double
or twofold respect unto Jesus Christ:1 — (1.) As he is the ultimate
formal object of our worship, being God, to be blessed for evermore,
as was before declared. (2.) As the way, means, and cause, of all the
good we receive from God in our religious approach to him.

In the first sense, we call upon the name of Christ, 1 Cor. i. 2 : in
the other, we ask the Father in his name, according to his command,
John xvi. 23. In the first, we respect him as one with the Father,
as one who thinks it no robbery to be equal with him, Phil. ii. 6 ; the
" fellow of the LORD of hosts," Zech. xiii. 7: in the other, as one that
doth intercede yet with the Father, Heb. vii. 25, praying him yet
to send the Comforter to us, being yet, in that regard, less than the
Father; and in which respect as he is our head, so God is his head,
as the apostle tells us, 1 Cor. xi. 3, " The head of every man" (that
is, every believer) " is Christ, and the head of Christ is God." In
this sense is he the way whereby we go to the Father, John xiv. 6 ;
and through him we have an access to the Father, Eph. ii. 18, A/«
xptifrov, vpls rlv Tlar'spa. In our worship, with our faith, love, hope,
trust, and prayers, we have an access to God. Thus, in our approach
to the throne of grace, we look upon Christ as the high priest over
the house of God, Heb. iv. 14-16, by whom we have admission, who
offers up our prayers and supplications for us, Rev. viii. 3. In this
state, as he is the head of angels and of his whole church, so is he in
subordination to the Father; and therefore he is said at the same
time to receive revelations from the Father, and to send an angel as
his servant on his work and employment, Rev. i. 1. And thus is he
our advocate with the Father, 1 John ii. 1. In this respect, then,
seeing that in our access to God, even the Father, as the Father of
him and his, John xx. 17, with our worship, homage, service, our
faith, love, hope, confidence, and supplications, eyeing Christ as
our mediator, advocate, intercessor, upon whose account we are ac
cepted, for whose sake we are pardoned, through whom we have
admission to God, and by whom we have help and assistance in
all that we have to do with God; it is evident, I say, that in this
respect he is not eyed nor addressed to in our worship as the ulti
mate, adequate, formal object of it, but as the meritorious cause of

1 " Unum Deum, et unum ejus Filium, et verbum, imaginemque, quantum possumus
Bupplicationibus, et honoribus veneremur, ofierentes Deo universorum Domino preces
per suum unigenitum : cui prius eas adhibemus rogantes ut ipse, qui est propitiator
pro peccatis nostris, dignetur tanquam pontifex preces nostras, et sacrificia et interces-
siones, ofierre Deo." — Origen. ad Celsum, lib. viii.

S88 VIND1CI.E EVANGELICLE.

our approacli and acceptance, and so of great consideration therein.
And therefore, whereas, Bom. iii. 25, it is said that " God hath set
him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood/' it is not
intended that faith fixes on his blood or blood-shedding, or on him
as shedding his blood, as the prime object of it, but as the meritori
ous cause of our forgiveness of sin, through the righteousness of God.

And these two distinct respects have we to Jesus Christ, our medi
ator, who is QeuvQpuKos, 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;1 as media
tor, depending on the Father, in subordination to him, so our faith
regards him, we love him and hope in him, as the way, means, and
meritorious cause, of our acceptance with the Father. And in both
these respects we have distinct communion with him.

3. That Jesus Christ, our mediator, Qsdvfyuiro;, God and man, who
is to be worshipped with divine or religious worship, is to be so wor
shipped because he is our mediator. That is, his mediation is the
" ratio quia," an unconquerable reason and argument, why we ought
to love him, fear him, believe in him, call upon him, and worship
him in general. This is the reason still urged by the Holy Ghost
why we ought to worship him: Rev. i. 5, 6, "Unto him that loved us,
and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings
and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion
for ever 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 Rev. v, 12, there is an acknowledgment of the power, riches,
goodness, wisdom, strength, glory, and blessing, that belong to him,
because as the Lamb, as Mediator, he hath done so great things for
us. And, I dare say, there is none of his redeemed ones who finds
not the power of this motive upon his heart. The love of Christ in
his mediation, .the work he has gone through in it, and that which
he continueth in, the benefits we receive thereby, and our everlast
ing misery without it, are all chains upon our souls to bind us to the
Lord Christ in faith, love, and obedience.2 But yet this mediation of
Christ is not the formal and fundamental cause of our worship (as
shall be showed), but only -a motive thereunto. It is not the " ratio
formalis, et fundamental cultus," but only the " ratio quia," or an
argument thereunto. Thus God dealing with his people, and exhort
ing them of old to worship and obedience, he says, "I am the LORD
thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods before me," Exod. xx.
2, 3. He makes his benefit of bringing them out of the land of

1 MIK vpetrxuvyru, xa.} p'iu.v aura rtiv So|oXoy/av uvxvipx-av. — Synod. Eph. Anath. viii
byril.

3 'H ya.f a.ya.nn riu Xptffnv ffvn^n hpa.;. — 2 Cor. T. 14.

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 389

Egypt the reason of that eternally indispensable moral worship
which he requires in the first commandment : not that that was the
formal cause of that worship, for God is to be worshipped as the first,
sovereign, independent good, as the absolute Lord of all and foun
tain of all good, whether he gives any such benefits or no ; but yet all
his mercies, all his benefits, every thing he doth for us in his provi
dence and in his grace, as to the things of this life or of another, are
all arguments and motives to press us to the performance of all that
worship and service which we owe unto him as our God and Creator.
" Bless the LORD, 0 my soul, and forget not all his benefits," saith
David, Ps. ciil 1, 2. So is it in the case of our mediator. For the
work of his mediation we are eternally obliged to render all glory,
honour, and thanksgiving to him; but yet his mediation is not the
formal cause thereof, but only an invincible motive thereunto. Let
this, therefore, be our fourth and last observation: —

4. Though Jesus Christ, who is our mediator, God and man, is to
be worshipped with divine worship, even as we honour the Father, yet
this is not as he is mediator, but as he is God, blessed for evermore.
He is not to be worshipped under this reduplication as mediator,
though he who is mediator is to be worshipped,, and he is to be
worshipped because he is mediator. That is, his mediatory office is
not the formal cause and reason of yielding divine worship to him,
nor under that consideration is that worship ultimately terminated
in him. The formal reason of any thing, strictly taken, is but one,
and it is that from the concession whereof that thing or effect where
of it is the cause or reason, without any other helpy doth arise or
result from it. Now, the formal cause or reason of all divine wor
ship is the deity or divine nature; — that being granted, divine wor
ship necessarily follows to be due; that being denied, that worship
also is, and is to be for ever, denied. We may not worship them who
by nature are not God. If it could be supposed that we might have
had a mediator that should not have been God (which was impos
sible), religious worship would not have been yielded to him; and if
the Son of God had never been our mediator, yet he was to be wor
shipped.

It is the deity of Christ, then, which is the fundamental, formal
cause and reason, and the proper object, of our worship r1 for that
being granted, though we had no other reason or argument for it,
yet we ought to worship him ; and that being denied, all other rea-
.sons and motives whatever would not be a sufficient cause or warrant
for any such proceeding.

It is true, Christ hath a power given him of his Father above all
angels, principalities, and powers, called " All power in heaven and

Vtin>irx,iraffa.t OTI Tt>i xvpior iv ffapxi VfotrxutavvTl;, tv XTiff/Aa TI trpofxvvoufto a'XXa <ror
xrirrr,* \-it>ufa.[j.<vi>v r» xnirror irufta,. — Athun. Ep. ad Adelpll. Episc.

890 VINDICIJE EVANGELIC^.

in earth," Matt, xxviii. 18, and "a name above every name," Phil,
ii. 9, giving him an excellency, an «£/«, as he is ftiairris herqg, as he
is the king and head of his church, which is to be acknowledged,
owned, ascribed to him; and the consideration whereof, with his
ability and willingness therein to succour, relieve, and save us to the
uttermost, in a way of mediation, is a powerful, effectual motive (as
was said before) to his worship: but yet this is an excellency which
is distinct from that which is purely and properly divine, and so can
not be the formal reason of religious worship. Excellency is the
cause of honour; every distinct excellency and eminence is the cause
of honour; every distinct excellency and eminence is the cause of
distinct honour and worship. Now, what excellency or dignity so
ever is communicated by a way of delegation is distinct and of
another kind from that which is original, infinite, and communicat
ing, and therefore cannot be the formal cause of the same honour and
worship.

I shall briefly give the reasons of the assertion insisted on, and so
pass on to what remains.

1. The first is taken from the nature of divine or religious worship.
It is that whereby we ascribe the honour and glory of all infinite
perfections to him whom we so worship, — to be the first cause, the
fountain of all good, independent, infinitely wise, powerful, all-suffi
cient, almighty, all-seeing, omnipotent, eternal, the only rewarder;
as such we submit ourselves to him religiously, in faith, love, obedi
ence, adoration, and invocation. But now we cannot ascribe these
divine excellencies and perfections unto Christ as mediator, for then
his mediation should be the reason why he is all this, which it is
not; but it is from his divine nature alone that so he is, and there
fore thence alone is it that he is so worshipped.

2. Christ under this formal conception, as they speak, as medi
ator, is not God; but under this, as partaker of the nature of God.
Christ as mediator is an expression; as they speak, in the concrete,
whose form is its abstract. Now, that is his mediation or mediatory
office; and therefore if Christ under this formal 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 fundamental
account, he is not worshipped with divine worship.

3. Christ in respect of his mediation dependeth on God, and hath
all his power committed to him from God: Matt. xi. 27, "All things,"
saith he, "are delivered unto me of my Father;" and chap, xxviii. 18,
" All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;" John xvii. 2,
"Thou hast given him power over all flesh ;" and in innumerable other
places is the same testified. God gives him as mediator his name, —
that is, his authority. Now, God is worshipped because he is inde
pendent: he is, and there is none besides him; he is Alpha and

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 391

Omega, — the first and the last. And if the reason why we worship
God with divine worship be because he is avrdp xqc and independent^
certainly that wherein Christ is dependent and in subordination to
him, as receiving it from him, cannot be the formal cause of attri
buting divine worship to him.

4. Christ in respect of his divine nature is " equal with God/' that
is, the Father, Phil. ii. 6; but in respect of his mediation he is
not equal to him, he is less than he. " My Father," saith he, " is
greater than I," John xiv. 28. Now, whatever is less than God, is
not equal to him, is infinitely so ; for between God and that which is
not God there is no proportion, neither in being nor excellency.
That Christ in respect of his office is not equal to God is commonly
received in that axiom, whereby the arguments thence taken against
his deity are answered, " Inaequalitas officii non toilit sequalitatem
naturae." Now, certainly, that which is infinitely unequal to God
cannot be the formal cause of that worship which we yield to him
as God.

5. That which shall cease and is not absolutely eternal cannot be
the formal cause of our worship, for the formal reason of worship
can no more cease than God can cease to be God; for when that
ceaseth, we cease to worship him, which while he is the Creator and
sovereign Lord of his creatures cannot be. Now, that the mediatory
office of Christ shall cease the Holy Ghost affirmeth, 1 Cor. xv. 24,
" Then cometh the end," etc. He then gives up his kingdom to
God. And there is the same reason from the other parts of his me
diatory office. It is true, indeed, the efficacy of his office abideth
to eternity, whilst the redeemed ones live with God and praise him ;
but as to the administration of his office, that ceaseth when, at the
last day, the whole work of it shall be perfectly consummated, and
he hath saved to the uttermost all that come to God by him.

The sum of all is : Jesus Christ, God and man, our mediator, who
is to be worshipped in all things and invocated as the Father, and
whom we ought night and day to 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 worshipped, not as
mediator, exalted of God, and intrusted with all power and dignity
from him, but as being equal with him, God, to be blessed for ever^
his divine nature being the fundamental, formal reason of that wor
ship, and proper ultimate object of it. And to close up this digres
sion, there is not any thing that more sharply and severely cuts the
throat of the whole sophistical plea of the Socinians against the deity
of Christ than this one observation. Themselves acknowledge that
Christ is to be worshipped with religious worship, and his name to
be invocated, denying to account them Christians, whatever they are,
who are otherwise minded, as Franciscus David and those before^

392- VINDICLffi 'EVANGELIC*!.

mentioned were. Now, if there be no possible reason to be assigned
as the formal cause of this worship but his deity, they must either
acknowledge him to be God or deny themselves to be Christians.

Some directions, by the way, may be given from that which hath
been spoken as to the guidance of our souls in the worship of God, or
in our addresses to the throne of grace by Jesus Christ. What God
hath discovered of himself unto us, he would have us act faith upon in
all that we have to deal with him in. By this we are assured we wor
ship the true God, and not an idol, when we worship him who has re
vealed himself in his word, and as he has revealed himself. Now, God
hath declared himself to be three in one; for it is written, "There are
three that bear record in heaven, and these three are one," 1 John v. 7.
So, then, is he to be worshipped. And not only so, but the order of
the three persons in that Deity, the eternal, internal order among
themselves, is revealed to us. The Father is of none, is aCraurog.
The Son is begotten of the Father, having the glory of the only-be
gotten Son of God, and so is auroQtog in respect of his nature, essence,
and being, not in respect of his personality, which he hath of the
Father. The Spirit is of the Father and the Son. He is often so
called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Son. For the term
of " proceeding/' or " going forth," I profess myself ignorant whether
it concern chiefly his eternal personality or his dispensation in the
work of the gospel The latter I rather like; of which this is no time
to give my reasons. But be those expressions of what import so
ever, he is equally the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and is of
them both and from them both. God, then, by us is to be wor
shipped as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three persons in
this order, and so are we to deal with him in our approaches to him :
not that we are to frame any conception in our minds of distinct
substances, which are not ; but by faith closing with this revelation
of them, we give up our souls in contemplation and admiration of
that we cannot comprehend.

2. There is an external economy and dispensation of the persons
in reference to the work of our salvation, and what we draw nigh to
them for. So the Father is considered as the foundation of all
mercy, grace, glory, every thing that is dispensed in the covenant
or revealed in the gospel, the Son receiving all from him, and the
Spirit [being] sent by the Son to effect and complete the whole good
pleasure of God in us and towards us. And in and under the con
sideration of this economy is God of us to be worshipped.

" All things," saith Christ, " are delivered unto me of my Father,"
Matt. xi. 27 (that is, to me as mediator) ; therefore " come unto me/'
And in his prayer, John xvii. 8, " I have given unto them the words
which thou gavest me ; and they have received them, and have known
surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. 393

didst send me." So most fully John iii. 34, 35. He is sent of God;
and from the love of the Father to him as mediator are all things
given him. " It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell," Col. 119', John i. 16. John v. 26, " He hath given him to
have life," — that is, as he is mediator, appointed him to be the
fountain of spiritual life to his elect. And Rev. i. 1, the revelation of
the will of God is given unto Christ by the Father, as to this end
of discovering it to the church.

Hence ariseth the second way of faith's acting itself towards God
in our worship of him. It eyes the Father as the fountain of this
dispensation, and the Son as the mediator, as the storehouse, and the
Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers
the Son under these two distinct notions: — first, as the ordinance
and servant of the Father in the great work of mediation. So it
loves him, delights in him, and rejoiceth in the wisdom of God in
finding out and giving such a means of life, salvation, and union
with himself; and so by Christ believes in God, even the Father.
It considers him, secondly, as the way of going to the Father; and
there it rests, as the ultimate object of all the religious actings of
the soul So we are very often said through and by Christ to be
lieve in God, and by him to have an access to God and an entrance
to the throne of grace. In this sense, I say, when we draw nigh to
God in any religious worship, yea, in all the first actings and movings
of our souls towards him in faith and love, the Lord Christ is con
sidered as mediator, as clothed with his offices, as doing the will of
the Father, as serving the design of his love ; and so the soul is im
mediately fixed on God through Christ, being strengthened, sup
ported, and sustained, by the consideration of Christ as the only
procuring cause of all the good things we seek from God, and of our
interest in those excellencies which are in him, which make him
excellent to us.

And this is the general consideration that faith hath of Christ in
all our dealings with God. We " ask in his name," " for his sake,"
go to God " on his account," " through him," and the like ; are
strengthened and emboldened upon the interest of him as our high
priest and intercessor; God the Father being yet always immedi
ately in our eye as the primary object of our worship. But yet now
again, this Christ as mediator, so sent and intrusted by the Father,
as above, is also one with the Father, God, to be blessed for ever
more. Faith also takes in this consideration ; and so he who before
was the means of fixing our faith on God is thereupon become the
proper object of our faith himself. We believe in him, invocate, call
upon him, worship him, put our trust in him, and live unto him.
Over and above, then, the distinction that the eternal persons have
in the manner of in-being in the same essence, which also is the ob-

59 4 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

ject of our faith, that distinction which they have in the external
economy is to be considered in our religious worship of God; — and
herein is Christ partly eyed as the Father's servant, the means and
cause of all our communion with God, and so is the medium of our
worship, not the object; partly as God and man vested with that
office, and so he is the primary and ultimate object of it also. And this
may give us, I say, some assistance to order our thoughts aright to
wards God, and some light into that variety of expressions which we
have in Scripture about worshipping of God in Christ, and worship
ping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the Spirit.

Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may be
worth the while a little to consider the condition of our adversaries
in reference to this business, wherein, of all other things, as I said
before, they are most entangled. Of the contests and disputes of
Socinus with Franciscus David about this business, I have given the
reader an account formerly, and of the little success he had therein.
The man would fain have stood when he had kicked away the
ground from under his feet, but was not able. .And never was he
more shamefully gravelled in any dispute than in that which he had
with Christianus Franken about this business, whereof I shall give
the reader a brief account

This Franken seems to have been a subtile fellow, who, denying
with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently that it was impos
sible to find out a foundation of yielding religious worship or adora
tion unto him. With him about this matter Socinus had a solemn
dispute in the house of one Paulicovius, anno 1584, March 14.1
Franken in this disputation was the opponent, and his first argu
ment is this : " Look how great distance there is between the Cre
ator and the creature, so great ought the difference to be between
the honour that is exhibited to the one and the other. But between
the Creator and the creature there is the greatest difference, whether
you respect nature and essence, or dignity and excellency ; and there
fore there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of
the Creator and the creature. But the honour that chiefly is due
to God is religious worship; therefore this is not to be given to a
creature, therefore not to Christ, whom you confess to be a mere
creature/'2 This, I say, was his first argument. To which Socinus

1 Disputatio inter Faustum Socinum et Christiamim Franken de honore Christi, id
est, utrum Christus cum ipse perfectissima ratione Deus non sit religiosa tamen adora-
tione colendus sit, Habita, 14 Martii, anno 1584, in aula Christopher! Paulicovii.

9 " Quanta distantia inter Creatorem est et creaturam, tanta esse debet differentia
inter honorem qui Creatori exhibetur et qui creaturae tribuitur. Atqui inter Creato
rem et creaturam maxima est distantia, sive essentiam et naturam spectes, sive digni
tatem et excellentiam, ergo et maxima esse debet differentia inter honorem Dei et
creaturae. At honor qui prascipue debetur Deo est religiosa adoratio ; ergo haac non esfc
tribuenda creaturae, ergo neque Christo, quern tu puram esse creaturam fateris."— .
De Adorat. Christi, Disput. cum Christoph. Fran., p. 4.

OF CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE. S95

answers :"" Although the difference between God and the creature
be the greatest, yet it doth not follow that the difference between
their honour must be so; for God can communicate his honour to
whom he will, especially to Christ, who is worthy of such honour,
and who is not commanded to be worshipped without weighty causes
for it"1

But, by the favour of this disputant, God cannot give that honour
that is due unto him upon the account of his excellency and emi-
nency, 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 contradic
tory to itself. We- confess that there be most weighty causes why
Christ should be worshipped, yet but one formal reason of that wor
ship we can acknowledge; and therefore when Franken had taken
off this absurd answer by sundry instances and reasons, Socinus is
driven to miserable evasions. First, he cries out, " I can answer all
these testimonies;"3 to which when the other replied, "And I can
give a probable answer to all the texts you produce arguing the ado
ration of Christ/'3 being driven to hard shifts, he adds, " I am as
certain of the truth of my opinion as I am that I hold this hat in my
hand,"4 — which is a way of arguing that is commonly used by men
that have nothing else to say. Wherefore Franken laughs at him,
and tells him, " Your certainty cannot be a rule of truth to me and
others, seeing another man may be found that will say he is most
certain to the contrary opinion."5 So that, prevailing nothing by
this means, he is forced to turn the tables ; and instead of an answer,
which he could not give to Franken's argument, to become opponent
and urge an argument against him. Saith he, " My certainty of this
thing is as true as it is true that the apostle saith of Christ, ' Let all
the angels of God worship him/" ' But, by the favour of this dispu
tant, this is not his business. He was to answer Franken's argu-

1 «' Etsi summa est inter Deum et creaturam distantia, non tamen necesse est, tan-
tarn esse differentiam inter konorem Dei et creaturse ; nam potest Dens cui vult commu-
nicare honorem suum, Christo prsesertim, qui dignus est tali honore, quique non sine
gravissimis causis adorari jubetur in sacris literis." — Disput. de Adorat. Christi, p. 6.

2 " Ad ilia omnia testimonia ego possum respondere." — P. 7.

s " Et ego ad omnes tuos locos, Christi adorationem urgentes, probabilem potero re-
sponsionem affere." — P. 8.

* " De veritate meae sententiee tarn sum certus, quam certo scio me istum pileum
manibus tenere." — P. 9.

« " Tua ista certitudo non potest et mini et aliis esse veritatis regula, nam reperietur
alius quispiam, qui dicat, seiitentiam tuae contrariam ex sacris libris sibi esse persua-
sissimam."

6 " Tarn yera est hac de re mea certitudo, quam verum est apostolum de Christo
dixisse, Adorent eum omnes angeli." — P. 10.

39 6 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

ment, whereby lie proved that he was not to be worshipped, and not
to have 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 adversary
to another absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus
about a twofold religious worship ; — one kind whereof, without any
medium, was directed to God ; the other is yielded him by Christ as
a means. The first he says is proper to God, the other belongs to
Christ only.1 Now, he is blind that doth not see that, for what he
doth here to save himself, he doth but beg the thing in question.
Who granted him that there was 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? He grants, indeed, upon the matter all that Franken
desired, — namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that
worship wherewith God is worshipped, and consequently not with
divine. But Franken asks him whether this twofold worship was of
the same kind or no?3 to which he answered, that it was because
it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God.3 Upon which,
after the interposition of another entangling question, the man thus
replies unto him: "This, then, will follow, that even the image of
Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship re
spects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Thomas Aquinas
tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment."4 Yet this very
fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate, by taking a book in his
hand, sliding it along upon a table, showing how it passed by some
hands where truly it was, but stayed not till it came to the end : for
which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by his adversary I
shall not insist on the other arguments wherewith on his own hypo
thesis he was miserably gravelled by this Franken, and after all his
pretence of reason forced to cry out, " These are philosophical argu
ments, and contrary to the gospel." The disputation is extant, with
the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication ; which do not
indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.

1 " Duplex est adoratio, altera quidem quae sine ullo medio dirigitur in Deum : altera
vero per medium Christum defertur ad Deum ; ilia adoratio est soli Deo propria, hsec
vero convenit Christo tantum." — Disput. de Adorat. Christi, p. 11.

2 "Estne utraque adoratio ista ejusdem specie!?" — P. 11.

* " Est, quia adoratio Christi est ipsius Dei, quippe quae in Christo non conquiescat,
sed per eum transeat in Deum." — P. 12.

4 " Hoc sequetur, quod ipsius etiam Christi imago sit adoranda, quia una et eadem
adoratio respicit in imaginem, tanquam medium, in Christum tanquam finem, quem-
admodum Thomas Aquinas docet, a quo tuum tu commentum es mutuatus." — P. 13.

OF CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 897

CHAPTER XX.

Of the priestly office of Christ — How he was a priest — When he entered on his
office — And how he dischargeth it.

MR BIDDLE'S ELEVENTH CHAPTER EXAMINED.

His eleventh chapter is concerning the priestly office of Jesus
Christ. In the first and second questions he grants him to be a
priest, from Heb. iv. 14, and to be appointed to that office by the
Father, from chap. v. 5. The remainder of the chapter is spent in
sundry attempts to prove that Christ was not a priest whilst he was
on the earth, as also to take off from the end of his priesthood, with
the benefit redounding to the church thereby.

For the first, a man would suppose Mr Biddle were fair and in
genuous 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 sup
pose his acknowledgment of this truth will be found to come exceed
ingly short of what may be expected. Let him, therefore, show
whether Christ be a high priest properly so called, or only in a me
taphorical sense, with respect to what he doth in heaven for us, as
the high priest of old did deal for the people in their things when
he received mercy from God. Again, whether Christ did or doth
offer a proper sacrifice to God ; and if so, of what kind ; or only that
his offering of himself in heaven is metaphorically so called. If any
shall say that Mr B. differs from his masters in these things, I must
needs profess myself 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 metapho
rical, and so termed in allusion to what the high priest among the
Jews did for the people. That which I have to speak to in this en
suing discourse will hinder me from insisting much on the demon
stration of this, that Christ was a priest so called, and offered to God
a sacrifice of atonement or propitiation, properly so called, whereof
all other priests and sacrifices appointed of God were but types.
Briefly, therefore, I shall do it

The Scripture is so positive that Jesus Christ, in the execution of
his office of mediation, was and is a priest, a 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 Jews, as was said, the Socinians contend. I
shall, then, as I said, in the first place, prove that Christ was a high

$98 YINDICLE EVANGELIC M.

priest properly so called, and then evince when he was so, or when
he entered on that office : —

1. This first is evident, from that description or definition of a
high priest which the apostle gives, Heb. v. 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 a high
priest properly so called is manifest from the apostle's accommoda
tion of this office spoken of to Aaron, or his exemplifying of the way of
entrance thereinto from that of Aaron, verse 4, " And no man taketh
this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron ;"
that is, to be such a high priest as Aaron was, which here he de
scribes, — one that had that honour which Aaron had. Now, cer
tainly Aaron was a high priest properly and truly, if ever any one
was so in the world. That Jesus Christ was such a 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 general, the apostle accommodates this definition or descrip
tion of a high priest to Jesus Christ : Verse 5, " So also Christ glorified
not himself to be made an high priest." Were it not that very priest
hood of which he treats that Christ was so called to, it were easy so
to reply, "True, to a proper priesthood a man must be called, but that
which is improper and metaphorical only he may assume to himself,
or obtain it upon a more general account, as all believers do;" but
this the apostle excludes, 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 complete accommodation unto Jesus Christ, so
that he must needs be properly a high priest, if this be the descrip
tion of such an one: — [1.] He was taken from amongst men. That
great prophecy of him so describes him, Deut. xviii. 18, "I will raise
them up a prophet from among their brethren." He was taken from
among men, or raised up from among men, or raised up from among
his brethren. And, in particular, it is mentioned out of what tribe
amongst them he was taken: Heb. vii. 13, 14, "For he of whom
these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe : for it is evi
dent that our Lord sprang out of Juda." And the family he was of
in that tribe, namely, that of David, is everywhere mentioned:
" God raised up the horn of salvation in the house of his servant
David," Luke i. 69. [2.] He was ordained for men, r& vflg rbv
Qiiv, as to things appointed by God. THa.6iara.rai is, " appointed to rule,
and preside, and govern, as to the things of God." This ordination or
appointment is that after mentioned which he had of God, his ordi
nation to this office : Heb. v. 5, 6, "So also Christ glorified not himself
to be made an high priest ; but he that said unto him, Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee," etc. He had his ordination from

OF CHEIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 399

God. He who made him both Lord and Christ made him also a
high priest. And he was made in a more solemn manner than ever
any priest was, even by an oath: Chap. vii. 20, 21, "Inasmuch as
not without an oath," etc. And he was so appointed for men, to pre
side and govern 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 : Chap. iii. 6, " Christ is 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 ordained for
men the Holy Ghost assures us farther, chap, vii 26, " Such an high
priest became us;" he was so for us. Which is the first part of the
description of a high priest, properly so called. [3.] The prime and
peculiar end of this office is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin.
And as we shall abundantly manifest afterward that Christ did thus
offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, so the apostle professedly affirms that
it was necessary he should do so, because he was a high priest : Chap,
viii. 3, " For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacri
fices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to
offer." The force of the apostle's argument concerning the necessity
of the offering of Christ lies thus : Every high priest is to offer gifts
and sacrifices; but Christ is a high priest: therefore he must have
somewhat to offer. Now, if Christ was not a high 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 likeness and proportion, no argument will lie. For in
stance, every true man is a rational 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 a
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 real
priesthood, he is a true and real priest. Believers are called priests,
Rev. i. 6, and are said to offer up sacrifices to God, spiritual sacri
fices, such as God is pleased with, Heb. xiii. 16. Whence is it that
they are not real and proper priests? Because they are not priests
of any real order of priesthood, but are so called because of some
allusion to and resemblance of the priests of old in their access unto
God, 1 Pet. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 18; Heb. x. 22. This will also, by the
way, discover the vanity of them among us who would have the
ministers of the gospel, in contradistinction to other believers, be
called priests. Of what order were they who did appropriate that
appellation? The absurdity of this figment the learned Hooker
could no otherwise defend than by affirming that priest was an ab-

400 VINDICI.E EVANGELIOE.

"breviation of presbyter, when both in truth and in the intendment
of them that used that term, its sense was otherwise. But to return.
The sons of Aaron were properly priests. Why so? Because they
were so appointed in the line of the priesthood of Levi, according to
the order of Aaron. Hence I assume, Christ being called a priest
according to the order of a true and proper priesthood, was truly and
properly so. He was " a priest after the order of Melchizedek," Ps.
ex. 4 ; which the apostle often insists on in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
If you say that Christ is called " a priest after the order of Melchi
zedek," 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 be
tween them; against which the apostle expressly disputes in the
whole of the 7th chapter to the Hebrews. He therefore was a real
priest, according to a real and proper order.

3. Again ; he that was appointed of God to offer sacrifices for the
sins of men was a priest properly so called ; but that Christ did so
and was so appointed will appear 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 apostolical
persuasion 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 only metaphorically so in any kind is clearly and evi
dently less so than that which is properly and directly so. If Christ
be only metaphorically a priest, he is less than Aaron on that con
sideration. He may be far more excellent than Aaron in other
respects, yet in respect of the priesthood he is less excellent; which
is so directly opposite to the design 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 readiness to be added, that
Christ was and is truly and properly a high priest ; which was the
first thing designed for confirmation.

The Racovian Catechism doth not directly ask or answer this ques
tion, Whether Christ be a high priest properly so called? but yet
insinuates its author's judgment expressly to the contrary: —

The sacerdotal office of Christ is placed herein, that as by his kingly office he
can help and relieve our necessities, so by his sacerdotal office he will help, and
actually doth so; and this way of his helping or relieving us is called his sacrifice.1

Thus they begin. But, — 1. That any office of Christ should be
speak power to relieve us without a will, as is here affirmed of his

1 " Munus igitur sacerdotale in eo situm est, quod quemadmodum pro regio munere
potest nobis in omnibus nostris necessitatibus subvenire, ita pro munere sacerdotali
subvenire vult, ac porro subvenit ; atque hose illius subveniendi, sou opis afferendaa
ratio, sacrificium ejus appellatar." — Cat. Eac. de nmn. Chris, sacer. q. 1.

OF CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 401

kingly, is a proud, foolish, and ignorant fancy. Is this enough for a
king among men, that he is able to relieve his subjects, though he be
not willing? or is not this a proper description of a wicked tyrant?
Christ as a king is willing as well as able to save, Isa. xxxii. 1, 2.

2. Christ as a high priest is no less able than willing also, and as a
king he is no less willing than able, Heb. vii. 25. That is, as a king
he is both able and willing to save us, as to the application of salva
tion and the means thereof; as a priest he is both willing and able
to save us, as to the procuring of salvation and all the means thereof.

3. It is a senseless folly, to imagine that the sacrifice of Christ consists
in the manner of affording us that help and relief which as a king
he is able to give us. Such weak engines do these men apply for
the subversion of the cross of Christ ! But of this more afterward.

But they proceed to give us their whole sense in the next question
and answer, which are as follow : —

Q. Why is this way of his affording help called a sacrifice?

A. It is called so by a figurative manner of speaking; for as in the old covenant
the high priest entering into the holiest of holies did do those things which pertained
to the expiation of the sins of the people, so Christ hath now entered the heavens,
that there he might appear before God for us, and perform all things that belong
to the expiation of our sins.1

The sum of what is here insinuated is, — 1. That the sacrifice of
Christ is but a figurative sacrifice, and so, consequently, that he him
self is a figurative priest : for as the priest is, such is his sacrifice, —
proper, if proper ; metaphorical, if metaphorical. What say our
catechists for the proof hereof? They have said it ; not one word
of reason or any one testimony of Scripture is produced to give
countenance to this figment, 2. That the high priest made atone
ment and expiation of sins only by his entering into the most holy
place and by what he did there ; which is notoriously false, and contrary
to very many express testimonies of Scripture, Lev. iv. 3, 13, 22, 27,
v. 1 7, vi. 2-7, xvl 1-6, etc. 3. That Christ was not a high priest until
he entered the holy place ; of which afterward. 4. That he made not
expiation of our sins until he entered heaven and appeared in the
presence of God ; of the truth whereof let the reader consult Heb.
i. 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 a high priest whilst
he was on the earth, and offered a sacrifice to God. I shall here
first answer what was objected by Mr B. to the contrary, and then
confirm the truth itself.

i " Quare haec ejus opis afferendae ratio sacrificium vocatur ? — Vocatur ita figurato
loquendi modo ; quod quemadmodum in prisco foedere summus pontifex ingressus in
sanctum sanctorum, ea quae ad expianda pcccata populi spectarent, perficiebat; ita
Christus nunc penetravit coelos, ut illic Deo appareat pro nobis, et omnia ad expiationem
peccatorum nostrorum spectantia peragat, Heb. ii. 17, iv. 14, v. 1, be. 24." — De Mun.
Chris. Sacer. q. 2.

VOL. xii. 26

402 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

I say then, first, that Christ was a priest while he was on earth ;
and he continueth to be so for ever, — that is, until the whole work of
mediation be accomplished.

Socinus first published his opinion in this business in his book,
" De Jesu Christo Servatore," against Covet For some time the
venom of that error was not taken notice of. Six years after, as him
self telleth us (Ep. ad Niemojev. I1), he wrote his answer to Volanus,
wherein he confirmed it again at large ; whereupon Niemojevius,
a man of his own antitrinitarian infidelity, writes to him, and asks
him sharply (in substance) if he was not mad, to affirm a thing so con
trary to express texts of Scripture2 (Ep. 1 Joh. Niemojev. ad Faust.
Socin.) Before him, that atheistical monk Ochinus had dropped
some few things in his dialogues hereabout. Before him, also, Abe-
lardus had made an entrance into the same abomination ; of whom
says Bernard, Ep. 190, " Habemus in Francia novum de veteri ma-
gistro theologum, qui ab ineunte setate sua in arte dialectica lusit ;
et nunc in Scripturis sanctis insanit."

How the whole nation of the Socinians have since consented into
this notion of their master, I need not manifest It is grown one of
the articles of their creed, as this man here lays it down among the
substantial grounds of Christian religion. Confessedly on their part,
the whole doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ and justification turns
on this hinge : for though we have other innumerable demonstra
tions of the truth we assert, yet as to them, if this be proved, no
more is needful ; for if Christ was a priest, and offered himself a
sacrifice, it cannot but be a sacrifice of atonement, seeing it was by
blood and death. Crellius tells us that Christ died for us on a double
account; partly as the mediator and surety of the new covenant,
partly as a priest that was to offer himself to God.3 A man might
think he granted Christ to have been a priest on the earth, and as
such to have offered himself a sacrifice. So also doth Volkelius
allow the killing of the sacrifice to represent the death of Christ.4
Now, the killing of the sacrifice was the sacrificing of it. So Stuckius
proves from that of the poet,6 " Et nigram mactabis ovem, lucumqus

1 " Nam annos abhinc sex atque eo amplius idem paradoxum in mea de Jesu Christo
Servatore disputatione sine dubio legist!." — Faust. Socin. Ees. ad Joh. Niemojev.

Ep. 1.

8 " Verum non sine moerore (ne quid gravius addam), incidi inter legendum in quod-
dam paradoxon, dum Christum in morte, sive in cruce sacrificium obtulisse pernegas."
— Joh. Niemojev. Ep. 1 ad Faust. Socin.

3 " Etenim mortem, Christus subiit, duplici ratione : partim quidem, ut foederis me
diator, seu sponsor, et veluti testator quidem ; partim ut sacerdos Deo ipsum oblaturus."
Crell. de Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 6.

4 " Partes hujus muneris haec sunt potissimum ; mactatio victimge, in tabernaculum
ad oblationem peragendam ingressio, et ex eodem egressio. Ac mactatio quidem mor
tem Christi violentam, sanguinisque profusionem continet." — Volkel. de Vera Relig.
lib. iii. cap. xxxvii. p. 145.

* [Virg. Geor. iv. 547.]

OF CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 403

revises." But Crellius afterward expounds himself, and tells us that
this twofold office of Christ (than which nothing can be spoken more
ridiculously) of a mediator and a priest did as it were meet in the
death of Christ, the one ending (that is, his being a mediator), and
the other beginning ;* and Volkelius doth the like, with a sufficient
contradiction to his assertion, calling the death of Christ the begin
ning and entrance of his priesthood.2 As for his mediatorship, Crellius
telleth us that it is most evident that Christ therein was " subordinate
to God" (so he phrases it); that is, he was a mediator with us for
God, and not at all with God for us.8 And this he proves, because
he put not himself into this office, nor was put into it by us, so as to
confirm the covenant between God and us, but was a minister and
messenger of God, who sent him for this purpose.4 But the folly of
this shall be afterward manifested. Christ was given of God, by his
own consent, to be a mediator for us, and to lay down his life a ran
som for us, 1 Tim. ii. 3-6 ; which certainly he did to God for us,
and not for God to us, as shall afterward be evinced. But coming
to speak of his priesthood he is at a loss. " When," saith he, " he is
considered as a priest" (for that he was properly a priest he denies,
calling it " Sacerdotii, et oblationis metaphora,") " although he seem-
eth to be like one who doth something with God in the name of
men, if we consider diligently, we shall find that he is such a priest
as performs something with us in the name of God."5

This proof is irapa. rqv Gvvdsffiv xai dialpeffiv. But this is no new
thing with these men : " Because Christ, as a high priest, doth some
thing with us for God, therefore he did nothing with God for us;"
as though, because the high priest of old was over the house of God
and ruled therein, therefore he did not offer sacrifices to God for the
sins of the people. All that Crellius in his ensuing discourse hath to
prove this by, is because, as he saith, "Christ offered not his sacrifice
until he came to heaven;" which because he proves not, nor en
deavours to do it, we may see what are the texts of Scripture urged
for the confirmation of that conceit by Mr B. and others.

Seeing all the proofs collected for this purpose are out of the

1 " In morte utrumque munus (mediatoris, et sacerdotis) veluti coit : et prius quidem
in ea desinit, eaque confirmatur ; postremum autem incipit, et ad id Christus fuit quo-
dammodo prseparatus." — P. 8.

1 " Hinc colligitur solam Christi mortem, nequaquam illam perfectam absolutamque
ipsius oblationem de qua in Epist. ad Hebrseos agitur, fuisse ; sed principium et prsepa-
rationem quandam istius sacerdotii in coelo demum administrandi, extitisse." — Idem ibid.
• 3 " Jam vero satis apparet, Christum priori modo spectatum, penitus Deo subordina-
tum esse." — P. 6.

* '' Neque enim vel ipsum ingessit, vel a nobis missus est ad fcedus inter Deum, et
nos peragendum : sed Dei, qui ipsum in hunc finem miserat, minister, ac internuntiua
hac in parte fuit." — P. 7.

s " Cum vero consideratur ut sacerdos, — etsi similitudinem refert ejus, qui Deo ali-
quid hominum nomine prsestet, — si tamen rem ipsam penitus spectes, deprehendes
talem eum esse sacerdotem, qui Dei nomine nobis aliquod prsestet," — P. 7.

404 VINDICI2E EVANGELIC^.

Epistle to the Hebrews, I shall consider them in order as they lie in
the epistle, and not as transposed by his questions with whom I have
to do.

The first is in his llth question, thus insinuated: " Why would
God have Christ come to his priestly office by suffering?" Accord
ing to the tenor of the doctrine before delivered, the inference is, that
until after his sufferings he obtained not his priestly office, for by
them he entered upon it. The answer is, " Heb. ii. 10, 17, 18."

Ans. The apostle doth not say absolutely that it became Christ
to be made like us that he might be a high priest, but that he might
be a merciful high priest; that is, his sufferings and death were not
required antecedently that he might be a priest, but they were re
quired to the execution 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 itself, not
that he might be a priest, but that being merciful, and having expe
rience, 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 meaning of the Holy Ghost, "In that he himself hath suffered
being tempted," etc. His sufferings were to this end of his priesthood,
that he should be " merciful, able to succour them that are tempted."
Besides, it is plainly said that he was a high priest, sis rb i\d<SHteQai
rd( apaprias rou XaoS, or iXdmiadcti rbv Qiov vepi ruv aftapnuv, — " to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Now, that recon
ciliation was made by his blood and death the Scripture informs us:
Rom. v. 10, "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son ;" Dan. ix. 24. So that even from this place of
Scripture, produced to the contrary, it is evident that Christ " was a
high priest on earth," because he was so when he made reconciliation,
which he did in his death on the cross.

But yet Mr B/s candid procedure in this business may be re
marked, with his huckstering the word of God. He reads the words
in this order : " It became him to make the captain of their salva
tion perfect through sufferings, that he might be a merciful and faith
ful high priest." Who would not conclude that this is the series
and tenor of the apostle's discourse, and that Christ is said to be
made perfect through sufferings, that he might be a merciful, high
priest? These words, of "making perfect through sufferings," are part
of the 10th verse; "that he might be a merciful high priest," part
of the 17th; between which two there intercedes a discourse of a
business quite of another nature, — namely, his being " made like his
brethren" in taking on him " the seed of Abraham," whereof these
words, " that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest," are
the immediate issue; that is, he had a body prepared him that he
might be a priest and have a sacrifice. " Our high priest was exer-

OF CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 405

cised with sufferings and temptations," says the apostle : " Jesus was
exercised with sufferings and temptations that he might be our high
priest," says Mr J3. !

Heb. viii. 1, 2, is insisted on to the same purpose in his third ques
tion, which is, —

Q. What manner of high priest is Christ f

A. Heb. viii. 1, 2, " We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand
of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of
the true tabernacle," etc.

I name this in the next place, because it is coincident with that
of chap. iv. 14, insisted on by Socinus, though omitted by our author.

Hence it is inferred that Christ entered the heavens before he
was a high priest, and is a high priest only when he is " set down on
the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Ans. That Christ is a high priest there also we grant; that he is
so there only, there is not one word in the place cited to prove. Heb.
iv. 14 saith, indeed, that "our high priest is passed into the hea
vens," but it says not that he was not our high priest before he did
so, as the high priest of the Jews entered into the holy place, but
yet he was a high priest before, or he could not have entered 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 typical high priest, who
died 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. viii. 4 is nextly produced, in answer to this question, —

Q. Was not Christ a priest whilst he was upon earth, namely, when he died on
the cross ?

A. Heb. viii. 4, vii. 15, 16.

The same question and answer are given by the Racovian Cate
chism, and this is the main place insisted on by all the Socinians:
" 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. 'ETI yns may be interpreted of the state and condition of
him spoken of, and not of the place wherein he was. If he were
sifi y»k, of a mere earthly condition, as the high priest of the Jews,
he should not be a priest : so is the expression used elsewhere. Col.
iii. 2, we are commanded "not to mind ra Ivl r%s 7»je," — that is, "ter
rene things, earthly things." And verse 5, " Mortify your members
ra IK! rrtg yr,g," — that is, " your earthly members."

2. If the words signify the place, and not the condition of the
things whereof they are [expressive], they may be referred to the
tabernacle, of which he speaks, and not to the high priest. Verse 2,
the apostle tells us that he is the minister or priest of the true taber
nacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man ; and then, verse 3, that

406 VINDIULE EVANGELIC^.

in the other tabernacle there were priests that offered daily sacrifices:
so that, saith he, if this tabernacle jj v Ivi yjjj, he should not be a priest
of it; for in the earthly tabernacle there were other administrators.
But to pass these interpretations, —

3. The apostle does not say that he that is upon the earth can be
no priest, which must be our adversaries' argument, if any, from this
place, and thus formed: He that is upon the earth is no priest;
Christ before his ascension was upon the earth : therefore he was no
priest. This is not the intendment of the apostle, for in the same
verse he affirms that there were priests on the earth. This, then, is
the utmost of his intendment, that if Christ had been only to con
tinue on the earth, and to have done what priests did or were to do
upon the earth, there was neither need of him nor room for him;
but now he is a priest, seeing he was not to take upon him their
work, but had an eternal priesthood of his own to administer. There
is no more in this place than there is in chap. vii. 19, 23, 24; which is
a clear assertion that Christ had a priesthood of his own, which was
to perfect and complete all things, being not to share with the priests,
that had all their work to do upon the earth; and in verses 13-15
of chap. vii. you have a full exposition of the whole matter. The
sum is, Christ was none of the priests of the old testament, no priest
of the law ; all their earthly things vanished when he undertook the
administration of the heavenly. So that neither doth this at all
evince that Christ was not a priest of the order of Melchizedek even
before his ascension.

To this Heb. vii. 15, 16 is urged, and these words, " After the
power of an endless life," are insisted on ; as though Christ was not a
priest until after he had ended his life and risen again.

But is this the intendment of the apostle? doth he aim at any
such thing? The apostle is insisting on one of his arguments, to prove
from the institution of the priesthood of Melchizedek, or rather a
priesthood after his order, the excellency of the priesthood of Christ
above that of Aaron. From the manner of the institution of the
one and of the other this argument lies. Says he, "The priests of the
Jews were made xard vopov ivro^ris ffapxixrjs, according to the law of
a carnal commandment/' — that is, by carnal rites and ceremonies,
by carnal oil and ordinances ; " but this man is made a priest after
the order of Melchisedec, xard bvvapiv £w?jj axaraXyroy, by virtue of
an endless life, — by the appointment 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 days, yet
his person was never dissolved as to the administration of his office
of priesthood, which is the thing spoken of, and in respect of that he
had an " endless life." ,

Question 9 is to the same purpose: —

OF CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 407

Q. 7/o u did Christ enter into the holy place to offer himself?
A. Heb. ix. 12, " By his own blood."

Ans. Would not any one imagine, [from this question,] that it was
said in the Scripture that Christ entered into the holy place to offer
himself? that that is taken for granted, and the modus or manner
how he did it is alone inquired after? This is but one part of the
sophistry Mr B. makes use of in this Scripture Catechism ; but it is
so far from being a true report of the testimony of the Scripture, that
the plain contrary is asserted, — namely, that Christ offered himself
before his entrance, into the holy place not made with hands, and
then entered thereinto, to appear in the presence of God for us.
Christ entered by his own blood into the holy place, inasmuch as,
having shed and offered his blood a sacrifice to God, with the effi
cacy of it, he entered into his presence to carry on the work of his
priesthood in his intercession for us; as the high priest, having offered
without a sacrifice to God, entered with the blood of it into the most
holy place, there to perfect and complete the duties of his office in
offering and interceding for the people.

The remaining questions of this chapter may be speedily despatch
ed. His sixth is: —

Q. What benefit happeneth by Christ's priesthood ?
A. Heb. v. 9, 10.

Though the place be very improperly urged as to an answer to
the question proposed, there being very many more testimonies
clearly and distinctly expressing the immediate fruits and benefits of
the priestly office of Christ, yet because we grant that by his priest
hood, principally and eminently, Christ is become the author of sal
vation, we shall not dissent as to this question and answer. Only,
we add as to the manner, that the way whereby Christ by his priest
hood became the author of salvation consists principally in the of
fering up of himself to death in and by the shedding of his blood,
whereby he obtained for us eternal redemption, Heb. ix. 14, 26.

But this Mr B. makes inquiry after: —

Q. How can Christ save them by his priesthood f

A. Heb. vii. 25, ix. 28.

Ans. We acknowledge the use of the intercession of Christ for
the carrying on and the completing of the work of our salvation, as
also that it is the apostle's design there to manifest his ability to save
beyond what the Aaronical priests could pretend unto, which is men
tioned chap. vii. 25 ; but that " he saves us thereby," exclusively to
the oblation he made of himself at his death, or any otherwise but
as carrying on that work whose foundation was laid therein (re
demption being meritoriously procured thereby), I suppose Mr B.
doth not think that this place is any way useful to prove. And that
place which he subjoins is not added at all to the advantage of his

408 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

intendment ; for it is most evident that it is of the offering of Christ
by death and the shedding of his blood, or the sacrifice of himself,
as verse 26, that the apostle there speaks.

There is not any thing else that is needful for me to insist 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
than what he expresses in his last question, yet that being one emi
nent one amongst them (especially the foundation of coming with
boldness to the throne of grace, being rightly understood), I shall not
need to insist farther on it.

Not to put myself or reader to any needless trouble, Mr B. ac
knowledging that Christ is a high priest, and having opposed only
his investiture with the office whilst he was upon the earth, and that
to destroy the atonement made by the sacrifice of himself, having
proved that he was a priest properly so called, I shall now prove that
he was a high priest whilst he was upon earth, and show afterward
what he had to offer, with the efficacy of his sacrifice, and the intent
thereof: —

1. The Scripture will speedily determine the difference : Eph. v. 2,
" Christ hath loved us, and hath given himself 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. v. L He is one " taken from amongst men," and "or
dained to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." Now, thus did Christ
do in his giving himself for us. Hapsdaxiv, " he delivered himself for
us." "To deliver himself," or "to be delivered for us," notes his death,
always in contradistinction to any other act of his: so Eph. v. 25,
Gal, ii. 20, Rom. viii. 32, iv. 25, "O$ -Traptdofy dia ra KapaKruftara,
tiftuv, xai yyspdrj dia rjjv dixaluaiv rj(*uv. In that delivery of himself
he sacrificed, therefore he was then a priest.

To this Socinus invented an answer, in his book " De Servatore,"
which he insists on again, Ep. 2 ad Niemojev., and whereunto his
followers have added nothing, it being fixed on by them all, in par
ticular by Smalcius in Cat. Rac. ; and yet it is in itself ludicrous,
and almost jocular. The words, they tell us, are thus to be read:
Hape&uxev tavrov vvsp t]fj,S>v, and there they place a point in the verse}
vfoapcp av KOL) Svelav <r<f> ©sp, without any dependence upon the former
words; making this to be the sense of the whole: ".Christ gave him
self to death for us; and 0 what an offering was that to God! and
O what a sacrifice ! " that is, in a metaphorical sense ; not that Christ
offered himself to God for us, but that Paul called his giving himself
to die "an offering," or a thing grateful to God, as good works are
called " an offering," Phil. iv. 1 8 ; — that is, the dying of Christ was
" prseclarum facinus," as Volkelius speaks.1 But, —

1 Volkel. de Ver. Relig. lib. iii. cap. xxxvii. p. 146.

OF CHRIST'S PRIESTLY OFFICE. 409

(1 .) It is easy to answer or avoid any thing by such ways as this.
Divide, cut off sentences in the dependence of the words, and you
may make Avhat sense of them you please, or none' at all.

(2.) These words, irpoapopav *«/ ^vaiav, have no other word to be
regulated by but vape&uxtv, and therefore must relate thereunto;
and Christ is affirmed in them to have given himself " an offering and
a sacrifice."

(3.) These words, "An offering and a sacrifice," are not a com
mendation of Christ's giving himself, but an illustration and a de
scription of what he gave, — that is, himself, a sacrifice of sweet savour
to God. So that notwithstanding this exception (becoming only
them that make it), it is evident from hence that Christ offered
himself a sacrifice in his death, and was therefore then a priest
fitted for that work.

2. Heb. v. 6, 7, " As he saith also in another place, Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of
his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with
strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from
death," etc. Verse 6, the apostle tells us that he was a priest; and,
verse 7, what he did by virtue of that priesthood, — vpoitrivs'/xs difaeig
xal ixirripias. It is a temple expression of the office of a priest that
is used. So verse 1, a high priest is appointed 7x« <?rpo<r<pspri, " that he
may offer." Now, when did Christ do this? It was " in the days of
his flesh, with strong crying and tears;" both which evidence this his
offering to have been before his death and at his death. And his
mentioning of prayers and tears is not so much to show the matter
of his offering, which was himself, as the manner, or at least the con
comitants of the sacrifice of himself, — prayers and tears. And these
were not for himself, but for his church, and the business that for
their sakes he had undertaken.

3. Heb. i. 3, " When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high." The purging of our sins
was by sacrifice ; there was never any other way xadapiff/tou. But now
Christ did this before his ascension : KaQapi0(jt,bv voi^ffd^ivos, — "When he
had by himself," or after he had, " purged our sins;" and that 3/' gauroD,
<' by himself," or the sacrifice of himself. That our sins are purged by
the oblation of Christ the Scripture is clear ; hence his blood is said
to "cleanse us from all sin," 1 John i. 7. And, Heb. x. 10, " sanctified"
is the same with " purged," and this " through the offering of the
body of Christ s<pdira%." Christ, then, offering this sacrifice whilst he
was on the earth, was a priest in so doing.

Unto this maybe added sundry others of the same import: Chap,
vii. 27, " Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacri
fice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's : for this he did
once, when he offered up himself." The one sacrifice of Christ is here

410 YINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

compared to the daily sacrifices of the priests. Now, those daily sacri
fices were not performed in the most holy place, whither the high
priest entered but once in a year; 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 entered the holy place not made
with hands.

And chap. ix. 1 2, " He entered by his own blood into the holy
place, aiuvlav Xvrpuffiv svpaptvos," — " after he had obtained eternal re
demption." Redemption is everywhere in the Scripture ascribed to
the blood of Christ ; and himself abundantly manifesteth in what ac
count it is to be had, when he says that " he gave his life a ransom/'
or "a price of redemption." Where and when Christ laid down his
life we know; and yet that our redemption or freedom is by the
offering of Christ for us is as evident: Chap. ix. 26, "He put away
sin" (which is our redemption) " by the sacrifice of himself;" so that
this sacrifice of himself was before he entered the holy place ; and
consequently he was a priest before his entrance into heaven. It is,
I say, apparent from these places that Christ offered himself before
he went into the holy place, or sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high; which was to be proved from them.

4. Christ is often said to " offer himself once for all ;" designing by
that expression some individual action of Christ, and not such a
continued course of procedure as is his presentation of himself in
heaven, or the continuation of his oblation, as to its efficacy, by his
intercession. So Heb. vii. 27, Touro svoiriasv s<pava%- ix. 28, "A-ra^
vpoffsvixdsls, etc.; x. 10, 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 done in heaven is done
always 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 Christ's
offering himself 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 plainly contradictory. It is said to be so offered «Ta£ as to be
opposed unto sroXXax/s, whereby the apostle expresses that of the
Aaronical sacrifice, which in two other words he had before delivered.
They were offered tig rb SiqviKeg and xad' qpspav, that is, croXXax/g: in
which sense his offering himself in heaven cannot be said to be done
«cra|, but only that on the cross. Besides, he was aVag -Trpoffsvs^dsig sl$
rb croXXwv avevtyxiTv apapriae, chap. ix. 28, and how he did that we are
informed, 1 Pet. ii. 24, "Og r&s a.^a.friag qpuv ctvrb$ avrivsyxiv Iv rG> eu-
fj,a.ri auroD IT! rb % uXov, — he did it in his own body on the tree.

Besides, the apostle, Heb. ix. 26, tells us that he speaks of such
an offering as was accompanied with suffering: " He must often have
suffered since the foundation of the world." It was such an offering

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, ETC. 411

as could neither be repeated nor continued without suffering that he
treats of. We do not deny that Christ offers himself in heaven, —
that is, that he presents himself as one that was so offered to his
Father ; but the offering of himself, that was on earth : and there
fore there was he a priest.

5. Once more ; that sacrifice which answered those sacrifices 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. x. 11. The daily sacrifices had
none of their blood carried into the holy place, for the high priest
went in thither only once in the year ; but now these were all true
sacrifices and types of the sacrifice of Christ, and therefore the sacri
fice of Christ also, 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 as
serted by the apostle, Heb. vii. 27, " Who needeth not daily, as those
high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for
the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."
Those sacrifices which were offered xa&' fiftipav, " daily," were types
of the sacrifice of Christ, and that of his which was offered ff
did answer thereunto, — which was his death, and nothing else.

CHAPTER XXI.

Of the death of Christ, the causes, ends, and fruits thereof, with an entrance into
the doctrine of his satisfaction thereby.

MR BIDDLE'S twelfth chapter is concerning the death of Christ,
the causes, and fruits, and ends thereof; the error and mistake where
about is the second great head of the Socinian religion. Next to
his person, there is not any thing they set themselves so industriously
to oppose as his death, in the sense wherein it hath constantly hitherto
been embraced by all Christians, — as the great foundation of their
faith and confidence.

. That the Lord Jesus, our mediator, did not, by his death and suf
ferings, undergo the penalty of the law as the punishment due to our
sins ; that he did not make satisfaction to God, or make reconciliation
for transgressors; that he did not thereby properly redeem us by the
payment of a ransom, nor so suffer for us as that our sins should, in
the justice of God, be a meritorious cause of his suffering, — is the

412 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

second great article of the creed which they labour to assert and
maintain.1

There is not any thing about which they have laid out so 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 deliver 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 atonement by the sacrifice
of himself.

How Faustus Socinus first broached this opinion, with what diffi
culty 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 death of Christ, and the
opposition he had engaged in against his satisfaction, with the dili
gence he used and the pains 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 wholly taken up with
this argument; so is the greatest part of his " Prelections;" his
" Lectiones Sacrse" are some of them on the same subject; and his
" Parsenesis" against Volanus, many of his epistles, especially those to
Smalcius, and Volkelius, and Niemojevius, as also his treatises about
justification, have the same design. Smalcius is no less industrious
in the same cause, both in his Racovian Catechism and in his answers
and replies with Franzius and Smiglecius. It is the main design of
Schlichtingius' comment on the Hebrews. Crellius, "De Causis Mor
tis Christi," and in his defence of Socinus against Grotius, dwells on
this doctrine. Volkelius hath his share in the same work, etc.

What those at large contend for, Mr B. endeavours slily to insinu
ate into his catechumens in this chapter. Having, therefore, briefly
spoken of salvation by Christ, and of his mediation in general, in
consideration of his sixth and seventh chapters, I shall now, God
assisting, take up the whole matter, and, after a brief 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 procedure, I shall first consider Mr B/s questions;
then state the point in difference by expressing what is the judg
ment of our adversaries concerning the death of Christ, and what
we ascribe thereto; and then demonstrate from the Scripture the
truth contended for.

Mr B/s first question is, —

1 Vid. Faust. Socin. de Jes. Christ. Servator.; Prselect. Theol. Lect. Sac. ; Parsen. adv.
Volan. ; Epistola ad Niemojev. ; Thes. de Justif . ; Smalc. Ref. Thes. Fran. adv. SmigL
Nov. Monst. ; Cat. Rac., etc. ; Crell. de Caus. Mor. Christ. ; Vindic. ad Grot. ; VolkeL
Ver. Eelig. Christ.; Ostorod. Instit. cap. xi. ; Schlichting. Ep. ad Hebrse., etc.

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, ETC. 413

Q. Was it the ivill and purpose of God that Christ should suffer the death of
the cross f What saith the apostle Peter to the Jews concerning this?
A. Acts ii. 22, 23.

To which he subjoins, —

Q. Wliat say the disciples in general concerning the same?
A. Acts iv. 24-28.

It is not unknown what difference we have both with the Soci-
nians and Anninians about the purposes and efficacious decrees, and
the infallibility of the prescience of God. Something already hath
been spoken to this purpose, in our discourse concerning the pre
science of God, as formerly in that of perseverance. How unable Mr
B.'s 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 Mr B. the opinion of a»y
other man which he doth not expressly own ; only I shall desire him
to reconcile what he here speaks in his query with what he before
delivered concerning " God's not foreseeing our free actions that are
for to come." What God purposes shall be and come to pass, he
certainly foresees that that will come to pass. That Christ should
die the death of the cross 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, he foresaw that it should be
accomplished, and so foresaw all the free actions whereby it was
accomplished. And if he foresaw any one free action, why not all,
there being the same reason of one and all ? But at the present let
this pass. His second question is, —

Q. Did Christ die to reconcile and bring God to us, or, on the contrary, to bring
us to Godf

A. Rom. v. 10; Eph. ii. 14, 16; 2 Cor. v. 19; 1 Pet. iii. 18.

That I may by the way speak a little to this question, reserving
the full discussion of the matter intended to the ensuing discourse,
the terms of it are first to be explained : —

1. By " reconciling God/' we intend the making of such an atone
ment as whereby his wrath or anger, in all the effects of it, is turned
away. Though we use not the expression of " reconciling God to us,"
but of " reconciling us to God," by the taking away or removal of his
wrath and anger, or the making reconciliation with God for sin, yet,
as to reconcile God intends the appeasing of the justice and anger
of God, so that whereas before we were obnoxious to his displeasure,
enmity, hatred, and wrath, thereby and on that account, we come to
be accepted with him, we say Christ died to reconcile God to us;

4-14 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

which in the progress of this discourse, with plentiful demonstrations
from the Scripture, shall be evinced.

2. Of " bringing God to us" we speak not ; unless by " bringing
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 sense Christ by his death brought God to us.

3. " Our reconciliation to God/' or the reconciliation as it stands
on our part, is our conversion unto God, our deliverance from all
that enmity and opposition unto God which are 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. iii. 18, is of a
larger and more comprehensive signification than that of our recon
ciliation, containing the whole effect of the death of Christ, in the
removal of every hinderance and the collation of every thing neces
sarily required to the perfect and complete accomplishment of the
work of our salvation; and so contains no less the reconciliation of
God to us than ours to him, and is not proper to make up one
member of the division there instituted, being a general expression
of them both.

Now, concerning these things Mr B. inquires whether 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 in
consistent with the other. This seems to be the man's aim : —

1. To intimate that this is the. state of the difference between him
and us, that we say Christ died "to reconcile God to us;" and he,
that he died " 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 died to reconcile
God to us, must of necessity deny that he died to reconcile us to
God ; and that he also, who saith he died 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 gross that it is not worth the
while to insist upon its discovery. We say that Christ died to recon
cile God to us, in the sense before explained, and us unto God ; and
these things are so far 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 work of reconciliation is by no
means complete.

Not to prevent the full proof and evidence hereof, which is intended,
it may at present suffice that we evince it by the light 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 real enmity on our
part against God, but also a law enmity on the part of God against
us, and that both of these are removed by virtue of the death of

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, ETC. 415

Christ, then the reconciliation of God to us and our reconciliation
to God are both of them one entire effect of the death of ChrivSt.
That there is in us by nature a real enmity against God, before it be
taken away by virtue of the death of Christ, and so we reconciled
to him, is not denied; and if it were, it might be easily evinced
from Kom. viii. 7, 8, Tit. iii. 3, Eph. ii. 12, and innumerable other
places. And certainly the evidence on the other side, that there was
a law-enmity on the part of God against us, antecedent to the consi
deration of the death of Christ, is no less clear. The great sanction
of the law, Gen. iii., Deut. xxvii. 26, considered in conjunction with
the justice of God, Rom. i. 32, Hab. i. 13, Ps. v. 4-6, 2 Thess. i. 5, 6,
and the testimonies given concerning the state and condition of man
in reference to the law and justice of God, John iii. 36, Rom. v. 18
Eph. ii. 3, 12, etc., with the express assignation of the reconciliation
pleaded for to be made by the death of Christ, Dan. ix. 24, Heb.
ii. 14, do abundantly evince it. There being, then, a mutual enmity
between God and us, though not of the same kind (it being physical on
our part, and legal or moral on the part of God), Christ, our media
tor, making up peace and friendship between us doth not only re
concile us to God by his Spirit, but God also to us by his blood.
But of this more afterward, under the consideration of the death of
Christ as it was a sacrifice.

For the texts cited by Mr B. as making to his purpose, the most,
if not all of them, look another way than he intends to use them •
they will in the following chapter come under full consideration.
Rom. v. 10, "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son," is the first mentioned. That our being recon
ciled to God in this place doth not intend our conversion to him, and
our deposition of the real enmity that is in us against him, but our
acceptance with him upon the account of the atonement 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 verse
10, is being "justified by his blood," verse 9. The observation of
the same antithesis in both verses makes this evident. Now, to be
justified by the blood of Christ is not to have our enmity with God
slain 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 sense of deposing our enmity to God (that
deposition being our sanctification) whilst we are enemies ; and there
fore it is the reconciliation of God to us that is intended.

3. Verse 11, we are said to " receive" this "reconciliation," or, as

416 VINDICIyE EVANGELIC^.

the word is rendered, the " atonement/' xara7.Xay/iv. The word is the
same with that used verse 10. Now, we cannot be said to receive our
own conversion; but the reconciliation of God by the blood of Christ,
his favour upon the atonement made, that by faith we do receive.

Thus Mr B/s first witness speaks expressly against him and the
design for the carrying on whereof he was called forth, as afterward
will more fully appear.

His second also, of Eph. ii. 14, 16, speaks the same language, " He
is our peace, who hath made both one, that he might reconcile both
unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."
Setting aside the joint design of the apostle, to manifest the recon
ciliation made of Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, it is evi
dent 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 legal enmity
that lay against us on the part of God, as is evident from verse 1 5
and the whole design of the place, as afterward will appear more
fully.

There is, indeed, 2 Cor. v. 18-20, mention made of reconciliation
in both the senses insisted on; — of us to God, verse 20, where the
apostle saith the end of the ministry is to reconcile us to God, to pre
vail with us to lay down our enmity against him and opposition to
him ; of God to us, verse 1 9, " God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto himself:" which to be the import of the words is evinced from
the exegetical expression immediately following, "Not imputing
their trespasses unto them/' God was so reconciling the world unto
himself in Christ as that, upon the account of what was done in Christ,
he will not impute their sins ; the legal enmity he had against them,
on the account whereof alone men's sins are imputed to them, being
taken away. And this is farther cleared by the sum of his former
discourse, which the apostle gives us, verse 21, declaring how God
was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself: " For," saith he, " he
hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him." Thus he was in Christ reconciling
the world to himself, in that he made him to be sin, or a sacrifice
for sin, so to make an atonement for us, that we might be accepted
before God as righteous on the account of Christ.

Much less doth that of 1 Pet. iii. 18, in the last place mentioned,
speak at all to Mr B/s purpose: " Christ hath once suffered for sins,
the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." " Bring
ing to God" is a general expression of the accomplishment of the
whole work of our salvation, both in the removal of all hinderances
and the collation of all things necessary to the fulfilling of the work.
Of this the apostle mentions the great fundamental and procuring
cause, which is the suffering of Christ in our stead, the just for the

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, ETC. 417

unjust. Christ in our stead suffered for our sins, that he might bring
us to God. Now, this suffering of Christ in our stead, for our sins, 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 died to reconcile us to
God by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by Mr B. to
prove it (so unhappy is he in his quotations) speak 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 consistency, he doth corrupt.

The next question I shall not insist upon; it is concerning the
object of the death of Christ and the universality thereof. The
words of it are, " For whom did Christ die?" The answer is from
2 Cor. v. 14, 15; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Heb. ii. 9; John iii. 16; where men
tion 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 for whom he died, hath of late by very many been fully discussed,
and I have myself spoken elsewhere somewhat to that purpose.1 It
shall not, then, here be insisted on. In a word, we confess that
Christ died for " all" and for " the world ;" but whereas it is very sel
dom that these words are comprehensive 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
nowhere described by any term expressive constantly of an absolute
universality, — we say the words insisted on are to be taken in the
latter sense, and not the former; being ready, God assisting, to put
it to the issue and trial with our adversaries when we are called
thereunto.

He proceeds : —

Q. What was the procuring cause of Chrises death f
A. Rom. iv. 25; Isa. liii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 3.

The expressions are, that Christ was " delivered for our offences,"
that Christ was " bruised for our iniquities," and " died for our
sins."

That in these and the like places, that clause, "For our offences, ini
quities, and sins," is expressive of the procuring cause of the death
of Christ, Mr B. grants. Sin can be no otherwise the procuring cause
of the death of Christ but as it is morally meritorious thereof. To
say, " Our sins were the procuring cause of the death of Christ," is to
say that our sins merited the death of Christ ; and whereas this can
no otherwise be but as our sins were imputed to him, and he was
i Salus Electorum Sanguis Jcsu., vol. x.

VOL. XIL 27

418 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

put to death for them, Mr B. hath in this one question granted the
whole of what in this subject he contends against! If our sins 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 tenor, of the law of God, was procured by them ; and
so, consequently, he hi his death underwent the penalty of our sins,
suffering in our stead, and making thereby satisfaction for what we
had done amiss. Mr B/s masters say generally that the expression
of " dying for our sins" denotes the final cause of the death of Christ;
that is, Christ intended by his death to confirm the truth, in obedi
ence whereunto we shall receive forgiveness of sin. This grant of
Mr B.'s, that the procuring cause of the death of Christ is hereby
expressed, will perhaps appear more prejudicial to his whole cause
than he is yet aware of, especially being proposed in distinction
from the final cause or end of the death of Christ, which in the
next place he mentions, as afterward will more fully appear; al
though, I confess, he is not alone, Crellius making the same conces
sion.1

The last question of this chapter is, " What are the ends of Christ's
suffering and death intimated by the Scripture?" whereunto, by
way of answer, sundry texts of Scripture are subjoined, every one of
them expressing some one end or other, some effect or fruit, some
thing of the aim and intendment of Christ in his suffering and death ;
whereunto exceeding many others might be annexed. But this
business of the death of Christ, its causes, ends, and influence into
the work of our salvation, — the manifestation that therein he under
went the punishment due to our sins, making atonement and giving
satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by the price of his blood,
etc., — being of so great weight and importance as it is, lying at the
very bottom and foundation of all our hope and confidence, I shall,
leaving Mr B., handle the whole matter at large in the ensuing
chapters.

For our more clear and distinct procedure in this important head
of the religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay down the most emi
nent considerations of the death of Christ as proposed in the Scrip
ture, and then give an account of the most special effects of it in
particular, answering to those considerations of it; in all mani
festing wherein the expiation of our sins by his blood doth con
sist.

The principal considerations of the death of Christ are of it, — I. As
a price; II. As a sacrifice; III. As a penalty: of which in the order
wherein they are mentioned.

'Crell. de Causis Mortis Christ i, p. 13.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 419

CHAPTER XXII.

The several considerations of the death of Christ as to the expiation of our sins
thereby, and the satisfaction made therein — First, Of it as a price; secondly,
As a sacrifice.

I. THE death of Christ in this business is a PRICE, and that pro
perly so called : 1 Cor. vL 20, 'HyopdcdyTf ripfe, — " Ye are bought
with a price." And if we will know what that price was with which
we are bought, the Holy Ghost informs us, 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, " 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 business 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 himself tells us what kind of a price it is that is so paid; it is

Matt. xx. 28, " He came to lay down his life

S)v" which, for its more evidence and clearness, is called a

1 Tim. ii. 6, " a price of redemption" for the delivery of another.

The first mention of a ransom in the Scripture is in Exod. xxi. 30 :
" If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the
ransom of his life whatsoever is laid on him." The word in the ori
ginal is 1S"|S ; which the LXX. there render XvTpu," Ac5<rt/ Mrpa rfc
•4>u;£Sjs aurou. And it is used again in the same sense, Ps. xlix. 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 "T13, " redimere, vindicare, asserere in libertatem," by
any ways and means, by power, strength, or otherwise ; but where-
ever it is applied to such a kind of redemption as had a price going
along with it, the LXX. constantly render it by avoforpouv, and some
times \urpueaffdai, otherwise by pvopai, and the like.

It is, then, confessed that i"1"]? in the Old Testament is sometimes
taken for redemit in a metaphorical sense, not strictly and literally
by the intervention of a price ; but that Xurputasdai, the word where
by it is rendered when a price intervened, is ever so taken in the
New Testament, is denied. Indeed, Moses is called Xvrpurfa, Acts
vii. 35, in reference to the metaphorical redemption of Israel out of
Egypt, — a deliverance by power and a strong arm ; but shall we say,
because that word is used improperly in one place, where no price
.could be paid, where God plainly says it was not done by a price
but by power, therefore it must be so used in those places where
there is express mention of a price, both the matter of it and its
formality 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 ransom" in ten places of the Old Testament;

420 VINDICI^S EVANGELIC^.

"to ransom" and "ransomed" in two or three more. In two of these
places, Exod. xxi. 30 and Pa xlix. 9, the word is P]3, from "TJS, as
before, and rendered by the LXX. \vrpov. In all other places it is
in the Hebrew "^2, which properly signifies a propitiation, as Ps.
xlix. 9 ; which the LXX. have variously rendered. Twice it is men
tioned in Job, chap, xxxiii. 24 and xxxvi. 18. In the first place
they have left it quite out, and in the latter so corrupted the sense
that they have rendered it altogether unintelligible. Prov. vi. 35
and xiii. 8, they have properly rendered it Xvrpov, or a price of re
demption, it being in both places used in such business as a ransom
useth to be accepted in. Chap. xxL 18, they have properly rendered
it to the subject-matter, Kfpixddapfta. Hspmaddpftara are things pub
licly devoted to destruction, as it were to turn away anger from
others, coming upon them for their sakes.

So is xddappa, " homo piacularis pro lustratione et expiatione pa-
trias devotus;" whence the word is often used, as scelus in Latin, for
a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away. Tplfyiv
ds xai rokparov & xaQappaTt, says he in the poet.1 Kadappoz is used in
the same sense by Herodotus:3 KaSap^bv Ttjg jsuprig VOISV/ASVUV 'A^aiuv,
'Add/tavra rov A/o'Xoy, — " Athamas was made a piaculum, or a pro
pitiation for the country." Whence Budseus renders that of the
apostle, 'fig ftpixaddpftotra, rov xotf/iou eytvqSqftiv, " Nos tanquam pia-
cula mundi facti sumus, et succedaneas pro populo victimae," — "We
are as the accursed things of the world, and sacrifices for the people,"
1 Cor. iv. 13; reading the words, usvsp xaddp/^aTo,, not us Kspixaddp-
para: the Greek scholiast, who reads it as we commonly do, ren
dering it by dvoffapupara, as the Vulgar Latin " purgamenta," to the
same purpose, — such as have all manner of filth cast upon them.
And Isa. xliii. 3, they have rendered the same word aXXaypu, " a
commutation by price." So Matt. xvi. 26, T/ Suesi avdpuirog dvrdx-
Xay/ia r%g -^uyjls, " a price in exchange." Now, in all these places
and others, the Hebrews use the word 133, " a propitiation," by way
of allusion ; as is most especially evident from that of Isaiah, " I
will give Egypt a propitiation for thee." That is, as God is atoned
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
ransom, because what God appointed in his worship to redeem any
thing that by the law was devoted, 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 " satisfac
tion," which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice together,
Num. xxxv. 31, is ">S3 in the original. "i*P, indeed, is originally
1 Aristoph. in Plut. v. 454. * Lib. vii. 197.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 421

"pitch" or "bitumen;" hence what God says to Noah about making
the ark, ^H??], Gen. vi. 14, the LXX. have rendered aopaX-uaeig rfi
uepdhry, — " bituminabis bitunrine." ">B? in pihel is " placavit, ex-
piavit, expiationem 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 " ransom" in the Scrip
ture, both P"]B, !"ns> and isb) which are rendered by Mrpov, <rspixd-
6ap/j,a, avriXurpov, aXAay/ia. It denotes properly a price of redemption,
a valuable compensation made by one thing for another, either in
the native signification, as in the case of the first word, or by the
first translation of it from the sacrifice of atonement, as in the latter.
Of this farther afterward, in the business of redemption. For the
present it sufficeth that the death of Christ was a price of ransom,
and these are the words whereby it is expressed.

II. It Avas a SACRIFICE; and what sacrifice it was shall be de
clared: —

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 a high priest. The necessity of this the apostle
confirms, Heb. viii. 3, " For every high priest is ordained to offer both
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 and employment of a 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, namely, what it was that he
sacrificed, I shall manifest in this order of process (taking leave to
enlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved be
fore, as the manner of it) : — 1. He was not to offer any sacrifice that
any priest had offered before by God's appointment; 2. He did not
actually offer any such sacrifice; 3. I shall show 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
work than could be brought about with the blood of bulls and goats.
It cost more to redeem our souls. That which was of more worth
in itself, of nearer concernment to him that offered 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 aim of the Holy Ghost, Heb. x. 1-7, " For the law." etc.

This is the sum of the apostle's discourse : The sacrifices instituted
by the law could not effect or work that which Christ, our high
priest, was to accomplish by his sacrifice ; and therefore he was not

422 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

to offer them, but they were to be abolished, and something else to
be brought in that might supply their room and defect.

What was wanting in these sacrifices the apostle ascribes to the
law whereby they were instituted. (1.) The law could not do it; that
is, the ceremonial law could not do it. The law which instituted and
appointed these sacrifices could not accomplish that end of the in
stitution by them. And with this expression of it he subjoins a
reason of this weakness of the law : " It had a shadow of good things
to come, and not the very image of the things" themselves, — an ob
scure representation of those good things which, when they were
instituted and in force, were /AgXXovra, to come, though now actually
exhibited and existent; that is, Jesus Christ himself, and the good
things of the gospel accompanying of him. It had but a " shadow " of
these things, not the " image," — that is, the substance of them ; for so
I had rather understand " image" here substantially, as that may be
called the image of a picture by which it is drawn, than to make
ffxttx, and tlxtiv here to differ but gradually, \i. e., in degree,] as the
first rude shape and proportion and the perfect limning of any thing
do. The reason, then, why all the solemn, operose, burdensome ser
vice of old could not of itself take away sin, is because it did not
contain Christ in it, but only had a shadow of him.

(2.) The apostle instances, in particular, by what means the law
could not do this great work of " making the comers thereunto per
fect ;" rov$ rtpoaepxotAsvous, — that is, those who come to God by it, the
worshippers ; which is spoken in opposition to what is said of Christ,
Heb. vii. 25, " He is able to save to the uttermost rov$ ^poasp^o/^s-
vou$" — " those that come to God by him." The word expresseth any
man under the consideration of one coming to God for acceptation ;
as chap. xi. 6, " He that cometh unto God," — A.S? rbv vpotepxo/tevov.
These it could not make perfect ; that is, it could not perfectly atone
God, and so take away their sins that the conscience should no more
be troubled or tormented with the guilt of sin, as chap. x. 2-4. By
what could not the law do this? By those sacrifices which it offered
year by year continually.

Not to speak of sacrifices in general, the sacrifices of the Jews may
be referred to four heads: —

(1.) The daily sacrifice of morning and evening, which is instituted
Exod. xxix. 38, 39 ; which being omitted, was renewed by Nehemiah,
chap. x. 33, and wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus,
according to the prophecy of Daniel, chap. xi. 31. This is the juge
sacrificium, typifying Christ's constant presence with his church in
the benefit of his death always.

(2.) Voluntary and occasional, which had no prefixed 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 oc-

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 423

casion and necessity were by providence administered. Now, of these
sacrifices there was a peculiar reason, that did not, as far as I can find,
belong unto any of the rest. The judicial government of that nation
being, as their own historian, Josephus, calls it, Qeoxparia, and imme
diately in the hand of God, he appointed these voluntary sacrifices,
which were a part of his religious worship, to have a place also in the
judicial government of the people; for whereas he had appointed
death to be the -punishment due to every sin, he allowed that for
many sins sacrifice should be offered for the expiating of the guilt
contracted in that commonwealth of which himself was the governor.
Thus for many sins of ignorance and weakness, and other perversi
ties, sacrifice was offered, and the guilty person died not, according
to the general tenor of the law, " Cursed is every one that continueth
not in all these things." Hence David, in his great sin of murder
and adultery, flees to mere mercy, acknowledging that God had ap
pointed no sacrifice for the expiation of those sins as to the guilt
political contracted in that commonwealth, though otherwise no sins
nor sinners were excluded from the benefit of sacrifices, Ps. li. 16.
This was their political regard; which they had and could have only
on this account, that God was the supreme political governor of that
people, their lord and king.

(3.) Sacrifices extraordinary on solemn occasions, which seem some
of them to be mixed of the two former kinds, stated and voluntary.
Such was Solomon's great sacrifice at the dedication of the temple.
These partly answered the sacrifice instituted 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 solemn days; as on the sabbath, new
moons, passover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater jubilee, but espe
cially the solemn anniversary sacrifice of expiation, when the high
priest entered into the holy place with the blood of the beast sacri
ficed, on the tenth day of the month Tisri. The institution of this
sacrifice you have Lev. xvi. throughout. The matter of it was one
bullock, and two goats, or kids of goats, verses 3, 5. The manner
was this: — [1.] In the entrance, Aaron offered one bullock peculiarly
for himself and his house, verse 6. [2.] Lots were cast on the two
goats, one to be a sin-offering, the other to be azazel, verses 8, 9.
[3.] The bullock and goat being slain, the blood was carried into the
holy place. [4.] Azazel, having all the sins of the people confessed
over him, was sent into the wilderness to perish, verse 21. [5.] The
end of this sacrifice was atonement and cleansing, verse 30. Of the
whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this sacrifice, as of others,
elsewhere ; at present I attend only to the thesis proposed.

Now, if perfect atonement and expiation might be expected from
any -of the sacrifices so instituted by God, certainly it might be from

424 VINDICIjE EVANGELICJL

this; therefore this doth the apostle choose to instance in. This was
the sacrifice offered xar SVIUVTOV and «/j TO diqvoiis. But these, saith
he, could not do it; the law by them could not do it. And this he
proves with two arguments: —

1st. From the event: Heb. x. 2, 3, "For then would they not have
ceased to be offered ? because that the worshippers once purged should
have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there
was a remembrance again made of sins every year." The words of
the second verse are to be read with an interrogation, conclusive hi
the negative: " Would they not have ceased to have been offered?"
that is, certainly they would. And because they did not do so, it is
evident from the event that they could not take away sin. In most
copies the words are, 'E-rsi av faaiiffavro trpoapepofLsvai. Those that add
the negative particle oux put it for ou^/, as it is frequently used.

2<%. From the nature of the thing itself: Verse 4, "For it was
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away
sins." The reason in these words is evident and plain, especially
that of verse 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing: —

(ls&) In regard of impetration. It was impossible they should really
atone God, who was provoked. First, the conjunction between the
sinner and the sacrificed beast was not such or so near (being only
that of possessor and possessed) that really, and beyond representa
tion and type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sin of the
other. Much less, secondly, was there an innate worth of the blood
of any beast, though never so innocent, to atone the justice of God,
that was offended at sin, Micah vi. 6, 7. Nor, thirdly, was there any
will in them for such an undertaking or commutation. The sacrifice
was bound with cords to the horns of the altar; Christ went willingly
to the sacrifice of himself.

(2c%.) In regard of application. The blood of common sacrifices
being once shed was a dead thing, and had no more worth nor effi
cacy; 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, that
Christ was not to offer any of the sacrifices which former priests had
offered, first, 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, secondly, Because God had expressly disallowed
those sacrifices as to that end. Not only it was impossible in the
nature of the thing itself, but also God had absolutely rejected the
tender of them as to the taking away sin 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 sacrifice in the day

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 425

of expiation was to atone and cleanse : Lev. xvi. 30, c On that day
shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you ' (for the
priest made an atonement actively, by offering the sacrifice; the
sacrifice itself passively, by undergoing the penalty of death : Christ,
who was both priest and sacrifice, did both.) " I answer, They were
never appointed of God to accomplish that end by any real worth
and efficacy of their own, but merely to typify, prefigure, and point
out, him and that which did the work which they represented; and
so served, as the apostle speaks, " until the time of reformation,"
Heb. ix. 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 : Ps. xl. 6, 7, " Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire ;
mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast
thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come," etc. ; which the apostle
insists on, Heb. x. 5-9. There are several accounts upon which God
in Scripture is said to disregard and not to approve or accept of sac
rifices which yet were of his own institution: — First, In respect of the
hypocrisy of the offerers. That people being grown formal and cor
rupt, trusted in sacrifices and the work wrought in them, and said
that by them they should be justified : God, expressing his indignation
against such sacrifices, or the sacrifices 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, Isa. i. 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 upright
ness and waited for his salvation, even of himself and other saints,
as appears in the context, verse 1, etc. Secondly, Comparatively.
They are rejected as to the outward work of them, in comparison of
his more spiritual worship, as Ps. 1. 12-14. But neither are they here
rejected on that account, nor is there mention of any opposition be
tween the outward worship of sacrifice and any other more spiritual
and internal part thereof, but between sacrifice and the boring of
the ears, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expressly, verse 6.

Their rejection, then, here mentioned, is in reference to that 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 compassing of it,
are all sacrifices rejected of God. Now, this was to take away sin,
so that as to that end are they rejected.

And here, in our passage, may we remove what the Racovian Cate
chism gives us as the difference between the expiation under the old
testament and that under the new; concerning which, cap. de Mun.
Chris. Sacer. q. 5, they thus inquire : —

426 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

Q. What is the difference between the expiation of sin in the old and new testa
ment f

A. The expiation of sins under the new testament is not only much different
from that under the old, but also is far better and more excellent ; and that chiefly
for two causes. The first is, that under the old testament, expiation by those legal
sacrifices was appointed only for those sins which happened upon imprudence and
infirmity ; from whence they were also called infirmities and ignorances : but for
greater sins, such as were manifest transgressions of the command of God, there
were no sacrifices instituted, but the punishment of death was proposed to them ;
and if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by virtue of the covenant, but
of singular mercy, which God, beside the covenant, did afford when and to whom
he would. But under the new covenant, not only those sins are expiated which
happen by imprudence and infirmity, but those also which are transgressions of
most evident commands of God, whilst he who happened so to fall doth not con
tinue therein, but is changed by true repentance, and falleth not into that sin
again. The latter cause is, because under the old testament expiation of sins was
so performed that only temporal punishment was taken away from them whose
sins were expiated; but under the new the expiation is such as not only takes
away temporal but eternal punishment, and in their stead offers eternal life, pro
mised in the covenant, to them whose sins are expiated.1

Thus they. Some brief animadversions will give the reader a clear
account of this discourse : — Sundry things are here splendidly sup
posed by our catechists, than which nothing could be imagined or in
vented more false ; as, that the covenant was not the same for sub
stance under the old and new testament, before and after the coming
of Christ in the flesh ; that those under the old testament were not
pardoned or saved by Christ ; that death temporal was all that was
threatened by the law; that God forgave sin, and not in or by the
covenant; that there were no promises of eternal life under the old
testament, etc. On these and the like goodly principles is this whole
discourse erected. Let us now consider their assertions.

The first is, That expiation by legal sacrifices was only for some
sins, and not for all, as sins of infirmity and ignorance, not great
crimes: wherein, First, They suppose that the legal sacrifices did
by themselves and their own efficacy expiate sin ; which is directly

1 " Quodnam est discrimen inter veteris, et novi foederis peccatorum expiationem ? —
Expiatio peccatorum sub novo foedere non solum distat ab expiatione peccatorum sub
vetere plurimum, verum etiam longe prsestantior et excellentior est : id vero duabus
potissimum de causis. Prior est, quod sub vetere fcedere, iis tantum peccatis expiatio,
per ilia legalia sacrificia, constituta fuit, quse per imprudentiam vel per infirmitatem
admissa fuere, unde etiam infirmitates et ignorantiae nuncupabantur. Verum pro pec
catis gravioribus, quae transgressiones erant mandati Dei manifestae, nulla sacrificia
instituta fuerant, sed mortis poena fuit proposita. Quod si talia Deus alicui condo-
nabat, id non vi foederis fiebat, sed misericordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra foedus,
et quando et cui libuit exhibebat. Sub novo vero fcedere peccata expiantur, non solum
per imprudentiam et infirmitatem admissa, verum etiam ea quae apertissimorum Dei
mandatorum sunt transgressiones, dummodo is cui labi ad eum modum contigerit, in
eo non perseveret, verum per veram pcenitentiam resipiscat, nee ad illud peccatum am-
plius relabatur. Posterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco foedere ad eum modum pec
catorum expiatio peragebatur, ut poena temporaria tantum ab iis quorum peccata ex-
piabantur tolleretur; sub novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum poenas temporarias,
verum etiam aeternas amoveat, et loco pcenarum, seternam vitam, in foedere promissam,
iis quorum peccata fuerint expiata, offerat."

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 427

contrary to the discourse of the apostle now insisted on. Secondly,
Their affirmation hereon is most false. Aaron, making an atonement
for sin, "confessed over the goat all the iniquities of the children of
Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins," Lev. xvi. 21; and,
besides, all manner of sins are comprised under these expressions,
" ignorances and infirmities."

Secondly, They say, " For greater sins there was then no expia
tion, hut death was threatened to them." But, First, Then none
that ever committed such sins were saved ; for without expiation
there is no salvation. Secondly, Death was threatened and inflicted
without mercy for some sins, as the law with its judicial additaments
was the rule of the judaical polity, and for those sins there was no
sacrifice for a deliverance from death temporal ; but death was threat-
tened to every sin, small and great, as the law was a rule of moral
obedience unto God; and so in respect of sacrifices there was no
distinction. This difference of sacrifices for some sins, and not for
others, in particular, did depend merely on their use by God's ap
pointment in the commonwealth of that people, and had no regard
to the spiritual expiation of sin, which they typified.

Thirdly, That God forgave the sins of his people of old by singu-

I lar mercy, and not by virtue of his covenant, is a bold figment. God

exercises no singular mercy but in the covenant thereof, Eph. ii. 12.

Fourthly, Their condition of expiation (by the way) under the new
testament, " That the sinner fall not again into the same sin," is a mat
ter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discuss it.

Fifthly, That the expiation under the old testament reached only
to the removal of temporal punishment is another imagination of our
catechists. It was death eternal that was threatened as the punish
ment due to the transgression of the law, as it was the rule of obedi
ence to God, as hath been proved, even the death that Christ deli
vered us from, Rom. v. 12, etc.; Heb. ii. 14, 15. God was atoned by
those sacrifices, according to their way of making atonement, Lev.
xvi. 30; so that the punishment avoided was eternal punishment.
Neither is this, indeed, spoken by our catechists as though they
believed any punishment should be eternal ; but they only hide them
selves in the ambiguity of the expression, it being annihilation they
intend thereby. The vpurov -^sudog of this discourse is, that expia
tion by sacrifices was no other than what was done really by the
sacrifices themselves ; so everting their typical nature and institution^
and divesting them of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which they
did represent.

Sixthly, It is confessed that there is a difference between the expia
tion under the old testament and that under the new, but this is of
application and manifestation, not of impetration and procurement.
This is " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever."

428 VINDICUE EVANGELICLE.

But they plead proof of Scripture for what they say, in the ensu
ing question: —

Q. How dost thou demonstrate both these ?

A. That the sins which could not be expiated under the old testament are all
expiated under the new, Paul witnesseth, Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; and the same is also
affirmed Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix. 15 : but that sins are so expiated under the new
testament as that also eternal punishment is removed, and life eternal given, we
have Heb. ix. 12.1

This work will speedily be at an issue. First, It is denied that Paul,
Acts xiii. 38, 39, makes a distinction of sins, whereof some might be
expiated by Moses' law, and others not. He says no more there
than in this place to the Hebrews, — namely, that the legal 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 shadows of good things to come, the body being
Christ, by whom alone all justification from sin is to be obtained.
Absolutely, the sacrifices of the law expiated no sin, 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 typified),
now actually exhibited.

Secondly, The two next places, of Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix. 15, do ex
pressly condemn the figment they strive to establish by them, both
of them assigning the pardon of sins that were past and their expia
tion 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 testament for substance to have
been the same.

Thirdly, That the expiation under the new testament is accom
panied with deliverance from eternal punishment and a grant of life
eternal is confessed; and so also was that under the old, or it was
no expiation at all, that had respect neither to God nor the souls of
men. But to proceed with the sacrifice of Christ.

This is the first thing I proposed : Christ being to offer sacrifice,
was not to offer the sacrifices of the priests of old, because they could
never bring about what he aimed at in his sacrifice. It was impos
sible in the nature of the thing 'itself, and they were expressly as to
that end rejected of God himself.

2, Christ as a priest did never offer those sacrifices. It is true, as
one made under the law, and whom it became to fulfil all right
eousness, he was present at them ; but as a priest he never offered

1 " Qua ratione vero utrumque demonstras ? — Peccata qvue sub vetere foedere ex-
piari non potucre omnia sub novo expiari, testatur apostolus Paulus in Act. cap. xiii.
38, 39, idem habetur, Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix. 15. 'Quod vero ea ratione expientur pec-
cata sub novo foedere ut etiam seterna pcena amoveatur, et vita seterna donetur, habe
tur Heb. ix. 12, ubi sup." — Q. 6.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 429

them : for the apostle expressly affirms that he could not be a priest
that had right to offer those sacrifices (as before) ; and he positively
refuses the owning himself for such a priest, when, having cured the
leprous man, he bade him go show himself to the priest, according to
the law.

3. What Christ did offer indeed, as his sacrifice, is nextly to be
mentioned. This the apostle expresseth in that which is asserted in
opposition to the sacrifices rejected: Heb. x. 5, "But a body hast
thou prepared me."

The words in the psalm are in the sound of them otherwise: Ps.
xl. 6, 7 n^3 ^^—"Mine ears hast thou digged" which the LXX.
render, and the apostle from them, 2&i^a xarjjpr/Vw ,ao/, — " A body
hast thou prepared me." Of the accommodation of the interpreta
tion to the original there is much contention. Some think here is
an allusion to the custom among the Jews of boring the ear of him
who was, upon his own consent, to be a servant for ever. Now, be
cause Christ took a body to be obedient and a servant to his Father,
this is expressed by the boring of the ear; which therefore the LXX.
render 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, ""HS signifies not only, in its. first sense, to " dig." but also
to "prepare;" and is so rendered by the LXX. Now, whereas the
original expresseth only the ears, which are the organ by which
we hear and become obedient (whence to hear is sometimes as much
as to be obedient), it mentions the ears synecdochically for the whole
body, which God so prepared for obedience to himself; and that
which the original expressed synecdochically, the LXX., and after
them the apostle, rendered more plainly and fully, naming the
whole body wherein he obeyed, when the ears were only expressed,
whereby he learned obedience.

The interpretation of this place by the Socinians is as ridiculous
as any they make use of. Take it in the words of Volkelius: —

Add hereto that the mortal body of Christ, which he had before his death,
yea, before his ascension into heaven, was not fit for his undergoing this office of
priesthood or wholly to accomplish the sacrifice; wherefore the divine writer to
the Hebrews, chap. x. 5, declareth that then he had a perfect body, accommo
dated unto this work, when he went into the world that is to come, which is
heaven.1

1 " Adde quod corpus mortale, quo Christus ante mortem, imo ante suum in coelum
ascensum prseditus erat, ad hoc sacerdotium obeundum et sacrificium penitus absol-
vendum aptum non fuit ; ideoque tune demum corpus, huic rei accommodatum per-
fectum ei fuisse, divinus author indicat, Heb. x. 5, cum in mundum, nempe futurum
ilium, qui coelum est, ingrederetur." — VolkeL de Vera Relig. lib. iii. cap. xxxvii. de
sac. Christi, p. 146.

430 VINDICLffl EVANGELICAL

A heap of foolish imaginations ! First, The truth is, no body but a
mortal 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. Secondly, It is false that Christ had a mortal
body after his resurrection, or that he hath any other body now in
heaven than what he rose withal. Thirdly, It is false that "the world,"
spoken of simply, doth anywhere signify the world to come, or that
"the world" here signifies heaven. Fourthly, It is false that the
coming into the world signifies going out of the world, as it is here
interpreted. Fifthly, Christ's bringing into the world was by his in
carnation and birth, Heb. i. 6, according to the constant use of that
expression in the Scripture ; as his ascension is his leaving the world
and going to his Father, John xiii. 1, xiv. 12, XVL 28.

But I must not insist on this. It is the body that God prepared
Christ for his obedience, — that is, his whole human nature, — that is
asserted for the matter of Christ's offering ; for the clearing whereof
the reader may observe that the matter of the offering and sacrifice
of Christ is expressed three ways: —

(1.) It is said to be of the body and blood of Christ, Heb. x. 10.
The offering of the body of Jesus and the blood of Christ is said to
purge us .from our sins, that is, by the sacrifice of it, and in his
blood have we redemption, Eph. L 7, 1 John i. 7; and by his own
blood did he enter into the holy place, Heb. ix. 12, and most ex
pressly chap. xiii. 12.

(2.) His soul: Isa. liii. 10, "When thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin."

(3.) It is most frequently said to be himself that was offered, Eph.
v. 2, Heb. i. 3, ix. 14, 25, 26, vii. 27. Hence it appears what was
the matter of the sacrifice of this high priest, even himself: he
sacrificed himself, — his whole human nature; he offered up his body
and soul as a propitiatory sacrifice to God, a sacrifice for atonement
and expiation.

Farther to clear this, I must desire the reader to take notice of
the import of this expression, "He sacrificed himself," or Christ
sacrificed himself. " He," in the first place, as it is spoken of the
sacrificer, denotes the person of Christ, and both natures therein;
"himself," as the sacrificed, is only the human nature of Christ,
wherein and whereof that sacrifice was made. He makes the atone
ment actively, as the priest; himself passively, as the sacrifice: —

[1.] "He" is the person of Christ, God and man jointly and dis
tinctly acting in the work : —

1st. As God: Heb. ix. 14, "Through the eternal Spirit he offered
himself to God." His eternal Spirit or Deity was the principal
agent, offering; and wherever there is mention of Christ's offering
himself, it relates principally to the person, God-man, who offered.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 431

Zdly. The/ree will of his human nature was in it also; so Heb.
x. 7, " Lo, I come to do thy will." When God had prepared him a
body, opened his ears, he says, " Lo, I come to do thy will," as it
was written of him in the volume of God's book. And that this ex
pression, " Lo, I come to do thy will," sets out the readiness of the
human will of Christ, is evident from that exposition which is given
of it, Ps. xl. 8, " Yea, thy law is within my heart," or " in the midst
of my bowels;" — "Thy law, the law of the mediator, that I am to
undertake, it is in the midst of my heart;" which is an expression of
the greatest readiness and willingness possible.

He, then, that offers is our mediator, God and man in one person ;
and the offering is the act of the person.

[2.] " Himself," offered as the matter of the sacrifice, is only the
human nature of Christ, soul 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
ministry of a priest, appointed of God thereunto, is dedicated to
God, and destroyed as to what it was, for the ends and purposes of
spiritual worship whereunto it is instituted. I shall only take notice
of that one part of this definition, which asserts that the thing sacri
ficed was to be destroyed as to what it was. This is clear from all
the sacrifices that ever were; either they were slain, or burned, or sent
to destruction. Now, the person of Christ was not dissolved, but
the union of his natures continued, even then when the human na
ture was in itself destroyed by the separation of soul and body. It
was the soul and body of Christ that was sacrificed, his body being
killed and his soul 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 typified by the two goats: his body,
whose blood was shed, by the goat that was slain visibly ; and his
soul by azazel, on whose head the sins of the people were confessed,
and he sent away into the wilderness, to suffer there by a fall or
famishment.

This also will farther appear in our following consideration of the
death of Christ as a punishment, when I shall show that he suffered
both in soul and body.

But it may be said, " If only the human nature of Christ was
offered, how could it be a sacrifice of such infinite value as to [sa
tisfy] the justice of God for all the sins of all the elect, whereunto
it was appointed?"

Ans. Though the thing sacrificed was but finite, yet the person
sacrificing was infinite, and the affOTsXsffpa of the action follows the
agent, that is, our mediator, QfavSpuxos, — whence the sacrifice was of
infinite value.

432 VINDICI.E EVANGELKLE.

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 sac
rifice into the satisfaction he hath made shall be declared afterward.

From what hath been spoken, a brief description of the sacrifice of
Christ, as to all the concernments of it, may be taken : —

1. The person designing, appointing, and instituting this sacrifice,
is God the Father, as in grace contriving the great work of the sal
vation of the elect. "A body did he prepare him';" and therein "he
came to do his will," Heb. x. 5, 7, in that which he did, which the
sacrifices of old could not do. He came to fulfil the will of God, his
appointment and ordinance, being his servant therein, made ^pa^v n,
less than the Father, that he might be obedient to death. God the
Father sent him when he made his soul an offering.

2. He to whom it was offered was God, God essentially considered,
with his glorious property of justice, which was to be atoned : " He
gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling
savour," Eph. v. 2 ; that is, to atone him, being provoked, as we
shall see afterward.

3. The person offering was Christ, the mediator, God and man:
"He offered himself to God," Heb. ix. 14. And because he did it
who was God and man, and as God and man, God is said to " re
deem his church with his own blood/' Acts xx. 28.

4. The matter of the sacrifice was his whole human nature, body
and soul, called " himself," as I have showed in sundry particulars.

5. The immediate efficient cause of his offering, and the destruc
tion of that which he offered unto God, as before described, was his
own will: " Lo, I come," saith he, " to do thy will," Heb. x. 7; and,
" No man," saith he, " taketh my life from me, but I lay it down
of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again," John x. 18. What men and devils did to him, or what he
suffered from the curse of the law, comes under another considera
tion, — 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. ix. 14, "Through the Eternal Spirit." That the fire
which came down from heaven and was always kept alive upon the
altar was a type of the Holy Ghost might easily be demonstrated.
I have done it elsewhere. Now, the Holy Spirit did this in Christ;
he was offered through the Eternal Spirit, as others were by fire.

7. The Scripture speaks nothing of the altar on which Christ was
offered ; some assign the cross. That of our Saviour is abundantly
sufficient to evince the folly thereof, Matt, xxiii. 18, 19. If the cross
was the altar, it was greater than Christ, and sanctified him ; which
is blasphemy. Besides, Christ himself is said to be an altar, Heb.
xiii. 10; and he is said to sanctify himself to be an offering or a

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 433

sacrifice, John xvii. 19. So that, indeed, the deity of Christ, that
supported, bore up, and sanctified the human nature as offered, was
the altar, and the cross 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 typical sacrifices of old, and that the end
and effect of it was atonement or reconciliation, shall elsewhere be
more fully manifested; the discovery of it, also, will in part be made
by what in the ensuing discourse shall be spoken about reconcilia
tion itself.

CHAPTER 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 sacrifice. What
are the proper effects of it under these considerations shall be after
ward declared.

III. The third consideration of it is its being a PENALTY or a pun
ishment. To clear this I shall demonstrate four things: — 1. What
punishment, properly so called, is; 2. That Christ's death was a
punishment, or that in his death he did undergo punishment; 3.
What that was that Christ underwent, or the material cause of that
punishment; 4. Wherein the formality of its being a punishment
did consist, or whence that dispensation had its equity.

For the FIRST, I shall give, 1. The definition of it, or the descrip
tion of its general nature ; 2. The ends of it are to be considered.

1. For the first, that usual general description seemeth to be com
prehensive of the whole nature of punishment ; it is " malum pas-
sionis quod infligitur ob malum actionis," — an evil of suffering in
flicted for doing evil. Or, more largely to describe it, it is an effect
of justice in him who hath sovereign power and right to order and
dispose of offenders, whereby he that doth contrary to the rule of
his actions is recompensed with that which is evil to himself, accord
ing to the demerit of his fault.1

(1.) It is an effect of justice.8 Hence God's punishing is often
called an inflicting of anger ; as Rom. iii. 5, " Is God unrighteous,
o eiri<pspuv ryv opyyv, who inflicteth anger?" Anger is put for the jus
tice of God, Rom. i. 18, "The anger (or wrath) of God is revealed

1 " Si non reddit faciendo quod debet reddet patiendo quod debet." — Aug. lib. iii.
de Lib. Arbit.

4 Vid. Diat. de Just. Vindic., translated, vol. x. A/*»J riftwptits awtirnfi; tupa, rut

VOL. XII. 28

434 VISDICLE EVANGELIC^.

from heaven," etc.; that is, his vindictive justice against sin is ma
nifested by its effects. And again, the cause [is put] for the effect,
— anger for the effect of it in punishment; and therefore we have
translated the word " vengeance," Rom. iii. 5, which denotes the
punishment itself.

(2.) It is of him who hath sovereign power and judiciary right to
dispose of the offenders: and this is either immediate in God him
self, as in the case whereof we speak, — he is the " only lawgiver,
who is able to save and to destroy," James iv. 12, — or it is by him de
legated to men for the use of human society ; so Christ tells Pilate,
he could have no power over him (whom he considered as a male
factor) unless it were given him from above, John xix. 11, though
that is spoken in reference to that peculiar dispensation.

(3.) The nature of it consists in this, that it be evil to him on
whom it is inflicted, either by the immission of that which is cor
rupting, vexing, and destroying, or the subtraction of that which is
cheering, useful, good, and desirable, in what kind soever; and
therefore did the ancients call the 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 his
torian : " Cffiterse multitudini diem statuit, ante quam liceret sine
fraude ab armis disced ere;" that is, that they might go away freely
without punishment.1 And so is that expression explained by Ulpian,
Dig. lib. xx. : " Capitalem fraudem admittere est tale aliquid delin-
quere, propter quod capite puniendus sit."

The schoolmen have two rules that pass amongst them without
control : — First, 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
sin. The other is, " Est ex natura pcena3 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 undoubtedly false.

For the former, every sin is thus far, indeed, voluntary, that what
is done contrary to the express will of him that doth it is not his sin ;
but that the actual will or willing of the sinner is required to make
any thing his sin is false, — in the case of original sin manifestly.
Wherefore John gives us another definition of sin than theirs is, that
it is " dictum, factum, concupitum, contra legem," — namely, that it is
avoftia, " a transgression of the law." Have it the actual consent of
the will or no, if it be a transgression of the law, an inconformity to
the law, it is sin.

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 undergo it, and
1 Sallust. Bell. Catilin. cap. xxxvi. ,

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 435

there is an Improper nolleity (if I may so speak) in nature unto the
subtracting of any good from it, or the immission of any evil upon
it ; yet as to the perfection of the nature of punishment, there is no
more required than what was laid down in general before, that there
be " malum passionis ob malum actionis," — a suffering of evil for
doing of evil, whether men will or no : yea, men may be willing to
it, as the soldiers of Caesar, after their defeat at Dyrrachium, came
to him and desired that they might be punished "more antique,"
being ashamed of their flight.1 But whatever really or personally is
evil to a man for his evil, is punishment. Though chiefly among
the Latins "punishment" relates to things real, capital revenges had
another name. Punishments were chiefly pecuniary, as Servius on
that of Virgil, ^En. i. 140: "'Post mihi non simili poena commissa
luetis/ Luetis, persolvetis, et hie sermo a pecunia descendit, antiquo-
rum enim poenae omnes pecuniaria3 fuerunt." And " supplicium" is of
the same importance. Punishments were called " supplicia," be
cause with the mulcts of men they sacrificed and made their suppli
cations to God : whence the word is sometimes used for that worship,
as in Sallustius; describing the old Romans, he says they were "in
suppliciis deorum magnifici," Bell. Cat. cap. ix.

(4.) There is the procuring cause of it, which is doing evil, con
trary to the law and rule whereby the offender ought to walk and
regulate his actings and proceedings. "Omnis poena, si justa est, pec-
cati pcena est," says Augustine; indeed, not only "si justa est," but
" si poena est." Taking it properly, offence must precede punishment.
And whatever evil befalls any that is not procured by offence is
not properly punishment, but hath some other name and nature.
The name " pcena" is used for any thing that is vexatious or trouble
some, any toil or labour; as in the tragedian, speaking of one who
tired himself with travel in hunting, " Quid te ipse pcenis gravibus
infestus gravas:"2 but improperly is it thus used. This Abraham
evinceth in his plea with God, Gen. xviii. 25, " That be far 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 far from
thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" It is God
as the judge of all the earth of whom he speaks ; that is, of him that
hath the supreme 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 wickedness of men : " That be far from thee, to
slay the righteous with the wicked." And therefore that place of

1 " Quanta fortitudine dimicaverint, testimonio est, quod adverse semel apud Dyrra-
thium prselio, poenam in se ultro depoposcerunt." — Suetoa in Jul. Cses. cap. Ixviii.
" More patrio decimari voluerunt." — Appianus.

* Senec. Hippol. act. ii

436 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

Job, chap. ix. 22, " This is one thing, therefore I said it, He destroyeth
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 says, chap. viii. 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 Eliphaz' companion
seemed to deny ; yet, says he, he will not cast him away, — that is,
leave him without relief from that affliction, even in this life. To
this Job's 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 difference in the persons, one
being perfect, the other wicked, so there is in God's dealing with
them, one being afflicted to the door of heaven, the other cursed into
hell. But for punishment, properly so called, the cause is sin, or the
offence of the person punished ; and therefore in the Hebrew, the
same words (many of them) signify both sin and punishment, — so near
and indissoluble is their relation ! Tlpoafati bfaovdiv u$ xp'sa xXripovopia;
dtads^iffdai rris vovqpias rqv xoXafftv, Plut. de Sera Numin. Vindicta.

(5.) The measure of any penalty is the demerit of the offence ; it
is a rendering to men, as for their works, so according to them : —

" Nee vincet ratio hoc, tantnndem ut peccet idemque,
Qui teneros caules alien! fregerit horti
Et qui nocturnus Divftm sacra legerit. Adsit
Regula, peccatis quae poenas irroget sequas :
Ne scutica dignum horribili sectere flagello." l

I shall not trouble the reader with the heathens' apprehension of
Rhadamanthean righteousness, and the exact rendering to every one
according to his desert, even in another world.

There is a twofold rule of this proportion of sin and punishment,
the one constitutive, the other declarative. The rule constitutive of
the proportion of penalty for sin is the infinitely wise, holy, and
righteous will of God ; the rule declarative of it is the law.

For the first, it is his judgment " that they which commit sin are
worthy of death," Rom. i. 32. This the apostle fully declares, chap,
ii. 5—1 1. The day of punishing he calls " The day of the revelation of
the righteous judgment of God ;" that is, what his judgment is con
cerning the demerit of sin. The world shall then know what in
justice he requires for the due vengeance of it, and this according to
his will. Verse 6, he will, in his righteous judgment, render to every
one according to his deeds.

And here it is to be observed, that though there be an exceeding

great variation in sin in respect of degrees, so that some seem as

» Hor. Sat. lib. i. 3, 115-119. Vid. Catonis Orat. apud Sallust. Bell. Catilin. cap. Hi. .

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 437

mountains, others in comparison of them but as mole-hills, yet it is
the general nature of sin (which is the creature's subducting itself
from under the dominion of God and dependence upon him) that
punishment originally is suited unto; whence death is appointed to
every sin, and that eternal, wherein the degrees of punishment vary,
not the kind.

2. For the several kinds of punishment (I call them so in a ge
neral acceptation of both words), they are distinguished according to
their ends and causes.1 The ends of punishments, or of all such things
as have in them the nature of punishments, nlay 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 recovery from the evil and sin that he
hath committed. This kind of punishing is frequently mentioned in
Scripture : so eminently, Lev. xxvi., doth the Lord describe it at large,
and insist upon it, reckoning up in a long series a catalogue of several
judgments, he interposing, "But if ye will not be reformed by me by
these things, but will walk contrary to me" (as verse 23), " then will
I do so and so," or add this or that punishment to them foregoing;
and this in reference to the former end, of their reformation. And
the success of this procedure we find variously expressed. Sometimes
the end of it in some measure was fulfilled, Ps. Ixxviii. 32-35 ; some
times otherwise, Isa. i. 5, " Why should ye be smitten any more?
ye will revolt more and more," intimating that the end of the for
mer smiting was to cure their revoltings. And this kind of punish
ment is called vovdiffla,,* correction for instruction, and is not punish
ment in its strict and proper sense.

[2]. For the taking off of sinners, to prevent such other wicked
nesses as they would commit, should patience be exercised towards
them. The very heathen saw that he that was wicked and not to
be reclaimed, it was even good for him and to him that he should be
destroyed. Such an one, as Plutarch says, was sTtpoig ye vat/rug j3Xa-
&pbv avTp n pXaZepurarov, — " hurtful to others, but most of all to
himself." How much more is this evident to us, who know that
future judgments shall be proportion ably increased to the wickedness
of men in this world ! And if every drop of judgment in the world to
come be incomparably greater than the greatest and heaviest a man
can possibly suffer in this life or lose his life by, it is most evident

- ' " Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est quae vov
tiff'ia. vel xfaaffi; vel vapamffi; dicitur ; cum pcena adhibetur castigandi atque emett
dandi gratia, ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est, quaiL.
ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, npupiav appellant, ea causa animadvertendi
est, quum dignitas authoritasque ejus, in quern est peccatum tuenda est, ne praster-
missa animadversio contemptum ejus pariat, et honorem elevet," etc. — Vid. A. GelL
lib. vi. cap. xxiv.

2 Kai -yap i\ tauhfia KOI o ^oyo; tftfotu pircivoictv *«/ «/<r£t/v»jit. — Plut. de Virtut.

438 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

that a man may be punished with death for his own good, " mitius
punientur." This is xoXaffia. And this hath no place in human ad
ministrations of punishments when they arise to death itself. Men
cannot kill a man to prevent their dealing worse with him, for that
is their worst; they can do no more, says our Saviour: but acciden
tally it may be for his good. Generally, xo'Xa<r/s or xoXaff/a is, as
Aristotle speaks, vdff^ovTos evexa, and is thereby differenced from
ripupia (of which afterward), which, as he says, is roD <zovo\Jvro<; entxa
ha a'jro<7rXrlpud)).1 Hence axoXaffros is one not corrected, not restrained,
" incastigatus." And therefore the punishment of death cannot at
all properly be xoXutig : but cutting off by God to prevent farther
sin hath in it r/ avAXoyov thereunto.

(2.) The second end of punishment, which gives a second kind of
them, in the general sense before mentioned, is for the good of others,
and this also is various: —

[1.] It is for the good of them that may be like-minded with him
that is punished, that they may be deterred, affrighted, and persuaded
from the like evils. This was the end of the punishing of the pre
sumptuous sinner, Deut. xvii. 12, 13, "That man shall die; and all
the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously."
" The people;" that is, any among them that were like-minded unto
him that was stoned and 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
sometimes put absolutely for punishment, because punishment is for
that end. So in the comedian, "Quse futura exempla dicunt in eum
indigna;"8 on which place Donatus, "Graves pcense, quse possunt
casteris documento esse, exempla dicuntur." And this is a tacit end
in human punishment. I do not know that God hath committed
any pure revenge unto men, — that is, punishing with a mere respect
to what is past; nor should one man destroy another but for the
good of others. Now, the good of no man lies in revenge. The con
tent that men take therein is their sin, and cannot be absolutely
good to them. So the philosopher, " Nemo prudens punit quia pec-
catum est, sed ne peccetur ; revocari enim prseterita non possunt, fu
tura prohibeantur;"3 and Rom. xiii. 4, " If thou do that which is evil,
be afraid," etc.; — "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
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 of human
society, " Let him that hath killed by violence be killed, that the
rest of men may live in peace."4

And these kinds of punishments, in reference to this end, are called

1 Arist. Rhet. i. • Terent. Eunuch, act. v. sc. 5, 1. 4. 8 Sen.

* "Naturale jus talionis hie indicatur." — Grot, in Gen. ix. 6.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 439

" examples/'1 that others by impunity be not enticed
to evil, and that the residue of men may be freed from the harm
that is brcmght upon them by reason of such evils.

Hence the historian says, that commonwealths should rather be
mindful of things done evilly than of good turns. The forgetfulness
of the latter is a discouragement to some good, but of the former an
encouragement to all licentiousnesa Thus Joseph suspecting his
espoused consort, yet refused irapadiiypariffai, to make an open ex
ample of her by punishment, Matt. i. 19. And these punishments
are thus called from their use, and not from their own nature ; and
therefore differ not from xoXaov'a/ and ri/tupiai, but only as to the end
and use, from whence they have their denomination.9

[3.] The good of him that punisheth is aimed at; and this is
proper to God. Man punisheth not, nor can, nor ought, for his own
good, or the satisfaction of his own justice; but " the LORD made all
things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil," Prov.
xvi. 4, Rom. ix. 22 : and in God's dealing with men, whatever he
doth, unless it be for this end, it is not properly punishment.

This is ripupia, " vindicta noxae," purely the recompensing of the
evil that is committed, that it may be revenged. This, I say, in
God's dealing is properly punishment, the revenge of the evil done,
that himself or his justice may be satisfied; as was seen before from
Rom. ii. 5-11. Whatever of evil God doth to any, — which is there
fore called " punishment," because it partaketh of the general nature
of punishment, and is evil to him that is punished, — yet if the intend-
ment of God be not to revenge the evil past upon him in a propor
tion of law, it is not punishment properly so called ; and therefore
it will not suffice, to prove that believers are or may be punished for
sin, to heap up texts of Scripture where they are said to be punished,
and that in reference to their sin, unless it can be also proved that
God doth it " animo ulciscendi," and that their punishment is " vin
dicta noxse," and that it is done rou irovowrog SVSKO, Jva avovXripudii : but
of this I am not now to treat.

The reader may hence see what punishment is in general, what
are the ends of it, and its kinds from thence, and what is punish
ment from God, properly so called. It is " vindicta noxse, animo
ulciscendi, ut ipsi satisfiat:" and this kind of punishment was the
death of Christ ; which is to be proved.

SECONDLY, That the death of Christ was a punishment properly so
called (which is the third consideration of it, as I said), is next to be
proved. Of all the places of Scripture and testimonies whereby this
may be demonstrated, I shall fix only on one portion of Scripture, and

1 Inde VapaSii'yft.a'rixot fvi.\oy iff fief , et -jntfaStiyftarixev tv^vftniftet,

* KaXayarj Ss a£/a>; Touravs rl, xa< rdif aAAs/; ffu[tfA<i%cis •rafitSti'yfta fftttfif K&ret-

rrrxrttn. — Thucyd. lib. iii. 40.

-HO VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

that is Isa. liii. What in particular shall be produced from thence will
appear when I have given some general considerations of the chap
ter; which I shall do at large, as looking on that portion of Scrip
ture as the sum of what is spoken in the Old Testament concerning
the satisfactory death of Jesus Christ.

1. This whole prophecy, from verse 13 of chap, lii., which is the
head of the present discourse, is evinced to belong to the Messiah,
against the Jews: —

(1.) Because the Chaldee paraphrast, one of their most ancient
masters, expressly names the Messiah, and interprets that whole
chapter of him: "Behold," saith he, "my servant, the Messiah,
shall deal prudently." And the ancient rabbins, as is abundantly
proved by others, were of the same mind : which miserably entangles
their present obdurate masters, who would fix the prophecy upon any
rather than on the Messiah, seeing evidently that if it be proved
to belong to the Messiah in ihesi, it can be applied to none other in
hypothesi but Jesus of Nazareth.

(2.) Because they are not able to find out or fix on any one whatever
to whom the things here spoken of may be accommodated. They
speak, indeed, of Jeremiah, Josiah, a righteous man in general, the
whole people of Israel, of Messiah Ben Joseph, a man of straw of their
own setting up : but it is easy to manifest, were that our present
work, that scarce any one expression in this prophecy, much less all,
doth or can agree to any one or all of them named ; so that it must
be brought home to its proper subject. Of this at large in the ensuing
digression against Grotius.

2. That to us it is evident above all contradiction that the whole
belongs to Jesus Christ; because not only particular testimonies are
taken from hence in the New Testament, and applied to him, as Matt,
viii. 17, Mark xv. 28, Luke xxii. 37, Rom. x. 16, but it is also ex
pounded of him in general for the conversion of souls, Acts viii.
26-40. The story is known of Philip and the eunuch.

3. This is such a prophecy of Christ as belongs to him not only
properly but immediately; that is, it doth not in the first place
point out any type of Christ, and by him shadow out Christ, as it is
in sundry psalms, where David and Solomon are firstly spoken of,
though the' Messiah be principally intended: but here is no such
thing. Christ himself is immediately spoken of. Socinus says, in
deed, 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 accommodation 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 reason, which is evidently decried from the,

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 441

former arguments, whereby the impudence of the Jews is con
founded, 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 several expressions and matters expressed in this
prophecy may be accommodated.

Now, there are three general parts of this prophecy, to consider it
with reference to the business in hand, as the seat of this truth in
the Old Testament: —

1. A description given of Christ in a mean, low, miserable con
dition, from verse 14 of chap. lii. to verse 4 of chap, liii.: "His visage
was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons
of men/' chap. lii. 14; "he hath no form nor comeliness, no beauty,"
chap, liil 2; "he is despised and rejected, a man of sorrows, and
acquainted with grief/' verse 3 ; looked on as " stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted," verse 4.

2. The reason is given of this representation of the Messiah, of
whom it is said in the entrance of the prophecy that he should " deal
prudently, and be exalted and extolled, and be very high ;" to which
this description of him seems most adverse and contrary. The
reason, I say, hereof is given from verses 5 to 10; it was on the ac
count of his being punished and broken for us and our sins.

3. The issue of all this, from verse 10 to the end, in the justifica
tion 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 done
to great advantage, and ought to be done, did I purpose the thorough
and full handling of the business before me (but I am " in transitu,"
and pressing to somewhat farther), I shall only urge two things : —
First, The expressions throughout that describe the state and con
dition of Christ as here proposed. Secondly, One or two singular
assertions, comprehensive of much of the rest.

For the first, let the reader consider what is contained in the
several words here setting forth the condition of Christ. We have
" despising and rejecting, sorrow and grief," verse 3. He was
"stricken, smitten, afflicted," or there was striking, smiting, afflic
tion on him, verse 4; "wounded, bruised, chastised with stripes," —
wounding, bruising, chastising unto soreness, verse 5 ; " oppressed,
stricken, cut off, killed, brought to slaughter," verses 7-9 ; " bruised,
sacrificed, and his soul made an offering for sin," verse 10.

Now, certainly, for the material part, or the matter of punishment,
here it is abundantly: here is "malum passionis" in every kind, —
immission of evil, subtraction of good in soul and body; here is
plentiful measure, heaped up, shaken together, and running over.

442 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

But it may be said, though here be the matter of punishment,
yet it may be all this was for some other end ; and so it may be it
was1 voudtffla, or doxi/tasta, or ircubtia, not ripupta,, or punishment pro
perly so called.

Consider, then, the ends of punishment before insisted on, and see
•what of them is applicable to the transaction between God and
Christ here mentioned.

1. Was it for his own correction? No; says the prophet, verse
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 chastise
ment for his amendment. And so signally in sundry places, where
mention is made of the death of Christ, his own spotless innocency
is often pleaded.

2. 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 pro
phecy, chap. Hi. 13, he says he shall "deal prudently, and be exalted."
He was faithful before in all things. And though he experimentally
learned obedience by his sufferings, yet habitually to the utmost his
ears were bored, and himself prepared to the will of God, before the
afflictions here principally intended. Neither, —

3. Was he vapadeiypa, punished for example, to be made an ex
ample to others that they might not offend ; for what can offenders
learn from the punishment of one who never offended? " He was
cut off, but not for himself/' Dan. ix. 26. And the end assigned,
verse 11, 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 bear their iniquities." He set us an example in his obe
dience, but he was not punished for an example. Neither, —

4. Was it paprvpia, a suffering to bear witness and testimony to
the truth. There is no mention of any such end in this place;
yea, to make that the main 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 sins, for our iniquities, for
our peace." God wounded, bruised, killed him, for our iniquities;
that is, he died to bear witness to his doctrine ! " Credat Apella."

Then, the matter of punishment being expressed, see the cause of
the infliction of it. It was for " transgressions," for " iniquities,"
verse 5 ; for wandering and " iniquity," verse 6 ; for " transgression,"
verse 8; for "sin," verse 12. Let us now remember the general
description of punishment that was given at the beginning, — it is
" malum passionis quod infligitur ob malum actionis," — and see how
directly it suits with this punishment of Jesus Christ : first, Here is
" malum passionis" inflicted, wounding, bruising, killing ; and, se
condly, There is "malum actionis" deserving, sin, iniquity, and
transgression. How these met on an innocent person shall be after-

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 443

ward declared. Go we along to the peculiar description of punishment
properly so called, as managed by God, — it is "vindicta noxaa." Now,
if all other ends and causes whatever, as of chastisement for example,
etc., be removed, and this only be asserted, then this affliction of
Christ was " vindicta noxae," punishment in the most proper sense ;
but that these ends are so removed hath been declared upon the par
ticular consideration of them.

And this is the first argument from this place to prove that the
death of Christ and his suffering have the nature of punishment.

The second is from the more particular expressions of 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 verse 6, " The LORD
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;" of which sort also is that
of verse 10, " Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him ; he hath put
him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," etc.

2. On the part of him punished, verse 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.

CHAPTER XXIV.

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
nextly to be insisted on.

The first relates to him who did inflict the punishment; the
other to him that was punished. The first is in verse 6, " The LORD
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." The person punishing is
Jehovah, the person punished called " him," — that is, he who is
spoken of throughout the whole prophecy, the Messiah, Jesus Christ,
as above declared.

For the opening of the words, that the efficacy of them to our
purpose in hand may appear, two of them are especially to be con
sidered : — First, What is meant by that which is rendered " laid on
him ;" secondly, What is meant by " iniquity."

. The first by our translation is rendered in the margin, " made to
meet : " " He made to meet on him the iniquities of us all." The
Vulgar Latin, " Posuit Dominus in eo," — " The LORD put upon him,"
according to our translation in the text. Montanus, " Dominus
fecit occurrere in eum," — " God hath caused to meet on him," ac
cording to our translation in the margin. Junius to the same pur-

444 VINDICIJE EVANGELIC^.

pose, " Jehovah fecit ut incurrat," — " The LORD made them meet
and fall on him." The LXX. render it, Ka/ KJp/o; Kapiduxiv avrlv
ra,T( apapriais faun, — " The LORD delivered him to our sins," that is,
to be punished for them. By others the word is rendered " impegit,
traduxit, conjecit," — all to the same purpose, importing an act of
God in conveying our sins to Christ.

The word here used is JT?sn- its root is J^S, to which all the signi
fications mentioned are assigned, " occurrere, obviam ire, incurrere,
aggredi, rogare, precari."

1. The first general signification of it is "to meet," as the bounds
of a field, or country, or house, meet with one another: Joshua
xix. 34, fyy? y^b', so all along 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 " ob
viam ire," or " to meet," and that either for good or evil. For good
it is spoken of God, Isa. Ixiv. 5, " Thou meetest him," etc. ; and so for
evil, Amos v. 19, " As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met
him," tyyp, — that is, to tear him in pieces. Hence, because men
that met others went to them to desire some help of them, the word
also signifies "to ask, to pray, entreat, or intercede:" so the word is
used, Isa. lix. 16, " There was no entreater," JT'A?'?, — none to meet, to
come and ask ; and in this very chapter, verse 1 2, " He made inter
cession for the transgressors." 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 sense.

2. " To meet," or " to make to meet" properly, which is the first
and most clear sense of the word. It is often used for to meet "animo
hostili," to meet, to fall upon, for hurt. 1 Sam. xxii. 1 7, " The ser
vants of the king would not put forth their hand PD7} to meet," that
is, as we have translated it, to " fall upon the priests" and kill them.
So 2 Sam. i. 15, David bade his young man arise, WB, "fall upon"
the Amalekite, — that is, to kill him. Samson made the men of
Judah swear that they would not JW??1:1, " meet with him," or fall
on him, themselves, Judges xv. 12.

Nextly, it may be inquired in what sense the word is here used,
whether in the first spoken of, "to ask, entreat, intercede;" or in the
latter, " to meet," or " to meet with."

Grotius iuterpreteth it (to remove so much of his interpretation
by the way), " Permisit Deus, ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignis-
sima pateretur," that so he might suit what is spoken to Jeremiah,
without pretence or colour of proof. For the word, it is forty-six
times used in the Old Testament, and if in any one of them it may
be truly rendered " permisit," as it is done by him, or to that sense,
let it be here so applied also. And for that sense (which is-, that God
suffered the Jews by their wickedness to entreat him evilly), it is

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 445

most remote from the intendment of the words, and the Holy Ghost
in them.

First, then, that the words cannot be interpreted " to pray or in
tercede" is evident from the contexture, wherein it is said (in this
sense), " He prayed him for the iniquity of us all ;" that is, the LORD
prayed Christ for the iniquities of us all. This sense of the word
JT?sn} in this place, Socinus himself grants not to be proper nor con
sistent: "Porro significatio ilia, precari, in loco nostro locum habere
non potest; alioqui sequeretur Esaiam voluisse dicere, Deum fecisse,
ut omnium nostrum iniquitas per Christum, vel pro Christo precata
fuerit, quod louge absurdissimuin esse nemo non videt," Cap. xxi.
p. 132, Prselec. Socin.

It is, then, " to meet/' Now, the word here used being in hiphil,
which makes a double action of that expressed, by adding the cause
by whose power, virtue, and impress the thing is done, thence it is
here rendered " occurrere fecit," — " he made to meet." And so the
sense of it is, " God made our sins, as it were, to set upon or to fall
upon Jesus Christ ;" which is the most common use of the word, as
hath been showed.

It is objected tha't the word signifies to meet, yet no more but
this may be the meaning of them, " God in Christ met with all our
iniquities;" that is, for their pardoning, and removal, and taking
away.

Of the many things that may be given in for the eversion of this
gloss I shall name only two, whereof the first is to the word, the
latter to the matter. For the word, the conjugation, according to
the common rule, enforces the sense formerly mentioned : he made
to meet, and not he met. Secondly, The prophet in these words
renders a reason of the contemptible, 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 iniquities. Now, there is no reason why he should be
represented in so deplorable a state and condition if God only met
with and prevented our sin 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 sins to meet on him
by laying them on him ; and this sense Socinus himself consents unto,
Prselec. cap. xxi. p. 1 S3. But this also will farther appear in the
explication of the next word, and that is " our iniquity."

Secondly, " The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," |ty .
How the iniquity 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 sense, so that it is no new
or uncouth thing that here it should be so: Gen. iv. 13, ^J?, " Mine
iniquity is greater than I can bear;" it is the same word here used.

446 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

They are the words of Cain, upon the denunciation of God's judg
ment on him ; and what iniquity it is he gives you an account in the
next words, " Behold, thou hast driven me out,"" verse 14. That was
only the punishment laid on him. It is used in like manner several
times, Lev. xx. 17, 19; 1 Sam. xxviii. 10, Saul svvare to the witch
that no iniquity should befall her, — that is, no punishment for that
which she did at his command, in raising up a spirit to consult
withal, 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 in
many other expressions in the chapter : " The LORD hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all." How? In that "it pleased him to bruise
him, and put him to grief," verse 10; in that he " was wounded for
our transgressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities," verse 5 ; as
will be made more evident when I come to the next phrase, " He shall
bear their iniquities," which answers to this, " He laid them on him."

3. Because he did so lay our sin on Christ that " he made his soul
an offering for sin." When our iniquities were on him, "his soul" (that
is, he himself, by a usual synecdoche, the soul for the person) " was
made &&$, an offering for sin." The word here used is like "piaculum"
in Latin ; which signifies the fault, and him who is punished for it in
a way of a public sacrifice. So is this word taken both for a sin, a tres
pass, and a sacrifice for the expiation of it, as another word, namely,
N^n, is used also, Lev. iv. 3, "He shall offer it N*S$, for a sin,"—
that is, an offering for sin. So also Exod. xxix. 14, Lev. iv. 29. And
this very word is so used, Lev. vii. 2, " They shall kill &^N ;" that is,
the sin, or sin-offering, or " trespass-offering," as there it is rendered.
And other instances might be given. Now, God did so cause our
iniquities to meet on Christ that he then under them made him
self B^N, or "an offering for sin." Now, in the offering for sin the
penalty of the offence was, " suo more," laid on the beast that was
sacrificed or made an offering. Paul interpreteth these words by
other expressions: 2 Cor. v. 21, " He made him to be a sin for us;"
that is, an offering for sin, &^N. He made him sin when he made
him "a curse, the curse of the law," Gal. iii. 13; that is, gave him up
to the punishment by the law due to sin. Rom. viii. 3, " God send
ing his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin," x.a! vepl
apaprias, for sin, a sacrifice for sin, " condemned sin in the flesh."
Heb. x. 6, ' OXoxaurw/iara xal ftp! apaprias ovx tvftoxriaas, " In burnt-
offerings and for sin thou hast had no pleasure;" and again, "On Suffiav
xal vpofffopa* nctl oXoxavTUftara xal <ffipi a>j,apr!ae, verse 8.

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 clear this, I shall a little consider what act of God this
was whereby he laid our iniquities on Christ ; and these two things

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHEIST. 447

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 sacri
fice, of which I have spoken formerly, especially in that part which
concerns the goat, avo-ffo^oiTos, on which the lot fell to be sent
away. That that goat was a sacrifice is evident from Lev. xvi. 5, where
both the kids of the goats (afterward said to be two goats) are said to
be " a sin-offering." How this was dealt withal, see verse 21 : "Aaron
shall lay both his hands upon the live goat, and confess over him all
the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in
all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat." Now, in what
sense could the sins of the people be put upon the head of the goat?

(1.) This was not merely a representation, as it were a show or
pageant, to set forth the taking away of iniquity, but sins were really,
as to that typical institution, laid on the head of the goat; whence
he became a "piaculum," an avddipa, and he that touched him was
defiled : so verse 26, the man that carried out the goat was unclean
until he was legally purified ; and that because the sin of the people
was on the head of the goat which he so carried away.

(2.) The proper pravity, malice, and filth of sin could not be laid
on the goat. Neither the nature of the thing nor the subject will
bear it: for neither is sin, which is a privation, an irregularity, an
obliquity, such a thing as that it can be translated from one to
another, although it hath an infectious and a contagious quality to
diffuse itself, — that is, to beget something of the like nature in others;
nor was the goat a subject wherein any such pernicious or depraved
habit might reside, which belongs only to intelligent creatures, which
have a moral rule to walk by.

(3.) It must be the punishment of sin that is here intended, 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 of separation, a wilder
ness, there to perish, as all the Jewish doctors agree, — that is, to
undergo the punishment that was inflicted on it. That in such
- sacrifices for sin there was a real imputation of sin unto punishment
shall afterward be farther cleared.

Unto this transaction doth the prophet allude in this expression,
" He laid on," or " put on him." As the high priest confessed all
the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the people, and laid them
on the head of the scape-goat, which he bare, undergoing the utmost
punishment he was capable of, and that punishment which, in the
general kind and nature, is the punishment due to sin, — an evil and
violent death; so did God lay all the sins, all the punishment due to
them, really upon one that was fit, able, and appointed to bear it,
which he suffered under to the utmost that the justice of God re
quired on that account. He then took a view of all our sins and

448 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

iniquities. He knew what was past and what was to come, knowing
all our thoughts afar off. Not the least error of our minds, darknes3
of our understandings, perverseness of our wills, carnality of our
affections, sin of our nature or lives, escaped him. All were yu/*va
xai rtrpa^ri'kiff^sva before him. This is set out by the variety of ex
pressions used in this matter in the type : "-All the iniquities, all the
transgressions, and all the sins." And so by every word whereby we
express sin in this 53d of Isaiah, — " going astray, turning aside, ini
quity, transgression, sin/' and the like. God, I say, made them all
to meet on Christ, in the punishment due to them.

2. What is the act of God whereby he casts our sins on Christ.

I have elsewhere considered how God in this business is to be
looked on.1 I said now in the entrance of this discourse, that punish
ment 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 concern
ments of the offence [offender] and sinners, as the governor of him
and them all. This is in God. He is by nature the king and
governor of all the world, our lawgiver, James iv. 12. Having
made rational creatures and required obedience at their hands, it is
essentially belonging to him to be their governor,3 and not only to
have the sovereign disposal of them, as he hath the supreme domi
nion over them, with the legal dispose of them, in answer to the
moral subjection to him and the obedience he requires of them.

(2.) That as he be a king, and have supreme government, so he
be & judge to put in execution his justice. Thus, "God is judge him
self," Ps. ]. 6 ; he is " the judge of all the earth," Gen. xviii. 25 ; Ps.
xciv. 2; Ps. Ixxv. 7; Isa. xxxiii. 22, as in innumerable other places.
Now, as God is thus the great governor and judge, he pursues the
constitutive principle of punishment, his own righteous and holy
will, proportioning penalties to the demerit of sin.

Thus, in the laying our sins on Christ, there was a twofold act of
God, — one as a governor, the other as a judge properly: —

[1.] The first is " innovatio obligations," the " innovation of the
obligation," wherein we were detained and bound over to punishment j
whereas in the tenor of the law, as to its obligation unto punish
ment, there was none originally but the name of the offender, — "In
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," and "Cursed is
every one that continueth not," and " The soul that sinneth it shall
die," — God now puts in the name of the surety, of Jesus Christ, that
he might become responsible for our sins, and undergo the punish
ment that we were obliged to. Christ was Wi vo>ov yevopivov, he
was made under the law; that is, he was put into subjection to the

i Vide of the Death of Christ, the Price he Paid, and the Purchase he Made, voL x.
1 Vid. Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. translated, vol. x

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 449

obligation of it unto punishment. God put his name into the obli
gation, and so the law came to have its advantage against him, who
otherwise was most free from the charge of it. Then was Christ
" made sin," when, by being put into the obligation of the law, he be
came liable to the punishment of it. He was the " mediator of the
new covenant," Heb. xii. 24, the " mediator between God and men,"
1 Tim. ii. 5 ; so a mediator as to " give himself a ransom" for them
for whom he was a mediator, verse 6. And the "surety of the cove
nant" is he also, Heb. vii. 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 pcenae." Christ
being now made obnoxious, and that by his own consent, 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 in his mouth."
Well, then, it will be well with him; surely it shall be well with
the innocent; no evil shall befall him. Nay but saith he, verse 10,
" Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief."
Yea, but what was the reason of this? why was this the will of
God ? why did this seem good to the just "Judge of all the earth ?"
The reason is in the very next words, " His soul was made an offer
ing for sin;" which before is expressed, " He bare our griefs, he was
wounded for our transgressions." Being made liable to them, he was
punished for them.

By that which is said, it is evident from this first expression, 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 bring
ing in him (on his own voluntary offer) into the obligation to punish
ment, and inflicting punishment on him accordingly.

The second expression, whereby the same thing is farther evinced,
is on the part of him that was punished, and this [occurs] in verse 4,
" Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ;" or, which
is more evident, verse 11, " He shall bear their iniquities."

For the right understanding of the words, I shall give a few brief
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 counsel and appointment
of God. The apostles confess the death of Christ to have proceeded
thence, Acts iv. 28, ii. 23. Now, as laying of our sins on Christ,
being designed our mediator, and undertaking the work, was an act
of God as the governor of all and the righteous judge, so this of the
determinate counsel and fore-appointment, or the eternal designation,
of Christ to his office, is an act of sovereign power and dominion in
God, whereby he doth as he pleaseth, according to the counsel of
his will. As he would make the world in his sovereign good plea-

VOL. xii. 29

450 VINDICLE EVANGELIC2E.

sure when he might have otherwise done, Rev. iv. 11, so he would
determine that Christ should bear our iniquities when he might
otherwise have disposed of them, Rom. xi. 33-37.

2. In respect of us, this pre-appointment of God was an act of
grace, — that is, a sovereign act of his good pleasure, — whence all
good things, all fruits of love whatever, to us do flow. Therefore it
is called love, John iiL 16; and so in the fruit of it is it expressed,
Rom. viii. 32 ; and on this John often insists in his Gospel and First
Epistle, 1 John iv. 9-11. His aim on his own part was the decla
ration of his righteousness, Rom. iii. 25, and to make way for the
" praise of his glorious grace," Eph. i. 6 ; on our part, that we might
have all those good things which axe the fruits of the most intense
love.

3. That Christ himself was willing to undergo this burden and
undertake this work. And this, as it is consistent with his death
being a punishment, so it is of necessity to make good the other con
siderations of it, namely, that it should be a price and a sacrifice ;
for no man gives a price, and therein parts with that which is pre
cious to him, unwillingly, nor is a sacrifice acceptable that comes not
from a free and willing mind. That he was thus willing himself
professeth, both in the undertaking and carrying of it on. In the un
dertaking : Heb. x, 7, " 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 pro
posed to him. So the church of old looked on him as one that came
freely and cheerfully: Cant. ii. 8, 9, " The voice of my beloved ! be
hold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.
My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: he standeth behind our
wall, he looketh forth at the windows, showing himself through the
lattice." The church looked on Christ as yet at a distance from the
actual performance of the work he had undertaken, and so herself
kept off from that clear and close communion which she longed after ;
and hence she says of him that he " stood behind the wall," that
he " looked forth at the windows," and " showed himself through the
lattice." There was a wall yet hindering the actual exhibition of
Christ; the " fulness of time" was not come; the purpose of God was
not yet to bring forth : but yet, in the meantime, Christ looked on
the church through the window of the promise and the lattice of the
Levitical 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 cere
monial types? They see him " coming leaping upon the mountains
and skipping upon the hills," — coming speedily, with a great deal of
joy and willingness.

So of himself he declares what his mind was from old, from ever
lasting: Prov. viii. 30, 31, " Rejoicing always before him,"— that is,

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 451

before God his Father. But in what did he rejoice? " In the habi
table part of his earth ; and his delights were with the sons of men."
When this joy of his was he tells you, verses 22-30. He rejoiced
before God his Father in the sons of men before they were created ;
that is, in the work he had to do for them.

His will was also in the carrying of it on unto accomplishment; he
must be doing his Father's business, his will who sent him : Luke
xii. 50, Hug eu/exopai I He was pained as a woman in travail to
be delivered, to come to be baptized in his own blood. And when
he was giving himself up to the utmost of it, he professes his readi
ness to it, John xviii. 11; when Peter, who once before would have
advised him to spare himself, now, seeing his counsel was not followed,
would have rescued him with his sword. As for his advice he was
called Satan, so for his proffered assistance he is now rebuked ; and
the reason of it is given, " Shall I not drink of the cup?" It is true,
that it might appear 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 evil to the suffering nature and a subtraction
of that which was good, he discovered that averseness to the drink
ing of the cup which the truth of the human nature absolutely re
quired (and which the amazing bitterness of the cup overpowered him
withal) ; yet still his will conquered and prevailed in all, Matt. xxvi.
53, 54.

4. Christ's love was also in it; "his delights were with the sons of
men/' his love towards them carried him out to the work. And Paul
proves it by the instance of himself, Gal. ii. 20, " Who loved me;"
and John applies the same to all believers, Rev. i. 5, 6, " Unto him
that loved us," etc. And thus was this great work undertaken.

These things being premised, let us look again to the words under
consideration: —

1. For the word he bare our griefs, verse 4, it is ^^, a word of as
large and as many various acceptations as any. if not absolutely the
most extensive in the whole Hebrew tongue. It hath usually as
signed unto it by the lexicographer eight or nine several significa
tions; and to make it evident that it is of various acceptations, it is
used (in the collections of Calasius) eight hundred and eighteen times
in the Old Testament, whereof not a third part is answered in any
language by one and the same word. With those senses of it that
are metaphorical we have not any thing to do. That which is the
first or most proper sense of it, and what is most frequently used, is
to " carry" or " bear," and 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." So saith he, " God took away our sin in Christ, when by him
he declared and confirmed the way whereby pardon and remission

452 VJNDICLE EVANGELIOE.

is to be obtained, as he pardoned our sin in Christ by discovering the
new covenant and mercy therein." Now, because the word is of such
various significations, there is a necessity that it be interpreted 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 rendered " abstulit," " he took away," and not " tulit/'
" he took," " bare," or " suffered," we must consider what arguments
or reasons are scraped together " aliunde" by them, and then evince
what is the proper signification of it in this place: —

(1.) " This very expression is used of God, Exod. xxxiv. 7, ty W&3,
'ferens iniquitatem,' as also it is again repeated, Num. xiv. 18; in
both which places we translate it ' forgiving/ ' forgiving iniquity
and transgression and sin/ Nor can it be properly spoken of God to
bear, for God cannot bear, as the word properly signifies."

The sum of the objection is, the word that is used so many times,
and so often metaphorically, is once or twice in another place used
for to take away or to pardon, therefore this must be the sense of it
in this place ! God cannot be said to bear iniquities but only meta
phorically, and so he is often said to bear, to be pressed, to be weary,
and made to serve with them. He is said to bear our sins in reference
to the end of bearing any thing, which is to carry it away. God in
Christ taking away, pardoning our sins, is said to bear them, because
that is the way which sins are taken away ; they are taken up, carried,
and laid aside. But he of whom these words are spoken here did
bear properly, and could do so, as shall be showed.

(2.) The interpretation of this place by Matthew, or the application
of it, is insisted on, which is of more importance : " Matt. viii. 16, 17,
Christ curing the diseases of many, and bodily sicknesses, is said to
' bear our griefs/ according as it is said in Isaiah that he should do.
Now, he did not bear our diseases by taking them upon himself,
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 ac
commodations of these places, — which may be seen in them who have
to good purpose made it their business to consider the parallel 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. iv. 8,
citing that of the psalmist, Ps. Ixviii. 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 receiving of them, and his receiving of them the foun-

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHEIST. 453

dation of his giving of them, the effect and fruit being here expressed,
the foundation and ground supposed. So also, " Mine ears hast thou
bored," Ps. xl. 6, is rendered "A body hast thou prepared me," Heb.
x. 5 ; because the end of the boring of the ears of Christ was, that
he might offer his body a sacrifice to God. So it is here in this
place of Matthew. Christ's taking away the bodily distempers and
sicknesses of men was an effect and an evidence of his taking away
their sins, which was done by bearing of them ; and therefore Mat
thew mentioning the effect and evidence of the thing doth it in the
words that express the cause and foundation of it. Not that that
was a complete accomplishment of what was foretold, but that it was
so demonstrated in the effect and evidence of it. Nor do the Soci-
nians themselves think that this was a full accomplishment of what
is spoken by the prophet, themselves insisting on another interpre
tation 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 evidenced.

(1.) Here is no cogent reason why the metaphorical use of the word
should be understood. When it is spoken of God, there is necessity
that it should be interpreted by the effect, because properly he can
not bear nor undergo grief, sorrow, or punishment : but as to the
Mediator, the case is otherwise, for he confessedly underwent these
things properly, wherein we say that this word "bearing of punish
ment" doth consist; he was so bruised, so broken, so slain. So that
there is no reason to depart from the propriety of the word.

(2.) Those who would have the sense of the word to be, "to take
away," in this place, confess it is by way of the allusion before men
tioned, that he that takes away a thing takes it up, and bears it on
his shoulders, or in his arms, until he lay it down, and by virtue 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 showed,
why must that be leaped over, and that which is improper and
spoken by way of allusion be insisted on?

(3.) It appears that this is the sense of the word from all the cir
cumstances of the text and context. Take three that are most con
siderable : —

[1.] The subject spoken of who did thus bear our griefs, and this
is Christ, of whom such things are affirmed, in answer to this ques
tion, How did he bear our griefs? as will admit of no other sense.
The Holy Ghost tells us how he did it, 1 Pet. ii. 24, " Who his
own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." That Peter in
that place expressed this part of the prophecy of Isaiah which we
insist upon is evident; the phrase at the close of verse 24 and the
beginning of verse 25 of this chapter make it so; they are the very
words of the end of the 5th and beginning of the 6th verses here.

454< VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

How, then, did Christ bear our griefs? Why, in that " he bare our
sins in his own body on the tree."

I shall not insist on the precise signification of the word avap'ip «,
here used, as though it expressed the outward manner of that suffer
ing of Christ for sin when he was lifted up on the cross or tree. It
is enough that our sins were on him, his body, — that is, his whole
human nature, by a usual synecdoche, — when he was on the tree;
that he did it when he "suffered in the flesh," 1 Pet. iv. 1. He that
did so bear our griefs, sins, 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 away," our
griefs. But that this is the case in Christ's bearing our griefs the
Holy Ghost doth thus manifest.

[2.] The manner how Christ bare them evidently manifesteth in
what sense this expression is to be understood. He so bare them
that in doing so " he was wounded and bruised, grieved, chastised,
slain," as it is at large expressed in the context. Christ bare our
griefs so as in doing of it to be wounded, broken, grieved, killed ;
which is not to take them away, but really to bear them upon himself.

[3.] The cause of this bearing our griefs is assigned to be sin, " He
was wounded for our transgressions ;" as was shown before. Now, this
cannot be the sense, "For our sins, he took them away;" but, "For
our sins, he bare the punishment due to them," 2 Cor. v. 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 sense than that which is proper, and that is '<?!?: Verse 11,
?3p? Kin DniiJ^ — "He shall bear their iniquities;" and it is used
immediately after this we have insisted on, as explicative of it, "And
carried our sorrows." Now, as N5W properly signifies " to lift," to
" take up" that which a man may carry, so «!? signifies to "bear" and
" undergo" the burden that is taken up, or that a man hath laid on his
shoulders. And Matthew hath rendered this word by /3aora£w, rccg
voffovs &dffra(tsv, — that is, " bajulo, porto," to bear a thing as a man
doth a burden on his shoulders. Nor is it once used in the Scriptures
but it is either properly to bear a burden, or metaphorically from
thence to undergo that which is heavy and burdensome. Thus did
Christ bear our griefs, our iniquities, by putting his shoulder under
them, taking them on himself.

2. What did he thus bear? Our griefs, our sins; or our iniquities,
our sins. 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 issue :
Lam. v. 7, " Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have
borne their iniquities." " We have borne their iniquities," or the
punishment that was due to them. " They are not," — " They are gone
out of the world before the day of recompense came ; and we lie un-

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 455

der the punishment threatened and inflicted for their sins and our
own/' Distinctly, —

(1.) Men are said to bear their own sin: Lev. six. 8, "Every one
that eateth it shall bear his iniquity;" that is, he shall be esteemed
guilty, and be punished. Lev. xx. 17, " He shall bear his iniquity," is
the same with " He shall be killed," verse 16, and "He shall be cut
off from among his people," verse 18. For a man to " bear his ini
quity," is, constantly, for him to answer for the guilt and undergo the
punishment due to it

(2.) So also of the sins of others: Num. xiv. 33, " And your
children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your
whoredoms." " Bear your whoredoms;" that is, " My anger for them,
and the punishment due to them." Num. xxx, 15, he that compels
by his power and authority another to break a vow shall himself
be liable to the punishment due to such a breach of vow. Ezek.
xviii. 20 is an explanation of all these places : " The soul that sinneth,
it shall die," — "it shall be punished." "The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father," etc., — " The son shall not be punished for the
sin of the father, nor the father for the sin of the son." In brief,
this expression, "to bear iniquities," is never otherwise used in Scrip
ture but only for " to undergo- the punishment due thereunto."

Thus much, then, we have clearly evinced : God did so lay our sins
on Christ as that he bare and underwent that which was due to them,
God inflicting it on him, and he willingly undergoing it; which ia
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 intend by the satisfaction of Christ.

But now, having laid so great stress, as to the doctrine under
demonstration, upon this place of the prophet, and finding some
attempting to take away our foundation, before I proceed I shall
divert to the consideration of the annotations of Grotius on this
whole chapter, and rescue it from his force and violence, used in
contending to make what is here spoken to suit the prophet Jere
miah, and to intend him in the first place; to establish which vain
conjecture, he hath perverted the sense of the whole and of every
particular verse, from the beginning to the end of this prophecy.

CHAPTER XXV.

A digression concerning the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and the vindication of it from
the perverse interpretation of HUGO GROTIUS.

THIS chapter is well by some termed "Carnificina Rabbinorum," —
a place of Scripture that sets them on the rack, and makes them turn

456 VINDICL& EVANGELIC^.

themselves 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
Amsterdam, and urging this prophecy unto him, he ingenuously told
him, "Profecto locus iste magnum scandalum dedit;" to whom the
other replied, "Recte, quia Christus vobis lapis scandali est." Hulsius,
the Hebrew professor at Breda, professes that some Jews 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, Huls. Theolog. Judaic, lib. i. part. ii. Diet. Sapp. de Tempor.
Messise.1 Though I value not their boasting of their extricating them
selves from the other prophecies, knowing that they are no less en
tangled with that of Daniel, chap. ix. (of which there is an eminent
story in Franzius de Sacrificiis concerning his dispute with a learned
Jew on that subject2), yet it appears that by this they are confessedly
intricated beyond all hope of evading, until they divest themselves
of their cursed hypothesis.

Hence it is that with so much greediness they scraped together all
the copies of Abrabanel's comment on this chapter, so that it was
very hard for a Christian a long time to get a sight of it, as Constan-
tine 1'Empereur acquaints us in his preface to his refutation of it,3
because they thought themselves in some measure instructed by him
to avoid the arguments of the Christians from hence by his applica
tion of the whole to Josiah ; and I must needs say he hath put as
good, yea, a far better colour of probability upon his interpretation
than he with whom I have to do hath done on his.

How ungrateful, then, and how unacceptable to all professors of
the name of Jesus Christ, must the labours of Grotius needs be,
who hath to the utmost of his power reached out his hand to relieve
the poor blind creatures from their rack and torture, by applying,
though successlessly, this whole prophecy to Jeremiah, casting him
self into the same entanglements with them, not yielding them in
deed the least relief, is easy to conjecture. And this is not a little
aggravated, in that the Socinians, who are no less racked and tor
tured with this scripture than the Jews, 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 com
pass, they would free themselves from the sharpest sword that lies at
the throat of their cause, seeing if it is certain that the things here
mentioned may be applied to any other, the satisfaction of Christ

1 " Aliqui Judsei mihi confess! sunt, rabbinos suos ex propheticis scripturis facile
Be extricare potuisse, modo Esaias tacuisset."

* Disput. decima, de sacrificiorum duratione, thes. 82-84, etc.

8 " Abrabinel tarn avide a Judais passim conquiritur, ut vix tandem ejus compos
fieri potuerim. Nam eum Christiani superiorem putant; qui solide eorum argumenta,"
etc. — Constant. 1'Emper. prolog. ad lectorem, prefix. Com. Abrab. in cap. liii. Esa.

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIU. 457

cannot from them be confirmed. This digression, then, is to cast
into the fire that broken crutch which this learned man hath lent
unto the Jews and Socinians to lean upon, and keep themselves
from sinking under their unbelief.

To discover the rise of that learned man's opinion, that Jeremiah
is intended in this prophecy, the conceits of the Jewish doctors may
a little be considered, who are divided amongst themselves.

1. The ancient doctors generally conclude that it is the Messiah who
is here intended. "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper," says
the Chaldee paraphrast upon the place. And Constantine FEmpereur
tells [us] from R. Simeon, in his book Salkout, that the ancient rab
bins, in their ancient book Tanchuma, and higher, were of the same
judgment.1 Rabbi Moses Alscheth is urged to the same purpose at
large by Hulsius ; and in his comment on this place he says expressly,
" Ecce doctores nostri laudatse memorise uno ore statuunt, et a ma-
joribus acceperunt, de rege Messia sermonem esse, et doctorum L. M.
vestigiis insistemus." And one passage in him is very admirable,
in the same place ; saith he, " Dicunt doctores nostri L. M. omnium
afflictionum quse mundum ingressse sunt, tertia pars David i et patri-
archis obtigit, tertia altera seculo excisionis, ultima tertia pars regi
MessisB 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 Petrus Galatinus, lib. viii. cap. xiv. ;
as the same is affirmed by the Misdrach Resh, cap. ii. 14; and in
Bereshith Rabba on Gen. xxiv., as is observed by Raymundus Mar-
tinus, Pug. Fidei 3, p. dist. l,~cap. x. So that before these men grew
impudent and crafty in corrupting and perverting the testimonies of
the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, they generally granted
him and only him to be here intended. It was not for want of
company, then, that Grotius took 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 place of
the whole people of the Jews. And this way go the men who are of
the greatest note amongst them in these latter days, as R. D. Kimchi,
Aben Ezra, Abrabanel, Lipman, with what weak and mean pre
tences, with what inconsistency as to the words of the text, hath been
by others manifested.

3. Abrabinel, or Abrabanel, a man of great note and honour
amongst them, though he assents to the former exposition, of apply
ing the whole prophecy to the people of the Jews, and interprets

1 " Porro libri istius, unde hsec sectio in Esaiam desumpta est, Author perhibetur
D. Simeon, concionatorum princeps, qui Francofurti olim degebat. Hie e Judaeorum
vetustissimis scriptis, secundum bibliorum seriem, dicta et explications plurimas:
magna diligentia et labore collegit : unde libri suo nomen UTSI ac si peram dicas [mallet:]
quia ut in pera reconduntur plurima." — L'Emper.

458 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

the words at large accordingly, — which exposition is confuted by Con-
stantine 1'Empereur, — yet he inclines to a singular opinion of his
own, that Josiah is the man pointed at and described; but he is the
first and last that abides by that interpretation.

4. Grotius interprets the words of Jeremiah in the first place, not
denying them, as we shall see, to have an accommodation to Christ.
In this he hath the company of one rabbi, R Saadias Gaon, men
tioned by Aben Ezra upon the 52d chapter of this prophecy, verse
13. But this fancy of Saadias is fully confuted by Abrabanel; whose
words, because they sufficiently evert the whole design of Grotius
also, I shall transcribe as they lie in the translation of Hulsius:
" Revera ne unum quidem versiculum video, qui de Jeremiah exponi
possit: qua ratione de eo dicetur, 'Extolletur et altus erit valde?' Item
illud, ' propter eum obdent reges os suum,' nam setas ilia prophetas
habere consueverat. Quomodo etiam dici potest morbos nostros por-
tasse, et dolores nostros bajulasse, et in tumice ejus curationem nobis
esse, Deum in ipsum incurrere fecisse peccata omnium nostrum:
quasi ipsi poana incubuisset, et Israel fuisset immunis? Jam illud,
' Propter peccatum populi mei plaga ipsis/ item, ' Dedit cum impro-
bis sepulcrum ejus/ ad ipsum referri nequit; multo minus illud,
' Videbit semen, prolongabit dies,' item, * cum robustis partietur spo-
lium.' In quibus omnibus nihil est quod de ipso commode affirmari
possit. Unde vehementer miror, quomodo R. Hagaon in hanc sen-
tentiam perduci potuerit, et sapientes dari qui hanc expositionem
laudant ; cum tamen tota ista exponendi ratio plane aliena sit, et e
Scriptura non facta."

Now, certainly, if this Jew thought he had sufficient cause to ad
mire that the blind rabbi should thus wrest the sense 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
himself 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 dis
course by Abrabanel, namely, that not one verse can or may be ex
pounded of Jeremiah, shall now particularly be made good against
Grotius : —

He confesseth with us that the head of this prophecy and dis
course is in verse 13, chap. lii. The words of that verse are, —

" Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and
extolled, and be very high."

Of the sense of which words, thus he : —

" Ecce intelliget servus meus. Haec omnia clarissime sibi revelata
cognoscet Jeremias. Exaltabitur et elevabitur, et sublimis erit valde.
In magno honore erit apud ipsos Chaldseos, Jer. xxxix. in fine, et
xl.j" — " My servant Jeremiah shall have all these things clearly re-

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIIL 459

vealed to him, and he shall be in great honour with the Chaldeans."
So he.

1. For the words themselves: '5<l?f?, with the Vulgar Latin, he
renders " intelliget," " shall understand." The word signifies rather
"prudence" for action with success, than any speculative knowledge
by revelation. 1 Sam. xviii. 30, it is used of David behaving himself
wisely in the business of his military and civil employment. Its
opposite, saith Pagnine, is ??B, " quod incogitantiam significat in
rebus agendis et ignavam levitatem," — " which signifies incogitancy

n the management of affairs and idle lightness." Whence the word
s usually taken for to "prosper" in affairs; as it is used of our Sa-
iour, Jer. xxiii. 5, " A King shall reign" ^?^., " and prosper."
^or can it be otherwise used here, considering the connection of the
ivords wherein it stands, it being the precedent to his being " highly
malted" who is spoken of; which rather follows his "dealing pru-
lently" than his " receiving revelations." So that in the very entrance
here is a mistake in the sense of the word, and that mistake lies at
he bottom of the whole interpretation.

2. I deny that God speaks anywhere in the Scripture of any one
>esides Jesus Christ in this phrase, without any addition, " My ser
vant," as here, " Behold, my servant." So he speaks of Christ, Isa.
xlii. 1, 19, and other places; but not of any other person whatever.

i is an expression xar s^o^v} and not to be applied to any but to
lim who was the great servant of the Father in the work of media-
ion.

3. Even in respect of revelations, there is no ground why those
made to Jeremiah should be spoken of so emphatically, and by way

>f eminence above others, seeing he came short of the prophet by
vhom these words are written. Nor can any instance be given of
;uch a prediction used concerning any prophet whatever that was to
>e raised up in the church of the Jews, but of Christ himself only.

4. The exposition of the close of these words, " He shall be ex
ited and extolled, and be very high"1 (the great exaltation of the
jord Jesus Christ in his kingdom, when he was made a prince and a
5aviour in a most eminent manner, being set forth in various ex
pressions, no one reaching to the glory of it), is unworthy the learned
annotator. " He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high ;"
— that is, the Chaldeans shall give him " victuals and a reward,"
Jer. xl. 5 ; and after a while he shall be carried a prisoner into Egypt,
and there knocked on the head. Such was the exaltation of the poor
prophet ! What resemblance hath all this to the exaltation of Jesus

hrist, whom the learned man confesseth to be intended in these
words?

" Eminentise notionem quavis formula expressit, quia illius eminentia erit sublimis
excellentia." — D. Kimchi.

460 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

The sense, then, of these words is: Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the
servant of the Father, Isa. xlii. 1, 19, Phil. ii. 7, 8, "shall deal pru
dently," and prosper in the business of doing his Father's will, and
carrying on the affairs of his own kingdom, Isa. ix. 7, " and be
exalted " far above all principalities and powers, having "a name given
him above every name, that at the name of Jesus," etc., Phil. ii. 9, 10.

The next verse is, —

" As many were astonished at thee ; his visage was so marred
more than any man, and his form more than the sons 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 himself " he was a worm, and no man,"
Ps. xxii. 6. His condition was such and his visage such as all that
knew any thing of him were astonished to the purpose. The marring
of his visage and form, as it may point out all the acts of violence
that were done upon his face, by spitting, buffeting, and the like,
so it expresses his whole despised, contemned, persecuted estate and
condition. But let us attend to our annotator: —

" Modb secunda, modb tertia persona, de Jeremia loquitur, quod
frequens Hebrasis. Sicut multi mirati erant hominem tarn egregium
tarn fcede tractari, detrudi in carcerem, deinde in lacum lutosum,
ibique et peedore et cibi inopia contabescere ; sic contra, rebus mutatis,
admirationi erit honos ipsi habitus;" — " He speaks of Jeremiah,
sometimes in the second, sometimes in the third person ; which is fre
quent with the Hebrews. As many wondered that so excellent $
person should so vilely be dealt with, be thrust into prison, and ther
into a miry lake, and there to pine with stink and want of food; sc
on the contrary, affairs being changed, the honour afforded him shal
be matter of admiration."

1. To grant the first observation, as to the change of persons ii
the discourse, the word ^9®, "shall be astonished") here usec1
signifies not every slight admiration, by wondering upon any occasion
or that may be a little more than ordinary, but mostly an astonish
ment arising from the contemplation of some ruthful spectacle. S<
Lev. xxvi.'32, " I will bring the land into desolation, and your ene
mies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it;" and the word i
near twenty times used to the same purpose. This by way of diini
nution is made, " mirati sunt, admirationi erit."

2. This astonishment of men is by Grotius referred both to th»
dejection and exaltation of Jeremiah, whereof there is nothing in th<
words. It is the amazement of men at the despicable condition o,
him that is spoken of only that is intended ; but without intruding
something of his exaltation, this discourse had wanted all colour o
pretext.

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 461

3. Was it so great a matter in Jerusalem that a prophet should
be put in prison there, where they imprisoned, stoned, tortured, and
lew them almost all, one after another, in their several generations,
that it should be thus prophesied of as a thing that men would and
should be amazed at? Was it any wonder at all in that city, whose
streets not long before had run with the blood of innocent men, that
a prophet should be cast into prison? Or was this peculiar to Jere
miah to be dealt so withal? 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 victuals
iven him? Was not this, as to the thing itself, common to him
with many hundred others? Were his afflictions such as to be be
yond compare with those of any man, or any of the sons of men? or
his honours such as to dazzle 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 applications as he pleaseth, and find
out what person he will to answer 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
mouths at him : for that which had not been told them shall they
see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider."

" ltd asperget gentes multas. In Hebrseo, ' Sic asperget/ ut re-
spondeat illi ' sicut/ quod prsecessit. Multos ex gentibus ab idolorum
cultu avertet. Similitude sumpta ab aspersionibus legalibus; unde
t Chaldasis nt2 est objurgare. At LXX. habent, Ovrca SavpdffwTai sOvq
-oXXa IT' uurGj, non male; 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 turn many of the nations from
the worship of idols. A similitude taken from the legal washings;
whence nH with the Chaldees is to ' rebuke/ The LXX. render it,
' So shall many nations wonder at him/ not badly; for to wonder
is as it were to be sprinkled with any one's brightness."

For the exposition of the words, —

1. We agree that it is, " So he shall sprinkle," an avodogig, relating
to the Trporaate, verse 14, " As many were astonished," etc.; the great
work of Christ and his exaltation therein being rendered in opposi
tion to his humiliation and dejection, before mentioned. As he was
in so mean a condition that men were astonished at him, so he shall be
exalted, in his great work of converting the nations, to their admiration.

2. It is granted that the expression, " He shall sprinkle," is an
allusion to the legal washings and purifications; which as they were
typical of real sanctification and holiness, so from them is the promise
thereof so often expressed in the terms of " washing" and " cleans
ing," Ezek. xxxvi. 25, the term being preserved and used in the
New Testament frequently; the blood of Christ, whereby this work

462 YINDICL& EVANGELIC^!.

is done, being therefore called " tlie blood of sprinkling/' Heb. xii. 24,
Eph. v. 25, 26. The pouring out of the Spirit by Jesus Christ, for
the purifying and sanctifying of many nations, not the Jews only, but
the children of God throughout the world, by faith in his blood, is
that which is here intended. What the use of HT3 in the Chaldee to
this purpose is I know not.

3. The LXX. have very badly rendered the words, " Many nations
shall wonder at him," both as to words and sense; for, — (1.) As the
words will not bear it, so, (2.) They make that the action of the na
tions towards Christ which is his towards them. They lose the
whole sense of the words ; and what they say falls in with what fol
lows, and is clearly expressed. (3.) It is not helped by the explana
tion given to it by the annotator. The first expression is metapho
rical, which the LXX. render by a word proper, remote from the
sense intended, which the annotator explains by another metaphor;
by which kind of procedure, men may lead words and senses whither
and which way they please.

4. [As] for the accommodation of the words to Jeremiah, how did
he sprinkle many nations, so as to answer the type of legal cleansing?
Did he pour out the Spirit upon them? did he sanctify and make
them holy? did he purge them from their iniquities? "But he turned
many amongst the nations from the worship of idols." But who
told Grotius so? where is it written or recorded? He prophesied,
indeed, of the desolation of idols and idolaters. Of the conversion of
many, of any, among the heathen by his preaching, he being not pur
posely sent to them, what evidence have we? If a man may feign
what he please, and affix it to whom he please, he may make whom
he will to be foretold in any prophecy.

" Kings shall shut their mouths at him." " Reges, ut Nebuchodo-
nosor Chaldseorum, et Nechos .ZEgyptiorum, eorumque satrapaB, ad-
mirabuntur cum silentio, ubi videbunt omnia qua3 dicet Jeremias ita
adamussim et suis temporibus impleta;" — " Kings, as Nebuchodono-
sor of the Chaldees, and Necho of the Egyptians, and their princes,
shall ad mure with silence, when they shall see all things foretold by
Jeremiah come to pass exactly and to be fulfilled in their own time."

That by this expression wonder and amazement is intended is
agreed. As men, all sorts of men, before were astonished at his low
condition, so even the greatest of them shall be astonished at the
prosperity of his work and exaltation. The reason of this their shut
ting their mouths in silence and admiration is from the work which
he shall do, — that is, "he shall sprinkle many nations," — as is evident
from the following reason assigned : " For that which hath not been
told them shall they see ;" which expresseth the means whereby he
should " sprinkle many nations," even by the preaching of the gospel (
to their conversion.

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIIL 463

[As] for the application hereof to Jeremiah: — 1. That the kings
mentioned did so become silent with admiration at him and astonish
ment is aypatpov: and all these magnificent thoughts of the Chaldeans'
dealing with Jeremiah are built only on this, that looking on him as
a man that had dissuaded the Jews from their rebellion against them,
and rebuked all their wickedness, and foretold their ruin, 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 nations : so that nothing, not a word or expres
sion, doth here agree to him; yea, this gloss 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 consi
der;" of which he says, " They shall see that come to pass, foreseen
and foretold by him, which they had not heard of by their astrolo
gers or magicians."

1. But what is it that is here intended? the desolation of Jeru
salem? That was it which Jeremiah foretold, upon the account
whereof he had that respect with the Chaldees which, through the
mercy of God, he obtained. Is this that which is thus emphatically
expressed, " 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 nor heard of, the apostle tells us, Rom. xv. 21 .
Strange that this should be the desolation of Jerusalem !

2. It is probable that the magicians and astrologers, whose life and
trade it was to flatter their kings with hope of success in their wars
and undertakings, had foretold the taking of Jerusalem, considering
that the king of the Chaldees had used all manner of divinations be
fore he undertook the war against it, Ezek. xxi. 21, 22. 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 sense of
the words may so much as be typically spoken of Jesus Christ, or be
any way accommodated to him.

The prophet proceeds, chap, liii., with the same continued dis
course: Verse 1, " Who hath believed our report? and to whom is
the arm of the LORD revealed?" which words are thus illustrated by
the annotator: —

" Vultis scire, inquit, quis ille sit futurus de quo ccepi agere, qui
et meis prophetiis plenam habebit fidem, et ipse de maximis rebus
jquas potentia Dei peraget revelationes accipiet exactissimas, omnibus
•circumstantiis additis? dabo vobis geminas ejus notas unde cognosci
ipossit. Ha? nota3 in Jeremiam quidem congruunt prius, sed potius
|in sublimiusque, srepe et magis xara xig/v, in Christum ;" — " 'Will ye

464 VINDICI^ EVANGELICAL

know/ salth lie, ' who he shall be of whom I have begun to treat,
who shall both fully believe my prophecies and shall himself receive
most exact revelations of the great things that the power of God
shall bring to pass, 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, agree to Jeremiah, but rather to Christ."

1. I suppose if we had not had the advantage of receiving quite
another interpretation of these words from the Holy Ghost himself in
the New Testament, yet it would not have been easy for any to have
swallowed this gloss, that is as little allied 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 believe, when he was exhibited in the flesh, the
power of the Lord with him for our salvation being effectually re
vealed to very few of the Jews. So John xii. 37, 38, " But though
he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on
him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, Lord,
who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the
Lord been revealed ?" So Rom. x. 1 6, " But they have not all obeyed
the gospel; for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"

2. Let us now a little compare these several interpretations:
" Who hath believed our report?" — " Lord, how few do believe on
Christ, working miracles himself, and preached by the apostles."
" Jeremiah shall believe my prophecies," saith Grotius. " To whom is
the arm of the Lord revealed?" — "To how few is the power of God
unto salvation made known by the Holy Ghost." " Jeremiah also
shall have clear revelations," says Grotius. And this is counted learn
edly to interpret the Scriptures ! and every day are such annotations
on the Scripture multiplied.

3. It is not, then, the prophet's prediction of what he should do
of whom he treats, what he should believe, what he should receive,
whereof there is notice given in this verse; but what others shall do
in reference to the preaching of him. They shall not believe : " Who
hath believed?"

4. The annotator tells us these words do agree to Christ chiefly
and magis, xara Xs|/v. This, then, must be the signification of them,
according to his interpretation, in relation unto Christ, " He shall
believe the prophecies of Isaiah, and receive revelations of his own."
For my part, I am rather of the mind of John and Paul concerning
these words than 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.

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 465

Verse 2, " For he shall grow up before hifn as a tender plant, and
as a root out of a dry ground : he hath no form nor comeliness; 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 unsuitableness to their expectation. They
looked for a person shining in honour and glory, raising a visible, pomp
ous, terrene kingdom, whereof they should be made partakers. But
Christ when he comes indeed grows up, both in his human nature
and his kingdom, as a tender plant, — obnoxious to the incursions of
beasts, winds, and storms, 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 parched house of David and poor family of Mary
and Joseph, — 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 appear with a great deal
of outward form, loveliness, beauty, and every thing that should
make a glorious person desirable, when they come to see him indeed
in his outward condition, they shall not be able to discover any 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 re
port that shall go of him, to see him, they shall be offended, and re
turn and say, " Is not this the carpenter's son? and are not his breth
ren with us?" This sword of the Lord, which lies at the heart of
the Jews to this day, the learned annotator labours to ease them of,
by accommodating these words to Jeremiah; which, through the
favour of the reader, I shall no otherwise refute than by its repeti
tion: '"For he shall grow up before the LORD as a tender plant;' —
Jeremiah shall serve God in his prophetical office whilst he is young.
' And as a root out of a dry ground ;' — He shall be bom at Anathoth,
a poor village. ' He hath no form nor comeliness ;' — He shall be heavy
and sad. ' And when we shall see him/ etc. ; — He shall not have an
amiable countenance." Whom might not these things be spoken of,
that was a prophet, if the name of Anathoth be left out, and some
other supplied in the room thereof ?

The third verse pursues the description of the Messiah in respect
of his abject outward condition ; which being of the same import
with the former, and it being not my aim to comment on the text,
I shall pass by.

Verse 4, " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor
rows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."
Having formerly given the sense of these words, and vindicated
them from the exceptions of the Socinians, I shall do no more but
VOL. xn. 30

466 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

animadvert upon their accommodation to Jeremiah by Grotius.
Thus, then, he, —

" Vere languores nostros ipse tulit. Ille non talia meritus mala
tulit quse nos eramus meriti. Haec omnia ait dicturos Judseos post
captam urbem ;" — " He that deserved no such thing underwent the
evils that we had deserved. All these things he saith the Jews shall
say after the taking of the city." .

It is of the unworthy dealing of the Jews with the prophet in
Jerusalem during the siege that he supposes these words are spoken,
and spoken by the Jews after the taking of the city. The sum is,
"When he was so hardly treated, we deserved it, even to be so dealt
withal, not he, who delivered the word of God."

But, 1. The words are, " He hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows." That by " our griefs and sorrows," our sins and the punish
ment due to them are intended hath been declared. That the force of
the words " bearing and carrying" do evince that he took them upon
himself hath also been manifested. That he so took them as that
God made them meet upon him, in his justice, hath likewise been
proved. That by his bearing of them we corne to have peace, and
are freed, shall be farther cleared, as it is expressly mentioned, verses
5, 11. Let us now see how this may be accommodated to Jeremiah.
Did he undergo the punishment due to the sins of the Jews, or did
they bear their own sins? Did God cause their sins to meet on him
then when he bare them, or is it not expressly against his law that
one should bear the sins of another ? Were the Jews freed, — had
they peace by Jeremiah's sufferings ; or rather, did they not hasten
their utter ruin ? 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 Jews had any such
thoughts, or were at all greatly troubled, after the taking of the city
by the Chaldeans, concerning their dealings with Jeremiah, whom
they afterward 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 Jews, but by the church of God.

" Et nos putavimus eum quasi lepro&um ac percussum ci Deo et
humiliatum. Nos credidimus Jeremiam merito conjectum in carce-
rem et lutum, Deo ilium exosum habente, ut hostem urbis, templi,
et pseudo-prophetam," Grot.; — "We believed that Jeremiah was de
servedly 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 applied to any prophet whatever that
suffered persecution and martyrdom from the Jews (as who of them
did not, the one or the other?) for they quickly saw their error and
mistake as to one, though at the same time they fell upon another,
us our Saviour upbraideth the Pharisees. Nor, —

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 467

2. Was this any such great matter, that the Jews should think a
true prophet to be a false prophet, and therefore deservedly punished,
as in the law was appointed, that it should thus signally be foretold
concerning Jeremiah. But that the Son of God, the Son and heir
of the vineyard, should be so dealt withal, this is that which the
prophet might well bring in the church thus signally complaining
of. Of him to this day are the thoughts of the Jews no other than
as here recorded; which they express by calling him "Wi.

The reason of the low condition of the Messiah, which was so mis
apprehended of the Jews, is rendered in the next verse, and their
mistake rectified: — •

" But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with
his stripes we are healed."

I suppose it will not be questioned but that these words belong to
our blessed Saviour, and that redemption which he wrought for us
by his blood and death. Not only the full accomplishment of the
thing itself as delivered in the New Testament, but the quotation
of the words themselves to that end and purpose, 1 Pet. ii. 24,
doth undeniably evince it. In what sense the words are to be
understood of him we have formerly decJared; that in that sense
they are applicable to any other will not be pleaded. That they
have any other sense is yet to be proved. To this, thus the anno-
tator : —

" Ipse autem vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras. In
Hebraeo, ' At vero ipse vulneratus' (id est, male tractatus est) ' nos-
tro crimine.' In nobis culpa fuit, non in ipso. Sic et quod sequi-
tur, ' Attritus est per nostram culpam/ Iniquissima de eo sensimus,
et propterea crudeliter eum tractavimus : id mine rebus ipsis apparet.
Similia dixerunt Judaei qui se converterunt die Pentecostes, et de-
inceps," Grot. ; — " ' 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 follows,
' He was bruised by our fault/ We thought ill of him, and therefore
handled him cruelly. This, now, is evident from the things them
selves. The like things said the Jews who converted themselves on,
the day of Pentecost, and afterward."

The reading of the words must first be considered, and then their
sense and meaning; for against both these doth the learned annota-
tor transgress, perverting the former that he might the more easily
•wrest the latter.

1. " He was wounded for our sins, 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 " tormented with
pain," which is slightly interpreted by " evil-entreated," the question

468 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

is, whether the efficient or procuring and meritorious cause of Christ's
wounding be here expressed.

2. The words used to express this cause of wounding are two, and
both emphatical. The first is J^'B : "He was wounded UWa>?, for our
prevarications, our proud transgressing of the law." " J^'B est rebel-
lare, et exire a voluntate Domine vel prsecepto, ex superbia," B. D.
in Michi. It is, properly, to rebel against man or God. Against
man: 2 Kings iii 7, " The king of Moab J^B, hath rebelled against
me;" and chap. viii. 20, "In his days Edom J^'B, rebelled." As also
against God: Isa. i. 2, " I have brought up children, and they Wfa,
have rebelled against me." Nor is it used in any other sense in the
Scriptures but for prevarication and rebellion with a high hand, and
through pride. The other word is •"!$: " He was bruised l^nfoijJD , for
our iniquities." The word signifies a declining from the right way
with perversity and frowardness. " ""W est inique vel perverse agere ;
proprie curvum esse vel incurvari." So that all sorts of sins are here
emphatically and distinctly expressed, even the greatest rebellion,
and most perverse, crooked turning aside from the ways of God.

3. Their causality in reference to the wounding of him here men
tioned is expressed in the preposition !*?, which properly is " de, ex,
a, e," " from/' or " for." Now, to put an issue to the sense of these
words, and thence, in a good measure, to the sense 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 interpretation in quietness. 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 express it as to confine it to signify the efficient
cause of what is affirmed.

This, then, being the reading of the words, " He was wounded or
tormented for our sins," the sense as relating to Jesus Christ is
manifest: "When we thought he was justly for his own sake, as a
seducer and malefactor, smitten of God, he was then under the
punishment due to our iniquities, was so tormented for what we had
deserved." This is thus rendered by our annotator: " Jeremiah was
not in the fault, who prophesied to us, but we, that he was so evilly
dealt with. ' He was bruised for our iniquities ;' that is, we thought
hard of him, and dealt evilly with him ;" — which may pass with the
former.

The LXX. render these words, AurJg Ss frpavfj,ariff6r) 5/a ra$ a/j,.
aprias rjfiuv, xai (it/j,a.\axigra,i dia rag avofiiag r^uv. Rightly! to be
wounded diu Tag apaprias is to be wounded for and not by sin» nO

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 469

otherwise than that also signifies the impulsive cause. And the
Chaldee paraphrast, not able to avoid the clearness of the expres
sion denoting the meritorious cause of punishment, and yet not un
derstanding how the Messiah should be wounded or punished, thus
rendered the words: " Et ipse sedifieabit domum sanctuarii nostri,
quod violatum est propter peccata nostra, et traditum est propter
iniquitates nostras;" — " He shall build the house of our sanctuary,
which was violated for our sins" (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 expression, nor understanding an
accommodation of the words to him spoken of, he leaves the words
with their own proper significancy, but turns their intendment, by
an addition to them of his own.

Proceed we to the next words, which are exegetical of these:
" The chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes
we are healed." Of these thus the annotator : —

" Disciplines pads nostrce super eum. Apud eum : id est, monitis
nobis attulit salutaria, si ea recepissemus ; " — " He gave us whole
some warnings, if we would have received them."

But, — 1. There is in this sense of the words nothing peculiar to
Jeremiah. All the rest of the prophets did so, and were rejected no
less than he.

2. The words are not, " He gave us good counsel, if we would
have 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 profess
I know not. Peter expounds it by, " He bare our sins in his own
body on the tree," 1 Pet. ii. 24.

3. The word rendered by us "chastisement," and by the Vulgar Latin,
which Grotius follows, " disciplina," is ip^, which as it hath its first
signification " to learn," so it signifies also " to correct," because learn
ing is seldom 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 VyJ?, he renders " apud
eum," contrary to the known sense of the word. "?% is " to ascend,
to lift up, to make to ascend," a word of most frequent use ; thence
is the word used rendered " super," intimating that the chastisement
of our peace was made to ascend on him. As Peter expresseth the
sense of this place, "Of rag afiupriag qpuv avrbg avrivcyxev sv rip ffuftari

'avrou lit] rb guXor — "He carried up our sins on his body on the tree;"
they were made to ascend on him. The LXX. render the words lif
avrov; the Vulgar Latin, " super eum ;" and there is not the least
colour for the annotator's " apud eum." Now, " the chastisement
of our peace," — that is, the punishment that was due that we might

470 VINDICMl EVANGELIC^.

have peace, or whereby we have peace with God, — •" was upon him,"
is, it seems, " He gave us good counsel and admonition, if we would
have followed it" !

4. Here is no word expressing any act of the person spoken of,
but his suffering or undergoing punishment. But of this enough.

" Et livore ejus sanati sumus. Livore ejus (id est, ipsius patien-
tia), nos sanati fuissemus : id est, liberati ab impendentibus malis, si
verbis ipsius, tanta inalorum tolerantia confirmatis, habuissemus
fidem. Hebrsei potentialem modum aliter quam per indicativum
exprimere nequeunt ; ideo multa adhibenda atteutio ad consequen-
dos 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 evils, had we believed his words, con
firmed with so great bearing of evils. The Hebrews cannot express
the potential mood but by the indicative; therefore much attention
is to be used to find out the sense."

I cannot but profess that, setting aside some of the monstrous
figments of the Jewish rabbins, I never in my whole life met with
an interpretation of Scripture offering more palpable violence to the
words than this of the annotator. Doubtless, to repeat it, with all
sober men, is sufficient to confute it. I shall briefly add, —

1. The prophet says, "We are healed;" the annotator, "We
might have been healed, but are not."

2. The healing in the prophet is by deliverance from sin, men
tioned in the words foregoing, and so interpreted by Peter, 1 Ep. ii.
24, whereby we have peace with God, which we have; the healing
in the annotator is the deliverance from the destruction by the
Chaldeans, which they were not delivered from, but might have
been.

3. "T^n in the prophet is /twXwv]/ in Peter, but " patience " in the
annotator.

4. " By his stripes we are healed," is in the annotator, " By heark
ening to him we might have been healed," or delivered from the
evils threatened. " By his stripes;" that is, " By hearkening to his
counsel, when he endured evils 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 potential mood, I shall desire to know who compelled the
learned annotator to suppose himself wiser than the Holy Ghost,
1 Pet. ii. 24, to wrest these words into a potential signification which
he expresseth directly, actually, indicatively ? For a Jew to have
done this out of hatred and enmity to the cross of Christ had been
tolerable ; but for a man professing himself a Christian, it is a some
what strange attempt.

6. To close with this verse, we do not esteem ourselves at all be-

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 471

holding to the annotator for allowing an accommodation of these
words to our blessed Saviour, affirming that the Jews who converted
themselves (for so it must be expressed, lest 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
Jews are feigned to use in reference to Jeremiah. It is quite of
another business that the prophet is speaking ; not of the sin of the
Jews in crucifying Christ, but of all our sins, for which he was cru
cified.

"Munera magna quidem misit, sed misit in hamo." — Martial, lib. vi. Ep. 63.

Verse 6, " All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way ; and the LORD hath laid on him the ini
quity of us all."

Grotius: " Erraveramus jam a Manassis temporibus, alii ad alia
idola; et permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignissima
pateretur ; " — " We have all erred from the days of Manasseh, some
following some idols, others others; and God permitted that he by
our grievous crime should suffer most unworthy things/'

Though the words of this verse are most important, yet having at
large before insisted on the latter words of it, I shall be brief in my
animadversions on the signal depravation of them by the learned
annotator. Therefore, —

1. Why is this confession of sins restrained to the times of Ma
nasseh, and not afterward? The expression is universal, ^3, "all
of us," and a man to his own way. And if these words' may be
allowed to respect Jesus Christ at all, they will not bear any such
restriction. But this is the irpurov -v]/£D5o$ of this interpretation, that
these are the words of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem,
which are the words of the converted Jews and Gentiles after the
suffering of Jesus Christ.

2. Why is the sin confessed restrained to idolatry ? Men's " own
ways," which they walk in when they turn from the ways of God, and
know not the ways of peace, comprehend all the evils of every kind
that their hearts and lives are infected withal.

3. The last words are unworthy a person of much less learning
and judgment than the annotator; for, —

(1.) The word iT^n (of which before) is interpreted, without pre
tence, warrant, or colour, " permisit," — God permitted. But of that
word sufficiently before.

(2.) By " his suffering unworthy things through our fault " he un
derstands not the meritorious cause of his suffering, but the means
whereby he suffered, even the unbelief and cruelty of the Jews;
which is most remote from the sense of the place.

(3.) He mentions here distinctly the fault of them that speak, and
bis suffering that is spoken of, " Permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi

472 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

crimine indignissima pateretur," when in the text the fault of them
that speak 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 God's act ; in the Annotations, the
Jews' only.

(5.) There is neither sense nor coherence in this interpretation of
the words, " We have all sinned and followed idols, and God hath
suffered him to be evilly entreated by us ; " when the whole context
evidently gives an account of our deserving, and the way whereby
we are delivered, and therein a reason of the low and abject condi
tion of the Messiah in this world. But of this at large elsewhere.

Verse 7, " He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened
not his mouth : he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a
sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

" Oblatus est quia ipse voluit, et non aperuit os suum. In Heb.,
'Oppressus et am1 ictus fuit, et non aperuit os suum/ Sensum bene
exprimunt LXX. Ka/ aiir&s faa. rb xixaxuffdai ovx avoiyti rb tfro'/ia auroS.
Etiam tune cum in carcerem ageretur, et in locum lutosum, nihil
fecit dixit ve iracunde.

" Sicut ovis, Ovis mitissimum animal.

" Et quasi agnus, cum quo ipse Jeremias se comparat, cap. xi.
ver. 19."

'" 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 sense, ' 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 himself, chap,
xi. verse 19."

The process of the words is to give an account of the same matter
formerly insisted on, concerning one's suffering for the sins of others.
That the words are spoken of the Lord Jesus, the Holy Ghost hath
long since put it out of question, Acts viii. 32. And though there
be some difficulty and variety in the interpretation of the first words,
yet his patient suffering as the Lamb of God, typed out by all the
sacrifices of the Jews, under the punishment due to our sins, shines
through the whole.

1. For the words themselves, they are ^V.^ Will fc'33^ which are va
riously rendered: Ka/ auri; 3/a TO xtxaxuaSai, LXX; — "And he for (or
because of) affliction." "Oblatus est quia ipse voluit," Vulg. Lat.; —
"He was offered because he would." " Oppressus est et ipse afBictus
est," Arias Montanus. " Exigitur et ipse affl igitur," Junius ; — " It was
exacted, and he was afflicted." Others, " It was exacted, and he an
swered/' which seems most to agree with the letter. ^1? is sometimes

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIU. 4,73

written with the point on the right corner of t?, 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 v.
25, Y Efltp-!1'?, " Have ye made to draw nigh your offerings and sacri
fices?" or, " Have ye offered?" Thus the Vulgar Latin read the word,
and rendered it " Oblatus est," — " He was offered." With the point
on the left corner, it is " to exact, to require, to afflict, to oppress." To
exact and require at the hands of any is the most common sense of the
word. So 2 Kings xxiii. 35, " Jehoiakim exacted the silver and the
gold of the people of the land." Thence is tyb "an exactor," one that
requires what is imposed on men, Zech. ix. 8, x. 4. Being used here in
a passive sense, it is, " It was exacted and required of him," — that is,
the punishment due to our sins was required of Jesus Christ, having
undertaken to be a sponsor; and so Junius hath supplied the words,
" Exigitur pcena," — " Punishment was exacted." And this is more
proper than what we read, " He was oppressed," though that also be
significant of the same thing. How the punishment of our sins was
exacted or required of Jeremiah the annotator declares not.

The other word is n?J^. The Vulgate Latin seems to look 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 Scripture. And then the sense will be, " It
was exacted of him, or our punishment was required of him, and he
undertook it with willingness and patience." So it denotes the will of
Christ in undergoing the penalty due to our sins; which he express-
eth, Ps. xl. 8, Heb. x. 6, 7. Take it in the sense wherein it is most
commonly used, and it denotes the event of the exacting the penalty
of our sins of him : " He was afflicted." In what sense this may
possibly be applied to Jeremiah, I leave to the annotator's friends to
find out.

2. The next words, " He openeth not his mouth/' he applies unto
the patience of Jeremiah, 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 especial manner to the great
builders of the church of God, the prophets and apostles, this is no
small part, that we deliver them from under the burden 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 were not found in holy Jeremiah, who in his affliction and
trial opened his mouth and cursed the day wherein he was born;
and when he says that himself was as a lamb, and as an ox appointed
to the slaughter, in the same place, and at the same time, he prays
for vengeance on his adversaries, Jer. xi. 20; in those words not
denoting his patience, but his being exposed to their cruelty.

474 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

Verse 8, " He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who
shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of
the living : for the transgression of my people was he stricken."

The person speaking is here changed, as is manifest from the close
of the verse, " For the transgression of my people," who were the
speakers before. These, then, are the words of God by the prophet;
and they are not without their difficulties, concerning which the
reader may consult commentators at large. Grotius thus: —

" De carcere et de judicio ablatus est. Id est, liberatus tandem.
Judicium vocat hoc, quia specie judicii ipsi haec mala imposita fue-
runt. Vide Jer. xxxii. 3, liberatus autem per Babylonios.

" Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? Quis numerare potent dies
vita3 ejus? Id est, erit valde longaevus.

" Quia abscissus est de terra viventium, nempe, cum actus fuit
primum in carcerem, deinde in lacum ilium coenosum, et rursum in
carcerem."

" ' He was taken from prison and judgment.' That is, he was at
length delivered. He calls it 'judgment/ because these evils were im
posed on him with a pretence of judgment. But he was freed by the
Babylonians.

"'Who shall declare his generation?' Who shall be able to
number the days 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 thrown into the prison, and then into the miry pit, and then
into prison again."

He adds, " ' Propter scelus populi mei percussi eum' In Heb.
est, plaga ipsi, supple evenit, populi summo errore ac crimine, ut
et ante dictum est;" — " ' For the wickedness of my people I have
stricken him.' In the Hebrew it is, ' Stroke on him,' that is, befell
him, through the great error and fault of the people, as is before
said." So far he.

The sense of these words being a little tried out, their application
will be manifest 1. The first words are not without their difficulty :
">V'yp, "from prison," say we. The word is from "^V, "prohibere," "co-
ercere," to " forbid," to " restrain," and is nowhere used for a prison
directly. The LXX. have rendered it, 'EK 7$ ra-rsivuffit f; xpi<ns a\iro\j
%p6rj, — " In his humility (or humiliation), his judgment (or sentence)
was taken away," referring one of the words to one thing, and another
to another. The Vulgar Latin, "angustia;" Arias Montanus, "clau-
sura ;" Junius, " per coarctationem," rendering the preposition " by/'
not "from." The word is rendered by us "oppression," Ps.cvii.39. It is,
at the utmost, in reference to a prison, " claustrum," a place where any
may be shut up, but may as well be rendered " angustia" with the
Vulgar Latin, better " coarctation" with Junius, being taken for any
kind of strait and restraint. And, indeed, properly our Saviour was

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTTOS ON ISAIAH LIII. 475

not cast into a prison, though he was all night under restraint. If
the intendment of the words be about what he was delivered from,
under which he was, and not what he was delivered from that he
should not undergo it, BBtp'ep^ and " from judgment," there is no
difficulty in the world. Only, whose judgment it is that he was taken
from is worth inquiry, whether that of God or man. ni%, " he was
taken;" "ablatus est," the Vulgar Latin, "he was taken up." DE?
is " capere, accipere, ferre, tollere," a word of very large use, both in
a good and in a bad sense ; — " to be taken up/' it will scarcely be
found to signify; " to be taken away," very often.

Now, the sense of these words is, that either Christ was taken
away, that is, killed and slain, by his pressures, and the pretended
judgment that was passed on him, or else that he was delivered from
the straits and judgment that might have come upon him. Although
he was so afflicted, yet he was taken away from distress and judgment.
Junius would have the former sense; and the exegesis of the word
" taken away" by the following words, " He was cut off from the land
of the living," seems to require it. In that sense the words are, " By
durance, restraint, affliction, and judgment," — either the righteous
judgment of God, as Junius, or the pretended juridical process of men,
— " he was taken away" or slain. If I go off from this sense of the words,
of all other apprehensions, I should cleave to that of eternal restraint
or condemnation, from which Christ was delivered in his greatest
distress, Isa. 1. 7, 8, Heb. v. 7. Though his afflictions were great
and his pressures sore, yet he was delivered from eternal restraint
and condemnation, it being not possible that he should be detained
of death.

Applying all this to Jeremiah, says Grotius, " He was delivered
from prison and judgment by the Babylonians." That nj57 is " de
livered," and that he was delivered by the Babylonians from judg
ment, after that judgment had passed on him and sentence been
executed for many months, is strange. But let us proceed to what
follows: —

2. " Who shall declare his generation?" — "Who shall speak it, or
be able to speak it?" Vin, " his generation." nil is " setas, generatio,
sseculum." Gr. yevia- Tqv ytvtav auroD rig diqyqfcTar, — "Who shall ex
pound his generation?" or declare it; that is, "Though he be so taken
away by oppression and judgment, yet his continuance, his genera
tion, his abiding, shall be such as ' quis eloquetur?' who shall
speak it?" It shall be for ever and ever; for he was to be " satisfied
with long or eternal life," and therein to "see the salvation of God."

This is, says Grotius, " Who can declare the generation of Jere
miah, he shall live so great a space of time?" He began his pro
phecy when he was very young, chap. i. 5, even in the thirteenth
year of Josiah, and he continued prophesying in Jerusalem until the

EVANGELIC^.

eleventh year of Zedekiah, about forty years, and how long he lived
after this is uncertain. Probably he might live in all sixty years,
whereas it is evident that Hosea prophesied eighty years or very
near Now that this should be so marvellous a thing, that a man
should live sixty or seventy years, that God should foretell it as a
strange thing above twice so many years before', and express 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 Abrabanel's accommodation of these
words to Josiah, and he will see what shifts the poor man is put t<
to give them any tolerable sense.

3 « For he was cut off out of the land of the living. Or, a.ptra,
avlrfa yfc * fyn a&rou-— " His life was taken from the earth;' to
the sense, not the letter. TTU, « cut off," as a branch is cut off a
tree ™ is « abscindere, succidere, extidere," 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 slain, as in reference to Christ it is expressed by
another word, Dan. ix. 26. " The meaning of this is/ says Grotms,
« Jeremiah was cast into prison and into the miry lake,
cut off out of the land of the living;' that is, he was put into prison
twice, and taken out again." If this be not to offer violence to the
word of God I know not what is. The learned man confesses that
this whole prophecy belongs to Christ also, but he leaves no sense
to the words whereby they possibly may be applied to him. How
was Christ cast into prison and a miry pit, and taken out fi
thence by the way of deliverance? ^

4 "For the transgression of my people was he stricken,
sense of this expression, that Christ was stricken, or that the stroke
of punishment was upon him, for our sins, or the sins of Gods people,
I have spoken before. Grotius would have 'it " by the sin ; that is,
the « people sinned in doing of it;" that is, in putting Jeremiah into
prison The whole context evidently manifests, and the proposition
in the relation wherein it stands to sin and punishment necessarily
requires, that the impulsive and meritorious, not the efficient CJ ise,

be denoted thereby.

Verse 9 " And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any
deceit in his mouth."

" Et dabit impios pro sepultura, et divitem pro morte sua.
Illi ipsum etiam interficere voluerant, ut legimus Jer. XXVL At
Deus ipsius vice viros potentes quidem, sed improbos, sacerdotes
nempe mortem Jeremise machinates, morti dedit per Chaldaos
2 Reg xxv. 18-21. Nihil illis divitise suss profuerunt, quibus re-
dimi se posse speraverant. Eo quod iniquitatem non fecerit, neque i

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 477

dolusfuerit in ore ejus. Quanquam nihil aliud dixerat quam quod
Deus ei mandaverat;"— " < And he shall give the wicked for his grave
(or burial), and the rich for his death/ They would have slain him
as we read Jer. xxvi. But God gave them that were very powerful'
indeed, but wicked, even the priests that designed his death up to
death by the Chaldeans, 2 Kings xxv. 18-21. Their riches, whereby
they hoped to redeem themselves, profited them nothing. ' Because
he had done/ etc. Although he had not said any thing but what
Ood commanded him."

It is confessed that the first words are full of difficulty, and various
are the interpretations of them, which the reader may consult in
expositors. It is not my work at present to comment on the text
mt to consider its accommodation by Grotius. The most simple
sense of the words to me seems to be, that Christ, being cut off from
the land of the living, had his sepulchre among wicked men being
taken down from the cross 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 dis
covered by Forsterus and Mercerus, names of sufficient authority in
all Hebrew literature. The sense that Grotius fixes on is, that « God
delivered Jeremiah from death, and gave others to be slain in his
stead, who had contrived his death." But,—

1. Of deliverance from death here is no'mention; yea, he who is
spoken of was Wiba, «in niortibus ejus," in his deaths, or under
death and its power. So that it is not, " Others shall die for him "
but, « He being dead, under the power of death, his grave or burial
or sepulchre, shall be so disposed of."

2. There is not any word spoken of putting others to death but
* giving or placing his grave with the wicked. Nor were those men
tioned in 2 Kings xxv. 18-21, that were slain by the king of Babel
as it doth any way appear, of the peculiar enemies of Jeremiah the
chief of them, Seraiah, being probably he to whom Jeremiah gave
his prophecy against Babylon, who is said to be a "quiet prince"
Jer. li. 59-64.

3. It is well that it is granted that^ro is as much as vice, "for one in
one s stead ; which the learned annotator's friends will scarce allow

4 The application of these words, "He had done no violence
neither was any deceit in his mouth" (which are used to express the
absolutely perfect innocency of the Son of God), to any man, who as a
man is or was a liar, is little less than blasphemy; and to restrain them
to the prophet s message from God is devoid of all pretence or plea.

Verse 10 " Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put
iim to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of 'the
-LORD shall prosper in his hand."

VINDICLE EV ANGELICA.

"Tamen Deo visum est eum conterere et infirmare; id e&t, at
tenuate fame, illuvie, squalore. Verba activa apud Hebrseos ssepe
permittendi habent significatum. Causa sequitur cur id Deus per-
miserit, Si posuerit pro delicto animam swam, videbit semen long-
cevum. ' Verteris recte, ' ut cum semetipsum subjecerit pcenis, videat
semen, diuque vivat/ Hebrseis poena etiam injuste irrogata W$
dicitur, quia infligitur si non sonti, certe quasi sonti: sic KP" sumi
apparet, Gen. xxxi. 39 ; Zach. xiv. 19. Vixit diu Jeremias in Egypto /'
_ « ' Yet it seemed good to God to bruise and weaken him ;' that is,
to weaken him, and bring him down by hunger, filth, etc. Active
verbs among the Hebrews have often the signification of permitting.
The reason follows why God suffered this, < If he make his soul/ etc.
You shall rightly read it, ' that when he hath submitted himself to
punishment, then he may see his seed and live long.' Amongst
the Hebrews punishment, [even though], unjustly inflicted, is called
OPS, because it is inflicted on him that is guilty,1 or supposed so: so
iUs evident that KBn is taken, Gen. xxxl 39 ; Zech. xiv. 19. Jere
miah lived long in Egypt."

The words and sense are both briefly to be considered. 1. n?9,
" voluit," _ " The LORD would bruise him." " Delectatus est," Jua
"It pleased the LORD," say we. The Greek renders this word pofatra,,
properly, although in the following words it utterly departs from the
original' The word is not only " velle," but " voluntatem seu com-
placentiam habere,"— to take delight to do the thing, and ia the
doing of it, which we will to be done, Num. xiv. 8; Judges xiii. 23.
Our translation refers it to the purpose and good pleasure of God;
so is the word used Jonah i. 14, and in sundry other places. The
noun of the same signification is used again in this verse, f?D, and is
translated « The pleasure:" " The pleasure «f the LORD shall pros-
per,"— that is, the thing which pleases him, and which he hath pur
posed to do. The purpose and pleasure of the Lord in giving Christ
up to death, Acts ii. 23, and iv. 27, 28, is doubtless that which the
prophet here intends; which also, as to the execution of it, is farther
expressed Zech. xiii. 7.

2. It pleased the LORD ^1, " eum contundere, conterere, fran-
gere," to bruise or break him; in answer to what was said before,
verse 5, " He was wounded, he was bruised," etc.

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 r??n is nowhere used in that sense, nor will anywhere
bear that interpretation. And though some active verbs in the
Hebrew may be interpreted in a sense of permitting or suffering the
thing to be done which is said to be done, yet that all may so be in-

i Or rather, " if not on him that is guilty, at least on one supposed to be guilty."—
ED.

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 479

terpreted when we please, without a cogent reason for such an inter
pretation, [and] that this verb, signifying not only to will, but to will
with delight and purpose, should be so interpreted, and that in this
place, not admitting of such a gloss in any other place, is that which
was needful to be said by the learned annotator, but with what pre
tence of reason or truth I know not.

2. As to Christ, to whom he confesseth these words properly belong
the proper sense of the word is to be retained, as hath been showed \
and it is very marvellous the improper sense 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 signified

For the second passage, "When (or if thou shalt) he shall make
his soul an offering for sin," or, as it may be read, "When his soul shall
make an offering for sin," it may relate' either to God giving him up
tor a sacrifice,— his soul for his whole human nature —or to Christ
whose soul was [offered], or who offered himself, as a sacrifice to God'

->C' ^ v? !f way ST er u be ^eu> ft is Peculiar to Christ; for

neither did God ever make any one else an offering for sin nor did
ever any person but Christ make himself an offering, or had power
so to do, or would have been accepted in so doing. To suit these
words to Jeremiah, it is said that aft 'm the Hebrew signifies any
punishment, though unjustly inflicted.

I will not say that the learned annotator affirms this with a mind
to deceive, but yet I cannot but think that as he hath not given so
he could notgive one instance out of the Scripture of that use of the
word which he pretends. This I am sure of, that his assertion hath
put me to the labour of considering all the places of Scripture where
the word is used in the full collections of Calasius, and I dare con
fidently assure the reader that there is no colour for this assertion
nor instance to make it good. The Greeks have rendered it «,J
*•?**•* "an offering for sin," as is expressed, Rom. viii. 3 Heb
x. 6, 8 : so the word is used Lev. v. 16, vii 1 But -

T /• w »»«ii» l , 9

Zech. xiv. 19. But, — '

1. This doth not satisfy, "If this word may not be so interpreted
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 sense ! Nor,

2. Can he prove that *?D [n^n] hath any other signification but
either of sin or punishment, or satisfaction. In the first place in
stanced in, Gen. xxxi. 39, Jacob says that for that which was taken
away out of the flock of Laban, he expiated it, he made satisfaction
Fv $ ^ •- 10 * afterward re(luired in such cases should be done
-xod . xxn. 12; and in that place of Zech. xiv. 19, it is precisely
punishment for sin. But this word is not in our text

480 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

Take, then, the word in any sense that it will admit of, to apply
this expression to Jeremiah is no less than blasphemy. To say that
either God or himself made him a sacrifice for sin is to blaspheme
the one sacrifice of the Son of God.

For the next words, " He shall see his seed," Grotius knows not
how to make any application of them to Jeremiah, and therefore he
speaks nothing of them. How they belong to Christ is evident, Ps.
xxii. 30, Heb. ii. 8. That " he shall prolong his days" is not ap
plicable to Jeremiah, of whom the annotator knew not how long
he lived in Egypt, hath been formerly declared. Christ prolonged
his days, in that notwithstanding that he was dead he is alive, and
lives for ever.

The last clause, concerning the prospering of the good pleasure,
the will and pleasure, of the Lord, in the hand of Jesus Christ, for
the gathering of his church through his blood, and making peace be
tween God and man, hath little relation to any thing that is spoken
of Jeremiah, whose ministry for the conversion of souls doth not seem
to have had any thing eminent in it above that of other prophets ;
yea, falling in a time when the wickedness of the people to whom
he was sent was come up to the height, his message seemed to be
almost totally rejected.

Verse 11, "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied : 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 respect
of himself and others, with the reason thereof, is briefly comprised
and expressed in this verse.

" Videbit et saturabitur. Videbit diu, ad satietatem. Simile lo-
quendi genus in Hebraeo, Gen. xxv. 8, xxxv. 29, 1 Paral. xxiil 1,
xxix. 28, 2 Paral. xxiv. 15.

" In scientia sua. Per earn quam habet Dei cognitionem.

" Justificabit ipse Justus servus meus multos. Exemplo et insti-
tutione corriget multos etiam ex gentibus. Haec est maxime pro-
pria verbi P^-P significatio, et Graeci dixaiow, ut apparet Dan. xii. 3,
Apoc. xxii. 11, et alibi saepe.

" Et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit. Id est, auferet, per ptruvu-
/tiav, quia qui sordes aliquas auferunt solent eos collo supposito por-
tare. Abstulit Jeremias multorum peccata, ita ut diximus, eos corri-
gendo."

" 'He shall see, and be satisfied.' He shall see long, unto satiety.
The like phrase of speech you have in the Hebrew, Gen. xxv. 8,
etc.

" '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 heathen. This is the most

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH LIII. 481

proper sense of the word P^, and of dixaiovv in the Greek, as ap-
peareth, Dan. xii. 3, Kev. xxii. 11, etc.

" 'For he shall bear their iniquities;' that is, take them away, by a
metonymy, because those that take away filth used to take it on
their necks and bear it. Jeremiah took away the sins of many, as
was said, by correcting or amending them."

The intelligent reader will easily perceive the whole Socinian
poison about the death of Christ to be infolded in this interpreta
tion. His "knowledge" is the knowledge that he had of God and
his will, which he declares; to "justify" is to amend men's lives;
and to " bear sin" 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
Jeremiah. But the words are of another import, as we shall briefly

1. These words, ^^ ^, which the Vulgar Latin renders " pro
eo quod laboravit," ad verbum, "propter laborem animse suse,"
which express the object of the seeing mentioned, and that where
with he was satisfied, are not taken notice of. The " travail of the
soul" of Christ is the fruit of his labour, travail, and suffering.
This, says the prophet, he " shall see," that is, " receive, perceive,
enjoy," as the verb n^"} in many places signifies; verbs of sense
with the Hebrews having very large significations. $•$*., " satura-
bitur," he shall be " full and well-contented," and pleased with the
fruit that he shall have of all his labour and travail. 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. xxv. 8, etc., in all which men
tion is made of men that were old and full of days.

(1.) But to " live to satiety," is to live till a man be weary of living,
which may not be ascribed to the prophet.

(2.) This of his " long life" was spoken of immediately before, ac
cording to the interpretation of our annotator, and is not probably
instantly again repeated.

(3.) The long life of Jeremiah, by way of eminency above others, is
but pretended, as hath been evinced. But, —

(4.) How came this word, " to see," to be taken neutrally, and to
signify " to live?" What instance of this sense 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 re
lation to one another or construction as to endure to be cast into
this form. It is not " videbit diu ad satietatem," much less " vivet ad
satietatem," but " videbit, saturabitur."

(6.) The word " shall see" evidently relates to the words going be
fore, " the travail of his soul" If it had been, " He shall see many

VOL. XIL 31

482 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

years, or many days, and be satisfied/' it had been something; but
it is, " He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied."

2. " By his knowledge," tof]?, " In (or by) his knowledge;" "In
scientia sua," Vulg. Lat. ; "Cognitione sui," Jun. The LXX. wholly
pervert 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. iii. 8. So, " Teach me thy
fear," that is, "The fear of thee;" " My worship," that is, "The
worship of me." No " knowledge of God " in the land. But the use
of this is in the next words.

3. " My righteous servant shall justify many." That this term, used
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, it can be no otherwise
understood. P"1"1}?., "shall justify," that is, shall absolve from their sins,
and pronounce them righteous. Grotius would have the word here to
signify, " to make holy and righteous by instruction and institution,'
as Dan. xii. 3, and dixaiovv, Rev. xxii. 11. That both these words are
to be taken in a forensical signification ; that commonly, mostly, they
are so taken in the Scriptures ; that scarce one 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, — have
been abundantly manifested by those who have written of the doc
trine of justification at large: that is not now my present business.
This I have from the text to lay in the way of the interpretation of the
learned annotator.

The reason and foundation of this justification here mentioned is
in the following words, which indeed steer the sense of the whole
text: —

4. "For he shall bear their iniquities." Now, what justification
of men is a proper effect of another's bearing their iniquities? Doubt
less the acquitting of them from the guilt of their sins, on the ac
count of their sins being so borne, and no other. But, says our an
notator, " To bear their sins is to take them away," by a figurative
expression. If this may not be understood, I suppose every one
will confess that the annotator hath laboured in vain as to his whole
endeavour of applying this prophecy unto Jeremiah. If by " bear
ing our iniquities" be intended the undergoing of the punishment
of those iniquities, and not the delivering men from their iniqui
ties, the whole matter here treated of can relate to none but Jesus
Christ ; and to him it doth relate in the sense contended for. Now,

DIGRESSION CONCERNING GROTIUS ON ISAIAH Lm. 483

to evince this sense, we have all the arguments that any place is ca
pable to receive the confirmation of its proper sense by. For,

(1.) The word, as is confessed, signifies properly to " bear " or
" carry/' and not to " take away," nor is it ever otherwise used in
the Scripture, as hath been declared ; and the proper use of a word
is not to be departed from and a figurative one admitted without great
necessity.

(2.) The whole phrase of speech of " bearing iniquity" is constantly
in the Scripture used for bearing or undergoing the punishment 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 " bore the iniquities of men," as
described in this chapter, namely, by being " wounded," " bruised,"
" put to grief," will admit of no interpretation but that by us in
sisted on. From all which it is evident how violently the Scripture
is here perverted, by rendering, " My righteous servant shall justify
many, for he shall bear their iniquities," by " Jeremiah shall instruct
many in godliness, and so turn them from their sins."

Verse 12, " Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ; because he hath poured
out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the trans
gressors."

A farther fruit of the travail of the Lord Christ, in his conquest
over all oppositions, in the victory he obtained, the spoils 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: —

" Dispertiam ei plurimos. Dabo ei partem in multis; id est,
multos servabunt Chaldaei in ejus gratiam, vide Jer. xxxix. 17.

" Etfortium dividet spolia; id est, Nabuzardan magister militum,
capta urbe, de prasda ipsi dona mittet, Jer. xl. 5. Oblatum etiam
ipsi a Chaldeis tense quantum vellet.

" Pro eo quod tradidit in mortem animam suam. In Hebrseo,
' Quia effudit in mortem animam suam/ Id est, periculis mortis
semet objecit colendo veritatem qua3 odium parit. Vide historiam
ad hanc rem oppositam, Jer. xxvi. 13. Sic nfaai -^u^v dici pro pe-
riculo mortis semet objicere diximus ad, Johan. x. 11.

" Et cum sceleratis reputatus est. Ita est tractatus quomodo sce-
lerati sol en t in carcere, catenis, et barathro.

" Et ipse peccata multorum tulit, pessime tractatus ruit per mul-
torum improbitatem, uti sup. ver. 5.

"Etpro transgressorilus rogavit. TO! est deprecari. Sensus est:
eo ipso tempore cum tarn dura pateretur a populo, non cessavit ad
Deum preces pro eis fundere, vide Jer. xiv. 7," etc.

484 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

" ' I will divide him a portion with the great/ or many ; that is
the Chaldeans shall preserve many for his sake, Jer. xxxix. 1 7.

"' He shall divide the spoil with the strong;' that is, Nebuzara-
dan, the chief captain, the city being taken, shall send him gifts of
the prey, Jer. xl. 5. As much land also as he would was offered
him by the Chaldeans.

"'Because he poured out his soul unto death;' that is, he ex
posed himself to the danger of death by following truth, which be
gets hatred. See Jer. xxvi. 13. TiSsvui -vj/u^jjv is spoken for exposing
a man's life to danger of death, John x. 11.

" ' He bare the sin of many,' or was evilly treated by the wicked
ness of the many.

" ' And made intercession for the transgressors/ He prayed for
the people," etc.

To run briefly over this exposition, —

1. " I will divide him a portion with the great." That is, " The
Chaldees shall save many for his sake." How is this proved? Jer.
xxxix. 17, 18, where God says he will save Ebedmelech, because
he put his trust in him ! Such is the issue commonly when men
will wrest the Scripture to their own imagination, — such are their
proofs of what they affirm.

2. " He shall divide the spoil with the strong." That is, " The city
being taken, the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a re
ward, and set him at liberty, as we read, Jer. xl. 5."

3. " Because he poured out his soul unto death." That is, " He ven^
tured his life by preaching the truth, although he did not die." For, —

4. " He bare the sin of many," that is, " By the wickedness of many
he was wronged;" though this expression in the verse foregoing be
interpreted, " He shall take away their sins," and that when a word
of a more restrained signification is used to express " bearing " than
that here used. At this rate a man may make application of what
he will to whom he will.

Upon the sense 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 consideration of
the intolerable wresting of the words and their sense by the learned
annotator to make the least allusion appear betwixt what befell him
and what is expressed.

To close these animadversions, I shall desire the reader to ob
serve, —

1. That there is not any application of these words made to the
prophet Jeremiah, that suits him in any measure, but what may also
be made to any prophet or preacher of the word of God that met
with affliction and persecution in the discharge of his duty, and was
delivered by the presence of God with him; so that there is no

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 485

reason to persuade us that Jeremiah was peculiarly intended in this
prophecy.

2. That the learned annotator, though he professes that Jesus Christ
was intended in the letter of this scripture, yet hath interpreted the
whole not only without the least mention of Jesus Christ or appli
cation of it unto him, but also hath so opened the several words and
expressions of it as to leave no place or room for the main doctrine
of his satisfaction, here principally intended. And how much the
church of God is beholding to him for his pains and travail herein
the reader may judge.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Of the matter of the punishment that Christ underwent, or what he suffered.

HAVING despatched this digression, I return again to the consider
ation of the death of Christ as it was a punishment, which shall
now be pursued unto its issue.

The THIRD thing proposed to consideration on this account, was
the matter of this punishment that Christ underwent, which is com
monly expressed by the name of his " death."

Death is a name comprehensive of all evil, of what nature or of
what kind soever, — all that was threatened, all that was ever in
flicted on man. Though much of it falls within the compass of this
life, and short of death, yet it is evil purely on the account of its rela
tion to death and its tendency thereunto ; which when it is taken away,
it is no more generally and absolutely evil, but in some regard only.
The death of Christ, as comprehending his punishment, may be
considered two ways : 1. In itself; 2. In reference to the law.

On the first head I shall only consider the general evident con
comitants of it as they lie in the story, which are all set down as
aggravations of the punishment he underwent ; on the latter I shall
give an account of the whole in reference to the law : —

1. Of death natural, which in its whole nature is penal (as hath
been elsewhere evinced), there are four aggravations, whereunto all
others may be referred: as, — (1.) That it be violent or bloody;
(2.) That it be ignominious or shameful; (3.) That it be lingering
and painful; (4.) That it be legal and accursed. And all these to
the height met in the death of Christ.

(1.) It was violent and bloody: hence he is said to be, — [1.] Slain,
Acts ii. 23, 'AviiXiTe, " Ye have slain;" [2.] Killed, Acts iii. 15,
' Awxriivarf, " Ye have killed;" [3.] Put to death, John xviii. 31, 32;
[4.] Cut off, Dan. ix. 26.

The death of Christ and the blood of Christ are on this account

486 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC M.

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 himself to God therein as
he was a sacrifice, yet he was taken by violence and nailed to the
cross as it was a punishment; and the dissolution of his body and
soul was by a means no less violent than if he had been most un
willing thereunto.

(2.) It was ignominious and shameful. Such was the death of
the cross,1 — the death of slaves, malefactors, robbers, pests of the
earth and burdens of human society, like those crucified with him.
Hence he is said to be " obedient unto death, the death of the cross/'
Phil. ii. 8, that shameful and ignominious death. And when he "en
dured the cross," he "despised the shame" also, Heb. xii. 2. To be
brought forth and scourged as a malefactor amongst malefactors in
the eye of the world, made a scorn and a by-word, men wagging the
head and making mouths at him in derision, when he was full of
torture, bleeding to death, is no small aggravation of it. Hence the
most frequent expression of his death is by the cross, or crucifying.

(3.) It was lingering. It was the voice of cruelty itself concern
ing one who was condemned to die, " Sentiat se mori," — " Let him so
die that he may feel himself dying ;" and of one who, to escape tor
ture, killed himself, " Evasit," — " He escaped me." Sudden death,
though violent, is an escape from torture. Such was this of Christ.
From his agony in the garden, when he began to die (all the powers
of hell being then let loose upon him), until the giving up of the
ghost, it was from the evening of one day to the evening of another;
from his scourging by Pilate, after which he was under continual
pain and suffering in his soul and hi his body, to his death, it was six
hours ; and all this while was he under exquisite tortures, as, on very
many considerations, might easily be made manifest.

(4.) It was legal, and so an accursed death. There was process
against him by witness and judgment Though they were, indeed, all
false and unjust, yet to the eye of the world his death was legal, and
consequently accursed: Gal. iii. 13, "Cursed is every one that hangeth
on a tree," — that is, because of the doom of the law, whose sentence
is called a curse, Deut. xxi. 23. Such was that of Christ, Isa, liii. 4.

1 " 2*iXaxaT/«, seu crucifragium ut crux ipsa, servorum quasi peculiare supplicium
fuit." — Lipsias. " Sublimes extra ordinemaliquaestatuebantur cruces; si exempla edenda
forent in famosa persona, et ob atrox facinus, aut si hoc supplicio veniret afficiendus
ille, cujus odium erat apud omnes flagrantissimum." — Salmas. de Cruce. Which seems to
be the case in the cross of Christ, between those of the thieves. " Bene addit crucem, nam
Bervorum non civium crucis erat supplicium." — Nannius, in Terent. And. Act. 3, 5, 15.

" Noli minitari scio crucem

Futuram mihi sepulchrum : ibi enim mei majores sunt siti,
Pater, avus, proavus, abavus." — Servus apudPlaut. Mil. Glor. ii. 4, 19.
Vid. Trach. Histor. lib. ii. 27 ; Vulcat. in Avid. Cassio, cap. iv. ; Capitolin. in Macrin.
cap. xii. ; Luc. Floras, lib. iii. cap. xix.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 487

2. As all these aggravations attended his death as it was death
itself, so there was a universality in all the concernments of it as it
was a legal punishment. Briefly to give some instances: —

(1.) There was a universality of efficient causes, whether princi
pal or instrumental. The first great division of causes efficient is
into the Creator and the creatures; and both here concurred : —

[1.] The Creator, God himself, laid it upon him. He was not
only " delivered by his determinate counsel/' Acts ii. 22, 23, iv. 27, 28,
not spared by him, but given up to death, Rom. viii. 32 ; but " it
pleased him to bruise him, and to put him to grief," Isa. liii. 10, as
also to " forsake him/' Ps. xxii. 1: so acting in his punishment, by the
immission of that which is evil and the subtraction of that which is
good, so putting the cup into his hand which he was to drink, and
mixing the wine thereof for him, as shall afterward be declared.

[2.] Of creatures, one general division is into intelligent and brute
or irrational ; and both these also, in their several ways, concurred to
his punishment, as they were to do by the sentence and curse of the law.

Intelligent creatures are distinguished into spiritual and invisible,
and visible and corporeal also: —

1st. Of the first sort are angels and devils; which agree in the same
nature, differing only in qualities and states or conditions. Of all
beings, the angels seem to have had no hand in the death of Christ :
for, being not judge, as was God ; nor opposite to God, as is Satan ; nor
under the curse of the law, as is mankind 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 add to
his punishment. Only, whereas it was their duty to have preserved
him, being innocent, and in his way, from violence and fury, their
assistance was withheld.

But from that sort of spiritual invisible creatures he suffered in
the attempts of the devil.

Christ looked on him at a distance, in his approach to set upon
him. " The prince of this world," saith he, " cometh," John xiv. 30.
He saw him coming, with all his malice, fury, and violence, to set
upon him, to ruin him if it were possible. And that he had a close
combat with him on the cross is evident from the conquest that
Christ there made of him, Col. ii. 15, which was not done without
wounds and blood ; when he brake the serpent's head, the serpent
bruised his heel, Gen. iii. 15.

Zdly. As for men, the second rank of intellectual creatures, they
had their influence into this punishment of Christ, in all their dis
tributions that on any account they were cast into : —

(1st.) In respect of country or nation, and the privileges thereon
attending. The whole world on this account is divided into Jews
and Gentiles; and both these had their efficiency in this business:

488 VINDICLffl EVANGELICJS.

Ps. ii. 1, " "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
thing?" Heathen and people, Gentiles and Jews, are all in it, as
the place is interpreted by the apostles, Acts iv. 25, 26. And to
make this the more eminent, the great representatives of the two
people conspired in it, the sanhedrim of the Jews and the body
of the people in the metropolitical city on the one hand, and the
Romans for the Gentiles, who then were "rerum domini," and
governed 6/xou,«,£vjjv, as Luke tells us, chap. ii. 1. The whole on both
hands is expressed Matt. xx. 18, 19.

(2dly.) As to order, men are distinguished into rulers and those
under authority, and both sorts herein concurred.

Rulers are either civil or ecclesiastical ; both which (notwithstand
ing all their divisions) conspired in the death of Christ.

As for civil rulers, as it was foretold, Ps. ii. 2, xxii. 12, so it was
accomplished, Acts iv. 25, 26. The story is known of the concur
rence of Herod and 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.

As for ecclesiastical rulers, what was done by the priests and all
the council of the elders is known ; the matter of fact need not be
insisted on. Indeed, they were the great contrivers and malicious
plotters of his death, using all ways and means for the accomplish
ing of it, Acts iii. 1 7; in particular, Annas, the usurper of the priest
hood, seems to have had a great hand in the business, and therefore
to him was he first carried.

As for those under authority, besides what we have in the story,
Peter tells the body of the people, Acts ii. 23, that " they took him,
and with wicked hands crucified and slew him;" and chap. iii. 15,
that they " killed the Prince of life." So Zech. xii. 10, not only the
"house of David," the rulers, but the "inhabitants of Jerusalem," the
people, are said to " pierce him ;" and thence " they which pierced
him" is a periphrasis of the Jews. Rev. i. 7, after "Every eye shall see
him," there is a distribution into "They which pierced him," that is,
the Jews, and " All kindreds of the earth," that is, the Gentiles. The
very rabble were stirred up to cry, " Crucify him, crucify him," and
did it accordingly, Matt, xxvii. 20; and they all consented as one
man in the cry. verse 22, and that with violence and clamour, verse
23. Abjects made mouths at him, Ps. xxxv. 15, xxii. 7.

(ScZfo/.) Distinguish man in relation to himself, either upon a natu
ral or moral account, as his kindred and relations, or strangers, and
they will appear to be all engaged ; but this is so comprised in the
former distinction of Jews and Gentiles that it need not be insisted on.

On a moral account, as they were either his friends or his enemies,
he suffered from both.

His friends, all his disciples, forsook him and fled, Matt. xxvi. 56.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 489

The worst of them betrayed him, verses 14, 15, and the best of them
denied him, verse 70; and so " there was none to help," Ps. xxii. 11.

And if it were thus with him in the house of his friends, what may
be expected from his enemies? Their malice and conspiracy, their
irnplacableness and cruelty, their plotting and accomplishment of
their designs, take up so great a part of the history of his crucifying
that I shall not need insist on particular instances.

Yea, mankind was engaged as distinguished into sexes. Of men
of all sorts you have heard already; and the tempting, ensnaring,
captious question of the maid to Peter manifests that amongst his
persecutors there were of that sex also, Matt. xxvi. 69.

Of men's distinction by their employments, of soldiers, lawyers,
citizens, divines, all concurring to this work, I shall not add any
thing to what hath been spoken.

Thus the first order of creatures, those that are intellectual, were
universally, at least with a distributive universality, engaged in the
suffering of the Lord Jesus ; and the reason of this general engage
ment was, because the curse that was come upon them for sin had
filled them all with enmity one against another : — First, Fallen men
and angels were engaged into an everlasting enmity on the first en
trance of sin, Gen. iii. 15. Secondly, Men one towards another were
filled with malice, and envy, and hatred, Tit. iii. 3.

The Jews and Gentiles were engaged, by way of visible represen
tation of the enmity which was come on all mankind, John iv. 9,
Eph. ii. 14-17; and therefore he who was to undergo 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 persecution of him concerned
not his death as it was a sacrifice, as he made his soul an offering
for sin ; but as it was a punishment, the utmost of their enmity was
to be executed towards him.

The residue of the creatures concurred thus far to his sufferings
as to manifest themselves at that time to be visibly under the curse
and indignation that was upon him, and so withdrew themselves,
as it were, from yielding him the least assistance. To instance in
general, heaven and earth lost their glory, and that in them which
is useful and comfortable to the children of men, without which all
the other conveniencies and advantages are as a thing of naught.
The glory of heaven is its light, Ps. xix. 1, 2; and the glory of the
earth is its stability. He hath fixed the earth that it shall not be
moved.

Now, both these were lost at once. The heavens were darkened
when it might be expected, in an ordinary course, that the sun
should have shone in its full beauty, Matt, xxvii. 45, Luke xxiii.
44, 45; and the earth lost its stability, and shook or trembled, and
the rocks rent, and the graves opened, Matt, xxvii. 51, 52; — all evi-

490 VTNDICI^E EV ANGELICA.

dences of that displeasure against sin which God was then putting in
execution to the utmost, Rom. i. 18.

Thus, first, in his suffering there was universality of efficient causes.
" (2.) There was a universality in respect of the subjects wherein 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 human nature. In his person he suffered,
in the two essential, constituent parts of it, his body and his soul: —
1st. His body. In general, as to its integral parts, his body was
" broken/' 1 Cor. xi. 24, or crucified; his blood was " shed," Matt
xxvi. 28,'or poured out. 2c%. His soul. His "soul was made an
offering for sin," Isa. liii. 10; and his "soul was heavy unto death,"
Matt. xxvi. 37, 38.

1st In particular, his body suffered in all its concernments, —
namely, all his senses and all its parts or members.
In all its senses; as, to instance, —

(1st.} In his feeling. He was full of pain, which made him, as he
says, cry for disquietness; and this is comprised in every one of those
expressions which say he was broken, pierced, and lived so long on
the cross in the midst of most exquisite torture, until, being full of pain>
he " cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost," Matt, xxvii. 50.
(2<%.) His tasting. When he fainted with loss of blood and
grew thirsty, " they gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall,"
Matt, xxvii. 34, John xix. 29, -Matt, xxvii. 48, not to stupify his
senses, but to increase his torment.

(3c%.) His seeing, though not so much in the natural organ of it
as in its use. He saw his mother and disciples standing by full of
grief, sorrow, and confusion ; which exceedingly increased his anguish
and perplexity, John xix. 25, 26. And he saw his enemies full of
rage and horror standing round about him, Ps. xxii. 12, 16. He saw
them passing by and wagging the head in scorn, Matt, xxvii. 39, Ps.

xxii. 7, 8.

(4£%.) His ears were filled with the reproach and blasphemy of
which he grievously complains, Ps. xxii. 7, 8 ; which also is expressed
in its accomplishment, Matt, xxvii. 39-44, Luke xxiii. 36, 37. They
reproached him with God, and his ministry, and his profession; as
did also one of the thieves that were crucified with him. And,—

(5thly.) They crucified him in a noisome place, a place of stink
and loathsomeness, a place where they cast the dead bodies of men,
from whose bones it got the name of " Golgotha,"— a place of dead
men's skulls, Matt, xxvii. 33.

He suffered in all the parts of his body, especially those which
are most tender and full of sense: —

(1st.) For his head, they platted a crown of thorns, and put it on

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 491

him ; and, to increase his pain, smote it on (that the thorns might
pierce him the deeper) with their staves, Matt, xxvii. 29, 30, as the
Jews had stricken him before, chap. xxvi. 67, 68, John xix. 2, 3.

(2dly.~) His face they spat upon, buffeted, smote, and plucked off
his hair, Isa 1. 6, Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.

(Sdly?) His back was torn with whips and scourges, Matt, xxvii.
26, John xix. 1, ipaariyug? there " they made long their furrows."

(4thly.') His hands, and feet, and side, were pierced with nails and
spear, Ps. xxii. 16.

(Stilly.) To express the residue of his body, and the condition of
't when he hung on the cross so long, by the soreness of his hands
and his feet, says he, " All my bones are out of joint," Ps. xxii. 14,
and also verses 16, 17.

Thus was it with his body.

2dly. The like also is expressed of his soul; for, —

(1st.) On his mind was darkness, — not in it, but on it, — as to his
apprehension of the love and presence of God. Hence was his cry,
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Ps. xxii. 1, Matt
xxvii. 46. Though his faith was, upon the whole of the matter, pre
valent and victorious, Isa. 1. 7-9, yet he had many sore conflicts
with the sense and apprehension of God's wrath for sin, and that
desertion he was then under as. to any cheering influences of his love
and presence.

(Zdly.) For the rest of his faculties, he was not only under the
pressure of the most perplexing, grievous, and burdensome passions
that human nature is obnoxious unto, as, — [1st.] Heaviness, " His
soul was heavy unto death," Matt. xxvi. 37, 38; [2dly.] Grief, " No
sorrow like to his," Lam. i. 12 ; [3%.] Fear, Heb. v. 7;— but was also
pressed into a condition beyond what we have words to express, or
names of passions or affections to set it forth by. Hence he is said
to be " in an agony," Luke xxii. 44; to be " amazed," Mark xiv. 33;
with the like expressions, intimating a condition miserable and dis
tressed beyond what we are able to comprehend or express.

[2.] In his name, his repute, or credit, he suffered also. He was
numbered amongst transgressors, Isa. liii. 12, Ps. xxii.; counted a
malefactor, and crucified amongst them; a seducer, a blasphemer, a
seditious person, a false prophet; and was cruelly mocked and de
rided on the cross as an impostor, that saved others but could not
save himself, that pretended to be the Messiah, the King of Israel,
but could not come down from the cross; laid in the balance with
Barabbas, a rogue and a murderer, and rejected for him, Matt, xxvii.

[3.] In his friends. The Shepherd was smitten, and the sheep
scattered, Zech. xiii. 7, — all his friends distressed, scattered, glad
to flee for their lives, or to save themselves by doing the things that
were worse than death.

492 VINDICI^E EVANGELIC^.

[4.] In his goods, even all that he had : " They parted his gar
ments, and cast lots for his vesture," Ps. xxii. 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 concernments, with the immission and infliction of every thing
that is evil, and the subtraction of every thing that is good ; that is,
with " poena sensus et pcena damni," as they are called.

In reference to the law, I say that Christ underwent that very
punishment that was threatened in the law and was due to sinners ;
the same that we should have undergone, had not our surety done
it for us. To clear this briefly, observe that the punishment of the
law may be considered two ways : —

1. Absolutely in its own nature, as it lies in the law and the
threatening thereof. This in general is called " death," Gen. ii. 1 7,
Ezek. xviii. 4, Rom. v. 12; and by way of aggravation, because of
its comprising the death of body and soul, " death unto death,"
2 Cor. ii 1 6; and " the second death," Rev. xx. 14; and " the curse,"
Deut. xxvii.-xxix., Matt. xxv. 41 ; and " wrath," 1 Thess. i. 10 (hence
we are said to be " delivered from the wrath to come"); and "wrath,"
or " the day of wrath," Rom. ii. 5, and in innumerable other places: all
which are set out, in many metaphorical expressions, by those things
which are to the nature of man most dreadful; as of " a lake with fire
and brimstone," of " Tophet, whose pile is much wood," and the like.

Of this punishment in general there are two parts:—
(1.) Loss, or separation from God, expressed in these words, "De
part from me," Matt. vii. 23 ; " Depart, ye cursed," chap. xxv. 41 ;
as also, 2 Thess. i. 9.

(2.) Sense or pain; whence it is called "fire," as 2 Thess. L 8;
"torments," etc., Luke xvi. 23. All this we say Christ underwent, as
shall be farther manifested.

2. Punishment of the law may be considered relatively to its sub
ject, or the persons punished, and that in two regards: —

(1.) In reference to its own attendancies and necessary conse
quents, as it falls upon the persons to be punished ; and these are
two : —

[1.] That it be a "worm that dieth not," Mark ix. 44, Isa. Ixvi. 24.

[2.] That it be a " fire not to be quenched," — that it be everlast
ing, that its torments be eternal.

And both these, I say, attend and follow the punishment of the
law, on the account of its relation to the persons punished; for,—

1st. The worm is from the in-being and everlasting abiding of a
man's own sin. That tormenting anguish of conscience which shall
perplex the damned to eternity attends their punishment merely
from their own sin inherent. This Christ could not undergo. The
worm attends not sin imputed, but sin inherent, especially not sin

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 493

imputed to him who underwent it willingly, it being the cruciating
vexation of men's own thoughts, kindled by the wrath of God against
themselves about their own sin.

2dly. That this worm never dies, that this fire can never be quenched,
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 himself that which is equal 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 eternal and in
finite God, must abide by it for ever. This was Christ free from.
The dignity of his person was such as that he could fully satisfy
divine justice in a limited season ; after which God in justice loosed
the pains of death, for it was impossible he should be detained
thereby, Acts ii. 24, and that because he was able to " swallow up
death in victory."

(2.) Punishment, as it relates to the persons punished, may be also
considered in respect of the effects which it produceth in them which
are not in the punishment absolutely considered; and these are gene
rally two: —

[1.] Repining against God and blaspheming of him, as in that
type of hell, Isa. viii. 21, 22. This is evil or sin in itself, which punish
ment is not. It is from the righteous God, who will do no iniquity.
This proceeds from men's 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 bless
edness, and all his perfections. Hence they murmur, repine, and
blaspheme him. Now, this must needs be infinitely remote from
him who, in love to his Father, and for his Father's glory, underwent
this punishment. He was loved of the Father, and loved him, and
willingly drank off this cup, which poisons the souls of sinners with
wrath and revenge.

[2.] Despair in themselves. Their hopes being cut off to eternity,
there remaining no more sacrifice for sin, they are their own tor
mentors with everlastingly perplexing despair. But this our Saviour
was most remote from, and that because he believed he should have
a glorious issue of the trial he underwent, Heb. xii. 2, Isa. 1. 7-9.

' But as to the punishment that is threatened in the law, in itself
considered, Christ underwent the same that the law threatened, and
which we should have undergone ; for, —

1. The law threatened death, Gen. ii. 17, Ezek. xviii. 4; and he
tasted death for us, Heb. ii. 9, Ps. xxii. 15. The punishment of

494 VINDICI.E EV ANGELICA.

the law is the curse, Detit. xxvii.-xxix. ; and he was made a curse,
Gal. iiL 13. The law threatened loss of the love and the favour of
God, and he lost it, Ps. xxii. 1.

To say that the death threatened by the law was one, and that
Christ underwent another, that eternal, this temporal, and so also of
the curse and desertion threatened (besides what shall be said after
ward), would render the whole business of our salvation unintelli
gible, as being revealed in terms equivocal, nowhere 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 punishment, or another?
Did we deserve one punishment, and Christ undergo another? Was
it the sentence of the law that was executed on him, or was it some
other thing that he was obnoxious to? It is said that he was "made
under the law," Gal. iv. 4; that "sin was condemned in his flesh,"
Rom. viii. 3 ; that " God spared him not," verse 32; that he " tasted
death," Heb. ii. 9 ; that he was " made a curse," Gal. iii. 13 ; — all re
lating to the law. That he suffered more or less there is no mention.

It is strange to me that we should deserve one punishment, and he
who is punished for us should undergo another, yet both of them be
constantly described by the same names and titles. If God laid the
punishment of our sins on Christ, certainly it was the punishment
that was due to them. Mention is everywhere made of a commuta
tion 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
will be made readily, upon a supposal that any thing less than the
curse of the law or death, in the nature of it eternal, was inflicted on
Christ, — namely, that God indeed is not such a sore revenger of sin
as in the Scripture he is proposed to be, but can pass it by in the
way of composition on much easier terms.

3. The punishment due to us, that is in the " curse of the law,"
consists, as was said, of two parts: — (1.) Loss, or separation from
God; (2.) Sense, from the infliction of the evil threatened. And
both these did our Saviour undergo.

(1.) For the first, it is expressed of him, Ps. xxii. 1 ; and he actually
complains of it himself, Matt, xxvii. 46 : and of this cry for a while
he says, " O my God, I cry in the day-time, but thou hearest not,"
Ps. xxii. 2, until he gives out that grievous complaint, verse 15,
" My strength is dried up like a potsherd ;" which cry he pressed so
long with strong cries and supplications, until he was heard and
delivered from what he feared, Heb. v. 7. They who would invent

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 495

evasions for this express complaint of our Saviour that he was de
serted and forsaken, as that he spake it in reference to his church, or
of his own being left to the power and malice of the Jews, do indeed
little less than blaspheme him, and say he was not forsaken of God,
when himself complains that he was; — forsaken, I say, not by the
disjunction of his personal union, but as to the communication of
effects of love and favour; which is the desertion that the damned
lie under in hell. And as for his being forsaken or given up to the
hands of men, was that it which he complained of? was that it
whereof he was afraid, which he was troubled at, which he sweat
blood under the consideration of, and had need of an angel to com
fort 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 Jews, 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 great atheist, Avho was burned for atheism at Tou
louse in France, all the way as he went to the stake did nothing but
insult over the friars that attended him, telling them that their
Saviour when he was led to death did sweat and tremble, and was
in an agony ; but that he, upon the account of reason, whereunto he
sacrificed his life, went with boldness and cheerfulness. God visibly
confuted his blasphemy, and at the stake he not only trembled and
quaked, but roared with horror.1 But let men take heed how they
justify the atheistical thoughts of men, in asserting our blessed
Redeemer to have been cast into that miserable and deplorable con
dition merely with the consideration of a temporary death, which
perhaps the thieves that were crucified with him did not so much
tremble at.

(2.) For "pcena sensus." From what hath been spoken, it is suffi
ciently manifest- what he underwent on this account. To what hath
been delivered before, of his being "bruised, afflicted, broken of God,"
from Isa. liii., — although he was " taken from prison and from judg
ment," verse 8, or everlasting condemnation, — add but this one consi-

1 " Vidi ego dum plaustro per ora vulgi traducitur, illudentem theologo e Francis-
canis, cujus cura mollire ferocitatera animi obstinati. Lucilius fcrocitate contumax,
dum in patibulum traditus, monachi solatium aspernatus objectam crucem aversatur,
Christoque illudit in hsec eadem verba : ' Illi in extremis prse timore imbellis sudor,
ego irnperterritus morior.' Falso sane imperterritum se dixit scelestus homo, quern
vidimus dejectum animo, philosophia uti pessime, cujus se mentiebatur professorem.
Erat illi in extremis aspectus ferox et horridus, inquieta mens, anxium quodcunque
loquebatur; et quanquam philosophice mori se clamabat identidem, finiisse ut brutum
nemo negayerit. Antequam rogosubderetur ignis ; jussus sacrilegam linguam cultro
submittere, negat, neque exerit, nisi forcipum vi apprehensam carnifex ferro abscindit :
non alias vociferatio horridior : diceres mugire ictum bovem, etc. Hie Lucilii Vanini
finis, cui quanta constantia fuerit, probat belluinus in morte clamor. Vidi ego in
custodia, vidi in patibulo, videram antequam subiret vincula : flagitiosus in libertate, et
voluptatum sectator avidus, in carcere Catholicus, in extremis omni philosophise prse-
sidio destitutus, amens moritur." — Gramon. Hist. Gal. lib. iii. ad anno 1619.

496 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

deration of what is affirmed of him, that " he tasted death for us,"
Heb. ii. 9, and this will be cleared. What death was it he tasted? The
death that had the curse attending it: Gal. iii. 13, " He was made
a curse." And what death that was himself declares, Matt. xxv. 41,
where, calling men accursed, he cries, " Depart into everlasting fire ; "
— " Ye that are obnoxious to the law, go to the punishment of hell."
Yea, and that curse which he underwent, Gal. iii. 13, is opposed to
the blessing of Abraham, verse 14, or the blessing promised him;
which was doubtless life eternal.

And to make it yet more clear, it was by death that he delivered
us from death, Heb. ii. 14, 15 ; and if he died only a temporal death,
he delivered us only from temporal death as a punishment. But he
shows us what death he delivered us from, and consequently what
death he underwent for us, John viii. 51, " He shall never see death ;"
that is, eternal death, for every believer shall see death temporal.

On these considerations, it is evident that the sufferings of Christ
in relation to the law were the very same that were threatened to
sinners, and which we should have undergone had not our Surety
undertaken the work 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 persons who offended did not suffer, and that
those consequences of the punishment inflicted which attend the
offenders' own suffering could have no place in him. But this being
not the main of my present design, I shall not farther insist on it.

Only I marvel that any should think to implead this truth of
Christ's suffering the same that we did, by saying that Christ's obli
gation to punishment was "sponsionis proprise," ours " violate legis;"
as though it were the manner how Christ came to be obnoxious 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 punishment the same
way that we do or did, that is, by sin of his own, is blasphemy; so
to say he did not, upon his own voluntary undertaking, undergo the
same is little less. It is true, Christ was made sin for us, — had our
sin 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.

CHAPTER XXVII,

Of the covenant between the Father and the Son, the ground and foundation of
this dispensation of Christ's being punished for us and in our stead.

THE FOURTH thing considerable is the ground of this dispensation
of Christ's being punished for us, which also hath influence into his

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 497

whole mediation on our behalf. This is that compact, covenant, con
vention, or agreement, that was between the Father and the Son,
for the accomplishment of the work of our redemption by the medi
ation of Christ, to the praise of the glorious grace of God.

The will of the Father appointing and designing the Son to be
the head, husband, deliverer, and redeemer of his elect, his church,
his people, whom he did foreknow, with the will of the Son volun
tarily, freely undertaking that work and all that was required there
unto, is that compact (for in that form it is proposed in the Scrip
ture) that we treat of.

It being so proposed, so we call it, though there be difficulty in
its explication. Rabbi Ruben, in Galatinus, says of Isa. Ixvi. 16,
that if the Scripture had not said it, it had not been lawful to have
said it, but being written, it may be spoken, " In fire, or by fire,
is the LORD judged:" for it is not BBlB^ that is, "judging;" but
BS5?J, that is, "is judged;"1 — which by some is applied 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 speak of him.
So it is in this matter.

It is true, the will of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but
one. It is a natural property, and where there is but one nature
there is but one will : but in respect of their distinct personal actings,
this will is appropriated to them respectively, so that the will of the
Father and the will of the Son may be considered [distinctly] in this
business; which though essentially one and the same, yet in their
distinct personality it is distinctly considered, as the will of the Father
and the will of the Son. Notwithstanding the unity of essence that is
between the Father and the Son, yet is the work distinctly carried on
by them ; so that the same God judges and becomes surety, satisfieth
and is satisfied, in these distinct persons.

Thus, though this covenant be eternal, and the object of it be that
which might not have been, and so it hath the nature of the residue
of God's decrees in these regards, yet because of this distinct acting
of the will of the Father and the will of the Son with regard to each
other, it is more than a decree, and hath the proper nature of a cove
nant or compact. Hence, from the moment of it (I speak not of
time), there is a new habitude of will in the Father and Son towards
each other that is not in them essentially ; I call it new, as being
in God freely, not naturally. And hence was the salvation of men
before the incarnation, by the undertaking, mediation, and death
of Christ. That the saints under the old testament were saved by
Christ at present I take for granted ; that they were saved by
virtue of a mere decree will not be said. From hence was Christ

1 osi-3 rnm ESS ra.

T j • T : •• T •

VOL. xii. 32

498 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

esteemed to be incarnate and to have suffered, or the fruits of his in
carnation and suffering could not have been imputed to any ; for the
thing itself being denied, the effects of it are not.

The revelation of this covenant is in the Scripture ; not that it was
then constituted when it is first mentioned in the promises and pro
phecies of Christ, but [it was] then first declared or revealed. Christ
was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead,
but he was so from eternity. As in other places, as shall be evinced, so
in Isa. liii. is this covenant mentioned : in which chapter there is this
prophetical scheme, — The covenant between Father and Son, 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 Christ's coming
into the world ; not constitutively, but declaratively. It is the great
est 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 clearly
expressed Heb. x. 7, from Ps. xl. 7, 8, " Lo, I come to do thy will, O
God." And what will? Verse 10, "The will by which we are sanc
tified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 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 Christ," in answer to what was said before, " A
body hast thou prepared me," or a human nature, by a synecdoche.
" 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 sanctified." Says the Son to this, " Lo, I come to
do thy will .;" — " I accept of the condition, and give up myself to the
performance of thy will."

To make this more distinctly evident, the nature of such a com
pact, agreement, or convention, as depends on personal service, such
as this, may be a little considered.

There are five things required to the complete establishing and
accomplishing of such a compact or agreement : —

1. That there be sundry persons, two at least, namely, a promiser
and undertaker, agreeing voluntarily together in counsel and design
for the accomplishment and bringing about some common end accept
able to them both ; so agreeing together.1 Being both to do some
what that they are not otherwise obliged to do, there must be some
common end agreed on by them wherein they are delighted; and if
they do not both voluntarily agree to what is on each hand incum-

1 " Nee dari quicquam necesse est, ut substantiam capiat obligatio ; sed sufficit eos
qui negotia gerunt consentire." — Tnstitut. lib. iii. de Oblig. ex Consensu.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 499

bent to do, it is no covenant or compact, but an imposition of one
upon the other.

2. That the person promising, who is the principal engager in
the covenant, do require something at the hand of the other, to be
done or undergone, wherein he is concerned. He is to prescribe
something to him, which is the condition whereon the accomplish
ment 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 balance, in his judgment and esteem, all that is required of him
or prescribed to him.

4. That upon the weighing and consideration of the condition and
promise, the duty and reward prescribed and engaged for, as for
merly mentioned, the undertaker do voluntarily address himself to
the one, and expect the accomplishment of the other.

5. That, the accomplishment of the condition being pleaded by
the undertaker and approved by the promiser,1 the common end
originally designed be brought about and established.

These five things are required to the entering into and complete
accomplishment of such a covenant, convention, or agreement as is
built on personal performances ; and they are all eminently expressed
in the Scripture, and to be found in the compact between the Father
and the Son whereof we speak, as upon the consideration of the
severals will appear.

On the account of these things, found at least virtually and effec-
lally in this agreement of the Father and Son, we call it a cove
nant; not with respect to the Latin word " foedus," and the precise
use of it, but to the Hebrew flv!?, and the Greek dia,6qxij, whose sig
nification and use alone are to be attended to in the business of any
covenant of God ; and in what a large sense they are used is known
to all that understand them and have made inquiry into their im
port. The rise of the word " foedus" is properly paganish and super
stitious ; and the legal use of it strict to a mutual engagement upon
valuable considerations. The form of its entrance, by the sacrifice and
killing of a hog, is related in Polybius, Livius, Virgil, and others.
The general words used in it were, " Ita foede me percutiat magnus
Jupiter, ut foede hunc porcum macto, si pactum foederis nou serva-
vero;"a whence is that phrase of one in danger, " Sto inter sacrum

Oxtp u-rtff^iSnv troi, 'i^tis Tp/j<r$iK7ovi 'l%u. — Formula Jur. Institut. lib. iii. c. Tol-
litur. § item per. " Numerius Nigidius interrogavit Aulum Augerium, Quicquid tibi.
hodierno die, per aquilianam stipulationem spopondi, id ne omne habes acceptum ?
Respondit Aulus Augerius, Habeo, acceptumque tuli." — Ibid.

2 " Fecialis sumpto in manibus lapide, postquam de foedere inter partes convenerat,
haec verba dixit, Si recte ac sine dolo malo, hoc fccdus atque hoc jusjurandum facio, dii
mihi cuncta felicia prasstent; sin aliter aut ago, aut cogito, caeteris omnibus salvis, in
propriis legibus, in propriis laribus, in propviis templis, in propriis sepulchris, solus
ego perearu, ut hie lapis de manibus meisdecidet." — Polyb. lib. iii. " ' Audi Jupiter;

500 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

et saxum," the hog being killed with a stone. So "foedus" is "a
feriendo : " though sometimes even that word be used, in a very larga
sense, for any orderly-disposed government; as in the poet: —

. " Regemque dedit, qui foedere certo

Et preniere, et laxas sciret dare jussus habenas," etc.

Virg. Mn. i. 66.

But unto the signification and laws hereof, in this business, 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 Son as distinct persons agreeing
together in counsel for the accomplishment of the common end, — the
glory of God and the salvation of the elect. The end is expressed,
Heb. ii. 9, 10, xii. 2. Now, thus it was, Zech. vi. 13, "The counsel of
peace shall be between them both," — " Inter ambos ipsos."1 That
is, the two persons spoken of, not the two offices there intimated,
that shall meet in €hrist. And who are these? The Lord Jeho
vah, who speaks, and the man whose name is npv? « The Branch,"
verse 12, who is to do all the great things there mentioned: "He
shall grow up," etc. But the counsel of peace, the design 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 Son of God,
Isa. ix. 6, " Wonderful Counsellor." It is in reference to the business
there spoken of that he is so called. This is expressed at the begin
ning of the verse, " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given."
To what end that was is known, namely, that he might be a Saviour
or a Redeemer, whence he is afterward called "The everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace ;" that is, a father to his church and people i
everlasting mercy, the grand author of their peace, that procure
it for them and established it unto them. Now, as to this work,
that he who is "riaa ta, « The mighty God," might be I™ )?, " A son
given, a child born," and carry on a work of mercy and peace to
wards his church, is he called " The wonderful Counsellor," as concur
ring in the counsel and design 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," WOg, "my neighbour"

audi pater patrate; . . . . ut ilia palam prima postrema ex illis tabulis cerave recitata
sunt sine dolo malo, utique ea hie hodie rectissime intellecta sunt, illis legibus populus
Romanus prior non deficiet. Si prior defexit publico consilio, dolo malo; tu ille Dies-
piter, populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hie hodie feriam : tantoqua
magis ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.' Id ubi dixit, porcum saxo silice percussit."
— Livius, lib. i. cap. 24.

" Armati, Jovis ante aras, paterasque tenentes
Stabant : et csesfi jungebant foedera porcfi."— Virg. J5n. viii. 640.

"Ad quern locum Servius : ' Foedera dicta sunt, a porca foede et crudeliter occisa : natn
cum ante gladiis configeretur, a fecialibus inventum ut silice feriretur, ea causa quod
antiquum Jovis signum, lapidem silicem putaverunt esse.' "

1 smr ra.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 501

in counsel and advice, Zech. xiii. 7; as David describes his fellow or
companion, Ps. Iv. 14, " We took sweet counsel together." He was
the fellow of the Lord of hosts on this account, that they took counsel
together about the work of our salvation, to the glory of God. Prov.
viii. 22 to 31 makes this evident. That it is the Lord Jesus. Christ, the
eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, who is here intended, was
before evinced. What, then, is here said of him? " I was daily the
delight of God, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable
part of his earth ; and my delights were with the sons of men." When
was this that the Wisdqm of God the Father did so rejoice before
him on the account of the sons of men? Verses 24-26, " When there
were no depths, when there were no fountains abounding with water,
before the mountains were settled," etc., " while as yet he had not
made the earth," etc. But how could this be? namely, by the coun
sel of peace that was between them both, which is the delight of the
soul of God, and wherein both Father and Son rejoice.

The first thing, then, is manifest, that there was a voluntary con
currence and distinct consent of the Father and Son for the accom
plishment of the work of our peace, and for bringing us to God.

2. For the accomplishment of this work, the Father, who is prin
cipal in the covenant, the promiser, whose love " sets all on work,"
as is frequently expressed in the Scripture, requires of the Lord Jesus
Christ, his Son, that he shall do that which, upon consideration of his
justice, glory, and honour, was necessary to be done for the bringing
about the end proposed, prescribing to him a law for the perform
ance 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 atone
ment " 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 in
deed required : " Sacrifice and offering," etc., " thou wouldest not."
He was not to offer any of the sacrifices that had been offered be
fore, as at large hath been recounted. It was the will of God that,
by them, he and what he was to do should be shadowed out and
represented ; whereupon, at his coming to his work, they were all to
be abrogated. Nor was he to bring silver and gold for our redemp
tion, according to the contrivance of the poor convinced sinner, Mi-
cah vi. 6, 7; but he was to tender God another manner of price,
1 Pet. i. 18.

He was to do that which the old sacrifices could not do, as hath
been declared : " For it was not possible that the blood of bulls and
of goats should take away sins," Heb. x. 4. 'Apaipw upapria;, quod

502 YIXDICLE EVANGELIC^,

supra AdiTffi et Amptpfiv, est extinguere peccata, sive facere ne ultra
peccetur ; id sanguis Christ! facit, turn quia fidem in nobis parit, turn
quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi," Grot, in
loc. Falsely and injuriously to the blood of Christ! 'Apuipift &,u,ap-
rias is nowhere in the Scripture to cause men to " cease to sin ;" it
never respects 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 troubled in conscience for the guilt of them, verse 2. The typical
taking away of sins by sacrifices was by making atonement with God
principally, not by turning men from sin, which yet was a conse
quent of them. The blood of Christ takes away sins as to their guilt
by justification, and not only as to their filth by sanctification. This
purification also by blood he expounds in his Annotations, chap. ix.
14: " Sanguini autem purgatio ista tribuitur, quia per sanguinem,
id est, mortem Christi, secuta ejus excitatione et evectione, gignitur
in nobis fides, Rom. iii. 25, quse deinde fides cor da purgat, Act,
xv. 9." The meaning of these words is evident to all that have their
senses exercised in these things. The eversion of the expiation of
our sins by the way of satisfaction and atonement is that which is
aimed at Now, because the annotator saw that the comparison in
sisted on with the sacrifices of old would not admit of this gloss, he
adds, " Similitude autem purgationis legalis, et evangelicaB, non est
in modo purgandi sed in effectu ;" than which nothing is more false,
nor more directly contrary to the apostle's discourse, Heb. ix. x.

(2.) Positively. And here, to lay aside the manner how he was to
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 he was
to bring to God. This is as it were prescribed to him, Heb. x. 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 Son of God, in that he condescended
to this inexpressible exinanition and eclipsing of his glory, Phil. ii. 6, 7,
" Being in the form of God, and equal with God, he made himself of
no reputation, but took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men," or made a man. He did it upon his
Father's prescription, and in pursuit of what God required at his
hands. Hence it is said, " God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,"
Gal. iv. 4 ; and " God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"
Rom. viii. 3. And properly in answer to this of the Father's appoint
ing him a body is it that the Son answers, " Lo, I come to do thy
will," — " I will do it, I will undertake it, that the great desirable
end may be brought about," as we shall see afterward. So Heb. x. 9.
And though I see no sufficient reason of relinquishing the usual

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHEIST. 503

interpretation of av'sp^aroi ASpaetfjt, ixiXa/tQuvirai, Heb. ii. 16, yet if it
be " apprehendit," and expressive of the effect, not " assumpsit,"
relating to the way of his yielding us assistance and deliverance, th<
same thing is intimated.

[2.] That in this " body," or human nature, he should be a " ser
vant," or yield obedience. Hence God calls him his servant, Isa. xlii.
1, " Behold my servant, whom I uphold/' And that this was also the
condition prescribed to him our Saviour acknowledges, Isa. xlix. 5.,
" Now, saith the LOKD that formed me from the womb to be his ser
vant," etc. And in pursuit hereof, Christ takes upon him "the
form of a servant," Phil. ii. 7: and this is his perpetual profession, " I
carne to do the will of him that sent me;" and, "This command
ment I have received of my Father." So, " though he were a Son,
yet learned he obedience." All along, in the carrying on of his
work, he professes that this condition was by his Father prescribed
him, that he should be his servant, and yield him obedience in the
work he had in hand. Hence he says his Father is greater than
he, John xiv. 28, not only in respect of his humiliation, but also in
respect of the dispensation whereunto he, as the Son of God, submit
ted himself, to perform his will and yield him obedience. ; And this
God declares to be the condition whereon he will deliver man : Job
xxxiii. 23, 24, " If there be a messenger (a servant), one of a thou
sand, to undertake for him, it shall be so, I will say, Deliver man ;
otherwise not."1

[3.] That he should suffer and undergo what in justice is due to
:him that he was to deliver; — a hard and great prescription, yet
such as must be undergone, that there may be a consistence of the
justice and truth of God with the salvation of man. This is plainly
expressed, Isa, liii. 10, i^_ D0K B'&n'OK, "When thou shalt make
Ms soul an offering for sin," or rather, " If his soul shall make an
offering for sin, then he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
.and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." As if he
should say, " If this work be brought about, and if the counsel of peace
which we have consented in be carried on, if my pleasure therein be
to prosper, thou must make thy soul an offering for sin." And that
this was required of our Saviour, himself fully expresses even in his
agony, when, praying for the removal of the cup, he submits to the
drinking of it in these words: " 'Thy will, O Father, be done;' this is
that which thou wilt have me do, 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 sufferings. And this is the third
thing in this convention and agreement.

3. Promises are made, upon the supposition of undertaking that
.which was required, and these of all sorts that might either concern
i Vid. Cocceium in loc.

504 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

the person that did undertake, or the accomplishment of the work
that he did undertake.

(1.) For the person himself that was to undertake, or the Lord
Jesus Christ, seeing there was much difficulty and great opposition
to be passed through in what he was to do and undergo, promises
of the assistance of his Father, by his presence with him, and carry
ing him through all perplexities and trials, are given to him in
abundance. Some of these you have, Isa. xlii. 4, " He shall not fail
nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth;" and
verse 6, " I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will
hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
people;" — "Whatever opposition thou mayst meet withal, I will hold
thee, and keep thee, and preserve thee." " I will not leave thy soul in
hell, nor suffer mine Holy One to see corruption," Ps. xvi. 10. So Ps.
Ixxxix. 28, " My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my co
venant shall stand fast with him." And hence was our blessed Sa
viour's confidence in his greatest trial, Isa, 1. 5—9. Verses 5, 6, our
Saviour expresses his undertaking, and what he suffered therein ; verses
7-9, the assistance that he was promised of his Father in this
great trial, on the account whereof he despises all his enemies, with
full assurance of success, even upon the Father's engaged promise of
his presence with him. This is the first sort of promises made to
Christ in this convention, which concern himself directly, that he
should not be forsaken in his work, but carried through, supported
and upheld, until he were come forth to full success, and had " sent
forth judgment unto victory." Hence, in his greatest trial, he
makes his address to God himself, on the account of these promises,
to be delivered from that which he feared: Heb. v. 7, "Who in the
days," etc. So Ps. Ixxxix. 27, 28.

(2.) There were promises in this compact that concerned the work
itself that Christ undertook, namely, that ki he did what was re
quired of him, not only he should be preserved in it, but also that
the work itself should thrive and prosper in his hand. So Isa.
liii. 10, 11, "When thou shalt make," etc. Whatever he aimed at
is here promised to be accomplished. " The pleasure of the LORD
shall prosper;" — the design of Father and Son for the accomplishment
of our salvation shall prosper. " He shall see his seed," — a seed of
believers shall be raised up, that shall " prolong their days;" thafe
is, the seed shall prolong or continue whilst the sun and moon en
dure; all the elect shall be justified and saved Satan shall be con
quered, and the spoil delivered from him. And this our Saviour
comforts himself withal in his greatest distress, Ps. xxii. 30, 31.
And for this "joy that was set before him," the joy of " bringing
many sons unto glory" that was promised to him, " he endured the
cross, and despised the shame," Heb. xii. 2. So also Isa. xlii. 1-4.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 505

And this is the third thing in this compact, He who prescribes the
hard conditions of incarnation, obedience, and death, doth also make
the glorious promises of preservation, protection, and success. And
to make these promises the more eminent, God confirms them so
lemnly by an oath. He is consecrated a high priest for evermore by
the " word of the oath," Heb. vii. 28. " The Lord sware and will
not repent, Thou art a priest for ever," etc., verse 21.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ accepts of the condition and the pro
mise, and voluntarily undertakes the work r Ps. xl. 7, 8, " Then said
I, Lo, I come : I delight to do thy will, 0 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 Father that he
should do or suffer for the bringing about the common end aimed
at. He undertakes to be the Father's servant in this work, and
says to the LORD, " Thou art my Lord," Ps. xvi. 2 ; — " Thou art
he to whom I am to yield obedience, to submit to in this work."
"Mine ears hast thou bored, and I am thy servant;" — "I am
not rebellious, I do not withdraw from it," Isa. 1. 5. Hence the
apostle tells us that this mind was in him, that whereas he was " in
the form of God, he humbled himself to the death of the cross," Phil,
ii. 6-8. And so, by his own voluntary consent, he came under the
law of the mediator ; which afterward, as he would not, so he could
not decline. He made himself surety of the covenant, and so was
to pay what he never took. He voluntarily engaged himself 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 suf
fered comes to be called " obedience;" which relates to the law that
he was subject to, having engaged himself to his Father, and said
to the LORD, " Thou art my Lord ; lo, I come to do thy will."

5. The fifth and last thing is, that on the one side the promiser
do approve and accept of the performance of the condition prescribed,
and the undertaker demand and lay claim to the promises made,
and thereupon the common end designed be accomplished and ful
filled. All this also is fully manifest in this compact or convention.

(1.) God the Father accepts of the performance of what was to the
Son prescribed. This God fully declares, Isa. xlix. 5, 6, " And now,
saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to
bring Jacob again 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 shouldest be my
servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved
of Israel : I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou
mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." And eminently,
verses 8, 9, " Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I

506 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will
preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish
the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages ; that thou may-
est say to the prisoners, Go forth ; to them that are in darkness,
Show yourselves," etc, ; — " Now, I have been with thee, and helped
thee in thy work, and thou hast performed it ; now thou shalt do all
that thy heart desires, according to my promise." Hence that which
was originally spoken of the eternal generation of the Son, Ps. ii. 7,
w Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," is applied by
the apostle to his resurrection from the dead : Acts xiii. 33, " God
hath fulfilled his word unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus
again ; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee," That is, God by the resurrection
from the dead gloriously manifested him to be his Son, whom he
loved, in whom he was well pleased, and who did all his pleasure.
So Rom. i. 4, " He was declared to be the Sou 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 work he had
done, loosed the pains of death, and raised him again, manifesting
to all the world his approbation and acceptation of him and his work;
whence he immediately says to him, Ps. ii. 8, " Ask of me, and I
shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance ; " — " Now ask what
thou wilt, whatever I have promised, whatever thou didst or couldst
expect upon thy undertaking this work; it shall be done, it shall be
granted thee." And, —

(2.) Christ, accordingly, makes his demand solemnly on earth and
in heaven. On earth : John xvii., throughout the whole chapter 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, which concerned both himself and his church; see
verses 1, 4-6, 9, 12-16, etc. And in heaven also: he is gone into "the
presence of God," there " to appear for us," Heb. ix. 24, and is "able
to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him, seeing he
ever liveth to make intercession for them," chap. vii. 25; not as
in the days of his flesh, with strong cries and supplications, but by
virtue of his oblation, laying claim to the promised inheritance in
our behalf. And, —

(3.) The whole work is accomplished, and the end intended
brought about: for in the death of Christ he " finished the trans
gression, and made an end of sins, and made reconciliation for ini
quity, and brought in everlasting righteousness," Dan. ix. 24 ; and of
sinful man God says, " Deliver him, for I have found a ransom,"
Job xxxiii. 24. Hence our reconciliation, justification, yea, our sal
vation, are in the Scripture spoken of as things actually done and
accomplished in the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. Not

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 507

as though we were all then actually justified and saved, but upon
the account of the certainty of the performance and accomplishment
of those things in their due time towards us and upon us are these
things so delivered : for in reference to the undertaking of Christ in
this covenant is he called " The second Adam," 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, natu
rally, and whether he would or no ; Christ is so to his voluntarily, and
by his own consent and undertaking, as hath been demonstrated) ;
now, as we all die in Adam federally and meritoriously, yet the several
individuals are not in their persons actually dead in sin and obnoxi
ous to eternal death before they are by natural generation united
to Adam, their first head ; so, though all the elect be made alive
and saved federally and meritoriously in the death of Christ, wherein
also a certain foundation is laid of that efficacy which works all these
things in us and for us, yet we are not viritim made partakers ol the
good things mentioned before we are united to Christ by the commu
nication of his Spirit to us.

And this, I say, is the covenant and compact that was between
Father and Son, which is the great foundation of what hath been said
and shall farther be spoken about the merit and satisfaction of Christ.
Here lies the ground of the righteousness of the dispensation treated
of, that Christ should undergo the punishment due to us : It was clone
voluntarily, of himself, and he did nothing but what he had power
to do, and command from his Father to do. " I have power," saith
he, " to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again ; this
commandment 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 concerning the
unrighteousness of one man's suffering personally for another man's
sin. It is true, it is so if these men be not in such relation to one
another that what one doth or suffereth, the other may be accounted
to do or suffer; but it is no unrighteousness, if the hand offend, 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 again.
It is true, if he that is to suffer and he that is to punish be not will
ing or agreed to the commutation; but here Father and Son, 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 afterward that shall balance and overweigh all his suffer
ing ; not where the cross 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,—

508 VINDICI^E EVANGELIC^.

2. This is the foundation of the merit of Christ. The apostle tells
us, Rom. iv. 4, what merit is: it is such an adjunct of obedience as
whereby " the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt." God
having proposed unto Christ a law for obedience, with promises of
such and such rewards upon condition of fulfilling the obedience re
quired, he performing that obedience, the reward is reckoned to him
of debt, or he righteously merited whatever was so promised to him.
Though the compact was of grace, yet the reward is of debt. Look,
then, whatever God promised Christ upon his undertaking to be a
Saviour, that, upon the fulfilling of his will, he merited. That himself
should be exalted, that he should be the head of his church, that he
should see his seed, that he should justify and save them, sanctify
and glorify them, were all promised to him, all merited by him. But
of this more afterward.

Having thus fully considered the threefold notion of the death of
Christ, as it was a price, a sacrifice, and a punishment, and discovered
the foundation of righteousness 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, answerably, are three : — I. Redemption,
as it is a price; II. Reconciliation, as it is a sacrifice; III. Satisfac
tion, as it is a punishment. Upon which foundation, union with
Christ, vocation, justification, sanctification, and glory, are built

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Of redemption by the death of Christ as it was a price or ransom.

HAVING given before the general notions of the death of Christ,
as it is in Scripture proposed, all tending to manifest the way and
manner of the expiation of our sins, and our delivery from the guilt
and punishment due to them, it remains that an accommodation of
those several notions of it be made particularly and respectively to
the business in hand.

I. The first consideration proposed of the death of Christ was 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: Job xix.
25, " I know that my Redeemer liveth." The word there used is
?W$} whose rise and use is commonly known.

^3 is "vindicare, redimere;" l<jn\a,p&avtG6ai in Greek; which is com
monly used for " suum vindicare :" "O-t &v r/g exrqfttvos fi, . . . . xul
ftqdsls iiri\d£qrui, sav oura Tig sviavrov OTIOVV sxrqfAsvos . . . . /&% t^tarta
TOIOV-OV XT'/j{jt,a,ro£ siriXa&a&ai ftqdtv uvi\66vros sviaursv, Plato de Legib. 12.
And that may be the sense of the word imXa^aviTai, if not in the
effect, yet in the cause, Heb. ii. 16.

OP THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 509

The rise and use of this word in this business of our deliverance
by Christ we have Lev. xxv. 25, " If any of his kin come to redeem

• »L L

it." 21J5H vNJ} — "redimens illud propinqtms." The next who is 7N3
[is to] redeem it, or vindicate the possession out of mortgage. On this
account Boaz tells Ruth that, in respect of the possession of Elime-
lech, he was goel, Ruth iii. 13, a redeemer; which we have translated
" a kinsman," because he was to do that office by right of propinquity
of blood or nearness of kin, as is evident from the law before mentioned.
Christ, coming to vindicate us into liberty by his own blood, is called
by Job his goel, chap, xix. 25; so also is he termed, Isa. xli. 14, wty,
" thy redeemer," or " thy next kinsman ;" and chap. xliv. 6, in that
excellent description of Christ, also verse 24, chap, xlvii. 4, xlviii. ] 7,
xlix. 26, liv. 5, lix. 20, Ix. 16, Ixiii. 16, and in sundry other places.
Neither is the church of God at all beholding to some late exposi
tors, who, to show their skill in the Hebrew doctors, would impose
upon us their interpretations, and make those expressions to signify
deliverance in general, and to be referred to God the Father, seeing
that the rise of the use of the word plainly restrains the redemption
intended to the paying of a price for it ; which was done only by
Jesus Christ. So Jer. xxxii. 7, 8. Hence they that looked for the
Messiah, according to the promise, are said to look for, or to wait
for, \vTpuaiv, " redemption in Israel," Luke ii. 38 : and, in the accom
plishment of the promise, the apostle tells us that Christ by his
blood obtained for us " eternal redemption," Heb, ix. 12. And he
having so obtained it, we are "justified freely by the grace of God, M
r%g avoXvrptjjfffcas r%$ Iv xpiffrp 'ijjtrou, — by the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus ;" tv for &d, " in him," for " by him," or wrought by him,
Rom. iii. 24. And this being brought home to us, " we have re
demption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," Eph. i. 7, CoL
i. 14; whence he is said to be " made unto us liKoXvrpuais" or "re
demption," 1 Cor. i. 30.

How this is done will be made evident by applying of what is now
spoken to what was spoken of the death of Christ as a price. Christ
giving himself or his life XVTP ov and air/Xurfoi/, a price of redemption,
as hath been showed, a ransom, those for whom he did it come to
have Xurpwff/i/ and avoXvrpuffiv, redemption thereby, or deliverance
from the captivity wherein they were. And our Saviour expresses
particularly how this was done as to both parts, Matt. xx. 28. He
came Sovvai rqv -4/0%^ Xin-pov avri <!to\"kuv, — that is, he came to be an
dcr/-4/u^o5, one to stand in the room of others, and to give his life for
them.

To make this the more evident and clear, I shall give a descrip
tion of redemption properly so called, and make application of it in
the several parts thereof unto that under consideration: —

" Redemption is the deliverance of any one from bondage or cap-

510 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

tivity, and the misery attending that condition, by the intervention
or interposition of a price or ransom, 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 disposal of the redeemer."

And this will comprise the laws of this redemption, which are usu
ally given. They are, first, On the part of the redeemer: — 1. " Pro-
pinquus esto;" — " Let him be near of kin." 2. " Consanguinitatis
jure redimito ;" — " Let him redeem by right of consanguinity."
3. "Injusto possessori prsedam eripito;" — "Let him deliver the prey
from the unjust possessor." 4. " Huic pretium nullum solvito;" —
" To him let no price be paid." 5. " Sanguinem pro redemptionis
pretio vero Domino offerto;" — " Let him offer or give his blood to
the true Lord for a ransom, or price of redemption." Secondly, 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 se exhibeto redemptori;" — "Let
him in liberty be a. servant to his redeemer."

The general parts of this description of redemption Socinus
himself consents unto : for whereas Covet had a little inconveni
ently defined " to redeem," saying, " Redimere aliquem est debi-
tum solvere creditoris ejus nomine, qui solvendo non erat, sicque
satisfacere creditori," which is a proper description of the payment
of another man's debts, and not of his redemption, Socinus, correct
ing this mistake, affirms that " redimere aliquem nihil aliud pro-
prie significat quam captivum e manibus illius qui eum detinet
pretio illi dato liberare," — " to redeem any one properly signifies
nothing else but to deliver him out of his hands that detained him
captive, by a price given to him who detained him;"1 which, as to
the general nature of redemption, contains as much as what was
before given in for the description of it. 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 remem
ber that if I evince the redemption we have by Christ to be proper,
and properly so called, the whole business of satisfaction is confess
edly evinced.

FIRST. The general nature of it consists in deliverance. Thence
Christ is called ' O puoptvos, " The deliverer :" Rom. xi. 26, "As it is writ
ten, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer!" The word in the
prophet, Isa. lix. 20, is ?Ni3) that we may know what kind of deliverer
Christ is, — a deliverer by redemption. "He gave himself for our sins
faruf tgiXrjrat r^&s, that he might deliver us," Gal. i. 4 He de
livered us; but it was by giving himself for our sins. 1 Thess. i. 10,
"To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead,
J Socin. de Jes Chris. Serv. lib. i. part. ii. cap. i.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 511

rlv puopivov ^aaj avb rqg opyyjs r>j£ sp^ofAsvys, — Jesus, who deli
vered us from the wrath to come." So Luke i. 74; Rom. vii. 6;
Heb. ii. 15; Col. i. 13.

Now, as redemption, because its general nature consists in deli
verance, is often expressed thereby, so deliverance, because it hath
the effect of redemption, is or may be called redemption, though it
be not properly so, but agrees in the end and effect only. Hence
Moses is said to be \urpUTfa: Acts vii. 35, Tourov o Qsb; ap-^ovrct xai
XurpuTqv aveffrsiXsv, " Him did God send a prince and a redeemer;"
that is, a deliverer, one 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 redemption in its end, the work itself is
called redemption, and he is termed therein a redeemer, though it
was not a direct redemption that he wrought, no ransom being paid
for delivery.

It is pleaded, First, " That God being said to redeem his people in
sundry places in the Old Testament, which he could not possibly do
by a ransom, therefore the redemption mentioned in the Scripture is
metaphorical, a mere deliverance; and such is also that we have by
Christ, without the intervention of any price."

Secondly, "Moses, who was a type of Christ and a redeemer, who
is so often said to redeem the people, yet, as it is known, did it
without any ransom, by a mere deliverance ; therefore did Christ so
also."

Not to trouble the reader with repetition of words, this is the sum
of what is pleaded by the Racovian Catechism to prove our redemp
tion by Christ not to be proper, but metaphorical; and so, conse
quently, that no satisfaction can be thence evinced: —

" E verbo redimendi non posse effici satisfactionem hanc hinc est planum, quod
de ipso Deo in novo et in prisco fcedere scribitur, eum redimisse populum suum
ex JEgypto, eum fecisse redemptionem populo suo ; quod Moses f uerit redemptor,
Act. vii. 35. Vox ideo redemptionis, simpliciter liberationem denotat." — Rac.
Cat. cap. viii. de Christo.

And, indeed, what there they speak is the sum of the plea of So-
cinus as to this part of our description of redemption, " De Jesu
Christo Servatore," lib. i. part. ii. cap. i.-iii.

To remove these difficulties (if they may be so called), I shall only
tender the ensuing considerations: —

1. That because redemption is sometimes to be taken metaphori
cally, for mere deliverance, when it is spoken of God without any men
tion of a price or ransom, in such cases as wherein it was impossible
that a ransom should be paid (as in the deliverance of the children of
Israel from Egypt and Pharaoh, when it is expressly said to be done
by power and an out-stretched arm, Deut iv. 34), therefore it must be
so understood when it is spoken of Christ, the mediator, with express

512 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

mention of a price or ransom, and when it was impossible but that a
ransom must be paid, is a loose consequence, not deserving any notice.

2. That all the places of Scripture where mention is made of God
being a redeemer and redeeming his people may be referred unto
these heads: —

(1.) Such as call God the redeemer of his church in general, as
the places before mentioned ; and these are all to be referred imme
diately to the Son of God (the manner of his redemption being de
scribed in the New Testament) ; and so proper redemption is intended
in them, compare Isa. liv. 5, with Eph. v. 25, 26.

(2.) Such as mention some temporal deliverance that was typical
of the spiritual redemption which we have by Jesus Christ; and it
is called redemption, not so much from the general nature of de
liverance, as from its pointing out to us that real and proper redemp
tion that was typified by it. Such was God's redeeming his people
out of Egypt.

So there is no mention of redemption in the Scripture, but either
it is proper, or receives that appellation from its relation to that
which is so,

3. This is indeed a very wretched and cursed way of interpret
ing Scripture, especially those passages of it which set out the grace
of God and the 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, " redemption ; " saith he, " Christ hath
redeemed you with his own blood, — he hath laid down a price for
you." For men to come and interpret this, and say " He did it not
properly, it was not a complete redemption, but metaphorical, a
bare deliverance," is to blaspheme God and the work 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 kindness and benefits with great
swelling words of mighty weight and importance, which, when the
things signified by them come to be considered, must be interpreted
by way of minoration ; nor will any worthy man do so. Much less
can it be once imagined that God has expressed his love and kind
ness and the fruits of it to us in great and weighty words, that, in
their ordinary use and significancy, contain a great deal more than
really he hath done. For any one so to interpret what he hath spoken,
is an abomination into which I desire my soul may never enter.

What the redemption of a captive is, and how it is brought about,
we know. God tells us that Christ hath redeemed us, and that with
his own blood. Is it not better to believe the Lord, and venture
our souls upon it, than to go to God and say, " This thou hast said,
indeed, but it is an improper and metaphorical redemption, a de-

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 513

liverance, that we have?" The truth is, it is so far from truth that
God hath delivered the work of his grace, and our benefit thereby,
in the death of Christ, in words too big in their proper signification
for the things themselves, that no words whatever are sufficient to
express it and convey it to our understandings.

That Moses, who was a type of Christ in the work of redemption,
and is called a redeemer, did redeem the people without the proper
payment of a valuable ransom, therefore Christ did so also ; — to con
clude thus, I say, is to say that the type and thing typified must in
all things be alike ; yea, that a similitude between them in that where
in their relation consists 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 iii. 14j
" As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
Son of man be lifted up." Now, if a man should thence argue, that
because the brazen serpent was only lifted up, not crucified nor did
shed his blood, therefore Christ was not crucified nor did shed his
blood, would he be attended unto? The like may be said of Jonah,
who was alive in the belly of the whale, when he was a type of Christ
being dead in the earth. In the general nature of deliverance from
captivity, there was an agreement in the corporeal deliverance of
Moses and the spiritual of Christ, and here was the one a type of the
other; in the manner of their accomplishment, the one did not re
present the other, the one- being said expressly to- be done by power,
the other by a ransom,

SECONDLY. It is the delivery of one in captivity. All men, consi
dered in the state of sin and alienation from God, are in captivity.
Hence they are said to be "captives," and to be "bound in prison," Isa.
Ixi 1. And the work of Christ is to "bring out the prisoners from the
prison, and them that sit in darkness" (that is, in the dungeon) " out
of the prison-house," Isa xlii. 7. He says "to the prisoners, Go forth ; to
them that are in darkness, Show yourselves," chap. xlix. 9 : as it is
eminently expressed, Zech. ix. 11, "As for thee also, by the blood of
thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is
no water." Here are prisoners, prisoners belonging to the daughter
of Zion; for unto her, the church, he speaks, verse &, "Rejoice
greatly, 0 daughter of Zion." Those other sheep of the fold of Christ,
not yet gathered when this promise was given, are spoken of; and
they are " in the pit wherein is no water ;" — a pit for security to
detain them, that they may not escape ; and without water, that
they may in it find no refreshment. How are these prisoners de
livered? By the blood of his covenant of whom he speaks: see
verse 9, " Behold, thy King conieth unto thee : he is just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of
an ass." It is a description of Christ when he rode to Jerusalem, to

VOL. xii. 33

514 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

seal and confirm the covenant for the deliverance of the prisoners with
his own blood ; which is therefore called " The blood of the covenant
wherewith he was sanctified," Heb. x. 29. Hence in the next verse,
"Prisoners of hope" is a description of the elect, Zech. ix. 12.

So also are they called captives expressly: Isa. xlix. 25, "Thus 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 Satan, that mighty and cruel one, shall be de
livered. And who shall do this? " The LORD thy Saviour and thy
Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob," verse 26. He proclaims
"liberty to the captives," Isa. Ixi. 1, Luke iv. 18. And this is given
in as the great fruit of the death of Christ, that upon his conquest
of it he " led captivity captive," Ps. Ixviii. 18, Eph. iv. 8, — that is,
either captivity actively, Satan who rjeld and detained his in cap
tivity, 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 yoke of bondage, Gal.
v. 1 ; and men are in bondage by reason of death all their days, Heb.
ii. 15. There is, indeed, nothing that the Scripture more abounds
in than this, that men in the state of sin are in prison, captivity, and
bondage, — are prisoners, captives, and slaves.

Concerning this two things are considerable: — 1. The cause of
men's bondage and captivity, deserving or procuring it. 2. The effi
cient, principal cause of it, to whom they are in captivity.

1. As for the first, as it is known, it is sin. To all this bondage
and captivity men are sold by sin. In this business sin is considered
two ways: —

(1.) As a debt, whereof God is the creditor. Our Saviour hath
taught us to pray for the forgiveness of our sins under that notion,
Matt. vi. 12, "A<pt$ wiv ra. ope/X^uara wuv, — " Remit to us our debts."
And in the parable of the lord and his servants, Matt, xviii. 23-35,
lie calls it rb 8avtioy, verse 27, and r)> opiiMftsvov, verse 30, " due
debt;" all which he expounds by crafa-rrw/iara, verse 35, — " offences"
or " transgressions." Debt makes men liable to prison for non-pay
ment; and so doth sin (without satisfaction made) to the prison of
hell. So our Saviour expresses it, Matt. v. 25, 26, "Agree with
thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him ; lest at
any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Yerily I
say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou
hast paid the uttermost farthing." On this account are men prisoners
for sin : 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 lie
to eternity. All mankind were cast into prison for that great debt

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 515

they contracted in Adam, in their trustee. Being there, instead of
making any earnings to pay the debt already upon them by the
law, they contract more, and increase thousands of talents. But this
use of the words " debt" and "prison," applied to sin and punishment,
is metaphorical.

(2.) As a crime, rebellion, transgression against God, the great
governor and judge of all the world. The criminalness, rebellion,
transgression, the disobedience that is in sin, is more or less expressed
by all the words in the original whereby any sins are signified and
called. Now, for sin considered as rebellion are men cast into prison,
captivity, and bondage, by way of judicial process and punishment.

2. As for the principal cause of this captivity and imprisonment,
it is God; for, —

(1.) He is the creditor to whom these debts are due: Matt. vi. 9, 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, thee only, have I sinned," says David, Ps. li. 4. God hath in
trusted us with all we have to sin by or withal ; 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 principal with advantage.

(2.) And properly he is the great king, judge, and governor of the
world, who hath given his law for the rule of our obedience; and
every transgression thereof is a rebellion against him. Hence, to
sin is to rebel, and to transgress, and to be perverse, to turn aside
from the way, to cast off the yoke of the Lord, as it is everywhere
expressed. God is " the one lawgiver," James iv. 12, who is able to
kill and to destroy for the transgression of it. It is his law which
is broken, and upon the breach whereof he says, " Cursed be every
one that hath so done/' Deut. xxvii. 26. He is " the judge of all
the earth," Gen. xviii. 25, yea, "God is judge himself," Ps. 1. 6;
and we shall be judged by his law, James ii. 10-12; and his judg
ment is, " That they which commit sin are worthy of death," Rom.
i. 32. And he is the " king for ever and ever," Ps. x. 16. He reigneth
and executeth judgment. Now, who should commit the rebel that
offends, who should be the author of the captivity and imprison
ment of the delinquent, but he who is the king, judge, and law
maker?

(3.) He doth actually do it: Bom. xi. 32, SuvixXsicre 6 Qsbg roi)s wdv-
ru$ ti$ awtifaiav — " God hath shut up all under disobedience." He
hath laid them up close prisoners for their disobedience; and they
shall not go out until satisfaction be made. In the parable, Matt,
xviii., of the lord or master and his servants, this is evident ; and
chap. v. 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 final punish-

516 VINDICI^E EVANGELIOE.

ment upon the captives, if a ransom be not paid for them, he it is
by whose power and authority they are committed, and to whom
principally they are prisoners and captives. Now, this is God only.
He can cast both body and soul into hell fire, Matt. x. 28; and
wicked men shall be destroyed " from the presence of the Lord, and
from the glory of his power," 2 Thess. i. 9. In brief, 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 where
with men are punished is the wrath of God ; he that finds a ransom
is God: and therefore it is properly and strictly he to whom sinners
are prisoners and captives, 2 Pet. ii. 4. And therefore, when in the
Scripture at any time men are said to be in bondage to Satan, it is
but as to the officer of a judge, or the jailer; to their sin, it is but
as to their fetters, as shall be afterward more fully discovered.

And this removes the first question and answer of the Raco-
vians to this purpose. Socinus, " De Servatore," expresses himself
to the whole business of redemption in three chapters, lib. L part. ii.
cap. i.-iii. ; the sum of which the catechists have laboured to comprise
in as many questions and answers. The first is, —

Q. What dost thou answer to those testimonies which witness that we are re
deemed of Christ?

A. It is hence evident that satisfaction cannot be confirmed from the word "re
deeming," — 1. Because it is written of God himself, both in the Old and New Tes
tament, that he redeemed his people out of Egypt, 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 con
versation, and from the curse of the law; for it is certain that God made satisfac
tion to none, nor can it be said that satisfaction is made either to our iniquities,
or to our vain conversation, or to the law.1

I say this whole plea is utterly removed by what hath been spoken ;
for, — 1. In what sense redemption is ascribed to God and Moses,
without the least prejudice of that proper redemption that was made
by the blood of Christ, hath been declared, and shall be farther
manifested when we come to demonstrate the price that was paid
in this redemption.

2. It is true, there is no satisfaction made to our sin and vain con
versation 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 made to the law when the penalty

1 " Quid ad ea testimonia quse nos a Christo testantur redemptos respondes ? — •
Kesp. E verbo redimendi non posse effici satisfactionem bane, hinc est planum, quod de
ipso Deo et in novo et in prisco fcedere scribitur, eum redemisse populum suum ex
^Egypto, eum fecisse redemptionem populo suo. Deinde cum scriptum sit quod Deug
redemit Abrahamum et Davidem, et quod Moses fuerit redemptor, et quod siruus re^
dempti e nostris iniquitatibus, aut e vana conversatione nostra, et e maledictione
legis; certum autem est Deum nemini satisfecisse, nee vero aut iniquitatibus, aut
conversationi vanaB, aut legi satisfactum esse dici posse."

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 51 7

which it threatens and prescribes is undergone, as in the case in
sisted on it was. In the meantime, our catechists are sufficiently
vain, in supposing our argument to lie in the word "redimere/'
Though something hath been spoken of the word in the original, yet
our plea is from the thing itself.
This Socinus thus expresses: —

There is also required he who held the captive, otherwise he is not a captive.
To him, in our deliverance, if we will consider the thing itself exactly, many things
do answer, for many things do detain us captives; now they are sin, the devil,
and the world, and that which followeth sin, the guilt of eternal death, or the
punishment of death appointed to us.1

Ans. A lawful captive is detained two ways, — First, Directly;
and that two ways also: —

1. Legally, juridically, and authoritatively: so is sinful man de
tained captive of God. " The wrath of God abideth on him/' John
iii. 36, as hath been declared.

2. Instrumentally, in subservience to the authority of the other:
so is man in bondage to Satan, and the law, and fear of death to
come, Heb. ii. 1 4, 15.

Secondly, 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
sin and the world.

Nor are all these properly the detainers of us in captivity, from
which we are redeemed, any more than the gallows keeps a malefac
tor in prison, from which by a pardon and ransom he is delivered.

To proceed with the description of redemption given, it is the de
livery of him who was captive from prison or captivity, and all the
miseries attending that condition.

1. What I mean 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
holds him captive be God, by his justice making him liable to punish
ment, his captivity must needs be his obnoxiousness unto the wrath
of God on the account of his justice for sin. This are we delivered
from by this redemption that is in the blood of Jesus, Rom. iii.
23-25 : " For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of
sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Verse 23 is the
description of the state of our captivity. Having " sinned," we are

1 " Eequiritur et is qui captivum detineafc, alioqui captivus non esset. Huic in
liberations nostra, si exactius rem ipsam considerare velimus, respondent multa.
Multa siquidem nos tanquam captives detinebant ; ea autem sunt peccatum, diabolus,
mundus, et quse peccatum consequuntur, mortis aeternaj reatus, seu mortis aeternsa
nobis decretum supplicium." — De Servat. lib. i. cap. ii.

518 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

" come short of the glory of God." ' Yffrepovvrai, they fall short in their
race, and are by no means able to come up to a participation of God.
Our delivery and the means of it are expressed, verse 24. Our de
livery: we are "justified freely by his grace/' or delivered from that
condition and state of sin wherein it was impossible for us to reach
and attain the glory of God. The procuring cause of which liberty
is expressed in the next words, dia rqs avoXurpuaiug, by the redemp
tion or ransom-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, verse 25 : God set him forth for that
end, that we might have deliverance "through faitji in his blood," or
by faith be made partakers of the redemption that is in his blood, or
purchased by it. And this to " declare his righteousness." We have
it this way, that the righteousness of God may be declared, whereto
satisfaction is made by the death of Christ; for that also is included
in the word " propitiation," as shall be afterward proved.

Thus, whilst men are in this captivity, " the wrath of God abideth
on them/' John iii. 36; and the full accomplishment of the execution
of that wrath is called " The wrath to come," 1 Thess. i. 10, which
we are delivered from.

In this sense are we said to " have redemption in his blood," Col.
i. 14, or to have deliverance from our captivity by the price he
paid, and by his death to be delivered from the fear of death, Heb.
ii. 15, or our obnoxiousness thereto; it being the justice or judgment
of God " that they which commit sin are worthy of death," Rom.
i. 32. Christ by undergoing it delivered us from it.

Whence is that of the apostle, Rom. viii. 33, 34, " Who shall lay
any thing to their charge? who shall condemn 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
offenders, and inflict penalty accordingly. Yea, but " it is God that
justifieth;" that is, that frees men from their obnoxiousness to punish
ment for sin in the first sense of it, which is their captivity, as hath
been declared. But how comes this about? Why, " it is Christ that
died," It is by the death of Christ that we have this redemption.

2. From all the miseries that attend that state and condition.
These are usually referred to three heads: — (1.) The power of
Satan ; (2.) Of sin ; (3.) Of the world ; from all which we are said
to be redeemed. And these are well compared to the jailer, filth,
and fetters of the prison wherein the captives are righteously de
tained.

(1.) For the first, Col. i. 13, 14, " Who hath delivered us from the
power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his
dear Son; in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the
forgiveness of sins." The "power of darkness" is the power of the

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 519

prince of darkness, of Satan. This God delivers us from, by the
redemption that is in the bloqd of Christ, verse 14. And how?
Even as he who delivers a captive from the judge by a price delivers
him also from the jailer who kept him in prison. By his death
(which, as hath been showed, was a price and a ransom), he deprived
Satan of all his power over us; which is called his destroying of him,
Heb. ii. 14, — that is, not the devil as to his essence and 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 of, Lib.
de Servat. lib. i. part. ii. cap. ii. : —

Nothing is wanting in this deliverance, that it might wholly answer a true re
demption, but only that he who detained the captive should receive the price.
Although it seems to some that it may be said that the devil received the price
which intervened in our redemption, as the ancient divines, among whom was
Ambrosius and Augustine, made bold to speak, yet that ought to seem most ab
surd, and it is true that this price was received by none : for on that account
chiefly is our deliverance not a true but a metaphorical redemption, because in it
there is none that should receive the price ; for if that which is in the place of a
price be received (by him who delivers the captive), then not a metaphorical but
a true price had intervened, and thereupon our redemption had been proper.1

It is confessed that nothing is wanting to constitute that we
speak of to be a true, proper, and real 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 shall uextly prove.

The only reason given why the price is not paid to any, is because
it is not paid to the devil. But was it the law of Satan we had trans
gressed? was he the judge that cast us into prison? was it him to
whom we were indebted ? was it ever heard that the price of re
demption was paid to the jailer? Whether any of the ancients said
so or no I shall not now trouble myself to inquire, or in what sense
they said it; the thing in itself is ridiculous and blasphemous.

(2.) Sin. " He redeemed us from all iniquity," Tit. ii. 14; and
we were " redeemed by the precious blood of Christ from our vain
conversation received by tradition from our fathers," 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.
This redeeming us from our sins 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 places mentioned it is

1 " Nihil in hac liberatione desideratur, ut omnino verae redemption! respondeat,
nisi ut is qui captivum detinebat pretium accipiat. Quamvis autem quibusdam vide-
atur dici posse diabolum, pretium quod in nostra liberatione intervenit, accepisse,
quemadmodum antiquiores theologi, inter quos Ambrosius et Augustinus, ausi sunt
dicere, tamen id perabsurdum videri debet, et recte est neminem id pretium accepisse
affirmare. Ea siquidem ratione potissimum, non vera sed metaphorica redemptio,
liberatio nostra est, quocirca in ea nemo est qui pretium accipiat ; si enim id quod in
ipso pretii loco est acceptum (ab eo scilicet qui captivum hominem detinehat) fuisset,
jam non metaphoricum sed verum pretium intervenisset, et propterea vera redemptio
esset."

520 VINDTCI^ EV ANGELICA.

the latter that is principally intended ; which is evident from what
is opposed to the captivity under sin that is spoken of. In the one
place it is " purifying unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works," Tit. ii. 14; in the other, the " purifying of our souls in obe
dience to the truth through the Spirit," 1 Pet. i. 22. Now, we are
redeemed from the power of our sins by the blood of Christ, not im
mediately, but consequentially, as a captive is delivered from his
fetters and filth upon the payment of his ransom. Christ's satisfying
the justice of God, reconciling him to us by his death, hath also pro
cured the gift of his Spirit for us, to deliver us from the power of our
sins. 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 therefore said to be redeemed by him
from our vain conversation.

And the great plea of our adversaries, that this redemption is not
proper because we are redeemed from our iniquities and vain con
versation, to which no ransom can be paid, will then be freed from
ridiculous folly, when they shall give an instance of a ransom being
paid to the prisoner's fetters before his delivery, whereunto our sins
do rather answer, than to the judge.

There is a redeeming of us from the guilt of sin, which hath a
twofold expression:— Of redeeming us from the " curse of the law,"
Gal. iii. 13; and of the "redemption of transgressions," Heb. ix. 15.
For the first, the " curse of the law" is the curse due to sin, Deut.
xxvii. 26 ; that is, to the transgression of the law. This may be con
sidered two ways: — In respect of its rise and fountain, or its "ter
minus a quo;" in respect of its end and effect, or its " terminus ad
quern."

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 sin, as the vengeance
that is inflicted actually for sin is called the " wrath of God," Rom.
i. 18 ; that is, his justice and indignation against sin. In this sense, to
"redeem 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. Secondly, As it is
the penalty itself, so we are delivered from it by this ransom-paying
of Christ, as the punishment which we should have undergone, had
not he undertaken for us and redeemed us.

Secondly, For the dcroXurpwff/; vapaZdasw, Heb. ix. 15, it can be
nothing but making reparation for the injury done by transgression.
It is a singular phrase, but may receive some light from that of
Heb. ii. 17, where Christ is said to be a high priest, ih r*4fcfc»«tei
ras aortas «C XaoS, " to reconcile the sins of the people,"— that is,
to make reconciliation for them; of the sense whereof afterward.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 521

(3.) He redeems from the world, Gal. iv. 5.

The THIRD thing is, that this deliverance from captivity 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 dis
course.

The word Xurpov, and those arising from thence, were specially in
sisted on. The known use of the word is " redemptionis pretium ;"
so among the best authors of the Greek tongue: Zuvra Xa£o'»rg$ &$%-
xav anv \\irp uv, Xenoph. Hellen. 7; — " They took him away without
paying his ransom," or the price of his redemption. And, "Evs/^s
ra \vrpa. T(f> ' AvviScf, x«/ roug a/%/AaXwrous aweXa&e, says Plutarch in
Fabius ; — " He sent their ransom to Hannibal and received the pri
soners." And from thence \urp6u is of the same import and signifi
cation. So in the argument of the first book of the Iliad, speaking
of Chrysis, that he came to the camp jSouXo/^evog hvrputaffdui rqv Soya-
r'spa, — " to pay a price for the redemption of his daughter." And
Aristotle, Ethic, lib. ix. cap. ii, disputing whether a benefit or good
turn be not to be repaid rather than a favour done to any other, gives
an instance of a prisoner redeemed, rw Xurpudevr/ irapa. Xqsruv, irorspov
rbv XvadfAivov dmXwrpwrsox, etc., — whether he who is redeemed by the
payment of a ransom from a robber be to redeem him who redeemed
him, if captive, etc. But this is so far 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 Christ is such a price I proved abundantly at
the entrance of this discourse. It is so frequently and evidently ex
pressed 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 properly so called ;
for as for the nature of it, they confess it may be a price. So Socinus
acknowledgeth it. Saith he: —

I understand the proper use of the word to " redeem" to be when a true price is
given. True price I call not only money, but whatever is given to him that delivers
the captive to satisfy him, although many things in the redemption be metapho
rical.1

That God detains the captive hath been proved ; that the price is
paid to him, though it be not silver and gold, and that that he might
be satisfied, shall be farther evinced: so that we have redemption
properly so called.

FOURTHLY. It remains, then, that we farther manifest that the
price was paid to God.

1 " Propriam enim verbi redimendi significationem intelligo, cum verum pretium in-
tervenit. Verum autem pretium voco non pecuniam'tantum, sed quicquid ut ei satisfiat
qui captivum detinet datur, licet alioqui multa metaphorica in ejusmodi redemptione
reperiantur." — Socin. de Servat. lib. i. part. i. cap. i.

522 VINDICI^I EVANGELTCJE.

Although enough hath been said already to evince the truth of
this, yet I shall farther put it out of question by the ensuing obser
vations and inferences : —

1. To the payment of a price or ransom properly so called, — which,
as is acknowledged, is not necessary that it should be money or the
like, 1 Pet. i. 18, but any thing that may satisfy him that detains
the captive, — it is not required that it should be paid into the hand
of him that is said to receive it, but only that it be some such thing
as he requires as the condition of releasing the captive. It may con
sist in personal service, which is impossible to be properly paid 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 son
undertake a difficult and hazardous warfare wherein he is concerned,
and he do it accordingly, this son doth properly ransom his father,
though no real price be paid into the hand of him that detained
him. It is sufficient to prove that this ransom 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 valu
able compensation for the delivery of sinners.

2. The propriety of paying a ransom to any, where it lies in under
going the penalty that was due to the ransomed, consists in the
voluntary consent of him' to whom the ransom is paid and him that
pays it unto this commutation ; which in this business we have firmly
evinced. And the price paid by Christ could be no other ; for God
was not our detainer in captivity as a sovereign conqueror, that came
upon us by force and kept us prisoners, but as a just judge and law
giver, who had seized on us for our transgressions: so that not his
power and will were to be treated withal, but his law and justice ; and
so the ransom was properly paid to him in the undergoing that
penalty which his justice required.

3. There must some differences be allowed between spiritual, eter
nal, and civil, corporeal, temporal deliverances; which yet doth not
make spiritual redemption to be improper, nay, rather the other is
said to be improper wherein it agrees not thereunto. The one is
spiritual, the other temporal; so that in every circumstance it is not
to be expected that they should agree.

4. There are two things distinctly in God to be considered in this
business: — (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 himself found out, appointed, and provided this ran
som. The giving of Christ is ascribed to his love, will, and good
pleasure, John iii. 16, Rom. v. 8, viii. 32, 1 John iv. 9, 10, as he had
promised by his prophets of old, Luke i. 67-70. But his justice, and
law, and truth, in their several considerations, required the ransom ;
and in respect of them he accepted it, as hath been showed at large.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 523

So that nothing in the world is more vain than that of our adversaries,
that God procured and appointed this price, therefore he did not
accept it. That is, either God's love or his justice must be denied;
either he hath no justice against sin or no love for sinners; — in the
reconciliation of which two, the greatest and most intense hatred
against sin, and the most inexpressible love to some sinners in the
blood of his only Son, lies the great mystery of the gospel ; which these
men are unacquainted withal.

5. That God may be said to receive this price, it was not neces
sary that any accession should be made to his riches by the ransom,
but that he underwent no loss by our deliverance. This is the differ
ence between a conqueror or a tyrant and a just ruler, in respect of
their captives and prisoners. Says the tyrant or conqueror, " 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 injured, that my law be satisfied, and I will deliver
the prisoner." It is enough, to make good God's acceptance of the
price, that his justice suffer not by the delivery of the prisoner, as it
did not, Rom. iii. 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 estab
lish the truth asserted, namely, that this price or ransom was paid
to God ; for, —

1. A price of redemption, a ransom, must be paid to some one or
other; the nature of the thing requires it. That the death of Christ
was a price or ransom, properly so called, hath been showed before.
The ridiculous objection, that then it must be paid to Satan or our
sin, hath also been sufficiently removed : so that God alone remains
to whom it is to be paid; for unless to some it is paid, it is not a
price or ransom.

2. The price of redemption is to be paid to him who detains 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 the
great householder that calls his servants, that do or should serve him,
to an account, ewapai \6yov, Matt, xviii. 23, 24 ; and wicked men are
xaroipac rzxva, 2 Pet. ii. 14, the children of his curse, obnoxious to it.
It is his judgment "that they which commit sin are worthy of death,"
Rom. i. 32 ; and Christ is a propitiation to " declare his righteousness,"
chap. iii. 25 ; and it is his wrath from which we are delivered by
this ransom, chap. ii. 5, 1 Thess. i. 10; the law was his to which
Christ was made obnoxious, Gal. iv. 4; the curse his which he was
made, chap. iii. 13; it was his will he came to do and suffer, Heb.
x. 7, — it was his will that he should drink off the cup of his passion,
Matt. xxvi. 42; it pleased him to bruise him, Isa. liii. 10; he made
all our iniquities to meet upon him, verse 6 : so that, doubtless, this

524 VINDICI^E EV ANGELICA.

ransom was paid to him. We intend no more by it than what in
these places is expressed.

3. This ransom was also a sacrifice, as hath been declared. Look,
then, to whom the sacrifice was offered, to him the ransom was paid.
These are but several notions of the same thing. Now, the sacrifice
he offered to God, Eph. v. 2 ; to him, then, also and only was this
ransom paid.

4. Christ paid this ransom as he was a mediator and surety. Now
he was the mediator between God and man, and therefore he must
pay this price to one of them, either to God or man, and it is not diffi
cult to determine whether. 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6, gives us this fully. He
is the mediator, and as such he gave himself avTiXvrpov, a price of re
demption to God.

From this description of redemption properly so called, and the ap
plication 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 redemp
tion to God, in that he underwent what was due to us, and procured
our liberty and deliverance thereby, he made satisfaction properly for
our sins; but when we were captives for sin to the justice of God, and
committed thereon to the power of sin and Satan, 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 sins.

For the farther confirmation of what hath been delivered, 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 in
sisted on, I shall choose only those that follow : —

1. Rom. til 24, 25, " Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous
ness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance
of God." Redemption in itself, in its effect in respect of us, with
all its causes, is here expressed. Its effect in respect of us is, that
we are "justified freely," dixaiovptvoi dupsdv: not brought easily, and
with little labour, to be righteous or honest, as some vainly imagine
(Grot, in loc.), but accepted freely with God, without the perform
ance of the works of the law, whereby the Jews sought after right
eousness. The end on the part of God is the declaration of his
righteousness. The means procuring this end is the blood of Christ,
redemption by Christ and in his blood. The means of communi
cating this effect, on the part of God, is the setting forth Christ a pro
pitiation ; on our part, as to application, it is faith in his blood.

(1.) As to the effect of our justification, it shall afterward be con
sidered. The manner, or rise of it rather (for both may be denoted),
on the part of God, is duptat, that is, " freely;" or, as it is expounded

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 525

in the next words, rfj avrou xdpiri, "by his grace." Our redemption
arid the effects of it are free on the part of God, in respect of his
purpose and decree, which is called ixXoyq ^dpirog, Rom. xi. 5, his
great design and contrivance of the work of our salvation and de
liverance. This he did " according to the good pleasure of his will,
to the praise of the glory of his grace," Eph. i. 5, 6 ; " according to his
good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself," verse 9 ; "according
to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of
his own will," verse 11. And it is free in regard of the love from
whence Christ was sent, John iii. 16; which also is ascribed rfi %dpiri
QeoZ, Heb. ii. 9. And it is free in respect of us; we do not obtain it
by the works of the law, Rom. iv. 6, neither 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 satisfaction, recompense, or ransom. " He
spared not his own Son," but " with him freely gives us all things,"
Rom. viii. 32. Aixutovpsvoi duptdv, "We are justified freely;" that is,
we are delivered from our bondage without any satisfaction made by
us, or works performed by us to attain it, God having freely designed
this way of salvation, and sent Jesus Christ to do this work for us.

They are [says Grotius] brought to righteousness without that labour that is re-
quiredfor lesser, even philosophical virtues. Faith makes an abridgment of the work.1
The Kpurov -4/£V($o$ of the great man, in the whole interpretation
of that epistle, as of others of sundry sorts besides himself, is, that to
be justified is to be brought to righteousness by the practice of virtue
and honesty (which answers to that the Scripture calls sanctification),
with as gross a shutting out of light as can befall any man in the
world. This, with that notion which he hath of faith, is the bottom
of this interpretation. But, —

Let him tell us freely what instance he can give of this use of the
word dapsdv, which here he imposeth on us, that it should signify
the facility of doing a thing; and withal, whether these words,
dixaiovpsvoi 8uptdv, denote an act of God or of them that are justi
fied; — whether "being justified freely by his grace" be his free justify
ing of us, as to what is actively denoted, or our easy performance of
the works of righteousness? That dupsdv 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 compelled the learned man to venture on but
pure necessity of maintaining the Socinian justification.

As for the " philosophical virtues," which the gods sold for labour,
they were " splendida peccata," and no more.

i " Adjustitiam vero perducuntur etiam sine labore qui ad minores virtutes, id est, phi-
losophicas requiri solet : Fides enim ejus laboris compendium facit." BJh [gratis] proprie
opponitur impensce, sed et labor impendi dicitur, et emi aliquid labore. T

Epicharmus Tut nova*

HuXovffiv hpiv fa,vTK r dynf ol hoi, — Grot, in loc.

526 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

/

As to ibis part of the words, Socinus himself was not so far out of
the way as the annotator. Saith he, " Justificati gratis, sensus est,
partam nobis esse peccatorum nostrorum absolutionem (id enim ut
scis quod ad nos attinet reipsa justificari est) non quidem per legis
opera, quibus illarn commeriti sumus, sed gratis per gratiam Dei,"
De Servat. lib. i. part. ii. cap. ii.

(2.) The end on the part of God is svfoifys dixaiocuvys, " the de
claration of his righteousness." A/xa/offunj is properly God's justice as
he is a judge. It is true, *l?n is often rendered by the LXX. 5/xa/o-
ffuvti, and by us from thence, " righteousness," which signifies, indeed,
benignity, kindness, and goodness, — and so niT]V, which is "righteous
ness/' is rendered by them sometimes sXeo;, " mercy," and the cir
cumstances of the place may sometimes require that signification 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 punishing transgressors.
This I have elsewhere declared at large.1 Hence he is P"}? Pgfef, Ps.
ix. 5; which, as Paul speaks, 2 Tim. iv. 8, is 6 d/xaios xpirfig, the
" righteous judge." So Rom. i. 32; SThess. i. 6; Rev. xv. 5: so Isa.
lix. 16, "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that
there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto
him; and his righteousness, it sustained him." His righteousness
sustained him in executing vengeance on the enemies of his church.
This is the righteousness 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 sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ his
Son, Rom. viii. 3. Hence did God appear to be exceeding righteous,
— of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. He declared to all the world
what was due to sin, and what must be expected by men if they are
not partakers of the redemption which is in the blood of Jesus Christ,
Rom. viii. 3.

Grotius would have dixuioevvi) here to signify "goodness" 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 do, so we
say here that sense can have no place which nowhere is direct and
proper ; for the thing intended by it in that sense is expressed be
fore in these words, Aupsuv rfi -/jo-pin avrov, and is not consistent with
that that follows, E/g rb tlvat avrbv dixatov, which represents God as
he is dixaiof npirris, as was spoken before.

Socinus goes another way. Says he, " In Christo, Deus ut osten-

deret se veracem et fidelem esse, quod significant verba ilia, justitise

suae," etc., referring it to God's righteousness of verity and fidelity

in fulfilling his promise of forgiveness of sins. But says Grotius,

1 Diatrib. de Just it. Div. voL x.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 527

righteousness cannot be here interpreted, "de fide in promissis prce-
standis, quia quse sequuntur non ad Judseos solos pertinent, sed
etiam ad Gentes quibus promissio nulla erat facta," — " because Gen
tiles are spoken of, and not the Jews only, but to them there was no
promise given." A reason worthy the Annotations; as though the pro
mise was not made to Abraham that he should be heir of the world,
and to all his seed, not according to the flesh only; and as though
the learned man himself did not think the first promise to have been
made, and always to have belonged, to all and every man in the
world. But yet neither will the sense of Socinus stand, for the reasons
before given.

But how are these ends brought about, that we should be dixouw-
dupidv, and yet there should be evdeify; dixaioawrif I

(3.) Ans. The means procuring all this is the blood of Christ;
it is di& T)js anohvrpufffus Tjjg sv ~x.p/<rrp 'iTjffou, — " by the redemp
tion that is in Christ Jesus." And how that redemption is wrought
he expresseth when he shows how we are made partakers of it, 5/d
q$ ffiffreus sv r$ avrov ai^an, — " through faith in his blood." The
redemption wrought and procured by the blood of Christ is the pro
curing cause of all this. The causa irponyovp'wn is the grace of
God, of which before ; the causa irpoxarapxrjxq is this blood of
Christ. This redemption, as here, is called d-roXurpwovj, Luke xxi.
28, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14; Xtrpouris, Luke i. 68, ii. 38, Heb. ix. 12;
Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45; dvriXvrpov, 1 Tim. ii. 6; and in re
spect of the effect, pusis, Rom. vii. 24, xi. 26, Col. i. 13, 1 Thess. i. 10.
This is the procuring cause, as I said, of the whole effect of God's
free grace here mentioned. We are justified freely, because we have
redemption by the blood of Christ ; he obtained it for us by the
price of his blood.

I rather abide in the former sense of \vrpov (from whence is d-ro-
XuVf ueis), to be " a price of redemption," than to interpret it by
" lustrum," and so to refer 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 forgiveness of sins by the intervention of the blood of Christ,
obtaining redemption for us ; which is that we aim to prove from this
place.

Grotius gives this exposition of the words : —

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 grievous sins, but should give them a way of coming to righteousness
by Jesus Christ, and should deliver them from a necessity of dying in their sin, by
revealing a way whereby they might escape it.1

I ' " Christus per obedientiam suam (maxime in morte) et preces ei accedentes, hoc a
Patre obtinuit, ne is humanum genus gravibus peccatis immersum desereret atque ob-

528 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

[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
annotator's 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 de
livered, has elsewhere been declared.

[3.] Christ by his death did not obtain of his Father that he
should reveal or appoint that way of obtaining deliverance and sal
vation which by him we have. This, as the giving of Christ himself,
was of the free grace and love of God. Nor is the appointment of
the way of salvation, according to the covenant of grace, anywhere
assigned to the death of Christ, but to the love of God sending his
Son and appointing him to be a mediator, though the good things
of the covenant be purchased by him.

[4.] This is all the effect here assigned to the blood-shedding of
Jesus Christ, this is the redemption we have thereby: " He ob
tained of 'his Father that a better way of coming to righteousness
than that of the law or that of philosophy might be declared to
us" ! The mystery of the whole is : " Christ, by his obedience to God,
obtained this, that himself 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 express
the price he paid for us, and the effect that ensued thereon.

Socinus goes another way. Says he: —

The intervention of the blood of Christ, though it moved not God to grant us
deliverance from the punishment of sin, yet it moved us to accept of it being offered,
and to believe in Christ. *

That is, the blood of Christ, being paid as a price of our redemp
tion, hath no effect in respect of him to whom it is paid, but only in
respect of them for whom it is paid ; than which imagination
nothing can be more ridiculous.

(4.) The means of application of the redemption mentioned, or
participation in respect of us, is faith. It is dia vfartus sv al/tun
auroD. Of this we have no occasion to speak.

(5.) The means of communication on the part of God is in these
words, "Oi> irpos6tTo 6 ©£&g /Xaor^/ov — " Whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation." God set him forth for this end and purpose.
The word vrpo'sdfro may design various acts of God; as, —

[1.] His purpose and determination or decree of giving Christ;

duraret, sed viam illis daret ad justitiam perveniendi per Christum, Esa. liii. 4, ita et
i-ro^vrpovv aut vaitTv Xvrfuiriv, Luc. i. 68. Vsj aut Fn3, id est, liberare, nempe a ne
cessitate moriendi in peccatis, viam patefaciendo per quam exire ista liceret."

* " Interventus sanguinis Christi, licet Deum ad liberationem hanc a peccatorum
nostrorum pcena nobis concedendum movere non potuerit, movit tamen nos ad cam
nobis oblatam accipiendam, et Christo fidem habendam." — Socin. ubi sup.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 529

whence our translators have in the margin rendered it "fore
ordained," as the word is used Eph. i. 9, "Hf vpoeQtro sv aurcS, — "Which
he fore-purposed in himself." Or, —

[2.] God's proposal of him beforehand in types and sacrifices to
the Jews, the preposition irpo being often in composition used in
that sense in this epistle, chap. iii. 9, xi. 35, xv. 4. Or, —

[3.] For the actual exhibition of him in the flesh when God sent
him into the world. Or, —

[4.] It may refer to the open exposition and publication of him
in the world by the gospel; for, as we shall afterward show, the en
suing words hold out an allusion to the ark, which now in Christ,
the veil being rent, is exposed to the open view of believers. Hence
John tells us, Rev. xi. 19, when the temple was opened, "there was
seen in it the ark of the testament;" which, as it was not at all in
the second temple, the true Ark being to be brought in, no more was
it to be seen upon the opening of the first, where it was, being closed
in the holiest of holies. But now in the ordinances of the gospel,
the Ark is perspicuous, because Qebs vpoedsro, — God hath set it forth
to believers.

Now, he was set forth iXasrqpiov, " a propitiation." There is none
but has observed that this is the name of the covering of the
ark or the mercy-seat that is applied to Christ, Heb. ix. 5; but the
true reason and sense of it hath scarce been observed. Ours generally
would prove from hence that Christ did propitiate God by the sacri
fice of himself. That may have something from the general notice of
the word referred to, the " sacrificia," iXaenxd (whereof afterward),
but not from the particular intimated. The mercy-seat did not atone
God for the sins that were committed against the law that was in
the ark, but declared him to be atoned and appeased. That this is
the meaning of it, that as the mercy-seat declared God to be atoned
so also is Christ set forth to declare that God was atoned, not to atone
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 was provoked, and some way was used for his atonement.
And,—

[2.] This is indeed the true import of that type and the applica
tion of it here by our apostle. The mercy-seat declared God to be
appeased; but how? By the blood of the sacrifice that was offered
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 expressly appointed to make atone
ment, Lev. xvi. God would not have the mercy-seat once seen, nor
any pledge of his being atoned, but by the blood of the propitiatory
.sacrifice. So it is here. God sets out Jesus Christ as a propitiation,

VOL. XIL 34

530 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

and declares himself to be appeased and reconciled ; but how ? By the
blood of Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, by the price of redemp
tion which he paid. This is the intendment of the apostle : Christ
by his blood, and the price he paid thereby, with the sacrifice he
made, having atoned God, or made atonement with him for us, God
now sets him forth, the veil of the temple being rent, to the eye
of all believers, as the Mercy-seat wherein we may see God fully re
conciled 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. v. 18.

It would be too long for me to insist in particular on the full vin
dication of the other testimonies that are used for the confirmation
of this truth ; I shall give them, therefore, together in such a way
as that their efficacy to the purpose in hand may be easily discerned.

We are bought by Christ, saith the apostle: 'Hyopaodqri, "Ye are
bought," 1 Cor. vi. 20. But this buying may be taken metaphorically
for a mere deliverance, as certainly it is, 2 Pet. ii. 1, " Denying the
Lord that bought them/' — that is, delivered them, — for it is spoken
of God the Father. It may be so, the word may be so used, and
therefore, to show the propriety of it here, the apostle adds r//z?j£,
"with a price:" "Ye are bought with a price." To be bought with
a price doth nowhere signify to be barely delivered, but to be deli
vered with a valuable compensation for our deliverance. But what is
this price wherewith we are bought? 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, "JNot with silver
and gold, but r/^/y a^an Xp/<rroD," — " with the precious (honourable)
blood of Christ." Why ripiov aJfia, "the precious blood?" That we
may know that in this business it was valued at a sufficient rate for
our redemption, and it did that which in temporal, civil redemption
is done by silver and gold, which are given as a valuable considera
tion for the captive. But what kind of price is this blood of Christ ?
It is XVTPOV, Matt. xx. 28, that is, a " price of redemption ; " whence it
is said that " he gave himself for us, iva "kvrpuff^rai fi/^ag" Tit. ii. 14,
" that he might fetch us off with a ransom." But it may be that it
is called \vrpov, not that he put himself 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 Xvrpov
properly; and therefore he calls it also avrfavrpov, 1 Tim. ii. 6. "Am in
composition signifies either opposition, as 1 Pet. iii. 9, or substitu
tion and commutation, as Matt. ii. 22. In the first sense, here it can
not be taken ; therefore it must be in the latter. He was avrfavrpov,
— that is, did so pay a ransom that he himself became that which we
should have been; as it is expressed, Gal. iii. ] 3, "He redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." To whom he'paid this
price was before declared, and the apostle expresseth it, Eph. v. 2.
What now is the issue of all this? We have redemption thereby : Chap.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 531

i. 7, " In whom we have uKtfhvrpuaiv 8i<x, roD a7/*«™j a&rou, — redemp
tion by his blood ; " as it is again asserted in the same words, Col.
i. 14. But how came we by this redemption? He obtained it of
God for us: "He entered into heaven, aJuviav XuTpusiv tvpd{j,evo$, hav
ing found (or obtained) eternal 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 is the immediate issue of this redemption is
expressed. It is "forgiveness of sins," Eph. L 7; Col. i. 14; Horn-
iii. 24, 25.

And this is as much as is needful to the first notion of the death
of Christ, as a price and ransom, with the issues of it, and the
confirmation of our first argument from thence for the satisfaction
of Christ.

CHAPTER XXIX.

Of reconciliation by the death of Christ as it is a sacrifice.

II. THE next consideration of the death of Christ is of it as a sa
crifice, and the proper effect thereof is RECONCILIATION by his death
as a sacrifice.

Reconciliation in general is the renewal 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 crea
ture; he approved him to be good, and appointed him to walk in
peace, communion, confidence, and boldness with him, Gen. ii. Nor
had man, on whose heart the law and love of his Maker was writ
ten, any enmity against his Creator, God, and Rewarder.

2. That by sin there is division, separation, and breach of peace
and friendship, introduced between God and the creature : Isa. lix. 2,
"Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and
your sins have hid his face from you." Chap. Ixiii. 10, " They re
belled, and vexed his holy Spirit ; therefore he was turned to be their
enemy, and fought against them." Chap. Ivii. 21, " There is no
peace, saith my God, to the wicked." And therefore it is that,
upon a delivery from this condition, we are said (and not before) to
have " peace with God," Rom. v. 1.

3. That by this breach of peace and friendship with God, God
was alienated from the sinner, so as to be angry with him, and to
renounce all peace and friendship with him, considered as such and
in that condition. " He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth
on him," John iii., 3 6. And therefore by nature and in our natu-

532 :. VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

ral condition we are " children of wrath/' Eph. ii. 3 ; that is, obnoxious
to the wrath of God, that abides upon unbelievers, — that is, unrecon
ciled persons.

4. This enmity on the part of God consists, —

(1.) In the purity and holiness of his nature, whence he cannot
admit a guilty, defiled creature to have any communion with him.
He is a God of " purer eyes than to behold evil/' Hab. i. 13. And
sinners cannot serve him, because " he is a holy God, a jealous
God, that will not forgive their transgressions nor their sins," Josh,
xxiv. 19.

(2.) In his will of punishing for sin: Rom. i. 32, "It is the judg
ment of God, that they which commit sin are worthy of death/' and
this from the righteousness of the thing itself. 2 Thess. i. 6, " It
is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation" to sinners.
" He is not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness," etc., Ps. v. 4-6.

(3.) In the sentence of his law, in the establishing and execution
whereof his truth and honour were engaged: " In the day that thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," Gen. ii. 17. And, " Cursed is
every one that continueth not," etc., Gal. iii. 13, Dent, xxvii. 26. And
of this enmity of God against sin and sinners, as I have elsewhere at
large declared, there is an indelible persuasion abiding on the hearts
of all the sons of men, however, by the stirrings of lust and craft
of Satan, it may be more or less blotted in them. Hence, —

(4.) As a fruit and evidence of this enmity, God abominates their
persons, Ps. i. 4-6; rejects and hates their duties and ways, Prov. xv.
8, 9 ; and prepares wrath and vengeance for them, to be inflicted in
his appointed time, Rom. ii. 5 ; — all which make up perfect enmity
on the part of God.

5. That man was at enmity with God as on his part, I shall not
need to prove, because I am not treating of our reconciliation to
God, but of his reconciliation to us.

Where there is such an enmity as this, begun by offence on the
one part, and continued by anger and purpose to punish on the other,
to make reconciliation is properly to propitiate and turn away the
anger of the person offended, and thereby to bring the offender into
favour with him again, and to an enjoyment of the same, or a friend
ship built on better conditions than the former. This description of
reconciliation doth God himself give us, Job xlii. 7-9, " And it was
so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LOED
said to Eliphaz the Temanite, 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
yourselves a burnt offering ; and my servant Job shall pray for you :
for him will I accept : lest I deal with you after your folly, in that

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 533

ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant
Job/' etc. The offenders are Eliphaz and his two friends; the of
fence 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. Recon
ciliation is the turning away of that wrath. The means whereby this
was to be done, appointed of God, is the sacrifice of Job for atonement

This, then, is that which we ascribe to the death of Christ 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 sin
(as before), Christ by his death turned away his anger, appeased his
wrath, and brought us into favour again with God. Before the proof
of this, I must needs give one caution as to some terms of this dis
course, as also remove an objection that lies at the very entrance
against the whole nature of that which is treated of.

For the first, When we speak of the anger of God, his wrath,
and his being appeased towards us, we speak after the manner of
men ; but yet by the allowance of God himself. Not that God is
properly angry, and properly altered from that state and appeased,
whereby he should properly be mutable and be actually changed ;
— but by the anger of God, which sometimes in Scripture signifieth
his justice, from whence punishment proceeds, sometimes the effects
of anger, or punishment itself, the obstacles before mentioned on the
part of God, from his nature, justice, law, and truth, are intended ;
and by his being appeased towards us, his being satisfied as to all the
bars so laid in the way of receiving us to favour, without the least
alteration in him, his nature, will, or justice. And according to the
analogy hereof, I desire that whatever is spoken of the anger of God,
and his being appeased or altered (which is the language wherein he
converseth with us and instructs us to wisdom), may be measured
and interpreted.

The objection I shall propose in the words of Crellius : —

If this be the chiefest and highest love of God, that he sent Christ, his only
Son, to be a propitiation for our sins, how then could Christ by his death appease
the wrath of God that was incensed against us ? for seeing that God's love was
the cause of sending Christ, he must needs before that have laid aside his anger ;
for otherwise, should he not intensely love us and not love us at the same time?
And if God could then be angry with us when he gave up his Son to bitter death
for our everlasting happiness, 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? l

1 " Si in eo sita est dilectio, quod Deus nos dilexerit et Filium suum miserit /Xair^^
pro peccatis nostris, quomodo Christus morte sua demum iram Dei adversus nos in-
censam placarit ? nam cum dilectio ilia Dei quse plane fuit summa, causa fuit cur Deus
Filium suum charissimum miserit, necesse est ut iram jam suam adversus nos depo-
suerit ; nonne aliter eodem tempore et impense amabit et non amabit ? Si Deus etiam
turn potuit nobis irasci cum Filium suum charissimum supremae nostrae felicitatis causa
morti acerbissimse objiceret, quod satis magnum argumentum erit ex effectu ejus
petitum, unde cognoscamus Deum nobis non irasci amplius." — Crell. Defen. Socin. con.
Grot. part. vi.

534 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

To the same purpose Socinus himself: " Demonstravi non modo
Christum Deo nos, non autem Deum nobis reconciliasse, verum
etiam Deum ipsum fuisse qui hanc reconciliationem fecerit," Socin.
de Servator. lib. i. part. i. cap. L

To the same purpose is the plea of the catechist, cap. viii., " De
Morte Christ!/' q. 31, 32.

Ans. 1. The love wherewith God loved us when he sent his Son to
die for us was the most intense and supreme in its own kind, nor
would admit of any hatred or enmity in God towards us that stood
in opposition thereunto. It is everywhere set forth as the most in
tense love, John iii. 16; Rom. v. 7, 8; 1 John iv. 10. Now, this love
of God is an eternal free act of his will; his " purpose/' Rom. ix. 11;
" his good pleasure/' his purpose that he " purposed in himself/' as it
is called, Eph. L 5, 9 ; it is his Kpodttig, tvdoxfa, -irpfyvuffis, 1 Pet. i. 2, as
I have elsewhere distinctly declared; a love that was to have an
efficacy by means appointed. But for a love of friendship, approba
tion, 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 design of the Scripture and innumerable particular testi
monies once to fancy a love of friendship and acceptation towards
any in God, and not consequent to the death of Christ.

2. This love of God's purpose and good pleasure, this " charitas
ordinativa/' hath not the least inconsistency with those hinderances
of peace and friendship on the part of God before mentioned; for
though the holiness of God's nature, the justice of his government,
the veracity of his word, will not allow that he take a sinner into
friendship and communion with himself without satisfaction made
to him, yet this hinders not but that, in his sovereign good-will and
pleasure, he might purpose to recover us from that condition by the
holy means 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 redeem us and to satisfy for our sin; he was angry with us in
respect of his violated law and provoked justice by sin.

3. God loves our persons as we are his creatures, is angry with
us as we are sinners.

4. It is true that we can have no greater evidence and argument
of the love of God's good -will and pleasure in general than in send
ing his Son to die for sinners, and that he is not angry with them
with an anger of hatred opposite to that love, — that is, with an eternal
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 was pro
posed ensues : — •

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 535

The use and sense of the words whereby this doctrine of our re
conciliation is expressed evince the truth contended for. 'IXatrxsotfa/,
xaraXdeativ, and uKoxaraXdaffuv, which are the words used in this busi
ness, are as much as " iram avertere," " to turn away anger : " so is
" reconciliare, propitiare," and " placare," in Latin. " Impius, ne
audeto placare iram deorum," was a law of the Twelve Tables.
'iXatfxo/ia/, "propitior, placor/' /Xao^og, " placatio, exoratio," Gloss,
vetus. And in this sense is the word used: "Otfa plvroi vpbs iXas-
/to'jg $iuv 7j rtparuv avorpovas euvqyopivov oi /tam/j, Plut. in Fabio, — to
" appease their gods, and turn away the things they feared." And the
same author tells us of a way taken sfyxdeacdai TO p,rjvip,a rfo Seoii, — to
" appease the anger of the goddess." And Xenophon useth the word
to the same purpose: IloXXa pev irfj/Mrtei uvadqfLara ^puaa, ToXXa ds dpyvpa,
Ta/AcroXXa & St uv, s^/Xaffa/Ajji/ ffort aurov. 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 turn away the
wrath of God from us, as by the testimonies of it will appear.

Before I produce our witnesses in this cause, I must give this one
caution : It is not said anywhere expressly that God is reconciled 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 party offending is always said to be reconciled to the party
offended, and not on the contrary. So Matt, v. 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
reconciled to him by turning away his anger. And in common speech,
when one hath justly provoked another, we bid him go and reconcile
himself to him ; that is, do that which may appease him and give an
entrance into his favour again. So is it in the case under considera
tion. Being the parties offending, we are said to be reconciled to God
when his anger is turned away and we are admitted into his favour.
Let now the testimonies speak for themselves: —

Rom. v. 10, " When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
by the death of his Son." K.anjXXayjj/^i' r£ Qt&} — " We were recon
ciled to God," or " brought again into his favour." Amongst the
many reasons that might be given to prove the intention of this ex
pression 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 verse 8; " While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," with
•which this upon the matter is the same, " We are reconciled to God

536 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

by the deatli of his Son." Now, the intent of this expression, "Christ
died for us sinners/' is, he died to bring us sinners into the favour of
God, nor will it admit of any other sense ; so is our being " reconciled
to God by the death of his Son." And that this is the meaning of
the expression, " Christ died for us," is evident from the illustration
given to it by the apostle, verses 6, 7. " Christ died for the ungodly ;"
how? As one man dieth for another, — that is, to deliver him from
death.

2. From the description of the same thing in other words : Verse 9,
" Being justified by his blood." That it is the same thing upon the
matter that is here intended appears from the contexture of the
apostle's speech, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;
much more then being justified by his blood;" and, " If, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God." The apostle repeats what
he had said before, " If, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for
us," and "we were justified by the blood of Christ;" that is, "If, when
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God." Now, to be justified
is God's 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 tendered to us,
and we do receive it: Verse 11, KaraXXay^i* lXa£o/i£i/, " We have re
ceived the reconciliation (or atonement)." 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 reconciliation to God is
our conversion ; but we are not said to receive our conversion, or to
have our conversion tendered to us, but to convert ourselves or to be
converted.

4. The state and condition from whence we are delivered by this
reconciliation is described in this, that we are called enemies, — being
" enemies, we were reconciled." Now, enemies in this place are the
same with sinners; and the reconciliation of sinners, — that is, of
those who had rebelled against God, provoked him, were obnoxious
to wrath, — is certainly the procuring of the favour of God for them.
When you say, " Such a poor, conquered rebel, that expected to be
tortured and slain, is by means of such a 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
sense we are saved by the death of Christ, prove our reconciliation
with God to be our acceptation with him, not our conversion to him

2 Cor. v. 18-21 is a place of the same importance with that above
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 himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the
ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, recon-

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 537

oiling the world to himself, 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 Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him."

There is in these words a twofold reconciliation: — 1. Of God to
man: Verse 18, " God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ."
2. Our reconciliation to God, in the acceptance of that reconciliation
which we are exhorted to.

The first is that inquired after, the reconciliation whereby the
anger of God by Christ is turned away, and those for whom he died
are brought into his favour, which comprises the satisfaction pro
posed to confirmation ; for, — •

1. Unless it be that God is so reconciled and atoned, 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," Isa. xxxiii. 14, being of " purer eyes than
to behold evil," Hab. i. 13; before whom no sinner shall appear or
stand, Ps. v. 4, 5. So that, where there is no "sacrifice for sins,"
there " remaineth nothing to sinners but a certain fearful looking for
of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adver
saries," Heb. x. 26, 27 How comes, then, this jealous God, this
holy God and just Judge, to command some to beseech sinners to
be reconciled to him? The reason is given before. It is because he
reconciles us to himself by Christ, or in Christ ; that is, by Christ his
anger is pacified, his justice satisfied, and himself appeased or recon
ciled to us.

2. The reconciliation mentioned is so expounded, in the cause and
effect of it, as not to admit of any other interpretation.

(1.) The effect of God's being reconciled, or his reconciling the
world to himself, is in these words, " Not imputing to them their
trespasses." God doth so reconcile us to himself by Christ as not
to impute our trespasses to us ; that is, not dealing with us according
as justice required for our sins, upon the account of Christ's [work]
remitting the penalty due to them, laying away his anger, and receiv
ing us to favour. This is the immediate fruit of the reconciliation
spoken of, if not the reconciliation itself. Non-imputation of sin is
not our conversion to God.

(2.) The cause of it is expressed, verse 21, " He made him to be
sin for us, who knew no sin." How comes it to pass that God, the
righteous judge, doth thus reconcile us to himself, and not impute to
us our sins? It is because he hath made Christ to be sin for us, —
that is, either a sacrifice for sin, or as sin, — by the imputation of our
sin to him. He was "made sin for us," as we are "made the righteous-

538 YINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

ness of God in him." Now, we are made the righteousness of God by
the imputation of his righteousness to us: so was he made sin for us
by the imputation of our sin to him. Now, for God to reconcile us
to himself by imputing our sin to Christ, and thereon not imputing
it to us, can be nothing but his being appeased and atoned towards
us, with his receiving us into his favour, by and upon the account of
the death of Christ.

(3.) This reconciling of us to himself is the matter committed to
the preachers of the gospel ; whereby, or by the declaration whereof,
they should persuade us to be reconciled to God. " He hath com
mitted to us rhv Xo'yoc rfo xaraXXayJjs, this doctrine concerning recon
ciliation mentioned, ' we therefore beseech you to be reconciled to
God/ " That which is the matter whereby we are persuaded to be
reconciled to God cannot be our conversion itself, as is pretended.
The preachers of the gospel are to declare this word of God, namely,
" that he hath reconciled us to himself" by the blood of Christ, the
blood of the new testament that was shed for us, and thereon per
suade us to accept of the tidings, or the subject of them, and to 'be
at peace with God. Can the sense be, " We are converted to God,
therefore be ye converted?" This testimony, then, speaks clearly to
the matter under debate.

The next place of the same import is Eph. ii. 12-16, "At that
time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no
hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye
who sometimes were far 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 commandments contained in
ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making
peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

1. Here is mention of a twofold enmity: — (1.) Of the Gentiles unto
God ; (2.) Of the Jews and Gentiles among themselves.

(1.) Of the Gentiles unto God, verse 12. Consider them as they
are there described, and their enmity to God is sufficiently evident.
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," John iii. 36; they are "children of wrath," Eph.
ii. 3. So are they there expressly called. " He hateth all the work
ers of iniquity," Ps. v. 5, and " will by no means clear the guilty,"
Exod. xxxiv. 7 ; yea, he curseth those families that call not on his
name, Jer. x. 25.

(2.) Of the Jews and Gentiles among themselves ; which is ex
pressed both in the thing itself and in the cause of it. It is called

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 539

" enmity," and said to arise from, or be occasioned and improved by,
" the law of commandments contained in ordinances/5 The occasion,
improvement, and management of this enmity between them see
elsewhere.

2. Here is mention of a twofold reconciliation: — (1.) Of the Jews
and Gentiles among themselves: Verses 14, 15, "He is our peace,
who hath made both one, abolishing the enmity, so making peace."
(2.) Of both unto God: Verse 1 6, "That he might reconcile both unto
God/'

3. The manner whereby this reconciliation was wrought: "In his
body, by the cross." •

The reconciliation unto God is that aimed at. This reconciliation
is the reconciling of God unto us on the account 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 appears, —

(1.) From the cause of it expressed; that is, the body of Christ,
by the cross, or the death of Christ. Now, the death of Christ was
immediately for the forgiveness of sins: "This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." It is by
shedding of his blood that we have remission or forgiveness. That this
is by an atoning of God, or our acceptance into favour, is confessed.

(2.) From the expression itself: 'Afl-o/caT-aXXagjj It svi su/ian rip
0£<jJ. TUJ Qif denotes one party in the business of reconciliation.
He made peace between them both, between the Gentiles on the
one hand and the Jews on the other, and he made peace between
them both and God, Jews and Gentiles on the one hand and God on
the other. So that God is a party in the business of recouciliatioa
and is therein reconciled to us ; for our reconciliation to him is men
tioned in our reconciliation together, which cannot be done without
our conversion.

(3.) From the description of the enmity given, verse 12, which
plainly shows (as was manifested) that it was on both sides. Now,
this reconciliation unto God is by the removal of that enmity ; and
if so, God was thereby reconciled and atoned, if he hath any anger
or indignation against sin or sinners.

(4.) Because this reconciliation of both to God is the great cause
and means of their reconciliation among themselves. God, through
the blood of Christ, or on the account of his death, receiving both
into favour, their mutual enmity ceased ; and without it never did
nor ever will.

And this is the reconciliation accomplished by Christ.

The same might be said of the other place, Col. i. 20-22 ; but
I shall not need to multiply testimonies to the same purpose. Thus
we have reconciliation by Christ, in that he hath made atonement
or satisfaction for our sins.

540 VINDICI2E EVANGELIOffi.

The observations given on these texts have been suited to obviate
the exceptions of Socinus, treating of this subject in his book " De Ser-
vatore," without troubling the reader with the repetition of his words.

That which in the next place I thought to do is, to prove that 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 general ; secondly, on the
institution, nature, end, and efficacy of the sacrifices of the Aaroni-
cal priesthood ; thirdly, the respect and relation that was between
them and the sacrifice of Christ, both in general and in particular;
and from all these considerations 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 pro
ceed in it, but refer it to a peculiar discourse on that subject.

That which I proposed to confirmation at the entrance of this dis
course was the satisfaction made by the blood of Christ. This being
proposed under several considerations, hath thus far 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 adversaries
themselves being judges. The sacrifice that he offered in his death
hath also been manifested. Hereof is the reconciliation now deli
vered the fruit and effect. This also is no less destructive of the
design 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 business, in the 31st and 32d
questions of the 8th chapter, which is about the death of Christ : —

Q. What say you, then, to those places that affirm that he reconciled us to God?

A. 1. That the Scripture nowhere says that God was reconciled to us by Christ,
but this only, that by Christ, or the death of Christ, we are reconciled, or recon
ciled to God ; as may appear 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 himself, which evinceth
the opinion of the adversaries to be altogether false, 2 Cor. v. 18. Col. i. 20-22. *

Ans. 1. Whether there be any mention in the Scripture of such
a reconciliation as whereby the anger of God is turned away and we
received into favour, the reader will judge from what hath been
already proposed, and thither we appeal. It is not about words and
syllables that we contend, but things themselves. The reconciliation

1 " Ad haec vero quod nos Deo reconciliarit quid affers ? — Primum, nusquam Scrip-
turam asserere Deum nobis a Christo reconciliatum, verum id tantum, quod nos per
Christum, aut mortem ejus, simus reconciliati, vel Deo reconciliati, ut ex omnibus locis
quse de hac reconciliatione agunt videre est. Quare nullo modo ex iis omnibus locis
ea satisfactio extrui potest. Deinde vero quod aperte in Scripturis extat, Deum nos sibi
reconciliasse, id opinionem adversariorum prorsus falsam esse evincit, 2 Cor. v. 18,
Col. i. 20-22."

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 541

of God to us by Christ is so expressed as the reconciliation of a judge
to an offender, of a king to a rebel, may be expressed.

2. If Christ made reconciliation for us and for our sins an atone
ment, he made the satisfaction for us which we plead for.

3. It is true, God is said to reconcile us to himself, but always by
Christ, by the blood of Christ, proposing himself as reconciled there
by, and declaring to us the atonement that we may turn unto him.

They add,—

Q. But what thinkest thou of this reconciliation f

A. That Jesus Christ showed a way to us, who by reason of our sins were
enemies to God and alienated from him, how we ought to turn unto God, and by
that means be reconciled to him.1

Ans. I suppose there was never a more perverse description of
any thing, part or parcel, of the gospel 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 recon
ciliation but of one, the other excluded.

2. An enmity on one side only, between God and sinners, is sup
posed, and that on the part of the sinners, when the Scriptures do
much more abound in setting out the enmity of God against them
as such, his wrath abiding on them, — as some will find one day to
their eternal sorrow.

3. Reconciliation is made nothing but conversion, or conversion
to God, which yet are terms and things in the Scriptures everywhere
distinguished.

4. We are said to be enemies to God " propter peccata nostra,"
when the Scripture says everywhere that God is an enemy to us
"propter peccata nostra." He hateth and is angry with sinners.
His judgment is, " that they which commit sin are worthy of death,"
Rom. i. 32.

5. Here is no mention of the death and blood of Christ, which, in
every place in the whole Scripture where this reconciliation is spoken
of, is expressly laid down as the cause of it, and necessarily denotes
the reconciliation of God to us, by the averting of his anger, as the
effect of it.

6. Did Christ by his death show us a way whereby we might
come to be reconciled to God or convert ourselves? 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 learn
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.

1 " Quid vero de hac reconciliatione sentis ? — Christum Jesum nobis, qui propter
peccata nostra Dei inimici eramus et ab eo abalienati, viam ostendisse, quemadmodum
nos ad Deum convert!, atque adeum modum ei reconciliari oporteat."

542 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

This is the sum of what they say : " We are reconciled to God, that
is, we convert ourselves, by the death of Christ ; that is, not by his
death, but according to the doctrine he teach eth. And this is the
sum of the doctrine of reconciliation : Christ teacheth us a way how
we should convert ourselves to God." And so much for reconciliation.

CHAPTER XXX.

The satisfaction of Christ on the consideration of his death being a punishment
farther evinced, and vindicated from the exceptions of Smalcius.

III. THE third consideration of the death of Christ was of it as it
was penal, as therein he underwent punishment for us, or that pu
nishment which for sin was due to us. Thence directly is it said to
be SATISFACTORY. About the word itself we do not contend, nor do
our adversaries except against it. If the thing itself be proved that
is intended by that expression, this controversy is at end. Farther
to open the nature of satisfaction, then, by what is said before about
bearing of sins, etc., I see no reason ; our aim in that word is known
to all, and the sense of it obvious. This is made by some the gene
ral head of the whole business. I have placed it on the peculiar
consideration of Christ's bearing our sins and undergoing punish
ment for us. What our catechists say to the whole I shall briefly
consider.

Having assigned some causes and effects of the death of Christ,
partly true in their own place, partly false, they ask, question 12, —

Ques. Is there no other cause of the death of Christ ?

Ans. None at all. As for that which Christians commonly think, that Christ by
his death merited salvation for us, and satisfied fully for our sins, that opinion is
false (or deceitful), erroneous, and very pernicious.1

That the men of this persuasion are bold men we are not now to
learn; 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 pernicious " that lies beyond
their road 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.

Of the merit of Christ I have spoken briefly before. His satis
faction is the thing opposed chiefly. What they have to say against
it shall now be considered ; as also, how this imputation or charge on

1 " Non est etiam aliqua alia mortis Christi causa ? — Nulla prorsus. Etsi nunc vulgo
Christian! sentiunt, Christum morte sua nobis salutem meruisse, et pro peccatis DOS-
tris plenarie satisfecisse, quse sententia fallax est et erronea, et admodum perniciosa."
— Cat. Eac. de mor. Chris, cap. viii. q. 1-2.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 543

the common faith of Christians, about the satisfaction of Christ to be
" false, erroneous, and pernicious/' will be managed.

Q. How is it false (or deceitful') f

A. That it is false (or deceitful) and erroneous 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 reason.1

For the truth of this suggestion, that it is not extant in Scripture,
I refer 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 express the
dying of Christ for us, and his being our mediator and surety in his
death), they shall have liberty, for me, to boast in this manner. In
the meantime, we are not concerned in their wretched confidence.
But let us see how they make good their assertion by instances: —

Q. Show that in order ?

A, That it is not in the Scripture this is an argument, that the assertors of
that opinion do never bring evident scriptures for the proof of it, but knit certain
consequences by which they endeavour to make good what they assert; which as
it is meet to admit when they are necessarily deduced from Scripture, so it is cer.
tain they have no force when they are repugnant to the Scripture.*

But what is it that we do not prove by express Scripture, and
that in abundance? That " our iniquity was laid upon Christ;" that
" he was bruised, grieved, wounded, killed for us;" that " he bare
our iniquities," and that " in his own body on the tree ; " that " he
was made sin for us." and "a curse;" that we deserved death, and "he
died for us; " that " he made his soul an offering for sin, laid down
his life a price and ransom for us," or in our stead ; that we are
thereby " redeemed and reconciled to God ; " that our " iniquities
being laid on him," and he "bearing them" (that is, the punishment
due to them), " we have deliverance ; " God being atoned, and his
wrath removed, — we prove not by consequence, but by multitudes of
express testimonies. If they mean that the word " satisfaction " is
not found in Scripture in the business treated of, we tell them that
EK>K is; and Xurpov, dvTiXvrpov, and XvTpuffig, dvoXurpuffig, xaraXXayjj
(all words of a cognate significancy thereto, and of the same im
portance as to the doctrine under consideration), are frequently
used. It is, indeed, a hard task to find the word satisfaction in the
Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New; but the

1 " Qua ratione ? — Quod ad id quod fallax sit et erronea, attinet, id hinc perspi-
ouum est, quod non solum de ea nihil extet in Scripturis, verum etiam Scripturis et
sanae ration! repugnat ? "

2 " Demonstra id ordine ?— Id non haberi in Scripturis argumento est, quod istius
opinionis assertores nunquam perspicuas scripturas afferunt ad probandam istara
opinionem, verum quasdam consecutiones nectunt quibus quod asserunt efficere conan-
iur; quas ut admittere aequum est cum ex Scripturis necessario adstruuntur, ita ubi
Scripturis repugnant eas nullum vim habere certum est."— Ques. 15.

544 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC-E.

thing itself is found expressly a hundred times over; and their great
master doth confess that it is not the word, but the thing itself, 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 doctrine is made good by innumerable
express 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 senses, never
heard of before amongst men professing the name of Christ, we could
willingly abstain wholly from any expression that is not f> nrug, found
in the Word itself. But if, by their rebellion against the truth, and
attempts to pervert all the expressions of the Word, the most clear and
evident, to perverse and horrid abominations, we are necessitated to
them, they must bear them, unless they can prove them not to be true.

Let the reader observe, that they grant that the consequences we
gather from Scripture would evince that which we plead and contend
for, were it not that they are repugnant to other scriptures. Let
them, then, manifest the truth of their pretension by producing those
other scriptures, or confess that they are self-condemned.

Wherefore they ask, —

Q. How is it repugnant to the Scriptures f

A. In this sort, that the Scriptures do everywhere testify that God forgives
sin freely, 2 Cor. v. 19, Rom. iii. 24, 25; but principally under the new covenant,
Eph. ii. 8, Matt, xviii. 23, etc. Now, nothing is more opposite to free remission
than satisfaction; so that if a creditor be satisfied either by the debtor himself or
by any other in the name of the debtor, he cannot be said to forgive freely.1

If this be all that our consequences are repugnant unto in the
Scripture, we doubt not to make a speedy reconciliation; indeed
there was never the least difference between them. Not to dwell
long upon that which is of an easy despatch, —

1. This objection is stated solely to the consideration of sin as a
debt, which is metaphorical. Sin properly is an offence, a rebellion,
a transgression of the law, an injury done, not to a private person,
but to a governor in his government

2. The first two places mentioned, 2 Cor. v. 18-20, Rom. iii. 24,
25, do expressly mention the payment of this debt by Christ as the
ground of God's forgiveness, remission, and pardon; the payment
of it, I say, not as considered metaphorically as a debt, but the
making an atonement and reconciliation for us who had committed
it, considered as a crime and rebellion or transgression.

1 " Qui vero Scripturse repugnat ? — -Ad eum modum, quod Scripturse passim Deum
peccata hominibus gratuito remittere testentur, 2 Cor. v. 19, Bom. iii. 24, 26; potis-
simum vero sub novo foedere, Eph. ii. 8, Matt, xviii. 23, etc. At remission! gratuitSB
nihil adversatur magis quam satisfactio. Cui enim creditor! satisfit vel ab ipso debi-
tore, vel ab alio debitoris nomine, de eo dici non potest vere eum debitum gratuito ex
ipsa gratia remisisse."

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 545

3. We say that God doth most freely forgive us, as Eph. ii. 8, Matt,
xviil 23, etc., without requiring any of the debt at our hands, with
out requiring any price or ransom from us or any satisfaction at our
hands; but yet he forgives us for Christ's sake, setting forth him to be
a propitiation through faith in his blood, he laying down his life a ran
som for us, God not sparing him, but giving him up to death for us all.

4. The expression of another satisfying in the name of the debtor
intends either one procured by the debtor, and at his entreaty un
dertaking the work, or one graciously given and assigned to be in
his stead by the creditor. In the first sense it hath an inconsistency
with free remission, in the latter not at all.

The truth is, men that dream of an opposition between the satis
faction made by Christ, the surety and mediator of the new cove
nant, and free remission made to us, are utterly ignorant of the whole
mystery of the gospel, nature of the covenant, and whole mediation
of Christ, advancing carnal imaginations against innumerable testi
monies 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 follow
" that Christ underwent eternal death, if he satisfied God for our
sins, seeing it is manifest that the punishment we deserved by our
sins was eternal death. Also, it would follow that we should be more
bound to Christ than to God himself, as to him who had shown us
greater favour in satisfaction; but God receiving satisfaction afforded
us no favour."1

What little relief this plea will afford our adversaries will quickly
appear; for, —

1. I have proved that Christ underwent that death that was due
unto sinners, which was all that justice, law, or reason required. He
underwent it, though it was impossible for him to be detained by it

2. If the Racovians do not think us obliged to God for sending
his Son, out of his infinite and eternal love, to die for us, causing all
our iniquities 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 bless his holy name !) we
are not of that mind, but, finding a daily fruit of his love and kind
ness upon our souls, do know that we are bound unto him eternally,
to love, praise, serve, honour, and glorify him, beyond what we shall
ever be able to express.

• . For the inquiry made and comparison instituted between our

1 " Cedo qui istud ration! repugnat ? — Id quidem hinc perspicuum est, quod seque-
retur Christum seternam mortem subiisse, si Deo pro peccatis nostris satisfecisset, cum
constet poenam quam homines peccatis meruerant aeternam mortem esse. Deinde con-
sequeretur DOS Christo quam Deo ipsi devinctiores esse, quippe qui satisfactione mul-
tum gratisB nobis ostendisset ; Deua vero exacta satisfactione, nulla prorsus gratia 1103
prosecutus fuisset."

VOL. XII. 35

54.6 VINDICI^E EVANGELICAL

obligation to the Father and the Son, or which of them we are most
beholden to, we profess we cannot speak unto it. Our obligation to
both, and either respectively, is such that if our affections were ex
tended immeasurably to what they are, yet the utmost and exactest
height of them would be due to both, and each of them respectively.
We are so bound to one as we cannot be more tp the other, because
to both in the absolutely highest degree. This we observe in the
Scriptures, that in mentioning the work of redemption, the rise,
fountain, 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 Son,
and so 'we order our thoughts of faith towards them; the Father
being not one whit the less free and gracious to us by loving us upon
the satisfaction of his Son than if he had forgiven us (had it been
possible) without any satisfaction at all.

And thus is this article of the Christian faith contrary to Scripture,
and to reason. They add : —

Q. How also is it pernicious*

A. In that it openeth a door unto men to sin, or at least incites them to sloth
in following after holiness. But the Scripture witnesseth that this amongst others
is an end of the death of Christ, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and
deliver us from this evil world, that we might be redeemed from our vain conver
sation, and have our consciences purged from dead works, that we might serve
the living God, Tit. ii. 14; Gal. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 18; Heb. ix. 14.1

That the deliverance of us from the power and pollution of our
sin, the purifying of our souls and consciences, the making of us a
peculiar people of God, zealous of good works, that we might be holy
and blameless 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 sins,"
sprinkling us with the pure water thereof, and giving us daily sup
plies of grace from him, that we might grow up in holiness before
him, until we come to the measure in this life assigned to us in him.
But' that the consideration of the cross of Christ, and the satisfac
tion made thereby, should open a door of licentiousness to sin, or en
courage men to sloth in the ways of godliness, is fit only for them to
assert to whom the gospel is folly.

What is it, I pray, in the doctrine of the cross that should thus
dispose men to licentiousness and sloth? Is it that God is so pro
voked with every sin that it is impossible and against his nature to
forgive it without inflicting the punishment due thereto? or is it that

i "Cedo etiamqui hsec opinio est perniciosa?— Ad eum modum, quod hommibus
fenestram ad peccandi licentiam aperiat, aut certe ad socordiam in pietate colenda eos
invitet. Scriptura vero testatur, cum inter alios Christi mortis finem esse, ut redi-
meremur ab omni iniquitate, ex hoc seculo nequam eriperemur, et redimeremur ex
vana conversatione a patribus tradita, et mundaremur conscientia a mortuis openbus
ad serviendum Deo viventi, Tit. ii. 14; Gal. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 18; Heb. ix. 14.

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 547

God so loved us that he gave his only Son to die for us? or is it that
Christ loved us and washed us in his own blood? or is it that God
for Christ's sake doth freely forgive us? Yea, but our adversaries say
that God freely forgives us; yea, but they say it is without satisfac
tion. Is it, then, an encouragement to sin to affirm that God forgives
us freely for the satisfaction of his Son, and not so to say that he for
gives us freely without satisfaction ? Doth the adding of satisfaction,
whereby God to the highest manifested his indignation and wrath
against sin, doth that, I say, make the difference and give the en
couragement ? 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 powerful or effectual motive to
abstain from sin, no encouragement or in citation unto holiness, but
what ariseth from or relateth unto the satisfaction of Christ.

And this is that which they have to make good their charge
against th,e common faith, that "it is false, erroneous, and pernicious" !
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 proofs (they say)
we produce for the confirmation of the truth contended for. What
(they say) we pretend from reason (though indeed it be from in
numerable places of Scripture), I have vindicated not long since to
the full in my book of the vindictive justice of God,1 and answered
all the exceptions given thereunto, so that I shall not translate from
thence what I have delivered to this purpose, but pass to what follows.

Question 12 they make this inquiry: —

Q. Which are the scriptures out of which they endeavour to confirm their
opinion?

A. Those which testify that Christ died for us, or for our sins, also that he re
deemed us, or that he gave himself or his life a redemption for many ; then that
he is our mediator ; moreover, that he reconciled us to God, and is a propitiation
for our sins ; lastly, from those sacrifices which, as figures, shadowed forth the
death of Christ.*

So do they huddle up together those very many express testi
monies of the truth we plead for which are recorded in the Scripture ;
of which I may truly say that I know no one truth in the whole
Scripture that is so freely and fully delivered, as being, indeed, of the
greatest importance to our souls. What they except in particular
against any one of the testimonies that may be referred to the heads

1 De Justit. Pivin. Diatrib. vol. x.

2 u Quae vero sunt scriptune e quibus illi opinionem suam adstruere conantur ? Eae

qua testantur Christum vel pro peccatis nostris mortuum, deinde, quod nos redemit,
aut dedit semetipsum et animam suam redemptionem pro multis ; turn quod nostcr
mediator est. Porro quod nos reconciliarit Deo, ct sit propitiatio pro peccatis iiostris.
Deuique, ex illis sacrifices quse mortum Christ! seu %urae aduinbraverunt. "

548 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

before recounted (except those which have been already spoken to)
shall be considered in the order wherein they proceed.

They say, then, —

For what belongeth unto those testimonies wherein it is contended that Christ
died for us, it is manifest that satisfaction cannot necessarily be therein asserted,
because the Scripture witnesseth that we ought even to lay down our lives for the
brethren, 1 John iii. 16; and Paul writes of himself, Col. i. 24, "Now I rejoice
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 certain that neither do believers satisfy for
any of the brethren, nor did Paul make satisfaction to any for the church.

Q. What then is the sense of these words, " Christ died for us ? "

A. That these words "for us" do not signify in our place or stead, but for
us, as the apostle expressly speaks, 1 Cor. via. 11, which also alike places do show,
where the Scripture saith that Christ died for our sins; which word cannot have
this sense, that Christ died instead of our sins, but that he died for our sins, as it
is expressly written, Rom. iv. 25. Moreover, these words, " Christ died for us,"
have this sense, that he therefore died, that we might embrace and obtain that
eternal salvation which he brought to us from heaven; which how it is done you
heard before.1 «

Ans. Briefly to state the difference between us about the meaning
of this expression, " Christ died for us," I shall give one or two ob
servations upon what they deliver, then confirm the common faith,
and remove their exceptions thereto: —

1. Without any attempt of proof, they oppose " vice nostri" and
" propter nos," as contrary and inconsistent, and make this their
argument that Christ did not die " vice nostri," because he died
"propter nos," when it is one argument whereby we prove that
Christ died in our stead, because he died for us in the sense men
tioned 1 Cor. viii. 11, where it is expressed by bia, because we could
no otherwise be brought to the end aimed at.

2. Our sense of the expression is evident from what we insist upon
in the doctrine in hand. " Christ died for us," — that is, he under
went 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 strive
to hide the abomination of their hearts in reference to this business.
I shall a little lay it open : —

i " Quod attinet ad ilia testimonia in quibus habetur Christum pro nobis mortuum,
ex. iis satisfactionem adstrui necessario non posse bine manifestum est, quod Scriptura
testetur etiam nos pro fratribus animas ponere debere, 1 John iii. 16 ; et Paulus de
se scribat, Col. i. 24, Nunc gaudeo, etc. Certum autem est, nee fideles pro fratribus
cuiquam satisfacere, neque Paulum cuiquam pro ecclesia satisfecisse.

" At horum verborum, Christum 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. viii. 11, quod etiam similia verba indicant, cum
Scriptura loquitur pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse Christum, quae verba eum sen-
eum habere nequeunt, loco seu vice nostrorum peccatorum mortuum esse, verum prop
ter peccata nostra esse mortuum, uti Rom. iv. 25, manifesto scriptum legimus. Ea
porro verba, Christum pro nobis mortuum esse, hanc habent vim, eum idcirco mortuum, ut
nos salutem seteraam quam is nobis ccelitus attulit amplecteremur et consequemur,
quod qua ratione fiat paulo superius accepisti."

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 549

(1.) Christ, say they, "brought us eternal salvation from heaven;"
that is, " he preached a doctrine in obedience whereunto we may
obtain salvation." So did Paul.

(2.) " He died that we might receive it;" that is, " rather than he
would deny the truth which he preached, he suffered himself to be put
to death." So did Paul, and yet he was not crucified 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, and so our ob
taining salvation."

And this is the sense of these words, " Christ died for us" !

For the confirmation of our faith from this expression, " Christ
died for us," we have, —

(1.) The common sense and customary usage of humankind as to
this expression. Whenever one is in danger, and another is said to
come and die for him that he may be delivered, a substitution is
still understood. The dvri^^oi of old, as Damon and Pythias, etc.,
make this manifest.

(2.) The common usage of this expression in Scripture confirms
the sense insisted on. So David wished that he had died for his
son Absalom, that is, died in his stead, that he might have lived,
2 Sara, xviii. 33. And that supposal of Paul, Horn. v. 7, of one
daring to die for a good man, relating (as by all expositors on the
place is evinced) to the practice of some in former days, who, to de
liver others from death, had given themselves up to that whereunto
they were obnoxious, confirms the same.

(3.) The phrase itself of dws&avs, or dvidavsv vvsp ^uv, which is
used, Heb. ii. 9, 1 Pet. i. 2 1-,1 Rom. v. 6-8, 2 Cor. v. 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 dm, which ever denotes a substitution in the same
sense and business, Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, 1 Tim. ii. 6. That a
substitution and commutation is always denoted by this preposition
(if not an opposition, which here can have no place), 1 Pet. iii. 9,
Rom. xii. 17, Matt. v. 38, Luke xi. 11, Heb. xii. 16, 1 Cor. xi. 15,
amongst other places, are sufficient evidences.

(4.) Christ is so said to die dvrl ripuv, that he is said in his
death to have " our iniquity laid upon him," to " bear our sins in
his own body on the tree," to be " made sin and a curse for us," to
" offer himself a sacrifice for us" by his death, his blood, to " pay a
price or ransom for us," to " redeem," to " reconcile us to God," to
" do away our sins in his blood," to " free us from wrath, and con
demnation, and sin." Now, whether this, to " die for us," be not to
die in our place and stead, let angels arid men judge.

1 In these two passages the phrase in question does not occur. The author might
consider the expressions equivalent, and we have allowed them to remain. ED.

550 VINDICIJE EVANGELICAL

4. But say they, " This is all that they have to say in this busi
ness: yet 'we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren ;' and Paul
saith, that he 'filled up the measure of the affliction of Christ, for
his body's 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 sense of this expression, " Christ
died for us," depended solely on the sense and use of that word fa'sp,
then the exception would have this force in it:^"The word is once
or twice used in another sense in another business; therefore the
sense of it contended for in this business cannot be such as you seek
to maintain." But, [1.] This exception at best, in a cause of this
importance, is most frivolous, and tends to the disturbance of all
sober interpretation of Scripture. [2.] We are very far from mak
ing the single sense of the preposition to be the medium which, in
the argument from the whole expression, we insist on.

(2.) The passage in 1 John iii. 16, being a part of the apostle's
persuasive to love, charity, and the fruits of them, tending ^ to the
relief of the brethren in poverty and distress, disclaims all intend-
ment 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 relieve them. The same
is the condition of what is affirmed of Paul. Of the measure of
affliction which, in the infinitely wise providence and fatherly care of
God, is proportioned to the mystical body of Christ's church, Paul
underwent his share for the good of the whole; but that Paul, that
any believers, were crucified for the church, or died for it in the
sense that Christ died for it, that they redeemed it to God by their
own blood, it is notorious blasphemy once to imagine. The meaning
of the phrase, " He died for our sins," was before explained. ^ Christ,
then, "dying for us," being "made sin for us," "bearing our iniquities/'
and " redeeming us by his blood," died in our place and stead, and
by his death made satisfaction to God for our sins.

Also, that Christ made satisfaction for our sins appears from hence,
that he was our mediator. Concerning this, after their attempt
against proper redemption by his blood, which we have already con
sidered, question 28, they inquire, —

Q. What say you to this, that Christ is the mediator between God and men, or
[the mediator] of the new covenant?

A. Seeing it is read that Moses was a mediator, Gal. iii. 19 (namely, of the o
covenant between God and the people of Israel), and it is evident that he no way made
satisfaction to God, neither from hence, that Christ is the mediator of God and men,
can it be certainly gathered that he made any satisfaction to God for our sms.1

1 « Quid ad hsec dicis, quod Christus sit mediator inter Deum et homines, aut novo
foederis?— Cum legatur Moses fuisse mediator, Gal. iii. 19 (puta inter Deum et popu-
lum Israel aut prisci foederis), neque eum satisfecisse I)eo ullo modo constet, ne hmc
quidem, quod mediator Dei et hominum Christus sit, colligi certo potent eum satis
tionem aliquam qua Deo pro peccatis nostris satisfieret peregisse."

OF UN1VEESAL GRACE AND ELECTION. 551

I shall take leave, before I proceed, to make a return of this argu
ment to them from whom it comes, by a mere change of the instance
given. Christ, they say, our high priest, offered himself to God in
heaven. Now, Aaron is expressly said to be a high priest, and yet
he did not offer himself in heaven ; and therefore it cannot be cer
tainly proved that Christ offereth himself in heaven because he was
a high priest. Or thus : — David was a king, and a type of Christ ;
but David reigned at Jerusalem, and was a temporal king : it cannot
therefore be proved that Christ is a spiritual king from hence, that
he is said to be a king. This argument, I confess, Faustus Socinus
could not answer when it was urged against him by Seidelius. But
for the former, I doubt not but Smalcius would quickly have an
swered that it is true, it cannot be necessarily proved that Christ
offereth himself in heaven because he was a high priest, which Aaron
was also, but because he was such a high priest as entered into the
heavens to appear personally in the presence of God for us, as he is
described to be. Until he can give us a better answer to our argu
ment, I hope he will be content with this of ours to his. It is true
it doth not appear, nor can be evinced necessarily, that Christ made
satisfaction for us to God because he was a mediator in general, for
so Moses was, who made no satisfaction; but because it is said that
he was such a "mediator between God and men" as gave his life
a " price of redemption" for them for whom with God he mediated,
1 Tim. ii. 6, it is most evident and undeniable ; and hereunto Smalcius
is silent.

What remains of this chapter in the catechists hath been already
fully considered ; so to them and Mr B., as to his twelfth 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 con
fess, are omitted, — and yet more, perhaps, have been delivered than
by our adversaries occasion hath been administered unto ; but this
business is the very centre of the new covenant, and cannot suffi
ciently be weighed. God assisting, a farther attempt will ere long
be made for the brief stating of all the several concernments of it.

CHAPTER XXXI.

Of election and universal grace — Of the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

MR BIDDLE'S intention in this thirteenth chapter being to decry
God's eternal election, finding himself destitute of any scripture that
should, to the least outward appearance, speak to his purpose, he de
serts the way and method of procedure imposed on himself, and in
the very entrance falls into a dispute against it, with such arguments

552 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

as the texts of Scripture after mentioned give not the least colour
or countenance unto. Not that from me he incurs any blame for
using any arguments whereby he supposeth he may further or pro
mote his cause is this spoken; but having at the entrance protested
against such a procedure, he ought not, upon any necessity, to have
transgressed the law which to himself 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 alleged, when I inquired for
whom Christ died, intimate the universality of God's love to men ; yet, foras
much as this is a point of the greatest importance, without the knowledge and be
lief 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 down 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 show 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. John iii. 16, 17, vi. 33, iv. 42; 1 John iv. 14; John xii. 46, 47; Mark
xvi. 15, 16; Col. i. 23, 28; 1 Tim. ii. 1-4; 2 Pet. iii. 9; 2 Cor. v. 19; 1 John
ii. 1, 2.

1. That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, power
ful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumer
able dispensations and various communications of his goodness to
them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for
them all, is granted ; but that God loveth all and every man alike,
with that eternal love which is the fountain 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 ex
pressed for whom Christ died, as elsewhere hath been abundantly
manifested.

2. It is confessed that " this is a point of the greatest importance"
(that is, of very great), " without the knowledge and belief whereof
we cannot have any true and solid ground of coming unto God," —
namely, of the love of God in Christ; but that to know the univer
sality of his love is of such importance cannot be proved, unless that
can be numbered which is wanting, and that weighed in the balance
which is not.

3. We say not that " God from all eternity intended good only to
a few," etc. He intended much good to all and every man in the
world, and 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 wisdom and plea
sure, for which all things were created and made, Rev. iv. 1 1. 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

OF UNIVERSAL GRACE AND ELECTION. 553

that from eternity for a few, absolutely considered, for these will
appear in the issue to be " a great multitude, which no man can
number," Rev. vii. 9 ; but that in comparison of them who shall ever
lastingly come short of his glory, we say that they are but a " little
flock," yea, "few they are that are chosen," as our Saviour expressly
affirms, whatever Mr B. be pleased to tell us to the contrary.

4. That the granting that they are but/ew that are chosen (though
many be called), and that "before the foundation of the world"
some are chosen to be holy and unblamable in love through Christ
having their "names written in the book of life," is a discourao-e-
ment to any to come to God, Mr B. shall persuade us when he can
evince that the secret and eternal purpose of God's discriminating
>etween persons as to their eternal conditions is the great ground
and bottom of our approach unto God, and not the truth and faith
fulness of the promises which he hath given, with his holy and rio-ht-
eous commands. The issue that lies before them who are com
manded to draw nigh to God is, not whether they are elected or no
but whether they will believe or no, God having given them eternal
and unchangeable rules: "He that believeth shall be saved but he
that believeth not shall be damned." Though no man's name be
written m the Scripture, he that believes hath the faith of God's
veracity to assure him that he shall be saved. It is a most vain sur-
misal, 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 comino- unto
God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoined faith and salva
tion, so that whosoever believes shall be saved ; neither doth the
granting of the pretended universality of God's love afford any other
ground whatever; and this is not in the least shaken or impaired by
the effectual love and purpose of God for the salvation of some.
And if Mr 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 educed from it or resolved into it
I mean of God's command and promise), I do here beg of him to
acquaint me with it, and I shall give him more thanks for it, if I live
to see it done, than as yet I can persuade myself 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
Christ,— yet the names of those some are not expressed in Scrip
ture, the doing whereof would have been destructive to the main
end of the word, the nature of faith, and all the ordinances of the
gospel,— yet God having declared that whosoever believeth shall be
saved, there is sufficient ground for all and every man in the world
to whom the gospel is preached to come to God by Christ, and other

554 VINDICI.E EV ANGELICA.

ground there is none, nor can be offered by the assertors of the pre
tended universality of God's love. Nor is this proposition, "He that
believeth shall be saved," founded on the universality of love pleaded
for, but on the sufficiency of the means for the accomplishment of what
is therein asserted, — namely, the blood of Christ, who is believed on.

Now, because Mr B. expresseth that the end of his asserting this
universality of God's love is to decry his eternal purpose of election,
it being confessed that between these two there is an inconsistency,
without entering far into that controversy, I shall briefly show what
the Scripture speaks to the latter, and how remote the places men
tioned by Mr B. are from giving countenance to the former, in the
sense wherein by him who asserts it it is understood.

For the first, methinks a little respect and reverence to that testi
mony of our Saviour, " Many are called, but few are chosen/' might
have detained this gentleman from asserting with so much confi
dence that the persuasion of God's choosing but a few is an obstruc
tion of men's coming unto God. Though he looks upon our blessed
Saviour as a mere 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 clear
this matter: —

1. Some are chosen from eternity, and are under the purpose of
God, as to the good mentioned. 2. Those some are some only, not
all; and therefore, as to the good intended, there is not a universal
love in God as to the objects of it, but such a distinguishing one as
is spoken against : Eph. i. 4, 5, " According as he 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 himself, according to the
good pleasure of his will." Here are some chosen, and consequently
an intention of God concerning them expressed, and this from eter
nity, or before the foundation of the world, and this to the good of
holiness, adoption, salvation ; and this is only of some, and not of all
the world, as the whole tenor of the discourse, being referred to
believers, doth abundantly manifest. Rom. viii. 28-30, " We know
that all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom
he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified." The good here intended is glory, that the apostle closes
withal, "Whom he justified, them he also glorified;" the means
to that end consist in vocation 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 dis-

OF UNIVERSAL GRACE AND ELECTION. 555

tingtiished 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 had to do, I should wonder that it
came into his mind to deny this eternal 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 eternal
life," Acts xiii. 48 ; but some that are " given to Christ," John xvii.
6; " a remnant according to election," Rom. xi. 5 ; one being chosen
when another was rejected " before they were born, or had done
either good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand," chap. ix. 11, 12; and those who obtain salvation are
" chosen thereunto through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of
the truth," 2 Thess. ii. 13. All that is intended by them whom Mr
B. thinketh to load with the opinion he rejects is but what in these
and many other places of Scripture 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 ap
pointed them to the obtaining of life and salvation by Christ, to the
praise of his glorious grace. For the number of these, be they few or
many, in comparison of the rest of the world, the event doth manifest.

Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God or intention
spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there is express mention of
another sort of men who are not thus chosen, but lie under the pur
pose of God as to a contrary lot and condition : " The LORD hath
made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of
evil," Prov. xvi. 4. They are persons " whose names are not written
in the book of life of the Lamb," Rev. xiii. 8; being "of old ordained
to condemnation," Jude 4 ; being as " natural brute beasts, made to be
taken and destroyed," 2 Pet. ii. 12. And therefore the apostle distin-
guisheth all men into those who are " appointed to wrath," and those
who are " appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ/'
1 Thess. v. 9 ; an instance of which eternally discriminating purpose
of God is given in Jacob and Esau, Rom. ix. 11, 12: which way and
procedure therein of God the apostle vindicates from all appearance
of unrighteousness, and stops the mouths of all .repiners against it,
from the sovereignty and absolute liberty of his will in dealing with.
all the sons of men as he pleaseth, verses 14-21; concluding that,
in opposition to them whom God hath made " vessels of mercy pre
pared unto glory," there are also " vessels of wrath fitted to destruc
tion," verses 22, 23.

Moreover, in all eminent effects and fruits of love, in all the issues
and ways of it, for the good of and towards the sons of men, God
abundantly manifests that his eternal love, that regards the ever
lasting good of men, as it was before described, is peculiar, and not
universally comprehensive of all and every one of mankind.

556 VINDICLE EVANGELIC-E.

1. In the pursuit of that love he gave his Son to die: " God com-
mendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us," Rom. v. 8. " Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins/' 1 John iv. 10. Now, though he died not for the Jews only,
but for all, for the whole world, or men throughout the whole world,
yet that he died 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, himself testifies: John
xvil 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," verse 6; " And for their sakes I sanctify myself," verse 19:
even as he had said before, that he came to " give his life a ransom
for many," Matt. xx. 28 ; which Paul afterward abundantly confirms,
affirming that " God redeemed his church with his own blood," Acts
xx. 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
business, he tells us they are God's elect whom he means: Rom. viiL
32-34, " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for
us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that jus-
tifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea
rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God,
who also maketh intercession for us." They are the elect for whom
God gave his Son, and that out of his love (which the apostle emi
nently sets out, verse 32), those to whom with his Son he gives all
things, and who shall on that account never be separated from him.

Farther, to manifest that this great fruit and effect of the love of
God, which is extended to the whole object of that love, was not uni
versal, — (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 an horn 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," Luke i. 68-70. In the very first promise of him, the seed
of the serpent (as are all reprobate unbelievers) are excluded from
any interest therein, Gen. iii. 15. And it was renewed again, not
to all the world, but to " Abraham and his seed," Gen. xii 2, 3 ;
Acts ii. 39, iii. 25 And for many ages the promise was so appro
priated to the seed of Abraham, Rom. ix. 4, with some few that
joined themselves to them, Isa. Ivi 3-7, that the people of God
prayed for a curse on the residue of the world, Jer. x. 25, as they
which were "strangers from the covenants of promise," Eph. ii. 12;
they belonged not to them. So that God made not a promise of

OF UNIVERSAL GRACE AND ELECTION. 557

Christ to the universality of mankind; which sufficiently evinceth
that it was not from a universal but a peculiar love that he was
given. Nor, —

(2.) When Christ was exhibited in the flesh, according to the pro
mise, was he given to all, but to the church, Isa. ix. 6 ; neither really
as to their good, nor ministerially for the promulgation of the gospel
to any, but to the Jews. And therefore when " he came unto his own,"
though " his own received him not/' John i. 11, yet as to the minis
try which he was to accomplish, he professed he was ''not sent but to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and gave order to them whom
he sent forth to preach in his own lifetime "not to go into the way of
the Gentiles, nor to enter into any city of the Samaritans," Matt. x. 5.
Yea, when he had been "lifted up" to "draw all men unto him," John
iii. 14, xii. 32, and, being ascended, had broken down the partition
wall and taken away all distinction of Jew and Gentile, circumcision
and uncircumcision, having died not only for that nation of the Jews
(for " the remnant according to the election of grace," Kom. xi. 5),
but that he " might gather together in one the children of God that
were scattered abroad," John xi. 52, — whence the language and ex
pressions of the Scripture as to the people of God are changed, and
instead of " Judah and Israel," they are expressed by " the world,"
John iii. 16, "the whole world," 1 John ii. 1, 2, and "all men,"
1 Tim. ii. 4, in opposition to the Jews only, some of all sorts being
now taken into grace and favour with God, — yet neither then doth
he do what did remain for the full administration of the covenant of
grace towards all, namely, the pouring out of his Spirit with effi
cacy of power to bring them into subjection to him, but still carries
on, though in a greater extent and latitude, a work of distinguishing
love, taking some and refusing others. So that, being " exalted, and
made a prince and a saviour," 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, and people, and nation," Rev. v. 9.

It appears, then, from the consideration of this first most eminent
effect of the love of God, in all the concernments of it, that that love
which is the foundation of all the grace and glory, of all the spiritual
and eternal good things, whereof the sons of men are made par
takers, is not universal, but peculiar and distinguishing.

Mr B. being to prove his former assertion, of the universality of
God's love, mentions sundry places where God is said to love the
world, and to send his Son to be the Saviour of the world, John iii
16, 17, vi. 33, iv. 42; 1 John iv. 14; John xii. 46, 47; 1 Johnii. 1, 2:
the reason of which expressions 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 chil
dren of God that were scattered abroad throughout the world in every

558 YINDICLE EVANGELICAL

kindred, tongue, and nation under heaven, the word " world" being
used to signify men living in the world, sometimes more, sometimes
fewer, seldom or never " all" (unless a distribution of them into
several sorts, comprehensive of the universality of mankind, be sub
joined), that word is used to express them who, in the intention of
God and Christ, are to be made partakers of the benefits of his me
diation, 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 prin
ciple of peculiar, not universal love, whom doth God reveal his will
concerning it unto1} 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 physician to pretend that he hath provided
a sovereign remedy for all the sick persons in a city, out of an equal
love that he bears to them all, and when he hath done takes care that
only 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 deal sincerely in the profession
that he makes of doing this out of an equal love to them all? Now,
not only for the space of almost four thousand years did God suffer
incomparably the greatest part of the whole world to walk in their
own ways, not calling them to repent, Acts xiv. 16, winking at that
long time of their ignorance, wherein they worshipped stocks, stones,
and devils, all that while " showing his word unto Jacob, his statutes
and his judgments unto Israel, not dealing so with any nation,
whereby they knew not his judgments," Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20, — so, in the
pursuit of his eternal love, calling a few only in comparison, leaving
the bulk of mankind in sin, " having no hope, and without God in
the world," Eph. ii. 12 ; but even also since the giving out of a com
mission and express command not to confine the preaching of the
word and calling of men to Judea, but to " go into all the world and
to preach the gospel to every creature," Mark xvl 15, — whereupon it
is shortly after said to be "preached to every creature under heaven,"
Col. L 23, the apostle thereby " warning every man, and teaching
every man, that he might present every man perfect in Christ Jesus/'
verse 28, namely, of all those to whom he came and preached, not
of the Jews only, but of all sorts of men under heaven, and that on
this ground, that " God would have all men to^be saved, and to corne
to the knowledge of the truth," 1 Tim. ii 3, 4,' be they of what sort
they will, kings, rulers, and all under authority,— to this very day,
many whole nations, great and numerous, sit in darkness and in the
shadow of death, having neither in their own days nor in the days
of their forefathers ever been made partakers of the glorious gospel

OF UNIVERSAL GRACE AND ELECTION. 559

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 universal love pleaded
for. Yea, —

3. Whereas, to the effectual bringing of men " dead in trespasses
and sins" to a participation of any saving, spiritual effect of the love
of God in Christ, besides the promulgation of the gospel and the law
thereof, — which consisteth in the infallible connection of faith and
salvation, according to the tenor of it, Mark xvi. 16, " He that be-
lieveth shall be saved," which is accompanied with God's command
to believe, wherein he declares his will for their salvation upon the
terms proposed, approving the obedience of faith, and giving assur
ance of salvation thereupon, 1 Tim. ii. 1-4,— there is moreover re
quired the operation 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 pur
pose," Rom. viii. 28 ; that is, to them who are " predestinated," verse
30, for them he calls, so as to justify and glorify them thereupon.

4. Not, then, to insist on any other particular effects of the love
of God, as sanctification, justification, glorification, this in general
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 intention of God towards some
only therein.

5. It is true that God inviteth many to repentance, and earnestly
inviteth them, by the means of the word which he affords them, to
turn from their evil ways, of whom all the individuals are not con
verted, as he dealt with the house of Israel (not all the world, but)
those who had his word and ordinances, Ezek. xviii. 31, 32, affirming
that it is not for his pleasure but for their sins that they die ; but
that this manifests a universal love in God in the way spoken of, or
any thing more than the connection of repentance and acceptation
with God, with his legal approbation of turning from sin, there is no
matter of proof to evince.

6. Also, " he is not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance," 2 Pet. iii. 9, even all those towards whom
he exercises patience and long-suffering for that end ; which, as the
apostle there informs us, is " to us-ward," — that is, to believers, of
whom he is speaking. Of them, also, it is said that " he doth not
afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men," Lam. iii. 33, even his
church, of which the prophet is speaking; although this also may be
extended to all, God never afflicting or grieving men but it is for
some other reason and cause than merely his own will, their destruc
tion being of themselves. David, indeed, tells us that " the LORD is

560 YINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy;"
that " the LORD is good to all ; and his tender mercies are over all
his works," Ps. cxlv. 8, 9 : but he tells us withal whom he intends
by the "all" in this place, even the "generations which praise his
works and declare his mighty acts," verse 4 ; those who " abundantly
utter the memory of his great goodness, and sing of his righteousness,"
verse 7; or his " saints," as he expressly calls them, verse 10. The
work he there mentions is the work of the kingdom of Christ over
all, wherein the tender mercies of God are spread abroad in reference
to them that do enjoy them. Not but that God is good to all, even
to his whole creation, in the many unspeakable blessings of his pro
vidence, wherein he abounds towards them in all goodness, but that
is not here intended. So that Mr B. hath fruitlessly from these texts
of Scripture endeavoured to prove a universality of love in God, in
consistent with his peculiar love, purpose, and intention of doing
good, in the sense declared, to some only.

And thus have I briefly gone through this chapter, and by the way
taken into consideration all the texts of Scripture which he there
wrests to confirm his figment. On the goodness of the nature of God ;
of the goodness and love to all which he shows, in great variety and
several degrees, in the dispensation of his providence throughout the
world ; of this universal love, and what it is in the sense of Mr B. and
his companions; of its inconsistency with the immutability, prescience,
omnipotence, fidelity, love, mercy, and faithfulness 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 the
rise and present state of Socinianism, so I thought in this place to
have given the reader an account of the present state of the contro
versy about grace and free- will, and the death of Christ, with especial
reference to the late management thereof amongst the Komanists, be
tween the Molinists and Jesuits on the one side, and the Jansenians or
Bayans on the other, with the late ecclesiastical and political trans
actions 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 intention, I shall defer the execution of that design to
some other opportunity, if God think good to continue my portion
any longer in the land of the living.

The fourteenth chapter of the catechist is about the resurrection of
Christ. What are the proper fruits of the resurrection of Christ, and
the benefits we receive thereby, and upon what account our justifica
tion is ascribed thereto, — whether as the great and eminent confirma
tion of the doctrine he taught, or as the issue, pledge, and evidence of
the accomplishment of the work of our salvation by his death, it being

OF JUSTIFICATION AND FAITH. 561

impossible for him to be detained thereby, — is not here discussed.
That which appears to be the great design of this chapter, is to dis
prove Christ's raising himself by his own power ; concerning which
this is the question : —

Q. Did Christ rise by his own power, yea, did he raise himself at allf or was
he raised by the power of another, and did another raise him ? What is the per
petual tenor 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 Mr B. is to come to another reckon
ing before he can make any work of this argument, " God raised him,
therefore he did not raise himself." When he hath proved that he is
not God, let hirn freely make such an inference and conclusion as this.
In the meantime, we say, because God raised him from the dead, he
raised himself; for he is " over all, God blessed for ever."

It is true that Christ is said to be raised by God, taken person
ally for the Father, whose joint power, with his own, and that also
of the Spirit, was put forth in this work of raising Christ from the
dead. And for his own raising himself, if Mr B. will believe him,
this business will be put to a short issue. He tells us that " he laid
down his life, that he might take it again." " No man," saith he,
" taketh it from me. I have power to lay it down, and I have power
to take it again," John x. 17, 18. And speaking of the temple of
his body, he bade the Jews destroy it, and said that he would raise
it again in three days ; which we believe he did, and if Mr K be
otherwise minded, we cannot help it.

CHAPTER XXXII.

Of justification and faith.

THIS chapter, for the title and subject of it, would require a large
and serious consideration; but by Mr Biddle's loose procedure in
this business (whom only I shall now attend), we are absolved from
any strict inquiry into the whole doctrine that is concerned herein.
Some brief animadversions upon his questions and suiting of answers
to them will be all that I shall go forth unto. His first is : —

Ques. How many sorts of justification or righteousness are there?

This question supposeth righteousness and justification to be the
same, which is a gross notion for a Master of Arts. Righteousness is
that which God requires of us; justification is his act concerning man
considered as vested or endued with that righteousness which he re-

YOL. XII. 36

562 . VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^;.

quires. Righteousness is the qualification of the person to be justi
fied : justification, the act of him that justifies. A man's legal honesty
in his trial is not the sentence of the judge pronouncing him so to
be, to all ends and purposes of that honesty. But to his question
Mr B. answers from Rom. x. 5, " The righteousness which is of the
law;" and Phil. iii. 9, " The righteousness which is of God by faith."

It is true, there is this twofold righteousness that men may be par
takers of, — a righteousness consisting in exact, perfect, and complete
obedience yielded to the law, which God required of man under the
covenant of works; and the righteousness which is of God by faith,
of which afterward. Answerable hereunto there is, hath been, or
may be, a twofold justification ; — the one consisting in God's declara
tion of him who performs all that he requires in the law to be just
and righteous, and his acceptation of him according to the promise
of life which he annexed to the obedience which of man he did re
quire ; and the other answers that righteousness which shall after
ward be described. Now, though these two righteousnesses agree in
their general end, which is acceptation with God, and a reward from
him according to his promise, yet in their own natures, causes, and
manner of attaining, they are altogether inconsistent and 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, Mr B. gives it in answer to this
question : —

Q. How is the righteousness which is of the law described?
A. Rom. x. 5, " Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the
man which doeth those things shall live by them."

This description is full and complete. " 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 commandments" that
we may " enter into life," makes up this righteousness 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 righteousness towards God, that
thereupon he may be justified, it belongs to this righteousness 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 matter of his righteousness, it be
longs to the righteousness here described. And of this we may have
some use in the consideration of Mr B/s ensuing queries. He adds : —

Q. What speaketh the righteousness which is of faith ?

A. Rom. x. 8, 9, " The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart:
that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

OF JUSTIFICATION AND FAITH. 563

The object of justifying faith, namely, Jesus Christ as dying and
rising again from the dead, to the obtaining of eternal redemption
and bringing in everlasting righteousness, is in these words described.
And this is that which the righteousness of faith is said to speak,
because Christ dying and rising is our righteousness. 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 justified.

His next question is: —

Q. In the justification of a believer, is the righteousness of Christ imputed to him)
or is his own faith counted for righteousness?

A. Rom. iv. 6, " His faith is counted for righteousness."

What Mr B. intends by faith, and what by accounting of it for
righteousness, we know full well. The justification he intends by
these expressions is the plain old pharisaicat justification, and no
other, as shall elsewhere be abundantly manifested. For the pre
sent, I shall only say that Mr B. doth most ignorantly oppose the
imputing of the righteousness of Christ to us, and the accounting of
our faith for righteousness, as inconsistent. It is the accounting of
our faith for righteousness and the righteousness of works that is
opposed by the apostle. The righteousness of faith and the right
eousness of Christ are every way one and the same ; — the one denot
ing that whereby we receive it and are made partakers of it; the
other, that which is received and whereby we are justified. And,
indeed, there is a perfect inconsistency between the apostle's inten
tion in this expression, " To him that worketh not, but believeth on
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness/'
taken with his explication of it, that we are made partakers of the
righteousness of Christ by faith, and therein he is made righteous
ness to them that believe, and Mr 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 righteous
ness." But of this elsewhere.

The next question and answer are about Abraham and his justifi
cation ; 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: —

' Q. Doth not God justify men because of the full price Christ paid to him in
their stead, so that he abated nothing of his right, in that one drop of Christ's blood
was sufficient to satisfy for a thousand worlds? If not, how are they saved ?
A. Rom. iii. 24, " Being justified freely," Eph. i. 7.

That Christ did pay a full price or ransom for us, that he did
stand in our stead, that he was not abated any jot of the penalty of
the law that was due to sinners, that on this account we are fully

564 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

acquitted, and that the forgiveness of our sins is by the redemption
that is in his blood, have been already fully and at large evinced.
Let Mr B., if he please, attempt to evert what hath been spoken to
that purpose.

The expression about " one drop of Christ's blood" is a fancy or
imagination of idle monks, men ignorant of the righteousness of God
and of the whole nature of the mediation which our blessed Saviour
undertook, wherein they have not the least communion. The close
of the chapter is, —

Q. Did not Christ merit eternal life and purchase the kingdom of heaven for
usf

A. Rom. vi. 23, " The gift of God is eternal life." Luke xii. 32, " It is your
Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

Eternal life is the gift of God, in opposition to any merit of ours,
and in respect of his designation of him who is eternal life to be
our mediator and purchaser of it ; yet that Christ did not therefore
obtain by his blood for us eternal redemption, Heb. ix. 12, that
he did not purchase us to himself, Tit. ii. 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 reconciliation of God's pur
pose and good pleasure, mentioned Luke xii. 32, with the satisfac
tion and merit of the Mediator, I have spoken also at large already.

I have thus briefly passed through this chapter, although it treat-
eth of one of the most important heads of our religion, because (the
Lord assisting) I intend the full handling of the doctrine opposed in
it in a treatise just to that purpose, [voL v.j

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Of keeping the commandments of God, and of perfection of obedience — How
attainable in this life.

THE title of the sixteenth chapter in our catechist is, " Of keeping
the commandments and having an eye to the reward; of perfection
in virtue and godliness to be attained; and of departing from right
eousness and faith." What the man hath to offer on these several
heads shall be considered in order. His first question is, —

Ques. Are the commandments possible to be kept ?

Ans. 1 John v. 3, " His commandments are not grievous." Matt. xi. 30, "My
yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

1. I presume it is evident to every one at the first view that there
is very little relation between the question and the answer there
unto suggested. The inquiry is of our strength and power; the
answer speaks to the nature of the commands of God. It never

OF PERFECT OBEDIENCE IN THIS LIFE. 565

came, sure, into the mind of any living that the meaning of this ques
tion, " Are the commandments possible to be kept?" is, " Is there
an absolute impossibility, from the nature of the commands of God
themselves, that they can be kept by any ? " nor did ever any man say
so, or can, without the greatest blasphemy against God. But the
question is, what power there is in man to keep those command
ments of God; which certainly the texts insisted on by Mr Biddle
do not in the least give an answer unto.

2. He tells us not in what state or condition he supposes that
person to be concerning whom the inquiry is made whether he can
possibly keep the commandments of God or no, — whether he speaks
of all men in general, or any man indefinitely, or restrainedly of be
lievers. Nor, —

3. Doth he inform us what he intends by keeping the commands
of God ; whether an exact, perfect, and every way complete keeping
of them, up to the highest degree of all things, in all things, circum
stances, and concernments of them, or whether the keeping of them
in a universal sincerity, accepted before God, according to the tenor
of the covenant of grace, be intended. Nor, —

4. What commandments they are which he chiefly respects, and
under what consideration, — whether all the commands of the law of
God as such, or whether the gospel commands of faith and love,
which the places from whence he answers do respect. Nor, —

5. What he means by the impossibility of keeping God's com
mands, which he intends to deny, — that which is absolutely so from
the nature of the thing itself, or that which is so only in some re
spect, with reference to some certain state and condition of man.

When we know in what sense the question is proposed, we shall
be enabled to return an answer thereunto ; which he that hath pro
posed it here knew not how to do. In the meantime, to the thing
itself intended, according to the light of the premised distinctions,
we say, 1. That all the commandments of God, the whole law, is ex
cellent, precious, not grievous in itself or its own nature, but admir
ably expressing the goodness, and kindness, and holiness of him that
gave it, in relation to them to whom it was given, and can by no
means be said, as from itself and upon its own account, to be impos
sible to be kept. Yet, —

2. No unregenerate man can possibly keep, that is, hath in him
self a power to keep, any one of all the commandments 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 fulfil the law of God perfectly,
or keep all the commandments of God, according to the original
tenor of the law, in all the parts and degrees of it, nor did ever any

566 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^

man do so since sin entered into the world ; for it is impossible that any
regenerate man should keep the commandments of God as they are
the tenor of the covenant of works. If this were otherwise, the law
would not have been made weak by sin that it should not justify.

4. That it is impossible that any man, though regenerate, should
* by his own strength fulfil any one of the commands of God, seeing

" without Christ we can do nothing," and it is " God which worketh
in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

5. That to keep the commandments of God, not as [to] the tenor
of the covenant of works, or in an absolute perfection of obedience
and correspondency to the law, but sincerely and uprightly unto
acceptation, according to the tenor 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 easy, pleasant, and delightful.

Thus we say, —

(1.) That a person regenerate, by the assistance of the Spirit and
grace of God, may keep the commandments of God, in yielding 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 do.

(2.) That an unregenerate person should keep any one of God's
commandments as he ought is impossible, not from the nature of
God's commands, but from his own state and condition.

(3.) That a person, though regenerate, yet being so but in part, and
carrying about with him a body of death, should keep the commands
of God in a perfection of obedience, according to the law of the cove
nant of works, is impossible from the condition of a regenerate man,
and not from the nature of God's commands.

What is it, now, that Mr B. opposes? or what is that he asserts?

I suppose he declares his mind in his Lesser Catechism, chap. vii.
ques. 1, where he proposes his question in the words of the ruler
amongst the Jews, " What good shall a man do that he may have
eternal life?" An answer of it follows in that of our Saviour, Matt.
xix. 17—19, " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

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 Sa
viour is no way suited thereunto. Now, it is most evident that the
inquiry was made according to the principles of the Pharisees, who
expected justification by the works of the law, according to the tenor
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 Mr B.'s sense, wherein he affirms that it is possible to
keep the commandments so as, for doing good and keeping them,
to enter into life, I shall only remit him, as our Saviour did the

OF PERFECT OBEDIENCE IN THIS LIFE. 567

Pharisee, to the law; but yet I shall withal pray that our merciful
Lord would not leave him to the foolish choice of his own darkened
heart, but in his due time, "by the blood of the covenant/' which
yet he seems to despise, send him forth " out of the pit wherein is
no water."

Q. But though it be possible to keep the commandments, yet is it 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?

A. 1 Cor. vii. 19; Matt. vii. 21, 24, 26; James i. 25; Rom. ii. 10; John xiii.
17; Lukexi. 28; 2 Cor. v. 10; Matt. xvi. 27; Rev. xxii. 12; Matt xix. 17-19;
in all which places there is mention of doing the will of God, of keeping the com
mandments of God.

The aim of this question is to take advantage of what hath been
delivered by some, not as an ordinary rule for all men to walk by, but
as an extraordinary relief for some in distress. When poor souls are
bowed down under the sense of their own weakness and insufficiency
for obedience, and the exceeding unsuitableness of their best per
formances to the spiritual and exact perfection of the law of God
(things which the proud Pharisees of the world are unacquainted
withal), to support them under their distress, they have been by
some directed to the consideration of the sincerity that was in the
obedience which they did yield, and guided to examine that by
their desires and endeavours. Now, as this direction is not without
a good foundation in the Scripture, Neherniah describing the saints
of God by this character, that they " desire to fear the name of God,"
chap. i. 11, and David everywhere professing this as an eminent
property of a child of God, so they who gave it were very far from
understanding such desires as may be pretended as a colour for sloth
and negligence, to give countenance to the souls and consciences of
men in a willing neglect of the performance of such duties as they
are to press after; but such they intend as had adjoined to them,
and accompanying of them, earnest, continual, sincere endeavours
(as Mr B. acknowledgeth) to walk before God in all well-pleasing,
though they could not attain to that perfection of obedience that is
required. And in this case, though we make not application of the
particular rule of accepting the will for the deed to the general case,
yet we fear not to say that this is all the perfection which the best
of the saints of God in this life attain to, and which, according to
the tenor of that covenant wherein we now walk with God in Jesus
Christ, is accepted. This is all the doing or keeping of the com
mandments that is intended in any of the places quoted by Mr B.,
unless that last, wherein our Saviour sends that proud Pharisee,
according to his own principles, to the righteousness of the law which
he followed after, but could not attain. But of this more afterward.
He farther anrues:-<—

568 VINDICIJE EVANGELICAL

Q. Though it be not only possible but also necessary to keep the command
ments, yet is it lawful so to do that we may haw a right to eternal life and the
heavenly inheritance? May we seek for honour, and glory, and immortality,
by well-doing ? Is it the tenor of the gospel that we should live uprightly in ex
pectation of the hope hereafter? And, finally, ought we to suffer for the kingdom
of God, and not, as some are pleased to mince that matter, from the kingdom of
God? Where are the testimonies of Scripture to this purpose ?

A. Rev. xxii. 14; Rom. ii. 6-8 ; Tit. ii. 11-13; 2 Thess. i. 5.

Ans. 1. In what sense it is possible to keep the commandments,
in what not, hath been declared. 2. How it is necessary, or in what
sense, or for what end, Mr B. hath not yet spoken, though he sup-
poseth he hath ; but we will take it for granted that it is necessary
for us so to do, in that sense and for that end and purpose for which
it is of us required. 3. To allow, then, the gentleman the advantage
of his captious procedure by a multiplication of entangled queries,
and to take them in that order wherein they lie: —

To the first, " Whether we may keep the commandments that we
may have right to eternal life," I say, — 1. Keeping of the command
ments in the sense acknowledged may be looked on, in respect of
eternal life, either as the cause procuring it or as the means con
ducing to it. 2. A right to eternal life may be considered in respect
of the rise and constitution of it, or of the present evidence and last
enjoyment of it. There is a twofold right to the kingdom of heaven, —
a right of desert, according to the tenor of the covenant of works, and
a right of promise, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace.
I say, then, that it is not lawful, — that is, it is not the way, rule, and
tenor of the gospel, — that we should do or keep the commandments,
so that doing or keeping should be the cause procuring and obtain
ing an original right, as to the rise and constitution of it, or a right
of desert, to eternal life. This is the perfect tenor of the covenant of
works and righteousness of the law, " Do this, and live ; if a man do
the work of the law, he shall live thereby; " and, " If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments;" which, if there be any gospel
or new covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ, is antiquated as to
its efficacy, and was [so,] ever since the entrance of sin into the world,
as being ineffectual for the bringing of any soul unto God, Rom. viii.
3; Heb. viii. 11, 12. This, if it were needful, I might confirm with
innumerable texts of Scripture, and the transcription of a good part of
the epistles of Paul in particular. 3. The inheritance which is pur
chased for us by Christ, and is the gift of God, plainly excludes all
such confidence in keeping the commandments as is pleaded for.
For my part, I willingly ascribe to obedience any thing -that hath a
consistency (in reference to eternal life) with the full purchase of
Christ and the free donation of God ; and therefore I say, — 4. As a
means appointed of God, as the way wherein we ought to walk, for
the coming to and obtaining of the inheritance so fully purchased

OF PERFECT OBEDIENCE IN THIS LIFE. 569

and freely given, for the evidencing of the right given us thereto by
the blood of Christ, and giving actual admission to the enjoyment of
the purchase, and to testify our free acceptation with God and adop
tion on that account, so we ought to do and keep the commandments,
— that is, walk in holiness, without which none shall see God. This
is all that is intended, Rev. xxii. 14. Christ speaks not there to un
believers, showing what they must do to be justified and saved, but
to redeemed, justified, and sanctified ones, showing them their way
of admission and the means of it to the remaining privileges of the
purchase made by his blood.

His next question is, " May we seek for honour, and glory, and im
mortality, by well-doing?" which words are taken from Rom. ii. 7.

I answer, The words there are used in a law sense, and are decla
rative of the righteousness of God in rewarding the keepers of the
law of nature, or the moral law, according to the law of the cove
nant of works. This is evident from the whole design of the apostle
in that place, which is to convince all men, Jews and Gentiles, of
sin against the law, and of the impossibility of the obtaining the glory
of God thereby. So, in particular, from verse 10, where salvation is
annexed to works in the very terms wherein the righteousness of the
law is expressed by Mr B. in the chapter of justification, and in
direct opposition whereunto the apostle sets up the righteousness of
the gospel, chap. i. 17, iii., iv. But yet, translate the words into a
gospel sense ; consider " well-doing " as the way appointed for us to
walk in for the obtaining of the end mentioned, and consider " glory,
and honour, and immortality," 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, to seek for
glory, and honour, and immortality;" that is, it is our duty to abide
in the way and use of the means prescribed for the obtaining of the
inheritance purchased and promised. But yet this with the limita
tions before in part mentioned; as, — 1. That of ourselves 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 per
fectly, to all degrees of perfection, do good or yield obedience to the
law ; 4. That which by grace we do yield and perform is not the
cause procuring 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 tenor of the gospel that we should live
uprightly in expectation of the hope hereafter?" Doubtless, neither
shall I need to give any answer at all to this part of the inquiry but
what lies in the words of the scripture produced for the proof of our
catechist's intention, " The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath
appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and

570 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this
present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious ap
pearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," Tit. ii.
11-13. Christ, the great God our Saviour, having promised an in
heritance to us with himself, at his glorious appearance, raiseth up
our hearts with a hope and expectation thereof ; his grace, or the
doctrine of it, teacheth us to perform all manner of holiness and
righteousness all our days; and this is the tenor and law of the gos
pel, that so we do. But what this is to Mr B/s purpose I know not.

His last attempt is upon the exposition of some (I know not whom)
who have minced the doctrine so small, it seems, that he can find no
relish in it. Saith he, " Finally, ought we to suffer for the kingdom
of God, or from the kingdom of God? " His answer is, 2 Thess. i. 5,
" That ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which
ye also suffer." I confess, " suffering from the kingdom of God" is
something an uncouth expression, and those who have used it to the
offence of this gentleman might have more commodiously delivered
what they did intend; but "the kingdom of God " being sometimes
taken for that rule of grace which Christ hath in the hearts of be
lievers, 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 " sufferings/or
the kingdom of God," which here is opposed unto it. To "suffer from
the kingdom of God " is no more than to be enabled to suffer from a
principle of grace within us, by which Christ bears 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 kingdom
of God; for they that are in the flesh cannot please God, even their
sacrifices are an abomination to him. This is so far from hindering
us as to suffering for the kingdom of God, that is, to endure persecu
tion for the profession of the gospel (" for," in the place of the apostle
cited, denotes the procuring occasion, not final cause), that without it
so we cannot do. And so the minced matter hath, I hope, a savoury
relish recovered unto it again.

His next questions are, first, —

Q. Have you any examples of keeping the commandments under the law?
What saith David of himself?
A. Ps. xviii. 20-24.

And secondly, —

Q. Have you any example under the gospel ?

A. 1 John iii. 22, " Because we keep his commandments."

All this trouble is Mr B. advantaged to make from the ambiguity
of this expression of "keeping the commandments." We know full
well what David saith of his obedience, and what he said of his sins ;
so that we know his keeping of the commandments was in respect of

OF PERFECT OBEDIENCE IN THIS LIFE. 571

sincerity as to all the commandments of God and all the parts of
them, but not as to his perfection in keeping all or any of them.
And he who says, "We keep his commandments/' says also, "If
we say we have no sin, we lie and deceive ourselves, and the truth
is not in us." He adds : —

Q. Have you not examples of the choicest saints who obeyed God in hope of
the reward, both before, under, and after the law ?
A. Heb. xi. 8-10, 24-26, iii. 1, 2 ; Tit. i. 1, 2.

To obey in hope of eternal life is either to yield obedience in hope
of obtaining eternal life as a reward procured by or proportioned to
that obedience, and so no saint of God since the fall of Adam did
yield obedience to God, or ought to have so done ; or, to obey in
hope of eternal life is to carry along with us in our obedience a 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 walk with God in hope and obedience at this day, and they
always did so from the beginning. They have hope in and with
their obedience of that whereunto their obedience leads, which was
purchased for them by Christ.

Q. Do not the Scriptures intimate that Christians may attain to perfection of
virtue and godliness, and that it is the intention of God and Christ and his
ministers to bring ttiem to this pitch? Rehearse the texts to this effect.

A. Eph. i. 4, etc.

Not to make long work of that which is capable of a speedy
despatch : By " virtue and godliness," Mr B. understands that uni
versal righteousness and holiness which the law requires; by " perfec
tion " in it, an absolute, complete answerableness to the law in that
righteousness and holiness, both as to the matter wherein they con
sist and the manner how they are to be performed ; " that Christians
may attain" expresses a power that is reducible into act. So that
the " intention" of God and the ministers is not that they should be
pressing on towards perfection, which it is confessed we are to do
whilst we live in this world, but actually in this life to bring them
to an enjoyment of it. In this sense we deny that any man in this
life " may attain to perfection of virtue and godliness;" for, —

1. All our works are done out of faith, 1 Tim. i. 5, Gal. v. 6.
Now, this faith is the faith of the forgiveness of sins by Christ, and
that purifieth the heart, Acts xv. 8, 9 ; but the works that proceed
from faith for the forgiveness of sins by Christ cannot be perfect
absolutely in themselves, because in the very rise of them they expect
perfection and completeness from another.

2. Such as is the cause, such is the effect; but the principle or
cause of the saints' obedience in this life is imperfect : so therefore is
their obedience. That our sanctification is imperfect in this life, the
apostle witnesseth, 2 Cor. iv. 16; 1 Cor. xiii. 9.

572 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

3. Where there is flesh and Spirit there is not perfection, for the
flesh is contrary to the Spirit, from whence our perfection must pro
ceed, if we have any; but there is flesh and Spirit in all believers
whilst they live in this world, Gal. v. 17; Bom. vii. 15.

4. They that are not without sin are- not absolutely perfect, for
to be perfect is to have no sin; but the saints in this life are not
without sin, 1 John i. 8, Matt. vi. 12, James iii. 2, Eccles. vii. 20,
Isa. Ixiv. 6. But to what end should I multiply arguments and tes
timonies to this purpose? If all the saints of God have acknow
ledged themselves sinners all their days, always deprecated the jus
tice of God, and appealed to mercy in their trial before God, — if all
our perfection be by the blood of Christ, and we are justified not by
the works of the law but by grace, — this pharisaical figment may be
rejected as the foolish imagination of men ignorant of the righteous
ness of God, and of him who is the end of the law for righteous
ness to them that do believe.

But take " perfection " as it is often used in the Scripture, and
ascribed to men of whom yet many great and eminent failings are
recorded (which, certainly, were inconsistent with perfection abso
lutely considered), and so it denotes two things, — 1. Sincerity, in
opposition to hypocrisy; and, 2. Universality as to all the parts of
obedience, in opposition to partiality and halving with God. So we
say perfection is not only attainable 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 several 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, Ps. xxxvii. 14, cxix. 1, etc.

Not, then, to insist on all the places mentioned by Mr B. in par
ticular, they may all be referred to four heads: — 1. Such as men
tion an uriblamdbleness before God in Christ, which argues a perfec
tion in Christ, but only a sincerity in us; or, 2. Such as mention a
perfection in " fieri," but not in " facto esse," as we speak, — a press
ing towards perfection, but not & perfection obtained, or here obtain
able ; or, 3. A comparative perfection in respect of others ; or, 4. A
perfection of sincerity accompanied with universality of obedience,
consistent with indwelling sin and many transgressions. The appli
cation of the several places mentioned to these rules is easy, and lies
at hand for any that will take the pains to consider them. He pro
ceeds: —

Q. If works be so necessary to salvation, as you have before showed from the
Scripture, how cometh it to pass 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 himself?

A. Rom. iii. 28, "We are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law."

OF PERFECT OBEDIENCE IN THIS LIFE. 573

Ans. 1. How and in what sense works are necessary to salva
tion hath been declared, and therefore I remit the reader to its
proper place.

2. A full handling of the doctrine of justification was waived
before, and therefore I shall not here take it up, but content my
self with a brief removal of Mr B.'s attempts to deface it. I say,
then, —

3. That Paul is very troublesome to all the Pharisees of this age ;
who therefore turn themselves a thousand ways to escape the au
thority of the word and truth of God, by him fully declared and
vindicated against their forefathers, labouring to fortify themselves
with distinctions, which, as they suppose, but falsely, their predeces
sors were ignorant of. Paul then, this Paul, denies all works, all
works whatsoever, to have any share in our justification before God,
as the matter of our righteousness or the cause of our justification ;
for, —

(1.) He excludes all works of the law, as is confessed. The 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 expressly excludes all works done. by virtue of grace and
after catting, 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 ex
cludes expressly, Eph. ii. 8-10, " By grace are ye saved;

not of works." What works? Those which "we are created unto in
Christ Jesus."

(3.) All works that are works are excluded expressly, and set in
opposition to grace in this business : Rom. xi. 6, " If it be by grace,
then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace : but if
it be of works, then is it no more grace ; otherwise work is no more
work;" and chap. iv. 3-5.

(4.) All works are excluded that take off from the absolute free
dom of the justification of sinners by the redemption that is in Christ,
Rom. iii. 20-28. Now, this is not peculiar to any one sort of works,
or to any one work more than to another, as might be demonstrated ;
but this is not a place for so great a work as the thorough handling
of this doctrine requires. He adds : —

Q. Can you make it appear from elsewhere that Paul intended to exclude 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 a one as is accompanied with righteousness?

A. Eph. ii. 8-10; Rom. iv. 3-5, xi. 5, 6, iv. 14, 16; Gal. v. 6; Rom. t
17, 18.

574 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

Ans. 1. Still Paul and his doctrine trouble the man, as they did
his predecessors. That Paul excluded all works, of what sort soever,
from our justification, as precedaneous causes or conditions thereof,
was before declared. Mr 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 judgment of God is not
according to truth. Those only, it seems, are excluded that only may
be accepted, and imperfect works are substituted as the matter of a
perfect righteousness, without which none shall stand in the presence
of God. But,—

2. There is not one text of Scripture mentioned by Mr B. whence
he aims to evince his intention but expressly denies what he asserts,
and sets all works whatever in opposition to grace, and excludes them
all from any place in our justification before God! so that the man
seems to have been infatuated by his pharisaism 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 not the
grace of God bringing forth good works in us, — which stand there
upon 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. iv. 4, xi. 5, 6.

4. It is true, justifying faith is a living faith, purging the heart,
working by love, and bringing forth fruits of obedience ; but that its
fruits of love and good works have any causal influence into our
justification is most false. We are justified freely by grace, in op
position 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 sense we are justified by
faith itself, what part, office, and place, it hath in our justification, its
consistency in its due place and office with Christ's being our right
eousness, and its receiving of remission of sins, which is said to be
our blessedness, shall elsewhere, God assisting, be manifested.

What, then, hath Mr B. yet remaining to plead in this business?
The old abused refuge of opposing James to Paul is fixed on. This
is the beaten plea of Papists, Socinians, and Arminians. Saith he : —

Q. 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 bear
you in hand that all good works whatever are excluded from justification and
salvation, and that it is enough only to believe?

A. James ii. 20-26.

OF PERFECT OBEDIENCE IN THIS LIFE. 675

Ans. 1. He that shall exclude good works from salvation, so as
not to be the way and means appointed of God wherein we ought to
walk who seek and expect salvation from God, and affirm 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 persuasion on the account of
any thing delivered by Paul in the Epistles to the Romans or Gala-
tians, doth wrest the words and sense of Paul, and is well confuted by
that passage mentioned out of James.

But he that, excluding all works from justification in the sense
declared, and affirming that it is by faith only without works, affirms
that the truth and sincerity of that faith, with its efficacy in its own
kind for our justification, is evinced by works, and the man's accepta
tion with God thereon justified by them, doth not wrest the words
nor sense of Paul, and speaks to the intendment of James.

2. Paul instructs us at large how sinners come to be justified be
fore God ; and this is his professed design in his Epistles to the Romans
and Galatians. James, professedly exhorting believers to good works,
demands of them how they will acquit themselves before God and
man to- be justified, and affirms that this cannot be done but by
works. Paul tells us what justification is; James describes justify
ing faith by its effects. But of this also elsewhere. To all this he
subjoins: —

Q. I would know of you who is a just or righteous man? Is it not such a one
as apprehendeth and applieth Christ's righteousness to himself, or at most desires
to do righteously ? Is not he accepted of Gfod-f

A. 1 John iii. 7-10, ii. 29; Acts x. 34, 35; Ezek. xviii. 6-9.

Ans. 1. He to whom " God imputeth righteousness " is righteous,
This he doth " to him who worketh not, but believeth on him who
justifieth the ungodly," Rom. iv. 5-7. There is, then, a righteousness
without the works of the law, Phil. iii. 9. To " apprehend and apply
Christ's righteousness to ourselves " are expressions of believing unto
justification which the Scripture will warrant, John i. 12 ; 1 Cor. L 30.
He that believeth so as to have Christ made righteousness to him,
to have righteousness imputed to him, to be freely justified by the
redemption that is in the blood of Jesus, he is just. And this state
and condition, as was said, is obtained by applying the righteousness
of Christ to ourselves, — that is, by receiving him and his righteous
ness by faith, as tendered unto us in the offer and promises of the
gospel.

' Of " desiring to do righteously," and what is intended by that ex
pression, I have spoken before. But, —

2. There is a twofold righteousness,— a righteousness imputed,
whereby we are justified, and a righteousness inherent, whereby we
are sanctified. These Mr B. would oppose, and from the assertion
of the one argue to the destruction of the other, though they sweetly

576 VINDICI.E EVANGELICJ3.

and eminently comply in our communion with God. The other right
eousness was before evinced. Even our sanctification also is called our
righteousness, and we are said to be just in that respect: —

(1.) Because our faith and interest in Christ are justified thereby
to be true, and such as will abide the fiery trial.

(2.) Because all the acts of it are fruits of righteousness, Rom. vi.
19-22.

(3.) Because it stands in opposition to all unrighteousness, and he
that doth not bring forth the fruit of it is unrighteous.

(4.) With men, and before them, it is all our righteousness. And of
this do the places mentioned by Mr B. treat, without the least con
tradiction or colour of it to the imputed righteousness of Christ,
wherewith we are righteous before God.

The intendment of the last query in this chapter is to prove 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 places by him
produced, having lately at large gone through the consideration of the
whole doctrine opposed,1 wherein not only the texts here quoted by
Mr B., but many others, set off by the management of an able head
and dexterous hand, are at large considered ; thither therefore I refer
the reader.

It might perhaps have been expected, that having insisted so
largely as I have done upon some other heads of the doctrine of the
gospel corrupted by Mr B. and his companions, I should not thus
briefly have passed over this important article of faith, concern
ing justification ; but besides my weariness of the work before me, I
have for a defensative farther to plead, 1. That this doctrine is of late
become the subject of very many polemical discourses, to what ad
vantage of truth time will show, and I am not willing to add oil to
that fire. 2. That if the Lord will, and I live, I intend to do some
thing purposely for the vindication and clearing of the whole doc
trine itself, and therefore am not willing occasionally to anticipate
here what must in another order and method be insisted on; to
which, for a close, I add a desire, that if any be willing to contend
with me about this matter, he would forbear exceptions against these
extemporary animadversions until the whole of my thoughts lie be
fore him, unless he be of the persons principally concerned in this
whole discourse, of whom I have no reason to desire that respect or
candour.

1 Doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, vol. xi

OF PBAYEK. 577

CHAPTER XXXIV.

•

Of prayer; and whether Christ prescribed a form of prayer to be used by believers ;
and of praying unto him and in his name under the old testament.

.
THE first question is: —

Ques. Is prayer a Christian duty ?

Ana. 1 Thess. v. 17, "Pray without ceasing."

If by "a Christian duty" a duty whereunto all Christians are
obliged is understood, we grant it a Christian duty. The commands
for it, encouragements to it, promises concerning it, are innumerable ;
and the use and benefit of it in our communion with God, consider
ing the state and condition of sin, emptiness, want, temptation, [and]
trials, that here we live in, inestimable. If by "a Christian duty" it
be intended that it is required only of them who are Christians, and
is instituted by something peculiar in Christian religion, it is denied.
Prayer is a natural acknowledgment of God that every man is ever
lastingly and indispensably obliged unto by virtue of the law of his
creation, though the matter of it be varied according to the several
states and conditions whereinto we fall or are brought. Every one
that lives in dependency on God and hath his supplies from him is,
by virtue of that dependence, obliged to this duty, as much as he is
to own God to be his God. He proceeds: —

Q. How ought men to pray?

A. " Lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting," 1 Tim. ii. 8.

The inquiry 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 means of access 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 tacitly intimated. But this and many of
the following questions, with the answers, being in their connection
capable of a good and fair interpretation, though all be not expressed
that the Scripture gives in answer to such questions, and the most
material requisite of prayer, " in the Holy Ghost," be omitted, yet,
drawing to a close, I shall not farther insist upon them, having yet
that remaining which requires a more full animadversion.

Q. Did not Clirist prescribe a form of prayer to his disciples, so that there
remaineth no doubt touching the lawfulness of using a form?
A. Luke xi. 1-4.

Ans. If Christ prescribed a form of prayer to his disciples, to be
used as a form, by the repetition of the same words, I confess it will
be out of question that it is lawful to use a form ; but that it is lawful
not to use a form, or that a man may use any prayer but a form, on

VOL. xii. 37

578 ' VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

that supposition will not be so easily determined. The words of
Christ are, " When ye pray, say, Our Father," etc. If in this pre
scription, not the matter only but the words also are intended, and
that form of them which follows is prescribed to be used by virtue
of this command of Christ, it will be hard to discover on what ground
we may any otherwise pray, seeing our Saviour's command is posi
tive, " When ye pray, say, Our Father," eta

That which Mr B. is to prove is, that our Saviour hath prescribed
the repetition of the same words ensuing; and when he hath done so,
if so he can do, his conclusion must be that that form ought to be
used, not at all that any else may. If our Saviour have prescribed
us a form, how shall any man dare to prescribe another? or can
any man do it without casting on his form the reproach of imperfec
tion and insufficiency? "Our Saviour hath prescribed us a form of
prayer, to be used as a form, 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 form, etc., therefore we may use another which
he hath not prescribed," hath neither show nor colour of reason in it.

But how will Mr B. prove that Christ doth not only here instruct
his disciples in what they ought to pray, and for what they ought in
prayer to address themselves to God, and under what considerations
they are to look on God in their approaches to him, and the like,
but also that he prescribes the words there mentioned by him to
be repeated by them in their supplications? Luke xi. 2, he bids
them say, " Our Father," etc. ; which at large, Matt. vi. 9, is, Pray
after this manner, — ovrue, to this purpose. I do not think the pro
phet prescribes a form of words to be used by the church when he
says, " Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him,
Take away all iniquity," Hos. xiv. 2 ; but rather calls them to fervent
supplication for the pardon of sin, as God should enable them to
deal with him. And though the apostles never prayed 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 praying, either in reference to ourselves or
him by whom we have access 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.-

Our Saviour says, " When ye pray, say, Our Father," etc. On
supposition of the sense contended for, and that a form of words is
prescribed, I ask whether we may at any time pray and not say so,
seeing he says, " When ye pray, say," — whether we may say any

OF PEAYER. 579

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 accep
tation be annexed to the saying so? whether the Spirit of grace and
supplications be not promised to all believers, and whether 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 available? 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
form of words and the gift of a spirit of prayer be consistent ?
whether the form be prescribed because believers are not able to
pray without it, or because there is a peculiar holiness, force, and
energy in the letters, words, and syllables, as they stand in that form?
and whether to say the first of these 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 charm in the worship of
God? whether, in that respect, "Pater noster" be not as good as
"Our Father?" whether innumerable poor souls are not deluded
and hardened by satisfying their consciences in and with the use of
this form, never knowing what it is to pray in the Holy Ghost?
and whether the asserting this form of words to be used have not
confirmed many in their atheistical blaspheming of the Holy Spirit
of God and his grace in the prayers of his people? and whether
the repetition of these 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 plain terms, ridiculous? When Mr B., or any on his be
half, hath answered these questions, they may be supplied with more
of the like nature and importance.

Of our address with all our religious worship to the Father by
Jesus Christ, the mediator, how and in what manner we do so, and
in what sense he is himself 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 inquiry thereabout. That which
follows is all that in this chapter needs any animadversion. The
words are these: —

Q. Was it the custom during the time that Christ conversed on the earth (much
less 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 himself concerning this ?

A. John xvi. 24-26. ~-\

The times of the saints in this world are here distinguished into
different seasons, — that before Christ's coming in the flesh, the time
of his conversation on earth, and the time following his resurrection

580 VINDICLE EVANGELIC2E.

and exaltation. What was the custom in these several seasons of pray
ing to God in the name of Christ or through him is inquired after ;
and as to the first and second it is denied, but granted as to the last,
which is farther confirmed, in the answer to the last question, from
Heb. xiiL 20, 21. Some brief observations will disentangle Mr B/s
catechumens, if they shall be pleased to attend unto them.

1. It is not what was the custom of men to do, but what was the
mind of God that they should do, that we inquire after. 2. That
Jesus Christ, in respect of his divine nature, wherein he is one with
his Father, was always 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 mediator, — (1.)
In general, in thesi, of a mediator, the Messiah promised ; which was
the knowledge of the saints under the old testament. (2.) Particular,
iTi hypothesi, that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah ; which also
was and is known to the saints under the new testament. 4. That
as to an explicit knowledge of the way and manner of salvation,
which was to be wrought, accomplished, and brought about, by the
Messiah, the promised seed, Jesus Christ, and the address of men
unto God by him, it was much more evidently and clearly given
after the resurrection and the ascension of Christ than before, the
Spirit of revelation being then poured out in a more abundant man
ner than before. 5. There is a twofold praying unto God in the
name of Christ, — one in express words, clear and distinct intention
of mind, insisting on his mediation and our acceptance with God on
his account; the other implied in all acts of faith and dependence
on God, wherein we rely on him as the means of our access to God.

I say, these things being premised, — 1. That before Christ's com
ing into the world, the saints of the old testament did pray, and
were appointed of God to pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, inas
much as, in all their addresses unto God, they leaned on him, as pro
mised to them, through whom they were to receive the blessing and
to be blessed, believing that they should be accepted on his account.
This was virtually prayer to God in the name of Christ, or through him.
This is evident from the tenor 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 sacrifices,
wherein they had, by God's 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 sacri
fices and types of him ; or the confidence wherein they came, which
was of atonement and forgiveness of sin by him, — it is evident that
all then: prayers were made to God in the name of Christ, and not

OF THE RESURRECTION. 581

any upon any other account. And one of them is express in terms
to this purpose, Dan. ix. 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 media
tion, all their worship of God was in him and through him.

2. For them who lived with him in the days of his flesh, their faith
and worship were of the same size and measure with theirs that went
before, so was their address to God in the same manner and on the
same account : only in this was their knowledge enlarged, that they
believed that that individual person was he who was promised and
on whom their fathers believed ; and therefore they prayed to him
for all mercies, spiritual and temporal, whereof they stood in need,
as to be saved in a storm, to have their faith increased, and the like,
though they had not expressly and clearly made mention of his
name in their supplications. And that is the sense of our Saviour
in the place of John insisted on, " Hitherto ye have asked nothing
in my name," — that is, expressly and in direct application of the pro
mises made in the Messiah unto him, — though they had their access
to God really and virtually by and through him, in all the ways
before expressed. And indeed, to evidence the glory of the presence
of the Spirit when poured forth upon them with a fulness of gifts
and graces, such things are recorded of their ignorance and darkness
in the mysteries of the worship of God, that it is no great wonder if
they, who were then also to be detained under the judaical pedagogue
for a season, had not received as yet such an improvement of faith
as to ask and pray in the name of Jesus Christ as exhibited, which
was one of the great privileges reserved for the days of the gospel.

And this is all that Mr B. gives occasion unto in this chapter.

CHAPTER XXXV.

Of the resurrection of the dead and the state of the wicked at the last day.

IN his last chapter Mr Biddle strives to make his friends amends
for all the wrong he had done them in those foregoing. Having
attempted to overthrow their faith and to turn them aside from the
simplicity of the gospel, he now informs them that the worst that
can happen to them if they follow his counsel is but to be annihi
lated, or utterly deprived of their being, body and soul, in the day of
judgment! For that everlasting fire, those endless torments, where
with they have been so scared and terrified formerly by the cate
chisms and preachings of men that left and forsook the Scripture, it
is all but a fable, invented to affright fools and children ! On this
account he lets his followers know that if, rejecting the eternal Son

582 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

of God and his righteousness, 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
design in this chapter, whose title is, " Of the resurrection of the
dead and the last judgment, and what shall be the final condition of
the righteous and wicked thereupon."

The first questions lead only to answers that there shall be a re
surrection of the dead in general, and that they shall be raised and
judged by Christ, who hath received authority from God to that
purpose, that being the last great work that he shall accomplish by
virtue of his mediatory kingdom committed to him. Some snares
seem to be laid in the way in his questions, being captiously pro
posed ; but they have been formerly broken in pieces in the chapters
of the deity of Christ and his person, whither I remit the reader if
he find himself entangled with them.

I shall only say, by the way, that if Mr B. may be expounded by
his masters,1 he will scarce be found to give so clear an assent to the
resurrection of the dead as is here pretended ; that is, to a raising
again of the same individual body for the substance and all substan
tial parts. This his masters think not possible, and therefore reject
it, though it be never so expressly affirmed in the Scripture. But Mr
B. is silent of this discovery made by his masters, and so shall I be
also.

That wherewith I am to deal he enters upon in this question : —

Ques. Shall not the wicked and unbelievers live for ever, though in torments,
as well as the godly and faithful? or is eternal life peculiar to the faithful?
Ans. John iii. 36.

The assertion herein couched is, that the wicked shall not live for
ever in torments;3 and the proof of it is, because eternal life is pro
mised only to the faithful ; yea, " he that believeth not the Son shall
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him/' John iii. 36.
As to the assertion itself, we shall attend farther unto it instantly.

When Socinus first broached this abomination, he did it with the
greatest cunning and sleight that possibly he could use, labouring to
insinuate it insensibly into the minds of men, knowing full well how
full of scandal the very naming of it would prove ; but the man's
success was in most things beyond his own imagination.3

1 " Deinde negant resurrectionem carnis ; hoc est, hujus ipsius corporis, quod carne
ac sanguine praeditum est, etsi fateantur corpora esse resurrectura, h. e. ipsos homines
fideles ; qui tune novis corporibus coelestibus induendi sunt." — Compend. Doct. Eccles.
in Polon.

3 " Itaque negant cruciatus impiorum et diabolorum duraturos esse in seternum,
verum omnes simul penitus esse abolendos ; adeo ut mors et infernus ipse dicantur con-
jiciendi in stagnum illud ardens, Apoc. xx. 14. Rationem addunt, quod absurdum sit,
Deuin irasci in seternum ; et peccaita creaturarum finita, poenis infinitis mulctare : pne-
sertim cum hinc nulla ipsius gloria illustretur." — Compend. Doct. Eccles. in Polon.

3 " Nam quod ais, ea ibi, turn de Christianorum resurrectione, turn de morte impi
orum passim contineri, quse a multis sine magna offensione, turn nostris turn aliis, legi

OF THE RESURRECTION. 583

For the proof insinuated; "life" and "eternal life," in the gospel, as
they are mentioned as the end and reward of our obedience, are not
taken merely physically, nor do express only the abode, duration,
and continuance of our being, but our continuance in a state and
condition of blessedness and glory. This is so evident, that there is
no one place where life to come and eternal 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 sense we confess
the wicked and impenitent " shall never see life," or obtain eternal
life, — that is, they shall never come to a fruition of God to eternity;
but that therefore they shall not have a life or being, though in tor
ments, is a wild inference. I desire to know of Mr B. whether the
evil 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 ask him
whether they shall have eternal life or no? If he say they shall
not enjoy eternal life in the sense mentioned in the Scripture, I shall
desire him to consider that men also may have their being preserved
and yet not be partakers of eternal life in that sense wherein it is
promised.

The proof insisted on by Mr B. says that the wrath of God abides
upon unbelievers, even then when they do 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 condition.

Death and life in Scripture, ever since the giving of the first law,
and the mention made of them therein," as they express the condi
tion of man in way of reward or punishment, are not opposed natu
rally, 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 expressed by the
one and the other, — namely, of blessedness or misery. So that as
there is an eternal life, which is as it were a second life, a life of
glory following a life of grace, so there is an eternal death, which is
the second death, a death of misery following a death of sin.

The death that is threatened, and which is opposed to life, and
eternal life, doth not anywhere denote annihilation, but only a de
privation and coming short of that blessedness which is promised

non possint ; scio equidem ea ibi contineri, sed meo judicio nee passim, nee ita aperte
(cavi enim istud quantum potui) ut quisquam vir plus facile offendi possit, adeo ut
quod nominatim attinet ad impiorum mortem, in quo dogmate majus est multo offen-
sionis periculum, ea potius ex iis colligi possit, quae ibi disputantur, quam expresse
literis oonsignata extet ; adeo ut lector, qui alioqui scntentiam meani adversus Puccium
de mortalitate primi hominis, quae toto libro agitatur, quaeque ob non paucos quos
faabet fautores parum aut nihil offensionis parere potest, probandam censeat, prius
sentiat doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasam esse, quam suaderi animadvertat." — Faust.
Socin. Ep. ad Jokan. Volkel. 6, p. 491.

584 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

•with life, attended with all the evils which come under that name
and are in the first commination. Those who are dead in trespasses
and sins are not nothing, though they have no life of grace. But Mr
B. proceeds, and saith, —

Q. Though this passage which you have quoted seems clearly to prove that
eternal life agreeth to no other men but the faithful, yet, since the contrary
opinion is generally held among Christians, I would fain know of you whether
you have any other places that affirm that the wicked die directly, and that a,
second death, are destroyed and punished with everlasting destruction, are cor
rupted, burnt up, devoured, slain, pass away, and perish ?

A. Rom. vi. 23, viii. 13; Rev. xxi. 6, 8, ii. 10, 11 ; 1 Thess. v. 3 ; 2 Pet.
iii. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7-9; Gal. vi. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; 1 Cor. iii. 17; Heb. x. 39;
Matt. iii. 12; Heb. x. 26, 27; Luke xix. 27; 1 John ii. 17; 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.

1. How well Mr B. hath proved his intention by the place of
Scripture before mentioned hath been in part discovered, and will in
our process yet farther appear. The ambiguity of the words "life"
and " eternal life" (which yet are not ambiguous in the Scripture,
being constantly used in one sense and signification as to the pur
pose in hand) is all the pretence he hath for his assertion. Besides
that, his proof that unbelievers do not abide lies in this, that " the
wrath of God abideth on them"!

2. This is common with this gentleman and his masters, "Christians
generally think otherwise, but we say thus;" so light do they make
of the common faith, which was once delivered to the saints. But
he may be pleased to take notice that not only Christians think so,
but assuredly believe that it shall be so, having the express word of
God to bottom that their faith upon. And not only Christians be
lieve it, but mankind generally in all ages have consented to it, as
might abundantly be evinced.1

3. But let the expressions wherewith Mr B. endeavours to make
good this his monstrous assertion of the annihilation of the wicked and
unbelievers at the last day be particularly considered, that the strength
of his conclusion, or rather the weakness of it, may be discovered.

The first is, that they are said to "die, and that a second death,"
Rom. vi 23, viii. 13; Rev. XXL 6, 8, il 10, 11. But how, now, will
Mr B. prove that by dying is meant the annihilation of body and
soul? There is mention of a natural death in Scripture; which,
though it be a dissolution of nature as to its essential parts of body
and soul, yet it is an annihilation of neither, for the soul abides, and
Mr R professes to believe that the body shall rise again. There is
a spiritual death in sin also mentioned ; which is not a destruction
of the dead person's being, but a moral condition wherein he is. And
why must the last death be the annihilation pretended? As to a

1 *AXX" iffn xai <ru «v«n x.cti TO aivaSiuffxlftiitt, xttl \x

<rov;

to.} rat ran n/MJttn -^v^a; titar xai rot!; ftv xyxfaT; ctpliin iia.i, <reii; i x.axa.1;, xaxicv.

— Plato in Phsedone, 17.

OF THE RESURRECTION. 585

coming short of that which is the proper life of the soul, in the en
joyment of God, which is called "life" absolutely, and "eternal life," it
is a death; and as to any comfortable attendancies of a being con
tinued, it is a death. That it is a total deprivation of being, seeing
those under it are to eternity to abide under torments (as shall be
showed), there is no colour.

2. It is called " destruction," and " perdition," and " everlasting
destruction," 1 Thess. v. 3 ; 2 Pet. iii. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7-9. True, it is a
destruction as to the utter casting men off from all and every thing
wherein they had any hope or dependence, — a casting them eternally
off from the happiness of rational creatures, and the end which they
ought to have aimed at ; that is, they shall be destroyed in a moral,
not a natural sense. To be cast for ever under the wrath of God,
I think, is destruction ; and therefore it is called " everlasting de
struction," because of the punishment which in that destruction
abideth on them. To this are reduced the following expressions of
" utterly perishing," and the like, Gal. vi. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; 1 Cor.
iii. 17; 2 Pet. iii. 16.

3. " Burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" is mentioned,
Matt. iii. 12; but if this burning of the chaff do consume it, pray
what need it be done with "fire that cannot be quenched?" When
it hath done its work, it will surely be put out. The expression is
metaphorical, and the allusion is not in the consumption of chaff in
the fire, but in the casting it into the fire, or the setting fire unto it.
So the " fiery indignation" is said to " devour the adversaries," Heb.
x. 27; not that they shall no more be, but that they shall never see
happiness any more. All these expressions are metaphorical, and used
to set out the greatness of the wrath and indignation of God against
impenitent sinners, under which they shall lie for ever. The residue
of the expressions collected are of the same importance. Christ's
punishment of unbelievers at the last day is compared to a king
saying, "Bring hither mine enemies, and slay them before me," Luke
xix. 27; because as a natural death is the utmost punishment that
men are able to inflict, which cuts men off from hopes and enjoy
ments as to their natural condition, so Christ will lay on them the
utmost of his wrath, cutting them off from all hopes and enjoy
ments as to their spiritual and moral condition. It is said, " The
world passeth away," because it can give no abiding, continuing re
freshment to any of the sons of men, when he that doeth the will
of God hath an everlasting continuance in a good condition, notwith
standing the intervening of all troubles which are in this life, 1 John
ii. 17; but that wicked men have not their being continued to eter
nity nothing is here expressed.

A very few words will put an issue to this controversy, if our
blessed Saviour may be accepted for an umpire. Saith he, Matt.

586 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

xxv. 46, " These shall go away into everlasting punishment : but
the righteous into life eternal." Certainly he that shall be everlast
ingly punished shall be everlastingly. His punishment shall not
continue when he is not. He that hath an end cannot be everlast
ingly punished. Again, saith our Saviour, " In hell the fire never
shall be quenched ; where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched," Mark ix. 43, 44; which he repeats again verse 46, and,
that Mr B. may not cause any to hope the contrary, again verse 48.
This adds to the former miracle, — that men should be punished and
yet not be, — that they shall be punished by the stings of a worm to tor
ment them when they are not, and the burning of a fire when their
whole essence is consumed! So also Isa. Ixvi. 24, their torments
shall be endless, and the means of their torments continued for ever ;
but for themselves, it seems, they shall have an end as to their be
ing, and so NOTHING shall be punished with an everlasting worm
and a fire never to be quenched ! Nay, which is more, there shall
be amongst them " weeping, and gnashing of teeth," Matt. viii. 1 2,
the utmost sorrow and indignation expressible, yea, beyond expres
sion, and yet they shall not be ! God threatens men with death
and destruction, and describes that death and destruction to consist
in the abiding under his wrath in endless torments; which inex
pressible state evidently shows that death is not a consumption of
them as to the continuance of their being, but a deprivation of all
the good of life natural, spiritual, and eternal, with an infliction of
the greatest evils that they can be capacitated to endure and undergo,
called their " destruction and perdition."1

What hath been the intention and design of Mr B. in this his
Catechism, which I have thus far considered, I shall not judge. There
is one Lawgiver to whom both he and I must give an account of
our labour and endeavours in this business. That the tendency of
the work itself is to increase infidelity and sin in the world I dare
aver. Let this chapter be an instance; and from the savour that it
hath let a taste be taken of the whole, and its nature be thereby esti
mated. 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, proclaimed
therein and tendered through Christ, so as to give up themselves in
all holy obedience unto God, I suppose will be granted. That these

i " A. Ita jocaris, quasi ego dicam, eos esse miseros, qui nati non sunt, et non eos
miseros, qui mortui sunt. M. Esse ergo eos dicis. A. Immo, quia non sunt, cum
fuerint, eos miseros esse. M. Pugnantia te loqui non vides ? quid enim tarn pugnat,

quam non modo miserum, sed omnino quidquam esse qui non sit A. Quoniam

me verbo premis, posthac non ita dicam, miseros esse, sed tantum, miseros, ob id ipsum
quia non sunt. M. Non dicis igitur, miser est M. Crassus, sed tantum, miser M. Cras-
sus. A. Ita plane. M. Quasi non necesse sit, quicquid isto modo pronunties, id aut
esse, aut non esse. An tu dialecticis ne imbutus quidem es," etc. — Cicer. Tuscul.
Quest, lib. L 7.

OF THE RESUKRECTION. 587

men are yet so overpowered by the terror of the Lord therein disco
vered, and the threats of the wrath to come, as not to dare to run
out to the utmost that the desperate thoughts of their own hearts
and the temptations of Satan meeting in conjunction would carry
them unto, as it hath daily and manifold experiences to evince it,
so the examples of men so awed by conviction 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 judg
ment which they are to undergo, which doth so amaze their souls
and fill them with horror and astonishment, so strike off their hands
when they are ready to stretch them out to violence and unclean-
ness, or so frequently make their conception of sin abortive, as this
of the eternity of the punishment which impenitent sinners must
undergo? Is not this that which makes bitter the otherwise sweet
morsels that they roll under their tongues, and is an adamantine
chain to coerce and restrain them, when they break all other cords
and cast all other bonds behind them? Yea, hath not this been,
from the creation of the world, .the great engine of the providence
of God for the preserving of mankind from the outrageousness and
unmeasurableness of iniquity and wickedness, which would utterly
ruin all human society, and work a degeneracy in mankind into a
very near approximation unto the beasts that perish, — namely, by
keeping alive, in the generality of rational creatures, a prevailing
conviction of an abiding condition of evil doers in a state of misery?1
To undeceive the wretched world, and to set sinful man at liberty
from this bondage and thraldom to his own causeless fears, Mr B.
comes forth and assures them all that the eternity of torments is a
fable, and everlasting punishment a lie. Let them trouble them
selves no more ; the worst of their misery may be past in a moment.
It is but annihilation, or rather perdition of soul and body, and they
are for ever freed from the wrath of the Almighty ! Will they not
say, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die?" Down we
lie of a season ; God, it seems, will see us once again, and then fare
well for ever. Whether ever there were a more compendious way
of serving the design of Satan, or a more expedient engine to cast
down and demolish the banks and bounds given to the bottomless
lust and corruption of natural men, that they may overflow the world
with a deluge of sin and confusion, considering the depraved condi
tion of all men by nature and the rebellion of the most against the
love and mercy of the gospel, I much doubt. But who is more fit
to encourage wicked men to sin and disobedience than he who la
bours also to pervert the righteous and obedient from their faith ?

1 " Bene et composite Caesar .... disseruit, falsa, credo, existimans, quse de infernis
memorantur ; diverse itinere malos a bonis loca tetra, inculta, fceda atque formidolosa,
habere." — Cato, apud Sallust. Bell. Catilin. 52.

588 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

To close this whole discourse, I shall present Mr B/s catechumens
with a shorter catechism than either of his, collected out of their
master's questions, with some few inferences naturally flowing from
them; and it is as follows: —

Ques. 1. What is God?

Ans. God is a spirit, that hath a bodily shape, eyes, ears, hands, feet, like to us.

Q. 2. Where is this God ?

A. In a certain place in heaven, upon a throne, where a man may see from his
right hand to his left.

Q. 3. Doth he ever move out of that place?

A. I cannot tell what he doth ordinarily, but he hath formerly come down
sometimes upon the earth.

Q. 4. What doth he do there in that place ?

A. Among other things, he conjectures at what men will do here below.

Q. 5. Doth ?ie, then, not know what we do ?

A. He doth know what we have done, but not what we will do.

Q. 6. What frame is he in upon his knowledge and conjecture ?

A. Sometimes he is afraid, sometimes grieved, sometimes joyful, and sometimes
troubled.

Q. 7. What peace and comfort can I have in committing myself to his provi
dence, if he knows not what will befall me to-morrow ?

A. What is that to me ? see you to that.

Q. 8. Is Jesus Christ God ?

A. He is dignified with the title of God, but he is not God.

Q. 9. Why, then, was he called the only-begotten son of God?

A. Because he was born of the Virgin Mary.

Q. 10. Was lie Christ the Lord then when he was born?

A. No ; he became the Lord afterward.

Q. 11. Hath he still in heaven a human body?

A. 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.

Q. 12. What is the Holy Ghost?

A. A principal angel.

Q. 13. Did death enter by sin, or was mortality actually caused by sin?

A. No.

Q. 14. Why is Christ called a saviour f

A. Because at the resurrection he shall change our vile bodies.

Q. 15. On what other account?

A, None that I know of.

Q. 16. How then shall I be saved from sin and wrath?

A. Keep the commandments, that thou mayst have a right to eternal life.

Q. 17. Was Christ the eternal son of God in his bosom, revealing his mind
from thence, or was he taken up into heaven, and there taught the truths of God,
as Mohammed pretended?

A. He ascended into heaven, and talked with God before he came and showed
himself to the world.

Q. 18. What did Christ do as a prophet ?

A. He gave a new law.

Q. 19. Wherein?

A. He corrected the law of Moses.

Q. 20. Who was it that said of old, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hats
thine enemy ? "

A. God, in the law of Moses, which Christ corrects.

CONCLUSION. 589

Q. 21. Is Christ to be worshipped because he is God?

A. No, but because he redeemed us.

Q. 22. .May one that is a mere creature be worshipped with divine or religious
worship?

A. Yes.

Q. 23. How can Christ, being a mere man, and now so far removed from the
earth, understand and hear all the prayers and desires of the hearts of men that
are put up to him all the world over?

A. I cannot tell, for God himself doth not know that there are such actions
as our free actions are but upon inquiry.

Q. 24. Did Christ give himself for an offering and sacrifice to God in his
death ?

A. No ; for he was not then a priest.

Q. 25. Did Christ by his- death make reconciliation for our sins, the sins of his
people, and bear their iniquities, that they might have peace with God?

A. No, but only died that they might turn themselves to God.

Q. 26. Did he so undergo the curse of the law, and was he so made sin for U3,
were our iniquities so laid on him, that he made satisfaction to God for our sins ?

A. No ; there is no such thing in the Scripture.

Q. 27. Did he merit or procure eternal life for us by his obedience and suffer
ing?

A. No; this is a fiction of the generality of Christians.

Q. 28. Did he redeem us properly with the price of his blood, that we should bo
saved from wrath, death, and hell?

A. No; there is no such use or fruit of his death and blood-shedding.

Q. 29. If he neither suffered in our stead, nor underwent the curse of the law
for us, nor satisfied justice by making reconciliation for our sins, nor redeemed
us by the price of his blood, what did he do for us, — on what account is he our
saviour ?

A. He taught us the way to heaven, and died to leave us an example.

Q. 30. How then did he save them, or was he their saviour, who died before
his teaching and dying ?

A. He did not save them, nor was their saviour, nor did they ask any thing in
his name, or receive any thing on his account.

Q. 31. Did Christ raise himself, according as he spake of the temple of his body,
" Destroy this temple, and the third day I will raise it again ? "

A. No, he raised not himself at all.

Q. 32. Hath God from eternity loved some even before they did any good, and
elected them to life and salvation, to be obtained by Jesus Christ?

A. No, but he loved all alike.

Q. 33. Did God in the sending of Christ aim at the salvation of a certain num
ber, or his elect f

A. No, but at the salvation of men in general, whether ever any be saved or
no.

Q. 34. Are all those saved for whom Christ died?

A. The least part of them are saved.

Q. 35. Is faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, or are we converted by tlio
efficacy of his grace ?

A. No, but of ourselves we believe and are converted, and then we are made
partakers of the Spirit and his grace.

Q. 36. Are all true believers preserved by the power of God unto salvation ?

A. No, many of them fall away and perish.

Q. 37. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for our justification ?

A. No, but our own faith and works.

590 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

Q. 38. Are we to receive or apprehend Christ and his righteousness by foitht
that we may be justified through him?

A. No, but believe on him that raised him from the dead, and without that it
suffices.

Q. 39. Are we able to keep all God's commandments ?

A. Yes.

Q. 40. Perhaps in our sincere endeavours, but can we do it absolutely and
perfectly?

A. Yes, we can keep them perfectly.

Q. 41. What need a man then to apprehend Christ's righteousness and apply
it to himself by faith?

A. None at all, for there is no such thing required.

Q. 42. What shall become of wicked men after the resurrection f

A. They shall be so consumed, body and soul, as not at all to remain in tor
ments.

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, AND OF JUSTIFICATION:

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THEM FORMERLY DELIVERED VINDICATED FROM
THE ANIMADVERSIONS OF MR R. B[AXTER.]1

OP this task I would complain if I durst, but I know not how it may be taken,
and whether it may not occasion another apology. So are writings of this nature as
waves, that thrust on one another. . " Books," says one, " are like good turns ; they
must be new covered, or it will rain through." I was in some hope to have
escaped this trouble ; but *•«»«* v'oiu -rovo* ipipn.2 And Chrysostom tells us that
jraAxSjj yifiti <rap/z%iis n %*>>>t *«* QopuGav fturrot e vtapuv jS/aj \ffriv? I desire to be con
tent with my portion, being better yet than that of Livius Drusus, who com
plained " uni sibi nee puero quidem unquam ferias contigisse."* So it be in
and about things of real use and advantage to the souls of men, I can be content
with any pains that I have strength to answer. But this is an evil which every
one who is not stark blind may see in polemical writings ; almost their constant
end is, Xay^o^/a, fifioc.vro^o'yioi, ao-aAoy/a: whence saith the apostle, Tmrai Qtiovof,
ipi;, $*.u<r$n[*.iai, vx'ovciat •r/mipa.'i, vapa.$iarpi6izi. Having, through the providence of
God, whether on my part necessarily or wisely I know not (eioj oTSt), engaged in
public for the defence of some truths of the gospel (as I believe), I was never so
foolish as to expect an escape without opposition. He that puts forth a book
sentences his reason to the gantelope : every one will strive to have a lash at it in its
course; and he must be content to bear it. It may be said of books of this kind as
Menander said of children (things often compared), Ta y'mtlu.i va,<ripa. vraftuv, ).uvrn,
<p6£os, <fpe>ris, — "Anxiety, fear, and trouble, attend their authors." For my own part,
as I provoked no man causelessly in any of my writings, defended no other doctrine
professedly but the common faith of the protestant churches, of which I found the
saints of God in possession when I became first acquainted with them, so I have
from the beginning resolved not to persist in any controversy, as to the public de
bate of it, when once it begins to degenerate into a strife of words and personal
reflections. So much the more grievous is it to me to engage in this now in hand;
of the necessity whereof I shall give the reader a brief account. That as to the
matter of the contest between Mr B. and myself, Mr B. is my witness that I gave
not the occasion of it ; so as to the manner of its handling, that I carried not on
the provocation, I appeal to all that have read my treatise which is now animad
verted on. The same person " et initium dedit et modum abstulit." Some free
dom of expression that, perhaps, I might righteously have made use of, to prevent
future exacerbations, I designedly forbore. I know that some men must have
B[/V<ma ffipxr*. Expressions concerning them had need be fivpoGpi%t7f, or like the
letters that men print one of another, which are oftentimes answerable to that of
Augustus to Maecenas, " vale mel gemmeum, Medullise ebur ex Hetruria, laser

1 An account of the controversy to which this Appendix relates will be found in a prefatory
note to Owen's treatise " Of the Death of Christ," in reply to Baxter. See vol. x. p. 430. — ED.

2 Sophocles, Aj. 86G. * Chrysost. Con. i. trip] rpevoiat. * Sueton. in Vit. Tib.

592 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

arietinum, adamas supernas, Tiberinum margaritum, Cilniorum smaragde, jaspis
figulorum, berille Porsennae, carbunculum Italiae," xai Iva auvrif*,u WVT«, etc.1 I
hoped, therefore, this business had been at an issue; others also were of the same
mind, especially considering that he had almost professed against proceeding far
ther in this controversy in some other treatises and apologies. For my own part,
I must profess my thoughts arose only from his long silence. The reason of this
I knew could not be that of him in the poet, p/Xs? ya.f oxmTv •rpay/& at/tip ^rfatrtran
ftiy-et,1 seeing he could have done it as speedily as have written so much paper.
The expressions in his books seemed to me as the fermentation of a spirit that, at
one time or other, would boil over. I confess I was something delivered from the
fear of it, when, not long before the publishing of his confession and apology, I
met with him, and had occasion of much conference with him at London, even
about justification, and he made not the least mention of this confutation of me
which he hath now published; but <p<x/x«r$ iniliv t>{j.fta<rit. But though this present
contest might have been easily prevented (as the reader will instantly perceive),
yet I presume the book was then wholly printed, and Mr B. was not to lose his
pains, nor the world the benefit thereof, nor the printer his ink and paper, for so
slight a cause as the preventing of the aspersion of me for an Antinomian.

But "jacta est alea; " now it is out, we must make the best of it; and I hope
'the reader will excuse me in what follows, 'tis ol% Iva.fx,^ «xx« mfiapeoptv/is.

But why must my arguments be answered and myself confuted ? Two reasons
hereof are given. The first by very many insinuations, namely, that I have de
livered dangerous doctrines, such as subvert the foundation of the gospel, — plain
Antinomianism. And these two positions are laid down to be confuted, namely, first,
That the elect are justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ, before they
believe; secondly, That justification by faith is but in foro conscientice, or in our
own feeling, and terminated in conscience, and not in foro Dei ; farther, then,
conscience may be so called: and my arguments for them are answered, chap. viii.
p. 189. But what should a man do in this case? I have already published to
Mr B. and all the world that I believe neither of these propositions. Must I
take my oath of it, or get compurgators, or must we have no end of this quarrel ?
Let Mr B. prove any such thing out of any thing I have written, and, as Nonius
says out of Nsevius, " Ei dum vivebo fidelis ero." I am sure this minds me of
that passage in the Jewish liturgy, " Placeat tibi, Domine, liberare me a lite diffi-
cili, et ab adveraario difficili, sive is ad foedus tuum pertineat sive non pertineat."
The following examination of the particulars excepted against by Mr B. will make
this evident, whence it will appear that pixpa •xf'a^a.an \<rri r/>v itfa^au xaxSf.* Yea,
but, —

Secondly, Two or three reverend brethren told him that, as to that part which
he hath considered, it was necessary I should be confuted.4 Who these reverend
brethren are I know not. I presume they may be of those friends of Mr B. that
blame him for replying to Mr Blake, but say for all the rest with whom he hath
dealt (of whom I am forced to be one) that* it is no matter, they deserved no
better. Whoever they are, they might have had more mercy than not a little to
pity poor men under the strokes of a heavy hand. Nor do I know what are the
reasons of the brethren why my name must be brought on this stage ; nor, per
haps, is it meet they should be published. It may be it is necessary that Mr Owen
should be confuted among Antinomians, and that I* rftvtStt.1 But what if it
should appear in the issue that Mr Owen hath deserved better at their hands, and
that this advice of theirs might have been spared ? But not to complain of I know
not whom, to those reverend advisers I shall only say, ETSt *•«» t%u *.a.Xus, TU <ra/y»/»,

,

» Sophocles, Klec. 320. 3 Menander. * Mr B.'s preface.

S :AUT£ xttxa. Ttl%u imp, aXX« xttxit rtu%»ir »;S| xotxij pey).>i -ru ^cu^vfcttn xxxi<rr»i.

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 593

$on xpoTov, KOI Kauris uftiTf ftiro. %a:aif •jrowx'uffa.'ri. But if it appear in the issue
that I was charged with that which I never delivered nor wrote, and that my argu
ments to one purpose are answered in reference to another, and that this is the
sum of Mr B.'s discourse against me, I shall only recommend to them some verses
of old Ennius, as I find them in Aus. Pop. : —

"Nam qui lepide postulat alterum frustrari,
Quern frustratur, frustra eurn dicit frustra esse.
Nam qui sese frustrari quern frustra, sentit,
Qui frustatur is frustra est, si non, ille est frustra."

What, then, shall I do? I am imposed on to lay the foundation of all Antinomian-
ism (as Mr Burgess is also), — to maintain the j ustification from eternity, or at least
in the cross of Christ, of all that should believe, and justification by faith to be but
the sense of it in our consciences (which last I know better and wiser men than
myself that do, though I do not) ; and so reckoned amongst them that overthrow
the whole gospel, and place the righteousness of Christ in the room of our own
believing and repentance, rendering them useless.

Shall I undertake to confute Mr B.'s book, at least wherein we differ, and so
acquit myself both from Antinomianism and Socinianism in the business in hand?
But, — 1 . The things of this discourse are such, and the manner of handling them
of that sort, that Mr B. heartily, in the close of his book (p. 462), begs pardon
for them who have necessitated him to spend so much time to so little purpose,
KO,} TU.IITO. ffa-ffftav (fa.?* dvvp ovSiv faiuv. As I see not yet the necessity of his pains,
so I desire his reverend advisers may thank him for this intercession; for I suppose
myself, at least, not concerned therein. But this I can say, that I am so far from
engaging into a long operose contest, in a matter of such importance and con
sequence as the subject of that book is represented to be, that I would rather
burn my pens and books also than serve a provocation so far as to spend half
that time therein which the confutation of it would require from so slow and
dull a person as myself.

2. He hath, in his preface, put such terrible conditions upon those that will
answer him, that I know no man but must needs be affrighted with the thoughts
of the attempt. He requires that whoever undertake this work be of a stronger
judgment and a more discerning head than he, that he be a better proficient in
these studies than he, that he be freer from prejudice than he, that he have more
illumination and grace than he ; that is, that he be a better, wiser, more holy, and
learned man than Mr B. Now, if we may take Mr B.'s character by what 'he
discourseth of his mortification and sincerity, his freedom from prejudice, etc., as
there is no reason but that we should, I profess I know not where to find his
match, much less any to excel him, with whom I might intercede for his pains in
the consideration of this treatise: for as for myself, I am, seriously, so far from en
tertaining any such thoughts in reference to Mr B., that I dare not do it in
reference to any one godly minister that I know in the world ; yea, I am sure that
I am not, in respect of all the qualifications mentioned put together, to be preferred
before any one of them. If it be said that it is not requisite that a man should
know this of himself, but only that he be so indeed, I must needs profess that,
being told beforehand that such he must be, if he undertake this work, I am not
able to discern how he should attempt it and not proclaim himself to have an
opinion of his own qualifications answerable to that which is required of him.

3. It is of some consideration, that a man that doth not know so much of him
as I do, would by his writings take him to be immitis and immisericors, — a very
Achilles, that will not pardon a man in his grave, but will take him up and cut
him in a thousand pieces. I verily believe that if a man (who had nothing else to
do) should gather into one heap all the expressions which in his late books, con
fessions, and apologies, have a lovely aspect towards himself, as to ability, diligence,

VOL. XII. 38

594 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

sincerity, on the one hand, with all those which are full of reproach and con
tempt towards others, on the other, the view of them could not but a little startle
a man of so great modesty and of such eminency in the mortification of pride as
Mr B. is. But,—

Oltiil; iv ccl<rov <ra X.O.KU, ffvitepa,
'Sattfu; \Tifov o clf%fif£ovi>vv<ros Spiral.

Had I not heard him profess how much he valued the peace of the church, and
declare what his endeavours for it were, I could not but suppose, upon evidences
which I am unwilling to repeat together, that a humour of disputing and quarrel
ling was very predominant in the man. However, though a profession may pass
against all evidences of fact to the contrary whatever, yet I dare say that he lives
not at uffayoTe^s. [Sueton. Aug. 98.]

That he hath been able to discern the positions he opposes in the beginning of
his eighth chapter to be contained in any writings of mine, as maintained by me,
I must impute to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula, to whom,
when he inquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not embracing the moon, it was
replied. " Solis (domine) vobis diis licet invicem videre," Dio.

What shall I do, then? Shall I put forth a creed or an apology to make it
appear that indeed I am not concerned in any of Mr Baxter's contests? But, —

1. I dare not look upon myself of any such consideration to the world, as to
write books to give them an account of myself (with whom they very little trouble
their thoughts); to tell them my faith and belief; to acquaint them when I am
well and when I am sick; what sin I have mortified most ; what books I have read ;
how I have studied; how I go, and walk, and look; what one of my neighbours
says of me, and what another ; how I am praised by some and dispraised by others ;
what I do, and what I would have others do; what diligence, impartiality, upright
ness, I use; what I think of other men: so dealing unmercifully with perishing
paper, and making books by relating to myself, worthy

"Deferri in vicum vendentem thus et odores,
Et piper, et quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis." — Hor. Ep. ii. 269.

And I should plainly show myself d).a%avoxavi><i<p).uapi>s.

2. I know there is no need of any such thing : for all that know me, or care to
know me, know full well that, in and about the doctrine of justification by faith, I
have no singular opinion of my own, but embrace the common, known doctrine of
the reformed churches; which, by God's good assistance, in due time I shall farther
explicate and vindicate from Papists, Socinians, and Afminians. I cannot com
plain that \yu tifu fiovaf tut fiftut ipof, Apollodorus ; I have companions and coun
sellors. And, in truth, it is very marvellous to some that this learned person,
who hath manifested so great a tenderness on his own behalf as to call their books
" monsters" and themselves " liars," who charged his opinion about justification
with a coincidence with that of the Papists, should himself so freely impute Antino-
mianism to others, an opinion which he esteems as bad, if not every way worse,
than that of the Papists about justification. But " content! simus hoc Catone;"
which is all I shall say, though some would add, —

" Homine imperito nunquam quidquam injustius,
Qui, nisi quod ipse facit, nihil rectum putat."

3. 1 must add, if for a defensative of myself I should here transcribe and subscribe
some creed already published, I must profess it must not be that of Mr B. (pp. 12,
13), which he calls the " Worcestershire profession of faith;" and that, as for other
reasons, so especially for the way of delivering the doctrine of the Trinity, which but
in one expression at most differs from the known confession of the Socinians, and
in sundry particulars gives so great a countenance to their abominations. For
instance, the first article of it is, " I believe that there is one only God, the Father,
infinite in being," etc., which, being carried on towards the end, and joined to the

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 595

" profession of consent," as it is called, in these words, " I do heartily take this one
God for my only God and chiefest good, and this Jesus Christ for my only Lord,
Redeemer, and Saviour," evidently distinguishes the Lord Jesus Christ our Re
deemer, as our Lord, from that one true God; which not only directly answers
that question of Mr Riddle's, " How many Lords of Christians are there in distinc
tion from this one God? " but in terms falls in with that which the Socinians profess
to be the "tessera" of their sect and churches, as they call them, which is, that
they believe in the " one true, living God the Father, and in his only Son Jesus
Christ our Lord." Nor am I at so great an indifferency in the business of the
procession of the Holy Ghost as to those expressions of " from," and " by the Son,"
as that confession is at, knowing that there is much more depends on these ex
pressions, as to the doctrine of the Trinity, than all the confessionists can readily
apprehend. But yet here, — that we may not have occasion to say, A««-T«Xoy«» «V»-
t-oyiuv tpiv <rx»^'oj ! —I do freely clear the subscribers of that confession from any
sinister opinion of the Trinity or the deity of Jesus Christ ; though as to myself I
suppose my reasons abundantly sufficient to detain me from a subscription of it.
But if this course be not to be insisted on, shall I, —

4. Run over all the confessions of faith and common-places which I have or
may have here at Oxford, and manifest my consent with them in the matter under
question? I confess this were a pretty easy way to make up a great book; but
for many reasons it suits not with my judgment, although I would have the advan
tage of giving what they positively deliver in abundance as their main thesis and
foundation, without cutting off discourses from their connection and coherence, to
give them a new face and appearance, which in their own proper place they had
not, or gathering up their concessions to the adversaries to one purpose and apply
ing them to another : and therefore I shall wholly waive that way of procedure, al
though I might by it, perhaps, keep up some good reputation with the orthodox.

To have passed over, then, this whole business in silence would have seemed to
me much the best course, had I not seen a man of so great integrity and impar
tiality as Mr B. (who so much complains of want of candour and truth in others)
counting it so necessary to vindicate himself from imputations as to multiply books
and apologies to that end and purpose, and that under the chains of very strong
importunities and entreaties to turn the course of his studies and pains to things
more useful, wherein his labours, as he says, have met with excessive estimation
and praises ; and may doubtless well do so, there being, as he informs us, " too
few divines that are diligently and impartially studious of truth, and fewer that
have strong judgments that are able to discern it, though they do study it" (pref.) :
which though Mr B. arrogates not to himself, yet others may do well to ascribe
to him. I hope, then, he will not be offended if in this I follow his steps, though
" haud passibus aequis" and " longo proximus intervallo." Only in this I shall de
sire to be excused, if, seeing the things of myself are very inconsiderable, and what
ever I can write on that account being like the discourses of men returning " e lacu
furnoque," I multiply not leaves to no purpose. I shall, then, desire, —

1. To enter my protest that I do not engage with Mr B. upon the terms and
conditions by him prescribed in his preface, as though I were wiser, or better, or
more learned than he ; being fully assured that a man more unlearned than either of
us, and less studied, may reprove and convince us of errors, and that we may deal
so with them who are much more learned than us both.

2. To premise that I do not deliver my thoughts and whole judgment in the
business of the justification of a sinner; which to do I have designed another
opportunity, ti Bias Si>.n, KO.} fyffu, and shall not now prevent myself.

These things being premised, I shall, —

1. Set down what I have delivered concerning the three heads wherein it is
pretended the difference lies between us.

596 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

2. Pass through the consideration of the particular places where Mr B. is pleased
to take notice of me and my judgment and arguments as to the things of the con
tests wherein he is engaged. And this course I am necessitated unto because, as
Mr B. states the controversies he pursues in the beginning of the eighth chapter,
I profess myself wholly unconcerned in them.

The things, then, that I am traduced for the maintaining and giving counte
nance unto are: — 1. The justification of the elect from eternity; 2. Their justifi
cation at the death of Christ, as dying and suffering with him ; 3. Their absolu
tion in heaven before their believing; 4. That justification by faith is nothing but
a sense of it in the conscience; 5. That Christ suffered the idem which we should
have done, and not only tantundem. Of all which very briefly.

1. For the first, I neither am nor ever was of that judgment; though, as it
may be explained, I know better, wiser, and more learned men than myself, that
have been and are. This I once before told Mr B., and desired him to believe me,
" Of the Death of Christ," p. 33 [works, vol. x. p. 449.] If he will not yet do it,
I cannot help it.

2. As to the second, I have also entreated Mr B. to believe that it is not my
judgment, in that very book on which he animadverts, and hoped I might have ob
tained credit with him, he having no evidence to the contrary. Let the reader see
what I deliver to this purpose, pp. 34, 35 [pp. 451, 452]. In what sense I main
tain that the " elect died and rose with Christ," see pp. 82-84 [pp. 472, 473].

3. The third, or absolution in heaven before believing. What I mean hereby I
explain, pp. 77-79 [pp. 470, 471]. Let it be consulted.

It was, on I know not what grounds, before by Mr B. imposed on me that I
maintained justification upon the death of Christ before believing : which I did with
some earnestness reject, and proved by sundry arguments that we are not changed
in our state and condition before we do believe. Certainly never was man more
violently pressed to a warfare than I to this contest.

4. That justification by faith is nothing but a sense of it in the conscience, I
never said, 1 never wrote, I never endeavoured to prove. What may a man expect
from others, who is so dealt withal bv a man whose writings so praise him as Mr
B.'sdo!-

5. For the last thing, what I affirm in it, what I believe in it, what I have
proved, the preceding treatise will give an account to the reader. And for my
judgment in these things, this little at present may suffice. Mr B.'s animadver
sions, in the order wherein they lie, shall nextly be considered.

The first express mention that I am honoured withal" is towards the end of his
preface ; occasioned only by a passage in my brief proem to Mr Eyre's book of
justification. My words, as by him transcribed, are: —

" For the present I shall only say, that there being too great evidence of a very
•welcome entertainment and acceptation given by many to an almost pure Socinian
justification and exposition of the covenant of grace," etc.

To which Mr B. subjoins: —

" But to be almost an error is to be a truth. There is but a thread between truth
and error, and that which is not 'near to that error is not truth, but is liker to be
another error in the other extreme. For truth is one straight line ; error is manifold,
even all that swerves from that line, in what space or degree soever."

" Malum omen ! " and the worse because of choice. Whether this proceed vapa

rJiv TOO l^iyx/iv aytoica, or whether it be TO IK ffnptiiu (affv^Koyiff-rov yap xai rovro),1 ic

matters not, but I am sure it is sophistical. The doctrine of justification, which

I reflected on, I did not say was near to error, or almost an error, but near to So-

cinianism, or almost Socinian. If Mr B. takes error and Socinianism to be terms

' Arist. Khet. lib. ii cap. xxvi.

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 59 7

convertible, I must crave liberty to dissent. That which is almost error is true;
but that which is almost Socinianism may be quite an error, though not an error
quite so bad as that of the Socinians concerning the same matter. He that shall
deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and maintain that our perform
ance of new obedience is the matter of our justification before God, according
to the tenor of the new covenant, and yet grant the satisfaction of Christ, and
assign it a place (some or other) in the business of our justification, his doctrine
is but almost Socinian, and yet, in my judgment, is altogether an error. And so
the heat of this first conflict is allayed, "pulveris exigui jactu," its foundation
having been only a/xtrpia tt.iSaKx.ni.

But, notwithstanding this seeming discharge, perhaps it may be said that in
deed this was not an honest insinuation, there being no such doctrines abroad
amongst us as hold any blamable correspondency with the Socinian doctrine of
justification, and it is not an ingenuous and candid way of proceeding to seek to
oppress truths, or at least opinions, that are managed with a fair and learned plea,
with names of public abomination, with which indeed they have no communion.
I confess this is an unworthy course, a path wherein I am not desirous to walk ;
I shall, therefore, from their own writings, give the reader a brief summary, in
some few propositions, of the doctrine of the Socinians concerning justification,
and then nakedly, without deprecating his censure, leave him to judge of the ne
cessity and candour of my forementioned expressions. They say, then, — '

1. That justifying faith, or that faith whereby we are justified, is our receiving of
Christ as our Lord and Saviour, trusting in him and yielding obedience to him : —

" Credere in Jesum Christum nihil aliud est quam Jesu Christo confidere, et iclcirco
ex ejus pnescripto vitam instituere." — Socin. Justificat. Synop. ii. p. 17. "Fides est
fiducia per Deum in Christum, unde apparct earn in Christo fidcm duo comprehendcre :
unum, ut non solum Deo, verum et Christo confidamus; deinde utDeo obtemperemus,"
etc. — Cat. Eac. cap. ix. de fide; Volkel. de Vera Relig., lib. iv. cap. iii. p. 179, 180 ;
Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz, disp. 4, p. 103, et disp. 6, p. 184. " Credere in Christum
nihil aliud est quam illi contidere, hoc est, ipsi, sub spe promissiomim, ab eo nobis
factarum, obedire," etc. — Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz, disp. 7, p. 209. "Fides in
Christum est fiduciam in eum collocare, et credere ilium esse omnibus obtemperantibus
sibi seternae salutis causam. Si proprie et stricte sumatur, ab obedientia differt. Sed
per metonymiam quandam synecdochiam ssepe tarn late sumitur. ut omnia pietatis et
justitiaa opera comprehendat." — Schlichting. Comment, in cap. xi. ad Heb. p. 519.
" Quid est credere in nomen Christi 1 Res. Eum excipere, ejus dictis fidem habere, ei
confidere, ei denique obtemperare." — Dialog. Anon, de Justificat. p. 4. "Ex his quse
hactenus dicta sunt, satis intelligi potest, etiamsi verissimum sit, quemadmodum Scrip-
tura apertissime testatur, nos per mortem Christi perque sanguinis ejus fusionem scr-
vatos esse, nostraque peccata deleta fuisse, non tamen hoc ipsum credere, esse earn fidem
in Christum, qua, ut sacrae literae decent, justificamur, id quod multi et olim "putarunt,
et hodie putaut, adeoque similiter credunt : longe enim aliud est istud credere, et sub
spe vitae aeterna) ab ipso consequendse, Christo obedire ; quod necessario requiri ad jus-
tificationem uostram, antea a nobis et dictum et demonstratum est." — Fragm. de Jus
tificat. ; Faust. Socin. Opusc. p. 115.

2. That faith, in justifying, is not to be considered as a hand whereby we lay
hold on the righteousness of another, or as an instrument, as though righteous
ness were provided for us and tendered unto us; which would overthrow all neces
sity of being righteous in ourselves : —

" Patet quam inepte Meisnerus fidem vocet causam instrumentalem qua justifica.
tionem (seu justitiam) apprehendamus seu recipiamus ; patet denique quam falso (qui
error ex priore consequitur) fidem, quse virtus aut opus est, justificare neget. Quid
magis perversum et sacris literis adversum dici potuit ? Parum nobis fuerat, omneu
reliquas virtutes et pia opera, a comparanda nobis salute excludere, nisi etiam ipsam in
Deo fidem, virtutum, omnium matrem et reginam, de suo solio deturbatam, tarn foeua
ignominia notasset. Fidem perverse prorsus intelligitis, non enim tanquam conditionem
adipisccndce justificationis consideratis, sed tanquam instrumentum vel manum," etc. — '

OP THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

Jo. Schlichting. Disput. pro Faust. Socin. ad Meisner. p. 129-131. " DC eo quod homo
justitiam accipiat, nihil legitur in sacris hteris ; et si id explicetur ex mente adversari-
orum, ridicula est fabula. Fides vero non est, accurate loquendo, causa instrumentalis,
sed causa sine qua non (efficiens) justificationis nostrae." — Smalc. Eefut. Thes. Franz,
disp. 4, p. 103.

3. Nor yet doth faith, repentance, or obedience, procure our justification, or is
the efficient or meritorious cause thereof: —

" Ut autem cavendum est, ne, ut hodie plerique faciunt, vitae sanctitatem atque in
nocentiam, effectum justificationis nostrae coram Deo esse dicamus ; sic diligenter cavere
debemus ne ipsam sanctitatem atque innocentiam, justificationem nostram coram Deo
esse credamus, neve illam nostrae justificationis coram Deo causam efficientem aut im-
pulsivam esse affirmemus, sed tantummodo," etc. — Socin. Justificat. Synop. ii. p. 14.
" Fides justificationem non meretur, neque est ejus causa efficiens ; non ignoramus fidei
nostrae nequaquam esse ea merita, quibus justificatio qua sempiterna continetur feli-
citas, tanquam merces debita, sit tribuenda. Hinc porro consequitur, fidem istam,
quamvis obedientiam et pietatem in se comprehendat, nequaquam tamen per se, et
principaliter efficere, ut justificationis beneficium consequamur." — Volkel. de Vera
Relig. lib. iv. cap. iii. p. 181 ; Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz, disp. 4, 5, 7. " Obedientia
nostra, quam Christo praestamus, nee efficiens nee meritoria causa est nostrse justifica
tionis." — Socin. Thes. de Justificat. p. 17. Vide Anon. Dialog, de Justificat. p. 32.

4. But the true use of our faith (and repentance), as to our justification before
God, is that they are the " causa sine qua non," or the condition whereby, accord
ing to the appointment of God, we come to be justified ; and so is imputed to us.

" Diligenter cavere debemus ne vitae sanctitatem et innocentiam, justificationem
nostram coram Deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae justificationis coram Deo causam
efficientem aut impulsivam esse affirmemus, sed tantummodo causam sine qua earn jus
tificationem nobis non contingere decrevit Deus." — Socin. Synop. Justificat. ii. p. 14.
" Id a nobis revera exegit, ut in Christum credamus, vitam emendaremus (quam con-
ditionem salva sanctitate et majestate sua non poterat non exigere)." — Crell. de Caus.
Mort. Christi, p. 5. " Interim tamen sic habendum est, cum Deus non nisi illis, qui
fidem virtutemque pro sua virili parte colunt, vitam sempiternam designaverit, fiduciam
istam ne quidem causam meritoriam, aut principaliter efficientem, sed causam sine qua
non (ut loquuntur) justificationis nostrae esse." — Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. iv. cap. iii.
p. 181. " Quod vero ad nos pertinet, non aliter reipsa justi coram Deo habemur, et
delictorum nostrorum veniam ab ipso consequimur, quam si in Jes. Christ, credamus."
— Socin. Justificat. Synop. ii. p. 11. " Itaque nemo justificatus est coram Deo nisi
prius Christo confidat, eique obediat ; quae obedientia sunt ilia opera ex quibus nos
justificari Jacobus apostolus affirmat." — Socin. Thes. de Justificat. p. 14. " Sunt enim
opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia, quam Christo praestamus, licet nee
efficiens nee meritoria, tamen causa (ut vocant) sine qua non justificationis coram Deo,
atque seternae salutis nostrae." — Id. ibid. '-Imputatur nobis a Deo id quod revera in nobis
est, non aliquid quod a nobis absit vel in alio sit, nempe quod firmiter in animo decre-
verimus nihil dubitantes de Dei promissionibus, neque considerantes nostram infirmi-
tatem, nos propositum fidei certamen decurrere velle." — Anon. Dialog, de Justificat.
p. 29. (Haec vero corrigit Faustus Socinus, Notae in Dialog, p. 64, " Beatitatem et re-
missionem peccatorum nobis imputari asserens.") " Certum est ex sacris literis requiri
ad hoc, ut quis consequatur apud Deum remissionem peccatorum, et ita coram Deo jus-
tificetur, ut de illo merito dici possit, quod pactum Dei servet." — Fragm. de Justificat.
" Apparet Paulum absolute intelligere opera quaecunque ilia tandem sint. Quod tamen
non earn vim habet, ut a causa justificationis nostrae omnino qusecunque opera, et quo-
cunque modo considerata, excludere velit. Sed sensus ipsius est, nulla esse opera quse
tanti sint, ut propter ipsorum meritum justificari possimus. Quando scilicet nemo est
qui perfectissime et integerrime per totam vitam ea opera faciat quae sub vetere sive
sub novo testamento praescripta sunt, id quod tamen omnino requiritur, sive require-
tur ad hoc, ut per ipsa opera tanquam ejus rei aliquo modo meritoria, justificatio
contingeret. Diximus autem aliquo modo meritoria, ut ab ipsis operibus excludamus,
non modo absolutum et maxime proprium meritum, quod oritur ex ipsa operum prae-
stantia per se considerata ; sed etiam illud, quod minus proprie et respective meritum

est, quod ex solo Dei promisso oritur ac proficiscitur, adeo ut nemo nee per illud

nDque per hoc meritum suorum operum justificationem et absolutionem a peccatis suis

AND OF JUSTIFICATION.

adipiscatur," etc. — Vid. Plu. Fragm. de Justificat. Faust. Socin. p. 110. "Cum Paului
negat nos ex operibus justificari, considerat opera tanquam meritoria, et sua ipsorum
vi hominem justificantia, et consequenter ejusmodi, quibus si ad Dei pneceptum ex-
arninentur, nihil prorsus desit ; at Jacobus operum nomine earn obedientiam intelligit,
sine qua Deus hominem sibi caruin habere non vult ; seu mavis opera ejusmodi sine

quibus dici nequeat, ulla ratione hominem Deo obedire Ex hac collatione isto-

rum duorum Pauli et Jacobi locorum et sententiarum manifestum est, quemadmodum
ad justificatioiiem nostram non requiritur necessario perfecta obedientia mandatorum
Dei, sic ad eandem justificationem omnino requiri, ut Dei mandata ita conservaremus,
ut merito dici possit nos Deo obedientes esse." — Fragm. Faust, p. 221.

5. That our justification is our absolution from the guilt of sin, and freedom from
obnoxiousness unto punishment for it, and nothing else. Our regeneration is the
condition of our absolution, and in them both, in several respects, is our right
eousness.

" Justificatio est cum nos Deus pro justis habet, quod ea ratione facit, cum nobis et
peccata remittit, et jus vitae donat." — Cat. Rac. cap. xi. de Justificat. " Justificatio
nihil aliud est quam peccatorum remissio." — Schlichting. contra Trinit. p. 147. "Jus
tificatio nostra coram Deo, ut uno verbo dicam, nihil aliud est quam a Deo pro justis
haberi; hoc vero fit per absolutionem peccatorum." — Socin. Synop. Justificat. ii. p. 11.
" Justificatio nihil aliud est quam pro justo habere, itemque peccata remittere et con-
donare." — Ibid, pp. 13, 14. " Qusero primum quid sit Justificatio? R. Peccatorum
absolutio." — Anon, (ni fallor Ostorod.) Dialog, de Justificat. p. 2. "Hie tacite con-
tinetur ea sententia, quam nos supra ab initio attigimus, et non obscure refutavimus,
justificationem, videl. a justo faciendo dici, et a justitia ac sanctitate qua quis sit prae-
ditus; cum tamen certissimum sit, justificationem in sacris literis aliud nihil signi-
ficare quam justura pronuntiare sive ut justum tractare." — Faust. Socin. Notae in
Dialog, de Justificat. p. 60. " Sed manifestum est Paulum negare, non modo ex operi
bus legis, sed simpliciter ex operibus nos justificari; itaque alia ratione omnino est hie
nodus solvendus, et dicendum, Paulum operum nomine non quaelibet opera intelligere,
nee quolibet modo accepta, sed quae sua vi hominem justum coram Deo reddere possunt,
cum negat nos ex operibus justificari, qualis est absoluta et perpetua per totum vitaa
curriculum legis divinae observatio." — Faust. Socin. NotsB in Dialog, de Justificat. p.
74. " Formalis itaque (ut ita loquar) Justificatio nostra coram Deo fuit, et semper
erit, propter carnis nostrae infirmitatem, remissio peccatorum nostrorum, non autem
impletio divinse legis, quod Paulus operari vocat. Veruntamen nulli re ipsa conceditur
ista remissio, nisi Deo confisus fuerit, seque ipsi regendum et gubernandum tradiderit."
— Faust. Socin. Ep. ad Virum Clariss. de Fide et Operibus.

6. That the way whereby we come to obtain this absolution is this: Jesus
Christ, the only Son of God, being sent by him to reveal his love and grace to
lost, sinful mankind, in that work yielding obedience unto God even unto death,
was, for a reward of that obedience, exalted, and had divine authority over them
for whom he died committed to him to pardon and save them ; which accordingly
he doth, upon the performance of the condition of faith and obedience by him
prescribed to them, at once effecting a universal conditional application of all,
actually justifying every individual upon the performance of the condition.

" Ipsi Jesu, tantam in ccelo et terra, tanquam obedientiae scilicet usque ad mortem
crucis insigne prtemium, potestatem dedit, ut eis," etc. — Socin. Synop. Justificat. 3.
p. 4. " Interea tamen haudquaquam negamus, Christi mortem, conditionem quandam
fuisse remissionis peccatorum nobis concedendae; quatenus conditio fuit Christo im-
posita, sine qua potestatem obtinere ex Dei decreto non potuit, peccata nobis remittendi,
et nos ab seterno interitu vindicandi." — Crell. de Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 8. (" Paulus
ea a fide opera removet, quse perpetuam perfectissimamque, per omncm vitae cursum
obedientiam continent. Jacobus ergo ea intelligit." — Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. iv.
cap. iii. p. 180 ad 461.) Vide plura. " Quia nos Christus ab aeterna morte liberavit, et
ut nos liberare posset, mortuus est, jure dicitur eum pro nobis, et pro peccatis nostris
mortnum esse, et sanguinem ipsius nos emundare a peccatis : neque enim nos dicimus,
Christum ob hoc vel solum vel principale obedivisse, ut nos ad se imitandum extimu-
laret, sed constantissime afErmamus, ilium ideo patri suo obedientem, et pro nobia

600 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

mortuum fuisse, ut potestatem divinam, interveniente morte sua, consecutus, salutem
nostram administrare, et tandem reipsa perficere posset." — Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz.
disp. 4, p. 108. " Quamvis autem certissimum ac testatissimum sit, Jesum Christum
Dei Filium sanguinem suum in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum fudisse: tamen
ipsa mors Christi per se sine resurrectione," etc. — Socin. Thes. de Justificat. thes. 3;
Vid. Fragm. de Justificat. p. 115.

7. That as to good works, and their place in this business, Paul speaks of the
perfect works of the law and legal manner of justifying, which Isave no place for
grace or pardon ; James, of gospel works of new obedience, which leave place for
both.

" Sola fides Justificat, at non quatenus sola, prassertim si de plena et permanente
justificatione loquamur, quatenus quibusvis bonis operibus opponitur. Hoc est parti-
cula exclusiva sola, non quoevis opera, sed opera de quibus apostolus loquitur, opera
legis, opera plena, ob quse non secundum gratiam justificatio imputatur, sed secundum
debitum tribuitur, excludit. Non excludit autem ullo pacto opera ex fide provenientia,
cum Jacobus expertissime doceat, hominem justificari ex operibus, non ex fide tantuin."
— Schlichting. ad Meisner. Disput. pro Socin. pp. 290, 291. " in iis locis ubi apos
tolus fidem operibus opponit, da operibus ejusmodi agit, quae et perfectam et perpetuara
obedientiam continent, qualem sub lege Deus ab hominibus requirebat : verum non do
iis operibus, quae obedientiam, quam Deus a nobis qui in Christum credidimus, re-
quirat, comprehendunt." — Rac. Cat. cap. ix. de fide. " Hinc jam dernum intelligo
non bona opera, quae Deus ipse praeparavit, sed legis opera a justificatione nostra ex-
cludi." — Anon. Dialog, de Justificat. p. 47.

8. That the denial of our faith and obedience to be the condition of our justi
fication, or the asserting that we are justified by the obedience of Christ imputed
to us, ,is the ready way to overthrow all obedience, and drive all holiness and
righteousness out of the world.

" Quod Christus factus sit nobis a Deo justitia, 1 Cor. i. 30, id minime eo sensu dici,
quasi loco nostri legem impleverit, sic ut nobis deinceps ii.sius justitia imputetur," etc.
— Schlichting. ad Meisner. Disput. pro Socin. p. 277. "Tertius error est, Deum im-
putare credeutibus innocentiam et justitiam Christi. Non innocentiam, non justitiam
Christi Deus imputat credentibus, sed fidem illorum illis imputat pro justitia." — Smalc.
Refut. Thes. Franz, disp. 4, p. 104. " Alterum est extremum, quod vulgo receptum
est, non sine summa animarum pernicie; videlicet, ad justificntionem nostram nihil
prorsus bona opera pertinere, nisi quatenus suiit ipsius justifications efiecta. Ubi qui
ita sentiunt," etc. — Idem.

9. That, as the beginning, so the continuance of our justification depends on
the condition of our faith, repentance, and obedience, which are not fruits conse
quent of it, but conditions antecedent to it, Socin. Thes. de Justificat. p. IS;
Fragm. de Justificat. p. 113. And therefore, in the first place, we are to be soli
citous about what is within us, about our sanctifi cation, before our absolution or
justification, Socin. Ep. ad Ch. MN. de Fide et Operibus.

" Sic apparet tandem vestigationem nostram circa ea esse debere, qune in nobis in-
venieutur, cum justificati sumus. — Quocirca diligenter primum vestigare debemus an
revera res istae, sive utraque, sive una tantum, et utra (si modo res diversae sint) ad nos
justificandos pertineat, ac deinde quid sint, aut quales esse debeant, ne erremus, nobis-
que fortasse videamur illas habere, cum tamen longe ab eis absimus. Quod enim ad
misericordiam Dei attinet Christique personam, una cum iis omnibus, quae idem Chris
tus pro nobis fecit, et facturus est, quamvis hse sunt verae, et prsecipuaa causae justifi-
cationis nostrse, tamen aut jam illarum sumus, erimusve participes, antequam intra nos
certum aliquid sit, et sic supervacaneum est de illis cogitare, quatenus per eas justifi
cari velimus ; aut illarum, nee jam sumus, nee futuri erimus participes, nisi prius intra
nos certum aliquid sit, et sic de hoc accurate quaerere debemus. Id autem inveniemus
nihil praetur fidem et opera, esse." — Socin.

10. As to the death of Christ, our sins were the impulsive cause of it, and it
was undergone for the forgiveness of sins, and occasioned by them only, and is in
some sense the condition of our forgiveness.

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 601

" Cau?a impulsiva externa sunt peccata nostra, quod itidem aperte sacrco literto
decent, durn aiunt, Christum propter peccata nostra percussum, vulneratum, et tradi-
tum esse." — Crell. de Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 2. " Q. What was the procuring cause of
Christ's death? A, He was delivered for our offences." — Biddle's Cat. chap, xii p. 69.

Though some (not of them) say that his death was rather occasioned than
merited by sin ; as they speak sometimes, —

" Finis ideo mortis Christi, ut sacrae literse sat aperte decent, est remissio pecca-
torum nostrorum, et vitae nostrse emendatio, ad quorum finem priorem vel solum, vel
potissimum, illi loquendi modi referendi sunt ; cum dicitur Christum mortuum esse
pro peccatis nostris, seu pro nobis." — Crell. de Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 1.

11. That absolution and pardon of sin are by no means the immediate effects of
the death of Christ : —

" Cum sacrse Scripturae asserunt Christum aut pro peccatis nostris aut pro nobis
\ esse mortuum, aut sanguinem ejus esse effusam in remissionem peccatorum, et siqua
sint his similia, eorum verborum ea vis non est, ut signiticent omnino eifectum ilium
qui morti Christi in his locutionibus tribuitur, proximo fuisse ex ea consecutum." —
Crell. de Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 35.

And now let the Christian reader judge whether I had any just occasion for
the expressions above mentioned or no. If he be resolved that those words had
better been omitted, I shall only profess myself in a very great readiness to pass
by such mistakes in others, but leave myself to his censure.

And with this touch by the way am I (as far as I have observed) dismissed to
the eighth chapter, where all that I am concerned in will receive an equally
speedy despatch.

In the entrance of that chapter Mr B. lays down two propositions that he re
jects, and another that he intends to prove.

Those he rejects were before mentioned, and my concernment in them spoken to.

That which he proposes unto confirmation is: —

" The justification by faith, so called in the Scripture, is not the, knowledge or feel
ing of justification before given, or a justification in and by our own conscience, or
terminated in conscience, but is somewhat that goes before all such justification as this
is, and is, indeed, a justification before God."

There is but one expression in all this proposition that I am concerned in,
which the reader may easily discover to be plucked into the thesis by head and
ears ; and that is, " Terminated in conscience." What it is I intend by that ex
pression, or .what inconsistency it hath with that Mr B. asserts in pretended
opposition unto it, he doth not explain. Now, I say that in the sense wherein
I afnrm that justification is terminated in conscience, I may yet also affirm, and
that suitably to the utmost intention of mine in that expression, that "justification
by faith is not the knowledge or feeling of justification before given, or a justifica
tion in and by our own conscience, but somewhat that goes before all such justi
fication as this is, and is a justification before God." I am, then, utterly uncon
cerned in all Mr B.'s arguments ensuing, but only those that prove and evince
that our justification before God is not terminated in our consciences ; which
when I can find them out, I will do my endeavour to answer them, or renounce
my opinion. I find, indeed, in some of his following conclusions the words men
tioned ; but I suppose he thought not himself that they were any way influenced
from his premises. I know he will not ask what I mean then by "terminated in
conscience," seeing it would not be honourable for him to have answered a matter
before he understood it. But upon this expression chiefly is it that I am enrolled
into the troop of Antinomians.

• 'O %l ouv rau; I/spivs

602 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

But that is in the matter of laws; these are but words. Now, though I have
just cause to abstain from calling in associates in my judgment, lest I should
bring them under the suspicion of Antinomianism, though not of the ruder sort,
p. 190, or at least of laying the foundation of Antinomianism, which Mr Burgess,
after all his pains against them, is said to do (prsef.), — but the best is, that he does
it superficially and without proof (prsef.), — and although I cannot come up to
the judgment of the man whom I shall name, yet, seeing he is deservedly of good
esteem in the judgment of others, and particularly of Mr B., for his opposition
to the Antinomians, I will for once make use of his authority for my shield in
this business, and see if in this storm I can lie safe behind it. It is Mr Ruther
ford, who, in his learned exercitations, De Gratia, exercit. 1, cap. ii., tit., " Quo-
modo justificamur fide," having treated of the matter of justification, p. 44, thus
proceeds : —

" Dicent ergo Arminiani, nos hie justificationem sumere pro sensu et notitia justi-
ficationis : ideoque homines fide justificantur, idem valet, ac homines turn demum
justificantur quando credunt, hoc est, sentiunt se justificari, cum antea essent justifi-
cati. Nugae et tricse siculse ! nam justificari est plus quam sentire se justificari :
nam (1 .) est actus Dei absolventis terminatus in conscientia hominis, citati et tracti
ad tribunale tremendi judicis ; qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in con
scientia," etc.

Now, if this man be an Antinomian, I am sure he much mistakes himself;
and yet he says justification may be terminated in conscience, and yet not be
a sense of an antecedent justification, nor from eternity.

But how it may fare with him I cannot guess. Mr Pemble and Dr Twisse
(quanta nominal) are in the next page recounted as the assertors of the position
here opposed by Mr B. ; and indeed as to some part of it they are, but yet, if I
durst say it, they were not Antinomians : but Mr B. knows these things better
than I.

But what say I to the whole position ?

P. 190. — "One learned man" (so am I called, that the sacrifice may not fall without
some flowers on its head, which T professedly shake off, and dare not own my name
amongst them who are or ought to be so styled) " saith that ' absolution in heaven and

justification differ as part and whole, and that justification is terminated in conscience,'

and so makes a longer work of justification than they that say it is simul and semel, or
than I, whom Mr Cr. blames for it. — and so that whole, begun in eternal absolution, or
from Christ's death, and ended in conscience, should contain immanent and transient
acts together, and no small number of our own, as there described."

Ans. Though I do not perfectly understand the coherence of these words, yet
the intendment of them being more obvious (and being myself in great haste), I
shall not stay to make any farther inquiry thereabout.

What I mean by " absolution in heaven," the reader, if he please, may see, chap,
xii. pp. 75-78 [pp. 470, 471] of that treatise whence Mr B. urges these expres
sions. It is neither eternal absolution nor absolution from Christ's death (if
from denote a simulty of time, and not a connection in respect of causality, in
which sense Mr B. will not deny that absolution is from Christ's death), but an
absolution at the time of actual justification, when God gives Christ to us, and with
him all things, that I intend.

That by asserting this absolution in heaven and justification to differ as part and
whole, and justification to be terminated in conscience, I make longer work of it
than those who say it is simul and semel. is said. Simul and semel refer unto time ; I
expressly affirm, as Mr B. knows (or ought to have known), that there is in these
things an order of nature only. At the same time wherein God absolves us in
heaven, the term of the stipulation for our deliverance being accomplished, by
reckoning Christ to us, or in making him righteousness to us, he infuses a principle
of life into our souls, whereby radically and virtually the whole is accomplished.

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 603

That actual justification should contain permanent and transient acts 1 ogether,
and that it is so by me described, is affirmed by a failure of Mr B.'s memory.
Having made this entrance and progress, adding the judgment of some whom he
calls " most learned and judicious" (as he is " perspicax ingeniorum arbiter"), he
concludes his first section in these words: " So that howsoever some, by plausible
words, would put a better face on it, the sense of all seems to be the same, that
justification by faith is the revelation of God in and by the conscience that we are
formerly justified; and so their justification by faith is the same that we commonly
call the assurance or knowledge of our justification, in some degrees at least: I
prove the contrary." And so falls he into his arguments.

That this is my sense I profess I knew not before, and should be sorry I should
dwell so little at home that Mr B. should know me and my mind better than I do
myself. I look upon him as my friend, and, —

Ta rut <$\\av xaiy, au fj-'otot TO. %fvfe.K<rcc,
K«i you; at, xat ifpovriiriais xoivuvia.

But yet he may possibly be mistaken. For the present I will make bold to deny
this to be my sense, and refer the reader, for evidence to be given to my negation,
unto that chapter of my book whence Mr B. gathers my sense and meaning.
Let them, then, that are concerned look to his following arguments (especially those
two whom he affirms to have more wit than the rest, p. 204), and woe be to them
if they find as many distinct mediums as there are figures hung up as signs of new
arguments ! For my own part, whatever my thoughts are to the whole business
pleaded about, I shall not (be they as mean and base as can be imagined) cast them
away in such a scambling chase as this. Only, whereas (p. 205), speaking to
somebody (I know not whom) whom he acknowledges to have some learning and
wit, he says that " the act of the promise, law, or grant, constituting right,
giving title, remitting the obligation to punishment, in itself is totally distinct from
the act of declaring this to ourselves, which is said to be terminated in conscience,
and is before it, and may be without it," etc., I shall, if it please him, desire that
it may only, with a little alteration, be thus rendered, " The act of the promise "
(not that I approve that expression, but at present it will serve the turn) "giving
right, etc., is complete justification by faith, and is in itself totally distinct from,
and in order of time before, any act of God justifying terminated in our con
sciences," and proved with one clear testimony or argument speaking to the terms
and sense of the proposition, and I shall confess myself, as to what I have as yet
published of my judgment about this business, to be concerned in the discourse.
And so passing through the pikes of fifty-six arguments, I come to the ninth
chapter, where I am again called to an account. Three things doth Mr B. pro
pose to confirmation in this chapter : —

" 1. That the elect are not justified from eternity.
" 2. That they are not justified at Christ's death.
" 3. Not while they are infidels and impenitent."

Any man living would wonder how I should come to stand in his way in this
chapter : but strong currents sometimes pass their bounds in their courses, and
bear all before them. Real or reputed success gives great thoughts and pretexts

for any thinef. Ai yap tiix-pa^tai Sf/vai ffvyxfu-^/a.1 xcti ffuffxiiifat ra. <roiu.v<ra, ovs/Jjj, DemOSt.

Olynth. B. £'. In the very treatise which Mr B. considers in these imputations, I
have expressly denied (and in particular to Mr B.) that I maintain any one of these i
If he should send but his servant, and tell me that he is not to be found in such an
opinion, I would believe him. But " quid verba audiat facta cum videat ?" If
I do maintain them indeed, must I be believed upon my denial ? But " en tabulas !"
let my book traduced be consulted. I dispute as well as I can against justification
from eternity, and that I cannot do it like Mr B. is my unhappiness, not my crime.

604 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

I hope every one must not be sentenced to be of an opinion whiph he cannot con
fute so learnedly as another more learned man may. For justification at the
death of Christ (though I must assure the reader that I have other thoughts of
the great transaction of the business of our salvation in the person of our Repre
sentative than are consistent with Mr B.'s principles, or than I have yet published,
wherein I have the consent of persons as eminently insighted in the mystery of the
gospel as any I know in the world), I directly affirm, and endeavour to prove,
that the elect are not then actually justified, but, notwithstanding what is done
for them, until their own actual believing, they are obnoxious to the law, etc., as
at large chap. xii. p. 75 [p. 468] of that treatise, which includes the last particu
lar also.

But we must proceed, "non qua eundum est, sed quaitur." In the entrance of
his ninth chapter, Mr B. attempts to prove that the elect are not justified from
eternity, and concludes his discourse: —

" The words of one that writes this way are these : —

" ' Here two things may be observed : —

" ' 1. "What we ascribe to the merit of Christ, — namely, the accomplishment of the
condition which God required to make way that the obligation which he had freely
put upon himself might be in actual force. And so much (I leave to himself to consider
how rightly) doth Mr B. assign to our works, thes. 26.'

" And all know that a condition as such is no cause, but an antecedent or ' causa sine
qua non.' And is not the death of Christ here fairly advanced, and his merits well
vindicated! My constant affirmation was, and-«till is, that man's works are not in the
least degree truly and properly meritorious, and that they are such mere conditions of
our salvation (not of our first justification) as that they are no causes of any right
we have, no not to a bit of bread, much less to heaven. Do not these men well de
fend the honour of Christ's merits, then, if they give no more to them than I do to man's
works? that is, not to be the meritorious cause so much as of an hour's temporal
mercy ; that is, to be properly no merit at all. It seems to me, therefore, that they do,
by their doctrine of eternal justification or pardon, not only destroy justification by
faith, but also all the merits of Christ, and leave nothing for them to do for the causing
of our pardon or justification before God. Nay, whether this learned man can make
Christ's sufferings and obedience so much as a bare condition, let them consider that
read him, affirming that conditions properly must be uncertain, and nothing is so to
God, therefore there can be no condition with God, therefore Christ's death could be
no more."

'" En cor Zenodoti, en jecur Cratetis."

What is most admirable in this discourse I know not.

1. I am suggested to maintain ^justification from eternity;" I am "one that write
that way ;" I am " one that, by the doctrine of justification from eternity, overthrow
justification by faith and the merits of Christ." What I shall say more to this
business I know not ; the comedian tells me all that I can say is in vain : —

" Ne admittam culpam, ego meo sum promus pectori,
Suspicio est in pectore alieno sita.
Nam nunc ego te si surripuisse suspicer
Jovi coronam de capite e Capitolio,
Quod in culmine astat summo ; si non id feceris,
Atque id tamen mihi luheat suspicarier,
Qui tu id prohibere me poles ne suspicer?" — Plaut. Trin. I. 2. 44.

2. Methinks it had been equal that Mr B., who requires (Smus) that men judge
not any thing in his aphorisms but according as it is interpreted in this his con
fession, should have interpreted this passage of mine by the analogy of what I have
written in the same book about the death of Christ and merit thereof. He would
have found (and in these things doth my soul live) that all the mercy, grace, or
privileges whatever, of what sort soever, that in this life we are made partakers
of, all the glory, honour, and immortality that we are begotten anew to a hope of,
is by me everywhere ascribed to the death of Christ and the merit thereof, as

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 605

the sole causa irpoxaTitpxrixj of them all. The making out of this takes up the
greatest part of my writings and preaching. I can truly say that I desire to know
nothing but Christ and him crucified; and I shall labour to make the honour,
glory, exaltation, and triumph of the cross of Christ, the whole of my aim and
business in this world. May I be convinced of speaking, uttering, writing any
one word to the derogation of the honour, efficacy, power of the death and merits
of our dear Lord Jesus, I shall quickly lay my mouth in the dust, and give myself
to be trampled on by the feet of men ; which perhaps on other accounts I am only
meet for. It is only that Christ may have the pre-eminence in all things that I
will voluntarily contend with any living. That as a king, and priest, and prophet,
he may be only and all in his church, is the design of my contesting.

But is not this expression to the derogation of his merits ? I say, Tf it he, I
disavow it, condemn it, reject it. If the intendment of the expression be not that
the Lord Jesus Christ, by the performance of what was prescribed to him of his
Father, that he might save us to the utmost, according to the compact between
Father and Son, did merit, purchase, and procure for us, all the grace, mercy, sal
vation promised in the new covenant, I desire here to condemn it. But if that
be the sense of it (as the words immediately going before, with the whole tenor
of the discourse, do undeniably evince), I would desire Mr B. a little to reflect
upon his dealings with other men upon their pretended mistakes in representing
him and his judgment to the world. All the advantage that is given to this ha
rangue is from the ambiguity of the word " condition." It is evident that I take
it here, in a large sense, for the whole prescription of obedience unto the Lord Jesus,
whereupon the promise of all the good things that are the fruits of his death is
made to him ; which being grounded in voluntary compact, and laid thereby in due
proportion, gives rise to merit properly and strictly so called. If the reader desire
farther satisfaction herein, let him but read that very treatise which Mr B. excepts
against, where he will find abundantly enough for the clearing of my intendment;
or to him that loses his time in perusing this appendix, I shall recommend the fore
going treatise for the same purpose.

3. For what Mr B. ascribes to our works, I shall not, for my part, much trouble
myself whilst I live, being little or not at all concerned therein. He is not for me
to deal with.

Tinrti TOI xtfo; C'Spiv, orav xaxtu £}.5i>s 'ivyrai

'Avfpivvrca, xai area ftri v'oo; ciprias %. — Theogn.

If I dispute in print any more (as I hope I shall not), it shall be with them that,
understanding my meaning, will fairly, closely, and distinctly, debate the thing in
difference, and, not insisting on words and expressions to no purpose (especially if
their own haste allows them not oftentimes to speak congruously), shall press and
drive the things themselves to their issue.

"Dabitur ignis tamen etsi ab inimicis petam."

Mr B. proceeds, in his second section, to prove that all the elect are not justified
at the death of Christ. In this passage, one expression of mine about the sense of
Rom. iv. 5 is taken notice of; but that relates to a business of a greater import
ance than to be now mentioned. Something Mr B. discourses about the state and
condition of the elect in reference to the death of Christ, some texts to that pur
pose he considers, but so jejunely, so much below the majesty of the mystery of
grace in this particular, that I shall not make his discourse an occasion of what
may be offered on that account. Something I have spoken in the former treatise
concerning the transaction of the compact and agreement that was between the
Father and Son about the salvation of the elect ; of their interest and concern
ment therein, with the state of his body, of those that were given him on that
account, God assisting, hereafter.

But, p. 228, from words of mine, which from several places of my trealise are

GOG OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

put together, he makes sundry inferences, and opposes to them all two conclusions
of his own, p. 229.

" This man," says he, " seems to judge that the name of complete justification is proper
to that in conscience, and not to be given to any before. He seems also to judge that
justification hath degrees and parts at many hundred or thousand years' distance one
from another, or else absolution at least hath, -which we have hitherto taken for the
same thing with justification ; for he calls that in conscience complete justification.
So, saith he, absolution in heaven and justification differ as part and whole."

So he.

"Egregie cordatushomo Catus Eliu' Sextus ! "

It seems Mr B. knows not what my judgment is, by his repeating that " it
seems this is his judgment." He might have stayed from his confutation of it until
he had known it ; it is not for his honour that he hath done otherwise.

I deny that it is my judgment that the name of complete justification is proper
to that in conscience; nor do I know of any proper or complete justification in
conscience. I only said, complete justification is terminated in conscience. If Mr
B. know not what I mean thereby, let him stay a little and I shall explain myself.

It is most false that I judge justification to have degrees and parts at a hundred
or thousand years' distance ; unless under the name of justification you comprise all
the causes and effects of it, and then it reaches from everlasting to everlasting.

That absolution in heaven (as I call it) is before our actual believing in order of
time, I have nowhere said, but only in order of nature ; and that Mr B. hath not
disproved.

What Mr B. thinks of absolution and justification to be the same is no rule to
us; when he proves it, so it is. But to what I and others have said Mr B.
opposes two conclusions, p. 229, whereof the first is, —

"1. "We did neither really nor in God's account die with Christ when he died, nor
in him satisfy God's justice, nor fulfil the law."

The second, —

" 2. Though Christ was given for the elect more than for others, yet is he no more
given to them than to others before they are born, or before they have faith."

" The first of these," he saith (he means the first of them before mentioned, which
the first of these is set down in opposition unto), "is of so great moment, and is the
heart and root of so many errors, yea, of the whole body of Antinomianism, that I
had rather write as great a volume as this," etc.

What it is that I intended by dying with Christ, Mr B. does not know, nor guess
near the matter. The consideration of God's giving the elect to Christ, of his
constitution to be a common person, a mediator and surety, of the whole compact
or covenant between Father and Son, of his absolution as a common person, of
the sealing, confirmation, and establishment, of the covenant of grace by his
death, of the economy of the Holy Spirit founded therein, of the whole grant made
upon his ascension, must precede the full and clear interpretation of that expres
sion. For the present it may suffice, I have not said that we did satisfy God's
justice in him, or satisfy the law in him, so that we should be (personally con
sidered) the principals of the satisfaction or obedience, nor that we so died in him
as to be justified or absolved actually upon his death before we were born. So that
I shall not be concerned at all if Mr B.'s thoughts should incline him to write a
volume as big as this about his confession, which is no small content to me.

For the second, " That Christ was given to the elect more than for others," I say
not. because I say that he was not given as a mediator, price, and ransom for any
others at all. When the demonstrations that " Christ died for all," which Mr B.
hath some while talked of, are published, I may perhaps find cause (if I see them)
to change my mind ; but as yet I do not suppose that I shall so do. That he is

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 607

given to any before they are born I have not said, though they are given to him
before they are born, or that he is given to them in order of time before they do
believe; — but this I say, that faith and forgiveness of sin are given them for his sake;
which when Mr B. disproves, or pretends so to do, I shall farther consider it, as
being a matter of importance. With his strife of words (if I can choose) I shall
no more trouble myself.

This process being made, sect. 3, Mr B. lays down the conclusion as con
trary to them before, which, as he informs me, are maintained by myself and
others: —

" No man now living was justified, pardoned, or absolved actually from the guilt of
sin and obligation to death, at the time of Christ's death or undertaking, or from,
eternity, or at any time before he was born, or did believe."

After I know not how many arguments brought forth to confirm this position,
my arguments against it are produced and answered ; but what the learned man
means I profess I know not, unless " disputandi prurigine abreptus," he cares not
what he says, nor against whom, so he may multiply arguments and answers, and
put forth books one upon another. In that very book of mine which he animad
verts upon, I use sundry of those very arguments which here he useth, to prove the
same assertion, for the substance of it, as Mr B. hath here laid down; and
this I had assured him as to a former mistake of his. My words are, p, 33
[p. 449] :—

" As for evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is completely justified, that it
should precede believing, I have not only not asserted but positively denied, and dis
proved by many arguments. To be now traduced as a patron of that opinion, and my
reasons for it publicly answered, seems to me something uncouth."

Farther now to acquit myself from that which nothing but self-fulness, osci-
tancy, and contempt of others, can possibly administer any suspicion of, I shall not
turn aside.

Yea, but I have said that " the elect, upon the death of Christ, have a right to
all the fruit of the death of Christ, to be enjoyed in the appointed season." Because
this is made the occasion of so many outcries of Antinomianism. and I know not
what, I shall direct the reader to what I have affirmed in this case, and leave it
with some brief observations to his judgment, having somewhat else to do than to
engage myself in a long wordy contest with Mr B., who, knowing not of any
difference between himself and me, would very fain make one ; wherein he may
possibly find his labour prevented hereafter, and a real difference stated between
us, if any of his rare notions fall in my way.

The discourse is, p. 69 line 23, unto p. 72 line 24 [462-468].

The sum of all is this : Upon the death of Christ, that is, on the consideration
of the death of Christ, upon his undertaking (for surely I suppose it will be
granted that his death was no less effectual upon his undertaking to them who died
before his incarnation than afterward upon his actual accomplishment of that
undertaking) to be a mediator and redeemer, it becomes just, right, and equal,
that all the good things which are the fruits of his death should be in a due and
appointed season made out to them for whom he died in their several genera
tions.

What says Mr B. to this? "Suppose this be so, yet they are not actually
absolved, but only have a right to it." Who said they were? Do I offer to make
any such conclusion? do I dispute against Mr B.'s position, or for justifica
tion upon or at the death of Christ, or his undertaking? "Homini homo quid
interest ? "

But I say, there being such a right to these good things, they have a right to
them. "Crimen inauditum Caie Caesar!" Did I not also say how I understood

608 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

that expression? Though I used it to make out the thing I intended yet did I not
say directly that that right was not subjectively in them;-that is, that it was not
actionable, as I expressed it, that they could not plead it ; but it was as above? ea,
« but then this is no more but non injustum est." This is false, as I have showed.
Many divines think that this was the estate between God and sinners antecedently
to the consideration of the death of Christ, or might have been without it, namely
that it was not unjust with God to pardon and save them. By the death of Christ
there is a jus of another nature obtained, even such as I have described m the
treatise Mr B. opposeth. But then « God doth not give those good things to us
upon condition." I say he doth not, taking condition in its strict and proper sense
in respect of God, though he hath made one thing to be the condition of another
All -races are alike absolutely purchased for us, but not alike absolutely received
bv us; the economy of the gospel requires another order. The first grace, Mr
B confesseth, is bestowed upon us absolutely and without condition; and this
grace is the condition of the following privileges, as to the order of commun
Lion And all the difference between us is about the sense of the word condi
tion " 'in that place ; which, when I have nothing else to do, I will write a voh

^Thists that I say Christ hath purchased all good things form; these things
are actually to be conferred upon us in the time and order by God's sovereign will
determined and disposed. This order, as revealed in the gospel, is, that we believe
and be justified, etc. Faith, whereby we believe, is bestowed on us absolutely,
always without condition, sometimes without outward means. This faith by t
constitution of God, is attended with the privileges contended about ; which are
no less purchased for us by Christ than faith itself. Yea, the purchase of our
justification or acceptation with God is, in order of nature, antecedent in consider
Ition to the purchase of faith for us. If Mr B. hath a mind o oppose any
thing of this (which is all that as yet to this busmess I have declared), kt
do if when he pleaseth; and if it be tantidem, as he speaketh, I shall give him
a farther account of my thoughts about it. But he would know what I mean by
« Christ's undertaking for the elect." Let him consider what I have delivered abou
the covenant between the Father and Son in this business, and he will know at
least what I intend thereby. He will see how Christ, being then only God, did
undertake the business to do, it, not as God only; and withal the w^eness o that
exception, that the prophecy of Isaiah was written a long time after, and could
not give any such right as is pretended. A right is given there m respect of
^station, not constitution. Isaiah in that prophecy speaks of tilings to come
as past, verses 5, 6, and of things past and present as to come ;
constitutes a covenant. But he saith, we use to distmguish between the unde -
taking and accomplishment. Divines use to say that upon man s fall Christ unde,
took satisfaction, but it was in the fulness of time that he accomplished it How
therefore, he accomplished it in the undertaking I do not well see
he did perfectly accomplish what he undertook I easily grant. But how you
learned divines distinguish I know not. This I know, that such poor men as myself
do believe that, as to the efficacy of satisfaction and merit, Cl
was attended with no less than his actual accomplishment of what he und
Tr we know not how to grant salvation to the saints under he old testament.
It was concerning their efficacy as to merit, not their distinction between them-

^ThestthingrbSng premised, Mr B. proceeds to answer my arguments, which
were produced to prove that upon the death of Christ there was a right obtained
for the elect to all the benefits of his death, this right residing in the justi,
God, or in the equalling of these things by divine constitution (as I fully declarec
in the place by Mr B. opposed). Upon the interposing of some express! >ns, m

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 609

process of my discourse, of the grant being made to the elect, and mentioning
of their right (which in what sense they were to be taken I expressly declared),
Mr B. takes advantage to answer them all with this intendment put upon them,
that they aimed to prove a subjective personal right, which at any time they may
plead, when the utmost that my words can be extended unto is, that they have
it ex faedere, not realiter, for the subject of it I place elsewhere. Now, if Mr
B. will send me word that he supposes he hath answered my arguments as they
were proposed to my own purpose, I will promise, if I live, to return him an
answer. In the meantime, I shall have no itch to be scribbling to no purpose.
" Ego me, tua causa, ne erres, non rupturus sum." Yet of the whole he may for
the present be pleased to receive the ensuing account, both as to the nature of
a, jus and its application.

For the description of jus, Mr B. relies on Grotius; and something also he
mentions out of Sayrus. Grotius, in the first chapter of his book " De Jure
Belli et Pacis," in the sections transcribed (in part) by Mr B. and some others,
expresses, in his way, the distinction given at the beginning both of the Institu
tions and Digests about jus, and those also which they handle under the head " de
statu." So do all men commonly that write of that subject. How exactly this is done
by Grotius, those who are learned in the law will judge. For my part, I am so far
at liberty as not to be concluded by his bare affirmation either as to law or gospel.
Yet neither doth he exclude the right by me intended. He tells us, indeed, that
facultas, which the lawyers call sui, is that which properly and strictly he intends
to call jus. But the other member of the distinction he terms aptitudo; which
though in a natural sense it respects the subject immediately, yet he tells you that
in the sense of Michael Ephesius, which he contradicts not, it is but <r» *pir<>»,
" id quod convenit," which respects only the order of things among themselves.
And though out of Aristotle he calls it also «£<«, yet that word (as he also after
ward expounds it out of Cicero) is of much a lower signification than many ima
gine. This TO ief>.<je<>i is that which I assert; and Sayrus' definition of jus ad rem
may also be allowed.

But for others, jus artificially is ars boni et cequi, Ponz. de Lamb's, num. 14, torn,
xi. Jus Gregor. p. 2, and D. D., cap. i. Celsus; though some dispute against this
definition, as Conanus, Comment. Jur. Civil, lib. i. cap. i. That which is cequum
is the subject of it. So the comedian, " Quid cum illis agas, qui neque jus, neque
bonum, neque asquum sciunt," Terent. Heauton. iv. 1, 29; — all terms equipollent.
And in this sense, one that is not born may have a jus, if it be in a thing that is
profitable to him : " Quod dicimus eum qui nasci speratur pro superstite esse, tune
verum est, cum de ipsius jure quaeritur, alias non prodest, nisi natus sit," Paulus de
Verbor. Significat.; which one interpretation will overbear, with me, a hundred mo
dern exceptioners, if they should deny that a man may be said to have a right unless
he himself be the immediate subject of the right, as if it were a natural accident
inherent to him. So is it in the case proposed by Cicero in secundo [libro] de In-
ventione, 42 : " Pater-familias cum liberorum nihil haberet, uxorem autem haberet,
in testamento ita scripsit, ' Si mihi filius genitus fuerit unus, pluresve, is mihi
haeres esto.' " The father dies before the son is born ; a right accrues to him that
is not born. Such a right, I say, there is, although this right is not immediately
actionable. Gaius tells us that " actio est prosecutio juris sui." This jus suum
is that which Grotius calls facultas, and is jus proprie et stricte dictum. And
this jus suum I did not intend in that I said it was not actionable : and there
fore, whereas Conanus says that " nullum est jus, cui non sit aut a natura, aut
a lege data quaedam obligatio, tanquam comes et adjutrix,v Comment. Jur. Civil,
lib. ii. cap. i., which obligation is the foundation of action, it is evident that he
intends jus proprie et stricte dictum ; for Gaius distinguished between jus utendi,
fruendi, andjusobligationis,!). lib. i. 1, 8, which he could not do if all and every

VOL. xii. 39

610 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

right had an obligation attending it. And such is that right whereof we speak.
Ifany one thinks to plead it, he will be like him whom the lawyers call " agentem
sine actione," of whom they dispute " an liceat ei experiri," and whether his
plea be to be admitted ; concerning which the variety of cases and opinions are
repeated by Menochius de Arbit. Judic. lib. i. qu. 16, 2.

And such a jus as this ariseth "ex contractibus innominatis :" for as "jus ex
innominate contractu oritur, quum ex parte debentis, implere id quod convenerat,
impletum est," Ludovic. Roman. Consul. Ixxxvi. p. 23 ; so " ex contractu inno
minate, non transeunt actiones sine mandate," as Bartholus tells us : for though
the covenant between Father and Son, whence this right, ariseth, be not in itself
of the nature of a " contractus innominatus, do ut des," yet to them it is of that
import. Hence the Socinians, who are skilled in the law, though they wholly
suspend the actual obtaining of remission of sins upon the fulfilling of the condi
tions required, do yet grant that a plenary jus or right of obtaining forgiveness
of sins was given to all in the death of Christ : " Jam vero quidnam mediator
foederis, ab una paciscentium parte legatus, et ipsius sponsor constitutes, ac quod-
dam veluti testamentum ejus nomine constituens, qua talis est, aliud prsestat,
quam ut jus alteri parti, et jus quidem plenum largiatur, ad fcederis hujus, aut
testamenti promissa consequenda; obstringit nimirum atque obligat promissorem
qui ipsum obligaverat ad servanda foederum promissa, eaque rata prorsus ha-
benda," Crell. de Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 9. So, in the common speech of the
ancients, Budseus tells us that "bonum jus dicere" is as much as that which is
now vulgarly expressed, " requesta tua rationabilis est." If there be an equity
in the thing, there is a jus belonging to the person. Any thing that made it
equitable that a man should be regarded, they ealled his jus ; whence is his
complaint in Plautus, finding himself every way unworthy : " Sine modo et mo-
destia sum, sine bono jure atque honore :" Bachid. and Paulus, in lib. iii. ff. de
servitut. urb. praed., "Nejus sit vicino invitis nobis altius sedificare." It were
very facile, both from lawyers and most approved authors, to multiply instances
of this large acceptation of the word jus, or right. And whether the grant
of the Father and purchase of the Mediator, before mentioned, be not sufficient
to constitute or denominate such a jus or right in them for whom and whose
profit and benefit the grant is made, I question not. Again, consider that of
Paulus, lib. xi. ad Edict. D.D. de verb, signif. tit. 16 : " Princeps bona con-
cedendo, videtur etiam obligationem concedere ;" which adds a propriety to the
"jus," as was showed before. Yet that it should be presently actionable doth
not follow : " Actio est jus persequendi in judicio, quod sibi debetur," Institut.
lib. iv. de action. Every "jus ad rem" is not "jus persequendi in judicio;"
whence is the gloss of Aldobrandinus on that place : " Nee facias magnam
vim ibi ; quia cum multas habeat significations hsec dictio jus, ut ff. de inst.
et jus 1 : p. et, si, hoc est unum de significatis ejus, ut dicatur jus agendi vel per
sequendi." Besides, it must be quod sibi debetur, that is, actionable, the obliga
tion whence that debitum arises being, as the lawyers speak, mater actionis. But
yet even " debere " itself is of so large and various signification in the law, both
in respect to things and persons, as will not admit of any determinate sense
unless otherwise restrained, ff. de verb. s;gnif. b. pecunise, sect. 8, si. Yea,
and on the other side, sometimes a plea may lie where there is no debitum :
" Quandoque ago etiam ad id quod inihi non debetur; R. de pact. 1, si pacto
quo posnam ; nam ibi non ago ad id quod est debitum, sed ad id quod ex nudo
pacto convenit: " that Mr B. may know what to do with his schemes of actions,
produced on the account of my assertions.

This for the word and my use of it. I hope, in the things of God, about words
I shall not much contend. I had rather, indeed, insist on the propriety of words
in the originals, their use in the law and amongst men, so all be regulated by the

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 61 1

analogy of faith, than square the things of God to the terms and rules of art
and philosophy; to which, without doubt, they will not answer. Let any man
living express any doctrine of the gospel whatever in the exactest manner, with
artificial, philosophical terms, and I will undertake to show that in many things the
truth is wrested and fettered thereby, and will not bear an exact correspondence
with them ; yet hence are many of our learned strifes, which as they have little of
learning in them, so for my part I value them not at a nut-shell, properly so called.
This being premised, his answers to my arguments may very briefly be con
sidered.

My first argument is, It isjustum that they should have the fruits of the death
of Christ bestowed on them, therefore they have jits unto them; for "jus est quod
justum est."

T. Mr B. denies the consequence, and says though it be justum, yet they may
not be subjects of this jus. To this I have answered by showing what is jus in
general, and what is their jus, and where fixed.

2. He questions the antecedent ; for the confirmation whereof, and its vindica
tion from his exceptions, I refer the reader to what I had written of the covenant
between the Father and the Son some good while before I saw Mr B.'s animad
versions, or [knew] that they were public.

My second is, That which is procured for any one, thereunto he hath a right ;
the thing that is obtained is granted by him of whom it is obtained, and that to
them for whom it is obtained. To this it is answered, —

1. In the margin, " That I should make great changes in England if I could
make all the lawyers believe this strange doctrine." But of what the lawyers be
lieve or do not believe Mr B. is no competent judge. — be it spoken without dis
paragement,— for the law is not his study. I, who, perhaps, have much less skill
than himself, will be bound at any time to. give him twenty cases out of the civil
and canon law to make good this assertion ; which if he knows not that it may be
done, he ought not to speak with such confidence of these things. Nav, amongst
pur own lawyers (whom perhaps he intends), I am sure he may be informed that
if a man intercede with another to settle his land by conveyance to a third person,
giving him that conveyance to keep in trust until the time come that he should
by the intention of the conveyer enjoy the land, though he for whom it is granted
have not the least knowledge of it, yet he hath such a right unto the land thereby
created as cannot be disannulled. But, —

2. He says, " That the fruits of the death of Christ are procured for us finaliter,
not subjective"

Ans. They are procured for us objective, are granted " ex adaequatione rerum,"
and may make us subjects of the right, though not of the things themselves which
it regards ; may, I say, though I do not say it doth. The following similitudes of
my horse and a king have no correspondency with this business at all. Of the right
of horses there is nothing in the law ; in the latter, there is nothing omitted in the
comparison but merit and purchase, which is all.

Thirdly, All the fruits of the death oi Christ are obtained and procured by his
merit for them for whom he died.

Mr B. :—

" 1. Not all, not the same measure of sanctification for one as for another; not
faith for all for whom he died as for his elect.

" 2. He procured it for us as the finis cut, not subjects of the present right."

Ans. 1. The substance of the fruits of the death of Christ and the ultimate
end belong to his purchase ; the measure and degrees of them to the Father's
sovereign disposal, ad ornatum universi.

2. It is most false that Christ did not purchase faith for all for whom he died.

612 OF THE DEATH OF CHKIST,

3. What our right is hath been before delivered; therm's cut and subject of a
present right are not very accurately opposed.

4. The nature of merit infers an attendant right, Rom. iv. 4.
Mr B. :—

" If this be your debt, you may say, ' Lord, I have merited salvation in Christ, there
fore it is mine of debt.' Christ hath of debt the right to pardon you; you have no
debt," etc.

Ans. Very good, but I use no forms of prayer of other men's composing. Who
said it was our debt f who says our right is actionable ? The whole here intended
is, that Christ meriting pardon of sins for the elect, it is just they should obtain it
in the appointed season. Such another prayer as that here mentioned doth Mr B.
afterward compose, in a suitableness, as he supposes, to my principles ; but what
may he not do or say !

Fourthly, He for whom a ransom is paid hath a right to his liberty by virtue of
that payment.

Mr B. :—

" All unproved, and by me unbelieved. If you pay a sum to the Turk for a thousand
slaves, thereby buying them absolutely into your own power, I do not believe that they
have any more right to freedom than they had before. If a prince pay a ransom for
gome traitors to the king his father, thereby purchasing to himself a dominion or a
propriety over them, so that they are absolutely his, yet I think it gives them no more
right than they had before."

Ans. 1. I suppose it is not yet determined that this business is to be regulated
absolutely according to what Mr B. thinks or believes; for I must needs say that
whether he believes it or no, I am still of the same mind that I was.

He for whom a ransom is paid hath a right to a deliverance, as to him to whom
the ransom was paid. If Mr B. believe not this, let him consult the civil lawyers,
with whom he is so conversant, tit. de pact.

2. I say that the law of redemption requires that the redeemed be at the dis
posal of the redeemer, where he hath no pleasure postiliminii; and it is most certain
that Christ hath a dominion over his elect (for a " propriety over them" I understand
not) ; yet that dominion is the proximate end of the death of Christ, under the
jiotion of a ransom, price, or purchase (which yet are of various considerations
also), is the *fSr»t Biotas of this discourse.

Having given this specimen of Mr B.'s answers to my instances, as an addition
to the former explication given of my judgment in this business, I shall not farther
trouble the reader with the consideration of what of that same kind ensues.

To tell the whole truth, I expressed the effects of the death of Christ in the
manner above mentioned, to obviate that stating of his satisfaction and the use of
it which I had observed to be insisted on by the Remonstrants in their Apology,
and in other writings of theirs, but especially by Episcopius. For some time I
met not with any great opposition made to the expressions of their imaginations
in this business, but only what was briefly remarked by the Leyden professors in
their " Specimina." Of late I find Voetius reckoning it among the principal con
troversies that we hare with the enemies of the cross of Christ. I shall set down
his words about it, and leave them to the consideration of them who may think
themselves concerned in them.

His words hi his disputation " de Merito Christi," anno 1650, are: —

" Secunda controversia capitalis quae Christianismo cum quibusdam heterodoxis
(Eemonstrantibus scilicet in Belgio, viris, si non Socinianae, saltern dubiae theologiae)
intercedit, est de merito Christi pro nobis, hoc est, vice et loco nostro, et sic in bonum
nostrum actualiter praestito, seu de satisfactione plena ac proprie dicta a Christo spon-
sore, loco nostro justitiae divinae prsestita : illi satisfactionem et meritum sic accipiunt
quasi nihil aliud sit, quam partis offensse talis plaeatio qua ofienso hactenus satisfit, ut

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 613

in gratiam redire velit cum eo qui offendit, et per quam Christua Deo Patri jus et
voluntatem acquisiverit novum fcedus ineundi cum hominibus."

So he. The expression of our dying with Christ is fallen upon again, p. 226;
of which he desires leave to speak as confidently as myself. Truly, I thought he
had not been to ask leave for that now. But why may he not use it without leave
as well as others ? Some perhaps will say, " Mira edepol sunt, ni hie in ventrem
sumpsit confidential^" to consider what he hath written already. But with this
leave he falls a conjecturing at what I mean by that expression, to no purpose at
all, as may be seen by what I have delivered concerning it. The like I may say,
by the way, to the passage mentioned of the right which ariseth from the decree of
God. It seems to me that what God hath decreed to do for any, that is or may
be a real privilege to him, it is jus, ex justitia condecentice, that in the appointed
season he should receive it. If Mr B. be otherwise minded I cannot help it ;
" habeo aliquid magis ex memet et majus," than that I should attend to the dis
putes thereabout; nor will I stand in his way if I can choose, for he seems to cry,
"Ad terram dabo et dentilegos omnes mortales faciam quemque offendero," Plaut.
cap. iv. 1, 29.

After this I find not myself particularly smitten, until he comes, at the close of
the chapter, to talk of idem and tantidem, unless it be in his passage, p. 274.
That which makes me suspect that I am there intended is his former imputation
of some such thing unto me, namely, that I should say that the deputation of
Christ in our stead is an act of pardon. But I suppose that I have so fully satis
fied him as to that surmise, by showing that not only my sense, but my expres
sions were, not that the deputation of Christ was our pardon, but that the freedom
of pardon did in part depend thereon, that I will not take myself in this place to
be concerned, because I cannot do it and prevent the returnal of a charge of some
negligence on this person, whose writings seem sufficiently to free him from all
just suspicion thereof. In the close of this discourse (with the method of a new
line) Mr B. falls upon the consideration of the payment made by Christ in our
stead, or the penalty that he underwent for us, and pleads that it was not the
idem that was due to us, but tantundem. Although some say this difference is
not tantidem, as some speak, it seems "yet he is resolved of the contrary, and that
this one assertion is the bottom of all Antinomianism. Seeing I profess myself to
be contrary minded, I suppose it will be expected that I should consider what is
here to the purpose in hand insisted on by Mr B. What I intend by paying the
idem, or rather undergoing the idem, that we should have done, I have so fully
elsewhere expressed that I shall not stay the reader with the repetition of it. But,
says Mr B., this subverts the substance of religion: ibw 'Pfioi, /Saw #&>ifi». Novf
you shall have the proofs of it. Saith he, —

" The idem is the perfect obedience or the full punishment of the man himself, and
in case of personal disobedience, it is personal punishment that the law requires, — that
is, supplicium ipsius delinquentis."

Ans. But the idem that we should pay or undergo is perfect obedience to the
law, and proportionable punishment, by God's constitution, for disobedience. This
Christ paid and underwent. That the man himself should undergo it is the law
originally, but the undergoing or doing of it by another is the undergoing of the
idem, I think. It is personal punishment that the law originally requires ; but he
that undergoes the punishment (though he be not personally disobedient) which
the law judgeth to him that was personally disobedient, undergoes the idem that
the law requires.

The idem is supplicium delinquenti debitum by whomsoever it be undergone,
not supplicium ipsius delinquentis only. He proceeds : —

" The law never threatened a surety, nor granted any liberty of substitution ;
that was an act of God above the law: therefore Christ did not undergo the idem."

614 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST,

I deny the consequence; nor is the least shadow of proof made of it. The
question is not whether Christ be the sinner, but whether he underwent that which
was due to the sinner. He adds: —

" If, therefore, the thing due was paid, it was we ourselves morally or legally that
suffered."

I know not well what is meant by " morally ; " but, however, I deny the conse
quence. The thing itself was paid by another for us, and the punishment itself was
undergone by another in our stead.

That which follows falls with that which went before, being built thereon: —

"It could not be ourselves legally," saith he, "because it was not ourselves naturally."

Though for the security of the hypothesis opposed there is no need of it, yet I
deny this proposition also, if taken universally. A man may be accounted to do a
thing legally by a sponsor, though he do it not in his own person. But he says, —

" If it had been ourselves legally, the strictest justice could not have denied us a
present deliverance, ' ipso facto,' seeing no justice can demand any more than the 'idem
quod debitur'" (as Mr B.'s printer speaks.)

But, — 1. It is supposed that all legal performance of any thing by any one must
be done in his own person.

2. It supposes that there is such an end as deliverance assigned, or assignable,
to the offender's own undergoing of the penalty, which is false.

3. The reasons and righteousness of our actual deliverance, at the time and in
the manner prescribed by God (and, as to the latter, revealed in the gospel), upon
Christ's performance of personal obedience and undergoing the penalty due to us
in our stead, which are founded in the economy of the Trinity, voluntarily engaged
into for the accomplishing the salvation of the elect, I have elsewhere touched on,
and may, if I find it necessary, hereafter handle at large.

That which is feared in this business is, that if the idem be paid, then, ac
cording to the law, the obligation is dissolved and present deliverance follows.
But if by "the law" be meant the civil law, whence these terms are borrowed, it is
most certain that any thing, instead of that which is in the obligation, doth, ac
cording to the rules of the law, dissolve the obligation, and that whether it be paid
by the principal debtor or delinquent, or any for him. The beginning of that sec
tion, " Quibus modis tollitur obligatio," lib. iii. Instit.,will evince this sufficiently.
The title of the section is, —

" Si solvitur ID quod debctur, vel ALIUD loco illius, consentiente creditore, omnis
tollitur obligatio, turn rei principals, quam fide-jussoris."

The words of the law itself are more full : —

" Tollitur autem omnis obligatio solutione EJUS quod debetur ; vel siquis consenti
ente creditore ALICD pro ALIO solverit ; nee interest quis solvent, utrum IPSE qui debet,
an AUDS pro eo : liberatur enim et alio solvente, sive sciente, sive ignorante debitore, vel
invito, ea solutio fiat. Si fide-jussor solverit, non enim ipse solus liberatur, sed reus."

So that there is no difference in the law whether " solutio" be " ejusdem" or
" tantidem ;" and this is the case in the things that are " ex maleficio, aut quasi,"
as may be seen at large in the commentators on that place.

To caution all men against the poison of Antinomian doctrines, now so strenu
ously opposed by MrB., and to deliver students from the unhappy model of theo
logy which the men of the preceding contests have entangled themselves and
others withal, Mr B. seriously advises them to keep in their minds and " carefully
to distinguish between the will of God's purpose and his precepts or law," his de
termining and commanding will, in the first place; the ignorance whereof, it seems,
confounded the theology of Dr Twisse, Pemble, and others.

Nextly, that " they would carefully distinguish between the covenant between
the Father and the Son about the work of his mediation, and the covenant of
grace and mercy confirmed to the elect in his blood."

AND OF JUSTIFICATION. 615

Now, if these two distinctions, as carefully heeded and as warily observed as we
are able, will prove such an antidote against the infection, for my part in all pro
bability I shall be secure, having owned them ever since I learned my catechism.

Ka/ <rav-/z ft\v ori Ttturcc.

And so am I dismissed. This may perhaps be the close of this controversy ; if
otherwise, I am indifferent. On the one side it will be so. I delight not in these
troubled waters. If I must engage again in the like kind, I shall pray that He
from whom are all my supplies would give me a real humble frame of heart, that
I may have no need, with many pretences and a multitude of good words, to make
a cloak for a spirit breaking frequently through all with sad discoveries of pride
and passion, and to keep me from all magisterial insolence, pharisaical, supercilious
self-conceitedness, contempt of others, and every thing that is contrary to the rule
whereby I ought to walk.

If men be in haste to oppose what I have delivered about this business, let them
(if they please, I have no authority to prescribe them their way) speak directly to
the purpose, and oppose that which is affirmed, and answer my reasons in reference
to that end only for which by me they are produced and insisted on.

Because I see some men have a desire to be dealing with me, and yet know not
well what to fix upon, that I may deliver them from the vanity of contending with
their own surmises, and, if it he possible, prevail with them to speak closely, clearly,
and distinctly, to the matter of their contests, and not mix heterogeneous things in
the same discourse, I will briefly shrive myself, for their satisfaction.

First, then, I do not believe that any man is actually justified from eternity,
because of that of the apostle, Rom. viii. 28-30. But yet what is the state of things
in reference to the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, engaged in from
eternity for the salvation of sinners, with that fountain union that is between
Christ and his body in their predestination, I shall desire a little more time to de
liver myself unto.

Secondly, I do believe that there was a covenant, compact, or agreement, between
Father and Son for the salvation of the elect by his mediation ; which, upon sin's
entering into the world, had an efficacy and effect of the very same nature with
that which it hath when he hath actually accomplished what was on his part re
quired for the end proposed to hhn, and that therefore in the Old Testament his
death is spoken of sometimes as past, Isa. liii. 4-6 ; and that to make this cove
nant in its constitution to be contemporary to its revelation, or the promises of it
to be then made to Christ when the church is acquainted that those promises are
made, is a wide mistake.

But under what consideration the elect lie unto God upon the transaction of
this original covenant with the Mediator, I desire liberty for a while, as above.

Thirdly, I do not believe that the elect that live after the death of Christ are all
actually in their own persons justified and absolved at his death, because the
wrath of God abides on men that believe not, John iii. 36 ; but yet what to the
advantage of the church is inwrapped in the discharge of their great Representa
tive, who died in their stead (for that I believe also, and not only " for their good"),
I desire respite for my thoughts, as formerly.

Fourthly, I do believe that Christ underwent the very same punishment for us,
for the nature and kind of it, which we were obnoxious unto, and should have
undergone had not he undertaken for us, and paid the idem that we should have
done, 2 Cor. v. 21, Gal. iii. 13.

Fifthly, I believe that upon the death of Christ, considering what hath been said
before concerning the compact or agreement between God and the Mediator about
that matter, it became just and righteous, with reference to God's justice, as
supreme governor and moderator of the creatures and all their concernments,
that those for whom he died should all be made partakers of all the good things

616 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST AND OF JUSTIFICATION.

•which Christ by his death procured for them, in the season appointed by the
sovereign will of God; but that this right, though indissoluble, is so actually
vested in them as to be actionable in the gospel without faith, I believe not.

Sixthly, 1 believe that all spiritual blessings, mercies, privileges whatever, are
fruits of the dmth of Christ, and that, notwithstanding the order wherein they
stand one to another, they all depend immediately on its causality, though " re-
Spectu termini" they have not a natural immediation.

Seventhly, I profess that we are absolved, pardoned, and justified, for Christ's
sake, and therefore that Christ is reckoned to us, or made righteousness to us, in
order of nature antecedently to all those things which for his sake we do receive,
and are made partakers of with and by him, etc.

. For a close of all, I must profess that I will not contend with any man who
discovers in himself such a resolution 9»<w S/apt/Xarrt/v, that if he be pressed, rather
than let it go, he will go backward, and attempt **/v»j<ra xmTv, and to question
common received principles, knowing the multitude of errors and abominations
that the church of God hath been pestered withal by men of this principle and
practice. Hence are the beginnings of men modest, but their endings desperate;
hence is Arminianism ended in Episcopianism, and Arianism in Socinianism, and
in many, Socinianism in Mohammedanism and atheism. If I find this resolution
and spirit in any man, he shall rather enjoy his own present conceits than by me
be precipitated into worse abominations. Nor shall I (the Lord assisting) be un
mindful of that of the apostle, 1 Tim. vi. 3-5, Ef ns iriptd^arxa^iT, xal p.* vpoirip-

%irai vyiKivaufi X«yo/j rei; rov xuplau fif&uv 'Ijjjrou Xpifrou, xaJ rn XO.T tv<ri£ua.ii ^iSafxa^ia,
rtrvQurai, ftnfiiv IfiffK/Aivef, aXXa inircai #tpi ^nrnftts xai Xaya/ta^/aj, \\ ut yivtrai tyQ'ovos,
tfif, $')MffQt>it,itt,i, vvfoveta,! vfottipai, vntpei&mrfiGai, etc. ', as also that of the same apostle,
Tit. iii. 9, Mupus Si £*i<riia>i<f , »«u yinaXeyiet;, xai ipiij, x«J ft»%*s inft,^a,( <ripit<rTa,tri>- iiiri
ya.p uvaQiXiTs xcCi param. If I must contend with any, as I am resolved for the
matter vparipav TJJV aXfl'luan, so for the manner of handling it, it shall not be my
endeavour to cloud and darken things easy, trite, common in themselves, with new,
dark, artificial expressions, but rather to give plainness and perspicuity to things
hard and difficult, confirming them with the authority of Scripture, opened by the
import of the words insisted on and design of the Holy Ghost in their contexture.
Nor will I contend with any whose motto is that of him in Plautus, " Dicat quod
quisque vult, ego de hac sententia non dimovebor," or that hath thoughts of his
own notions like those of him in Nsevius, who cried out, " Primum quod dicebo
recte, secundum quod dicebo eo melius." And as my aim is to know Christ and
him crucified ; to exalt him, and ascribe to him the pre-eminence in all things ; to
discover the whole of our salvation, and glory of God thereby, centred in his
person and mediation, with its emanation from thence, through the efficacy of the
eternal Spirit; and all our obedience to receive life, power, and vigour from thence
only, knowing that it is the obedience of faith, and hath its foundation in blood
and water : so I equally abhor all doctrines that would take self out of the dust,
make something of that which is worse than nothing, and spin out matter for a
web of peace and consolation from our own bowels, by resolving our acceptation
with God into any thing in ourselves ; and those that by any means would in
tercept the efficacy of the death and cross of Christ from its work of perpetual
and constant mortification in the hearts of believers, or cut off any obligation unto
obedience or holiness that by the discovery of the will of God, either in the law
or gospel, is put upon the redeemed ones of the Lord.

tat S» papas xut dxctibiv<rws fyvnffHS xtcpairou, tia&{ »<ri ywufi (tei%*ft 2 Tim. ii. 23.

A REVIEW

THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS

IH KEKKRENCE UNTO THE

DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY AND SATISFACTION OF CHRIST

A DEFENCE OF THE CHARGE FOUMERLT LAID AGAINST THEM.

PREFATORY NOTE.

HENRT HAMMOND, the chaplain of Charles I., and the sub-dean of Christ Church, Ox
ford, from which office he was expelled by the Parliamentary visitors in 1648, was a
divine of eminent learning, and, besides other works, was the author of " Annotations
on Scripture," which still deserve to be consulted, although disfigured by his habit of
explaining much in the New Testament by reference to the Gnostic heresy. He was
the opponent of Owen on several questions, relating to the nature of church-govern
ment, the authority of the Ignatian Epistles, and the orthodoxy of Hugo Grotius.

In 1617 Grotius published a refutation of the errors of Faustus Socinus, entitled,
" A Defence of the Catholic Faith concerning the Satisfaction of Christ." Though
opposed to the Socinians, the work was not deemed in perfect harmony with orthodox
sentiment. Ravensperger in consequence assailed him, in a work entitled, " Judicium
de Libro Grotii," etc. G. J. Vossius came to his defence in the following year. On
the part of the Socinians, Crellius replied to Grotius. A complimentary letter from
the latter to his opponent confirmed the suspicions entertained of his own orthodoxy.
Crellius was answered by Essenius, Velthuysenius, and Stillingfleet.

Owen, in the preface to his treatise on the ''• Perseverance of the Saints," had alluded
to Dr Hammond as indebted to Grotius " for more than one rare notion" in his expo
sitions of Scripture. An elaborate reply to the whole argument of Dr Owen against
the Ignatian Epistles, contained in the same preface, appeared in 1655 from the pen of
Hammond, and under the title, " An Answer to the Animadversions on the Disserta
tions concerning the Epistles of Ignatius." In the course of it, a digression was intro
duced vindicating Grotius from charges which Owen certainly had not mooted, but in
which, to a certain extent, he could not refrain from concurring. These charges
were, that towards the close of his life the learned Dutchman had veered towards
Socinianism, and had become favourable to the interests of the church of Rome. In
regard to the charge of Socinian leanings, it was founded partly on his letter to
Crellius, partly on certain expressions which fell from him on his death-bed, and
partly on his Scholia on the Bible. Two volumes of these Scholia appeared in 1641
and 1644, before the death of Grotius; and two, one including the Acts and the
Epistles of Paul and James, and the other including the six Catholic Epistles and the
Revelation, were published posthumously in 1646 and 1650. These Scholia contain
expositions of Scripture which differ considerably from what Grotius had given in his
work " De Satisfactione Christi." Hammond argues that his letter to Crellius was but
an interchange of civilities, in which he was not called to discuss the points of contro
versy between them ; gives a different version of his death-bed utterances ; and maintains
that the posthumous Scholia, because contrary to the opinions which he avowed in his
lifetime, were notes taken by Grotius in the course of his reading, and by no means
to be regarded as expressing his own views. Owen, in his " Vindicias Evangelicae,"
proceeded to trace the perfect correspondence between Grotius and the Socinians, in
their exegesis of those passages in Scripture which relate to the person of Christ.
Hammond issued his " Second Defence of Grotius." Owen answered him in the fol
lowing treatise ; and was answered by his indefatigable adversary in " A Continuation
of the Defence of Grotius." If the position of Owen had been that Grotius was in
reality a Socinian, he would have been worsted in this collision with Hammond; but
he guards himself against being supposed to assume it, making express admission that
Grotius allowed one text to be proof of the Saviour's Godhead. That Grotius played
into the hands of the enemy, by the surrender of almost every other scriptural fortress
in defence of this cardinal doctrine, and spoke of it in terms which betokened no very
cordial appreciation of its importance, is what Owen asserted, and what cannot be
disproved, except by the most worthless special pleading. Hammond could only make
out his case for Grotius by denying all authority to his posthumous Annotations,
"which," says he, "I deem not competent measures to judge him by." — ED.

A SECOND CONS1DEKATION

OF

THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

HAVING, in my late defence of the doctrine of the gospel from the
corruptions of the Socinians, been occasioned to vindicate the testi
monies given in the Scripture to the deity of Christ from their ex
ceptions, and rinding that Hugo Grotius, in his Annotations, had
(for the most part) done the same things with them as to that par
ticular, and some other important articles of the Christian faith, that
book of his being more frequent in the hands of students than those
of the Socinians, I thought it incumbent on me to do the same work
in reference to those Annotations which it was my design to perform
towards the writings of Socinus, Smalcius, and their companions
and followers. What I have been enabled to accomplish by that
endeavour, with what service to the gospel hath been performed
thereby, is left to the judgment of them who desire dXrjdtveiv h
dydirri. Of my dealing with Grotius I gave a brief account in my
epistle to the governors of the university, and that with reference to
an apology made for him not long before. This hath obtained a new
apology, under the name of "A Second Defence of Hugo Grotius;"
with what little advantage either to the repute of Grotius as to the
thing in question or of the apologist himself, it is judged necessary
to give the ensuing account, for which I took the first leisure hour
I could obtain, having things of greater weight daily incumbent on
me. The only thing of importance by me charged on those Anno
tations of Grotius was this, — that the texts of Scripture, both in the
Old Testament and New, bearing witness to the deity and satisfac
tion of Christ, are in them wrested to other senses and significations,
and the testimonies given to those grand truths thereby eluded.
.Of those of the first kind I excepted one, yet with some doubt, lest
his expressions therein ought to be interpreted according to the ana
logy of what he had elsewhere delivered ; of which afterward.

Because that which concerns THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST will
admit of the easiest despatch, though taking up most room, I shall
in the first place insist thereon. The words of my charge on the

620 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

Annotations, as to this head of the doctrine of the Scripture, are
these : " The condition of these famous Annotations as to the satis
faction of Christ is the same; — not one text in the whole Scripture
wherein testimony is given to that sacred truth which is not wrested
to another sense, or at least the doctrine in it concealed and ob
scured by them."

This being a matter of fact, and the words containing a crime
charged on the Annotations, he that will make a defence of them
must either disprove the assertion by instances to the contrary, or
else, granting the matter of fact, evince it to be no crime. That
which is objected in matter of fact " aut negandum est aut defen-
dendum," says Quintilian, lib. v. cap. de Refut., and " extra hasc in
judiciis fere nihil est/' In other cases, " patronus neget, defendat,
transferat, excuset, deprecetur, molliat, minuat, avertat, despiciat,
derideat;" but in matters of fact the first two only have place.
Aristotle allows more particulars for an apologist to divert unto, if
the matter require it. He may say of what is objected, "H u$ ovx
fffTiv, 5j, us ou jSXa&pov, q oy rovrif), 55 ug oi rTjX/xoDYo, 5j ovx cidixov, 3j oy
/Azya, '/) ci-jx aJff^pov, 55 oix s%ov fis'/t6og (Rhet. lib. iii. cap. xv.) ; all
which, in a plain matter of fact, may be reduced to the former heads.
That any other apology can or ought to take place in this or any
matter of the same importance will not easily be proved. The pre
sent apologist takes another course ; such ordinary paths are not for
him to walk in. He tells us of the excellent book that Grotius
wrote, " De Satisfactione Christi," and the exposition of sundry places
of Scripture, especially of divers verses of Isa, liii. given therein, and
then adds sundry inducements to persuade us that he was of the same
mind in his "Annotations;" and this is called a defence of Grotius!
The apologist, I suppose, knows full well what texts of Scripture
they are that are constantly pleaded for the satisfaction of Christ by
them who do believe that doctrine. I shall also for once take it for
granted that he might without much difficulty have obtained a sight
of Grotius' Annotations; to which I shall only add, that probably,
if he could from them have disproved the assertion before men
tioned by any considerable instances, he is not so tender of the pre-
facer's credit as to have concealed it on any such account. But the
severals of his plea for the Annotations in this particular, I am per
suaded, are accounted by some worthy of consideration. A brief view
of them will suffice.

The signal place of Isa, liii., he tells us, " he hath heard taken
notice of by some" (I thought it had been probable the apologist
might have taken notice of it himself), as that wherein his Annotations
are most suspected, therefore on that he will fasten a while. Who
would not now expect that the apologist should have entered upon
the consideration of those Annotations, and vindicated them from

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 621

the imputations insinuated? but he knew a better way of procedure,
and who shall prescribe to him what suits his purpose and proposal?

This, I say, is the instance chosen to be insisted on; and the vin
dication of the Annotations therein by the interpretation given in
their author's book, De Satisfactione Christi, is proposed to con
sideration. That others, if not the apologist himself, may take notice
of the emptiness of such precipitate apologies as are ready to be
tumbled out without due digestion or consideration, I shall not
only compare the Annotations and that book as to the particular
place proposed, and manifest the inconsistency of the one with the
other, but also, to discover the extreme negligence and confidence
which lie at the bottom of his following attempt to induce a per
suasion that the judgment of the man of whom we speak was not
altered (that is, as to the interpretation of the scriptures relating to
the satisfaction of Christ), nor is other [i. e.. different] in his Anno
tations than in that book, I shall compare the one with the other
by sundry other instances, and let the world see how, in the most
important places contested about, he hath utterly deserted the inter
pretations given of them by himself in his book De Satisfactione,
and directly taken up that which he did oppose.

The apologist binds me, in the first place, to that of Isa. liii., wkich
is ushered in by 1 Pet. ii. 24.

" From 1 Pet ii. 24," says the apologist, " Grotius informs us 'that
Christ so bare our sins that he freed us from them, so that we are
healed by his stripes/ "

This, thus crudely proposed, — Socinus himself would grant it, —
is little more than barely repeating the words. Grotius goes farther,
and contends that dvqvtyxtv, the word there used by the apostle, is
to be interpreted " tulit sursum eundo, portavit ;" and tells us that
Socinus would render this word " abstulit," and so take away the
force of the argument from this place. To disprove that insinuation,
he urges sundry other places in the New Testament where some
words of the same importance are used and are no way capable of
such a signification. And whereas Socinus urges to the contrary
Heb. ix. 28, where he says avwyxsT* upapriaf signifies nothing but
" auferre peccata," Grotius disproves that instance, and manifests
that in that place also it is to be rendered by " tulit/' and so relates
to the death of Christ.

That we may put this instance, given us by the apologist to vindi
cate the Annotations from the crime charged on them, to an issue, I
shall give the reader the words of his Annotations on that place.
They are as follow: —

'O; rag apapriKf f)ftuv alrog d^vsyxev, etc. " 'A^syxen hie est
alstulit, quod sequentia ostendunt, quomodo idem verbum sumi
notavimus, Heb. ix. 28, eodem sensu; uipti ctpupriav, Johan. i 29;

622 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

et K-! et ^D, Esa. liii. 4, ubi Grseci pepti. Vitia nostra ita inter-
fecit, sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent. Simile loquendi
genus, Col. ii. 14; vide Rom. vi. 6, GaL ii. 20, v. 24. Est autem hie
fASTd'kq-^is. Non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia
nostra abstulit, sed causas dedit per quas auferrentur. Nam crux
Christi fundamentum est prsedicationis; prsedicatio vero poenitentise :
pcenitentia vero aufert vitia."

How well the annotator abides here by his former interpretation
of this place the apologist may easily discover. 1. There he contends
that dvqviyxs is as much as " tulit " or " sursum tulit," and objects
out of Socinus that it must be " abstulit," which quite alters the
sense of the testimony ; here he contends, with him, that it must be
" abstulit." 2. There, Heb. ix. 28 is of the same importance with
this 1 Pet. ii. 24, as there interpreted; here, "as here," — that is in a
quite contrary sense, altogether inconsistent with the other. 3. For
company, ??D, used Isa. liii. 4, is called into the same signification,
which in the book De Satisfactione he contends is never used in
that sense, and that most truly. 4. Upon this exposition of the
words he gives the very sense contended for by the Socinians : " Non
enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia nostra abstulit, sed
causas dedit per quas auferrentur." What are these causes ? He
adds them immediately : " Nam crux Christi fundamentum est prse
dicationis; prsedicatio vero pcenitentiae : pcenitentia vero aufert vitia."
He that sees not the whole Socinian poison wrapped up and pro
posed in this interpretation is ignorant of the state of the difference
as to that head between them and Christians. 5. To make it a little
more evident how constant the annotator was to his first principles,
which he insisted on in the management of his disputes with Socinus
about the sense of this place, I shall add the words of Socinus him-
' self, which then he did oppose : — " Verum animadvertere oportet
primum in Grseco, verbum, quod interpretes verterunt pertulit, est
dvwyxtiv, quod non pertulit sed abstulit vertendum erat, non secus
ac factum fuerit in epistola ad Hebrseos, cap. ix. 28, ubi idem legendi
modus habetur, unde constat dweyxtTv apaprias non perferre peccata,
sed peccata tollere, sive auferre, significare," Socin. de Jes. Christ.
Serv. lib. ii. cap. vl

What difference there is between the design of the annotator and
that of Socinus, what compliance in the quotation of the parallel
place of the Hebrews, what direct opposition and head is made in
the Annotations against that book De Satisfactione, and how clearly
the cause contended for in the one is given away in the other, need
no farther to be demonstrated. But if this instance make not good
the apologist's assertion, it may be supposed that that which follows,
which is ushered in by this, will do it to the purpose. Let, then,
that come into consideration.

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

This is that of Isa. liii. Somewhat of the sense which Grotius in
his book De Satisfactione contends for in this place is given us by
the apologist : —

The llth verse of the chapter, which he first considers (in my
book, p. 14), he thus proposes and expounds: — " Justificabit servus
meus, Justus multos et iniquitates ipsorum bajulabit, in Heb. est,
&D? Kin Dnirijn . yox autem |ty iniquitatem significat, atque etiam
iniquitatis pcenam, 2 Reg. vii. 9; vox autem ^ est sustinere, baju-
lare, quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniqui
tatis, id in omni lingua et maxime in Hebraismo significat poanas
ferre;" with much more to this purpose. The whole design of the
main dispute in that place is from that discourse of the prophet to
prove that Jesus Christ " properly underwent the punishment due
to our sins, and thereby made satisfaction to God for them."

To manifest his constancy to this doctrine, in his Annotations he
gives such an exposition of that whole chapter of Isaiah as is mani
festly and universally inconsistent with any such design in the words
as that which he intends to prove from them in his book De Satis
factione. In particular (to give one instance of this assertion) he
contends here that '3D is as much as " bajulare, portare," and that
joined with " iniquity " (in all languages, especially in the Hebrew),
that phrase of " bearing iniquity" signifies to undergo the punish
ment due to it. In his Annotations on the place, as also in those
on 1 Pet. ii. 24, he tells you the word signifies " auferre/' which
with all his strength he had contended against. Not to draw out
this particular instance into any greater length, I make bold to tell
the apologist (what I suppose he knows not) that there is no one
verse of the whole chapter so interpreted in his Annotations as that
the sense given by him is consistent with, nay, is not repugnant
to, that which from the same verse he pleads for in his book De
Satisfactione Christi. If, notwithstanding this information, the apo
logist be not satisfied, let him, if he please, consider what I have
already animadverted on those Annotations, and undertake their
vindication. These loose discourses are not at all to the purpose in
hand nor to the question between us, which is solely whether Grotius,
in his Annotations, have not perverted the sense of those texts of
Scripture which are commonly and most righteously pleaded as testi
monies given to the satisfaction of Christ. But as to this particular
place of Isaiah, the apologist hath a farther plea, the sum whereof
(not to trouble the reader with the repetition of a discourse so little
to the purpose) comes to this head, that Grotius, in his book De
Satisfactione Christi, gives the mystical sense of the chapter, under
which consideration it belongs to Christ and his sufferings ; in his
Annotations, the literal, which had its immediate completion in
Jeremiah ; which was not so easily discoverable or vulgarly taken

624 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

notice of. This is the sum of his first observation on this place, to
acquit the annotator of the crime charged upon him. Whether he
approve the application of the prophecy to Jeremiah or no, I know
not. He says, " Grotius so conceived." The design of the discourse
seems to give approbation to that conception. How the literal sense
of a place should come to be less easily discovered than the mystical,
well I know not. Nor shall I speak of the thing itself, concerning
the literal and mystical sense supposed to be in the same place and
words of Scripture, with the application of the distinction to those
prophecies which have a double accomplishment, in the type and
thing or person typified (which yet hath no soundness in it) : but, to
keep to the matter now in hand, I shall make bold, for the removal
of this engine applied by the apologist, and for the preventing all
possible mistake or controversy about the annotator's after-change
in this matter, to tell him that the perverting of the first, literal sense
of the chapter, or giving it a completion in any person whatsoever,
in a first, second, or third sense, but the Son of God himself, is no
less than blasphemy ; which the annotator is no otherwise freed from
but by his conceiving a sense to be in the words contrary to their
literal importance, and utterly exclusive of the concernment of Jesus
Christ in them. If the apologist be otherwise minded, I shall not
invite him again to the consideration of what I have already written
in the vindication of the whole prophecy from the wretched, corrupt
interpretation of the annotator (not hoping that he will be able to
break through that discouragement he hath from looking into that
treatise by the prospect he hath taken of the whole by the epistle),
but do express my earnest desire, that, by an exposition of the
severals of that chapter, and their application to any other (not by
loose discourses foreign to the question in hand), he would endeavour
to evince the contrary. If, on second thoughts, he find either his
judgment or ability not ready or competent for such an attempt, I
heartily wish he would be careful hereafter of ingenerating appre
hensions of that nature in the minds of others by any such discourses
as this.

I cannot but suppose that I am already absolved from a necessity
of any farther procedure as to the justifying of my charge against the
Annotations, having sufficiently foiled the instance produced by the
apologist for the weakening of it. But yet, lest any should think
that the present issue of this debate is built upon some unhappiness
of the apologist in the choice of the particulars insisted on, which
might have been prevented, or may yet be removed, by the produc
tion of other instances, I shall, for their farther satisfaction, present
them with sundry other the most important testimonies given to the
satisfaction of Christ, wherein the annotator hath openly prevari
cated, and doth embrace and propose those very interpretations and

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 625

that very sense which in his book De Satisfactions Christi he had
strenuously opposed.

Page 8 of his book De Satisfactione, he pleads the satisfaction
of Christ from Gal. ii. 21, laying weight on this, that the word
dupidv signifies the want of an antecedent cause, on the supposition
there made. In his Annotations he deserts this assertion, and takes
up the sense of the place given by Socinus, De Servatore, lib. ii.
cap. xxiv. His departure into the tents of Socinus on Gal. iii. 13 is
much more pernicious. Pages 25-27, urging that place and vindicat
ing it from the exceptions of Socinus, he concludes that the apostle
said Christ was made a curse : " Quasi dixerit Christum factum esse
r$ QstZ smxardparov, hoc est pcense a Deo irrogatae, et quidem igno-
miniosissimse obnoxium." To make good this, in his Annotations he
thus expounds the words : "Duplex hie figura; nam et xardpa, pro
xardparog, quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis, et subauditur us:
nam Christus ita cruciatus est, quasi esset Deo xardparof. Nihil
homini pessimo in hac vita pejus evenire poterat;" which is the very
interpretation of the words given by Socinus which he opposed, and
the same that Crellius insists upon in his vindication of Socinus
against him. So uniform was the judgment of the annotator with
that of the author of the book De Satisfactione Christi !

Pages 32, 33, etc., are spent in the exposition and vindication of
Rom. iii. 25, 26. That expression, sis sv8ei%iv rrjs Sixaioevvris UVTOV, mani
festing the end of the suffering of Christ, is by him chiefly insisted
on. That by 8ixaioevvr) is there intended that justice of God whereby
he punisheth sin, he contends and proves from the nature of the
thing itself, and by comparing the expression with other parallel texts
of Scripture. Socinus had interpreted this of the righteousness of
Christ's, fidelity and veracity, De Servatore, lib. ii. cap. ii. (" Ut os-
tenderet se veracem et fidelem esse"); but Crellius, in his vindica
tion of him, places it rather on the goodness and liberality of God,
" which is," saith he, " the righteousness there intended." To make
good his ground, the annotator thus expounds the meaning of the
words: " Vocem Sixaioevvw malim hie de bonitate interpretari, quam
de fide in promissis prcestandis, quia quse sequuntur non ad Judseos
solos pertinent, sed etiam ad gentes, quibus promissio nulla facta
erat." He rather, he tells you, embraces the interpretation of Crel
lius than of Socinus; but for that which himself had contended
for, it is quite shut out of doors, as I have elsewhere manifested at
large.

The same course he takes with Rom. v. 10, which he insists on
p. 26, and 2 Cor. v. 18-21; concerning which he openly deserts his
own former interpretation, and closes expressly with that which he
had opposed, as he doth in reference to all other places where any
mention is made of reconciliation, the substance of his annotations

VOL. XIL 40

626

on those places seeming to be taken out of Socinus, Crellius, and
some others of that party.

That signal place of Heb. ii. 17 in this kind deserves particularly
to be taken notice of. Cap. vii. p. 141, of his book De Satisfactione,
he pleads the sense of that expression, E!g rb iXdaxsadat ra$ a^apriag
row XaoS, to be 'IXdffxtaSai Qilv vspi ruv apapnuv, and adds, " Significat
ergo ibi expiationem quse fit placando." But Crellius' defence of
Socinus had so possessed the man's mind before he came to write
his Annotations, that on that place he gives us directly his sense,
and almost his words, in a full opposition to what he had before
asserted: " 'IXdsxstfdai apaprias. Hoc quidem loco, ut ex sequentibus
apparet, est auferre peccata, sive purgare a peccato, id est, efiicere
ne peccetur, vires suppeditando pro modo tentationum." So the an-
notator on that place, endeavouring farther to prove his interpreta
tion! From Rom. iv. 25, cap. i. p. 47 of his book De Satisfactione,
he clearly proves the satisfaction of Christ, and evinces that to be
the sense of that expression, "Traditus propter peccata nostra;" which
he thus comments on in his Annotations: " Poterat dicere qui et mor-
tuus est et resurrexit ut nos a peccatis justificaret, id est, liberaret.
Sed amans dvrifara morti conjunxit peccata, qua3 sunt mors animi,
resurrectioni autem adeptionem justitics, quse est animi resuscitatio.
Mire nos et a peccatis retrahit et ad justitiam ducit, quod videmus
Christum mortem non fonnidasse pro doctrinaa suse peccatis contrarise
et ad justitiam nos vocantis testimonio; et a Deo suscitatum, ut eidem
doctrinse summa conciliaretur auctoritas." He that sees not, not
only that he directly closes in with what before he had opposed, but
also that he hath here couched the whole doctrine of the Socinians
about the mediation of Christ and our justification thereby, is utterly
ignorant of the state of the controversy between them and Christians.

I suppose it will not be thought necessary for me to proceed with
the comparison instituted. The several books are in the hands of
most students, and that the case is generally the same in the other
places pleaded for the satisfaction of Christ, they may easily satisfy
themselves. Only, because the apologist seems to put some differ
ence between his Annotations on the Revelation, as having " re
ceived their lineaments and colours from his own pencil," and those
on the Epistles, which he had not so completed; as I have already
manifested that in his annotations on that book he hath treacher
ously tampered with and corrupted the testimonies given to the deity
of our blessed Saviour, so shall I give one instance from them also
of his dealing no less unworthily with those that concern his satis
faction,

Socinus, in his second book against Covet, second part, and chap,
xvii., gives us this account of these words of the Holy Ghost, Rev. i. 5,
"Who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood:" " Jo-

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 627

hannes in Apocalyp. cap. i. 5, alia metaphora seu translatione (quse
nihil aliud est quam compendiosa qusedam comparatio) utens, dixit
de Christo et ejus morte, 'Qui dilexit nos et lavit nos a peccatis in
sanguine suo/ nam quemadmodum aqua abluuntur sordes corporis,
sic sanguine Christi peccata, quse sordes animi sunt, absterguntur.
Absterguntur, inquam, quia animus noster ab ipsis mundatur," etc.
This interpretation is opposed and exploded by Grotius, De Satis-
factione, cap. x. p. 208, 209 ; the substance of it being that Christ
washed us from our sins by his death, in that he confirmed his doc
trine of repentance and newness of life thereby, by which we are
turned from our sins, as he manifests in the close of his discourse.
" Hoc ssepius urgendum est," saith Socinus, " Jesum Christum ea
ratione peccata nostra abstulisse, quod effecerit, ut a peccando desis-
tamus." This interpretation of Socinus being re-enforced by Crel-
lius, the place falls again under the consideration of Grotius in those
Annotations on the Revelation; which, as the apologist tells us,
" received their very lineaments and colours from his own pencil."
There, then, he gives us this account thereof: " Ka/ XosJtfam ^5,$ dvb
run apapnuv qftuv iv r$ aipan aurou. Sanguine SUO, id est, morte
tolerata, certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quaa docuerat, quee talia
sunt, ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos a vitiis animos. Humidae
naturae, sub qua est et sanguis, proprium est lavare. Id vero per egre-
giam aXXjjyof/aK ad animam transfertur. Dicitur autem Christus
suo sanguine nos lavasse, quia et ipse omnia praestitit quae ad id re-
quirebantur et apparet secutum in plurimis effectum." I desire the
apologist to tell me what he thinks of this piece, thus perfected, with
all its lineaments and colours, by the pencil of that skilful man, and
what beautiful aspect he supposeth it to have. Let the reader, to
prevent farther trouble in perusing transcriptions of this kind, con
sider Rev. xiii. 8, p. 114; Heb. ix. 25 to the end, which he calls " an
illustrious place/' in the same page and forward; 1 John ii. 2, p. 140;
Rom. v. 10, 11, p. 142, 143; Eph. ii. 16, p. 148, 149; Col. i. 20-22,
Tit. ii. 14, p. 156; Heb. ix. 14, 15, p. 157, 158; Acts xx. 28, and many
others, and compare them with the annotations on those places, and
he will be farther enabled to judge of the defence made of the one
by the instance of the other. I shall only desire that he who under
takes to give his judgment of this whole matter be somewhat ac
quainted with the state of the difference about this point of the
doctrine of the gospel between the Socinians and us; that he do not
take " auferre peccata" to be " ferre peccata;" "nostri causa" to be
"nostra vice" and " nostro loco;" causa Kpoyyov/tevri to be Kpoxarapx-
nx.fi; " liberatio a jugo peccati" to be "redemptio a reatu peccati;"
" subire pcenas simpliciter" to be "subire pcenas nobis debitas;" to
be Xvrpov," and B^'K, in respect of the event, to be so as to the pro
per nature of the thing; " offerre seipsum in coelo," to be as much as

628 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

" offerre seipsum in cruce," as to the work itself ; that so he be not
mistaken to think that when the first are granted the latter are so
also. For a close of the discourse relating to this head, a brief ac
count may be added why I said not positively that he had wrested
all the places of Scripture giving testimony to the satisfaction of
Christ to another sense, but that he had either done so or else con
cealed or obscured that sense in them.

Though I might give instances from one or two places in his
Annotations on the Gospels giving occasion to this assertion, yet I
shall insist only on some taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews,
where is the great and eminent seat of the doctrine of Christ's satis
faction. Although in his annotations on that epistle he doth openly
corrupt the most clear testimonies given to this truth, yet there are
some passages in them wherein he seems to dissent from the So-
cinians. In his annotations on chap. v. 5 he hath these words:
" Jesus sacerdotale quidem munus suum aliquo modo erat auspica-
tus; cum semet patri victimam offerret." That Christ was a priest
when he was on the earth was wholly denied by Socinus, both in
his book De Servatore, and in his epistle to Niemojevius, as I
have showed -elsewhere. Smalcius seems to be of the same judg
ment in the Racovian Catechism. Grotius says, " Sacerdotale munus
erat aliquo modo auspicatus;" yet herein he goes not beyond Crel-
lius, who tells us, "Mortem Christus subiit duplici ratione, partim
quidem ut fcederis mediator seu sponsor, partim quidem ut sacerdos
Deo ipsum oblaturus," De Caus. Mort. Christi, p. 6. And so Vol-
kelius fully to the same purpose. "Partes," saith he, "muneris
sacerdotis, ha3C sunt potissimum ; mactatio victims, in tabernaculum
ad oblationem peragendam ingressio, et ex eodem egressio : ac mac
tatio quidem mortem Christi, violentam sanguinis profusionem con-
tinet," De Relig. lib. iii. cap. xlvii. p. 145. And again : " Hinc colligi-
tur solam Christi mortem nequaquam illam perfectam absolutamque
ipsius oblationem (de qua in Epistola ad Hebraos agitur) fuisse, sed
principium et prseparationem quandain ipsius sacerdotii in ccelo de-
mum administrandi extitisse," ibid. So that nothing is obtained by
Grotius' "Munus sacerdotale ah" quo modo erat auspicatus," but what
is granted by Crellius and Volkelius. But in the next words, "Cum
semet offerret patri victimam," he seems to leave them : but he seems
only so to do; for Volkelius acknowledgeth that he did slay the
sacrifice in his death, though that was not his complete and perfect
oblation, which is also afterward affirmed by Grotius, and Crellius
expressly affirms the same. Nor doth he seem to intend a proper
expiatory and satisfactory sacrifice in that expression ; for if he had,
he would not have been guilty of such an dxupoXoy/a as to say,
" Semet obtulit patri." Besides, though he doth acknowledge else
where that this " victima" was &^N; and wrep apapnuv, yet he says

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 629

in another place (on verse 3), " Sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse
pro se vxep apex.?™™ :" giving thereby such a sense to that expression
as is utterly inconsistent with a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin.
And, which is yet worse, on chap. ix. 14 he gives us such an account
why expiation is ascribed to the blood of Christ, as is a key to his
whole interpretation of that epistle. " Sanguini" saith he, " pur-
gatio ista tribuitur, quia per sanguinem, id est, mortem Christi, secuta
ejus excitatione et evectione, gignitur in nobis fides, quae deinde fides
corda purgat." And, therefore, where Christ is said to offer himself
by the eternal Spirit, he tells us, " Oblatio Christi hie intelligitur
ilia, quae oblationi legali in adyto factse respondet, ea autem est, non
oblatio in altari crucis facta, sed facta in adyto ccelesti." So that the
purgation of sin is an effect of Christ's presenting himself in heaven
only ; which how well it agrees with what the apostle says, chap. i. 3,
the reader will easily judge. And to manifest that this was his con
stant sense, on these words, verse 26, Etg ddsr^aiv upapriag, dia. ?%$
§vff!as aurou, he thus comments: " Eig dferwiv a/taprias. Ut pecca-
tum in nobis extingueretur ; fit autem hoc per passionem Christi, quae
fidem nobis ingenerat, quae corda purificat." Christ confirming his
doctrine by his death, begets faith in us, which doth the work. Of
the 28th verse of the same chapter I have spoken before. The
same he affirms again more expressly on chap. x. 3; and verses 9, 12,
he interprets the oblation of Christ, whereby he took away sin, to be
the oblation or offering of himself in heaven, whereby sin is taken
away by sanctification, as also in sundry other places where the ex
piatory sacrifice of Christ on earth, and the taking away of the guilt
of sin by satisfaction, are evidently intended. So that notwithstand
ing the concession mentioned, I cannot see the least reason to alter
my thoughts of the Annotations as to this business on hand.

Not farther to abound in causa facili, in all the differences we
have with the Socinians about Christ's dying for us, concerning the
nature of redemption, reconciliation, mediation, sacrifice, the mean
ing of all the phrases and expressions in which these things are de
livered to us, the annotator is generally on the apostate side through
out his Annotations; and the truth is, I know no reason why our
students should with so much diligence and charge labour to get
into their hands the books of Socinus, Crellius, Smalcius, and the
rest of that crew, seeing these Annotations, as to the most important
heads of Christian religion, about the deity, sacrifice, priesthood, and
satisfaction of Christ, original sin, free will, justification, etc., afford
them the substance and marrow of what is spoken by them ; so that
as to these heads, upon the matter, there is nothing peculiar to the
annotator but the secular learning which in his interpretations he
hath curiously and gallantly interweaved. Plautus makes sport, in
his Amphitryo, with several persons, some real, some assumed, of

630 A EEVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

such likeness one to another that they could not discern themselves by
any outward appearance; which caused various contests and mistakes
between them. The poet's fancy raised not a greater similitude be
tween Mercury and Sosia, being supposed to be different persons,
than there is a dissimilitude between the author of the book De
Satisfactione Christi and of the Annotations concerning which we
have been discoursing, being one and the same. Nor was the con
test of those different persons, so like one another, so irreconcilable
as are these of this single person, so unlike himself in the several
treatises mentioned. And I cannot but think it strange that the
apologist could imagine no surer measure to be taken of Grotius'
meaning in his Annotations than his treatise of the Satisfaction of
Christ doth afford, there being no two treatises that I know, of any
different persons whatever, about one and the same subject, that are
more at variance. Whether now any will be persuaded by the apo
logist to believe that Grotius was constant in his Annotations to the
doctrine delivered in that other treatise I am not solicitous.

For the re-enforced plea of the apologist, that these Annotations
were not finished by him, but only collections, that he might after
dispose of, I am not concerned in it, having to deal with that book
of Annotations that goes under his name. If they are none of his,
it is neither on the one hand nor other of any concernment unto me.
I say not this as though the apologist had in the least made good
his former plea by his new exceptions to my evidence against it, from
the printer's preface to the volume of Annotations on the Epistles.
He says, " What was the opus integrum, that was commended to the
care of 6 3s?va?" and answers himself, " Not that last part or volume
of Annotations, but opus integrum, the whole volume or volumes
that contained his faixdora adversaria on the New Testament."
For how ill this agrees with the intention and words of the prefacer,
a slight inspection will suffice to manifest. He tells us that Grotius
had himself published his Annotations on the Gospels five years be
fore; that at his departure from Paris, he left a great part of this
volume (that is this on the Acts and Epistles) with a friend; that
the reason why he left not opus integrum, that is, the whole volume,
with him was because the residue of it was not so written as that an
amanuensis could well understand it; that, therefore, in his going
towards Sweden, he wrote that part again with his own hand, and
sent it back to the same person (that had the former part of the
volume committed to him) from Hamburg. If the apologist read
this preface, he ought, as I suppose, to have desisted from the plea
insisted on. If he did not, he thought assuredly he had much rea
son to despise them with whom he had to do. But, as I said, herein
am I not concerned.

The consideration of the charge on the Annotations relating to

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTITJS. 631

their tampering with the testimonies given in the Scripture to THE
DEITY OF CHRIST, being another head of the whole, may now have
place.

The sum of what is to this purpose by me affirmed is, that in the
Annotations on the Old and New Testament, Grotius hath left but
one place giving testimony clearly to the deity of Christ. To this
assertion I added both a limitation and also an enlargement in seve
ral respects; — a limitation, that I could not perceive he had spoken
of himself clearly on that one place. On supposition that he did
so, I granted that perhaps one or two places more might accordingly
be interpreted. That this one place is John i. 1, 1 expressly affirmed ;'
that is the one place wherein, as I say, he spake not home to the busi
ness. The defence of the apologist in the behalf of Grotius consists
of sundry discourses: — First, To disprove that he hath [not] left more
than that one of John free from the corruption charged, he instances
in that one of John i. 1, wherein, as he saith, he expressly asserts the
deity of Christ ; but yet wisely foreseeing that this instance would
not evade the charge, having been expressly excepted (as to the pre
sent inquiry) and reserved to farther debate, he adds the places
quoted by Grotius in the exposition of that place, as Prov. viii.
21-27, Isa. xlv. 12, xlviii. 13, 2 Pet. in. 5, Col. i. 16: from all
which he concludes that the Annotations have left more testimonies
to the deity of Christ untampered withal and unperverted than my
assertion will allow, reckoning them all up again, section the 1 Oth,
and concluding himself a successful advocate in this case, or at least
under a despair of ever being so in any if he acquit not himself
clearly in this. If his failure herein be evinced by the course of his
late writings, himself will appear to be most concerned. I suppose,
then, that on the view of this defence, men must needs suppose that
in the annotations on the places repeated, and mustered a second
time by the apologist, Grotius does give their sense as bearing wit
ness to the deity of Christ. Others may be pleased to take it for
granted without farther consideration; for my part, being a little
concerned to inquire, I shall take the pains to turn to the places, and
give the reader a brief account of them.

For Prov. viii., his first note on the wisdom there spoken of is,
"Hsec de ea sapientia quse in Lege apparet exponunt Hebrsei: et sane
ei, si non soli, at prsecipue hsec attributa conveniunt." Now, if the
attributes here mentioned agree either solely or principally to the
wisdom that shines in the law, how they can be the attributes of the
person of the eternal Son of God I see not. He adds no more to
that purpose until he comes to the 22d verse, the verse of old con
tested about with the Arians. His words on that are, " Grsecum
Aquite est, Ixrjjrfaro /is, ut et Symmachi et Theodotionis, respon-
detque bene Hebrseo "^5. At Chaldseus habet $"$, et LXX.

632 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

sensu non malo, si creare sumas profacere ut appareat. Vice Dei
aont operationes ipsius. Sensum hujus loci et sequentium uon male
exprimas cum Philone de Coloniis: 'O Aoyos 6 ffMCbrtpos ruv
v, o5 xadawep o'/axos svsiXq/Azvos 6 ruv SXcav xv&tpvqrq

xai ore exofffto'Tr'hdarii ^p^sdf^svo; opydvy rovrw vpb$ rqv avv-
ruv avore'kov/tsvuv ffuffrattiv." On verse 27 he adds, " Aderam,
id est, %v vpbs rbv ®s6v, ut infra Johan. Evang. i. 1."

What clear and evident testimony, by this exposition, is left in
this place to the deity of Christ, I profess myself as ignorant as I
was before I received this direction by the apologist. He tells us
that V^i? is rendered not amiss by the Chaldee N^?, and the LXX.
sxnfff, though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arians, and
exploded by the ancient doctors of the church. To relieve this con
cession, he tells us that " creare" may be taken for " facere ut ap
pareat," though there be no evidence of such a use of the word in
Scripture, nor can he give any instance thereof. The whole inter
pretation runs on that wisdom that is a property of God, which he
manifested in the works of creation. Of the Son of God, the essen
tial Wisdom of God, subsisting with the Father, we have not one
word. Nor doth that quotation out of Philo relieve us in this busi
ness at all ; we know in what sense he used the word 6 Xo'yo?.
How far he and the Platonics, with whom in this expression he
consented, were from understanding the only-begotten Son of God,
is known. If this of Philo has any aspect towards the opinion
of any professing themselves Christians, it is towards that of the
Arians, which seems to be expressed therein. And this is the place
chosen by the apologist to disprove the assertion of none being left,
under the sense given them by the Annotations, bearing clear testi
mony to the deity of Christ ! His comparing ^N Dt£>} " ibi ego," which
the Vulgar renders " aderam," with i\v vpbe rlv Qtov, seems rather to
cast a suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of
the evangelist than in the least to give testimony to the deity of
Christ in this. If any one be farther desirous to > be satisfied how
many clear, unquestionable evidences of the deity of Christ are slighted
by these annotations on this chapter, let him consult my vindica
tion of the place in my late " Vindicise Evangelicse," where he will
find something tendered to him to that purpose. What the apologist
intended by adding these two places of Isaiah, chap. xlv. 12 and chap,
xlviii. 13 (when in his annotations on these places Grotius not once
mentions the deity of Christ, nor any thing of him, nor hath occa
sion so to do, nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or
purpose, but only to show that the Chaldee paraphrase doth sundry
times, when things are said to be done by God, render it that they
were done by the word of God), as instances to the prejudice of my
assertion, I cannot imagine.

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 633

On that of Peter, 2 Epist. iii. 5, Tw rou ®sov Xo/^, he adds, in
deed, "Vide quas diximus ad initium Evangelii Johannis;" but
neither doth that place intend the natural Son of God, nor is it so
interpreted by Grotius.

To these he adds, in the close, Col. i. 16, in the exposition whereof
in his Annotations he expressly prevaricates, and goes off to the in
terpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions; which the
apologist well knew.

Without farther search upon what hath been spoken, the apologist
gives in his verdict concerning the falseness of my assertion before
mentioned, of the annotator's speaking clear and home to the deity
of Christ but in one, if in one, place of his Annotations. But, —

1. What one other place hath he produced whereby the contrary
to what I assert is evinced? Any man may make apologies at this
rate as fast as he pleases.

2. As to his not speaking clearly in that one, notwithstanding the
improvement made of his expressions by the apologist, I am still of
the same mind as formerly; for although he ascribes an eternity
rf X&'yy, and affirms all things to be made thereby, yet, consider
ing how careful he is of ascribing an uToVraovg r£ Xoyy, how many
Platonic interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his ex
positions, how he hath darkened the whole counsel of God in that
place about the subsistence of the Word, his omnipotency and incar
nation, so clearly asserted by the Holy Ghost therein, I see no rea
son to retract the assertion opposed. But yet as to the thing itself,
about this place I will not contend : only, it may not be amiss to
observe, that not only the Arians, but even Photinus himself, ac
knowledged that the world was made T$ Qsou Xo'yw, [so] that how
little is obtained towards the confirmation of the deity of Christ by
that concession may be discerned.

I shall offer also only at present, that o Ao'yos rou Qiou is threefold,
— \dyog viroffraTixos, svftidQirog, and wpotpopixos. The Xoyoj ucrotfranxos or
ovaiudqg is Christ, mentioned John i. 1, his personal and eternal subsist
ence, with his omnipotency, being there asserted. Whether Christ be
so called anywhere else in the New Testament may be disputed; Luke
i. 2 compared with 1 John i. 1, 2 Pet. i. 19, Acts xx. 32, Heb. iv. 12,
are the most likely to give us that use of the word. Why Christ is
so termed I have showed elsewhere. That he is called l^J, Ps.
xxxiii. 6, is to me also evident. n?P is better rendered ft pet or X'efys
than Xo'yos. Where that word is used, it denotes not Christ, though
2 Sam. xxiii. 2, where that word is, is urged by some to that pur
pose. He is also called "tt^, Hag. ii. 5; so perhaps in other places.
Our present Quakers would have that expression of the " word of
God," used nowhere in any other sense; so that destroying that, as
they do, in the issue they may freely despise the Scripture, as that

634 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GEOTIUS.

which they say is not the word of God, nor anywhere so called.
Aoyog svdiddsrog amongst men is that which Aristotle calls rbv tsu
"koyov. A6yog ev vw "ka/^avofjuevos, says Hesychius. Aoyog evdiddiro; is
that which we speak in our hearts, says Damascen. De Orthod. Fid.
lib. i. cap. xviii. : so Ps. xiv. 1, taps ?23 "ION. This, as spoken in respect
of God, is that egress of his power whereby, according to the eternal
conception of his mind, he worketh any thing: so Gen. i. 2, "God
said, Let there be light; and there was light." Of this word of God
the psalmist treats, Ps. cxlvii. ] 8, " He sendeth out ^H, and melteth
the ice ;" and Ps. cxlviii. 8 the same word is used ; — in both which
places the LXX. render it by 6 Xo'yoj. This is that which is called
pjjpa r%s Suva/Mug, Heb. i. 3, xi. 3, where the apostle says, " The hea
vens were made ptj/tan QioiJ:" which is directly parallel to that place
of 2 Pet. iii. 5, where it is expressed TU rov QioZ Xo'yw ; for though
prt/j,a more properly denotes Xoyov vrpopopixov, yet in these places it
signifies plainly that egress of God's power for the production and
preservation of things, being a pursuit of the eternal conception of
his mind, which is Myo$ svdiddirog. Now, this infinitely wise and
eternal conception of the mind of God exerting itself in power,
wherein God is said to speak (" He said, Let there be light"), is that
which the Platonics, and Philo with them, harped on, never once
dreaming of a co-essential and hypostatical Word of God, though the
word ivoaraffie occurs amongst them. This they thought was unto
God, as in us, Xoyog ivdidSsro; or 6 tffa, irpbg vow: and, particularly, it is
termed by Philo, <puvri T^$ diavoiag ivpwoft'svri, De Agric. That this
was his 6 X&'/og is most evident Hence he tells us, Oufib av snpov
rbv voqrbv sJvai xoffpov % @eoD Xoyoi».ij3jj xoff/AOiroiovvroc, ovdf yap q vor)T7i
snpov rt sffrh, $ 6 rov ap^irexrovos Xoyifffibg, %&7) rqv voqrfiv -TroX/i/
xrifyiv Siavou/tivov. Muffsug yap TO boyfta. TOVTO, otuc J/ao'v, De Mund.
Opific. And a little after, Tbv fit a&parov xaf voqrbv SsTov Xoyov, t/xcvct
Xsysi Qsou' xal ravrqg tixovot, rbv voqrbv tp£>£ sxsTvo, o Stiov \6you yzyom
tixuv TOIJ Siipf^rivsveavTOS rqv ytviGiv aurov, xai 'isnv vvtpovpdvios affryp. The
whole tendency of his discourse is, that the word of God, in his mind,
in the creation of the world, was the image of himself, and that the
idea or image of the things to be made, but especially of light. And
whereas (if I remember aright, for I cannot now find the place) I
have said somewhere that Christ was X6yo$ hdidderog, though therein
I have the consent of very many learned divines, and used it merely
in opposition r$ vpopopixZ, yet I desire to recall it; nor do I think
there is any propriety in that expression of tftpvTos used of Christ,
but only in those of \tvosrariKog and ovffiudqg, which the Scripture
(though not in the very terms) will make good. In this second ac
ceptation, rou Xo^ou, Photinus himself granted that the world was
made by the word of God. Now, if it be thought necessary that I
should give an account of my fear that nothing but o Xoyos in this

A EEVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 635

sense, decked with many Platonical encomiums, was intended in the
Annotations on John i. (though I confess much, from some quota
tions there used, may be said against it), I shall readily undertake
the task ; but at present, in this running course, I shall add no more.

But now, as if all the matter in hand were fully despatched, we
have this triumphant close attending the former discourse and ob
servations: —

" If one text acknowledged to assert Christ's eternal divinity"
(which one was granted to do it, though not clearly) " will not suffice
to conclude him no Socinian" (which I said not he was, yea, ex
pressly waived the management of any such charge) ; " if six verses
in the Proverbs, two in Isaiah, one in St Peter, one in St Paul,
added to many in the beginning of St John" (in his annotations on
all which he speaks not one word to the purpose), "will not yet
amount to above one text; or, lastly, if that one may be doubted of
also which is by him interpreted to affirm Christ's eternal subsist
ence with God before the creation of the world" (which he doth not
so interpret as to a personal subsistence), " and that the whole world
was created by him, — I shall despair of ever being a successful ad
vocate for any man:" from which condition I hope some little time
will recover the apologist.

This is the sum of what is pleaded in chief for the defence of the
Annotations; wherein what small cause he hath to acquiesce who
hath been put to the labour and trouble of vindicating near forty
texts of Scripture, in the Old Testament and New, giving express
testimony to the deity of Christ, from the annotator's perverse inter
pretations, let the reader judge. In the 13th section of the apolo
gist's discourse, he adds some other considerations to confirm his
former vindication of the Annotations.

He tells us that he " professeth not to divine what places of the
Old Testament, wherein the deity of Christ is evidently testified
unto, are corrupted by the learned man ; nor will he, upon the dis
couragement already received, make any inquiry into my treatise."
But what need of divination? The apologist cannot but remember
at all times some of the texts of the Old Testament that are pleaded
to that purpose ; and he hath at least as many encouragements to
look into the Annotations as discouragements from casting an eye
upon that volume, as he calls it, wherein they are called to an ac
count. And if he suppose he can make a just defence for the
several places so wrested and perverted without once consulting
them, I know not how by me he might possibly be engaged into
such an inquiry ; and therefore I shall not name them again, having
done somewhat more than name them already.

But he hath two suppletory considerations that will render any
such inquiry or inspection needless. Of these the first is, —

636

" That the Vt'ord of God being all and every part of it of equal
truth, that doctrine which is founded on five places of divine writ
must by all Christians be acknowledged to be as irrefragably con
firmed as a hundred express places would be conceived to con
firm it."

Ans. It is confessed that not only five, but any one express text
of Scripture, is sufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth ;
but that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by
the apologist, for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about,
is but pretended, — indeed there is no such thing. The charge on
Grotius was, that he had depraved all but one. If that be no crime,
the defence was at hand ; if it be, though that one should be acknow
ledged to be clear to that purpose, here is no defence against that
which was charged, but a strife about that which was not Let the
places be consulted : if the assertion prove true by an induction of
instances, the crime is to be confessed, or else the charge denied to
contain a crime. But, secondly, he says, —

" That this charge, upon inquiry, will be found in some degree, if
not equally, chargeable on the learnedest and most valuable of the
first reformers, particularly upon Mr Calvin himself, who hath been
as bitterly and unjustly accused and reviled upon this account (wit
ness the book intitled 'Calvino Turcismus') as ever IJrasmus was by
Bellarmine and Beza, or as probably Grotius may be."

Though this, at the best, be but a diversion of the charge, and no
defence, yet, not containing that truth which is needful to counte
nance it for the end for which it is proposed, I could not pass it by.
It is denied (which in this case, until farther proof, must suffice) that
any of the learnedst of the first reformers, and particularly Mr Calvin,
are equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion, with Grotius,
as to the crime insisted on. Calvin being the man instanced in, I
desire the apologist to prove that he hath, in all his commentaries
on the Scripture, corrupted the sense of any text of the Old Testa
ment or New giving express testimony to the deity of Christ, and
commonly pleaded to that end and purpose; although I deny not
but that he differs from the common judgment of most in the inter
pretation of some few prophetical passages judged by them to relate
to Christ I know what Genebrard and some others of that faction
raved against him; but it was chiefly from some expressions in his
Institutes about the Trinity (wherein yet he is acquitted by the
most learned of themselves), and not from his expositions of Scrip
ture, from which they raised their clamours. For the book called
" Calvino Turcismus," written by Reynolds and Giffard, the apolo
gist has forgotten the design of it. Calvin is no more concerned in
it than others of the first reformers; nor is it from any doctrine about
the deity of Christ in particular, but from the whole of the reformed

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 637

religion, with the apostasies of some of that profession, that they
compare it with Turcism. Something, indeed, in a chapter or two,
they speak about the Trinity, from some expressions of Luther, Me-
lancthon, Calvin, and others; but as to Calvin's expositions of Scrip
ture, they insist not on them. Possibly the apologist may have seen
Parasus' " Calvinus Orthodoxus," in answer to Hunnius' " Calvinus
Judaizans;" if not, he may at any time have there an account of
this calumny.

Having passed through the consideration of the two considerable
heads of this discourse, in the method called for by the apologist
(having only taken liberty to transpose them as to first and last), I
must profess myself as yet unsatisfied as to the necessity or suitable
ness of this kind of defence. The sum of that which I affirmed
(which alone gives occasion to the defensative now under considera
tion) is, that, to my observation, Grotius in his Annotations had not
left above one text of Scripture, if one, giving clear evidence to the
deity of Christ. Of his satisfaction I said in sum the same thin»
Had the apologist been pleased to have produced instances of any
evidence for the disprovement of my assertion, I should very gladly
and readily have acknowledged my mistake and oversight. I am
still, also, in the same resolution as to the latitude of the expression,
though I have already, by an induction of particulars, manifested
his corrupting and perverting of so many, both in respect of the
one head and of the other, with his express compliance with the
Socinians in his so doing, as that I cannot have the least thought
of letting fall my charge, which, with the limitation expressed (of
my own observation), contains the truth in this matter, and nothing
but that which is so.

It was, indeed, in my thoughts to have done somewhat more in
reference to those Annotations than thus occasionally to have ani
madverted on their corruption in general, — namely, to have proceeded
in the vindication of the truths of the gospel from their captivity
under the false glosses put upon them by the interpretations of
places of Scripture wherein they are delivered. But this work
being fallen on an abler hand, namely, that of our learned professor
of divinity, my desire is satisfied, and the necessity of my endeavour
for that end removed.

There are sundry other particulars insisted on by the apologist,
and a great deal of rhetoric is laid out about them ; which certainly
deserve not the reader's trouble in the perusal of any other debate
about them. If they did, it were an easy matter to discover his
mistakes in them all along. The foundation of most of them lies in
that which he affirms, sect. 4, where he says that " I thus state the
jealousies about H. G. as far as it is owned by me, namely, that
being in doctrine a Socinian, he yet closed in many things with the

G38 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

Roman interest :" to which he replies, that " this does not so much
as pretend that he was a Papist;" as though I undertake to prove
Grotius to be a Papist, or did not expressly disown the management
of the jealousy stated as above, or that I did at all own it, all which
are otherwise.

Yet I shall now say, whether he was in doctrine a Socinian or no
let his Annotations before insisted on determine; and whether he
closed with the Roman interest or no, besides what hath been ob
served by others, I desire the apologist to consider his observation
on Rev. xii. 5, that book (himself being judge) having received his
last hand But my business is not to accuse Grotius, or to charge
his memory with any thing but his prevarication in his Annotations
on the Scripture.1

And as I shall not cease to press the general aphorism, as it is
called, That no drunkard, etc., nor any person whatever not born of
God, or united to Christ, the head, by the same Spirit that is in him,
and in the sense thereof perfecting holiness in the fear of God, shall
ever see his face in glory, so I fear not what conclusion can regularly,
in reference to any person living or dead, be thence deduced.

It is the Annotations whereof I have spoken, which I have my
liberty to do, and I presume shall still continue, whilst I live in the
same thoughts of them, though I should see, — a third defence of the
learned Hugo Grotius !

The Epistles of Grotius to Crellius mentioned by the apologist
in his first defence of him, giving some light to what hath been
insisted on, I thought it not unfit to communicate them to the
reader as they came to my hand, having not as yet been printed,
that I know of: —

Eeverendo tumnueque eruditionis acpietatis viro, Domino Johanru Crellio, pastori
Racov. H. G. S.

Libro tuo quo ad eum quern ego quondam scripseram (eruditissime Crelli)
respondisti, adeo offensus non fui, ut etiam gratias tune intra animum meum
egerim, nunc et hisce agam literis.z Primo, quod non tantum humane, sed et
valde officiose mecum egeris, ita ut queri nihil possim, nisi quod in me praedi-
cando, inodum interdum excedis, deinde vero, quod multa me docueris, partim
utilia, partim jucunda scitu, meque exemplo tuo incitaveris ad penitius expenden-
dum sensus sacrorum librorum. Bene autem in epistola tua quse mihi longe gra-
tissima advenit, de me judicas, non esse me eorum in numero qui ob sententias.
salva pietate dissidentes alieno a quoquam sim animo, aut boni alicujus amicitiam
repudiem. Equidem in libro " De Vera Religione," quern jam percurri, relecturu.s

1 "Grotius ad nocentissimce hsereseos atque effrenis licentiae Scyllam; iterumque, ad tyrannidis
Charybdin declinavit fluetuans."— -Essen.

J This book of Crellius lay unanswered by Grotius above twenty years ; for so long he lived
after the publishing of it. It "is since fully answered by Essenius.

A KEVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GEOTIUS.

et posthac, multa invenio summo cum judicio observata.1 Illud vero saeculo gra-
tulor, repertos homines qui neutiquam in controversiis subtilibus tantum ponunt
quantum in vera vitae emendatione, et quotidiano ad sanctitatem profectu. Uti-
nam et mea scripta aliquid ad hoc studium in animis hominum excitandum in-
flammandumque conferre possint: tune enim non frustra me vixisse hactenus
existimem. Liber " De Veritate Religionis Christianas" magis ut nobis esset sola-
tio, quam ut aliis documento scriptus, non video quid post tot aliorum labores
utilitatis afferre possit, nisi ipsa forte brevitate. Siquid tarnen in eo est, quod
tibi tuique similibus placeat, mihi supra evenit. Libris " De Jure Belli et Pacis "
mihi praecipue propositum habui, ut feritatem illam, non Christianis tantum, sed et
hominibus indignam, ad bella pro libitu suscipienda, pro libitu gerenda, quam
gliscere tot populorum malo quotidie video, quantum in me est, sedarem. Gau-
deo ad principum quorundam manus eos libros venisse, qui utinam partem eorurn
meliorem in suum animum admitterent. Nullus enim mihi ex eo labore suavior
fructus contingere possit. Te vero quod attinet, credas, rogo, si quid unquain
facere possim tui, aut eorum quos singulariter amas, causa, experturum te, quan
tum te tuo merito faciam. Nunc quum aliud possim nihil, Dominum Jesum sup-
plice animo veneror, ut tibi aliisque, pietatem promoventibus propitius adsit.

Tui nominis studiosissimus,

x. Mali. M.DC.XXVI.

H. G.

Tarn pro epistola (vir clarissime) quam pro transmisso libro, gratias ago maxi-
mas. Constitui et legere et relegere diligenter quaecunque a te proficiscuntur, ex-
pertus quo cum fructu id antehac fecerim. Eo ipso tempore quo literas tuas
accepi, versabar in lectione tuae interpretationis in Epistolam ad Galatas.2 Quan
tum judicare possum et script! occasionem et propositum, et totam seriem dic-
tionis, ut magna cum cura indagasti, ita feliciter admodum es assequutus. Quare
Deum precor, ut et tibi et tui similibus vitam det, et quae alia ad istiusmodi
labores necessaria. Mihi ad juvandam communem Christianismi causam, utinam
tarn adessent vires, quam promptus est animus : quippe me, a prima aetate, per
varia disciplinarum genera jactatum, nulla res magis delectavit quam rerum sa-
crarum meditatio. Id in rebus prosperis moderamen, id in adversis solamen
sensi. Pacis consilia et anlavi semper et amo nunc quoque; eoque doleo, quum
video, tarn pertinacibus iris committi inter se eos, qui Christi se esse dicunt. Si
recte rem putamus, quantillis de causis !

Januarii. M. DC. XXXII. Amstelodam i.

1 That is the body of Socinian divinity written by Crellius and Volkelius.

I Let the reader judge what annotations on that epistle we are to expect from this man.

END OF VOL. XIL

3S605C