Vindiciae Evangelicae OR, The Mystery of the gospel VINDICATED, AND socinianism Examined, In the Consideration, and Confutation of 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 Jesus Christ, from the Perverse Expositions, and Interpretations of them, by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations on the BIBLE.  
Also an Appendix, in Vindication of some things formerly written about the Death of Christ,& the fruits thereof, from the Animadversions of Mr R. B.  
By JOHN own D. D. A Servant of Jesus Christ in the Work of the gospel.  {αβγδ}. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 4. 
OXFORD, Printed by Leon. Lichfield Printer to the University, for Tho. Robinson. 1655.   

TO THE RIGHT honourable THE council OF STATE TO HIS HIGHNESSE.  
The Ensuing Vindication of the Glory and Doctrine of the GREAT GOD& Our Saviour JESUS CHRIST, Written upon Their Command, Is Humbly Dedicated, BY Its Unworthy Author J. O.   

To the Right worshipful, His Reverend, Learned, and Worthy Friends, and Brethren, the Heads, and Governours 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, whereunto I am encouraged by your faire 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 ag●e, since one Mr Biddle,( formerly a Master of Arts of this University, by which Title he still owns himself) Published two Little catechisms,( as he calls them) wherein under sundry specious Pleas and Pretences,( which you will find discussed in the ensuing Treatise) he endeavours to insinuate subtly 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 somewhile 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 afterwards 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 sand 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, I looked on it as a call from God to pled for his violated Truth, which by his Assistance, and according as I had Opportunity, I was in general alway resolved to do. Having indeed but newly taken off my hand from the Plough of a peculiar Controversy, about the Perseverance of the Saints, in the following whereof I was somewhat tired, the Entrance into the Work was irksome and burdensome unto me: After some progress made, finding the searching into, and discussing of the important Truths opposed, of very good use to my self, I have been carried through the whole( according as I could break off my daily pressing occasions to attend unto it) with much cheerfulness, and Alacrity of mind. And this was the Reason, why, finding M. B. came short of giving a faire occasion to the full vindication of many heads of Religion by him oppugned, I have called in to his Assistance and Society one of his great Masters, namely Valentinus Smalcius, and his catechism( commonly called the Racovian) with the Expositions of the places of Scripture Contended about by the Learned Grotius, as also on several occasions, the Arguments and Answers of most of the chief propugners of M. B's Religion. Now besides your Interest in the Truths pleaded for, there are other Considerations also, inducing me to a persuasion, that this endeavour of mine will not be unacceptable unto you▪ M. B's catechism( 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 Understanding of the Treatises of Divinity in all kinds written therein, which they begin to make use of, to the purpose) cry out against thē,& professedly undertake the refutation thereof. Now certainly it cannot be for our Advantage in point of repute amongst them; that they( who are yet glad of the Occasion) should be enforced to undertake the Confutation of a Book, written by one who stiles himself a Master of Arts of this University,( which they also take notice of) wherein they are so little concerned; the poison of it being shut up from their People, under the safe custody of an unknown Tongue. 
Prodiit hoc anno în Anglia, Au●●ore Johanne Bidello, Artium Magistro, pneumatomacho, duplex Catechesis Scripturaria, Anglico idiemate typis evulgata, quâ sub nomine Religionis Christianae purum putum Socinianismum, orbi Christiano ob●rudere satagit. Quanquam antem non videatur velle Socinianus haberi; attamen cujus sit ingenii, sub sinem libelli prodit, cum commendat librum cvi Titulus, The Life of that incomparable Man, Faustus Socinus Senensis, phrasin Scripturae ad dogmata more Sociniana ita detorsit, ut nemo ante eum h●●esin istam tam fraudulenter instillarit: Larvam illi detrahere post dies canicula●es, cum Deo est animus. Nicol. Arnold. Praef▪ ad Lector.  Nicolaus Arnoldus, the Professor of Divinity at Franeker, gives an account of this Book, as the most subtle insinuation of the Socinian Religion, that ever was attempted, and Promises a Confutation of it.  
Maresius Professor at groaning, a man well known 
Necessarium est hoc tristi tempore, quo Sociniana pestis, quam haud immerito dixeris omnis impietatis {αβγδ}, videtur nunc in vicina Anglia sedem sibi Metropolitanam fixisse, nisi quod isthic facile admittat& bella cruenta,& Judicia capitalia severissima, sub quorum umbone crevit. Nam inter varias Haereses, quibus faelix illa quondam insula& Orthodoxiae tenacissima hody conspurcatur, tantum eminet Socinianismus, quantum lenta solent inter viburna Cupressi: nec enim amplius ibi horrenda sua misteria mussitat in angulis, said sub dio explicat omnia vexilla suae iniquitatiae: non loquor incomperta, Benevole Lector: Modo enim ex Anglia allatus est Anglica lingua conscriptus Catechismus duplex, mayor& Minor, Londini publice excusus, hoc Anno 1654. apud Jac Coterell,& Rich. moon, &c. Authore Johanne Bidello Magistre Artium Oxoniensi. &c. Sam Mares. hid. Socin. Refut. Tom. 2. Praefat. ad Lect.  by his Works published, goes farther; and on the account of these catechisms, Charges the whole Nation, and the Governours of it, with socinianism, and( according to the manner of the Man) raises a fearful out-cry, affirming, that that Heresy hath fixed its Metropolitical seat here in England,& is here openly professed, is the head Sect in the Nation, displaying openly the Banners of its iniquity; all which he confirms by instancing in this Book of a Master of Arts of the University of Oxford. Of his rashness in censuring, his extreme ignorance of the state of affairs here amongst us, which yet he undertakes to relate, judge, and condemn, I have given him an account in a private Letter to himself.  
Certainly, though we deserved to have these reproaches cast upon us, yet of all men in the World, those who live under the Protection, and upon the allowance of the United Provinces, are most unmeet to manage them: Their incompetency in sundry respects for this service is known to all. However it cannot be denied, but that even on this account,( that it may appear, that we are, as free from the guilt of the calumnious insinuations of Maresius, so in no need of the assistance of Arnoldus, for the Confutation of any one arising among ourselves, speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after him,) an Answer from some in this place unto those catechisms, was sufficiently necessary. That it is by Providence fallen upon the hand of one, more ummeet then many others in this place, for the performance of this Work and Duty, I doubt not but you will be contented withall; and am bold to hope, that neither the Truth, nor your own esteem, will too much suffer, by my engagement herein. Yea, give me leave to speak it, I have assumed the confidence, to aim at the handling of the whole Body of the Socinian Religion, in such a way and manner, as that those who are most knowing, and exercised in these Controversies, may find that, which they will not altogether despise, and younger Students that, whereby they may profit. To this End I have added the Racovian catechism,( as I said before) to M. B's: which as I was urged to do by many worthy Persons in this University, so I was no way discouraged in the publishing of my Answer thereunto, by the view I took of Arnoldus his discourse to the same purpose, and that for such Reasons, as I shall not express, but leave the whole to the judgement 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 his Annotations, and calling into question what hath been delivered by such a giant in al kinds of Literature. Since my engagement in this business,& when I had well nigh finished the Vindication of the Texts of Scripture commonly pleaded, for the Demonstration of the Deity of Christ, from the Exceptions put into their Testimonies, by the Racovian catechism, I had the sight of Dr H's Apology for him, in his Vindication of his Dissertations about Episcopacy, from my occasional Animadversions, published in the Preface of my Book of the Perseverance of the Saints. Of that whole Treatise I shall elsewhere give an account. My Defensative as to my dealing with Grotius his 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 those extremes, but being in Doctrinalls 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 my self any hard thoughts, or that I would beget in others any evil surmises of the eternal condition of that man, that I speak what I do. What am I, that I should judge another mans Servant? He is fallen to his own Master. I am very slow to judge of mens Acceptation with God, by the Apprehension of their Understanding. This only I know, that be men of what Religion soever, that is professed in the World, if they are Drunkards, Proud, Boasters, &c. Hypocrites, haters of good men, persecutors and revilers of them, yea if they be not regenerate and born of God, united to the head Christ Jesus, by the same spirit that is in him, they shall never see God.  
But for the Passages in his Annotations, the substance of the Doctors plea is; that the passages intimated 
Jam vero sciendum est, multo quidem citius, quam nunc denium temporis eam resumi, absolvique potuisse, et quo minus id ●ampridem factum sit, per eum non stetisse virum, cujus fideli curae opus integrum ab Authore ipso primum creditum fuit& sedulo commendatum. Praemon. ad Lect.  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. 1. 16. which he interprets, contrary to what he urged it for, Joh. 1. 1, 2, 3. But granting what is affirmed as to matter of fact, about his Collections;( though the Preface to the last part of his Annotations will not allow it to be true) I must needs abide in my dissatisfaction as to these Annotations,& of my resolves in these Thoughts give the Doctor this account. Of the Socinian Religion there are two main Parts; the first is Photinianisme, the latter pelagianism: The first concerning the Person, the other the Grace of Christ. Let us take an Eminent instance out of either of these heads: out of the First, their denying Christ to be God by Nature. Out of the Latter, their denial of his Satisfaction.  
For the First, I must needs tell the Apologist, that of all the Texts of the New Testament and Old, whereby the Deity of Christ is usually Confirmed, and where it is evidently testified unto, He hath not left any more then one( that I have observed) if one, speaking any thing clearly to that purpose. I say, if one, for that he speaks not home to the business in hand on Joh. 1. I shall elsewhere give an Account; perhaps some one or two more may be interpnted according to the Analogy of that. I speak not of his Annotations on the Epistles, but on the whole Bible throughout, whererein his Expositions given, do for the most part fall in with those of the Socinians,& 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 particular instance, as though that one place alone were corrupted by him, when there is not one( or but one) that is not wrested, perverted, and corrupted to the same purpose. For the full conviction of the Truth hereof, I refer the Reader to the ensuing Considerations of his Interpretations of the places themselves. The condition of these famous Annotations, as to the Satisfaction of Christ, is the same: not one Text of the whole Scripture, wherein Testimony is given to that sacred Truth, which is not Wrested to another sense, or at least the Doctrine in it concealed, and obscured by them. I do not speak this with the least intention to cast upon him the reproach of a Socinian: I judge not his Person; his Books are Published to be considered and judged. Erasmus I know made way for him, in most of his Expositions about the Deity of Christ: but what repute he hath thereby obtained among all that honour the eternal Godhead of the Son of God, let 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, concerning the Person and Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall not we have the boldness to call him to an account for so sacrilegious an attempt; with those then, who Love the Lord Christ in sincerity, I expect 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 
Grotius in lib. 5. de veritat. relic: Christian. in notis R. Sel. Aben Ezra& Onkelos adducit: said alienis oculis hic vidit, aut alienâ fide retulit( fort authoribus illis aut non intellectis, aut propter occupationes non inspectis) aut animositati& authoritati suae in citandis authoribus,& referendis dictis aut factis, ut ipsi hoc usui veniebat, nimium in scriptis Theologicis indulserit. Voet. disput. de Advent. Messi.  manner of the man, being at all to his purpose) It will be found no difficult matter to discuss his Assertions, and Dissipate his Conjectures.  
For his being a Papist, I have not much to say; let his Epistles( published by his Friends) written to Dyonysius; 
reverend Domine, saept tibi molestus esse cogor— sumpsi hanc ul timamoperam, mea antehac dicta& famam quoque a ministris allatratam tuendi, in eo scripto si quid est, aut Catholicis sententiis discongruens, aut caeteroqui a veritate alienum, de●eo abs te viro Eruditissimo &c. cujus judicium plurimt facio moneri percupio. Epist. Grot. ad Dyonys. Pelat. Epist. 204.  Petavius the jesuit, be perused, and you will see the Character which of himself he gives: As also what in sundry writings he ascribes to the Pope.  
What I have performed through the good hand of God, in the whole, is humbly submitted to your Judgement. You know( all of you) with what weight of business and Employme●t I am pressed; what is the constant work that in this place is incumbent on me, how many& how urgent my avocations are; the consideration whereof, cannot but prevail for a pardon of that want of exactness, which perhaps in sundry Particulars will appear unto you. With those who are neither willing nor able to do any thing in this kind themselves, and yet make it their business to despise what is done by others, I shall very 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 mean time some Treatises against me to lie Unanswered. D. Hammonds Answer to my Animadversions on his Dissertations about Episcopacy; Mr Baxter's Objections against somewhat Written about the Death of Christ; and a Book of one Mr horn against my Treatise about Universall 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 Treatife written against myself, then any other written against the Truth, though I am not particularly name, or opposed therein. Nor do I intend to put any such Law of disquietness upon my Spirit, as to think my self bound to reply to every thing that is written against me, whether the matter and subject of it be worth the public ventilation, or no. It is neither Name, nor Repute, that I eye in these Contests; so the Truth be safe, I can be well content to suffer. Besides, this present task was not voluntarily undertaken by me, it was( as I have already given account) Imposed on me by such an Authority, as I could not wave. For M. horns Book, I suppose you are not acquainted with it; that alone was extant before my last engagement; could I have met with any one uninterested Person, that would have said it deserved a Reply, it had not have laid so long Un answered; In the mean time I cannot but rejoice, that some like minded with him, 
Mr J. G.  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 Controversy. Dr Hammonds 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 dispatch. His Leaves are much more soft and gentle, then those of Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, and Schlictingius. If the Lord in his goodness be pleased to give me a little Respite and Leisure, I shall give a farther account of the whole difference between the Learned Doctor and Me, in such a way of process, as may be expected from so slow and dull a Person as I am; in the mean time, I wish him a better cause to manage, then that wherein against me he is engaged, and better principles to manage a Good Cause on, then some of those in his Treatise of schism, and some others; fail he not in these, his Abilities and Diligence will stand him in very Good stead. I shall not trouble you with things which I have advantages other ways to impart my Thoughts concerning; only crave that you would be pleased candidly to accept of this Testimony of my Respects to You; and seeing no other things are in the ensuing Treatise pleaded for, but such as are Universally owned amongst You, that according to your several Degrees, you would take it into your Patronage or use; affording him in his daily Labours the benefit of your Prayers, at the Throne of Grace, who is,  
Your Unworthy Fellow Labourer JOHN own. OXON. Ch. Ch. Coll. April. 1.   

To those that Labour in the Word and Doctrine, in these Nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with all that call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord: JOHN own wisheth Grace and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Iesus Christ.  
THat so mean a person, as I am, should presume in this public manner, to make Address to all those comprised in the Title of this Epistle; I desire it may be ascribed to the business I come about, and the message that I bring. It is about your great Interest and Concernment, your whole portion,& inheritance, your all, that I am to deal with you. If he who passes by his neighbour's house, seeing a Thief breaking up it's foundations, or setting fire to it's chief materials, will be far from being censured as importune and impudent, if he awake and call upon the Inhabitants, though every way his betters( especially if all his own estate lie therein also) although he be not able to carry one vessel of water to the quenching of it; I hope, that finding Persons endeavouring to put fire to the house of God, which house ye are, and labouring to steal away the whole Treasure thereof, wherein also my own portion doth lie, I shall not be condemned of boldness, or presumption, If I at once cry out to all persons however concerned, to take heed that we be not utterly despoiled of our Treasure; though when I have so done, I be not able to give the least Assistance, to the defence of the house, or quenching of the fire kindled about it. That of no less importance is this address unto you, a brief discovery of it's occasion will evince.  
The Holy Ghost tells us, that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner ston, in whom the whole building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord, in whom we are built together for an habitation of God through the spirit, Ephes. 2. 20, 21, 22. And thus, do all they become the house of Christ, who hold fast the confidence, and the hope of rejoicing to the end, Heb. 3. 6. In this House of God there are daily Builders, according as new living stones are to be fitted to their place therein; and continual Oppositions have there been made thereto; and will be, till we are come, in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, Eph. 4. 13. In this work of building are some employed by Jesus Christ, and will be so to the end of the world( Mat. 28. 20. Ephes. 4. 12.) and some employ themselves, at least in a pretence thereof, but are indeed to a man every one like the foolish woman, that pulls down her house with both her hands. Of the first sort, other foundation can no man lay, nor doth go about to lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 3. 11. But some of them build on the foundation Gold, silver, and precious stones, keeping fast in the work to the form of wholesome words, and contending for the faith that was once delivered to the Saints.  
Others again lay on wood, hay, and stubble, either contending about foolish Questions: or vain and profitable 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, where by they discharge their duty of building in this House. Those with whom I am at present to deal, and concerning whom I desire to tender you the ensuing Accounts, are of the latter sort, such, as not content with others to attempt sundry parts of the building, to weaken it's Contexture, or deface it's Comeliness, do with all their might set themselves against the work it's self; the great foundation and corner ston 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 it's self with such an Efficacy of Pride, and delusion, as by all ways, means, devices imaginable, to despoil our dear and blessed Redeemer, our holy one, of his Eternal power and Godhead; or to reject the Eternal Son of God, and to substitute in his Room, a Christ of their own; one like themselves, and no more; to adulterate the Church and turn aside the Saints to a thing of nought. If I may enjoy your patience, whilst I give a brief account of them, their ways and endeavours for the compassing of their cursed Ends, of our present concernment in their actings, and seductions, of the fire kindled by them at our doors, of the sad diffusion of their poison throughout the world, beyond what enters into the hearts of the most of men to imagine, I shall subjoin thereunto those cautions, and directions, which withall 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 foundation of the Gospel.  
Those then who of old opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, especially of the Deity of Christ, his Person and Natures, may be referred to three heads, and of them, and their ways this is the sum.  
The first sort of them may be reckoned to be those, who are commonly esteemed to be followers of Simon Magus, known chiefly by the names of gnostics and Valentinians: These, with their abominable figments of Aeones, and their Combinations, Conjugations, Genealogies, and unintelligible imaginations, wholly overthrowing the whole Revelation of God concerning himself and his Will, the Lord Jesus, and the Gospel, who chiefly with their leaders, Marcus, Basilides, Ptolomaeus, Valentinus secundus,( all following or imitating Simon Magus and Menander) of all others most perplexed and infected the Primitive Church. As Irenaeus, lib. 1. Tertullian, praescrip. ad Haeret. cap. 49. Philastrius in his ca●alogue of heretics, Epiphanius in Panario lib. 1. Tom. 2. And Augustin in his book of( 
Epiphan. Haeres. 47. ) Heresies, ad Quod vult Deus manifeste. To these may be added Tatianus, Cerdon, martion, 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 dayes might have been inconcerned, until the present madness of some, commonly called Quakers, renewed their follies: but these may pass( with the Manichees) and those of the like fond imaginations, that ever and anon troubled the Church with their madness and folly.  
Of the second rank, Cerinthus is the head, with( 
{αβγδ} Epiph. ) judaizing Ebion; 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 Ephiphanius, Haeres. 51. Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis de Johanne. The same Abomination was again revived by Theodotus called Coriarius( who having once denied Christ, was resolved to do so always) excommunicated on that account by Victor, as Eusebius relates. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. ult. Where he gives also an account of his Associates in judgement; Artemon, Asclepiodotus, Natalius &c. and the books written against him are there also mentioned. But the most notorious Head and Patron of this madness was Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of Antioch, An. 272: of whose pride and passion, folly, followers, Assistants, Opposition,& excommunication, the history is extant at large in Eusebius. This man's pomp, and folly, his compliance with the Jews and Zenobia the Queen of the Palmyrians, who then invaded the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, made him so infamous to all Christians, that the Socinians do scarce pled for him, or own him as the author of their opinion. Of him who succeeded him in his Opposition to Jesus Christ, some 50 or 60 yeares after, namely Photinus Bishop of Sirmium, they constantly boast: of Samosatenus and his heresy, see Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 7. cap 29. 30. and Hilary de Synodis: of Photinus, Socrat: Eccles. Hist. l. 2. cap. 24. 25. and with these do our present Socinians( 
Injuriâ afficit Franken complures, qut hac de re idom aut senserunt aut sentiunt quod Socinus;& ne de iis qui hodiè vivunt, quid quam dicamus, duos tantum nominabimus, quorum alter ante aanos mill ducentos, alter vero nostra aetate vixit. Ille Photinus fuit quondam Sir mii Episcopus, ipsorum etiam adversariorum testimonio divinarum literarum doctissimus &c: Faust. Socin: disputat. de Adorat. Christi. cum Christian. Franken. pag. 29. ) expressly agree in the matter of the person of Christ.  
To the third head I refer that deluge of arianism, whose Rise, Conception, Author, and Promoters, Advantages, success, and propagation, the Persecutions, Cruelty, and tyranny of the Rulers, Emperours, Kings, and Governours infected with it, it's Extent and Continuance, are known to all, who have taken care in the least, to inquire what was the state of the Church of God in former dayes: that heresy being as it were the flood of waters, that pursued the Church for some Ages. Of Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches; the first denying the Deity of the Holy, Ghost, the second the hypostatical Union of the two natures of Christ, and the last confounding them in his person, I shall not need to speak. These by the Socinians of our dayes are disclaimed.( 
Socin. ad Weick cap. 9. p. 152. Smalc. Respon. ad lib. Smiglec. lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 1. )  
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 name, Theodotus, Paulus, Photinus, and the rest of 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 it's period, with what were their ways, lives, Temptations, Ends, Agreements, differences among them, and in reference to the Persons of our present contests,( of whom a full account shall be given) is not my aim nor business. It hath been done by others: and to do it with any exactness, beyond what is commonly known, would take up more room then to this Preface is allotted. Some things peculiarly seem of concernment for our Observation, from the time wherein some of them acted their parts, in the service of their Master. What could possibly be more desired for the safeguarding of any Truth, from the Attempts of succeeding Generations, and for giving it a security above all control, then 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 enquired into, and impartially weighed the Reports of those dayes. What could the heart of the most resolved Unbeliever desire more for his satisfaction, Then 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 Controversy wherein they are engaged. Perhaps they think, that if he should now speak from heaven, they would believe him. So said the Jews to Christ, if he would come down from the across when they had nailed him to it: In the sight,& under the contempt of many miracles greater then the delivery of himself could any way appear to be. The rich man in torments thought his brethren would repent if one came from the dead, and preached to them. Abraham tells him, if they will not believe Moses nor the Prophets, they would not believe though one should come from they dead. Doubtless if what is already written, be not sufficient to convince our Adversaries, though God should speak from heaven, they would not believe, nor indeed can, if they will abide by the fundamental Principles of their Religion. Under this great disadvantage, did the persuasion of the Socinians, that Christ is only {αβγδ}, by nature no more but a man, set out in the world; so that Persons not deeply acquainted with the methods of satan, and the darkness of the minds of men, could not but be ready to conclude it certainly bound up in silence for ever. But how speedily it revived, with what pride and passion it was once and again endeavoured to be propagated in the world, those who have red the stories of Paulus Samosatenus, are fully acquainted, who {αβγδ} blasphemed the Son of God, as one no more then a man. In some space of time these men being decried by the general Consent of the residue of man-kind professing the name of Jesus Christ, and their Abomination destroyed by the sword of faith managed in the hands of the Saints of those days, Satan perceiving himself at a loss, and under an impossibility of prevalency, whilst the grossness of the error he striven 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 fullness of time assured flesh of the Virgin. This opinion being indeed no less really destructive to the true and eternal Deity of the Son of God, then that of theirs before mentioned, who expressly affirmed him to be a more man, and to have had no existence before his nativity at Bethlehem, yet having got a new pretence and colour of ascribing something more excellent and sublime unto him, then 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 it's very entrance, all the Advantages of Craft, Fraud, and subtlety; and in it's carrying on, of violence, force and cruelty; and from the beginning to it's end, of ignorance, blindness, superstition, and profaneness, among the generality of them, with whom it had to deal, that ever any corrupt folly of the mind of man met withal: The Rise, progress, Cruelty, and Continuance of this Sect, with the times and seasons that passed with it over the nations, it's entertainment by the many barbarous nations, which wasted, spoyled, and divided among themselves the Roman Empire, with their parting with it upon almost as evil an Account as at first they embraced it, is not( as I said) my business now to discover. God purposing to revenge the Pride, Ingratitude, Ignorance, profaneness, and Idolatry of the World, which was then in a great measure got in amongst the professors of Christianity, by another, more spiritual, cruel, subtle, and lasting mystery of iniquity, caused this Abomination of arianism to give place to the power of the then growing Roman Antichristian state; which about the sixth, or seventh Century of yeares, 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, atheism, which thereby ever since vigorously pursued.  
With these 
Ariani Christo divinum cultum non tribuerunt. Atqui long praestat Trinitarium esse quam Christo divinum cultum non tribuere. Imo Trinitarius( m●o quidem judicio) modo alioqui Christi praecepta conserve●, nec ulla ratione eos persequatur, qui trinitarii non sunised potius cum ipsis fraternè confer, ac veritatem inquir ere non recuset, merito Christianus dici debet. Qui vero Christum divina ratione non colit, is nullo molo Christianus dici potest: Quecirca non est dubitandum, quin Deo minus displicuerurt Homousiani Trinitarii, quam vulgus Arianorum. Quid igitur mirum, si cum to us foreorbis Christianus in has duas( ut ita dicam) factiones divisus esset, Deus visionibus& miraculis testari vo●uisset utram ipsarum viam salutis vel adhuc retineret, vel jam abj●cisset. add Arianos acerrimè tunc persecutos fuisse mise: as Homousiaros, idque diu& variis in lecis: Quare meritò se Dous Arianis iratum ostendit. Socin. ad Weick pag. 452.  Arians( as was said) do our Socinians refuse Communion, and will not be called after their name; not that their profession is better then theirs, or that they have much to blame, in what they divulge, though they agree not with them in allowing a preexisting nature to Christ before his Incarnation, but that, that Generation of men, having made themselves infamous to posterity, by their wickedness, perjuries, crafts, and bloody cruelties,& having been pursued by eminent and extraordinary judgments from God, they are not willing to partake of the Prejudices which they justly lie under.  
From the year 600 for divers Ages, we have little noise of these mens Abominations, as to the person of Christ, in the world. satan had something else to busy himself about.  
A design he had in hand, that was like to do him more service then any of his former attempts. Having therefore tried his utmost in open opposition to the person of Christ,( The dregs of the poison thus  shed abroad infecting in some measure a great part of the East to this day) by a way never before heard of, and which Christians were not exercised with, nor in any measure ware of, he subtly ruins and overthrows all his Offices, and the whole benefit of his mediation, and introduceth secretly a new Worship, from that which he appointed, by the means and endeavours of men, pretending to Act, and do all that they did, for the Advancement of his kingdom and Glory. And therefore, whilst the fatal apostasy of the western World, under the Roman Antichrist, was contriving, carrying on, and heightening, till it came to it's discovery and ruin, he stirs not at all with his old Engines, which had brought in a revenue of obedience to his kingdom, in no measure proportionable to this, which by this new device he found accrueing to him. But when the appointed Time of mercy was come, that God would visit his people with light from above, and begin to unravel the mystery of Iniquity, whose Abominations had destroyed the souls of them that embraced it, and whose cruelty had cut off the lives of thousands who had opposed it, by the reformation eminently and successively begun and carried on, from the year 1517; satan perceiving that even this his great master-piece of deceit and subtlety 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 God-head of his person, and the Efficacy of his Meditation. So that as for the first 300 yeares of the profession of the name of Christ in the world, he had variously opposed the God-head of our blessed Saviour, by Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus, Marcus, Basilides, Valentinus, Colobarsus, martion, Photinus, Theodorus, and others, and from their dissipation and scattering, having gathered them all to an head in Arius and his Abomination; which sometimes with a mighty prevalency of force and violence, sometimes more subtly( putting out by the way the several branches of Macedonianisme, Nestorianisme, Eutichianisme, all looking the same way in their tendency therewith) he managed almost for the space of the next 300 years ensuing, and losing at length that hold, he had spent more then double that space of time, in carrying on his design of the great Antichristian Papal apostasy, being about the times before mentioned most clearly and eminently discovered in his wicked design, and being in danger to loose his kingdom, which he had been so long in possession of; intending if it were possible to retrieve his Advantage again; He sets on those men, who had been instrumental to reduce the Christian Religion into it's primitive state and Condition, with those very errors and Abominations, wherewith 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& 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& 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 Advantages of the Bishop of Romes 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 subtlety, he set on foot again his opposition to the person of Christ; which being the business chiefly under Consideration, I shall give some brief account thereof.  
Those who have formerly communicated their thoughts and Observations to us, on this subject, have commonly 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,& 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 the Abominations( which they were thoroughly drenched withall, before they left the Papacy) into the minds of many who professed the Gospel.  
The first open breach they made in Poland, was in the year, 1562,( something having been attempted before) being most of the Leaders,( 
De tribus in unâ divinâ essentiâ personis Anno 1562, controversiam movôrunt, in min. Pol. Itali quidam advenae; praecipui autem assertores contra S. S. Trinitatem fuêre, Georgius Blandrata Theologus ac Medicus, Petrus Statorius, Tonvillanus, Franciscus Lismaninus Theologiae Doctor, quorum tamèn ab initio opera reformationis valdè fuit Ecclesiae Dei procfiua: Histor. Eccles. Slavon. lib. 1. pag. 84. ) Italians, men of subtle and serpentine wits. The chief Leaders of them were Georgius Blandrata, Petrus Statorius, Franciscus Lismaninus, all which had been eminent in promoting the Reformation.  
Upon their first Tumultuating, Statorius, to whom 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 subcribed this Confession:( 
Propheticam& Apostolicam doctrinam quae veram Dei patris, filii,& spiritus sancti cognitionem continet, amplector ac vencror. parique Religione Dcum patrem silium& spiritum sanctum distinct● secundum sacra● rum literarum veritatem colendum, implorandúmque precibus, liberè profitoors Denique omnem haereticam de Deo patre fili●& spiritu sancto blasphemiam, planè detestor, sieve Ariana illa, sieve Serventiana, sieve Eunomiana, sieve Staucorian●. Act Eccles. mino. Pol. synod. Pinczovian. Au. 1559. ) 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 Starcarian. And this Confession is to be seen in the Acts of that Convention, under his own hand to this day; which notwithstanding, he was a fierce Opposer of the doctrine here professed all his dayes afterward.  
And I the rather mention this, because I am not without too much ground of persuasion, that thousands of the same judgement with this man, do at this day, by the like dissimulation, live and enjoy many Advantages both in the Papacy, and among the reformed Churches, spreading the poison of their Abominations as they can. This Statorius I find by the frequent mention made of him by Socinus, to have lived many yeares in Poland, with what End and issue of his life I know not; nor more of him, but what is contained in Beza's two Epistles to him, whose Scholar he had been, when he seemed to have had other opinions about the Essence of God, then those he afterwards settled in, by the instruction of Socinus.  
And this man was one of the first heads of that multitude of of men, commonly known by the name of Anabaptists, among the Papists( who took notice of little but their outward worship) who having entertained strange, wild, and blasphemous thoughts concerning the Essence of God, were afterwards brought to a kind of settlement by Socinus, in that Religion he had prepared to serve them all, and into his word at last consented the whole droves of Essentiators, Trithetis, Arians, and Sibellians that swarmed in those dayes, in Silesia, Moravia, and some other parts of Germany.  
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 Hornbecke.  
The Records of the Synods in Poland of the Reformed Churches, give us somewhat farther of him, as doth Socinus also against Wiek. Being an excellent physician, he was entertained at his first coming into Poland, by Prince Radzivil, the then great Patron of the reformed Religion in those parts of the world: one of the same family with this, captain general of the Polonian forces, for the great dukedom of Lithuania, a man of great success in many fights and battels against the Muscovites, continuing the same Office to this day. To him( 
De Georgio Blandrata, pro singulari suo in Ecclesiam Dei amore praemonuit Polonos Cl. Vir Johan. call quin ●tiam Illustrissimum Principe Palatinum, Vito censem, Nicolaum Radzivilium, cujus Patrocinio Blandrata tum utebatur. Subolfererat enim vir doctus Blandratae ingenium ad Serveti sententiam esse compositum: itaque ferius principi fuasor fuit, ut fibi ab eo caveret: said homo ille facile, technis suis fallacibus, optimo Principi fucum fecit, adeò ut ille iratus Johanni Calvino, Blandratam nomine suo ad Synodum Piuckzoviensem Anno 1561. 25. Jun. habitam, delegaret cum literis, quibus serio postulabat in causa Blandratae, cum Ecclesiâ, dicebatque male& praecipitanter egisse Calvinum, quod Blandratam tra luceret,& Servetismi notaret. Regen. Hist. l. 1. p. 85. ) Calvin instantly wrote, that he should take care of Blandrata, as a man not only inclinable to, but wholly infected with Servetianisme: In that, as in many other things, he admonished men of by his Epistles, that wise and diligent person had the fate to tell the Truth, and not be believed. See Calvins Epistles about the year 1561: but the man on this occasion, being sent to the meeting at Pinkzove,( as Statorius,) he subscribes this Confession.  
( 
Fateor me credere in unum Deum patrem& in unum dominum Jes. Christum filium ejus,& in unum Spiritum ●anctum, quorum quilibet est essentialiter Deus; Deorum pluralitatem detestor: cum unus tantum sit nobis Deus, essentia indivisibilis: fateor trees esse distinctas hypostases& aeternam Christi Divinitatem& generationem;& Spiritum Sanctum unum& aeternum Deum ab utroque procedentem: Act: Synod. Pinczov: Anno 1561. ) 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 onely 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.  
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 Radzivil, and to Calvin signifying the same.  
Not long after this by the great repute of his skill in physic he became known, and physician to Stephen King of Poland; by whose favour having no small Liberty indulged him, he became the Patron of all the Antitrinitarians of all sorts throughout Poland and Transilvania: What Books he wrote, and what pains he took in propagating their cause, hath been declared by others. The last Epistle of Socinus in order as they are printed,( it being without date; yet evidently written many yeares before most of them that went before it) is to this Blandrata; whose inscription is, Amplissimo Clarissimoq Viro Georgio Blandratae Stephani invictissimi Regis Poloniae, &c. Archiatro& conciliario intimo, Domino, ac patrono suo perpetuâ observantiâ colendo:& subscribitur, Tibi in Domino Jesu deditissimus Cliens Tuus F. S. To that esteem was he grown amongst them, because of his Advantages to insinuate them into the knowledge of great men, which they mostly aimed at. So that afterwards, when Socinus wrote his Answer about Magistrates, to Palaeologus in defence of the Racovians,( 
Dixit heri vir amplissimus Blandrata, librum se tuum contra Polaeologum accepisse: Habes tu unum sal●cm cvi sis charissimus, cvi omnia debes, qui judicio maxim polleat, cur tantum studium, consili●que pondus neglexisti? poteras non tantum e●us censuram, absoluti jam libri petere, said consilium postulare de subeundo non levi labour. Et possum affirmare senis consilium tibi sine dubio si petivisti, prosuturum fuisse. Ep. Marcel. Square: ad Faust. Socin. ) Marcellus Squaricalupus his countryman a man, of the same persuasion with him, fals 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 broken in his bed, by what hand none knoweth. Wherefore( 
Monendum Lectorem harum rerum ignarum censui, Blandratam haud paulum ante mortem suam vivente adhuc Stephano Rege Poloniae, in illius gratiam,& quo illum ●rga se liberaliorem( ut fecit) redderet, plurimum remisisse de study suo in Ecclesiis nostris Transilvani●is nostrisque hominibus juvandis: imo eo tandem devenisse ut vix existimaretur priorem quam tartopere foverat de Deo& Christo sententiam retinere, said potius Josuitis qui in can provinciam tunc temporis Stephani Regis& ejus fratris Christopheri haud multo any vitam functi ope ac liberalitate non mediocriter florebant, jam adhaerere aut certe cum eis quodammodo colludre. Illud certissimum est cum ab eo tempore quo liberalitatem quam ambiebat Regis Stephani orga se est expertus, caepisse quosdam ex nostris hominibus quos charissimos prius habebat,& suis opibus juvabat spernere, ac descrere, etiam contra promissa& obligationem suam,& tandem illos penitus deseruisse, atque omni verae& sinccrae pietatis study valedixisse,& solis pecuniis congerendis intentum fuisse, quae fortasse justissimo Dci judici●, quod gravissimum exercere solet contra tales descrtores, ei necem ab eo quem suum heredem fecerat conciliarunt Socinus ad Weik. cap. 2 pag. 43. 44. ) Socinus observing that this judgement of God upon him, as that of Francisous David,( of which mention shall be made afterwards) would be fixed on, in the thoughts of men, to the prejudice of the Cause which he favoured, considering more what was for his interest, then what was decent, or convenient; decryes him for an Apostate to the jesuits, before he was so destroyed; and intimates that he was strangled in his bed, by a kinsman whom he had made his heir, for hast to take possession of his great wealth.  
The story I have adjoined at large, that the man's ingenuity and thankfulness to his friend and Patron may be seen. He tells us that before the death of Stephen King of Poland he was turned from their profession by the jesuits. Stephen King of Poland died in the year 1588. according to Helvicus. That very year did Socinus writ his answer to Volanus; the second part whereof he inscribed with all the magnifical Titles before mentioned, to Blandrata; professing himself his Devoted Client; and him the great Patron of their Religion: so that though I can easily believe what he reports of his covetousness and Treachery, and the manner of his death, yet as to his 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 judgement of God on him in his death.  
For Lismaninus the third person mentioned; he was accused of arianism at a Convention at( m) Morden: Anno 1553. And 
Act. Synod. Morden. An. 1553.  there acquitted with a Testimonial. But in the year 1561, at another meeting at Whodrislave, he was convicted of double dealing, and after that wholly fell off to the Antitrinitarians, and in the issue,( n) drowned himself in a well. 
Bez. Epist. 81.   
And these were the chief settled Troublers at the first, of the Polonian reformed Churches; the stories of Paulus Alciatus, Valentinus gentiles, Bernardus Ochinus,& some others, are so well known out of the Epistles of Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Zanchius, with what hath of late from them been collected by Cloppenburgius, Hornbeck, Maresius, Becmanuus, &c. 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 remaines on record concerning them, to give a brief account of the first breaking in of Antitrinitarianisme 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 swissers, that embraced the Gospel, being forced to flee for fear of being dealt withal as Servetus was,( the judgement of most Christian Rulers in whose days leading them to such a tour, how rightly, I do not now determine,) scarce any one of escaping without imprisonment and abjuration,( an ill Foundation of their after Profession) They went most of them into Poland, looked on 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 opportnnity to enti●e and seduce many Ministers with others, and to strengthen them who were fallen into the( Abominations mentioned, before their coming to them.  
After many Tergiversations, many examinations of them, many false subscriptions, in the year( o) 1562 they fell into open division and separation from the Reformed Churches. The Ministers 
( m) Cum dici jus non possini in Ecclesiâ deli. tescere, manifeto scismate Petriconiae Anno 1562. habito prius celoquio eam scindunt& in sententiam suam pertrahunt plurimostium ex ministris, tum ex Patronis Ministri qui partem corum sequebantur erant in principio Gregorius Pauli: &c. Histor: Ecclesi: Slavon: reign. lib. 1. pag. 86.  that felloff with them besides Lismannus, and his companion( 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& Promoters were Johannes Miemoljevius, Hieronymus Philopouius, Joannes Cazaccovius, the one a 
Laelius interim praematura morte extinctus est: incidit mors in diem parendinum id: Maii: 1562. aetatis vero ejus scptimi supra trigicssimum. Eques Polon. vita Faus. Socin. Senens.  Judge, the other a captain, the third a Gentleman, all men of great esteem.  
The( n) year that this Breach was made Laelius Socinus then of the age of 37 yeares, who laid the foundations that his Nephew after built upon, died in Switzerland; As the author of the Life of Faustus Socinus informs us. The man's Life is known: he was full of Servetianisme, and had attempted to draw sundry men of note to his Abominations: A Man of great subtil●y and Cunning, as( 
Fuit etiam Lael us Socinus Senensis incredibiliter ad contradicendum& varios nectendos no los comparatus; nec nisi post mortem cognitus, hujusmodi pernitiosissimis haeresibus laborare. Epist. ad Eccle. Orthodox. Epist. 8. 1. ) Beza says of him, incredibly furnished for contradiction and sophisms: Which the author of the Life of Socinus phrases, He was suggerendae veritatis mirus artifex. He made( as I said) many private attempts on sundry Persons to entice them to Photinianisme; on some with success, on others without. Of his dealing with him, and the Advantage he had so to do,( 
Fuit is Laelius nobili honestaque familia natus, been graece& Hebraice doctus, vitaeque ●tiam extcrnae inculpatae quarum nerum causa mihi quo and intceresserat cum illo non vulgaris amicitia, said homo fuit plenus diversarum haeresium, quas tamen mihi nunquam proponebat nisi dispatandi Causa,& semper interrogans, quasi cuperet doceri: hanc vero Samosatanianam imprimis a●●os multos fovit,& quoscúnque potuit pertraxit in eundem errorem: pertraxit autem non paucos: me quoque ut dixi diversis tentabat rationibus, si eodem posset error simul,& aeterno exitio secum involvere Zanch Prefa● ad lib. de tribus. ) Zanchius gives an account in his preface to his book de tribus Elohim.  
He was, as the author of the Life of Faustus Socinus relates in a readiness to have published his Notions and Conceptions, when God by his merciful providence, to prevent a little the pouring out of the poison, by so skilful an hand, took him off by sudden Death; and Faustus himself gives the same account of the season of his death in an Epistle to( 
Cum amicorum precibus permotus tandem constituisset, at queen et●am caepisset, saltem inter ipsos, nonnulla in apertum proffer. Socin. ad Andraeum Dudithium. ) Dudithius.  
At this death, Faustus Socinus being then about the age of 23 yeares, seizing upon all his Uncles books, after a while returned into Italy; and there spent in Courtship and idleness in Florence 12 yeares, which he afterwards 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( 
Cum his Antitrinitariis publicam habuerunt Evangelici disputationem Betricoviae in comitiis Regni Sigism. 11. Aug. Rege permitt●nte Anno. 1565. Disputatores fuerunt, &c. Regenvoiscius. ubi supra. ) with the reformed Ministers at Petricove,( where the Parliament of the kingdom the● was,) by the permission of sigismond the King, in the year 1565 whereof the ensuing account is given by Antonius Passevine the jesuit, in Atheis: sui saeculi cap. 13. fol. 15.  
The Assembly of States, was called against the Muscovians; the Nobility desiring a Conference between the Ministers of the Reformed Churches and the Antitrinitarians, it was allowed by sigismond then 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.( 
Jant igitur constituta propositione qua de agendum est, in nomine Dei unius& Trinitatis exordimini. ) Seeing the Proposition to be debated is agreed on, begin in the Name of the one God, and the Trinity.  
Whereupon one of the opposite party instantly cried out;  
( 
Nos vero hic non dicimus Amen, neque evim nos novimus Deum istum Trinitatem. ) We cannot here say Amen: nor do we know that God, the Trinity.  
Whereunto the Ministers( 
Nulla jam alia propositione nobis epus est, cum haec se obtulerit, nos autem Deo volente,& volumus,& parati sumus demonstrare, quod Spiritus Sanctus non alium nos Deum in Scriptura doccat, nisi solum Patrem, Filium,& Spiritum Sanctum, id est, Deum unum in Trinit●te. ) 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 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.  
This colloquy continued three dayes: 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( 
Nos quidem o amici haud difficulter poterimus vobiscum eam rem transigere, nam ubi primum biblia aperueritis,& initium veteris& novae legis confideraveritis, statim 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. Navae autem Legis initium hoc est: Verbum erat apud Deum,& Verbum erat Deus. Videtis ut in veteri lege loquatur unus Dcus tanquam de tribus: hic vero quod Filius, Verbum aeternum( nam quod ab initio erat, aeternum est) erat apud Deum,& erat idem, non alius, uti vos perperam intrepretamini, Deus. ) beginning of the old, and new Testament, and upon both places confounded their Adversaries.  
The Second Day the Testimonies of the Ancient Writers of the Church were produced, with no less success.  
And on the Third; The Stories of Arius, and some other heretics of old. The Issue of the disputation was to the great Advantage of the Truth, which Possevine himself cannot deny: though he affirm a little after, that the Calvinists could not confure the Trinitarians( as he calls them) though they used the same Arguments that the catholics did, cap. 14. pag. 366.  
( 
Mox agunt de imaginibus sanctissimae Trinitatis, non contenti simpliciorum quorundam picturas convellere, eas item quae ab Ecclesia Catholica rite usurpatae sunt, scommatibus& Blasphemis carminibus proscindunt. Anton. Posse v. Lib. 8. cap. 15. 16. ) Possevine confesses, that the Ministers( as they called themselves of Salmatia and Transylvania) in their book of the true and false knowledge of God, took advantage at the Images of the catholics; for whose satisfaction( it seems) he subjoins the Theses of Thyreus, whrein 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 Nations at the first, and what number of Persons it prevailed upon to forsake their dumb Idols; which in egyptian darkness they had long worshipped; is evident from the Complaint of( 
Profecto illis temporibus res catholicorum fear deplorata erat: cum in amplissimo Senatu vix unus aut alter praeter Episcopos reperieba tur. Casper Cicovius Canon.& Parock Sardom. Alloquia. ) 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 themselves, some were come off to the reformed Churches: amongst whom Georgius Petrovicius, Bishop of Sarmogitia is reckoned by Diatericus Chron. pag. 49.  
Yea and so far had the Gospel influenced those Nations, that in the year 1542, upon the death of King sigismond the second, during the Interregnum, a decree was made in Parliament with general Consent, that no prejudice should arise to any for the Protestant Religion; but that a firm Union should be between the Persons of both Religions, Popish and Protestant. And that whosoever was chosen King, should takean oath to preserve this Union, and the Liberty of the Protestant Religion.( Sarricius. Annal. Pol. lib. 8. pag. 403.)  
And when( 
Neque vero hoc juramentum pro tuenda place Evangelica praestitisset, ni si cum Johannes Shirle Palatinus Cracovienfis, Vir plenus Zeli& magna cum potentia authoritatis, ade gisset; Ferturenim cum Rex Henricus jane coronandus esset, nec pacem inter dissidentes se conservaturum iurassec, said silentio illudere velvet, acceptá quae Regi tum praeferebatur corona, exitum ex templo parasse,& in haec prorupisse verba, si non jurabis non regnabis. Hist. Eccles. Slavon. Regenvol. lib 1. pag. 92. ) Henry Duke of Anjow, Brother to Charles the ninth, King of France, was elected King of Poland,( being then a man of great esteem in the world, for the Wars which in France he had managed for the Papists against the Prince of Conde, and the never enough magnified 
Condaeo succedit Colignius, vir natalibus& militia clarus, qui nisi Regi suo moveret bellum, dissidii foams& caput, virtutis heroicae exemplar era, supra antiquos ducea, quos mirata est Graecia, quos Roma extulit. Gramond. Histor Gal. lib. 6.  Gasper Coligni, being also consenting at least, to the barbarous massacre of the Protestants in that Nation,) and coming to the Church where he was to be crwoned, by the advice of the Clergy, would have avoided the Oath of Preserving the Protestants, and keeping peace between the dissentours in Religion, 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 Nations, so considerable a portion of the body of the people were won over to the belief of it, when through the Craft and subtlety of the old enemy of the propagation thereof, this apostasy of some to Treithisme, as Georgius Pauli, of some to arianism, as Erasmus Johannes, of some to Photinianisme, as Statorius, Blandrata, some to judaism, as Sidelius( of whom afterwards) the foundation of the whole building was loosened, and instead of a Progesse, the Religion has gone backward almost constantly to this Day. When this difference first fell out, the( 
Quid interea bonus ille Hosus Cardinalis cum suis Cath olicis? Nempe ridere suavitèr,& quasi ista vihil ad ipsos pertinerent, oliud quidvis agere, imo etiam nostros undique ad extinguendum hoc incendium accurrentes, probrosis libellis arcessere. Bez. Ep. 81. ) Papists not once moved a mouth, or pen for a long time, against the Broachers of all the Blasphemies mentioned, hoping that by the breaches made by them on the reformed Churches, they should at length be able to triumph over both. For which End in their disputes since with Protestants, they have striven to make Advantage of the apostasy of many of those who had pretended to pled against the Papacy, in behalf of the reformed Churches, and afterwards turned Antitrinitarians: as I remember it is particularly insisted on in an English Treatise, which I saw many yeares ago, called Micheas the Converted Jew: and indeed it is supposed, that both Paulus( 
Cum gentiles de Paulo Alciato sodali suo rogaretur, factus est inquit Mahmumetanus. Beza. Epist. ubi supra. ) Alciatus, and Ochinus turned mahometans.  
Having thus then disturbed the Carrying on of the Reformation, many Ministers and Churches falling off to Treithisme and Samosatenianisme, they laid the Foundation of their meeting at Racovia, from which place they have been most known since,& taken notice of in the world. The first foundation of what they call the Church in that place, was made by a confluence of Strangers out of( 
Erant alii quoque Antitrinitarii sectae Anabaptitsicae per Bohaemiam& Moraviam long latéque serpentis Sectatores, qui absurdam illam bonorum communionem observaturi ultro abjcctis suis conditio nibus Racoviam se contulerunt. Novam jerusalem ibi loci extructuri,( ut aiebant) adhanc ineptam so cictatem plurimos invitabant nobiles; &c. Regen. lib. 1. pag. 90. ) Bohemia and Moravia, with some Polonians, known only by the name of Anabaptists, but professing a Community of goods, and a setting up of the kingdom of Christ: calling Racovia, where they met, the new Jerusalem, or at least professing, that there they intended to build and establish the new Jerusalem, with other fanatical Follies, which Satan hath revived in persons not unlike them, and caused to be acted over again in the Dayes wherein we live: though for the most part with less appearanoe of holinesse and integrity of Conversation, then in them, who went before.  
The Leaders of these men who called themselves their Ministers, were gregorius Pauli, and Daniel Bielenscius, of whom Bielonscius afterwards recanted, and( 
Quid commemorem animosi illius Gregorii Pauli insalutato suo grege fugam, Bez. ) Gregorius Pauli being utterly wearied, ran away from them, as from a hard service.  
And as Faustus Socinus tells us in his Preface to his answer to Palaeologus, in his old age left off all study, and betook himself to other employments: such were the Persons by whom this stir began.  
This Gregorius Pauli,( 
Novi isti Ariani exorti sunt in Polonia, Lithuania, et ipsa nimirum Transilvania, aceorum caput& ducem se profitetur Gregorius Pauli minister Ecclesiae Racoviensis, Home impius, ambitiosus,& in blasphemiis effutiendis plane effraenis:& ita quidem jactabundus, ut adscribere sibi, cum aliis Arianis, non vereatur excisionem Antichristi;& ejusdem extirpationem ab imis fundamentis: Lutherum enim vix minmā partem revelationis Antichristi reliquisse: Schluffelburg: de Anticri: p. 3. ) Schlusselburgius very ignorantly affirms to have been the head of the Antitrinitarians, and their captain, when he was a more 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:& thence is the Anger of doctor Cunradus, who every where 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 Transilvanica: Both those Nations after the death of sigismond the second, 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 then 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 faire Agreement and correspondency, forbearing one another, wherein they could not concur in judgement: Now as these grew up to Union amongst themselves, the mixed multitude of several Nations that had joined themselves with them in their departure out of egypt, fell a lusting after the Abominations mentioned: and either withdrew themselves, or were thrown out from their Communion.  
At first there were almost as many minds as men amongst them: the tessera of their Agreement among themselves, being purely Opposition to the Trinity, upon what principles soever; Had a man learned to Blaspheme the Holy Trinity, were it on Photinian, Arian, Sabellian, yea mahometan, or Judaical principles, he 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, afterwards introduced by Socinus, there was little or no mention among them. In this Estate divided amongst themselves, notwithstanding some attempts in their Synods( For Synods they had) to keep a kind of Peace in all their diversities of opinions, spending their time in disputes and quarrelings, 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 often times 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 dispersed, and divided opinionatists of our dayes to a Consent in some such body of Religion, as that which Socinus framed for the Polonians: But of him, his Person, and abours, by what ways and means he attained his End, it may not be unacceptable from his own, and friends writings to give some farther account.  
That Faustius Socinus of Sene, was born of a good and ancient family, famous for their skill in the Law, in the month of December, in the year 1539, that he lived in his own country, until he was about the age of 20 yeares; That then leaving his Country after his Uncle Laelius, he went to Leyden and lived there three yeares, That then leaving his Country after his Uncle Laelius, he went to Leyden and lived there three yeares, 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 12 yeares, about the close of which time he wrote his book in Italian de Authoritate Sacrae Scripturae; That leaving his Country he came to Basil in Switzerland, and abode there three yeares, 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( 
Illic solli. dum triennium quod excurrit Theologiae study incubuit, paucissimis Laelii Patrui scriptis& pluribus abiis relictis notis multum adjutus est. Vita Fausti Socini. ) intent upon the Study of his Uncle Laelius his notes, as the Polonian Gentleman who wrote his life confesseth: whereunto he added the Dialogues of Bernardus Ochinus, as himself acknowledgeth, which about that time were turned into latin by( 
Beruardini Ochini Dialogos transtuli, non ut judex, said ut translator;& ex ejusmodi opera ad alendam familiam quaestum facere solitus. castle. Apol. ) Castellio, as he professed, to get money by his labour to live upon:( though( 
Illud certissimum est, Gregorium Zarnovecium ministrum ut vocant Evangelicum qui nominatim adversus disputationem meam de Jesu Christo Salvatore libellum Polonicè edid 〈◇〉, in ejus praefatione asserit, me ex Ochini dialogis annis ab hinc circiter trigiota 6 editis Sententiam illius meae disputationis accepisse, nam certe in Dialogis illis, quoraim non pauca exempla jamdiu in ipsa Polontâ mihi viderecontigit &c. Faust. Socin. Epist ad Martinum Vadovitum Acad. Craco. Professorem. ) he leads that he red Ochinus his Dialogues in Poland, and as it seems not before) and from thence he was esteemed to have taken his Doctrine of the mediation of Christ.  
The Papers of his Uncle Laelius, of which himself often makes mention, were principally his Comment upon the first chapter of Saint John: and some notes upon sundry Texts of Scripture, giving Testimony to the Deity of Christ; among which Faustus extol's that abominable corruption of John the 8 and the 58. Of which afterwards I shall speak at large.( Socin. Respons. ad Eras. Johan.) His Comment on the first of John( 
Laelius in Samosateni partes clam transiitverbo Dei ut ex quodam ejus scripto nunc liquet adeo veteratoriè& plane versute deprava to, ac praesertim primo Evangelii Johavn. capite, ut mihi quidem videatur omnes cejus corruptores superasse, Beza Epist. 81. ) Beza tells us, is the most depraved and corrupt that ever was put forth; it's author having out gone all that went before him in depraving that portion of Scripture.  
The Comment it's self is published by Junius( in defexsione sanctae Trinitatis) and confuted by him, and Zanchius, at large( de tribus Elohim. lib. 6. cap. 2.& deinceps) Faustus varying something from his Uncle in the carrying on of the same design.  
His book de Jesus 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.  
( 
Cum Basiliae degeret ad annum usque 1575 dum lumen sibi exortum, ad alios propogare studet, ab amicis ad alieuos sensim dilapso dissereudi Argumento, disputationem de Jesu Christo Servatore ore primum inchoatam, postea scripto complex us est: cvi Anno 1578. summam manum imposuit: Eques Polon. Vita Socin. ) About the year 1575, he began it, which he finished about the year 1578, although the book was not printed till the year 1594. For upon the divulging of it,( he then living at Cracovia) a tumult was raised 'gainst him by the unruly and disorderly Students, wherein he was dragged up and down, and beaten, and hardly escaped with his Life; which inhuman 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 fel out in the year 1598 as is evident from the date of that Epistle, 4 yeares after the book was printed.  
The Book is written against one Covet, whom I know by nothing else, but what of his disputes with Socinus is by him published; Socinus confesseth that he was( 
Et merely mirum est cum bonis literis ut audio,& ex sermone quem simul habuimus conjicere, atque ex tuis scriptis potui sis admodum ex cultus te id non vidisse Socin. de Servatore, l. 1. part. 1. c. 10. ) a learned man, and in reupte for Learning, And indeed if we may take an estimate of the man, from the little that is there delivered of him, he was a godly, honest, and very learned man, and spake 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 books of him concerning whom we speak, this his disputation de Jesu Christo Servatore is written with the greatest strength, Subtiltye, and Plausibility; neither is any thing said afterwards by himself, or the rest of his followers, that is not comprised in it: of this book he was wont afterwards to( 
Audivimus ex iis qui familiaritèr ipso sunt usi, cum significasse, sicut tum ●actabatur, excellens sibi si contingeret adversarius, qui librum de Jesu Christo servatore adoriretur, tum demum se totum hoc Argumentum ab origi ne explicaturum; Crclli: Praesat Respon. ad Grot. pag. 12. ) boast, as Crellius informs us, and to say, that if he might have some excellent Adversary to deal withall upon the point, he then would show what could farther be spoken of the subject.  
This book at it's first coming out, was confuted by Gregorius Zarnovecius,( as Socinus testifies in his Epistle to Vajodita) in the Polonian language, which was afterwards translated into latin by Conradus Huberus, and printed at Franeker, An. 1618. Also by one Otho Casmannus: and thirdly at large by Sibrandus Lubbertus Anno 1611: who together with his refutation, printed the whole book it's self: 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 it's self in their hands: But the book will speak for it's self with 
( o) Exomologesis of Hugh Paulin de Cressey, &c.  indifferent Readers,& for it's clearness it is extolled by( 
Post luculentas Sibrandi Luberti commentationes adversum Socinum editas Vos. resp. ad judicium Ravensp. ) Vossius: Generally all that have since written of that subject, in Theses, Commonplaces, Lectures, Comments, professed Controversies, have made that book the ground of their procedure.  
One is not to be omitted, which is in the hands of all those who inquire into these things, or think that they are concerned in the knowledge of them: this is Grotius, his Defensio fidei catholicae De satisfactione Christi, adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem: immediately upon the coming out of that book, Animadversions were put forth against it, by Harmannus Ravenspergerus, approved( as it seems) by( 
In cosdem exercuit stylum ut Socinianismi suspicionem amo liretur Hugo Grotius, said praevaricantem aliquoties vellicat in censura, Ravenspergerus. Pri deaux lecti: de justificatione ) our doctor Prideaux.  
The truth is, those Animadversions of Ravenspergerus are many of them slight, and in sundry things he was mistaken, whereby his endeavours were easily eluded by the learned( 
Vossii respon. ad judicium Ravensperger. ) Vossius, in his Vindication of Grotius against him: not that the dissertation of Grotius is free from being liable to many,& just exceptions, partly in things wherein he was mistaken, partly wherein he failed in what he undertook;( whereby many young Students are deluded, as ere long may be manifested) but that his Antagonist had not well laid his Action, nor did pursue it with any skill.  
However the Interpretations of Scripture, given therein by that learned man, will rise up in judgement 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 above 20 yeares, 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 
Praesentissimum ecclesiae venenum.  published to be the most destructive poison of the church; the belief whereof was exceedingly increased and cherished by an Epistle of his to Crellius, who had subtly managed the man, according to his desire of honour, and regard, and by his Annotations of which wee shall have cause to speak afterwards. That book of Crellius has since been at large confuted by( 
) Triumphus Crucis Autore and: Essen. ) Essenius, and enervated by a learned and ingenuous Author in his specimen refutationis 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 Paraeus, 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( 
de gravissima Quaestione utrum Christus pro peccatis nostris justitiae divinae satisfecerit necne? scholastica disputatio. ) Ludovicus Lucius professor then at Amburgh, and the reply of Gitichius confuted, and removed out of the way by the same hand. In that brief rescript of Lucius, there is a clear attempt to the enervating of the whole book of Socinus, and that with good success by way of a logical and scholastical procedure. Only I cannot but profess my Sorrow, that having in his first answer laid that solid foundation of the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ from the eternal nature, and justice of God, whereby it is absolutely impossible, that upon the consideration and supposition of sin committed, it should be pardonned without a due compensation; In his rejoinder to the reply of Gitichius, he closes with a commonly known expression of Augustine.( 
Gitichio itaque de absolutâ dei potentiâ seu po●estate( de qua nulia nobis dubitatio) inaniter blateranti, elegantissimis Augustini verhis respondeo, Omnia Deus potuit si voluisset &c. Lucius ad Gitich: p. 110. ) That God could, if he would, have delivered us without satisfaction; but he would not. 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, concerning the eternal Justice of God, indespensably 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 them through all the sophisms of the Adversaries, and cut all the knots, which with so much subtlety they endeavour to tie, and cast upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, as I have in part( 
Diatrib: de justit● Divin: Vind. ) else where demonstrated; From this book did also Smalcius take the whole of what he has delivered about the death of Christ in his Racovian catechism, not adding any thing at all of his own; which catechism as it was heretofore confuted by Fredericke Bauldwinus, by order of the University of Wittenburgh, and is by several parcels by many removed out of the way, especially by Altingius, and Maccovius, so of late it is wholly answered by( 
Religio Sociniana refutata. ) Nicholaus Arnoldus, now Professor at Franeker, which coming lately to my hands prevented me● from proceeding to a just orderly Refutation of the whole, as I was intended to do, Although I hope the reader will not find any thing of importance therein omitted.  
To close the story of this book of Socinus, and the progress it hath made in the world; This I dare assure them, who are less exercised in these studies, that though the whole of the Treatise have at first view a very plausible pretence and appearance, yet there is a line of sophistry running through it, which being once discovered,( as indeed it may be easily felt) with the help of some few principles, the whole fabric of it will fall to the ground, and appear as weak and contemptible a piece, as any we have to deal withall in that warfare, which is to be undertaken for the Truths of the gospel. This also I cannot omit, as to the rise of this Abomination of denying the satisfaction of Christ; that as it seems to have been first invented by the Pelagians, so in after Ages, it was vented by Petrus Abailardus, professor of Philosophy at Paris; of whom Bernard, who wrote against him, saith; Habemus in Francia novum de vetere magistro Theologum, qui ab ineunte aetate suâ in arte lusit dialecticâ,& nunc in scriptures sanctis insanit. And in his( 
Bernard: Epist: 190. ) Epistle( which is to Pope Innocent,) about him, he strongly confutes his imaginations about this very business, whereupon he was condemned in a( 
Baron: ad and: 1140. ) 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( 
Aliam interim cum Francisco Puccio ineunte. an: 1578. Tiguri confecit. ) Author of the life of Socinus tells us( as he himself also gives in the information) that whilst he abode about Switzerland, at basil, and Tiguri, he had a dispute with Puccius, which also is since published; this was before his going into Poland, in the year. 1578.  
The story of this Puccius, because it may be of some use, as 
Vita Fausti Socin:  to the present estate of the minds of many in the things of God, I shall briefly give from Socinus himself;( Epist. 3. ad Math: Radec:) and that as a tremendous example of the righteous judgement of God, giving up a person of a light unstable spirit to fearful delusions, with a desperate issue. Originally he was a 
( b) ex nobili admodum familiá, quae etiam trees Cardinales habuit, natus. mercaturâ relicta se totum sacrarum literarum study tradidit.  merchant, of a good and noble family: but leaving his profession, he betook himself to study, and for his advantage therein came hither to( 
quod ut commodious facere posset in Angliam se contulit, ibique in Oxoniensi Gymnasio aliquandiu se exercuit. &c. ) Oxford. After he had stayed here until he began to vent some paradoxes in Religion, about the year. 1565.( being not able here to prevail with any to close with him) he went to basil; where there was a dispute between him, and Socinus before mentioned; in the issue whereof, they both profesed, that they could agree in nothing in Religion, but, that there was a God that made the world. At basil he maintained universal Redemption, and a natural faith, as they then termed it: or an innate power of believing without the efficacy of the grace of God; for which he was compelled thence to depart; which doing he returned again into England; where, upon the same account he was cast into prison for a season; thence being released, he went into Holland; from whence by letters he challenged Socinus to dispute, and went 1000 miles( viz: to Cracovia in Poland) afterward, to make it good. After some disputes there,( both parties condescending to them on very ridiculous conditions,) Socinus seeming to prevail, by having most friends among the judges, as the other professed, he stayed there 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 Authority, and power of working miracles were immediately sent of God for that purpose. How far this persuasion hath prevailed with some in our daies, wee all know and lament. Puccius at length begins to fancy, that he shall himself be employed in this great Restauration, that is to be made of the church by immediate mission from God. whilst he was in Expectation of his call hereunto, there comes two English men into Poland: men pretending 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 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 persuasions, of the ceasing of all Ordinances and institutions, with the necessity of their Restitution by immediate Revelation from God, having got companions fit to harden him in his folly and presumption, he scorned all advice and away he went to Prague: no sooner came he thither, but his Prophet had a Revelation by an Angel, that Puccius must become Papist; his cheating companion having never been otherwise. Accordingly he turns Papist, begs pardon publicly for his deserting the roman church, is reconciled by a Priest: in whose society after he had a while continued, and laboured to pervert others to the same superstition with himself, he dyed a desperate magician. Have none in our daies been lead in the like maze? hath not satan lead some in the same circled, 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 communion with Angels? And how many have again sunk down into Popery, atheism, and horrible abominations, is known to all in this nation, who think it their duty to inquire into the things of God. I have given this instance, only to manifest that the old enemy of our salvation is not playing any new game of deceit and Temptation, but such as he hath successfully acted in former generations. Let not us be ignorant of his deceits.  
By the way a little further to take in the consideration of men like minded with him, last mentioned. Of those who denied all Ordinances, and maintained such an utter loss, and defection of all Church State, and Order, that it was impossible it should be restored without new Apostles, evidencing their ministry by miracles, this was commonly the issue; that being pressed with this, that there was nothing needful to constitute a Church of Christ, but that there were a company of men believing in Jesus Christ, receiving the word of God, and taking it for their Rule; They denied that indeed now there was, or could be any faith in Jesus Christ, the Ministers that should beget it being utterly ceased: and therefore it was advisable for men to serve God, to live justly, and honestly, according to the dicates of the law of nature, and to omit all thoughts of Christ, beyond an expectation of his sending Persons hereafter, to acquaint the World again with his worship.  
That this was the judgement of( 
Epist ad Radec. 3. pag. 87. 119. ) Math: Radecius his honoured friend, Socinus informs us: though he mollifies his expression,( pag. 123.) ascribing it to others: Whether many in our daies 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 dayes, was taken from the Example of the Israelites under that Idolatrous apostasy, wherein they were engaged by Jeroboam. In the dayes of Elijah there were( said they) 7000 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 chiefly, tied to one certain place, no public instituted worship, such as was to be the bond of communion for the Church, being acceptable, that was not performed by those Persons, in that place. So that it was utterly impossible for the godly in Israel then, or the ten Tribes to set up a new Church state, seeing they neither had the Persons, nor were possessed of the place, without which no such constitution was acceptable to God: as being not of his appointment. Under the Gospel it is not so; neither as to the one, or other. All places being now alike, and all Persons who are enabled thereunto, having liberty to preach the Word, in the Order by Christ appointed, the erecting of Churches, and the celebration of ordinances, is recoverable according to the mind of God, out of the greatest defection imaginable, whilst unto any Persons there is a continuance of the Word and Spirit.  
But to proceed with Socinus. Blandrata having got a great interest in the King of Poland, and Prince of Transylvania, as hath been declared, and making it his business to promote the Antitrinitarians, of what sort soever, being in Transilvania, where the men of his own Abomination were exceedingly divided about the Invocation and Adoration of Jesus Christ, Franciscus David carrying all before him, in an opposition thereunto,( of which whole business I shall give a farther account afterwards) he sends for( 
Multum illa tempestate turbarum dederat Transilvanicis Ecclesiis Francisci Davidis& reliquorum de honore acpotestate Christi opinio; cvi malo remedium quaerens Georgius Blandrata Socinum Basiliae evocavit( Anno 1578) Ut praecipuum factionis ducem Franciscum Davidem, à tam turpi& pornicioso error abstrahe. ret●vita Faust. Socin. ) Socinus, who was known to them, and from his dealing with Puccius began to be famed for a Disputant, to come to him into Transilvania, 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 afterwards related.  
Being now fallen upon this controversy, which fell out before Faustus his 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 further work of satan, by denying the Deity of our blessed Lord Jesus: very many quickly grew to have more contemptible thoughts of him, then those seemed to be willing they should, from whose principles they professed( and indeed righteously) that their mean esteem of him did arise. Hence Franciscus David, Georgius Enjedinus, Christianus Franken, and sundry others, denied that Christ was to be Worshipped, with Religious worshipo, 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 Christians, who would not allow that Christ might be Invocated; and was to be worshipped: which that he was to be, he proved by undeniable Testimonies of Scripture. But yet when himself came to answer their Arguments, whereby they endeavoured to prove, that a mere man( such as on both sides they acknowledged Christ to be) might not be worshipped with religious worship, or divine Adoration, the man with all his craft, and subtleties was entangled, utterly confounded, silenced, slain with his own weapons, and triumphed over, as I shall afterwards manifest, in the account which I shall give of the disputation between him and Christianus Franken about this business. God in his righteous judgement so ordering things, that he who would not embrace the truth, which he ought to have received, should not be able to maintain and defend that Truth which he did receive: For having what in him laid, digged up the only foundation of the Religious worship and Adoration of Christ, he was altogether unable to keep the building upright: Nor did this fall out for want of ability in the man, no man under heaven being able on his false Hypothesis, to maintain the worship of Christ, but( as was said) merely by the just hand of God, giving him up to be punished by his own errors and darkness.  
Being hardened in the contempt of Christ by the success they had against Socinus and his followers, with whom they conversed and disputed, some of the men, before mentioned, stayed not with him at the affirming of him to be a mere man, nor yet where they began, building on that supposition, that he was not to be worshipped, but proceeded yet farther,& 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 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( 
Homo ille Jes. Nazareus qui Christus appellatur, non per spiritum propheticum, said per Spiritum Sauctum locutus est; id est, quam vis à Deo legatus fuerit, non tamen quaecunque verba ex ipsius Dei ore provenisse censenda sunt: 2 Hinc fit ut illius& Apostolorum ejus verba, ad Mosaicae legis& aliorum propheticorum oraculorum norman expendenda sint,& siquid contrarium vel diver sum ab his in illis, eperitur, aut reperiri videtur, id aut rejiciendum, aut certe ita interpretandum fit, ut cum Mofis& Prophetarum doctrina consentiat quae sola morum& divini cultus regula est. ) First and second Theses of Franciscus David, in opposition to which( 
Theses quibus Francisci Davidis sententia de Christi munere explicatur una cum antithelibus Ecclesiae à Socino conscriptis,& illustrissimo Translvaniae Principi christopher Barthoraeo oblatis. ) Socinus gave in his judgement in certain Antitheses to Christopher Barthoraeus, Prince of Transylvania; who had then cast David into prison for his blasphemy.  
To give a little account by the way, of the end of this man, with his contempt of the Lord Jesus.  
In( 
Certum est illum in ipso initio mensis Junii carceri inclusum fuisse,& vixisse usque ad mensem Novembris, nisi vchementer fallor, quo ex●inctus, est Socin. ad Wick. cap. 2. pag. 44. ) the year 1579 in the beginning of the month of June, he was cast into prison by the Prince of Transylvania, and lived until the end of November: That he was cast into prison by the instigation of Socinus himself and Blandrata, the Testimonies are beyond exception; for this is not only recorded by Bellarmine and others of the Papists, to whose Assertions concerning any Adversary with whom they have to do, I confess much credit is not to be given, but by others also of unquestionable Authority.( 
Illud vero notandum, quod procurantibus Georgio Blandrata& Fausto Socino, in Transylvania exulibus, Franciscus David morti traditus fuit. Adrian. Regen. Histo. Eccles. Slavonica lib. 1. pag. 90. ) This indeed( 
Quod si Wickus intelligit damnandi verbo nostros ministros censuisse illum aliquâ paena afficiendum, aut vult fallere, aut egregie fallitur: nam certum est, in judicio illo, cum minister quidam Calvinianus christopher Principi, qui toti actioni inter fuit,& praefuit, satis longa pratione per suafisset, vi talem hominem è medio tolleret, minitans iram. Dei nisi id fecisset, ministros nostros proprius ad ipsum principem accedentes, reverenter illi supplicasse, ut miseri hoins misereri velvet,& clementem& benignum se erga illum p●aebere. Socin ad Wiekum: cap. 2. pag. 47. ) Socinus denies, and would willingly impose the Odium of it upon others: but the truth is, considering the keenesse and wrath of the man's spirit, and the( 
Imo plusquam haereticum eum( Ecclesiae nostrae) judicaverunt, nam talem hominem indignum Christiano nomine esse dixerunt; quip qui Christo invocationis cultum proisus detrabendo,& cum curam Ecclesiae gerere negando, simul reipsâ negaret eum esse Christum, idemudi supra. ) thoughts he had of this miserable wretch, it is more then probable, that he was instrumental towards his death. The like apology does( 
Exemplum denique affert nostrorum( Thes. 108.) quomodose gesserint in Transylvania, in negotio Francisci Davidis: quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant vafriciae, crudclitatis sanguinariae, proditionis, &c. Smalcius. Refuta. Thes. de hypocrite, disput. 9. pag. 298. ) 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. Being cast into prison the miserable creature fell into a( 
De Phrenesi ista in quam incederit, aliquid merely auditum est, non tantum, biduo ante mortem said pluribus diebus. Socin. ubi supra. ) frenetical distemper through the revenging hand of God upon him, as Socinus confesseth himself.( 
Ecce qui me comitem itineris expectam. Flor. Remund lib. 4. cap. 12. ) In this miserable condition the devil( saith the Historian) appeared unto him; whereupon he cried out, behold who expect me their Companion in my journey: whether really, or in his vexed distempered imagination, disordered by his despaiting mind, I determine not: but most certain it is, that in that condition he expired: not( 
Manifeste in co sunt decepti, qui hoc An. 1580, accidisse sc●ibunt, cum certissimum sit ea facta fuisse uno anno ante, hoc est, Anno 1579: Socinus: ad Weik. pag. 44. ) in the year 1580, as Bellarmine, Weike, Raemundus, and some of ours from them, inform us, but one year sooner, as he assures us who best knew. And the consideration of this man's desperate apostasy and his Companions, might be one cause that about this time, sundry of the Antitrinitarians were converted; amongst whom was( 
deuces hujus agminis Anabaptistici,& Antitrinitarii erant Gregorius Paulus, Daniel Bielenscius,& alii, quorum tandem aliqui phanatico preposito relicto, ad Ecelesiam Evangelicam redicrunt: ut Daniel Bielenscius, qui Cracoviae omnium svorum erorum publice paenitentiam egit, ibidemque Ecclesiae Dei commode praefuit: Adria●. Regenvol. Histor. Eeclesiae Slavonicae. lib. 1. pag. 90. ) Daniel Bielenscius a man afterwards of good esteem.  
But neither yet did satan stop here; but improved the Advantage given him by these men, to the utter denying of Jesus Christ: For unto the principle of Christ's being not God, adding another of, the same nature, that the prophesies 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.( 
Ita Argumentor, quoties regnum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, tale necesse fuit, ut posteri ejus, in quibus haec promissio impleri debebat, haberent: said regnum mundanum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, ergo regnum mun lanum posteri Davidis ut haberent necesse est:& per consequens, Rex ille, quem Prophetae ex hac promissione 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,& posteri ejus, said dicitur habere caeleste regnum, quod est diversum à mundano regno, ergo Jesus ille non est Rex, quem Prophetae promiserunt. Mariin. Scidelius Epist. 1. ad Socinum. ) 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 Nazereth, was a kingdom not of this world, an heavenly kingdom, and so consequently not promised of God, nor from God: and therefore with him they would not have ought to do. This was the Argument of Martin Seidelius, in his Epistle to 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 paraleled; perhaps some may be contented to take it in his own words, which are as followeth.  
Caeterum ut scitais cujus sim religionis, quamvis id scripto meo quod habetis, ostenderim, tamen hic breviter repetam. Et primum quidem doctrina de Messia, sou rege illo promisso, ad meam religionem nihil pertinet: nam Rex ille tantum Judaeis promissus erat, sicut& bona illa Canaan. Sic etiam circumcisio sacrificia,& reliquae ceremonia Mosis ad me non pertinent, said tantum populo Judaico promissa, data,& mandata sunt. Neque ista fuerunt cultus Dei apud Judaeos, said inserviebant cultui divino,& ad cultum divinum deducebant Judaeos. Verus autem cultus Dei quem meam religionem appello, est Decalogus: qui est aeterna,& immutabilis voluntas Dei; qui Decalogus ideo ad me pertinet, quia etiam mihi à Deo datus est, non quidem per vocem sonantem de coelo, sicut populo Judaico, at per creationem infita est menti meae; quia autem insitus Decalogus, per corruptionem naturae humanae,& pravis consuetudinibus, aliquâ ex parte obscuratus est, ideo ad illustrandum eum, adhibeo vocalem decalogum, qui vocalis decalogus, ideo etiam ad me,& ad omnes popules pertinet, quia cum insito nobis decalogo consentit, imò idem ille decalogus est. Haec est mea sententia de Messia, sen rege illo promisso,& haec est mea religio, quam coram vobis ingenué profiteor: Martin. Serdelius Olaviensis Silesius.  
To this issue did satan drive the Socinian principles, in this man and sundry others. Even 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 more man, he could no way evade his inference thence, that he was not to be Invocated: So granting Serdelius, that the promises of the Old Testament were all temporal: He could not maintain against him, that Jesus Christ whose kingdom is heavenly, was the King and messiah therein promised: For( 
Nam quod dicimus, si Deus mundanum regem mundanumque regnum promisit, caelestem autom regem, caeleste regnum reipsa praestitit plus cum praestitisse quam promiserit, rectè omnino dicimus, nam qui plus praestat quam promisit, suis promissis non modo non fle tisse said ea etiam cumulate praestitisse est agnoscendus. Socin. Epist. ad Serdclium pa. 20. ) Faustus hath nothing to reply, but that God gives more then he promised, of which no man ought to complain; not observing that the Question being not about the faithfulness of God in his promises, but about the thing promised, he gave away the whole Cause, and yielded that Christ was not indeed the King and Messiah promised in the Old Testament.  
Of an alike opinion to this of Serdelius, was he of whom we spake before, Franciscus David: who as to the kingdom of Christ, delivered himself to this purpose. That he was appointed to be a King of the Jews, and that God sent him into the world to receive his kingdom, which was to be earthly and civil, as the kingdoms of other Kings: but the Jews rejected him, and slay him, contrary to the purpose of God, who therefore took him from them, and placed him in a quiet place, where he is not at all concerned in any of the things of the Church, but is there in God's design a King, and he will one day sand 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& broken the stubborn Adversaries thereof, and laid the kingdoms of the nations in an useful subserviency to his interest in this world: And that himself will reign most gloriously, by a Spirit of Light, Truth, Love, and holinesse in the midst of them. But that he hath a kingdom of another nature and kind to set up in the World, then that heavenly kingdom which he hath peculiarly exercised ever since he was exalted, and made a Ruler and a Saviour, that he should set up a dominion over men, as men, and Rule either himself present, or by his Substitutes, as in a kingdom of this World, which is a kingdom neither of Grace, nor Glory: I know it cannot be asserted, without either the denial of his kingdom for the present, or that he is, or hitherto hath been a King, which was the blasphemy of Franciscus David before mentioned; or the affirming that he hath, or is to have upon the promise of God two kingdoms of several sorts, of which in the whole Word of God there is not the least Tittle.  
To return; about the end of the year 1579. Faustus Socinus left( 
Anno 1515. jam quad●agenarius migravit in Poloniam. vita Faust. Socin. ) Transilvania, and went into Poland, which he choose for the stage whereon to act his design. In what Estate and condition the Persons in Poland, and Lithuania were, who had fallen off from the Faith of the Holy Trinity, was before declared  
True( 
Extat apud me ipsius Blandratae Epistola, non tamen scripta fine Theseo( Statorio) si Blandratam be ne novi, in qua Gregorium Paulum à Tritheismo ad Samosateni dogma revocare nititur. Incidit enim Blandrata in Transylvaniam rediens in quendam Franciscum David, paulo magis, quam superiores illi ut aiunt providum: Beza Epist. 8. 1. ) it is, that before the coming of Socinus, Blandrata by the help of Franciscus David had brought over many of them from Sabellianisme and Tritheisme, and arianism unto Samosatenianisme, and a full plain denial of the Deity of Christ.  
But yet, with that Pelagian Doctrine, that Socinus came furnished withal unto them, they were utterly unacquainted; and were at no small difference many of them about the Deity. The condition of the first man to be mortal, and obnoxious to death, that there was no original sin, that Christ was not an 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& amnihilated at the last day, with the rest of his opinions, which afterwards 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.  
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 Racovia, which at first was collected by Gregorius Paulus, as hath been declared.  
From these his pretence of abstaining, was, their rigid injunction of all to be rebaptized, that entered into their fellowship, and communion. But he who made it his design to gather the scattered Antitrinitarians into a body, and a consistency in a Religion among themselves, saw plainly, that the rigid insisting upon anabaptism, which was the first principle of some of them, would certainly keep them at an unreconcilable distance. Wherefore he fals upon an opinion much better suited to his design, and maintained, that baptism was only instituted for the initiation of them, who from any other false Religion were turned to the Religion of Christ; but that it belonged not to Christian Societies, or to them that were born of Christian parents, and had never been of any other profession or Religion, though they might use it, if they pleased, as an indifferent thing. And therefore he refused to join himself with the Racovians, unless upon this Principle, that they would desist for the reme to come, from requiring any to be baptized that should join with them; In a short time he divided that meeting by this opinion, and at length utterly dissolved them, as to their old principles they first consented into; and built the remainder of them by the hand of Valentinus Smalcius into his own mould and frame.  
The Author( 
Ecclesiis Polonicis, quae solum patrem domini Jesu summum Deum agnoscunt, publicè adjungi ambivit, said satis acerbe atque diu repulsam passus est, quâ tamen ignominiâ minime accensus, vir, non tam indole quam a●imi instituto, ad patientiam composirus, nulla unquam alienati animi vestigia dedit: vita Faust: Socin: ) of his life, sets it forth, as a great trial of his prudence, pretty, and patience that he was repulsed from the society at Racovia, and that with ignominy: when the truth is, he absolutely refused to join with them, unless they would at once renounce their own principles, and subscribe to his, which is as hard a condition as can be put upon any perfectly conquered enemy. This himself delivers at large on sundry occasions, especially insisting on and debating that business in his Epistles to Simon Ronembergius, and to Sophia Siemichovia. On this score did he writ his disputation de baptismo aquae, with the vindication of it from the animadversions of A: D. whom I suppose to be Andreus Dudithius, and of M: C. endeavouring with all his strength to prove that baptism is not an ordinance appointed for the use of Christians, or their Children, but only such as were converted from paganism, or Mahumedisme: and this he did in the year 1580, two yeares 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 daies he encourages( 
Nam quod niihi objicis me communionem cum fratribus,& Christi fidelibus spernore, nec curare ut cum ipsis caenam dominiceleb●em, respondce, me postquam in Polniam veni, nihil antiquius habuisse, quam ut me quam maxim fratribus conjungerem, licet invenissem illos in non parvis religionis nostrae capitibus, à me diversum se●tire; quemadmodum mul●i body queen sentiunt: quod si nihilominus aquae baptismum un à cum illis non accipio hoc prae●crea sit, quia id bonâ conscientià facere nequeo, nisi publicè ante proiesso me non quod censeam baptismum aquae mihi meique similibus, ullo modo necessarium esse, &c. Epist: ad Sophiam Sicmichoviam, faeminam nobilem. Epistol: 11. ad Valentinum Smalcium and: 1604. ) Valentinus Smalcius, then their teacher, to break them again, because some of them tenaciously held their opinion; and for those, who as Smalcius informed him would thereupon fall off to the Reformed Churches, he bids them go, and a good riddance of them. By this means( I say) he utterly broken 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( 
Dico secessionem Racoviensium ac delirium, esse ab ecclesia ratione sejungendum, nisi velis, conciliabulaquaeque amentium anicularum partes ecclesiae Christianae aut ecclesoam appell are: Men: squarcialup. Epist. ad. Faustum Socinunt. pag. 8.  Squarcialupia 〈◇〉, and as himself confesses in his answer for them to( 
Huc accedit, quod Racovieuses isti sieve caetus Racovensis, quem tu petis atque eppugnas, vel non amplius extat, vel ita hody mutatus est,& in atiam quodammodo formam versus, ut aguosci non queat: Socin: praefat: ad Palaeolog. ) Palaeologus. By this course of behaviour, the man had these two Advantages: 1. he kept faire with all parties amongst them, and provoked 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.  
Secondly, he was less exposed to the fary of the Papists, which he greatly feared,( loving well the things of this world) then 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.  
Secondly, 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 miserable weak and unlearned; One of their best defensatives, before his joining with thē, was a clamour against logic and learning, as himself confesseth, in some of his Epistles; now this is not only evident by experience, but the nature of the thing itself makes it manifest, that so it will be; whereas men of low and weak abilities, fall by persuasions into Religion, as they generally at first prevail by clamours, and all sorts of reproaches cast on learning, and learned men, yet if God in his providence at any time, to heighten the temptation, suffer any person of Learning and Ability to fall in amongst, and with them, he is presently their Head and Ruler without control; some Testimony hereof our own daies have afforded: and I wish we may not have more Examples given us. Now how far he prevailed himself of this Advantage, the Consideration of them, with whom he had to do, of the esteem they had of his abilities, and the serivce he did them thereby, will acquaints us.  
For the leaders of them, they were for the most part unlearned; and so unable to defend their opinions in any measure against a skilful adversary.( 
Petro Stoto jo operam omnem suan fucandis barbarissimi scriptosis Blan dratae commentis novante. Beza. ) Blandrata their great patron was not able to express himself in latin, but by the help of Stationius, who had some learning, but no judgement, and therefore upon his difference with Franciscus David in Transylvania, he was forced to sand 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 Racovia, is manifest from the Epistle of Simon Ronembergius, one of the leaders, and Elders of that which they called their church, which is printed with Socinus his answer unto it. I do not know that ever in my life I saw, for matter& form, sense and language, any thing so simplo. and foolish, so ridiculously senseless, and incoherent, unless it were one or two in our own daies: which, with this, deserve an eminent place inter epistolas obscuronum virorum; And therefore Socinus justly feared, that his party would have the worst in disputes, as he acknowledges it befell( 
Dolerem equidem mirum in modum fi disputatio ista sio habita fuisset, ut adversarii affirmant: suspicor tamen nihilomanus, quatenus disputationem ab ipsis editam percurrendo, animad vertere acconsequi conjectura potui, Licinii antagonistam arte disputandi& ipso superiorem esse,& id in istâ ipsâ disputatione facilè plerisque constitisse. nam etsi( ni fallor) Licinius noster neutiquam in ea Haerest est, in quâ non pauci ex nostris sunt, non esse christiano homini dandam operam dialecticaes Epist: Balverovecium pag. 358. ) Licinius in his Conference with Smiglecius at Novograde and could not believe( 
Voidovius Ostorodi comes ea ad me scribit, quae vix mihi permittunt ut exitum disputationis illius eum faisse credam, quem ipse Ostorodus ad me, scripsit: Epist. ad Valent. Smalcium quarta p. 522. ) Ostrodus that he had such success as he boasted in Germany with Fabritius; and tells us himself a story of( 
Quod totum fear pondus illius disputationis, adversus cos qui Christum adhuc ignorare dici possunt, sustinueris vohementer, tibi gratulor, nihi mihi novum fait, ex narratione ista â percipere, pastores i●los Lithuanicos de ejusmodi ignoratione minime liberos deprehesos suisse Epist. 6. ad Smalcium ) some Pastors of their churches in Lithuania, who were so ignorant and simplo; 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.( 
Me imitari noli, qui nescio quo malo genio ductore, cum jam divinae veritatis fontes degustassem, ita sum abreptus, ut majorem& potiorem juventutis mea pa tem, inanibus quibusdam aliis studiis, imo inertiae atque otio dederim, quod cum mecum ipse reputo, reputo autem saepissime, tanto dollar afficior, ut me vivere quodam modo pigeat: Epist: ad small: pag. 513. ) He complains indeed of his own lost time, in his young daies, 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 Jefuits did,( with whom as to this purpose he is compared all along by the Gentleman that wrote his life,) yet it is evident, that his Learning and Abilities were such, as easily promoted him to the dictatorship among them with whom he had to do.  
It may then be easily imagined what kind of esteem such men as those would have of so great an ornament and glory of their Religion, who at least was with them in that, wherein they dissented from the rest of Christians.  
Not only after his death, when they set him forth as the most incomparable man of his time, but in his own life, and to himself, as I know not what excellent person:( 
Ad te quod attinet, animo es tu quidem ad omnem doctrinae rationem, ac veritatis investigationem nato, magna rerum sophisticarum cognitio, orator summus,& theologus insignis, linguas tenes maxim latinam, ut possis cum praecipuis totius Europae ingeniis certare. Marcel: Squarialup. Epistad. Faustum Socin: ) 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( 
Aliud interim in latiná linguâ erratum, gravius quam istud sit, à me est commissum, quod scilicet relativo reciproco ubi nullus erat locus usus sum. Epist: 4. ad Valentinum Smalcium pag. 521. ) it, as a great crime, that he had used a reciprocal relative where there was no occasion for it.  
And to make it more evident how they depended on him, on this account of his ability for instructions, when he had  told Ostorodus an Answer to an Objection of the Papists, the man having afterwards forgot it,( 
Memini te mihi hujus rei solutionem cum esses Racoviae afferre, said quae mod est tarditas, vel potius stupiditas, non been illius recordor. Ostorod. Epist. ad Faustum Secinum pag. 456. ) sends to him again, to have his lesson over once more, that he might remember it.  
And therefore as if he had been to deal with schoolboys, he would tell his chief( 
Tibi significo me ni fallor invenisse viam quomodo verum esse posset, quod Christus Planc liberè& citra omnem necessitatem Deo perfectissimè obedirit,& tamen necessarium omnino fuerit ut sic obediret; quaenam ista via sit, nisi eam ipse per te( ut plane spero) inveneris, postea tibi aperiam: volo enim prius tuum hoc in●re& Statorii ingenium experiri, tametsi vereor ne jam eam illi indicaverim, Epist. ad Ostorodum 4. pag. 472. ) 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 least he should, through unawares, have  told it to any of them: upon one of which adventures Ostorodus( 
De quaestione tibi propofitâ non been conjecisti, nec quam affers solutionem ea probari ullo modo potest. Epist. 6, ad. Ostorod. pag. 473. ) making bold to give in his conception, he does little better then tell him he is a blockhead. Being in this repute amongst them, and exercising such a dominion in point of Abilities and learning, to prevail the more upon them, he was perpetually ready to undertake their quarrels, which themselves were not able with any colour to maintain. Hence most of his books were written, and his Disputations engaged in, upon the desire of one Assemby, 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 something 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 Andraeus Volanus, commending what he had written against the deity of Christ, which they employed him in( 
Perlecto scripto tuo contra Volanum animadverti argumenta ejus satis accurate à te refutota, locaque scripturae pleraque examinata, ac elucidata, verum non sine maerore( uoquid gravius addam) incidi inter legendum in quoddam paraloxon, scripturae sacrae contrarium ac planè horrendum, dum Christum in morte suâ sieve in cruce, sacrificium obtulissè pernegas, miror quid tibi in mentem venerit, ut tam confidenter( nè quid aliud dicam) contra manifesta sacrae scripturae testimonia pugnare, contrariamque sententiam tueri non timeas Epist. 1. Joh. Niemojev: ad Faust. Socin. pag. 196. ) fals foul upon him, for his delivering in the same Treatise, that Christ was not a priest whilst he was upon the earth; which one abominable figment lies at the bottom of his whole Doctrine of the justification of a sinner. The case is the same about his judgement 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 yeares 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 with him, yet multitudes of them were taken with this snare, and freely drank down the poison they loathed, being tempered with that which they had a better liking to. But this being discovered he let the rest of them know, that though he was( 
Rogavit me dominus Schomanus, dominus Simon Ronembergius& alii ut ad paraenesin Andreae Volani responderem, volui ut si quid in hac responsione vobis minus rectè dictum videretur, non bona conscientiâ tantum, sedjure etiam, eam semper ejurare possetis; Epist. ad Martin: Barovicium. p. 336. ) entreated to writ that book by the Racovians, and did it in their name, yet because he had published some what of his own private opinions therein, they might if they pleased deny, yea and for swear that they were not written by their appointment.  
And this was with respect to his doctrine about the satisfaction of Christ, which as he says he heard they were coming over unto. And it is evident from what he writes else where to Belcerovicius that he begged this employment of writing against Volanus; it being agreed by them, that he should writ nothing but by public consent, because of the novelties which he broached every day. By this readiness to appear and writ 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.  
4 To these add as another Advantage to win upon that people, the course he fixed on, in reference to others, which was to own as his, and of his party, of the Church, all persons what ever, that on any pretence what ever 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: which Philip Buccel, who denied all difference of good and evil in the actions of men; with Erasmus Johannes, an Arian, with Mathias Radecius, who denied that any could believe in Christ, without new Apostles; indeed with all, or any sorts of men 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.  
5 Unto these, and the like Advantages, the man added all the Arts and subtleties, all the diligence and industry, that was any way tending to his End; some of his Artifices and insinuations indeed were Admirable; though to them who now review them in could blood, without recalling to mind the then state of things, they may seem of another complexion.( 
Spero fore, ut si quid illum mecum sentire vetet intellexero facile viam inveniam eum in meam sententiam pertrahendi, Epist. secunda ad Beverovicium. )  
By these, and the like means, thugh he once despaired of ever getting his opinions received amongst them, as he professeth, yet in the long continuance of 24 yeares( so long he lived in Poland) with the help of Valentinus Smalcius, Volkelius and some few others, who wholly fell in with him, he at length brought them all into subjection to himself, and got all his opinions enthroned, and his practise taken almost for a Rule. So that whereas in former daies they accused him for a( 
Aliqui fratrum putant congerendis pecuniis me nunc prorsus intentum esse. Epist. ad Eliam Arcistrium pag. 407. vide epistolam ad Christoph. Morstinum. pag. 503, 504, 505. ) covetous wretch, one that did nothing but give his mind to scrape up money, and were professedly offended with his putting money to usury; for his full justification, Ostorodus and Voidovius in the close of the compendium of their Religion which they brought into Holland, profess that their( 
Non simpliciter usuram damnant: modo aequitatis& charitatis regula non violetur. Compend. Religionius Ostorod.& Voidovii. ) churches did not condemn usury, so that it were exercised with moderation, and without oppression.  
I thought to have added a further account in particular, of the mans craft and subtlety, of his several ways for the instiling 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 concernments of the man, and his business in that Generation, by the perusal of all that he hath wrote, and of much that hath been wirrten against him, with what is extant of the conferences, and disputations, Synods, and Assemblies of those daies, I have some little acquaintance: but being not convinced of much usefulness in my so doing. I shall willingly spare my labour. Thus much was necessary, that we might know the men and their conversation, who have caused so much trouble to the Christian world; in which work, having the assistance of that atheism& 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 judgement, for his elects sake, they will undoubtedly proceed.  
Leaving him then in the possession of his conquest, Tritheits, Sabellians, Arians, Eunomians, with the followers of Francis David, being all lost and sunk, and Socinians standing up in the room of them all, looking a little uon what ensued; I shall draw from the consideration of the persons to their doctrines, at first proposed.  
After the death of Socinus, his cause was strongly carried on by those whom in his life he had formed to his own mind and judgement. Among whom Valentinus Smalcius, Hyeronmyus Moscorvius, Johannes Volkelius, Cristopherus Ostorodus, were the chief; To Smalcius he wrote eleven Epistles that are extant: professing his great Expectations of him, extoling his learning and prudence. He afterwards wrote the Racovian catechism, compiling it out of Socinus his works; many answers and replies to, and with Smiglecius the jesuit, and Franzius the Lutheran: a book of the divinity of Christ, with sundry others, and was a kind of Professor among them at Racovia. The writings of the rest of them are also extant. To him succeeded Crellius a man of more learning and modesty then Smalcius, and of great industry for the defence of his heresy; his defence of Socinus against Grotius, his treatise de causis mortis Christi, de effectu SS. his comments, and ethics, declare his Abilities& industry in his way. After him arose Jonas Schlictingius a man no whit behind any of the rest for learning and diligence, as in his comments and disputations against Meisnerus, is evident. As the report is, he was burned by the procurement of the jesuits some 4 year ago that they might be sure to have the blood of all sorts of men found upon them; what Advantage they have obtained thereby, time will show. I know that Generation of men retort upon us, the death of Servetus at Geneva; but the case was far different. Schlictingius 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. Schlitingius disputed his heresy without reproaching or blaspheming God willingly, under pretence of denying the way and worship of his Adversaries. Servetus stuffed all his discouses with horrid blasphemies. Beza tells us, that he called the Trinity, tricipitem Cerberum, and wrote that Moses was a ridiculous impostor: Beza: Epist. 1. And there are passages cited out of his book of the Trinity( which I have not seen) that seem to have as much of the devil in them, as any thing that ever yet was written or spoken by any of the sons of men. If, faith he, Christ be the son of God, debuissent ergo dicere, quod Deus habebat uxorem quandam spiritualem, vel quod solus ipse masculosfaemineus aut Hermaphroditus, simul erat pater& matter, nam ratio vocabuli non patitur, ut quis dicatur sine master pater: and; si logos filius erat, natus ex patre sine master; dic mihi quomodo peperit eum, per ventrem an per latus.  
To this height of atheism and blasphemy had satan wrought up the spirit of the man. So that I must say, he is the only person in the world, that I ever red 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, the quiter contrary; and that in horror he roared out misericordia to the magistrates, but nothing else: But Arcana Deo.  
Of these men last name, their writings and endeavours for the propagation of their opinion, others having written already, I shall forbear. Some of note amongst them have publicly recanted and renounced their heresy, as Vogelius, and Peuschelius who retuctadions are answered by Smalcius. Neither shall I add much as to their present condition. They have as yet many Churches in Poland and Transilvania:& have their Superintendents after the manner of Germany Regenv:( 
Denique Socinistae recensendi mihi veniunt quiâ Fausto Socino, per Poloniam& Transilvaniam virus suum disserminante, tum nomen tum doctrinam sumpsere; Atque hi soli, extructis Farnesianis, anabaptistis& Francisci Davidis sectatoribus supersunt; homines ad fallacias& sophismata facti. Histor. Eccles. Slavon. lib. 1. pag. 90. ) tells us, that all the others are sunk and lost, only the Socinians remain. The Arians Sabellians David Georgians with the followers of Franciscus David being all gone over to the confession of Socinus; which make me somewhat wonder at that of Johannes Laetus 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 Frances David Christianus Franken, and Palaelogus) 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 afterwards( 
Palaeologus praecipuus fuit ex Antesignanis illorum qui Christum nec invocandum, nec adorandum esse hody affirmant& interim tamen se Christianos esse impudenter profitentur, quo vix quid quam scelestius in Religione nostrâ depravandâ excogitari posse existimo. Socin. Ad. Wick. Res. ad cap. 4. cap. 2. pag. 4 2.  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 drunk in by thousands, in the Papacy, by what Advantages it hath, and continues to insinuate it's self into multitudes living in the outward profession of the Reformed Churches, what progress it makes, and what ground it gets in our native country every day, I had rather bewail, then relate. This I am compelled to say, that unless the Lord in his infinite mercy lay an awe upon the hearts of men, to keep them in some Captivity to the Simplicity and Mystery of the Gospel, who now strive every day to exceed one another in novel opinions, and Philosophical apprehensions of the things of God, I cannot but fear that this soul destroying Abomination, will one day break in as a flood upon us.  
I shall only add something of the occasions and Advantages that these men took, and had, for the renewing and propagation of their Heresy, and draw to a close of this discourse.  
Not to speak of the General and more remote causes of these and and all other soul destroying errors, or the darkness, pride, corruption, and wilfulness of men, the craft, subtlety, envy, and malice of satan, the just revenging hand of God, giving men up to a spirit of delusion, that they might believe lies, because they delighted not in the Truth, 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 propagation of what they had so fallen into.  
Their great stumbling block I look upon to be the horrible corruption& abuse of the doctrine of the Trinity in the writings of the Schoolmen, and the practise of the devotionists among the Papists. With what desperate boldness, Atheistical curiosity, wretched inquiries, and babbling, the School men have polluted the doctrine of the Trinity, and gone off from the simplicity of the Gospel in this great mystery, is so notoriously known, that I shall not need to trouble you with instances for the confirmation of the Observation. This, the men spoken of,( being the most, if not all of them brought up in the Papacy) stumbled at. They saw the doctrine concerning that God whom they were to worship rendered unintelligible, curious, intricate, involved in terms and expressions, not only barbarous in themselves, and not used in the Scripture, but insignificant, Horrid, and remote from the Reason of men; which after some struggling set them at liberty from under the bondage of those notions; And when they should have gone to the Law and Testimony for their information, satan turned them aside to their own Reasonings, and Imaginations, where they stumbled and fell. And yet of the forms and expressions of their School-men are the Papists so Zealous, as that whoever departs from them in any Kind is presently an Antitrinitarian heretic. The dealings of Bellarmine, Genebrard, Possevine and others, with Calvin, are known: One instance may be taken of their ingenuity. Bellarmine in his book de Christo, lays it to the charge of Bullinger, that in his book de Scripturae& Ecclesiae authoritate, he wrote, that there were three Persons in the Deity, non statu, said gradu, non subsistentiâ, said Formâ, non potestate said specie differences; 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 interpnted. 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:  
( 
Notatu vero dignissimum est hisce novis Arianis ad apostasi am seu Arianismum occasionem fuisse, doctrinam Calvinistarum, id quod ipsi Ariani haud obscure professi sunt. Recitabo hujus rei exemplum memorabile de Adamo Neusero ante pauios annos Ecclesiae Heidelbergensis al S. S. primario pastore nobilissimo Sacramentario. Hic ex Zvinglianismo per Arianismum ad Mahometismum usque, cum aliis non paucis Calvinistis Constantinopolin circumcisionem judaicam recipiens& veritatem agnitam abnegans progressus est. Hic Adamus sequentia verba dedit Constantinopol. D. Getlachio Anno 1574. nullus nostro tempore mihi notus factus est Arianus qui non antea fuerit Calvinista. Servetus &c. igitur qui sihi timet ne incidat in Arianismum, caveat Calvinismum. ) Schluffelburgins in his wonted respect and favour unto the Calvinists, tell 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 Neuserus, who as he saith from a Sacramentarian turned Arian; and afterward a mahometan, and was circumcised at Constantinople. This man( fayes he) in a letter from Constantinople to doctor Gerlachius, tells him, that none turned Arians but those that were Calvinists first: and therefore he that would take heed of arianism, had best beware of calvinism. I am very unwilling to call any man's credit into question, who relates a matter of fact, unless undeniable Evidence enforce me, because it cannot be done without an imputation of the foulest crime: I shall therefore but take leave to ask  
1. What Credit is to be given to the Testimony of this man who upon Conradus his own report, was circumcised, turned mahometan and had wholly renounced the Truth which he once professed. For my part, I should expect from such a person, nothing but what was maliciously contrived for the prejudice of the truth;& therefore suppose he might raise this on purpose, to strengthen and harden the Lutherans against the Calvinists whom he hated most, because that they professed the truth which he had renounced, and that true knowledge of Christ and his will, which now he hated: and this lie of his, he looked on as an expedient for the hardening of the Lutherans in their error, and helping them with a ston to cast at the Calvinists.  
2. Out of what kindesse was it that 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 then he did the Calvinists? what person this Adam Neuserus was, and what the end of him was, we have an account given by Maresius from a manuscript History of Altingius. From Heidleberge, being suspected of a conspiracy with one Sylvanus, who for it was put to death, he fled into Poland, thence to Constantinople; where he turned mahometan and was circumcised; and after a while fell into such miserable horror and despair, that with dreadful yellings and clamours, he dyed; so that the Turkes 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, which his witness.  
3. But what Occasion I pray does calvinism give to arianism, that the One should be taken heed of, if we intend to avoid the other: What offence doth it give to men inquiring after the Truth to make them stumble on their Abominations? What Doctrine doth it maintain that should prepare them for it? but no man is bound to burden himself with more then he can carry,& 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 Popes Dominion, came to shelter themselves, where they expected liberty, and opportunity of venting their abomination among the reformed Churches, and joined themselves with them in outward profession: most of them as afterwards appeared, being thoroughly infected with the errors against the Trinity, and about the Godhead, before they left the Papacy where they stumbled and fell.  
2. In the practise of the Church( as it is called) wherein they were bread, they nextly saw the horrible Idolatry that was countenanced in abominable Pictures of the Trinity, and the worship yielded to them, which strengthened and fortified their minds against such gross Conceptions of the nature of God, as by those pictures were exhibited.  
Hence when they had left the Papacy, and set up their opposition to the Blessed Trinity, in all their books they still made mention of those Idols and Pictures, speaking of them as the God of those that worshipped the Trinity; this instance makes up a good part of their book de fall â& verâ cognitione unius Dei, Patris, Filii,& Spiritûs Sancti, written in the name of the Ministers of the Churches in Sarmatia, and Transilvania: book full of reproach and blasphemies: but this I say was another occasion of stumbling to those miserable Wretches: they knew that thoughts the men of their communication had of God, by the Pictures made of him, and the worship they yielded to them. They knew, how abhorrent to the very principles of Reason it was, that God should be such, as by them represented; and therefore set themselves at liberty( or rather gave up themselves to the service of satan) to find out another God whom they might worship.  
Neither are they a little confirmed to this day in their errors by sundry principles, which under the Roman 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 God by nature may be adored, worshipped, and invocated.  
Now that to this day the Papists continue in the same Idolatry( to touch that by the way) I shall give you for your Refreshment a copy of verses or two, whose Poetry does much outgo the old.  

O crux spes unica  
Auge piis constantiam  
Hoc passionnis tempore  
Reisque dona veniam.  And whose blasphemy comes not at all short of it: The first is of Clarus Bonarsius the jesuit. lib. 3. Amphitriat. Honor. lib. 3. cap. ult. ad divam Hallensem& puerum Jesum, as followeth;  

Haereo lac inter meditans, interque cruorem  
Inter delicias uberis& lateris.  
Et dico( si fortè oculos supper ubera tendo)  
Diva parens mammae guadia posco tuae.  
said dico,( si deinde oculos in vulnera verto)  
O Jesu lateris gaudia'malo tui.  
Rem scio; prensabo si fas erit ubera dextrae  
Laeva prensabo vulnera si dabitur.  
Lac matris miscere volo cum sanguine nati,  
Non possem antidoto nobiliore frui.  
Vunera restituant turpem ulceribus mendicum  
Testa cvi saniem radere sola potest.  
Ubera reficient Ismaëlem sitientem  
Quem Sara non patitur, quem neq nutrit Agar.  
Ista mihi ad pestem, procul& procul expungendam  
Ista mihi ad long as evalitura febres,  
Ira vomis flammas, sumatq libidinis Aetna  
Suffocare queo sanguine, lact quoo.  
Livor inexpleta rubigine saevit in artus  
Detergere queo lact, cruore queo:  
Vanus honos me perpetua prurigine tentat  
Exsaturare queo sanguine, lact queo.  
Ergo parens& nate, meis advertite votis  
Lac peto, depereo sanguinem, utrumque volo.  
O sitio tamen! o vocem sitis intercludit.  
Nate cruore sitim comprime lact parens.  
Dic matri, meus hic frater sitio, optima matter,  
Vis è font tuo promere, deque meo.  
Dic nato, tuus hic frater mi mellee fili  
Captivus monstrat vincula, lytron habes.  
Ergo Redemptorem monstra te jure vocari  
Nobilior reliquis si tibi sanguis inest.  
Tuque parens monstra, matrem te jure vocari  
Ubera si reliquis divitiora geris.  
O quando lactabor ab ubere, vulnere pascar? 
Hoc tantum dicam, cum nuper Bellarmini disputationum primum tomum evolverem, supra modum me miratum fuisse, quod ad finem fear singularum controversiarum homo alioqui acutus ac sagax ea verba aut scuraverit aut permiserit adscribi: Laus Deo Virginique Matri: quibus verbis manifestè Virgini Mariae divinus cultus, aut ex aequo cum ipso Deo, aut certe secundum Deum exhibetur. Socin. ad Weik cap. 1. pag. 22.   
Deliciisque fruar, mamma latusque tuis   
The other is of Franciscus de Mendoza in viridario utriusque eruditionis lib. 2. 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 maestus amore dolor.  
At me pertentant dum gaudia, vulnera lambo  
Ut me laeta pio mista dollar juvent.  
Vulnera sic nati, sic ubera sugo parents  
Securae ut variae sint mihi fort vices.  
Quis fine lact precor, vel quis sine sanguine vivat?  
lact tuo genetrix, sanguine nate tuo.  
Sit lac pro Ambrosia, suavi pro nectare sanguis  
Sic me perpetuum vulnus& uber alit.   
And this their Idolatry is objected to them by Socinus, who marvels at the impudence of Bellarmine closing his bones of Controversies( as is the manner of the men of that society) with laus Deo, Virginique matri Mariae: wherein as he says( and he says it truly) divine honour with God, is ascribed to the blessed Virgin.  
The Truth is, I see not any difference between that Dedication of himself and his work, by Redemptus Baranzanus the Priest, in these words, Deo, virginique matri, Sancto Paulo, Bruno, Alberto, Redempto, Francisco, Clarae, Joannae, Catharinae Senensi, divisque omnibus, quos peculiari cultu honorare desidero, omnis meus labour consecratus sit( Baranzan. Nov. Opin. Physic. Diglad.) and that of the Athenians by the advice of Epimenides {αβγδ} both of them being suitable to the Counsel of Pythagoras  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}  
Let them be sure to worship all sorts that they may not miss. And by these means, amongst others, hath an occasion of stumbling and hardening been given to these poor souls.  
2 As to the propagation of their conceptions, they had the Advantage, not only of an unsettled time, as to the civil government of the nations of the world; most kingdoms, and commonweals in Europe undergoing in that Age considerable mutations and changes,( a season wherein commonly the Envious man hath taken opportunity to sow his tares) but also men being set at Liberty from the bondage under which they were kept in the Papacy, and from making the Tradition of their Fathers the Rule of their worship and walkings, were found indeed to have upon abiding grounds, no principles of Religion at all; and therefore were earnest in the Enquiry 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 dayes there were, that fell off from the Papacy, some thousands perhaps( much more Scores) might in their Enquirings, from an extreme of superstition, run into another of almost atheism. Such was the estate of things and men in those dayes, wherein Socianianisme, 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 slight of some few men, that lay in wait to deceive. What event and issue and 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 address to them. To what hath been spoken, I had thought for a close of this discourse, to have given an account of the learning that these men profess, and the course of their studies, of their way of disputing, and the Advantages they have therein; to have instanced in some of their considerable sophisms, and subtle depravations of Scripture; as also to have given a specimen of distinctions and answers, which may be improved to the discovering and slighting of their fallacies, in the most important heads of Religion: but being diverted by new and unexpected Avocations, I shall refer these, and other considerations, unto a Prodromus for the use of younger Students, who intend to look into these Controversies.  
And these are the Persons with whom we have to deal; these their ways and progress in the world. I shall now briefly subjoin some Advantages they have had, something of the way and method, wherein they have proceeded for the diffusing of their poison, with some general preservatives against the infection, and draw to a close of this discourse.  
1 At the first entrance upon their undertaking, some of them made no small Advantage in dealing with weak and unwary men, by crying out, that the terms of Trinity, Person, Essence, Hypostatical union, Communication of properties, and the like, were not found in the Scripture, and therefore were to be abandoned.  
With the colour of this plea, they once prevailed so far on the Churches in Transylvania, as that they resolved and determined, to abstain from the use of those words: But they quickly perceived, that though the words were not of absolute necessity, to express the things themselves to the minds of Believers, yet they were so, to defend the Truth from the opposition and craft of Seducers: And at length recovered themselves by the advice of( 
Nam ego quidem sic statuo, etsi non pendet aliundè rerum sacrarum veritas quam ab unico Dei verbo,& sedulò vitanda est nobis omnis {αβγδ}: Tamem sublato essentiae& hypostase●n discrimine( quibuscunque tandem verbis utaris)& abrogato {αβγδ}, vix ac ne vix quidem istorum blasphemorum fraudes detegi,& errores satis perspicue coargui posse. Nego quoque sublatis vocabulis naturae, proprietatis, hypostaticae unionis, {αβγδ}, posse Nestorii& Eutichei blasphemias commodè a quoquam refelli: quâ in re si fort hallucinor, hoc age, nobis demonstret qui potest,& nos illum coronabimus. Beza. Epist. 81. ) Beza. Yea and( 
Ais igitur adversus id quod à me affirmatum fuerat, in controversis dogmatibus probandis, aut improbandis, necesse esse literam adf●rre,& id qued asseritur manifestè demonstrare: id quod asscritur, manifestè demonstrari debere planè concedo; literam autem adferre necesse esse prorsus nego; me autem jure hos facere id opertè confirmat, quod quaedam dogmata in Christi ecclesiâ re●cptissima, non solum pox expressam iiteram non prebantur, said ipsam sibi contrariam habent. Exempli causâ, inter omnes fear Christiani nominis homines receptissimum est, Deum non habere aliqua membra corporis, ut aures, oculos, nares, brachia, pedes, manus,& tamen non niolo express& litera●ter( ut vocant) id scriptum in sacris libris non est: verum etiam conerarium omnino passim diserte scriptum extat: Fausti Socin: Frag: disput: de Ador: Christi cum Fran: David Cap. 10. pag 59. ) Socinus himself doth not only grant, but prove, that in general this is not to be imposed on men, that the doctrine they assert is contained in scripture, in so many words, seeing it sufficeth that the thing itself pleaded for, be contained therein. To which purpose I desire the learned Reader to peruse his 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: yeal and the same( 
Simile quod affers de vocabulis essentiae,& persona●um à nobis repudiatis, quia in sanctis literis non inveniantur, non est admittendum, nemini cuim verè cordato persuadebitis id quod per ea vocabula adversarii significare volverunt, idoirco repudiandum esse, quia ipsa vocabula scripta non inveniantur, imò quicunque ex nobis hac ratione sunt usi, suspectam apud nonnullos, alioquin ingenio,& eruditione praestantes viros, causam nostram reddidere: idem. ubi sup: pag. 62. ) person rejects the plea of his companions, of the not express usage of the terms wherein the doctrine of the Trinity is delivered in the Scripture, as weak and frivolous. And this hath made me a little marvel at the precipitate undigested conceptions of some, who in the midst of the flames of socinianism kindling upon us on every side, would( contrary to the wisdom and practise of all Antiquity, no one Assembly in the world excepted) tie us up to a form of confession composed of the bare words of the scripture in the order wherein they are there placed. If we profess to believe that Christ is God blessed for ever, and the Socinians tells 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 incarn●te; 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. 4. 8. The person of the father, and the son distinct from it, Heb: 1. 3. The Essence of God Exod: 3. 14. Revel: 1. 4. The Trinity 1 Joh: 5. 7. The Deity, Col: 2. 9.  
2. Their whole business in all their books, and disputations is to take upon themselves the parts of Answerers, so cavilling and making exceptions, not caring at all what becomes of any thing in Religion, so they may with any colour avoid the Arguments wherewith they are pressed. Hence almost all their books, unless it be some few short catechisms, and confessions, are only Answers and exceptions to other mens writings. Beside the fragments of a catechism or two, Socinus himself wrote very little but of this kind; so do the rest. How heavy& dull they are in asserting, may be seen in Volkelius his institutions: And here whilst they escape their Adversaries, they are desperately bold in their Interpretations of Scripture: Though for the most part it suffices, that what is urged against them, is not the sense of the place, though they themselves can assign no sense at all to it. I could easily give instances in abundance to make good this observation concerning them, but I shall not mention what must necessary be insisted on, in the ensuing discourse. Their Answers are: This may otherwise be expounded, it may otherwise be understood; the word may have another signification in another place.  
3. Their greatest Triumphs which they set up in their own conceits are, when by any ways they possess themselves of any usual maxim, that passes currant 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. Then 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 dependant, 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 was said) in the pursuit of their design, and carrying it on, they begin in exclaiming against the usual words wherein the doctrines they oppose are taught and delivered. They are not scripture expressions, &c: for the things themselves, they do not oppose them; but they think them not so necessary as some suppose; having got some ground by this on the minds of men, great stress is immediately laid on this, that a man may be saved though he believe not the Doctrine of the Trinity; the satisfaction of Christ &c. so that he live holily,& yield obedience to the precepts of Christ; so that it is more 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 flights 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 judgement of God, giving up men of light and vain spirits to the imaginations of their own hearts, overthrow their faith, and led 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 1000s in the Papacy, and among the reformed Churches; that are wholly baptized into their vile opinions and infidelity, though for the love of their temporal enjoyments, which are better to them then their Religion, they profess it not.  
As also how this persuasion of theirs hath been the great door whereby the flood of atheism which is broken in upon the world and which is almost professed by them, who would be accounted the wits of the times, is come in upon the nations: further, to have given general answers, and distinctions 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& 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,& sound doctrine: know that there are other ways of peace and Accommodation with dissenters, then by letting go the least particle of Truth. When men should accommodate their own hearts to love and peace, they must not double with their souls, and accommodate the truth of the gospel to other mens imaginations; perhaps some will suggest great things of going a middle way in divinity between dissenters: but what is the issue for the most part of such proposals? after they have by their middle ways raised no less contention, then was before between the extremes( yea when things before were in some good measure allayed) the Accommodator's themselves, through an ambitious desire to make good, and defend their own expedients, are insensibly carried over to the party and extreme to whom they thought to make a condescension; and by endeavouring to blanche their opinions to make them seem probable, they are engaged to the defence of their consequences, before they are ware: Amiraldus( whom I look upon as one of the greatest wits of these daies) will at present go a middle way between the Churches of France, and the Arminians; what hath been the issue? among the Churches, divisions, tumult, disorder; among the professors and ministers, revilings, evil surmisings; to the whole body of the people, scandals and offences; and in respect of himself, evidence of daily approaching nearer to the Arminian party, until as one of them saith of him, he is not far from( their) kingdom of heaven; but is this all? nay but Grotius, Episcopius,( 
Quotquot hactenus Theologica tractarunt, id sibi negotii crediderunt so lum dari, ut quam sieve sors illis obtulerat, sieve judicio amplexi erant sententiam, totis illam viribus tuerentur; ●arcellaeus p●ae fat: ad opera Episcep. ) Curcaellaeus &c.( quanta nomina) with others, must go a middle way to accommodate with the Socinians, and all that will not follow are rigid men, that by any means will defend the opinions they are fallen upon. The same plea is made by others for Accommodation with the papists, and still moderation, the middle way, condescension are cried up. I can freely say, that I know not that man in England, who is willing to go further in forbearance, Love, and Communion with all that fear God, and hold the foundation, then I am; but that this is to be done upon other grounds, principles, and ways, by other means, and expedients, then 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 else where sufficiently declared. Let no man deceive you with vain pretences: hold fast the truth as it is in Jesus, part not with one Jota, 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 finding it impossible to emerge unto ny consideration, by walking in the beaten path of truth,( all parts of Divinity, all ways of handling it, being carried already to such an height and excellency, that to make any considerable improvement requires great pains, study, and an insight into all kind of learning,) and yet not able to conquer the itch of being accounted {αβγδ}, turn aside into by ways; and turn the eyes of all men to them, by scambling over hedge and ditch, when the sober traveller is not at all regarded.  
The Roman Historian giving an account of the degeneracy of Eloquence, after it once came to its height in the time of Cicero, fixeth on this as the most probable Reason. difficile in perfecto mora est; naturaliterque quod procedere non potest, recedit; & ut ad consequendos quos priores ducimus accedimus: Ita ubi praeteriri, aut aequari eos posse desperamus, studium cum spesegnescit,& quod assequi non potest, sequi desinit;& velut occupatam relinquens materiam, quaerit novam: praeteritoq eo in quo eminere non possumus, aliquid in quo nitamur conquaerimus; sequitúrque ut frequens ac mobilis transitus maximum perfecti operis impedimentum sit. Paterc: Hist: Rom: lib:  
1. 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 its self, and perspicuity in the way of its delivery; but( 
{αβγδ}: Hipocrat: Aphoris: lib. 1.§ 11. ) athleticks constitutions are seldom permanent: men would not be content to walk after others,& finding they could nor excel what was done, they have given over to imitate it, or to do any thing in the like kind: and therefore neglecting that wherein they could not be eminent, they have taken a course to have some thing peculiar, wherein to put forth their endeavours. Let us then watch against this temptation, and know that a man may be higher then his brethren, and yet be but a Saul.  
3. Let not any attempt dealing with these men, that is not in some good measure furnished with those kinds of literature, and those common Arts, wherein they excel: as first, the knowledge of the Tongues, wherein the scripture is written; namely the Hebrew and greek. He that is not in some measure acquainted with these, will scarcely make through work in dealing with them. There is not a word, nor scarce a letter in a word,( if I may so speak) which they do not search, and toss up and down; not an expression which they pursue not through the whole scripture, to see if any place will give countenance to the Interpretation of it, which they embrace. The curious use of the greek Articles, which as Scaliger calls them, are loquacissimae 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 to any one word of the Testimony, where on 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( nextiy,) are the common arts of logic and rhetoric wherein they exercise themselves: Among all Socinus his works, there is none more pernicious then the little Treatise he wrote about sophisms, wherein he labours to give instances of all manner of sophistical Arguments, in those which are produced for the confirmation of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.  
He that would reinforce those Arguments, and vindicate them from his exceptions, and the entanglements cast upon them, without some considerable acquaintance with the principles of logic and Artificial Rules of Argumentation, will find himself at a loss: Besides, of all men in the world in their Argumentations they are most Sophistical: It is seldom that they urge any Reason, or give any exception, wherein they conclude not à particulari ad universale, or ab indefinito ad universale, exclusivè, or ab aliquo statu Christi ad omnem, or ab oeconomia Trinitatis ad Theologiam Deitatis, or ab usu vocis alicubi to ubiq. As, Christ is a man, therefore not God. He is the servant of the Father, therefore not of the same nature, and the like instances may be given in Abundance: From which kind of arguing he will hardly extricate himself, who is ignorant of the rudiments of logic: The frequency of figurative expressions, which they make use of to their Advantage in the Scripture, requires the knowledge of rhetoric also, in him that will deal with them, to any good purpose: A good Assistance( in the former of these especially) is given to Students, by Keslerus, in examine Logicae, Metaphysicae,& Physicae Photinianae: The pretended maxims also which they insist on from the Civil Law, in the business of the satisfaction of Christ, which are especially urged by Socinus, and Crellius in his defence against Grotius, will make him who shall engage with them, see it necessary in some measure to be acquainted with the principles of that faculty and Learning also.  
With those who are destitute of these, the great spirit of Truth is an abundantly sufficiently 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 red 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 subtly oppose. Remember that the aim of their Arguments against the Deity of Christ, and the blessed Trinity, is to set up two true Gods, the one so by nature, the other made so; the one God in his own Essence, the other a God from him by office: that was a man, is a spirit, and shall cease to be a God: And some farther account hereof you will meet with in the close of the ensuing Treatise.  
5 Diligent, constant, serious reading, studying, meditating on the Scriptures, with the assistance and directions of all the Rules& 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 led 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 indispensible necessity. Apollos who was mighty in the Scriptures, Acts. 18. 24. did mightily convince the gainsaying Jews, vers. 28. neither in dealing with these men is there any better course in the world, then 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 sand out a glory and brightness which they cannot stand before. Being engaged myself once in a public dispute about the satisfaction of Christ, I took this course, in a clear and evident coherence producng very many Testimonies to the confirmation of it; which together gave such an Evidence to the Truth, that one who stood by, instantly affirmed, that there was enough spoken to stop the mouth of the devil himself. And this course in the business of the Deity and Satisfaction of Christ, will certainly be triumphant. Let us then labour to have our senses abundantly exercised in the Word, that we may be able to discern between good and evil, and that not by studying the places themselves that are controverted, but by a diligent search into the whole mind and will of God, as revealed in the word, wherein the sense is given in to humble souls, with more life, power, evidence of truth,& is more effectual for the begetting of faith and love to the truth, then 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, then their diversion from an immediate direct study of the Scriptures themselves, unto the studying of commentators, critics, Scholiasts, Annotatours, and the like helps, which God in his good providence making use of the Abilities,& sometimes the Ambition, and ends of men, hath furnished us withal: not that I condemn the use and study of them, which I wish men were more diligent in, but desire pardon if I mistake, and do only surmise by the experience of my own folly for many yeares, 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; then to search studiously into them themselves.  
6. That direction in this kind, which with me is instar omnium, is, for a diligent endeavour to have the power of the truths professed and contended for, abiding upon our hearts, that we may not contend for notions; but what we have a practical acquaintance 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 contend for, then shall we be Garrisoned by the grace of God against all the Assaults of men. And without this, all our contending is as to ourselves, of no value. What am I the better, if I can dispute that Christ is God, but have no sense or sweetness in my heart from hence, that he is a God in Covenant with my soul, what will it avail me to evince by Testimonies and Arguments, that he hath made satisfaction for sin, If through my unbelief the wrath of God abides on me, and I have no experience of my own being made the righteousness of God in him; If I find not in my standing before God, the excellency of having my sins imputed to him, and his righteousness imputed to me; will it be any Advantage to me in the issue, to profess, and dispute that God works the conversion of a sinner, by the irresistible grace of his spirit, If I was never acquainted experimentally with the deadness and utter impotency to good, that opposition to the law of God which is in my own soul by nature, with the 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 abiding 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 a far 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, 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 rebuk him, he is busyin, 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. Biddles, and Smalcius his catechism, commonly called the Racovian, with the Vindication of all the Texts of Scripture, giving Testimony to the Deity of Christ throughout the Old& New Testament, from the perverse gloss& 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, &c: hath been in my design. With what mind and intention, with what love to the Truth, with what dependence on God for his presence and assistance, with what earnestness of supplication to enjoy the fruit of the Promise of our dear Lord Jesus, to led 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, 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 what ever 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 judgement of them to whom this adulteress is made. About the thoughts of others, or any such as by envy, interest, curiosity, or faction, may be swayed or biased, I am not solicitous. If any benefit redound to the Saints of the most High, or any that belong to the purpose of God's love be advantaged, enlightened, or built up in their most holy faith in the least, by what is here delivered, I have my reward.   

MR B'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 supposals and traditions of men, that the least part of them is derived from the Word of God. For when Councells, 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 afterwards sitted to those Articles and Confessions,& 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 judgement, who taking into his hand the said catechisms, 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 onely 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 supposalls 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 quiter abandoned all Piety whatsoever, thinking there is no firm ground whereon to build the same. To prevent which mischief in time to come, by bringing men to a certainty,( I mean such men as own the divine Authority of the Scripture) and withall 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 practise, whilst I myself assert nothing( as others have done before me) but only introduce the Scripture faithfully uttering its own assertions, which all Christians confess to be of undoubted truth. Take heed therefore whosoever thou art that lightest on this book, and there readest things quiter contrary to the doctrines that pass currant amongst the generality of Christians,( for I confess most of the things here displayed, have such a tendency) that thou fall not soul upon them, for thou canst not do so withot falling foul upon the Holy Scripture itself, inasmuch as all the Answers through out the whole Catechism are faithfully transcribed out of it, and rightly applied to the Questions, as thou thyself mayst perceive if thou make a diligent inspection into the several texts withall 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 interpretation put upon them, and then both the Doctrines and the texts of Scripture will svit 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& 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 Turkes, all the licentious Opinions& practices of the Ranters, may by this means be not only paliated, 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 oursenses, nor to the scope of the respective texts, nor to a greater number of plain texts to the contrary( for in such cases we must of necessity admit figures in the sacred Volume, as well as we do in prosane ons otherwise both they& it will clash with themselves, or with our senses which the Scripture itself intimates to be of infallible certainty, see 1 Joh. 1. 2, 3.) might we I say at our pleasure impose our Figures and Allegories on the plain words of God, the Scripture would in very dead be, what some blasphemously affirm it to be a Nose of Wax. For instance, it is frequently asserted in the Scripture, that God hath a similitude or shape, hath his place in the Heavens, hath also affections or passions, as love, hatred, mercy, anger, and the like, neither is any thing to the contrary delivered there, unless seemingly in certain places which neither for number, nor clearness are comparable unto those of the other side. Why now should I depart from the letter of the Scripture in these particulars, and boldly affirm with the generality of Christians,( or rather, with the generality of such Christians ouly, as being conversant with the false Philosophy that reigneth in the Schools, have their understandings perverted with wrong notions) that God is without a shape, in no certain place, and uncapable of affections? Would not this be to u●e 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 uncapable of finding out his meaning, whilst he spake one thing, and understood the clean contrary? Yea would he not have taken the direct course to make men substitute an Idol in his stead,( for the Adversaries hold, that to conceive of God as having a shape, or affections or being in a certain place, is Idolatry) if he described himself in the Scripture otherwise then indeed he is, without telling us so much in plain terms, that we might not conceive amiss of him? Thus we see, that when sleep, which plainly argueth weakness and imperfection, had been ascribed to God Psal. 44. 23. The contrary is said of him, Psal. 121. 4. again when weariness had been attributed to him, Isa. 1. 14. The same is expressly denied of him Isa. 40. 28. And would not God( think ye) have done the like in those forementioned things, were the case the same in them, as in the others? This consideration is so pressing, that a certain. Author,( otherwise a very learned and intelligent man) perceiving the weight thereof, and not knowing how to avoid the same, took up( though very unluckily) one erroneous tenet to maintain another, telling us in a late book of his entitled Conjectura Cabalistica, that for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews entertain a conceit of God us in human shape, was not any more a way to bring them into Idolatry, then by acknowledging man to be God, as( saith he) our Religion does in Christ. How can this consist even with consonancy to his own Principles, whilst he holds it to be false that God hath any shape, but true that Christ is God? For will a false opinion of God no sooner led men into Idolatry, then a true opinion of Christ? But it is no marvel: that this Author,& other learned men with him, entertain such conceits of God and Christ, as are repugnant to the current of the Scripture, whilst they set so high a rate on the sublime indeed but uncertain notions of the Platonists,& in the mean time slight the plain but certain letter of the Sacred Writers, as being far below the Divine Majesty& 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 ston at which the Pride of learned men hath caused them continually to stumble, namely to think that they can speak more wisely& worthily of God, then he hath spoken of himself in his word. This hath brought that more then Babylonish confusion of language into the Christian Religion, whilst men have framed those horrid and intricate expressions, under the colour of detecting and excluding Heresies, but in truth to put a baffle on the simplicity of the Scripture, and usher in Heresies, 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 wraping up Religion in such mostrous terms, as neither the people nor they themselves that invented them,( or at least took them from the invention of others) did understand. Wherefore there is no possibility to reduce the Christian Religion to its primitive integrity, a thing, though much pretended yea boasted of in Reformed Churches, yet never hitherto sincerely endeavoured much less effected, in that men have by severe penalties been hindered to reform Religion beyond such a stint, as that of Luther, cr●at most that of Calvin) but by cashiring those many intricate terms, and devised forms of speaking, imposed on our Religion, and by wholly betaking ourselves to the plainness of the Scripture. For I have long since observed,( and find my observation to be true and certain) that when to express matters of Religion men make use of words and Phrases unheard of in the Scripture, they slily under them couch false doctrines, and obtrude them on us: for without question the Doctrines of the Scripture can be so aptly explained in no language as that of the Scripture itself. Examine therefore the expressions of Gods being infinite and incomprehensible, of his being a simplo Act, of his subsisting in three persons, or after a threefold manner, of a Divine Circumincession, of an eternal Generation, of an eternal Procession, of an Incarnation, of an hypostatical Union, of a Communication of Properties, of the Mother of God, of God dying, of God made man, of Transubstantiation, of Consubstantiation, of original sin, of Christs taking our nature on him, of Christs making satisfaction to God for our sins, both past, present and to come, of Christs fulfilling the Law for us, of Christs being punished by God for us, of Christs merits, or his meritorious obedience both active& passive, of Christs purchasing the kingdom of Heaven for us, of Christs enduring the wrath of God, yea the pains of a damned man, of Christs rising from the dead by his own power, of the Ubiquity of Christs Body, of apprehending and applying Christs righteousness to our self; by Faith, of Christs being our Surety, of Christs paying our debts, of our sins imputed to Christ, of Christs righteousness imputed to us, of Christs 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,& spiritual desertions, of spiritual incomes, of the Outgoings of God, of taking up the Ordinance, &c. And thou shalt find, that as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture, so neither the things contained in them. How excellent therefore was that advice of Paul to Timothy in his second Epistle to him, chap. 1. 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 part with the Apostles Doctrine, as woeful experience hath taught us. For after Constantine the Great, together with the council of Nice, and once deviated from the language of the Scripture, in the business touching the son of God, calling him coessential with the Father, this opened a gap for others afterwards, under a pretence of guarding the Truth from heretics, to device new terms at pleasure, which did by degrees so vitiate the chastity and simplicity of our Faith delivered in the Scripture, that there hardly remained so much as one point thereof sound& entire. So that as it was wont to be disputed in the schools, whether the old ship of Thesus( which had in a manner been wholly altered at sundry times by the accession of new pieces of timber upon the decay of the old) were the same ship it had been at first, and not rather another by degrees substituted in the stead thereof: in like manner there was so much of the primitive truth worn away by the corruption that did by little and little overspread the generality of Christians, and so many errors in stead thereof tacked to our Religion at several times, that one might justly question whether it were the same Religion with that which Christ and his Apostles taught, and not another since devised by men, and put in the room thereof. But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, who amid the universal corruption of our Religion, hath preserved his written word entire;( for had men corrupted it, they would have made it speak more favourably in behalf of their lusts and worldly interests, then it doth) which word if we with diligence& sincerity prie 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 yeers together upon an impartial search of the Scripture, have not only detected many errors, but here presented the Readers with a body of Religion, exactly transcribed out of the word of God; which body whosoever shall well ruminate and digest in his mind, may by the same method, wherein I have gon before him, make a farther enquiry into the Oracles of God, and draw forth whatsoever yet lies hide, and being brought to light will tend to the accomplishment of godliness amongst us, for at this only all the Scripture aimeth: the Script, which al men, who have thoroughly studied the same, must of necessity be enamoured with as breathing out the mere wisdom of God& 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 never even to the worlds end be questioned by any, but such as are unwilling to deny their worldly lusts, and obey the pure and pefect 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.   

M. BIDDLE'S Preface briefly EXAMINED.  
IN the entrance of Mr B's Preface he tells the Reader( very modestly) that he could never yet see, or hear of a catechism( although I presume he had seen, or heard at least of one or two written by Fausts Socinus,( though not completed) of one by Valentine Smaltius, 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 Schlictingius, published in French An. 1646. in latin An. 1651) from whence the true grounds of Christian Religion might be learned, as tis delivered in Scripture; and therefore doubtless all Christians, have cause to rejoice at the happy product of Mr B's pains, wherewith he now acquaints them,( ushered in with this modest account) whereby at length they may know their own Religion, wherein as yet they have not been instructed to any purpose. And the Reason of this is, because all other catechisms are stuffed with many supposalls, and traditions, the least part of them being derived from the word of God, Mr B. being judge 
Quicunque is literas assidua manu versat, quantumvis nescio quos Catechismos, vel locos communes& commentarios quam familiarissimes sibi reddiderit, is statim cum nostrarum libros vel semel inspexerit, intelliget quantum distant aera lupinis Val. small. Res. Orat. Vogel.& Peuschel. Rac. An. 1617. p. 34. Scripta haec, Dei gloriam& Christi Domini nostri ho●o rem, ac ipsam nostram salutem, ab omni traditionum humanarum labe, ipsâ divinâ veritate literis sacris comprehensa repurgare nituntur,& expeditissimà explicandae Dei gloriae, honoris Christo domino nostro asserendi,& salutis consequendae ratione excerpta, ac omnibus proposita eam ipsissima sacrarum literarum Authoritate sancire& stabilire conantur Hieron: Moscorov. Ep. Dedic. Cat. Rac. ad Jacob. M. B. R. nomine& jussu Ecclesiae. Polon. Neque porro quemquam esse Arbitror, qui in tot ac tantis Christiana Religionis placitis, a reliquis hominibus dissentiat, in quot quantisque ego dissentio. Socin. Epist. ad squarclalup. An. 1581.  And this is the common language of his companions, comparing themselves and their own writings with those of other men. The common language they delight in is, though Christians have hitherto thought otherwise.  
Whether we have Reason to stand to this determination, and acquiesce in this Censure and sentence, the ensuing considerations, of what Mr B. substitutes in the room of those catechisms which he here rejects, will evince& manifest. But to give Countenance to this humble entrance into his work, he tells his Reader, that Councells, Convocations, and assemblies of Divines have justled out the Scripture, and framed Confessions of Faith according to their own fancies and Interests, getting them confirmed by the Civill Magistrate; according unto which Confessions, all catechisms are and have been framed without any regard to the Scripture; What Councells Mr Biddle intends, he informs us not, nor what it is that in them he chiefly complains of; If he intend some only, such as the apostatising times of the Church saw, he knows he is not opposed by them with whom he hath do; nor yet if he charge them all for some miscarriages in them, or about them.  
If all, as that of the Apostles themselves( Act. 15.) together 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 the Testimony of M. B. to induce us to a belief of this insinuation; 
{αβγδ} Arist. Rhet. l. 3. cap. 15.  His testimony in things of this nature, will be received only by them who receive his doctrine.  
What I have to offer on this account, I have spoken otherwhere. That the Confessions of Faith which the first general Councells( as they are called) during the space of 400 years and upward, Composed and put forth, were framed according to the fancies and interests of men, besides the word, is M. B's fancy, and his Interest to have it so esteemed. The Faith he profeseth, or rather the Infidelity he is fallen into, was condemned in them all, and that upon the occasion of its then first coming into the World: Hinc illae Lachrimae: If they stand, he must fall; That the catechisms of latter daies,( 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 
Calunmidre fortiter; aliquid adhaerebit.  Testimony for, as for the Assertions foregoing. He that will say this, had need some other way evince that he makes conscience of what he says: or that he dare not say any thing, so it serve his turn; Only Mr Biddle hath quoted Scripture to the purpose; To prove God to be Finite, Limited, Included in Heaven, of a visible shape, Ignorant of things future, obnoxious to turbulent passions and affections, are some of his quotations produced; for the like end and purpose are the most of the rest alleged Never( it seems) was the Scripture alleged to any purpose before. And these things through the righteous hand of God, taking vengeance on an unthankful Generation, not delighting in the light and truth which he hath sent forth, do we hear and red. Of those who have made bold {αβγδ}, and to shake the fundamentals of gospel Truths, or the mystery of Grace, we have daily many examples. The number is far more scarce of thē who have attempted to blot out those {αβγδ}, or engrafted notions of mankind, concerning the perfections of God which M. 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) M. Biddle 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, but refused to make use of their Reason, and presumed others would do so also. And so you have the sum of his judgement concerning all other catechisms besides his own, that he hath either seen or heard of. They are all fitted to confusion of Faith, composed according to the fancies& interests of men, written without attending to the Scripture or quoating it to any purpose, their Authors( like mad men) 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. Preface.  
All that have gon before him were knaves, fools, Ideotts, mad men. The proof of these Assertions, you are to expect. When a Philosopher pressed Diogenes with this sophism, What I am, thou art not, I am a man, therefore thou art not; He gave him no other answer, but begin with me and the conclusion will be true. M. B. is a Master of Arts; And knew doubtless, that such Assertions as might be easily turned upon himself, are of no use to any, but those who have not ought else to say. Perhaps M. B. speaks only to them of the same mind with him; and then indeed as Socrates 
{αβγδ}. Socrat. apud plate. in menexem. Cit. Arist. Rhetor. lib. 3. cap. 14.  said, it was no hard thing to commend the Athenians before the Athenians, but to commend them before the Lacedemonians was difficult; no more is it any great undertaking to con●● men sound in the Fatih 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, then 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, M. B. is not I presume such a {αβγδ}, as to undertake to demonstrate. I shall only add, that notwithstanding the vain plea, of having given all his Answers in the express words of Scripture( whereby with the foolish bide he hides his head, from the fouler, but leaves his whole monstrous body visible.) The teaching part of his catechism being solely in the insinuating, ensnaring captious Questions thereof, leading the understanding of the Reader, to a misaprehension and misaplication 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, red, or head of any, so grossly perverting the Doctrine of the Scripture, concerning God, and all his ways, as these of Mr B. do:( for in sundry particulars, they exceed those mentioned before of Socinus, Smalcius, Schlictingius, which had justly gotten the repute of the worst in the world;)& 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 don, 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 catechized? For this end he tells the Reader, doth 
Multa passun ab ultimâ vetustate vitia admissa sunt, quae nemo prater me indicabit. Scalig.  he show himself to the world,( {αβγδ}) to undeceive them, and to bring them outof all their wanderings unto some certainty of Religion. This he discourses pag. 4, 5. The Reasons he gives you of this undertaking are two, 1. to bring men to a certainty. 2. To satisfy the pious desires of some, who would fain know the truth of our Religion. The way he fixes on, for the compasing 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 M. B. intends to deal with all? Those, for the most part, of them who seem to be intended in such undertakings, are fully persuaded from the Scripture, of the Truth of those things, wherein they have ben instructed. Of these, some( I have heard) have been unsettled by M. B. but that he shall ever settle any( there being no consistency in error or falsehood) is impossible. M. B. knows, there is no one of the Catechists he so decryes, but directs them whom he so instructs, to the Scriptures, and settles their Faith on the Word of God alone: though they labour to thelpe their Faith and understanding, by opening of it, whereunto also they are called. I fear M B's. certainty will at length appear to be turcism; and his settling of men, to be their unsettling; that his 
Hoc illis negotium est, non ethnicos convertendi, said nostros evertendi. Tertul. de prescrip. ad: Hae.  conversions are from the Faith; and that in this very book he aims more to acquaint men with his Questions, then the Scriptures Answers; But he says  
2. Those whom he aims to bring to this certainty, are such as would fain understand the truth of our Religion. If by our Religion he means the Religion of himself, and his followers( or rather Masters) the Socinians, I am sorry to hear that 
Expressêre id nobis vota multorum, multaeque etiam â remotissimis orbis partibus ad nos transmissae preces. Praefat. ad Cat. Rac. Nam Rex Seleucus me opere oravit maximo, ut sibi latrones cogerem& conscriberem. Pyrgopol. in Plaut. mill. glow.  any are so greedy of its acquaintance. Happily this is but a pretence; such as his predecessors in this work have commonly used. For understanding the truth of it, they will find in the issue what an endless work they have undertaken. Who can make that strait, which is crooked; or number that which is wanting? If by our Religion he means the Christian Religion, It may well be enquired, who they are with their just and pious desires, who yet understand not the Truth of Christian Religion? That is, that it is the only true Religion; When we know these Turks, Jews, Pagans, which Mr Biddle hath to deal with all, 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. And these are Admirable men, so the way he takes for their satisfaction is admirable also; that is, by asserting nothing; He that asserts nothing, proves nothing, for that hwich any one proves, that he asserts; Intending 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 M. B. intends not silence; He hath said too much to be so interpnted. Only what he hath spoken, he hath done it in a scepticall 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 dayes wherein we live. A liberty of judgement 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 M. B's faithfulness in their production, I have sundry exceptions to make.  
As 1. That by his leading Questions, and Application of the Scripture to them, he hath utterly perverted the Scope and Intendment of the places urged. Whereas he pretends not to assert or explain the Scripture, he most undoubtedly restrains the signfication of the places by him alleged, unto the precise scope, which in his sophistical Queries he hath included; and in such a way of tour, what may not the Serpentine wits of men, pretend to a confirmation of, from Scripture, oir any other Book, that hath been written about such things, as the Inquires 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. M. B. pretending to give an account of the chiefest things pertaining to belief and practise, doth yet propose no question at all, concerning many of the most important Heads of our Religion, and whereunto the Scripture speaks fully, and expressly; or proposes his thoughts in the negative, leading on the Scriptures, from whence he makes his objections to the grand Truths he opposeth, concealing( as was said) the delivery of them in the Scripture, in other places innumerable: so insinuating to the men of just and pious desires, with whom he hath to do, that the Scripture is silent of them. That this is the mans way of tour, in reference to the Deity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, the corruption of Nature, and Efficacy of Grace, with many other most important heads of Christian Religion, will be fully manifest in our Considerations of the several particulars, as they shall occur, in the method wherein by him they are handled.  
3. What can be concluded of the mind of God, in the Scripture, by cutting of 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 M. B's way of tour, it will easily appear, what little advantage he hath given him thereby, and how unjust his pretence is, which by this course he aims to prevail upon men withall. This he opens p. 6. none( saith he) can fall upon the things contained in his catechism( which he confesseth to be quiter contrary to the Doctrine that passeth current among the generality of Christians) as they are here displayed, because the Answers are transcribed out of the Scriptures. But M. B. may be pleased to take notice, that the displaying( as he calls it) of his Doctrines, is the work of his Questions, and not of the words of Scripture, produced to confirm them; which have a sense cunningly and subtly 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 M. B's Questions being found guilty of treason against God, will not be allowed Sanctuary in the Answers which they labour to creep into,& 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 holinesse. A murderer may be plucked from the horns of the Altar.  
Nor is that the only Answer infisted on, for the removal of M. B's Sophistry, which he mentions pag. 7. and pursues it for three or four leaves onward of his Preface: viz. That the Scriptures which he urgeth, do in the letter hold out such things as he allegeth them to prove, but yet they must be figuratively interpnted. For( M. B's mystical sense) I know not what he intends by it, or by whom, it is urged.) This is appliable solely to the places he produceth for the description of God& his Attributes, concerning whom, that some expressions of Scripture, are to be so interpnted, himself confesses pag. 13. and we desire to take leave to inquire whether some others, beside what M. B. allows, may not be of the same Consideration. In other things, for the most part, we have nothing at all to do with so much as the interpretation of the places he mentions, but only to remove the grossly sophistical insinuations of his Queries; For instance, when M. B. asks, whether Christ Jesus were not a man or no,& allegeth express Scripture affirming that he was; we say not, that the Scripture must have a Figurative interpretation, but that M. B. is grossly sophistical, Concluding from the assertion of Christs 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 practise,& 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 M. B. is departed from the Faith once delivered to the Saints. His whole following discourse then, to the end of pag. 13th, wherein he decryes 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(& M. B dares not say the contrary) and that they are accordingly to be interpnted: 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 those words of our Saviour, this is my body, are figurative, I suppose M. B. will not deny. Interpret them according to the figurative import of them, and that interpretation gives you the literal, and not a mystical sense, if such figures belong to speech and not to sense. That sense,( I confess) may be spiritually understood( then it is saving) or otherwise but this doth not constitute different sences in the words, but only denote a difference in the understandings of men. But all this in hypothesi M. B. fully grants pag. 9. so that there is no danger by asserting it, to cast the least thought of uncertainty on the Word of God. But pag. 10. He gives you an instance, wherein this kind of interpretation must by no means be allowed, viz. in the Scriptures Attributions of a shape, similitude,( that is, of Eyes, Ears, Hands, Feet) unto God with passions& affections like unto us; which that they are not proper, but figuratively to be interpnted, He tells you( pag. 10, 11, 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 necessary to be received, and understood, the ensuing Considerations will inform the Reader. For the present I shall only say, that I do not know scarce a more unhappy instance, in his whole Book, that he could have produced, then this; wherein he hath been blasphemously Injurious unto God, and his holy Word. And herein we shall deal● 
{αβγδ}. Arist. Nicom. 3.  with him from Scripture itself, right Reason, h and the common consent of mankind. How remote our interpretations of the places by him quoated for his purpose, are from wresting the Scripture, or turning them aside from their purpose, scope and intendment, will also in due time be made manifest.  
We say indeed( as M. 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& imends the clean contrary; but only that the thing that he ascribes to himself, for our understanding, and the accommodation of his proceedings, to the manner of men, are to be understood in him, and of them, 
Quae dicuntur de Deo {αβγδ}, intelligenda sunt {αβγδ}.  in that which they denote of perfection,& not in respect of that which is imperfect and weak. For instance, when God says, his eyes run to and froe to behold the Sons of men, we do not say, that he speaks one thing and understands another, but only because we have our knowledge and acquaintance with things by our Eyes, looking up& 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 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 knowledge of, and intimate acquaintance with all things here below, in, and by his own infinite understanding, in the way so suited to our apprehension. Neither are these kinds of expression in the least an occasion of Idolatry, or do give advantage to any, of creating any shape of God in their imaginations; God having plainly and clearly in the same word of his, wherein these expressions are used, discovered that of himself, his Nature, Being, and properties, which will necessary determine, in what sense those expressions are to be understood; as in the consideration of the several particulars in the ensuing Discourse, the Reader will find evinced. And we are yet of the mind, that to conceive of God, as a Great Man, with Mouth, Eyes, Hands, legs &c. in a proper sense, sitting in Heaven, shut up there, troubled, vexed, moved up and down with sundry passions, perplexed about the things that are to come to pass, which he knows not, which is the notion of God, that M. B. labours to deliver the world from their darkness withall, is gross Idolatry: whereunto the scriptural Attributions unto God mentioned, give not the least countenance, as will in the progress of our Discourse more fully appear. And if it be true which M. B. intimates, that things implying imperfection( speaking of sleep, and being weary) are not properly Attributed to God, I doubt not but I shall easily evince, that the same line of refusal, is to pass over the visible shape, and turbulent affections, which are by him ascribed to him; but of these more particularly in their respective places.  
But he adds, That this consideration is so pressing,( pag. 13, 14.) that a certain learned Author, in his Book entitled[ Conjectura Cabalistica] affirms, that for Moses by occasion of his writing to let the Jews entertain a conceit of God as in human shape, was not any more a way to bring them unto Idolatry, then by acknowledging man to be God, as our Religion doth in part: which plea of his M. 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 otherwise very ready to serve him, upon the account which I have of his worth, and abilities; though I may freely say, I suppose they might be better exercised, then 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 an human shape. Neither did the Jews ever stumble into Idolatry, on that account. They sometimes indeed, Changed their Glory, for that which was not God. But whilst they worshipped that God, that revealed himself by Moses, Jehovah, Ehejeh, it doth not appear, that ever they entertained in their thoughts any thing but purum nuvren, a most simplo, spiritual, Eternal being, as I shall give a farther account afterwards. 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, expressing his Power by his arm, and Bow, and Sword; his knowledge and understanding, by his Eye; yet he doth in so many places caution them, with whom he had to do, of entertaining any thoughts of any bodily similitude of God, that by any thing delivered by him, there is not the least occasion administered, for the entertaining of such a conceit, as is intimated. Neither am I clear in the theological predication, which that learned Person hath chosen to parallel with the mosaical expressions of Gods Shape, and similitude, concerning man being God; Though we aclowledge him who is man, to be God, yet we do not aclowledge 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; what ever 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, then 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 M. 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 M. B's following Harangue against mens philosophical speculations, desserting the Scripture in their centemplations of the nature of God; as though they could speak more worthily of God then he hath done of himself. For though it may easily be made appear, that never any of the platonical Philosophers spake so unworthily of God, or vented such gross carnal conceptions of him, as M. 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 M. B. to the trial and Issue, upon the express Testimony of God himself, in his word, are not concerned in this discourse.  
Neither have I any necessity to divert to the Consideration of his complaint, concerning the bringing in of new expressions into Religion; if he intends such, as whose substance or matter, which they do express, is not evidently and expressly found in the Scripture; What is the Babylonish Language, what are the horrid and intricate Expressions, which he affirms to be introduced, under a Colour of detecting and confuting heresies, but indeed to put a baffle upon the simplicity of the Scripture, he gives us an account of pag. 19. where we shall consider it,& them. In general; words are but the figures of things. It is 
{αβγδ}. Greg. Naz.  not words and terms, nor Expressions, but Doctrines, and things, we inquire after. M. B. I suppose allows expositions of Scriptures, or else I am sure, he condemns himself in what he practices. His book is in his own thoughts, an Exposition of Scripture. That this cannot be done without varying the words and literal expressions thereof, I suppose will not be questioned. To express the same thing, that is contained in any place of Scripture, with such other words as may give light unto it, in our understandings, is to expound it. This are we called to. And the course of it is to continue, whilst Christ continues a Church upon the Earth. Paul spake nothing for the substance of the things he delivered, but what was written in the Prophets. That he did not use new Expressions, not to be found in any of the Prophets, will not be proved. But there is a twofold evil in these expressions.( i.) That they are invented to detect and unfold Heresies, as is pretended. If heretics begin first to wrest Scripture expressions, to a sense never received, nor contained in them, it is surely lawful for them, who are willing to Contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, to clear the mind of God, in his Word by Expressions and terms suitable thereunto. 
{αβγδ} Homo deificatus &c. dixit Arius. 1. {αβγδ}. 2. {αβγδ} &c. Zozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 14. p. 215. Theodor. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. pag. 3. Socrat. Scholast. Hist. lib. 1. c. 3. &c. {αβγδ} Leont de Sect. de Nestorio.  Neither have heretics carried on their cause without the invention of new words and phrases.  
If any shall make use of any words, terms, phrases, and expressions, in, and about Religious things, requiring the embracing, and receiving of those words, &c. by others, without examining either the Truth, of what, by those words, phrases, &c. they intend to signify, and express; or the Propriety of those expressions themselves, as to their accommodation for the signifying of those things, I pled not for them. It is not in the power of man, to make any word or expression, not {αβγδ} found in the Scripture, to be canonical, 
Vide call. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 13. Alting. Theol. Elenct. loc. de Deo.  and for its own sake, to be embraced and received. But yet, if any word or phrase, do expressly signify any Doctrine, or matter, contained in the Scripture, though the Word or Phrase itself, be not in so many letters found in the Scripture, that such words or phrases may not be used for the explication of the mind of God, I suppose will not easily be proved. And this we farther grant, that if any one shall scruple the receiving& owning of such expressions, so as to make them the way of professing that which is signified by them, and yet do receive the thing or Doctrine, which is by them delivered, for my part, I shall have no contest with him. For instance, the word {αβγδ}, 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 {αβγδ}, and the like forms of speech, no where 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 withall should profess, that he believes Jesus Christ to be God equal to the father, one with him from the beginning, and doth not explain himself by other terms, not found in the Scripture, viz. that he was made a God, and is one with the Father as to will, not Essence, and the like, he is like to undergo neither trouble nor opposition from me. We know what troubles arose between the East and western Churches, about the words Hypostasis and Persona, until they understood on each side, that by these different Words, the same thing was intended; and that {αβγδ}, with the Greekes, was not the same with Substantia, with the Latins; nor Persona with the Latins, the same with {αβγδ} among the Greekes, as to their application to the thing, the one& the other expressed by those terms that such monstrous terms are brought into our Religion, as neither they that invented them; nor they that use them, do understand, M. B. may be allowed to aver, from the measure he hath taken of all mens understandings, weighing them in his own; and saying, thus far can they go and no farther; this they can understand, that they cannot. A presogative, 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 M. B. is furnished with so large an understanding, what ever he insinuates of his own abillityes, as to be allowed a dictatory of what any man can, or cannot understand. If his principle, or rather conclusion, upon which he limits the understandings of men, be this, what I cannot understand that no man else can, he would be desired to consider that he is as yet but a young man, who hath not had so many Advantages and helps, for the improving of his understanding, as some others have had; and besides, that there are some, whose Eyes are blinded by the God of this world, that they shall never see nor understand the things of God; yea and that God himself, doth thus oftentimes execute his vengenace on them, for detaining his Truth in unrighteousness.  
But yet upon this acquaintance, which he hath with the measure of all mens 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 casheiring 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 Reformation, beyond the stint of Luther or Galvin, was never yet so much as sincerely endeavoured. In the former passage, having given out himself, as a Competent Judge of the understandings of all men, in this he proceeds to their Hearts. The Reformation of the Church( saith he) was never sincerely attempted, beyond the stint of Luther and Calvin; attempted it hath been, but he knows all the men,& their hearts full well, who made those attempts, and that they never did it sincerely, but with guile and Hypocrysy; M. B. knows who those are that say; with our tongue we will prevail, our lips are our own. To know the hearts of men,& their frame towards himself, M. 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 M. B's, to overthrow all the foundations of Christian Religion, to accommodate the gospel to the Alcoran,& subject all divine mysteries to the Judgement of that wisdom, which is carnal& sensual, under the faire pretence of carrying on the work of Reformation, and discovering Truth from the Scripture, hath perhaps fixed some men to the measure they have received, beyond what Christian Ingenuity, and the love of the truth requireth of them. A noble and free inquiry into the Word of God, with attendance to all ways by him appointed, or allowed, for the Revelation of his mind, with reliance on his gracious Promise of leading us into all truth by his holy& blessed Spirit, without whose aid, guidance; direction light,& assistance, we can neither know, understand, nor receive the things that are of God, neither captivated to the traditions of our Fathers, for whose labour and pains in the work of the gospel, and for his presence with them, we daily bless the name of our God, neither yet carried about with every wind of Doctrine, breathed or insinuated by the Cunning sleights of men, who lie in wait to deceive, is that which we profess. What the Lord will be pleased to do with us, by, or in this frame, upon these principles, how, wherein we shall serve our Generation, in the Revelation of his mind and will, is in his hand, and disposal. About using, or casting off Words, and Phrases; formerly used to express any Truth, or doctrine of the Scripture, we will not contend with any; provided the things themselves signified by them, be retained. This alone makes me indeed, put any value on any word, or expression, not {αβγδ} found in the Scripture; namely, my observation that they are questioned& rejected by none, but such, as by their rejection, intend& aim at the removal of the truth itself, which by them is expressed, and plentifully revealed in the Word. The same care also was among them of old, having the same occasion administered. 
Theodoret Hist: Eccles. lib. 4. cap, 17. p. 126. Socrat: lib: 4. cap: 21, 22. Zozom: lib: 6 cap. 15, 16, 17.  Hence when Valens the Arian Emperour, sent Modestus his Praetorian Praefect, to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the man entreats him not to be so rigid, as to displease the Emperour, and trouble the Church {αβγδ}, for an over strict observance of opinions; it being but one word, indeed one syllable, that made the difference,& he thought it not prudent, to stand so much upon so small a business; the holy man replied, {αβγδ}: however Children might be so dealt withall, those who are bread 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 
Theod: Hist. lib: 2. c. 18. Zozom: lib: 4 cap. 13. Niceph. l: 9. cap. 39.  Arian Bishops at the council of Ariminum, who pleaded earnestly for the Rejection of one or two words, not found in the Scripture, laying on that plea much weight, when it was the eversion of the Deity of Christ which they intended& attempted. And by none, is there more strength& Evidence given to this observation, then by him, with whom I have now to do; who exclaiming against words and expressions, intends really, the subversion of all the most fundamental and substantial Truths of the gospel: And therefore having p. 19, 20, 21. reckoned up many Expressions which he dislikes, condemns, and would have rejected, most of them relating to the chiefest heads of our Religion;( though to his advantage, he cast in by the way two or three gross figments) he concludes, that as the forms of Speech by him recounted, are not used in the Scripture, no more are the things signified by them contained therein. In the Issue then, all the quarrel is fixed upon the things themselves, which if they were found in Scripture, the expressions insisted on, might be granted to svit them well enough. What need then all this long discourse about words and expressions, when it is the things themselves signified by them, that are the Abominations decried? Now though most of the Things here pointed unto, will fall under our ensuing Considerations, yet because M. 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 considerable instances, in our passage.  
His first is, of Gods being Infinite and incomprehensible. This he condemns, name and thing, that is, He says, He is Finite, Limited, of us to be comprehended. For those who say, he is Infinite and Incomprehensible; do say only, that he is not Finite, nor of us to be comprehended. What 
Solent quidam miriones aedificari in ruinam. tertul. de Praesc. ad. Haeres.  advance is made towards the farther Reformation of the Church, by this new notion of M. B's, is fully discovered in the consideration of the 2d Chapter of his catechism. 
Est autem haec magnitudo ut ex iis intelligi potest, quae de potentia& potestate Dei, itemque de sapientia ejus dicta sunt, infinita& incomprehensi. bilis. Crell. de Deo. seu de vera Rel. praefix. op. Voltel. lib. 1. c. 37. p. 27 3.  And in this, as sundry other things, M. B. excels his Masters. The Scripture tells us expressly, that He fills Heaven and Earth; that the Heaven, and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain him, that his presence is in Heaven, and Hell, and that his Understanding is Infinite,( which how the understanding of one that is Finite, may be, an Infinite understanding cannot comprehend) that he dwelleth in that Light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see( which to us is the description of One Incomprehensible) that he is eternal; which we cannot comprehend. The like expressions are used of him in great abundance. Besides, if God be not Incomprehensible, we may search out his Power, wisdom, and understanding to the utmost; For if we cannot, if it be not possible so to do, he is Incomprehensible. But, Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to Perfection? There is no searching of his understanding. If by 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 mistaken. Were ever any since the world began before, quarreled withall, for asserting the Essence, and Being of God to be Incomprehensible? The Heathen 
Simonides apud Ciceronem lib. 1. de not. Deorum.  who affirmed, that the more he enquired, the more he admired,& the less he understood, had a more noble reverence of the eternal 
Vide passim quae de Deo dicuntus, apud Aratum, Orpheum, Homerum, Asclepium, Platonem, Plotinum, Proclum, Psellum, Porphyrium, Jamblichum, Plinium, Tullium Senecam, Plutarchum,& quae ex iis omnibus excerpsit Eugub. de Prim. Philos.  Being, which in his mind he conceived, then M. B. will allow us to entertain of God. Farther, if God be not Infinite, He is circumscribed in some certain place; if He be, is He there fixed to that place, or doth He move from it? If He be fixed there, how can He work at a distance, especially such things as necessary require Divine Power to their Production. If He move up and down, and journey as his occasions require, what a blessed enjoyment of himself in his own Glory hath He? But that this blasphemous figment, of Gods being limited, and confined to a certain place, is really destructive to all the Divine perfections of the nature and Being of God, is afterwards demonstrated. And this is the first instance given by M. B. of the corruption of our Doctrine, which he rejects, name and thing, viz. that God is Infinite and Incomprehensible: and now whether this man be a mere Christian, or a mere Lucian, let the Reader judge.  
That God is a simplo Act, is the next thing excepted against; and decried, name and thing. In the Room whereof, that he is compounded of matter and form, or the like, must be asserted. 
Via remotionis utendum est, in Dei consideratione: nam divina substantia sua immensitate excedit omnem formam, quam intellectus noster intelligit, unde ipsun● non possumus exact cognosere quid sit, said quid non sit. Thom. Con. Gentes lib. 1. cap. 14. Merito dictum est a veteribus, potius in hac vita de Deo a●nobis cognosci: quid non sit, qua● quid sit; ut enim cognoscamus quid Deus non sit, negatione nimirum aliqua 〈◇〉 quae propria sit divinae essentiae, satis est unica negatio dependentiae &c. Soncin. ad lib. 2. cap. 1. Metaph: Aristot: Qu: 2. Sec. 4.  Those who affirm God to be a simplo Act, do only deny him to be compounded of divers principles,& assert him to be always actually in Being, Existence,& intent Operation. God says of himself, that his name is Ehejeh.& He is I AM, that is, a simplo Being, Existing in, and of itself. And this is that, which is intended by the simplicity of the the nature of God, and his being a simplo Act. The Scripture tells us he is eternal: I Am: always the same, and so never, what he was not ever. This is decried, and in opposition to it, his being compounded, and so being obnoxious to dissolution, and his being in potentia, in a disposition, and passive capacity to be what he is not, is asserted; for it is only to deny these things, that the term, simplo, is used, which he condemns and rejects: And this is the second instance that M. B. gives in the description of his God, by his rejecting the received expressions concerning him who is so. He is limited,& of us to be comprehended; His Essence,& Being consisting of several Principles, whereby he is in a capacity of being what he is not. M. B. solus habeto. I will not be your rival in the favour of this God.  
And this may suffice to this Exception of M. Biddle, by the way, against the simplicity of the being of God: yet because he doth not directly oppose it afterwards, and the asserting of it, doth clearly evert all his following fond imaginations of the Shape, Corporeity, and limitednesse of the Essence of God,( to which end also, I shall in the consideration of his several depravations of the Truth, concerning the nature of God, insist upon it) I shall a little here divert to the explication of what we intend by the simplicity of the Essence of God, and confirm the truth of what we so intend, thereby.  
As was then intimated before, though simplicity seem to be a positive term, or to denote something positively, yet indeed it is a pure 
Suarez: Metaph: Tom 2. disput. 30.§ 3. Cajetan: de enter& Essen: cap: 2.  negation; and formally, immediately,& properly, denies multiplication, composition,& the like. And yet though this only it immediately denote, yet there is a most eminent perfection of the nature of God thereby signified to us, which is negatively proposed, because it is in the use of things that are proper to us, in which case we can only conceive, what is not to be ascribed to God. Now not to insist on the metaphysical notions& distinctions of simplicity, by the ascribing of it to God, we do not only deny, that he is compounded of divers principles, really distinct, but also of such as are improper, and not of such a real distance; or that he is compounded of any thing, or can be compounded with any thing whatever.  
1. Then, that this is a property of Gods Essence, or Being, is manifest, from his absolute independence and firstnesse, in being, and operation, which God often insists upon, in the Revelation of himself Isa. 44. 6. I am the first,& I am the last,& besides me there is no God. Revel. 1. 8. I am Alpha, and Omega, the beginning, and the ending, saith the Lord, which is &c. so Chap. 21. 6. and chap. 22. 13. which also is fully asserted Ro. 11. 35, 36. who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again, for of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to him be Glory 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 simplo.  
2. God is absolutely and perfectly one and the same, and nothing differs from his essence in it: The Lord is one Lord, Deut. 6. 4. Thou art the same Ps. 102. 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. 3. 14, 15. Which is, Revel, 1. 8. He then who is what he is, and whose all, that is in him, is himself, hath neither parts, accidents, principles, or any thing else, whereof his Essence should be compounded.  
3. The Attributes of God, which alone seem to be distinct things in the Essence of God, are all of them essentially the same with one another, and every one the same with the Essence of God, itself. For first, they are spoken one of another, as well as of God: as there is his eternal Power, as well as his Godhead. And secondly, they are either infinite, and infinitely perfect, or they are not? if they are, then if they are not the same with God, there are more things infinite then one, and consequently more Gods; for that which is absolutely infinite, is absolutely Perfect, and consequently God. If they are not Infinite, then God knows not himself, for a finite wisdom, cannot know perfectly an Infinite being. And this might be farther confirmed, by the particular consideration of all kinds of commposition, with a manifestation of the impossibility of their Atribution unto God: Arguments to which purpose, the Learned Reader knows where to find in abundance.  
4. Yea that God is, and must needs be a simplo Act,( which expression M. B. fixes on for the rejection of it) is evident, from this one consideration, which was mentioned before: if he be not so, there must be some potentiality in God. What ever is, and is not a simplo 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 Scripture plentifully witnesseth, that He is.  
These are some few of the Grounds of this Affirmation of ours, concerning the simplicity of the Essence of God; which when M. Biddle removes and Answers, he may have more of them, which at present there is no necessity to produce.  
From his Being, he proceeds to his subsistence, and expressly rejects his subsisting in three Persons, name, and thing. That this is no new attempt, no undertaking, whose Glory M. B. may arrogate to himself, is known. Hitherto God hath taken thought for his own Glory, and eminently confounded the Opposers of the Subsistence of his Essence in three distinct Persons. inquire of them that went before, and of the dealings of God with them of old, what is become of Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus, Theodorus Byzantihus, Photinus, Arius, Macedonius &c. hath not God made their memory to rot, and their names to be an abomination to all Generations? How they once attempted to have taken possession of the Churches of God, making slaughter and havoke 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, then that Person's being God. If that Person be God, God subsists in that Person. If you grant the Father to be a Person( as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms him to be, Heb. 1. 21.) and to be God, you grant, God to subsist in that Person; that is all which by that Expression is intended. The son is God, or is not; To say He is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he be God, He is the Father, or He is another Person? If He be the Father, He is not the son. That He is the son, and not the son, is sufficiently contradictory. If He be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he may have the same nature and substance, with the Father,( for of our God there is but one Essence, nature, or being) and yet be distinct from him. That distinction from him, is his Personality; that Property, whereby, and from whence, He is the son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost; The 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 afterwards. Now is this not to be found in the Scriptures? Is there no Text affirming Christ to be God, to be one with the Father, or that the Holy Ghost is so? No Text saying, there are three that bear witness in Heaven, and these three are one? None ascribing divine Perfections, divine Worship, distinctly to either son, or Spirit? And yet jointly to one God? Are none of these things, found in the Scripture, that M. B. thinks with one blast, to demolish all these ancient foundations, and by his bare Authority, to deny the Common Faith of the present Saints, and that wherein their Predecessors, in the Worship of God, are fallen asleep in peace. The proper place for the consideration of these things, will farther manifest the Abomination of this bold Attempt, against the son of God, and the eternal Spirit.  
For the divine Circumincession mentioned in the next place. I shal only say that it is not at all in my intention to defend all Expressions, that any men have used( who are yet sound in the main) in the unfolding of this great, tremendous Mystery of the blessed Trinity, and could hearty 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 shall not in the least labour to retain and hold those Things or words, which may be left, or lost, without any prejudice thereunto.  
briefly, by the barbarous term of mutual circumincession, the schoolmen understand that, which the greek Fathers called {αβγδ}, whereby they expressed that mystery, which Christ himself teaches us, of his being in the Father, and the Father in him. John 10. 38. and of the Fathers remaining in him, and doing the works he did, joh. 14. 10. The distinction of the Persons, being not hereby taken away, but the disjunction of them, as to their nature and being.  
The eternal Generation of the son, is in the Next place rejected; that he may be sure to cast down every thing, that looks toward the Assertion of his Deity, whom yet the Apostle affirms, to be God blessed for evermore Rom. 9. 5. That the Word, which in the beginning was( and therefore is) God, is the only begotten son of God, the Apostle affirms Joh. 1. 14. That he is also the only begotten son of God, we have other plentiful testimonies Psal. 2. 7. Joh 3. 16. Acts 13. 33. Heb. 1. 4, 5, 6. A son, so as in comparison of his sonship, the best of sons by Adoption are Servants Heb. 3. 5, 6. and so begotten, as to be an only son Joh. 1. 14. though begotten by Grace, God hath many Jam. 1. 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 divers sound; The only question here is, whether the son have the Generation, so often spoken of, from Eternity, or in time? whether it be an eternal, or a temporal Generation, from whence he is so said to be begotten. As Christ is a son, so by him the Worlds were made Heb. 1. 2. So that surely he had his Sonship before he took flesh in the fullness 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. 1. 5. And is the first begotten, before he is brought into the World, and therefore his goings forth, are said to be from the Dayes of Eternity Micah. 5. 2. and he had Glory with the Father,( as the son) before the world was John 17. 5. Neither is he said to be begotten of the Father, in respect of his incarnation, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of the substance of his ●●other, nor is he thence called the son of God.  
In brief, if Christ be the eternal son of God, M. B. will not deny him to have had an eternal Generation; if he be not, a Generation must be found out for him, suitable to the Sonship which he hath; of which Abomination in its proper place. This progress have we made in Mr B's Creed: He believes God to be Finite, to be by us Comprehended, Compounded: He believes there is no Trinity of Persons in the Godhead; that Christ is not the eternal son of God. The following parts of it are of the same kind. The eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, is nextly rejected. The Holy Ghost being constantly termed the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the son,( being also God, as shall afterwards be evinced,) and so partakes of the same nature with Father and sons( the Apostle granting that God hath a nature, in his rejecting of them, who by nature, are not Gods,) is yet distinguished from them, and that Eternally,( as nothing is in the Deity that is not eternal;) and being moreover said {αβγδ}, or to proceed, and go forth from the Father& son, this expression of his eternal Procession hath been fixed on: manifesting the Property whereby he is distinguished from Father and son. The thing intended hereby is, that the Holy Ghost who is God, and is said to be of the Father,& the son, is by that name, of his being of them, distinguished from them; and the denial hereof, gives you one Article more of M. B's Creed, viz. that the Holy Ghost is not God. To what that expression of proceeding is to be accommodated, will afterwards be considered. The Incarnation of Christ,( the Deity and Trinity being dispatched) is called into Question,& rejected. By Incarnation, is meant,( as the word imports) a taking of flesh,( this is 
{αβγδ}  variously by the ancients expressed, but the same thing still intended,) or being made so: The Scripture affirming, that the Word was made flesh, joh: 1. 14. that God was manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim: 3. 16. that Christ took part of Flesh and blood, Heb: 2. 14. that he took on him the Seed of Abraham, Heb: 2 16. that he was made of a Woman, Gal. 4. 4, 5. sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8. 3. made like unto us in all things, Heb: 2. 17. We thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and that this Expression might have escaped with a less censure, then 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 M. B. decried.  
Of the hypostatical Union, there is the same Reason: Christ, who as concerning the flesh, was of the Jews, and is, God to be blessed for ever, over all Ro. 19. 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: 2. 14. that is, the same nature of man with believers, yet being but one Person, one Mediator, one Christ, the son of God, we say both these Natures of God and Men, are united in that one Person, viz. the Person of the son of God. This is that which M. 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 necessary ensue; and whilst he denies the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend about any consequences or inferences whatever. And whither we have ground for the expression under present consideration; Joh. 1. 14, 18. Joh: 20. 28. Act. 20. 28. Rom: 1. 3, 4. Rom: 9. 5. galls 4. 4. Philip: 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. 1 Tim: 3. 16. 1 John 1. 1, 2. Rev: 5. 12, 13, 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 
Non ut Deus esset habitator, natura humana esset habitaculum: said ut naturae alteri sic misceretur altera, ut quamuis aclia sit quae suscipitur, alia vero quae suscipit, in tantam tamen unitatem conveniret utrusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit filius, qui se,& secundum quod unus homo est, patre dicit minorem,& secundum quod Deus est, patri se profitetur aequalem. lo. Serm. 3. de not.  Communication of Properties, on which depend two or three of the following instances, mentioned by M. B. is a necessary consequent of the Union before asserted: and the thing intended by it, is no less clearly delivered in Scripture, then the Truths before mentioned. It is affirmed of the man Christ Iesus, that he knew what was in the hart 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, &c. 
{αβγδ}. Theod: Dial. {αβγδ}.  when Christ neither did, nor was so, as he was man. again it is said, that God redeemed his Church with his own blood, that the son of God was made of a Woman, that the Word was made flesh, none of which can properly be spoken of God, his son, or eternal Word, 
{αβγδ}. Iraen: Lib. 3. ad: Haeres.  in respect of that nature whereby he is so: and therefore we say, that look what Properties are peculiar to either of his natures, as to be omniscient, omnipotent, to be the object of Divine worship, to the deity; 
Salva proprietate utriusque naturae, suscepta est a Majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab aternitate modalitas. lo. Epist. ad Flavi.  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 that unto the 
{αβγδ}. Damas. de Orthod. fide. lib. 3. c. 4.  Person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God, or Man, which is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one or other. God on this account being said, to do what is proper to man, and man what is proper alone to God, because He who is both God and Man, doth both the one and the other: By what expressions, and with what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Christs personal union, against both 
{αβγδ}. vide Evagrium lib: 1. c. 2, 3. Socrat: Hist: l: 7. c. 29. 32, 33. Niceph: l: 14. cap: 47.  Nestorius and Eutiches, the one of them dividing his Person into two, the other confounding his Natures, by an absurd confusion, and mixture of their respective essential proprieties,( M. B. not giving occasion) I shall not farther mention.  
And this is all M. 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, then what the Turkes, and other 
Vid: joh: Hen: Hotting: Histor: Oriental: lib. 1. c. 3. ex Alko. sura. 30.  mahometans, will freely aclowledge. 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, candour, and Christian ingenuity, M. B. hath proceeded, in rolling up together such abominations as these, with the most weighty, and glorious truths of the gospel, that together he might trample them under his feet in the mire, God will certainly in due time reveal to himself, and all the World.  
The next thing he decryes 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: 
Rom: 5. 12, 15, 16. 19.  That the guilt of our first Fathers sin, is imputed to his posterity, that they are made obnoxious to death thereby, that we are by nature Cildren of wrath, dead in Trespasses and sins, conceived in sin, that our Understandings 
Eph. 2. 1, 12. Psal. 51. 5. joh. 1. 5. Ephes. 4. 18. 1 Cor. 2. 14. joh. 3. 5, 6. Ephes. 2. 12. Col. 1. 21. Rom. 8. 6, 7, 8.  are darkness, so that we cannot receive the things that are of God, that we are able to do no good of ourselves, so that unless we are born again we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, that we are alienated, enemies, have carnal minds, that are enmity against God, and cannot be subject to him; all this and the like, is at once blown away by M. 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 Christians belief.  
Of Christs taking our nature upon him, which is again mentioned, we have spoken before. 
John. 1. 14. Gal. 4. 4, 5. Heb. 2. 14, 16. Heb. 2. 18. Phil. 2. 7, 8.  If he was made flesh, made of a Woman, made under the Law, if he partooke of flesh and blood, because the Children partook of the same, if he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like to us in all things, sin only excepted; if being in the form of God, and equal to him, he took on him the form of a Servant, and became like to us, he took our nature on him: for these, and these only are the things, which by that expression are intended.  
The most of what follows, is about the Grace of Christ, which having destroyed, what in him lies, his Person he doth also openly reject. And in the first place begins with the 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 afterwards condemn. 
Hab: 1. 13. Rom. 1. 32. 2 Thes. 1. 6.  God is a God of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, and it is his judgement, that they which commit sin, are worthy of death: yea it is a righteous thing with him, to render tribulation to Offenders: and seeing we have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God, doubtless it will be a righteous thing with him, to leave them to answer for their own sins, who so proudly, and contemptuously, reject the satisfaction which he himself hath appointed, and the 
job. 33. 24.  ransom he hath found out. But M. B. is not the first who hath erred, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the justice of God; The Holy Ghost acquainting us, that God 
Isa: 53. 5, 6, 10, 11.  made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all, that he was bruised for our sins, and 
1 Pet: 2. 24. Math. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 2 Cor: 5. 21. Gal: 3. 13. 1 Pet: 1. 18. Ephes. 1. 7. Revel. 1. 5, 6. &c.  wounded for our transgressions, and that the chastisement of our peacerw. is on him, that by his stripes we are healed, that he gave his life a ransom: for us, and was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him, that he was for us made under the Law, and underwent the ourse of it, that he bare our sins in his body on the three, and that by his blood we are redeemed, washed, and saved: we doubt not to speak as we believe, viz. That Christ underwent the punishment due to our sins, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them: and Mr B. who it seems is otherwise persuaded, we leave to stand or fall to his own account.  
Most of the following instances of the Doctrines he rejects, belong to, and may be reduced to the head last mentioned, and therefore I shall but touch upon them: seeing that he, that 
Math: 19. 17. 1 joh: 1. 8. I am: 2. 10.  will enter into life, must keep the commandements, and this of ourselves we cannot do, for in many things we offend all, and he that breaks one Commandement, is guilty of the breach of the whole Law; God having sent forth his son, made of a Woman, made under the Law, 
Rom. 8. 3, 4. 10. 4. Gal: 4. 4, 5.  to redeem them that were under the Law, that wee 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 
Rom: 5. 9. 1 Cor: 1. 30. Phil. 3. 8, 9, 10.  of God righteousness, and we are by Faith found in him, having on not our own righteousness, and we are by Faith found in him, having on not our own righteousness, and we are by Faith found in him, having on not our own righteousness of God by Faith; we do affirm, that Christ fulfilled the Law for us, not only undergoing the penality of it, but for us submitting to the obedience of it, and performing all that righteousness which of us it requires, that we might have a complete righteousness wherewith to appear before God. And this is that, which is intended by the active and passive righteousness of Christ, after mentioned; all which is rejected name and thing.  
Of Christs being punished by God, which he rejects in the next place, and to multiply his instances of our false doctrine, insists on it again under the terms, of Christs enduring the wrath of God, and the pains of a Damned man, the same account is to be given, as before of his satisfaction. 
Isa: 53. 5, 6, &c. Heb. 2. 9, 14.  That God bruised him, put him to grief, laid the chastisement of our peace on him; that for us he underwent death, the curse of the Law, which enwrapped the whole punishment due to sin, and that by the will of God, who so made 
Heb: 10. 9, 10. 2 Cor: 5. 21. Luk: 22. 41, 42. 43, 44.  him to be sin, who knew no sin, and in the undergoing whereof, he prayed, and cried, and sweat blood, and was full of heaviness and perplexity, the Scripture is abundandantly evident; and what we assert amounts not on title beyond what is, by, and in them affirmed.  
The false doctrine of the merit of Christ, and his purchasing for us the Kingdom of Heaven, is the next ston, which this Master Builder disallows and rejects: 
1 Cor: 6. 20. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Gal: 1. 4. Gal: 3. 13. Titus 2. 14. Ephes. 5. 26. Rev. 1. 5, 6. Heb: 9. 12, 13, 14. Eph. 1. 3. Phil. 1. 29.  That Christ hath bought us with a price, that he hat redeemed us from our sins, the World, and curse, to be a peculiar people zealous of good works, so making us Kings, and Priests to God for ever, that he hath obtained for us eternal Redemption, procuring the Spirit for us, to make us meet for the inheritance of the Saints in Light, God blessing us withall spiritual blessings in heavenly places in him, upon the account of his making his soul an offering for sin, performing that obedience to the Law, which of us is required, is that, which by this expression of the Merit of Christ, we intend; The fruit of it being al the accomplishment of the Promise made to him by the Father, upon his undertaking the great work of Saving his people from their sins; in the bundle of Doctrines by M. B. at once condemned, this also hath its place.  
That Christ rose from the dead by his own power, seems to us to be true; not only because he affirmed, that he had power so to do, even to lay down his life,& to take it up again Joh. 10. 18. but also because he said he would do so, when he had them destroy the temple, and  told them, that in three dayes he would raise it again: It is true that this work of raising Christ from the dead, is also ascribed to the Father, and to the Spirit,( as in the work of his oblation, his Father made his soul an offering for sin,& he offered up himself through the eternal Spirit) yet this hinders not, but that he was raised by his own Power, his Father and he being one, and what work his Father doth, he doing the same.  
And this is the Account which this mere Christian giveth us, concerning his Faith in Christ, his Person, and his Grace; He is a mere man, that neither satisfied for our sins, nor procured Grace, of Heaven for us; And how much this tends to the honour of Christ, and the good of souls, all that love him in sincerity, will judge and determine.  
His next Attempt is upon the way, whereby the Scripture affirms that we come to be made Partakers of the good things which Christ hath done and wrought for us; and in the first place, falls foul upon that, of apprehending and applying Christs righteousness to ourselves by Faith; that so there may no weighty point of the doctrine of the cross remain not condemned( by this wise man) of folly. This then goes also name and thing: Christ is of God made unto us righteousness,( that is, to them that believe on him, or receive or apprehended him Joh. 1. 12. 
Rom. 3. 25. Acts 13. 38, 39. Rom. 4. 5, 7. ) God having set him forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins, and declaring, that every one who believes in him is justified from all things, from which he could not be justified by the Law, God imputing righteousness to them that so 
Rom: 5. 1.  believe, those who are so justified by Faith, having peace with God, it being the great thing we have to aim at, namely, that we may know Jesus Christ and the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power 
Phil. 3. 9, 10.  of his Resurrection, and to be found not having our own righteousness, which is by the Law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, Christ being the end of the Law to every one that believeth, we 
Rom: 10. 3, 4.  say it is the duty of every one, who is called, to apprehended Christ by Faith, and apply his righteousness to him; that is, believe on him, as made righteousness of God to him, unto justification and Peace. And if M. Biddle reject this Doctrine, name and thing; I pray God give him Repentance, before it be too late, to the acknowledgement of the Truth.  
Of Christ's being our surety, of Christs paying our debt, of our sins imputed to Christ, of Christs righteousness imputed to us, of Christs 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;& to manifest the truth of that which they intend by them: so that I shall not need again to consider them, as they lie in this disorderly confused heap, which we have here gathered together.  
Our Justification by Christ being cashiered, he falls upon our Sanctification in the next place, that he may leave us as little of Christians, as he hath done our Saviour of the true Messiah. Infused Grace is first assaulted: The various acceptations of the word Grace in the Scripture, this is no place to insist upon. By Grace infused, we mean Grace really bestowed upon us, and abiding in us, from the Spirit of God. That a new 
Ephes. 2. 1, 2. Gal. 5. 25, 2●.  spiritual Life, or principles, in bling men to live to God, that new gracious heavenly qualities,& endowments, as Light, Love, Joy, Faith &c. bestowed on men, are called Grace, and Graces of the Spirit; I suppose will not be denied. These we call infused Grace, and Graces: that is, we say God works these things in us, by his Spirit, giving us a 
Phil. 1. 6. 2. 13. Ierem. 31. 33. 32, 39. Ezek: 11. 19. 36. 26. Heb. 8. 9, 10.  new heart, and a new Spirit, putting his Law into our hearts, quick●ing us who were dead in are spasses and sins, making us light, who were darkness, filling us with the fruits of the Spirit, in joy, meekness, Faith, which are not of ourselves, but the gifts of God. Mr Biddle having before disclaimed all original sin, or the depravation of our nature by sin, in deadness, darkness, obstinacy, &c. thought it also incumbent on him, to disown, and disallow all reparation of it by Grace; and all this under the name of a mere Christian, not knowing that he discovereth a frame of Spirit utterly unacquainted with the main things of Christianity.  
Free Grace is next doomed to rejection That all the Grace, Mercy, goodness of God, in our Election, Redemption, Calling, Sanctification, pardon, and Salvation, is free, not deserved, not merited nor by us any way procured, that God doth all that he doth for us boutifully, fully freely, of his own Love,& 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 Gods loving us freely, of his 
Ephes. 1. 4. joh: 3. 16. 1 joh: 4 8, 10. Rom: 5. 8. Ephes: 2. 8. Tit: 3. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Iam: 1. 18. Rom: 9. 18. Heb: 8. 10, 11, 12.  blotting out our sins for his own sake, for his names sake of his giving his son for us from his own Love, of Faith being not of ourselves, being the gift of God, of his saving us not according to the works of righteousness, which we have done, but of his own mercy, of his justifying us by his Grace, begetting us of his own will, having mercy on whom he will have mercy, of a Covenant not like the old, wherein he hath promised to be merciful to our sins& our iniquities& c? or is it possible that a man assuming to himself the name of a Christian, should be ignorant of the doctrine of the free Grace of God, or oppose it, and yet profess not to reject the gospel as a fable? But this was, and ever will be the condemnation of some, that light is come into the World, and men love darkness, more then light.  
About the next expression, of the world of the Elect, I shall not contend That by the name of the world( which term is used in the Scriptures, in great variety of significations) the Elect; as being in and of this visible world, and by nature no better then the rest of the inhabitants thereof, are sometimes peculiarly intended, is proved 
Salus Electorum sanguis Iesu, or the death of death &c.  elsewhere, beyond whatever M. 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 is wrought in us, by the exceeding greatness 
Ephes. 2. 8. 18. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 17. &c. 2 Cor: 4. 6.  of the power of God: that in bestowing it upon us by his Spirit,( that is, in our conversion) God effectually creates a new heart in us, makes us new creatures, quickens us, raises us from the dead, working in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure, as he commanded light to shine out of darkness, so shining into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of his glory, begetting us a new of his own will, so irresistibly causing us to believe, because he effectually works faith in us; is the sum of what M. Biddle 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 complains of the abuse of his darling, that it is called carnal reason; which being the only interpreter of Scripture, which he allows of, he cannot but take it amiss, that it should be so grossly slandered, as to be called carnal. The Scripture indeed tells us of a natural man, that cannot discern the things which are of God, and that they are foolishness to him: of 
1 Cor: 2. 14. Rom: 8. 7.  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, 
James 3. 15.  sensual, and devilish: of a wisdom that God will destroy and confounded, 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, M. B. can see no Reason: and some men perhaps will be apt to think, that it is because all his Reason is still carn●ll. When a man is renewed after the image of him that creates him, he is made spiritual, light in the Lord, every thought and imagination that sets up itself in his heart, in opposition to God, being led captive to the Obedience of the gospel: we acknowledge a san●tified Reason in such an one, of that use in the dijudication of the things of God, as shal afterwards 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 Gods hiding his face, withdrawing himself, forsaking though but for a moment, as of thē that on this account walk in 
job. 13. 24. Psal. 13. 1. Ps. 10. 1. 27. 9. 44. 24. 30. 7. 55. 1. 69. 17. 102. 2. Isa: 45. 15. Isa. 8. 17. 49. 14. 54. 6, 7. 60. 15. Isa. 50. 10. &c.  darkness and see no light, that seek him, and find him not, but are filled with troubles, terrors, arrows from him &c. And this is some measure they find to be the condition of their own souls; they have not the Life, Light, Power, Joy, Consolation, sense of Gods love as formerly, and therefore they think there are spiritual desertions, and that in respect of their souls, these dispensations of God are signally, and significantly so termed; and they fear that those who deny all desertions, never had any enjoyments from, or of God.  
Of spiritual incomes, there is the same Reason. It is not the phrase of speech, but the thing itself we contend about. That God who is the Father of Mercy, and God of all Consolation, gives Mercy, Grace, Joy, Peace, Consolation, as to whom, so in what manner, or in what degree he pleaseth; The receiving of these from God, is by some( and that perhaps not ineptly) termed spiritual incomes; with regard to Gods gracious distributions of his kindness, love, goodwill, and the reciving of them. So that it be acknowledged, that we do receive Grace, Mercy, Joy, Consolation, and Peace from God, variously as he pleaseth, we shall not much labour about the significancy of that, or any other expression of the like kind. The Scriptures, mentioning the goings forth of God, leave no just cause to M. B. of condemning them, who sometimes call any of his works, or dispensations, his outgoings. His rehearsal of all these particular instances, in doctrines that are found neither Name nor Thing in Scriptures, M. B. closeth with an &c. which miught be interpnted to comprise as many more, but that there remain not, as many more important heads in Christian Religion. The Nature of God being abased, the Deity& Grace of Christ denied, the sin of our Natures, and their renovation by Grace in Christ rejected: M. B's remaining Religion, 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, M. B. commends the advice of Paul 2 Tim. 1. 13. hold fast the form of sound words &c. then which we know none more wholesome, nor more useful, for the safeguarding, and defence of those Holy and Heavenly principles of our Religion, which M. B. rejects and tramples on: nor are we at all concerned in his following discourse, of leaving Scripture terms, and using Phrases, and expressions coined by men; for if we use any word or phrase in the things of God, and his worship, and cannot make good the thing signified thereby, to be founded on, and found in the Scriptures, we will instantly renounce it. But if indeed the words and expressions, used by any of the Ancients, for the explication and confirmation of the Faith of the gospel, especially of the Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ, in the vindication of it from the heretics, which in sundry ages bestirred themselves( as M. B. now doth) in opposition thereunto, be found consonant to Scriptures, 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 M. B. then formerly we did: considering, that his opposition to words and phrases, is not for their own sake, but of the things intended by them.  
The similitude of the ship, that lusts its first matter and substance, by the addition of new pieces, in way of supplement to the old decays, having been used by some of our Divines, to illustrate the Roman apostasy, and Traditionall-Additionalls to the Doctrines of the gospel, will not stand Mr B. in the least stead; unless he be able to prove, that we have lost in the Religion we profess, any one material part of what it was, when given over to the Churches by Christ and his Apostles, or have added any one particular, to what they have provided, and furnished us withall in the Scriptures: which until he hath done, by these and the like insinuations, he doth but beg the thing in question; which being a matter of so great consequence, and importance as it is, will scarce be granted him on any such terms. I doubt not, but it will appear to every person whatsoever, in the process of this business, who hath his senses any thing exercised in the Word, to discern between good and evil, and whose eyes the God of this World hath not blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel of God, should not shine into their hearts, that Mr B. as wise as he deems it, & reports himself to be, is indeed like the foolish Woman, that puts down her house with both her hands, labouring to destroy the house of God with all his strength, pretending that this, and that part of it, doth not originally belong thereto,( or like 
Sophoc. in Ajace. {αβγδ}.  Ajax in his madness, who killed sheep, and supposed they had been his Enemies) upon the account of that enmity, which he finds in his own mind unto them.  
The close of M. B's Preface, contains an Exhortation to the study of the Word, with an account of the success he himself hath obtained, in the search thereof, both in the detection of Errors, and the discovery of sundry Truths: Some things I shall remark upon that discourse, and shut up these considerations of his Preface.  
1. For his own success he tells us, that being otherwise of no great abilities, yet searching the Scriptures impartially, he hath detected many errors,& hath presented the Reader with a body of Religion from the Scriptures, which whoso shall well ruminate and digest, will be enabled &c.  
For M. 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 entrusted 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 M. B's time, and acquaintance in the University, that what abilitye he had then obtained, were it more or less, he still delighted to be excercising of it, in opposition to received truths in Philosophy; and whither an itching desire of novelty, and emerging thereby, lie not at the bottom of the course he hath since steared, he may do well to examine himself.  
What errors he hath derected( 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 dayes, by 
Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 21. Iran. ad Haer. lib. 1. cap. 26. Epiphan: Haer. 1. Tom: 2. lib. 1. Ruff: cap. 27.  Ebion, Cerinthus and others: not long after by 
Euseb. lib. 7. c. 22, 23, 24. August: Haeres. 44. Epiphan: Haeres. 1. lib. 2. Socrab. Hist. l. 2 cap. 24. &c.  Paulus Samosatenus, by Photinus, by Arius and others; The error of the purity, simplicity, and spirituality of the Essence of God, by Audaeus, 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 coruption of our nature, by Pelagius: the error of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, by Abailardus; All of them by Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, &c. What new discoveries M. B. hath made, I know not; nor is there any thing that he presents us with, in his whole body of Religion, as stated in his questions, but what he hath found prepared digested,& modeled to his hand, by his masters the Socinians; unless it be some few gross notions about the Deity; nor is so much as the Language, which here he useth of himself, and his discoveries his own, but borrowed of Socinus Epist. ad Squarcialupum.  
We have not then the least reason in the world, to suppose that M. B was led into these glorious discoveries, by reading of the Scriptures, much less impartial reading of them; but that they are all the fruits of a deluded heart, given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect of his word,& contempt of reliance upon his Spirit,& Grace, for a right understanding thereof, by the cunning sleights of the forementioned persons, in some of whose writings, satan lies in wait to deceive. And for the body of Religion which he hath collected, which lies not in the Answers which are set down in the words of the Scripture, but in the Interpretations, and conclusions, couched in his Questions, I may safely say, it is one of the most corrupt, and abominable, that ever issued from the endeavours of one, who called himself a Christian; for a proof of which assertion, I refer the Reader to the ensuing considerations of it. So that whatever promises of success M. B. is pleased to make unto him, who shall ruminate, and dig●st in his mind, this body of his composure,( it being indeed stark poison, that will never be digested, but fill and swell the heart with 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 M B. for abilities and Reason,( the only guide allowed by him is affairs of his nature) to decry the use and Reading of the Scripture, which they see u●stable,& unlearned men fearfully to wrest to their own destructions. But let God be true, and all men liars Let the gospel run and prosper; and if it be hide to any, it is to them, whom the God of this world hath blinded, that the glorious light thereof, should not shine into their hearts. What may farther be drawn forth of the same kind with what is in these catechisms delivered, with an imposition of it upon the Scripture, as though any occasion were thence administered thereunto, I know not: but yet do suppose, that satan himself is scarce able to furnish the thoughts of men, with many more Abominations of the like length, and breadth, with those here dneavoured to be imposed on simplo, unstable souls, unless he should engage them into down right atheism, and professed contempt of God. Of what tendency these Doctrines of M. B. are unto godliness, which he nextly 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 exaltation of the Glory of God. And hence it is, that so soon as any poor deluded soul, falls into the snare of satan, and is taken captive under the power of any error whatever, the first slight he puts in practise for the promotion of it, is to declaim about its Excellency and usefullnesse for the furtherance of godliness; though himself in the mean time, be under the power of darkness, and know not in the least what belongs to the godliness, which he professeth to promote. As to what M. B. here draws forth to that purpose, I shall be bold to tell him, that to the accomplishment of a godliness amongst men,( since the fall of Adam) that hath not its rise and foundation in the effectual powerful changing of the whole man, from death to Life, darkness to Light, &c. in the washing of the pollutions of nature by the blood of Christ, that is not wrought in us, and carried on by the efficacy of the Spirit of Grace, taking away the heart of ston, 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 an opposition to all the actings and workings of it, A godliness that is performed by our own strength, in yielding obedience to the precepts of the Word, that by that obedience we may be justified before God, and for it accepted, &c. there is not one tittle, letter, nor iota in the whole Book of God tending. M. 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 Angells. His expressions as first view seem to separate him from his Companions in his Body of Divinity, which he pretends to collect from the Scriptures, whose low thoughts, bold expressions, concerning the contradictions in them, shall afterwards be pointed unto. But I fear  — latet anguis in herbâ: 
And in this kiss of the Scripture with hail unto it, there is vile treachery intended, and the betraying of them to the hands of men, to be dealt withall at their pleasure. I desire not to entertain evil surmises of any( what just occasion soever be given on any other account) concerning things that have not their evidence and conviction in themselves. The bleating of that expression, The Scriptures are the exactest rule of an holy life, evidently allowing other rules of an holy life, though they be the exactest, and admitting other things, or books, into a compartnership with them, in that their use and service, though the pre-eminence be given to them, sounds as much to their dishonour, as any thing spoken of them by any, who ever owned them to have proceeded from God. It is the Glory of the Scriptures, not only to be the Rule, but the only one of walking with God. If you take any other into comparison with it, and allow them in the trial to be Rules indeed, though not so exact as the Scripture, you do no less cast down the Scripture from its Excellency, then if you denied it to be any Rule at all. It will not lie as one of the many, though could be an equality between the obedience, yielded by us, whilst we are yet sinners, and continue so,( for if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves) and the exact obedience of them who never sinned, but abide in doing the will of God, but the principal, and main work of God required in them, and which is the root of all other obedience whatever, being to believe on him whom he hath sent, to as many as so believe on him, and so receive him, power is given to become the sons of God; who being so adopted into the great family of Heaven and Earth, which is called after Gods name, and invested with all the privileges thereof; having fellowship with the Father and the son, they are in that regard, even in this life, equal to Angells. Having thus briefly as I could, washed off the paint, that was put upon the Porch of M. B's fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of rotten posts, and dead mens 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 subtly and earnestly invite to turn in, and partake of his provisions.   


CAP. I.  
M. B's first Chapter Examined. Of the Scriptures.  
MR Biddle having imposed upon himself the task of insinuating his Abominations, 
§. 1.  by applying the express words of Scripture, in way of Answer to his captious and sophistical Queries, was much straitned in the very entrance, in that he could not find any Text, or tittle in them that is capable of being wrested to give the least colour to those imperfections, which the residue of men, with whom he is in the whole system of his doctrine in compliance and communion, do charge them withall. As that there are contradictions, in them, though in things of less 
Socin: de Authorit. Sa. Scrip. cap. 1. Racov: An. 1611 p. 13. Socin: Lect. Sacr. p: 18. Episcep: disput: de Author: Script: thes: 3. Volkel: de vera relic: lib: 5: cap: 5. p: 375 Socinus. autem videtur rectius de SS: opinari, Epist: ad Radec: 3 p: 140. Ego quidem sentio, nihil in Scriptis, quae communiter ab iis, qui Christiani sunt dicti, retepta,& pro divinis habita sunt, constanter legi, quod non sit verissimum: hocque ad divinam Providentiam pertinere prorsus arbitror, ut ejusmodi scripta, nunquam depraventur aut corrumpantur, neque ex toto, neque ex par●e.  importance: that many things are, or may be changed, and altered in them; that some of the books of the Old Testament are lost,& that those that remain, are not of any necessity to Christians, although they may be red with profit; Their subjecting them also, and all their Assertions, to the last judgement of Reason, is of the same nature with the other. But it being not my purpose, to pursue his opinions, through all the secret windings and turnings of them, so to drive them to their proper issue, but only to discover the sophistry and falseness of those insinuations, which grossly and palpably overthrow the foundations of Christianity. I shall not force him to speak to any thing, beyond what he hath expressly delivered himself unto.  
This first Chapter then, concerning the Scriptures, both in the greater and lesser catechisms, without farther trouble, I shall 
§. 2.  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 M. B's companions, in their low thoughts of them, which here he doth profess. Only I dare not join with him, in his last assertion, that such and such passages, are the most affectionate in the book of God; seeing we know but in part, and are not enabled, nor warranted, to make such peremptory determinatons concerning the several passages of Scripture, set in comparison, and competition for Affectionatenesse, by ourselves.   

CAP. 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, 
§. 1.  for blasphemies and Reproaches of God and his Word.  
The description of God, which he labours to insinuate, is, 
§. 2.  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 withall 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 
§. 3.  suiting Scripture expressions to the blasphemous insinuations of his Questions, will appear in the consideration of both Questions and Answers, as they lie in the second Chapter of the greater catechism.  
His first Question is, How many Gods of Christians are there? And 
§. 4.  his Answer is; One God, Eph. 4. 6. Whereunto he subjoins, secondly, who is this one God? And Answers, The Father of whom are all things, 1. Cor. 8. 6.  
That the Intendment of the connexion of these Queryes, and 
§. 5.  the suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate some thoughts against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not questionable; especially being the work of him, that makes it his business to oppose it, and laugh it to scorn. With what success this attempt is managed, a little consideration of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul says to us, there is one God: treating of the vanity and nothingness of the Idols of the Heathen, whom God hath threatened to deprive of all worship, and to starve out of the world. The Question as here proposed, how many Gods of Christians are there, having no such occasion administered unto it; as that expression of Paul, being no parcel of such a discourse, as he insists upon, sounds pleasantly towards the allowance of many Gods, though Christians have but one. Neither is M. B. so averse to Polutheisme, as not to give occasion( on other accounts) to this supposal. Jesus Christ he allows to be a God. All his companions, in the undertaking against his truly eternal divine Nature, still affirm him to be 
Smalcius de divinit. Jes. Christ. edit. Racov. An. 1608. per Jacob. Sienienskia. Volkel. de vera relic. lib. 5. cap. 10. pag. 425. p. 468.& anatea. p. 206. Catech. Rae. cap. 1. de cognit. Christ. quaest 3. Confession de foi, des christians, qui croyent en un sole Dieu le Pere &c. p 18, 19. jonas Schlictingius, ad Meisner: Artic: de Filio Dei pag: 387. Socin: Res● ad Wiekum p: 8.& passlin reliqui.  Homo Deificatus, and Deus Factus, and pled pro verâ deitate Jesu Christi; denying yet with him, that by Nature He is God, of the same Essence with the Father: So indeed grossly and palpably falling into, and closing with that Abomination, which they pretend above all men to avoid, in their opposition to the thrice Holy and Blessed Trinity. Of those monstrous figments in Christian Religion which on this occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be an eternal God, of worshipping a mere Creature, with the worship due only to the Infinitely blessed God, we shall speak afterwards.  
2. We confess that to us, there is one God, but one God, and let all other be accursed. The Gods that have not made Heaven, and 
§. 6.  the Earth, let them be 
Ierem. 10. 11.  destroyed, according to the word of the Lord from under these heavens. Yet we say moreover, that there are 
1 joh. 5. 7.  Three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, Word, and Spirit, and that these Three are one. And in that very place, whence Mr B. cuts off his first Answer, as it is asserted, that there is one God; so one Lord, and one Spirit, the 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 
§ 7.  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, joh. 20. 28. Even God over all blessed for ever: Rom: 9. 5. The spirit also is the God which works all in all, 1 Cor. 12. 6, 11. And in the name of that one God, who is Father, son, and Holy Ghost, 
Matth. 28. 18.  are we Baptized, whom we serve, who to us, is the one God over all. Neither is that Assertion, of the Fathers being the one, and only true God, any more prejudicial to the sons being so also, then that Testimony given to the everlasting Deity of the Son, is to that of the Father, notwithstanding that to us there is but one God. The intendment of our Author in these Questions, is to Answer what he found in the great exemplar of his catechism, the Racovian: 
Exposuisti quae cognitu ad salutem de essentia Dei sunt prorsus necessaria, expone quae adeam rem vehementer utilia esse censeas. R. Id quidem est ut cognoscamus, in essentia Dei unam tantum personam esse. Demonstra hoc ipsum. R: Hoc merely. vel hinc patere potest, quod essentia Dei sit una numero; quapropter plures numero personae, in eâ esse nullo pacto possunt. Quae nam est haec una persona divina? R. Est ille Deus unus, domini nostri Jesu Christi pater. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Catech. Racov. cap. 1. de cognit. Dei. de Dei essentia.  two of whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered, and intended by M. Biddle. But of these things more afterwards.  
His next inquiry is after the nature of this one God: which he 
§. 8.  Answers, with that of our Saviour, in joh: 4. 24. God is a spirit; in this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great Master, Faustus Socinus,& his disciple( as to his notions about the Nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgement of God to be a Spirit, frees him from sharing in impudence, in this particular, with his Master, who will not allow any such thing to be asserted, in these words of our Saviour. His words are, Fragment. Disput. de Adorat. Christi cum Christiano Francken: p. 60. Non est fortasse eorum verborum ea sententia, quam plerique omnes arbitrantur: Deum scilicet esse Spiritum, neque enim subaudiendum esse dicit aliquis verhum {αβγδ}, quasi vox {αβγδ}, recto casu accipienda sit, said {αβγδ} repetendum verbum {αβγδ}, quod paulo ante praecessit,& {αβγδ} quarto casu accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quaerere& postulare spiritum, Vorstius also follows him, Not. ad Disput. 3. p. 200. because the verb substantive,[ is,] is not in the original expressed,( then the omission whereof, nothing being more frequent, though I have heard of one, who from the like omission 2 Cor. 5. 17. thought to have proved Christ to be the new Creature there intended) contrary to the Context, and coherence of the Words, design of the Argument in hand, insisted on by our Saviour,( as he was a bold man) and emphaticallnesse 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 spirits of men to worship him. Herein I say is M. B. more modest then his Master,( as it seems following 
Significat enim Christus id, quod ratio ipsa dictat, Deum, cum spiritus sit, non nisi spiritualibus revera delectari. Crell. de Deo: seu de vera Rel: lib. 1 c. 15. pag. 108. Spiritus est Deus: animadvetterunt ibi omnes propè S. litorarum interpretes, Dei nomen, quod ar●● est in G 〈…〉 atum, subjecti locum tenere: vocem, spiritus, quae articulo caret, praedicati:& 〈…〉 substantiam: Ita perinde est, ac si dictum fuisset, Deus est spiritus, seu spiritua●●: 〈◇〉 idem ibid. p. 107.  Crellius, who in the exposition of that place of Scripture is of an other mind) though in craft, and foresight, he be outgone by him, for if God be a Spirit indeed, one of a pure spiritual Essence; and Substance, the Image, shape, and similitude, which he afterwards ascribes to him, his corporal postures, which he asserts( Qu 4.) will scarcely be found suitable unto him. It is incumbent on some kind of men, to be very wary in what they say: and mindful of what they have said; falsehood hath no consistency in itself, no more then with the Truth. Smalcius in the Racovian catechism is utterly silent as to this Questions& Answer. But the consideration of this also, will in its due place succeed.  
To his 4th Query, about a farther description of God, by 
§. 9.  some of his Attributes, I shall not need to sub oyn● any thing in way of Animadversion; for however the Texts he cites, come 〈◇〉 of delivering that of God, which the import of the question, to which they are annexed, doth require, yet being not wrested to give countenance to any perverse apprehension of his Nature, I shall not need to insist upon the consideration of them.  
Qu. 5. He falls closely to his work: in these words, Is not God, 〈…〉 current of the Scriptures, in a certain place, namely in 
§. 10.  Heaven? Whereunto he Answers by many places of Scripture, that make mention of God in Heaven.  
That we may not mistake his mind,& intention in this Query, some light may be taken from some other passages in his book. In the preface he tells you: that God hath a similitude and shape,( of which afterwards)& hath his place in the Heavens. That God is in no certain place, he reckons amongst those errors he opposesin the same Preface. Of the same kind he asserteth the belief to be, of Gods being infinite,& incomprehensible:& Cat. less. p. 6. That God glistereth with Glory,& 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 things being in a place, shall be instantly evinced. God then is finite, and limited, be it so:( that he is infinite and incomprehensible is yet Scripture Expression) yea he is so limited, as not to be extended to the the whole compass, and limit of the Heavens; but he is in a certain place of the Heavens, yea so circumscribed, as that a man may see from his right hand to his left: wherein M. B. comes short of Mahomet, who affirms, that when he was taken into Heaven, to the sight of God, he found three dayes journey between his eyebrows, which if so, it will be somewhat hard, for any one to see from his right hand to his left, being supposed at an answerable distance to that of his eyebrows. Let us see then on what Testimony, by what Authority, M. 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 
§. 11.  Heaven, &c. Of which out of some Concordance, some 20, or 30. 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 no where else? Do the Scriptures say he is confined to Heaven, so that he is so there, as not to be in all other places? If M. B. thinks this any argument, God is in Heaven, therefore his Essence is not Infinite, and immense, therefore He is not every where, we are not of his mind. He tells you in his Preface, that He asserts nothing himself: I presume his Reason was, least any should call upon him for a proof of his Assertions. What he intends to insinuate,& what conceptions of God he labours to ensnare the minds of unlearned,& unstable souls withall, in this question under consideration, hath been from the evidence of his intendment therein, and the concurrent Testimony of other expressions of his to the same purpose, demonstrated. To propose any thing directly, in way of proof of the truth of that which he labours insensibly to draw the minds of men unto, He was( doubtless) conscious to himself of so much disability for its performance, as to wave that kind of procedure. And therefore his whole endeavour is, having filled, animated, and Spirited, the understandings of men, with the notion couched in his Question, to cast in some Scripture expressions, that as they lie, may seem fitted, to the fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any attempt of direct proof of what he would have confirmed, the man of Reason is utterly silent.  
2. None of those Texts of Scripture, where mention is made of Gods being in Heaven, are in the coherence, and dependence 
§. 12.  of speech, wherein they lie, suited, or intended at all, to give answer to this Question, or any like it, concerning the Presence of God, or his actual existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensations of God, and works of his, whose fountain and original he would have us to consider in himself, and to come forth from him there, where in an eminent manner he manifests his Glory. God is I say in none of the places by him urged, said to be in Heaven, in respect of his Essence or being, nor is it the intention of the Holy Ghost, in any of them, to declare the manner of Gods essential presence, and existence, in reference to all, or any places; 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 ot the things there done, or the peculiar manifestations of the Glory of God there; so that if these places should be made use of, as to the proof of the figment insinuated, the Argument from them would be, â non causâ pro causâ. The reason why God is said to be in Heaven, is not because his Essence is included in a certain place, so called, but because of the more eminent manifestation of his Glory there, and the regard which he requires to be had of him, manifesting his Glory, as the first cause, and Author of all the works, which outwardly are of him.  
3. God is said to be in Heaven in an especial manner, because 
§. 13.  he hath assigned that as the place of the Saints expectation of that enjoyment of eternal fruition of himself, which he hath promised to bless them withall. 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 all then supply our catechamens, in the Rome of M. B's, with this Question, expressly leading to the things inquired 
§. 14.  after.  
What says the Scripture concerning the Essence and presence of God, is it confined and limited to a certain place, or is he infinitely, and equally present every where?  
Ans. The Lord your God, he is God in Heaven above, and in earth beneath Josh. 2. 11.  
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the Heavens, and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee, how much less the House that I have builded. 1 Kings 8. 27.  
Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascended up into Heaven thou art there, if I make my bed in Hell, behold thou art there, &c. Psal. 139. 7, 8, 9, 10. The Heaven is my Throne, and the Earth my footstool. Isaiah 66. 1. Acts 7. 47, 48.  
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God, afar of, can any hid himself in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord, do not I fill Heaven and Earth saith the Lord? Jerem. 23. 24.  
It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God, that these places 
§. 15.  expressly treat; and whereas i● was manifested before, that the expression of Gods being in Heaven, doth not at all speak to the abomination, which M. B. would insinuate thereby, the naked rehearsal of those Testimonies, so directly asserting, and ascribing to the Almighty, an Infinite, Unlimited Presence, and that in direct opposition, to the gross apprehension of his being confined to a certain place in Heaven, is abundantly sufficient, to deliver the thoughts, and minds of men, from any entanglements that M. B's Questions and Answers( for though it be the word of the Scripture he insists upon, yet, male dum recitas incipit esse tnum) might led them into. On that account no more need be added: but yet this occasion being administered, that Truth itself, concerning the Omnipresence, or Ubiquity of God, may be farther cleared, and confirmed.  
Through the prejudices and ignorances of men, it is inquired, whether God be so present in any certain place, as not to 
§. 16.  be also equally elsewhere, every where.  
Place has been commonly defined to be, superficies corporis ambientis; Because of sundry inextricable difficulties, and impossibility of suiting it to every place, this definition is now generally decried. That now commonly received, is more natural, suited to the Natures of things, and obvious to the understanding. A place, is, spatium corporis 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 imagination only. The second, as to its actual existence, being filled with that body, which it is apt to receive. So may we imagine innumerable spaces in Heaven, which are apt, and able to receive the bodies of the Saints; and which actually shall be filled with them, when they shall be translated thereinto, by the power of God.  
Presence in a place, is the actual existence of a person in its 
§. 17.  place: or as Logicians speak, in its Ubi; that is, answering the enquiry after him, where he is. Though all bodies are in certain places, yet Persons only, are said to be present in them; other things have not properly a presence to be ascribed to them: They are in their proper places, but we do not say, they are present in, or to their places. This being the general description of a place, and the presence of any therein, it is evident, that properly it cannot be spoken at all of God, that he is in one place or other; for he is not a body, that should fill up the space of its receipt; nor yet in all places, taking the word properly, for so one Essence can be but in one place; and if the word should properly be ascribed to God in any sense, it would deprive him of all his infinite Perfections.  
It is farther said, that there be three ways of the Presence of any, in reference to a place, or places; some are so in a place, as 
§. 19.  to be circumscribed therein, in respect of their parts, and dimensions, such is their length, breadth, and depth, so doth one part of them fit one part of the place wherein they are, and the whole the whole, so are all solid bodies in a place; so is a man, his whole body in his whole place, his head in one part of it, his arms in another: some are so conceived to be in a place, as that in relation to it, it may be said of them, that they are there in it, so as not to be any where 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 Angells, and Spirits, to the places wherein they are, being not infinite or immense; These are so in some certain place, as not to be at the same time, wherein they are so, without it, or elsewhere, or in any other place: And this is proper to all finite, immaterial substances, that are so in a place, as not to occupy and fill up that space wherein they are. In respect of place, God is immense, and indistant to all things, and places, absent from nothing, no place, contained in none; present to all, by and in his infinite Essence, and Being, exerting his power variously, in any, or all places, as he pleaseth, revealing and manifesting his Glory, more or less, as it seemeth good to him.  
Of this Omnipresence of God, two things are usually inquired after. 1. The thing itself, or the Demonstration, that he 
§. 20.  is so Omnipresent. 2. The manner of it, or the Manifestation, and declaring how he is so present. Of this latter perhaps sundry things have been over curiously, and nicely, by some disputed: though upon a through search, their disputes may not appear altogether useless. The Schoolemens distinctions of Gods being in a place, repletivè, immensivè, impletivè, superexcedentèr, conservativè, attinctivè, manifestative, &c. Have, some of them at least, foundation in the Scriptures, and right Reason. That which seems most obnoxious to exception, is their assertion, of God to be every where present, instar puncti: but the sense of that, and its intendment, is to express, how God is not in a place, rather then how he is. He is not in a place as quantative 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 M. B. concerning the distinct places of His right hand and left. But it is not at all about the manner of Gods presence, that I am occasioned to speak, but only of the thing itself. They who say, He is in Heaven only, speak as to the thing, and not as to the manner of it; When we say, He is every where, our Assertion is also to be interpnted, as to that only; The manner of His Presence being purely of a philosophical consideration: His Presence itself divinely revealed, and necessary 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 Gods 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, indist●● to them all: or if more worlds be supposed,( as all things possible to the power of God, without any absurdity may be supposed) on the same account as he is Omnipresent, in reference to the present world, he would be so to them& all that is in them.  
Of that which we affirm in this matter, this is the sum; 
§. 21.  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 then another: as in Heaven, in Sion, at the ark, &c.  
1. That this is the Doctrine of the Scriptures, in the places 
§. 22.  before mentioned, needs no great pains to evince. In that 1 Kings 8. 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 superstititous, themselves answerably, worshipping those, who by nature were not God,& his own people of Israel, exceedingly prove to the same abominations, least any should suppose, that he had thoughts of including the Essence of God in the house that he had bulit; he clears himself in this confession of his Faith, from all such imaginations; affirming that though indeed God would dwell on the Earth, yet he was so far from being limited unto, or circumscribed in the House that he had built, that the Heavens, even the Heaven of Heavens, any space whatever that could be imagined, the highest Heavens, could not, cannot contain Him, so far is he from having a certain place in Heaven, where he should reside, in distinction from other places, where he is not; He is God in Heaven, and in Earth, Josh. 2. 11. That which the Temple of God was bulit unto, that the Heaven& the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain: Now the Temple was built to the Being of God, to God as God. so Acts. 7. 47. But Solomon built him an House Him v. 48. that is, the most High, who dwelleth not,( is not circumscribed) in Temples made with hands.  
That of the 139. psalm is no less evident; The presence, or 
§. 23.  face of God, is expressly affirmed to be every where: Whether shall I go from thy face, if I ascend up into Heaven 〈◇〉 art there, if I go into hell behold thou art there. As God is affirmed to be in Heaven, so every where else, now that he is in Heaven, in respect of his Essence and being, is nor questioned.  
Neither can that of the Prophet Isa. 66. 1. be otherwise understood, 
§ 24.  but as ●o ascribing an Uliquity to God, and a presence in Heaven and Earth: Heaven is my throne, and the Earth is my footstool; the words are Metaphoricall, and in that way expressive of the Presence of a person; and so God is present in Heaven and Earth. That the Earth should be his foote-stoole, and yet himself be so inconceivably distinct from it, as the Heaven is from the Earth( an expression chosen by himself, to set out the greatest distance imaginable) is not readily to be apprehended. He is not far from any one of us, for in him we live, and move, and have our being. Acts 17. 27, 28,  
The Testimony which God gives to this his perfection in Jerem. 23. 23, 24. is not to be avoided; more then what is here spoken by God himself, as to his omnipresence, we cannot, we desire not, to speak; can any one lie hide from me? do not I fill Heaven and Earth saith the Lord? Still where mention is made of the presence of God, thus Heaven and Earth( which two are comprehensive of, and usually put for, the whole creation) are mentioned; and herein he is neither to be thought afar of, or near, being equally present every where, in the hidden places, as in Heaven; that is, He is not disti●● from any thing or place; though he take up no place, but is nigh all things, by the infiniteness, and existence of his being.  
From what is also known of the Nature of God, His Attributes, 
§. 26.  and perfections; The Truth delivered may be farther argued, and confirmed. As  
1. God is absolutely perfect; whatever is of perfection, is to be ascribed to him; otherwise he could neither be absolutely selfe-sufficient, all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in himself; He is absolutely perfect, in as much as no perfection is wanting to hi; and comparatively above all that we can conceive, or apprehended of Perfection. If then Ubiquity or omnipresence be a perfection, it no less necessary belongs to God, then it does to be perfectly good and blessed. That this is a perfection, is evident from its contrary. To be limited, to be 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 limitednesse of our natures. unless we will ascribe the like to God, his Omnipresence is to be acknowledged. If every Perfection then be in God( and if every perfection be not in any, he is not God) this is not to be denied by Him.  
2. again: If God be now in a certain place in Heaven, 
§ 27.  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 H●mselfe, existing in his own Infinite Essence, and remove into the New place made for him? Or is not Gods removal out of his existence in himself, into a certain place, a blasphemous imagination? Ante omnia Deus erat, solus ipse sibi,& locus,& mundus,& omnia. Tertul. Is this change of place and posture to be ascribed to God? Moreover, if God be now only in a certain place of the Heavens, if he should destroy the Heavens, and that place, where would he then be? In what place? Should he cease to be in the place wherein he is, and begin to be in, to take up, and 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 be not do it? How should he be present there? Or must it stand empty? Or must he move himself thither? Or make himself bigger then he was, to fill that Heaven also?  
3. The Omnipresence of God is grounded on the infiniteness 
§. 28.  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, where ever it be, doth necessary follow; for if he be so bounded, as to be in his Essence distant from any thing, He is not Infinite. To say God is not Infinite in his Essence, denies him to be Infinite, or Unlimited in any of his Essence, denies him to be Infinite, or Unlimited in any of his Perfections or Properties; and therefore indeed upon the matter Socinus denies Gods Power to be Infinite, because he will not grant his Essence to be.( Catech: cap: 11. part. 1.) That which is absolutely Infinite, cannot have its residence in that which is finite and limited; so that if the Essence of God be not Immense, and Infinite, his Power, goodness, &c. are also bounded and limited; so that there are, or may be many things, which in their own Natures are capable of Existence, which yet God cannot do, for want of Power. How suitable to the Scriptures& common notions of Mankind, concerning the Nature of God, this is, will bee aside known. It is yet the common Faith of Christians, that God is {αβγδ}.  
4. Let Reason( which the Author of these Catechisms, pretends to advance and honour,( as some think above its due)& therefore cannot decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this 
§. 29.  gross apprehension concerning the confinement of God is the Heavens, yea a certain place in the Heavens, though He glister never so much in Glory, there where he is. For first, he must be extended as a body is, that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be circumscribed in a certain place; which though our Author think no absurdity, yet as we shall afterwards manifest, it is as bold an attempt to make an idol of the living God, as ever any of the sons of men engaged into. 2. Then Gods greatness& ours as to Essence,& Substance, differ only gradually, but are still of the same kind God is bigger then a man it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatness, differing from us as one man differs from another. A man is in a certain place of the Earth, which he fills and takes up: and God is in a certain place of the Heavens, which He fills and takes up; only some gradual difference there is; but how great or little that difference is, as yet we are not taught. 3. I desire to know of M. 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 whither 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. 〈◇〉. Doth God fill the whole Heavens, or only some part of them? If the Whole, being of such substance as is imagined, What room will there be in Heaven for any body else? Can a lesser place hold him? Or could He fill a greater; if not, how came the Heavens so fit for him? Or could he not have made them of other dimensions less or greater? If he be only in a 
Si spatium vacansuper caput Crealorris,& si Deus ipse in loco est, erit jam locut ille mayor& Deo& munds; nihil enim non majus est id quod capit, illo quod capitur. Tertul. ad Max. lib. 1. cap. 15.  part of Heaven, as is more then insinuated in the expression, that He is in a certain place in the Heavens: I ask why he dwells in one part of the Heavens rather then another? Or whether he ever removes, or takes a journey, as Elijah speaks of Baal 1 Kings 18. 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: at the Resurrection of the dead, &c. The Power of God doubtless follows his Essence: and what this extends not to, that cannot reach. But of that which might be spoken to vindicate the Infinitely Glorious being of God, from the Reproach, which His own Word is wrested to cast upon Him, this that hath been spoken is some what, that to my present thoughts doth occur.  
I suppose that M. B. knows, that in this his circumscription of God to a certain place, he transgresses against the common 
§. 30.  consent of Mankind; 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, 
{αβγδ}. Philo. lib. 2. Alleg. Leg.  Philo gives their judgement hear( saith he) of the Wise God, that which is most true, that God is in no place; for He is not Contained, but containeth all. That which is made, is in a place; for it must be contained, and not contain. And it is the observation of 
Maimon: Mor. Neuoch p. 1. c. 8.  another of them, that so often as {αβγδ} a place, is said of God, the exaltation of his Immense, and Incomparable essence,( as to its manifestation) is to be understood. And the Learned 
Buxtorf. in Lexic ●verbo {αβγδ}  Buxtorfe tells us, that when that word is used of God, it is by an Antiphrasis, to signify that he is Infinite, Illocall, received in no place, giving place to all. That know saying of Empedocles passed among the k Heathen, Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubique, circumferentia nusquam. And of Seneca: turn which way thou wilt, thou shalt see God meeting thee; nothing is empty of him, he fills his own work. All things are full of God, says the 
Jovis omnia plena. Virg. Eclog. 3.  Poet: and 
Lucan lib. 3.  another of them, 
Estque Dei seeds nisi Terra,& Pontus,& Aer,  
Est Coelum,& versus superos, quid quaerimus ultra:  
Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque moveris.  Of this Presence of God( I say) with, and unto all things, of the Infinity of his Essence, the very Heathens themselves, by the light of Nature,( which Mr B. herein opposes) had a knowledge: hence did some of them term him {αβγδ}. a mind framing the Universe: and affirmed him to be Infinite: Primus omnium rerum descriptionem& modum, mentis Infinitae in ratione designari 
h Quocunque re flexeris, ibi illum( Deum) videbis occurrent mtibi, nihil ab illo vacat, opus suum ipse implet. Senec. de benef. lib. 4. cap. 8.  & confici volvit. says Cicero of Anaxagoras: Tull: de not dear. lib. 1. all things are disposed of, by the virtue of our Infinite mind: and Plutarch expressing the same thing, says he is, {αβγδ}: a pure& 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 17. 25, 28. 29. and says Lactantius, Convicti de uno Deo, cum id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere affirmant, verùm hoc sibi placere, ut Jupiter nominetur. lib. 1. c. 2) Which as Servius on the place observes, he had taken from Aratus, whose words are. {αβγδ}; giving a full description, in his way, of the Omnipresence and Ubiquity of God. The same Virgil, from the Platonicks, tells us in another place. 
Spiritus intus alit, totamq infusa per artus  
Mens agitat molem.  And much more of this kind might easily be added. The I earned 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, then he of whom we speak, imagined a 
Vide Beza. Epist. ad Philip. Marnix.  diffusion of 
§. 31.  the substance of God through the whole Creation, and a mixture of it with the Creatures, so as to 
Vide Virgil. Aenead. lib. 6. principio caelum &c. ex Platonicis.  animate, and enliven them in their several forms, making God an essential part of each creature, or dream of an assumption of Creatures, into an unity of Essence with God, I am not now to speak.   

CAP. III.  
Of the Shape, and Bodily visible-figure of God.  
M. Biddles Question.  
IS God in the Scripture said to have any 
§. 1.  

likeness,  
Similitude,  
Person,  
Shape.    
The Proposition which he would have to be the Conclusion of 
§. 2.  the Answers to these Questions, is this, That according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures, God is a person shaped: like a man. A conclusion so grossly absurd, that it is refused as ridiculous, by Tully an Heathen, in the person of Cotta( de Na● Deorum) against Velleius the Epicurean; the Epicureans only amongst the Philosophers, being so soctish, as to admit that conceit. And M. B. charging that upon the Scripture, which hath been renounced by all the 
Sine Corpore ullo Deum esse vult, ut Graeci dicunt {αβγδ}. Tull. de not. dear. lib. 1. de Platone. mens soluta& libera, segregata ab omni concretione mortali. id.  Heathens, who set themselves studiously to follow the light of nature, and by a strict Inquiry to search out the Nature and Attributes of God, principally attending that safe Rule of ascribing nothing to him, that eminently included imperfection, hath manifested his pretext of mere Christianity, to be little better then a cover for down right atheism, or at best, of most vile, and unworthy thoughts of the divine Being. And here also doth M. B. forsake his 
Ex his autem intelligitur, membra humani Corporis, quae Deo in sactis literis ascribuntur, uti& partes quaedam aliarum unithantium, quails sunt alae, non nisi improprie Deo tribui. Siquidem a spiritus natura protsus abhorrent, Tribuuntur autem Deo per metaphoram cum metonymia conjunctam. Nempe quia facultates vel actiones Deo conveniunt, illarum similes, quae membris illis, aut insunt, aut per ea exercentur: Crellius Deo sieve 〈◇〉 vera relic. lib. 1. cap. 15. pag. 107.  Masters. Some of them have had more reverence of the Deity, and express themselves accordingly, in express opposition to this gross figmena.  
According to the Method I proceeded in, in consideration of the 
§. 3.  precedent Questions, shall I deal with this; and first, consider briefly the Scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid Assertion. The places urged& insisted on of old, by the 
Epiphan. Tom. 1. lib. 3. Heres. 70. Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 10.  Anthropomorphites, were such as partly ascribed a shape in general to God; partly such as mention the parts and Members of God, in that shape: His Eyes, his arms, his Hands &c. from all which they looked on him, as an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne. A conception that M. B. is no stranger to. The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by M. B. and the attribution of a likeness, Image, Similitude, Person,& Sh●pe unto God, is his warrant to conclude that he hath a Visible, Corpore all Image,& Shope, 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 belong 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 noveliyes, and on that account casting off that Reverence of God, which the first and most Common nations of mankind would instruct him into, to make bold with God and the Scripture, for his own ends& purposes.  
I say then first in general, if the Scripture may be allowed 
§. 4.  to expound itself, it gives us a faire and clear account of its own intendment, in mentioning the Image and Shape of God, which man was created in; and owns it to be his righteousness and Holinesse, in a state whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man being created, is said to be created in the Image,& likeness of God; in a kind of resemblance unto that holiness& righteousness which is in him Eph. 4. 23, 24, &c. what can hence be concluded, for a corporal Image, or Shape, to be ascribed unto God, is too easily discernible: From a likeness in some virtue on 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 M. B. insisted on, and the 
§. 5.  words used in them, which he lays the stress of this proposition upon: The two first words, are {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} both of which are used in the 1. Gen. the word {αβγδ} is used Gen. 5. 1. and {αβγδ} Gen. 9. 7. but whither of these words do in their genuine signification, imply any Corporerty or Figure, The most learned of all the rabbis, 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 {αβγδ}: and if these be ever so used, it is in a metaphoricall and borrowed sense, or at least, there is an Amphiboly in the words; the Scripture sometimes using them in such subjects, where this gross corporeal sense cannot possibly be admitted {αβγδ} like the Serpent Psal. 58. 4. here is indeed some Imaginable, or rather rational resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but noe corporeal similitude. vide ●ze. 1. 28. and 23. 15. To which may be added many more places, where if {αβγδ} shall be interpnted of a bodily similitude, it will afford no tolerable sense. The same likewise may be said of {αβγδ}: It is used in the Hebrew for the essential form, rather then the figure or shape:& being spoken of men, signifies rather their souls, then body; so it is used Psal. 73. 20. which is better translated, thou shalt despise their soul, then their Image: so where it is said Psal. 39. 6. every man walketh in a vain show;( the same word again) however it ought so to be interpnted, it cannot be understood of a corporeal similitude; so that these testimonys 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. 2.) and if this be not a bodily shape, it will be confessed, that nothing can here be concluded for the attribution of a shape to God; And hereof an account will be given in its proper place.  
The sum of M. B's reasoning from these places is, God in the creation of the lower world, and the inhabitancy thereof, 
§. 6.  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 Holinesse and righteousness, in a resemblance to those blessed perfections in himself, requiring still of him to be holy as he is holy, to continue& abide in that likeness of his, giving him in that estate, Dominion over the rest of his works here below, is said to create him in his own Image, and likeness, He being the sovereign Lord over all his Creatures, Infinitely wise, knowing, Just, and Holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and Image, and is therein like unto a man, quod erat demonstrandum.  
The next quotation is, from Numb. 12. 7, 8. where it is said of 
§. 8.  Moses, that he shall behold the Similitude of the Lord, the word is Themunah which as it is sometime 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. 4. 16. you saw no simillitude, &c. But it is frequently taken in the other sense, for that Object, or rather impression, whereby our intellectual apprehension is made: as in Job 4. 16. an Image was before mine, eyes viz in his dream: which is not any Carpereall shape, but that Idea, or objective representation, whereby the mind of man understands its object: that which is in the schools commonly called phantasm, or else an intellectual species, about the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is manifest, that in the place here alleged, it is put to signify the clear manifestation of Gods Presence to Moses, with some such glorious Appearance thereof, as he was pleased to represent unto him, Therefore doubtless God hath a bodily shape.  
His next quotation is taken from Ja. 3. 9. made after the Similitude 
§. 8.  of God. {αβγδ}: certainly M. B. cannot be so ignorant, as to think the word {αβγδ}, to include in its signification a corporeal similitude; the word is of as large an extent as Similitude in Latin: and takes in as well those abstracted Analogies, which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing several objects together, as those other outward comformities of figure and shape, which are the the objects of our carnal eyes. It is the word by which the Septuagint use to render the word {αβγδ}, of which we have soken before. And the examples are inuumerable in the Septuagints Translation,& in authors of all sorts, written in the greek Language, where that word is taken at large,& cannot signify a corporeal Similitude, so as it is in vain to insist upon particulars; and this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former, viz. what likeness of God it was, that man was created in, whether of Eyes, ears, Nose, &c. or of Holinesse, &c.  
His next Allegation is from Job. 13. 7, 8. will ye accept his Person, {αβγδ}. An allegation so frivolous, that to stand to answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an Interrogation, and doth not assert any thing. 2. The thing spoken against is {αβγδ}, which hath in it no regard to shape or corporeal Personality, but to the partiality, which is used in preferring one before another in Justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivative, is used in as great, or greater, variety of metaphoricall Translations, then any other Hebrew word; and is by no means determined to be a signification of that bulbey substance, which with the soul concurs to make up the person of man. It is so used Gen. 33. 18. {αβγδ} Jacob pitched his Tent before( or in the face of) the City. It is confessed, that it is very frequently translated {αβγδ} by the Seventy; as it, is very variously Translated by them sometimes {αβγδ}, see Jer, 38 26. Neh. 2. 13. Joh. 16. 16. Deut. 2. 36. Prov. 27. 23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for {αβγδ}: and in many moresences; so that to draw an Argument concerning the nature of God, from a Word so amphibologicall, or of such frequent Translation in metaphoricall speech, is very unreasonable.  
Of what may be hence deduced this is the sum, in every 
§. 9.  plea or contest about the ways, dispensations, and judgements of God, that which is right, exact, and according tot he 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 Joh. 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape, {αβγδ}. But it argues a very great ignorance in all philosophical, and accurate writings, to appropriate {αβγδ} to a corporeal shape, it being very seldom used, either in Scripture, or else where, in that notion. The Scripture having used it, when that sense cannot be fastened on it, as in the 1 Th. 5. 22. {αβγδ}; which may be rendered; abstain from every kind, or every appearance, 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 those two sences,& very seldom, if at all, in the other.  
How improperly,& with what little Reason, these places are interpnted of a corporeal similitude, or shape, hath been shewed: 
§. 10.  wherein the Image of God consists, the 
Plato said the same thing expressly, apud Stobaeum, Eclogae Ethicae l. 2. c. 3. p. 163.  Apostle shows, as was declared, determining it to be in the intellectual part, not in the Bodily Col. 3. 10. {αβγδ}. The word here used {αβγδ}, is of a grosser signification then {αβγδ}, 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 
{αβγδ}. Posidonius apud Stobaeum. Eclogae Physicae. lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. I confess Epicurus said, {αβγδ}. Stobae us ibidem. cap. 3. pag. 5. And possibly M. 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 Stohaeus there tells us) held otherwise. {αβγδ} &c. which Guil. Canterus renders thus, Quod nec tangi, nec cerni potest Deus, neque sub mensurans, vel terminum cadit aut Alicui est Corpori simile.  Similitude, likeness, Person, or Shape.  
What hath already been delivered concerning the Nature of God, and is yet necessary to be added, will not permit, that much be peculiarly spoken to this head, for the removal of those Imperfections from him, which necessary attend that Assignation of a bodily Shape to him, which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of dayes, is not really, one in the shape of an old man, sitting in Heaven on a Throne, Glistering with a corporeal Glory, his hair being white, and his Raiment beautiful, is Sufficiently evinced, from every property, and perfection, which in the Scripture is assigned to him.  
The holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture concerning God, doth not without Indignation suppose any thing to be Likened or compared to him, Maimonides hath observed, that these words Aph Ira, &c. are never attributed to God, but in the case of Idola●●y; that never any 
Videsis Rab. M. Maimonid: de Idolat. 8. 2, 3, &c.& Notas Dionysii Vossii ibidem.  Idolater was so silly, as to think that an idol of wood, ston, or mettall, was a God that made the Heavens& Earth, but that through thē, all Idolaters intend to worship God. Now to fancy a Corporeity in God, or that he is like a Creature, is greater, and more irrational dishonour to him, then Idolatry. To whom will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare to Him? Isa. 40. 18. Have ye not known, have ye not heard, hath it not been  told you from the beginning, have ye not understood from the foundation of the Earth? v. 22. it is He that sitteth &c. to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal saith the holy one? Because the Scripture speaks of the Eyes, and ears, nostrils, and arms of the Lord, and of mans being made after his likeness, if any one shall 
Quae de Deo dicuntur in sacrp codice {αβγδ}, interpretanda sunt {αβγδ}.  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,& so of necessity make a monster of Him, and worship a Chimera.  
Nay the Scripture plainly interprets itself, as to these Attributions unto God; his arm is not an arm of flesh, 2 Chro. 32. 8. Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth Job. 10. 4. Nay the highest we can pretend to( which is our way of understanding,) though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it Infinitely short of a likeness, or equality with Him. And the Holy Ghost himself gives a plain interpretation of his own intendment in such expressions. For whereas Luk. 11. 20. our Saviour says, that he with the finger of God casts out devils, Math. 12. 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 then 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 M. B. is fancied: and that so eminent a difference, as that now mentioned, is put between his arms,& eyes, or ours, as manifests them to agree in some Analogy of the thing signified by them, and not in an Answerblenesse in the same kind; wherefore I say, that  
The Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends 
§. 14.  to the nature and capacityes of men, and speaks for the most part to the Imagination( farther then 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 Immutability of God, do manifestly overthrow the conceit of a Shape and form of God. 
Vid. D. Bannes in 1. partem Aquinatis. Quaest. 3. Art. 1.& Scolasticos Passim  Were it not a contradiction that a body should be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such an one as He imagines. The shape of any thing, is the figuration of it: the figuration is the determination of its extension towards 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 contradiction, as will appear anon) but in Essence: speaking to our fancy, it saith, that he is higher then Heaven, deeper then Hell, Job 11. 8. that He fills Heaven and Earth, Ierem. 23. 24. That the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain God, 1 King 8 27. And hath many expressions to shadow out the Immensity of God, as was manifest in our consideration of the last Query. But not content to have yielded thus to our Infirmity, it delivers likewise in plain and literal terms, the infiniteness of God. His understanding is infinite Ps. 147. 5. And therefore his Essence is necessary so: this is a consequence that none can deny, who will consider it, till he understands the terms of it, as hath been declared. Yet least any should hastily apprehended, that the Essence of God were not therefore necessary infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. 135. 3. That his greatness hath no end, or is unconceivable, which is Infinite. For seeing we can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum,( that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater and greater numbers( as they say) in infinitum: it is evident, that there is no greatness, either of magnitude or Essence, which is unsearchable or unconceivable, beside that which is actually Infinite: such therefore is the greatness of God, in the strict and literal meaning of the Scripture 〈◇〉 and therefore that he should have a shape implies a contradiction. But of this so much before, as I presume we may now take it for granted.  
Now this Attribute of Infinity, doth immediately and demonstratively 
§ 15.  overthrow that gross conception of an human shape we are in the consideration of, and so it doth by consequence overthrow the conceit of any other, through a Sphaericall shape. again,  
Whatever is incorporeal is destitute of shape; what ever is Infinite is incorporeal, therefore what is Infinite, is destitute of Shape.  
All the Question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore suppose an Infinite body, or line, and let it be bisected; either then, each half is equal to the whole, or less. If equal, the whole is equal to the part; if less, then that half is limited within certain bounds: and consequently is finite, and so is the other half also: Therefore two things which are finite shall make up an Infinite; which is a contradiction.  
Having therefore proved out of Scripture, that God is Infinite, it follows also, that he is incorporeal,& that he is without Shape.  
The former Argument proved him to be without such a shape, as this Catechist would Insinuate: this, that he 
§. 16.  is without any shape at all. The same will be proved from the Immutability or impassibility of Gods Essence, which the Scripture assigns to him. Mal. 3. 6. I am the Lord I change not. The Heavens are the work of thy hand, they shall perish, but thou endurest, they shall be changed, but thou art the same Psal. 102. 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; wherefore being immutable he hath no Shape.  
M. Biddle's great plea for the considering his catechism,& insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himself, is from 
§. 17.  the success, which himself hath found in the discovery of sundry Truths, of which he gives an account in his book, to the Reader. That among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume M. B. knoweth For this discovery, the world is beholding to one Audaeus a monk, of whom you have a large account in Epiphanius Tom. 1. lib. 3. Haeres. 70. as also in Theodoret. lib. 4. Ecles. Hist. cap. 10. who also gives us an account of the man, and his conversation, with those that followed him. Austin also acquaints us with this worthy Predecessor of our Author de Haeres cap. 50. He that thinks it worth while to know, that we are not beholding to M. B. but to this Audaeus for all the Arguments, whither taken from the creation of man in the Image of God, or the attibution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible Shape, may at his leisure consult the Authors above mentioned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to M. B.'s ingenious inquiryes. How the same figment was also entertained by a company of stupid monks in egypt, who in pursuit of their opinion came in a great driven 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 
{αβγδ}. Zozom. Hist. Ec. l. 8. c. 11.§ 18. minute. Faelix. in Octay. Lnctan. de vera sap. Mutius pansa Pianensis de osculo ethnicae& Christianae Theol. c. 25. Origen. in Gen. Hom: 3. August: l: 83, Quaest: 22.  of expression, with what learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 7.  
As this madness of brainsick men, was always rejected by all e Persons of sobriety, professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of Heathens, who retained any impression of those common notions of God, which remain in the hearts of men. The Jews to this day do solemnly confess in their public worship, that God is not corporeal, that he hath no corporeal propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old. {αβγδ}. Phil. de opificio mundi. Neither hath God an human form, nor does an human body resemble him. And in Sacrifi. Abel. {αβγδ}& {αβγδ},& {αβγδ}& {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} had the same apprehensions of him: thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobaeus: serum: 78. {αβγδ}. And Calicratides apud Stob. Serm. 83. {αβγδ}.  
Of the like import is that distich of Xenophones in Clemens Alexan: Storm. 5.  

{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.  
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 ut carmina dicunt. &c. And Aeschylus in the same place of Clemens storm. 5. 
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.   
separate God from mortals, and think not thyself of flesh, like him.  
And Posidonius plainly in Stobaeus as above, {αβγδ}, God is an intelligent fiery spirit, not having any shape. And the same Apprehension is evident in that of Seneca, Quid est Deus? mens universi. Quid est Deus? Quod vides totum,& quod non vides totum. Sic demum magnitudo sua illi redditur, quâ nihil majus excogitari potest. Si solus est omnia, opus suum extra& intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter naturam Dei& nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra animum. Natural. Quaest. lib. 1. Praefat. It would be burdensome, if not endless, to insist on the testimonies, that to this purpose might be produced, out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Julisu Firmicus, and others of the same order. I shall close with one of Alcinous de Doctrina Platon. cap. 10. {αβγδ}. It is absurd to say that God is of matter and form: for if so, he could neither be simplo, 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 
§. 19.  the arguments flowing from the other Attributes of God, but proceed to what follows.   

CAP. 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 
§. 1.  Attribution of several Affections and Passions unto him in the Scripture, of whose sense and meaning he thus expresseth his apprehension.  
Quest. Are there not according to the perpetual tenor of the Scriptures, 
§, 2.  affections and passions in God, as Anger, Fury, zeal, Wrath, Love, Hatred, Mercy, Grace, Jealousy, Repentance, Grief, Ioy, fear? Concerning which he labours to make the Scriptures determine in the affirmative.  
The main of M. B's design in his Questions about the Nature 
§. 3.  of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct Persons, its Omnipresence, Prescience, and therein all other infinite Perfections, he endeavours to make him some recompense for all that loss, by ascribing to him in the foregoing Query, a human visible shope, and in this, human, turbulent affections, and passions; commonly where men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, 
Jer. 44. 15, 16.  He gives them up to assign that unto Him, which he doth abhor. Neither is it easily determinable, whether be the greater abomination. By the first, the dependence of men upon the true God is taken off; by the latter, their hope fixed on a false. This on both sides at present is M. B's sad employment: The Lord lay it not to his charge, but deliver him from the snare of satan, wherein he is 
2 Tim. 2. 26. §. 4. Crellius de Deo seu vera relic. cap. 29. p. 295.  taken alive at his pleasure.  
2. The things here assigned to God are ill assotiated, if to be und●rstood after the same manner Mercy, and Grace, we aclowledge to be Attributes of God; the rest mentioned, are by none of M. B's c Companions, esteemed any other, then Acts of his will: and those Metaphorically assigned to him.  
3. To the whole I ask. whither these things are in the 
§. 5.  Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections& passion, in him as those in us are, which are so termed, or whither they are aisigned to Him,& spoken of him Metaphorically, only in reference to his outward 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 Infibite Perfections, and blessedness, so there can be no difference about this Question, and the answers given thereunto; all men readily acknowledging, that in this sense the Scripture doth ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God; of which we say as He of old, {αβγδ} {αβγδ}. But this I fear will not serve M. B's turn: the very phrase and manner of expre●lion, used in this question; the plain intimation that is in the forehead thereof, of its Authors 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,& that the affections mentioned are really and properly in Him, as they are in us. This being evident to be his mind and intendment, as we think his anthropopathisme in this Query, not to come short in folly and madness of his anthropomorphisme in that foregoing: so I shall proceed to the removal of this insinuation in the way and method formerly insisted on.  
M. Biddle's Masters tell us, that 
Voluntatis divinae Commotiones, praesertim vehe mentiores, seu actus ejusmodi, quibus voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur, vel ab eo refugit, atque abhorret &c. Crell. de Beo: seu Vera relic. cap: 29. p: 295. vid: etiam cap: 30, 31.  These affections are vehement 
§. 6.  commotions of the will of God, whereby He is carried out earnestly to the object of his desires, or earnestly declines, and abhors, what falls non out gratefully, or acceptably to him. I shall first speak of them in general, and then to the particulars,( some or all) mentioned by M. Biddle.  
1. In general, that God is perfect and perfectly Blessed, 
Deut. 32. 4. Job. 37. 16. Rom. 1. 25. 9. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 11. 6. 15.  I suppose will not be denied; it cannot be, but by denying that he is God. He that is not perfect in himself, and perfectly Blessed, is not God. To that which is perfect in any kind, nothing is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely perfect, nothing is wanting at all. He who is blessed, is perfectly satisfied,& filled,& 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 
§. 7.  them. They are 
Crellius de Deo ubi supra  something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul, and the execution of that purpose: The proper actings of affections lie between these two; that is, in an incomplete, tumultuary volition. That God is not obnoxions to such volitions,& incomplete actings of the will, besides the general consideration of his perfections,& blessedness premised, is evident from that manner of procedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his works comprise all his actings. As the Lord hath 
Isa. 14. 24. Eph. 1. 11. Ro. 11. 33, 34, 35. Isa. 40. 13.  purposed so hath he done. He worketh all things according to the counsel of his will. Who hath known his mind, and who hath been his counsellor. Of him, and from him are all things.  
2. They have their dependence on that, wherewith he, in whom 
§. 8.  they are, is affencted; that is, they owe their rise& continuance to some thing without him, in whom they are. A mans fear ariseth from that, or them, of whom he is afraid; by them it is occasioned, on them it depends; what ever 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 depends on something without him. Yea our being affencted with something without, lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves; Is it thus with God? With Him, who is 
Exod. 3. 14.  I Am? 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 reduced to some other, without, and besides him, who is God? As the causes of all our affections are. God is of one mind, and who can turn him: whatever he pleaseth that he 
Job. 23. 13.  doth.  
3. Affections are necessary accompanied with change and 
§. 9.  mutability. Yea he who is affencted properly, is really changed: yea there is no more unworthy change or alteration, then that which is accompanied with passion, as is the change, that is wrought by the affections, ascribed to God. A 
{αβγδ} Philo.  sedate, quiet, considerate alteration, is far less inglorious, and unworthy, then that which is done in and with passion: Hitherto we have taken God upon his Testimony, That He is the 
Mal. 3. 6.  Lord, and he changeth not: that with him there is neither change nor shadow of turning: it seems like the worms of the earth, He varieth every Day.  
4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God, do eminently 
§. 10.  denote impotence, which indeed on this account, both by Socinians and Arminians is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him affectionately, and with Com●notion of will, to desire many things, in their own Nature not impossible, which yet the cannot accomplish nor bring about; of which I have elsewhere spoken. Yea it will appear, that the most of the Affections ascribed to God by M. Biddle, taken in a proper fence, 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.  
2. Let a short view be taken of the particulars, some or all of them, that M. Biddle chooseth to instance in; Anger, Fury, wrath, 
§. 11.  zeal,( the same in kind, only differing in degree and circumstances,) are the first he instances in; and the places produced to make good this Attribution to God, are, Numb. 25. 3, 4. Ezek. 5. 13. Exod. 32. 11, 12. Rom. 1. 18.  
1. That mention is made of the Anger, Wrath, and Fury of God, in the Scripture, is not questioned, Numb. 25. 4. Deut. 13. 11. Josh. 1. 26. Psal. 18. 29. Isa. 13. 9. Deut. 29. 24. judge. 2. 14. Psal. 14. 1. Psal. 69. 24. Isa. 30. 30. Lament. 2. 6. Ezek. 5. 15. Psal. 18. 49. Isa. 34. 2. 2 Chron. 28. 11. Ezra. 10. 14. Hab. 3. 8. 12. are farther Testimonies thereof. The words also in the original, in all the places mentioned, express or intimate perturbation of mind, Commotion of Spirit, corporal mutation of the parts of the body,& 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, assertting this passion to be in him, in the proper significancy of the words, or whether these things be not taken {αβγδ}, and to be understood {αβγδ}, in such a sense, as may answer the meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them their truth to the utmost, and yet be interpnted in a cleanness to divine perfection and blessedness.  
2. The Anger then which in the Scripture is a signed to 
§. 12.  God, we say denotes two things.  
1. His Vindictive Justice, or constant and immutable will of rendering vengeance for sin: so Gods purpose of the 
Vid. Andr. Riverum in Psal. 2. p. 11.& in Exod. 4. p. 1●.& Aquinat. 1. part. Q. 3. Art. 2. ad secundum. Ira dicitur de Deo Secundum similitudinem effectus, quia proprium est Irati punire, ejus ira punitio Metaphorice vocatur.  demonstration of his Justice, is called his being willing to show his wrath or anger Rom. 9. 22. so Gods Anger and his Judgments are placed together Psal. 1. 6. and in that anger he judgeth, v. 8. and in this sense is the wrath of God said to be revealed from Heaven, Rom. 1. 18. that is, The Vindictive Justice of God against sin, to be manifested in the effects of it, or the Judgments sent, and punishments inflicted on,& throughout the world.  
2. By Anger Wrath, zeal, Fury, the effects of Anger are denoted. Rom. 3. 5. Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? The words are {αβγδ}, who inflicteth, or bringeth anger on man: that is, sore punishments, such as proceed from Anger, that is, Gods Vindictive Justice. And Eph. 5. 6. For this cause cometh the wrath of God upon the Children of disobedience: Is it the passion or affection of Anger in God, that M. Biddle talks of, that comes upon the Children of Disobedience? Or is it indeed the 
{αβγδ} Divina ultio Rom. 1. 8. Col. 3. 6. Gr●tius in Lecum.  effect of his Justice for this sin? Thus the day of judgement is called the day of wrath, and of anger, because it is the day of the Revelation of the Righteous judgement of God Rom. 2. 5. After thy hardness &c. In the place of Ezekiel, chap. 5. 13. mentioned by M. B. The Lord tells them, he will cause his fury to rest upon men; and accomplish it upon them. I ask whether he intends this of any passion in him,( and if so, how a passion in God can rest upon a man) or the Judgments which for their iniquities he did inflict? We say then, Anger is not properly ascribed to God, but metaphorically, denoting partly his vindictive Justice whence all punishments flow, partly the effects of it in the punishments themselves, either threatened, or inflicted, in their terror and bitterness, upon the account of what is Analogous therein to our proceeding, under the power of that passion; and so is to be taken in all the places mentioned by M. Biddle. For  
3. Properly, in the sense by him pointed to, anger, wrath, &c. are not in God. Anger is defined by the Philosopher to be, {αβγδ}, Desire joined with grief of that which appears to be revenge, for an appearing neglect, or contempt. To this 
{αβγδ}. Aristot. lib. 2. cap. 2.  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; which saith he, is 
{αβγδ}, id. ubi sup.  like the fancy of them that dream: and ascribes this passion mostly to weak impotent Persons; Ascribe this to God, and you leave him nothing else; There is not one Property of his nature wherewith it is confistent. If he be Properly, and literally angry, and Furious, and wrathful, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires revenge, and is neither blessed, nor perfect; but of these things in our general Reasons against the property of these Attributions afterwards.  
4. M. Biddle hath given us a rule in his preface, that when any thing is ascribed to God in one place, which is 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. 27. 4. and therefore it is not properly ascribed to him.  
5. Of all the places where mention is made of Gods repentings or his Repentance, there is the same Reason. Exod. 32. 14. 
§. 14.  Gen. 6. 6, 7. Judges 10. 16. Deut. 30. 9. are produced by M. B. That one place of the 1 Sam. 15. 29. where God affirms, that he knoweth no Repentance, casts all the rest under a necessity of an interpretation suitable unto it. Of all the affections or passions, which we are obnoxious to, there is none that more eminently proclaims imperfection, weakness, and want in sundry kinds, then this of Repentance. If not sins, mistakes, and miscarriages,( as for the most part they are,) yet disappointment, grief,& trouble are always included in it. So is it in that expression Gen. 6. 6. It 
Theodoret upon on this place tells us {αβγδ}, &c. Non autem ut fuerunt quidom,( so that M. B. is not the first that held this opinion) I●â quadam& paenitentiâ ductue Deus haec egit: {αβγδ}. And then he adds, {αβγδ} &c. Quomodo ergo paenitentia cadat in Deum? His answer is, {αβγδ}, &c. Quare paenitentia Dei nihil aliud est, quam mutatio Dispensationis ejus. Paenitet me( inquit) quod constituerim Saul Regem, pro eo quodest, statui illum deponcre. Sic in hoc loco,( Gen. 6. 6.) paenitet fecisse me homine●; hoc est, decrevi perdere humanum genus, Theod. in Gen. Quaest. 50. Tom. opil 1. p. 41, 42.  Earth, and it grieved him at the heart. What but his mistake, and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdom, foresight, and power, can give propriety to these Attributions unto God? The Change God was going then to work in his Providence on the earth, was such, or like that, which men do, when they repent of a thing, being grieved at the heart for what 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 svit him, whose frame of spirit& 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. 32. 26, 27. fear, saith the 
§. 15.  Wise man, is a betraying of those succours which reason offereth: natures avoidance of an impedent evil. 
{αβγδ}. Arist. Rhetor. l. 2. c. 6.  Its contrivance to fly and prevent what it abhors, being in a probability of coming upon it: a turbulent weakness. This God forbids in us, upon the account of his being our God, Isa. 35. 4. fear not O worm Jacob &c. Every where he asserts fear to be unfit for them, who depend on him, and his help, who is able, in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and reduce to nothing, all the causes of their fear. And if there ought to be no fear, where such succour is ready at hand, sure there is none in him who gives it. doubtless it were much better to exclude the Providence of God out of the world, then to assert him afraid properly,& 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 attribution unto God; That properly he should be afraid of what comes to pass, who 
Act. 15. 18. 2 Sam. 22. 16. Job. 4. 9. Psal. 18. 15. Rom. 1. 21. Gen. 17. 1. Rom. 9. 16, 17, 18, &c.& 11. 34, 35, 36. Is. 40. 15. Heb. 1. 3. Ps. 33. 9. Act. 17. 25, 28. Ps. 50. 8. Dan. 6. 23. Ps. 90 3. Job. 34. 19.  knows from eternity what will so do, who can with the breath of his mouth destroy all the objects of his dislike, who is infinitely wise, blessed, all-sufficient, and the sovereign disposer of the lives, breath, and ways, of all the sons of men, is fit for M. B. and no man else to affirm. All the Nations are before him, as the drop of the bucket, and the dust of the balance, as vanity, as nothing; he upholds them by the word of his power, in him all men live,& move,& have their being,& can neither live, nor act, nor be without him: their life,& breath, and all their ways, are in his hands, he brings them to destruction, and says return ye children of men; and must he needs be properly afraid of what they will do to him, and against him?  
7. Of Gods Jealousy, and hatred, mentioned, from Psal. 5. 4, 5. Exod. 20. 5. Deut. 32. 21. There is the same reason. Such effects as these things in us produce, shall they meet withall, who provoke him by their blasphemies and abominations. Of Love, Mercy, and Grace, the condition is something otherwise, principally they denote Gods essential goodness& 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 properly attributed to God, unto what hath been spoken already, these ensuing Considerations may be subjoined.  
1. Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions can 
§. 17.  have place, or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted: For to what end should we suppose that, whereof there can be no use to eternity. If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred up, or acted, is it not impossible any such should be in him? The causes stirring up all affections, are the access of some good desired, whence Joy, Hope, Desire, &c. have their spring; or the approach of some evil to be avoided, which occasions fear, Sorrow, Angen, Repentance, and the like. Now if no good can be added to God, whence should joy, and desire be stirred up in him: If no evil can befall him, in himself, or any of his concernments, whence should he have fear, Sorrow, or Repentance. 
Psal. 16. 2. 50. 8, 9, 10. Job 35. 6, 7, 8 Job 22. 2, 3.  Our goodness extends not to him; He hath no need of us, or our Sacrifices. Can a man be profitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself. Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art Righteous, or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect?  
2. The Apostle tells us, that God is blessed for ever, Ro. 9. 5. He is 
§. 18.  the blessed& only potentate, 1 Tim. 6. 15. God all-sufficient, Gen. 17. 1. That which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness,& 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 Gods fear doth not long abide, yet whilst it doth so, He is less blessed then he was before, and then 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; 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 
Psal. 50. 21.  having such passions& affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to speak unto; Those who have written on the Attributes of God, his Selfe-sufficiency,& blessedness, Simplicity, Immutability, &c. are ready to tender farther satisfaction, to them who shall desire it.   

CAP. V.  
Of Gods Prescience or Fore-knowledge.  
HIS next attempt is to overthrow, and remove the Prescience, 
§. 1.  or fore-knowledge 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 afterwards 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 intendment of this interrogation, it is desirable M. B. had given us his sense on some particulars, which at first view present themselves; to the trouble of every ordinary red r. 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 understands our thoughts( which certainly are of our free actions, if any such there are) afar off; Here, that he knows not our free Actions, that are future, and not yet wrought or performed.  
2. By whom is it wont to be gathered from the following 
§. 2.  Scriptures, that God knoweth not our free actions until they come to pass: Why doth not this mere Christian, that is of no Sect, name his Companions and Associates in these learned Collections from Scripture? Would not his so doing discover him to be so far from a mere Christian, engaged in none of the Sects, that are now amongst Christians, as to be of that Sect, which the residue of men so called, will scarce allow the name of 
Stegman. Photin. Refut Disput. 1. q. 2. An Photiniani ullo modo Christiani dici queant. Neg. Martin. Smiglec. Jes. Nova monstra, novi Arianis. cap. 1. Aridnos nullo modo Christianos dici posse.  Christian unto.  
3. What he intends by the close of his query, yea that there are such actions; An advance is evident in the words towards a farther negation of the knowledge of God, then 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 any such actions, as may, or may not be, which would render him less knowing then M. B. who hath already  told us, that such there be, or else that he knows not such actions when they are, at least without farther inquiring after them, and knowledge obtained, beyond what from his own in●● perfections, and eternal purpose he is furnished withall In M Biddles next book or catechism, I desire he would answer these questions also.  
Now in this eudeavour of his, M. B. doth but follow his leaders. 
Ut ad rationem istam non minus plenè quam planè respondeamus, animadvertendum est, infalsto●●em istam Dei praenotionem, quam pro re concessâ adversarii sumunt, a nobis non admitti. Socin Praelec. c. 8. p. 25. Cum igitur nulla ratio, nullus Sacrarum literarum locus sit, ex quo apertè colligi posset, Deum omnia quae fiunt, scivisse ante●uam fierent, concludendum est, minime asserendam esse a nobis istam Dei praescientiam: praesertim, cum& rationes non paucae,& sacra Testimonia non desint, unde eam planè negandam esse apparet: idem c: 11. p: 38.  Socinus in his his Prelections, where the main of his design, is to vindicate mans free-will, into that latitude and absoluteness, as none before him had once aimed at, in his 8th Chapter objects to himself this fore-knowledge of God, as that which seems to abridge, and cut short the liberty contended for; He Answers, that he grants not the fore-knowledge pretended, and proceeds, in that and the two following Chapters, labouring to answer all the testimonies, and Arguments which are insisted on for the proof and demonstration of it; giving his own Arguments against it, Chapter 11. 
Itaque in considerate illi faciunt, qui futura contingentia Deum determinatè scire aiuni, quia alias non esset omniscius: cum potius, ideo illa determinatè futura non concipiat, quia est omniscius: Crellius de Vera relic. lib: 1 c: 24. p: 201.  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 fore knowledge of God, he concludes at last, that for those things that are future contingent, he knows only, that they are so,& that possibly they may come to pass, possibly they may not. Of the rest of their Associates few have spoken expressly to this thing. 
Nam si omnia futura qualiacunque sunt; Deo ab omni aeternitate determinatè cognita fuisse unquam, humanae voluntatis libertatem, ac porro nec Religi●nem, idem ibid. p 202. Smalclus Resutat. Thes. Franz. disput: 1. de Trinitat. pag: 3. disput. 12. de cause. peccat. p. 428, 429. &c. 435.  Smalcius once and again manifests himself to consent with his Masters, in his disputations against Franzius, expressly consenting to what Socinus had written in his Prelections, and affirming the same thing himself, yea disputing eagery for the same opinion with him.  
For the vindication of Gods fore-knowledge, I shall proceed in 
§. 7.  the same order as before, in reference to the other Attributes of God, insisted on: viz. 1. What M. B. hath done, how he hath disposed of sundry places of Scripture for the proof of his assertion, with the sense of the places, by him so produced, is to be considered. 2. Another Question and Answer is to be supplied in the roomeof 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 then ordinarily; though I confess his task in 
§. 5.  general be such, as no man, not made desperate by the loss of all, in a shipwreck of Faith, would once have undertaken. To have made good his proceeding according to his engagement, he was at least to have given us Texts of Scripture, express in the letter, as by him cut off from the state, condition, and co●erence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they are placed, for the countenancing of his assertion. But here, being not able to make any work in his method proposed, and boasted in, as signal and uncontroleable; no apex, or tittle in the Scripture, being pointed towards the denial of Gods knowing any thing, or all things, past, present,& 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 infisting 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 
Rom. 12. 6.  proportion of Faith. That then which he would have, he tells you, is gathered from the places of Scripture subjoined; but how, by whom, by what consequence, with what evidence of Reason, it is so gathered, he tells you not. An understanding indeed informed with such gross conceptions of the nature of the Deity, as M. B. hath laboured to insinuate into the minds of men, might gather from his collection of places of Scripture for his purpose in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved, that he repenteth, altereth, and changeth his mind to and fro; but of his knowledge, or sore-knowledge of things, whether he have any such thing or not, there is not the least intimation; unless it be in this, that if he had any such fore-knowledge, he need not put himself to so much trouble and vexation, nor so change, and alter his mind, as he doth. And with such figments as these,( through the Infinite, Wise, and good Providence of God, punishing the wantonness of the minds, and lives of men, by 
2 Thess. 2. 10, 11, 12.  giving them up to strong delusurs, and vain Imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish hearts, so far, 
Rom. 1. 23.  as to change the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinful man) are we now to deal.  
But let the places themselves be considered. To these heads 
§. 6.  they may be referred,( 1.) such as ascribe unto God fear, and being afraid. Deut. 32. 26, 27. Exod. 13. 17. Gen. 3. 22. 23. are of this sort.( 2.) Repentance: 1 Sam. 15. 10, 11, ult.( 3.) Change, or alteration of mind: Numb. 14. 27, 30. 1 Sam. 2. 30.( 4.) Expectation, whether a thing will answer his desire or no: Isa. 5. 4. Conjecturing, Jerem. 36. 1, 2, 3. Ezek. 12. 1, 2.( 5.) Trying of experiments, judge. 3. 1, 4. Dan. 8. 2. 2 Chron. 32. 31. From all which and the like, it may, by M. B's direction and help, be thus gathered: If God be afraid of what is to come to pass, and repenteth him of what he hath done, when he finds it not to answer his expectation, if he sits divining, and onjecturing at events, being often deceived therein, and therefore tries and makes experiments, that he may be informed of the true state of things, then certainly he knows not the free actions of men, that are not yet come to pass. The Antecedent M. B. hath proved undeniably from ten texts of Scripture; and doubtless the consequent is easily to be gathered by any of his Disciples. doubtless it is high time, that the old musty Catechisms or prejudicate persons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the Scripture in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were removed out of the way, and burned, that this 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 
§. 7.  unto God? Can you blame M. Biddle 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 M. B. namely, to induce the Atheistical spirits of the sons of men, to a contempt and scorn of them, and their Authority, will probably be sooner attained, then by the efficacy of any one engine raised against them in the worldbesides.  
As to the matter under consideration; I have some few things in general to propose to M. Biddle, and then I shall descend to the particulars insisted on.  
1. Then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned, as fear, grief, 
Paenitentia infert ignorantiam praeteriti, praesentis,& futuri, mutationem voluntatis,& errorem in consiliis, quorum nihil in Deum cadere potest: dicitur tamen ille metaphorice penitentiâ duci, quemadmodum nos, quando alicujus rei paenitet, abolemus, id quod antea feceramus: quod fieri potest sine tali mutatione voluntatis, quâ nunc homo aliquid facit, quod post mutato animo, destruit. Manasseh Ben. Izrael. conciliat. in Gen. 6. q: 23. Paenitentia, cum mutabilitatem importet, non potest esse in Deo, dicitur tamen paenitere, eo qùod ad modum paenitentis se habet, quando destruit quod fecerat. Lyran. ad. 1 Sam. 15. v. 35.  Repentance, Trouble, Conjecturings, making trials of men for his own information, are ascribed properly to God, as they are unto men, or tropically and figuratively, with a condescension to us, to express the things spoken of, and not to describe the nature of God? If the first be said, namely, that these things are ascribed properly to God, and really signify of him, the things in us intended in them, then to what hath been spoken in the consideration taken of the foregoing query, I shall freely add, for mine own part, I will not own, nor worship him for my God, who is truly and properly afraid what all the men in the world either will, or can do; who doth, can do, or hath done any thing, or suffered any thing to be done, of which he doth, or can truly and properly repent himself, with sorrow and grief for his mistake; or that sits in Heaven divining, and conjecturing at what men will do here below: and do know, that He whom I serve in my spirit, will famish and starve all such Gods out of the world. But of this before. If these things are ascribed to God figuratively,& improperly, discovering the kind of his works, and dispensations, not his own Nature or properties; I would fain know what inference can be made, or conclusion be drawn from such expressions, directly calling for a figurative interpretation? For instance, if God be said to repent that he had done such a thing, because such and such things are come to pass thereupon, if this Repentance in God, be not properly ascribed to him( as by M. B's own rule it is not) but denotes only an alteration& change in the works, that outwardly are of him, in an orderly subserviency to the in mutable ●●posi of his will, what can thence be gathered to prove, that 〈◇〉 screseeth not the free actions of men? And this is the Issue of M. Biddles confirmation of the Thesis, couched in his Query insisted on, from the Scriptures.  
2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the Rule 
§. 9.  he hath given us in his Preface, viz That where a thing is improperly ascribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him; as he instances in that of his being weary: so that what ever 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 do so, and that upon such a general ground and Reason, as is equally exclusive of all those other passions, and affections, upon whose assignment unto God, the whole strength of M. Biddles plea against the Prescience of God doth depend. 1 Sam. 15. 29. Also the strength of Israell will not lie, no repent, for he is not a man that he should repent. The immutability of his nature,& unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, is asserted as the reason of his not repenting; which will equally extend its force and efficacy, to the removal from him, of all the other human affections mentioned. And this second general consideration of the foundation of M. 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 M. B. denies to be known of 
§. 10.  God? Or whether he exclude him not also from the knowledge of the present state, frame and actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand affencted towards him: being therein like other Rulers among men, who may judge of the good& evil actions of men, so far as they are manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affencted to them, their Rule government, and Authority, they know not. To make this enquiry, I have not only the observation premised, from the words of the close of M. Biddles Query, being of a negative importance,( yea that there are such actions) but also from some of the proofs by him produced, of his former assertion, being interpnted according to the literiall significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. 22. 12, 10, 11, 12. 
Ex hac actione propter quam ab omnibus Deum timens vocaberis cognoscent omnes, quantus in to sit timor Dei,& quousque pertingat. R. Mos. Ben Maimon: more Nevoch. p. 3. c. 24.  where God is said to tempt Abraham, and upon the Issue of that trial says to him,( which words M. B. by putting them in a different character, points to, as comrehensive of what he intends to gather,& conclude from them) NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with-held thy son, thine only son from me. The collection which M. 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 action, that was not as yet done; but something of the present condition and frame of his heart towards God: viz. His fear of God; not whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If this then be properly spoken of God,& really, as to the nature of the thing itself, then is he ignorant no less of things present, then of those that are for to come. He knows now who fears him, nor who hates him, unless he have opportunity to try them, in some such way as he did Abraham: And then what a God hath this man delineated to us? How like the dunghill Deities of the Heathen who speak after this rate. 
Contigerat nostras infamia temporis aures; Quam cupiens falsam summo dilabor Olympo, Et Deus humanâ lustro sub imagine terras. Ovid.  doubtless the description that Elijah gave of Baal, would better suite him, then any of those divine Perfections, which the living, all-seeing God, hath described himself by. But now if M. B. will confess, that God knows all the things that are present,& that this enquiry after the present frame of the heart and spirit of a man, is improperly ascribed to him, from the Analogy of his proceedings in his dealings with him, to that which we insist upon, when we would really find out what we do not know; then I would only ask of him, why those other expressons which he mentions, looking to what is to come, being of the same nature& 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 M. B. where the 
§. 11.  inquiries ascribed unto God,& the tyall that he makes, is not in reference to things to come, but punctually to what is present. Deut. 8. 2. chap. 13. 3. The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. 2 Chron. 32. 31. God left him to try him, that he might know what was in his heart; and Phil. 4. 6. In every thing let your request be made know to God. Let M. Biddle tell us now plainly, whether he suppose all these things to be spoken properly of God, and that indeed God knows not our hearts, the frame of them, nor what in them we desire and aim at, without some eminent trial& inquiry, or until we ourselves do make known what is in them unto him. If this be the mans mind( as it must be, if he be at any agreement with himself in his principles, concerning these scriptural Attributions unto God,) for my part, I shall be so far from esteeming him eminent, as a mere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him comparable, as to his apprehensions of God, unto many that lived and dyed mere Pagans. To this sense also is applied that Property of God, that he trieth the hearts, as it is urged by M. Biddle from 1 Thes. 2. 4, that is, he maketh inquiry after what is in them, which but upon search and 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 then 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 enquiry, but because really and indeed he doth that in 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 mans consistency with himself. Christ he denies to be God. A great part of 
§. 12.  his Religion consists in that negative. Yet of Christ it is said, that he knew all men, and needed not that any should testifyin of man, for he knew what was inman, John 2. 24, 25. and this is spoken in 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 miracels that he did, v. 23. Though they had such a vail 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& know their frame, and whether in sincerity they loved him, and believed in his name or no; but this God cannot do, without enquiry and yet Christ( if we believe M. B.) was but a mere man, as he is a mere Christian. Further, it seems by this Gentleman, that unless we make known our requests to God; he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask nothing but what is in our thoughts: and in the last query he instructs us, that God knows our thoughts, and doubtless knows M. Biddles to be but folly. Further yet, if God must be concluded ignorant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests, known to him, He may be as well concluded forgetful of what himself hath spoken, because he bids us, put him in remembrance, and appoints some to be his Remembrancers: But to return.  
This is the aspect of almost one half of the places produced 
§. 13.  by M. Biddle, towards the business in hand; if they are properly spoken of God, in the same sense as they are of man; they conclude him not to know things present, the frame of the heart of any man in the world towards himself, and his fear, nay the outward, open, notorious actions of men. So it is in that place of Gen. 18. 21. insisted on by 
Nimis longè a propriâ verhorum significatione recedendum est,& sententiarum vis enervanda, si eas eum definitâ illa futurorum contingentium praescientiâ conciliare velis at Gen. 18. 21.& 22. 12. Quicquid enim alias de utriusque loci sententiâ statuas, illud tamen. facile est cernere, Deum novum quoddam,& ensign experimentum, illic quidem impietatis Sodomiticae& Gomorrh●, videre voluisse, hic vere pletatis Abrahamicae vidisse, quod antequam fieret, plane certum& exploratum non esset. Crellius de vera relic. c. 24. p. 209.  Crellius, one of M. B's great Masters. I will go down and see( or know) whether they have done altogether according to the cry that is come up unto me. Yea the places which in their letter& outward appearance seem to ascribe that ignorance of things present unto God, are far more express and numerous, then those that in the least look forward to what is yet for to come, or was so, at their delivery. This progress then have we made under our Catechist, if we may believe him, as he insinvates 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 
§. 14.  is eminently, and expressly denied by M. Biddle. viz. Gods foreknowledge of our free actions that are future, because many of his proofs, in the sense by him urged, seem to exclude him from an acquaintance with many things present, as in particular, the frame and condition of the hearts 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 metaphoricall, and improperly ascribed to God. Of the eminent predictions in the Scripture, which relate unto things future, I shall speak afterwards. He knew, for he foretold the Flood, the destruction of sodom and Gomorrah, the Famine in egypt, the selling and exaltation of Joseph. the reign of David, the division of his kingdom, the Babylonish captivity, the kingdom of Cyrus, the return of his people, the state and ruin of the four great Empires of the world, the Warres, 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. 23. He knew that Hazael would murder women and infants, which he knew not himself. He knew that the egyptians would afflict his People, though at first they entertained them with Honour, Gen. 15. 13. He knew Abraham, that he would instruct his household. Gen. 18. 19. He knew that some were obstinate, their neck an iron sinew, and their brow brass Isa. 48. 4. He knew the imagination, or figment of the heart of his People, Deut. 31. 21. That the Church of Laodicea( notwithstanding her profession) was lukewarm, neither hot nor could, Rev. 3. 15. Man looketh on the outward appearance, God looketh on the heart, 1 Sam. 16. 7. He only knows the hearts of all the children of men, 1 Kings 8. 39. Hell and destruction are before the Lord, how much more then the hearts of the sons of men. Prov. 15. 11. so also Prov. 24. 12. Jerem. 1. 9, 10. Ezek. 11. 5. Ps. 38. 9. Psal. 94. 11. Job. 31. 4. Math. 6. 4, 6, 8. Luk. 16. 15. Act. 1. 24. &c. Innumerable other places to this purpose may be insisted on: though it is a superisall to be put to prove, that God knows the hearts of the sons of men. But to proceed to that which is more directly under consideration.  
3. The sole foundation of M. Biddles insinuation, that 
§. 14.  God knows not our free actions that are future, being laid( as was observed,) on the assignation of fear, Repentance, Expectation,& Conjecturing unto God, the consideration which hath already been had of those Attributions in the Scripture, and the causes of them, is abundanly sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to let his inference 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, and then set it out as a representaton of God the Father, as this man is, in snatching Gods own pencil out of his hand,& by it presenting him to the world in a gross, carnal, deformed shape. Plato would not suffer Homer in his Commonwealth, for entrenching upon the imaginary blessedness of their dunghill Deities; making 
Hom: Iliad: Rhapsod. {αβγδ} P. 431. &c. {αβγδ}.  Jupiter to grieve for the death of Sarpedon, Mars 
Hom: Iliad. Rhapsod. {αβγδ} Ps: 859. {αβγδ}.  to be wounded by Diomedes, and to roar thereupon, with disputes& 
Hom: Iliad. Rhapsod. {αβγδ}. in Princip.  conjecturs in heaven among themselves about the issue of the Trojan war: though he endeavours to salue all his heavenly solecismes, by many noble expressions, concerning purposes not unmeet for a Deity; telling us in the close and Issue of a most contingent affair, {αβγδ}. 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 enquiry 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.  
4. The proposure of a Question to succeed in the room of that removed, with a scriptural resolution thereof, in order 
§. 15.  to a discovery of what God himself hath revealed, concerning his knowledge of all things, is the next part of our employment. Thus then it may be framed.  
Q. Doth not God know all things, whether past, present, or to come, all the ways, and actions of men, even before their accomplishment, or is any thing hide from him? What says the Scripture properly and directly hereunto?  
Ans. God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things, 1 John 3. 20. Neither is there any Creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked, and open to the eyes of him, with whom we have to do. Heb. 4. 12. He is a God of knowledge, 1 Sam. 2. 3. Thou knowest my downsitting, and mine uprising, thou understandest my thoughts a far off. Thou compassest my paths, and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways, for there is not a word in my tongue but O Lord thou knowest it altogether: Psal. 139. 2, 3, 4, 5. Great is our Lord, and of great power his understanding is Infinite, Psal. 141. 5. Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he council, or who instructed him, and taught him in the paths of judgement, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Isa. 40. 13, 14. There is no searching of his understanding v. 28. Ro. 11. 34, 35, 36. of him are all things; And Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the World, Act. 15. 18, &c.  
Of the Undeniable evidence and conviction of Gods Prescience 
§. 16.  or Foreknowledge of future contingents, from His predictions of their coming to pass, with other demonstrations of the Truth under consideration, attended with their several testimonies from Scripture, the close of this discourse will give a further Account.  
It remaines only, that according to the way and method formerly insisted on, I give some farther Account of the 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, that testimony of the 
§. 7.  Scripture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing itself, doth sufficiently evince. 
Intellectio secundum se ejus est, quod secundum se optimum est. Julius Petronellus l. 3. c. 4 ex Arist. Metaph. l. 12. cap. 7. said et intellectum duplicem video; alter enim intelligere potest, quamvis non intelligat, alter etiam intelligit qui tamen nondum est perfectus, nisi& semper intelligat,& omnia:& ille demum absolutissimus futurs sit, qui& semper,& omnia,& simul intelligat. Maxim. Tyrius. dissertat. 1. Uno mentis cernit in ictu quae sint, fuerint, veniantque both.  I cannot tell( says the Apostle) God knoweth 2 Cor. 12. 2, 3. It is the general voice of Nature, upon relation of any thing that to us is hide, and unknown, that the Apostle there makes mention of; GOD KNOWETH. That he knows the things that are past, M. B. doth not question. That at least also somethings that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts are known to him, eh doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in any curious scholastical discourse about the understanding, science, knowledge, or wisdom of God; nor of the way of Gods knowing things, in, and by, his own Essence through simplo intuition. That which directly is opposed, is his knowledge of our free actions, which in respect of their second& immediate caudses, 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 Gods infinite perfections; having already demonstrated, that all that which is insisted on by M. B. to oppose it, is spoken metaphorically, and improperly to God.  
That God doth fore-see all future things was amongst mere 
{αβγδ} Hippoc. de Princip. To the same purpose is that of Epicharmus, {αβγδ} &c. And the Anonymus Author in Stobaeus( vid. Excerpta Stobaei pag. 117.) speaking of God adds— {αβγδ} &c. In short, the Pagans generally received custom of consulting Oracles, of using their {αβγδ}, their Auguria, and Auspicia &c. 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.  Pagans so acknowledged, as to be looked on as a common 
§. 18.  notion of mankind: So 
{αβγδ}. &c. Zenoph. {αβγδ}.  Zenophon tells us; That both Grecians and Barbarians consented in this, that the Gods knew all things present, and to Come. And it may be worth our observation, that whereas 
Cum ergo Deus omnia noscat, {αβγδ} seu certo futura cognoscit ut talia, similiter& {αβγδ}, seu veresimiliter eventura, pro ratione causarum unde pendent. Crellius de Vera relic. l. 1. c. 24. p. 201.  Crellius, one of the most learned of this Gentlemans Masters, distinguisheth between {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, affirming; that God knows {αβγδ}, which though future are necessary so, yet he knows not {αβγδ}, which are only( says he) likely sto to be; Zenophon plainly affirms, that all Nations consent, that he knows {αβγδ}. And this knowledge of his( saith that great Philosopher,) is the foundation of the Prayers and supplications of men, for the obtaining of good, or the avoiding of evil. Now that one calling himself a mere Christian, should oppose a perfection of God, that a mere Pagan affirms all the world to aclowledge 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 considerration, the terms wherein it is proposed are a little to be explained. 
§ 12.   
1. That Prescience, of Fore-knowledge is attributed to God, the Scripture testifieth. Act. 2. 23. Rom. 8. 29. chap. 11. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 2. are proofs hereof. The term indeed( Foreknowing) rather relates to the things known, and the order wherein they stand one to another, and among themselves, then is properly expressive of Gods knowledge. God knows all things as they are; and in that order wherein they stand. 
Sciendum, qu●d omnino aliter se habet ●ntiqua vel aeterna scientia ad ea quae fi●nt& facta sunt,& aliter recens scientia: esse nanque rei entis est causa scientiae nostrae, scientia vero aeterna est causa ut ipsa res sit. Si vero quando res est postquam non erat, contingeret noviter in ipsa scientia antiquâ, scientia superaddita, quemadmodum contingit hoc in scientia nova, sequeretur utique quod ipsa scientia antiqua esset causata ab ipso enter:& non esset causa ipsus. oportet ergo quod non contingat ibi mutatio, scilicet in antiqua scientia, quemadmodum contingit in nova: sciendum autem, quod hic error idoirco accidit, quia scientia antiqua mensuratur ab imperitis cum scientia nova, cujus mensurationis modus vitiosissimus est: projicit quip quandoque hominem in ●arathrum, unde nunquam est egressurus. Rab. Aben. roast. Interpret. Raymund. Martin. Pugi. Fidei. P. P. cap, 25. Sect. 4, 5. pag. 201.  Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures, which he hath appointed to them, and the works of Providence, which outwardly are of him, he knows as past: not by Remembrance as we do, but by the same act of knowledge, wherewith he knew them from all Eternity, even before they were. Their existence in time, and being cast by the successive motion of things, into the number of the things that are past, denote an alteration in them, but not at all in the knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things future. God knows them in that esse intelligibile which they have, as they may be known and understood; and how that is, shall afterwards be declared. He sees and knows them as they are, when they have that respect upon them of being futures when they loose this respect by their actual existence, he knows them still as before. They are altered, his knowledge, his understanding it infinite, and changeth not.  
2. 
In Deo simplex est intui tus, quo simpliciter videntur quae composita suntainvariabiliter quae variabilia sunt,& simul quae successiva.  Gods knowledge of things is either of simplo intelligence 
§. 21. ( as usually it is phrased) or of vision The first is his knowledge of all possible things; that is, of all that he himself can do. That God knows himself, I suppose will not be denied. An Infinite Understanding knows thoroughly 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 p●wer can extend unto. Now what ever 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 simplo intelligence, before mentioned, unto God. In his own infinite understanding he sees, and knows all things, that are possible to be done by his power, would his good pleasure concur to their production.  
Of the world of things possible which God can do, some things, even all that he pleaseth, are 
Ad hanc legem animus noster aptandus est, hanc sequatur, huic pareat,& quaecunque fiunt debuisse fieri putet. Senec. Epist. 108.  future. The creation it 
§. 21.  self, and all things that have had a being since, were so future before their creation. Had they not sometimes been future, they had never been. What ever is, was to be, before it was. All things that shall be to the end of the world are now future. How things which were only possible in relation to the power of God, come to be future, and in what respect, shall be 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 Intelligentiae, may be considered in a threefold relation; that is, in ordine ad objectum, mensuram, modum. 1. Scientia Visionis hath for its object things past, present, and to come, whatsoever had, hath, or will have actual being. 2. The measure of this knowledge is his will: because he will,& decree of God onely make those things future, which were but possible be fore, therefore we say scientia visionis fundatur in voluntate. 3. For the manner of it, it is called scientia libera, quia fundatur in voluntate, as necessary presupposing a free act of the divine will, which makes things future, and so objects of this kind of knowledge. 2. That scientia, which we call simplicis intelligentiae; the object of it is, possible, the measure of it, Omnipotency; for by it he knows all he can do;& for the manner of it, 'tis scientia necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, said potestate;( say the schoolmen) seeing by it he knows not what he will, but what he can do. Of that late figment, of a middle science in God, arising neither from the infinite Perfection of his own being, as that of simplo 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 fore known, in their kind, order, and dependence, I am not now to treat. And with the former kind of knowledge it is, or rather in the former way,( the knowledge of God being simply one and the same) is it, that we affirm him to know the things that are future, of what sort soever, or all things before they come to pass.  
3. The things inquired after are commonly called contingent. 
§. 22.  Contingencyes are of two sorts.  

1. Such as are only so.  
2. Such as are also free.   
1. Such as are only so, are contingent only in their effects: such is the falling of a ston from an house, and the killing of a man thereby. The Effect itself was contingent, nothing more; the cause necessary; the ston being loosed from what detained it upon the house, by its own weight necessary falling to the ground.( 2.) That which is so contingent, as to be also free, is contingent both in respect of the Effect, and of its Causes also. Such was the Souldiers piercing of the side of Christ. The effect was contingent, such a thing might have been done, or not: and the cause also, for they choose to do it, who did it, and in respect of their own elective faculty, might not have chosen it. That a man shall writ, or ride, or speak to another person to morrow, the Agent being free, is contingent, both as to the cause, and to the effect. About these is our principal enquiry; and to the knowledge of God, which he is said to have of them, is the opposition most expressly made by M. B. Let this then be our conclusion.  
God 
Dixit R. Iuchanan: omnia videntur uno intuitu. Dixit Rab. Nachman filius Isaaci, sic etiam nos didicimus: quod Scriptum est Psal. 33. v. 15. formans simul cor eorum, intelligens omnia opera eorum, quomodo intelligendum est? Dicendum est, dici, Deum adunate simul corda totius, mundi? Ecce, videmus non ita rem se habere: said sic dicendum est, Formans sieve creator videt simul cor corum,& intelligit omnia opera eorum. Talmud. Rosch. haschana: interpret: Jose ph. de Voysin.  perfectly knows all the free actions of men, before they are 
§. 23. Conclus.  wrought by them; all things that will be done, or shall be to all Eternity, though in their own natures contingent, and wrought by agents free in their working, are known to him from Eternity.  
Some previous observations will make way for the clear 
§. 24.  proof and demonstration of this truth. Then  
1. God certainly knows every thing that is to be known: that is, every thing that is scibile. If there be in the nature of things an impossibility to be known, they cannot be known by the divine understanding. If any thing be scibile, or may be known, the not knowing of it, is his imperfection if he knows it nor. To God this cannot be ascribed,( viz. that he should not know what is to be known) without the destruction of his Perfection. He shall not be my God, who is not infinitely! Perfect. He who wants any thing to make him blessed in himself, can never make the fruition of himself the blessedness of others.  
2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is scibile, may be 
§. 25.  known, though future, by him that perfectly knows that cause, which doth so determine the thing to be knwn unto existence. Now Contingem things, the free Actions of men, that yet are not, but in respect of themselves may or may not be, have such a determinate cause of their existence, as that 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 what ever is at any time, was future; before it was, it was to be. If it had not been future, it had not now been. Its present existence 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, then a thousand others, that were as possible as it? For instance, that the side of Christ should be pierced with a spear, when it was as possible in the nature of the thing itself, and of all secondary causes, that his head should be cut off. That then which gives any action a futurition, is that determinate cause wherein it may be known, whereof we speak. Thus it may be said of the same thing, that it is contingent, and determined, without the least appearance of contradiction, because it is not spoken with respect to the same things, or causes.  
3. The determinate cause of contingent things, that is, things 
§. 26.  that are future,( for 
Quicquid enim est, dum est, necessario est. Aquinas 1. part. Quaest. 19. Art. 3.  every thing when it is, and as it is, is necessary) is the Will of 
Vid Scot. in 1. lib. Sent: dist. 30. quaest. Unica. Durand ibid. Dist 38 Quaest 3. Jo mayor in 1. Dist. 38, 39. Quaest: 1. Art. 4. Alua●cz. de Anxiliis lib. 2. Disput. 10 pag. 55. &c.& Scholasticos in Lombardum ibid. Dist 38. 39. quos fusè enumerat Joh Martines de Ripalda in 1. Sent. pag. 127.& 131.  God himself concerning their Existence and Being, either by his efficiency and working, as all good things in every kind,( that is, that are either Morally or Physically so, in which latter sense, all the actions of men, as actions, are so or by his permission, which is the condition of things Morally evil, or of the irregularity and obliquity attending those actions, upon the account of their relation to a Law, which in themselves are Entitative and Physically good, as the things were which God at first created. Whether any thing come to pass, besides the 
Quid mihi scire quae futura sunt? quaecunque ille vult, haec futura sunt. Origen. Hom. 6. in Jesum nave. Vid. Frider. Spanhemium Dub. Evang. 33. pag. 272. in illud Math. Totum hoc factum est, {αβγδ}. Paul. Ferrium Schol. Orthodoxi. c. 31.& in Vindiciis. cap. 5. Sect. 6.  will of God, and contrary to his purpose, will not be disputed with any advantage of Glory to God, or honour to them that shall assert it. That in all events the will of God is fulfilled, is a common notion of all rational creatures. So the accomplishment of his determinate council, is affirmed by the Apostle, in the issue of that mysterious dispensation, of the crucifying of his son. That of Jam. 4. 15. {αβγδ}, intimats Gods will to be extended to all actions, as actions, whatever. Thus God knew, before the world was made, or any thing that is in it, that there would be such a world, and such things in it: yet then the making of the world, nothing was 
Vid. Aquinat. 1. Quaest. 83. Art. 1. ad 3.  more free or contingent. God is not a necessary Agent, as to any of the works, that outwardly are of him: whence then did God know this? Was it not from his own decree, and eternal purpose, that such a world there should be? And if the knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all? In brief, these future contingencyes depend on something for their existence, or they come forth into the world in their own strength and upon their own account, not depending on any other. If the latter, they are God; if the former, the will of God, or old fortune, must be the Principle on which they do depend.  
4. God can work with contingent causes, for the accomplishment 
§. 27.  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-dependance, is atheism. The purpose of God, the council of his will concerning any thing, as to its existence, gives a 
Vid: Di●ac. Alvarez. de Auxilliis Gratiae lib. 3. disput. 25. Aquinat. part 2. Quaest. 112. Art. 3. E. 1. Part Quaest. 19. Art. 8. ad. 3.  necessity of infa●libillity to the event, but changes not the manner of the second causes operation, be it what it will. That God cannot accomplish and bring about his own purposes by free and contingent agents, without the destruction of the natures he hath endowed them withall, is a figment, unworthy the thoughts of any, who indeed aclowledge his sovereignty and power.  
5. The Reason why M. B's companions in his undertakings, 
§. 28.  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 absolute independent liberty of will, which God assigns to men; so Socinus pleads Praelect. Theol. c. 8. 
Crell. de Vera relic. lib. 1. cap. 24. Smalcius ad: Franz. difput. 12.  Thus far I confess more accurately then the Arminians. These pretend( some of them at least) to grant the Prescience of God, but yet deny his determinate Decrees, and purposes on the same pretence that the other do his Prescience, viz. Of their Prejudiciallnesse to the free will of man. Socinus discourses,( which was no difficult task) that the fore-knowledge of God is as inconsistent with that independent liberty of will, and contingency, which he, and they had fancied, as the predetermination of his will; and therefore rejects the former as well as the latter. It was 
In has angustias Cicero coarctat animum religiosum, ut unum eligat a duobus: aut esse aliquid in nostra voluntate, aut esse Praescientiam futurorum: quoniam utrumque arbitratur esse non posse, said si alterum confirmatur, alterum tolli. Si eligerimus praescientiam futurorum, tolli voluntatis arbitrium. Si eligerimus voluntatis arbitrium, tolli Praescientiam futurorum. Ipse itaque ut vir magnus& doctus,& vitae humanae plurimùm& peritissime consulens, ex his duebus eligit liberum voluntatis arbitrium. Quod ut confirmaretur, negavit praescientiam futurorum, atque eita dum vult facere liberos, facit sacrilegos. Religiosus autem animus utrumque eligit, utrumque consitetur,& fide pietatis utrumque confirmat. Quomodo inquit: Nam si est Praescientia futurorum, sequantur illa omnia, quae connexa sunt, donec eo perveniatur, ut nihil sit in nostra voluntate. Porrò, si est a liquid in nostra voluntate, eisdem recursis gradibus eo pervenitur, ut non sit praescientia futurorum. Nam per illa omnia sic recurritur. Si est voluntatis arbitrium, non omnia fato fiunt. Si non omnia fato fiunt, non est omnium certus ordo causarum. Si certus causarum ordo non est: Nec rerum certus est ordo praescienti Deo, quae fieri non possunt nisipraecedentibus,& efficientibus causis. Si rerum ordo Praescienti Deo certus non est, non omnia sic veniunt, ut ea ventura praescivit. Porro, si non omnia sic eventiunt at ab illo eventura praescita sunt, non est, in●uit in Deo Praescientia futurorum. Nos adversus istos sacrilegos ausus,& impios,& Deum dicimus omnia scire antequam fiant;& voluntate nos facere, quicquid a nobis non nisi volentibus fieri sentimus& novimus. August. de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 9.  Augustines complaint of old concerning Cicero, that ita fecit homines liberos, ut fecit etiam sacrilegos. Cicero was a mere Pagan; and surely our complaint against any that shall close with him in this attempt, under the name of a mere Christian, will not be less just then that of Augustine. For mine own part, I am fully resolved, that all the liberty and freedom, that as creatures we are capable of, is eminently consistent with Gods absolute decrees, and infallible fore-knowledge. And if I should hesitate in the apprehension thereof, I had rather ten thousand times deny our wills to be free, then God to be omniscient, the sovereign disposer of all men, their actions, and concernments, or to say that any thing comes to pass, without, against, or contrary to the counsel of his will. But we know through the godnesse of God, that these things have their consistency, and that God may have preserved to him the glory of his infinite Perfection, and the will of man not at all abridged of its due and proper liberty.  
These things being premised, the proof& demonstration of the truth proposed lies ready at hand, in the ensuing particulars; 
§. 29.   
1. He who knows 
Causam quare Deus futura contingentia praesciat damus hanc, quod sit infinita ipsuis intellectus perfectio omnia cognoscentis. Et sicut Deus cognoscit praeterita secun dum esse quod habuerunt, ita etiam cognoscit futura secundum illud esse quod habitura sunt. Dan. Clasen. Theol Natural, cap. 22. pag. 128.  all things, knows the things that are future though contingent. In saying they are things future and contingent, you grant them to be among the number of things; as you do those which you call things past: But that God knows all things, hath already been abundantly confirmed out of Scriptures. Let the Reader look back on some of the many texts and places, by which I gave answer to the query, about the Fore-knowledge 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 3. 20. God is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things. Even we know things past and present: If God knoes only things of the same kind, his knowledge may be greater then ours by many degrees, but you cannot say his understanding is infinite; there is not on that supposition an infinite distance between his knowledge and ours, but they stand in some measurable proportion. Heb. 4. 13. All things are open and naked before him with whom we have to do. Not that which is to come, not the free actions of men that are future, saith M. Biddle. But to distinguish thus, when the Scripture doth not distinguish, and that to the great dishonour of God, is not to interpret the Word, but to deny it. Acts 15. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world. I ask, whether God hath any thing to do in the free actions of men? For instance, had he any thing to do in the sending of Joseph into egypt, his exaltation there, and the entertainment of his Fathers household afterwards by him in his greatness and power? All which were brought about by innumerable contingencyes, and free actions of men: if he had not, why should we any longer depend on him, or regard him in the several transactions,& concernements of our lives?  
Nullum numen abest, si sit prudentia: nos te,  
Nos facimus fortuna Deum.  
If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he affirmed plainly, that God sent him thither, and made him a Father to Pharaoh, and his house, then the whole was known to God before; 
Gen. 45. 5, 6, 7, 8.  for known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world. And if God may know any one free action before hand, he may know all; for there is the same reason of them all. Their contingency is given as the only cause, why they may not be known; now every action that is contingent, is equally interested therein: a quatenus ad omne valet argumentum. That place of the psalm before recited Psal. 139. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. is express, as to the knowledge of God concerning our free actions, that are yet future. If any thing in the world may be reckoned amongst our free actions, surely our thoughts may: and such a close reserved treasure are they, that M. B. doth more then insinuate in the application of the texts of Scripture, which he mentioneth, that God knoweth them not when present, without search and inquiry. But these( saith the Psalmist,) God knows afar 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 impair the credit of the Word of God, by pretending it liable to selfe-contradiction; or with Lucian to deride God, as bearing contrary Testimonies concerning himself.  
2. God hath by himself and his Holy 
Praescientia Dei tot habet Testes, quot fecit Prophet as: tertul. l. 2. contra Marcionem.  Prophets, which have been from the foundation of the world, foretold many 
§. 30.  of the free actions of men, what they would do, what they should do, long before they were born who were to do them. To give a little light to this Argument, which of itself will easily overwhelm all that stands before it, I shall handle it under these propositions.  
1. That God hath so foretold the free actions of men.  
2. That so he could not do unless he knew them, and that they would be, then when he foretold them.  
3. That he proves himself to be God by these his predictions.  
4. That he foretells them as the means of executing many of his Judgements, which he hath purposed and threatened, and the accomplishment of many mercies, which he hath promised; so that the denial of his foresight of them, so exempts them from under his Providence, as to infer, that he rules not in the world by punishments and rewards.  
For the first.  
1. There need no great search or inquiry after witnesses to confirm the truth of it; the Scripture is full of such predictions 
§. 31.  from one end to the other: some few instances shall suffice: Gen. 18. 18, 19. Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty Nation, and all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed in him; For I know him, that he will command his Children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do Justice and judgement; that the Lord may bring upon upon Abraham, that which he hath spoken of him. Scarce a word but is expressive of some future contingent thing, if the free actions of men be so, before they are wrought. That Abraham should become a mighty nation: that the nations of the Earth should be Blessed in him: that he would command his Children, and household after him to keep the ways of the Lord; it was all to be brought about by the free actions of Abraham, and of others; and all this I know saith the Lord, and accordingly declares it. By the way, if the Lord knew all this before, his following trial of Abraham was not to satisfy himself whether he feared him or no, as is pretended.  
So also Gen. 15. 13, 14. And he said unto Abraham, know of a surety 
§. 32.  that they seed shall be a stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred yeares: And also that Nation which they shall sieve will I Judge: and they shall 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, mens sinful actions are free; yet these doth God here fore tell; they shall afflict them.  
Deut. 31. 16, 17, 18. you have an instance beyond all possible 
§. 33.  exception. And the Lord said unto Moses, behold thou shalt s●●pe with thy Fathers,& this People will rise up, and go a whoring after the Gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be amongst them, and will forsake me, and break my commandements. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hid my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not amongst us? &c. The sum of a good part of what is recorded in the book of Judges, is here foretold by God. The peoples going a whoring after the Gods of the strangers of the Land; their forsaking of God, their breaking his Covenant, the thoughts of their hearts,& their expressions, upon the consideration of the 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 13. 2. is signal to the same purpose: Behold a child shall be 
§. 34.  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 mens bones shall be burnt on thee. This prediction is given out 300 yeares before the birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it you have in the story 2 Kings 23. 17. Did Josiah act freely? Was his proceeding at Bethel by free actions, or no? If not, how shall we know what actions of men are free, what not? If it was, his free actions are here foretold, and therefore( I think) fore scen.  
1 Kings 22. 28. The Prophet-Micaiah in the name 
§. 35.  of the Lord, having fore  told a thing that was contingent, and which was accomplished 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 then return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken at all by me. And he said, hear all ye people.  
Of these predictions the Scripture is full. The Prophesyes of Cyrus in Isaiah; of the issue of the Babylonish war, and kingdom, in Jeremiah; of the several great alterations and changes in the Empires of the world, in Daniel, of the kingdom of Christ in them all, are too long to be insisted on. The Reader may also consult Math. 24. 5. Mark, 13. 6. Mark. 14. 30. Act. 20. 29. 2 Thes. 2. 3, 4. &c. 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 3. 1. 2 Pet. 2. 1. And the Revelation almost throughout. Our first proposition then is 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 fore-telleth, that he perfectly 
§. 36.  fore-knowes. The honour and repute of his Veracity, and Truth, yea of his Being, depend on the certain accomplishment of what he absolutely foretells. If his predictions of things future are not bottomed on his certain Prescience of them, they are all but like Sathans Oracles, conjectures, and guesses of what may be accomplished or not; a supposition whereof, is as high a pitch of blasphemy as any creature in this world can possibly arrive unto.  
3. By this Prerogative of certain predictions, in reference 
§. 37.  to things to come, God vindicates his own Deity; and from the want of it convinces the vanity of the Idols of the Gentiles, and the falseness of the Prophets that pretend to speak in his name. Isa. 41. 21, 22, 23, 24. Produce your cause, saith the Lord, bring forth, your strong Reasons, saith the King of Jacob: let them bring then forth, and show us what shall happen, let them show the former things what they be, or delare us things for to come: Show the things which are to cme hereafter, that we may know ye are Gods. Behold you are of nothing. The Lord calling forth the Idols of the Gentiles, Divels, Stocks, and Stones, to pled for themselves, before the denunciation of the solemn sentence ensuing, v. 24. He puts them to the plea of fore-knowledge for the proof of their Deity. If they can fore-tell 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) you are nothing, worse then nothing, and your work is of nought, and he is an Abomination that chooseth you. And it may particularly be remarked, that the idols, of whom he speaketh, are in especial those of the chaldeans, whose worshippers pretended above all men in the world to Divination, and Predictions. Now this issue doth the Lord drive things to betwixt himself, and the idols of the world; If they can fore-tell 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 one) but any thing, or every thing, they shall go free, that is, is there nothing hide from you that is yet for to be? Being not able to stand before this interrogation, they perish before the judgement 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 fore-tell 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 shane and confusion? God himself there concluding, that they are vanity and nothing, who are pretended to be Gods, but are not able to fore-tell the things that are for to come, asserts his own Deity, upon the account of his Infinite Understanding, and Knowledge of all things, on the account whereof he can foreshow 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. 18. 21, 22. If thou say in thine heart, how shall we know the word that the Lord hath not spoken, when a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.  
4. The fourth Proposition, that God by the free actions of men( some whereof he fore telleth,) doth fulfil his own 
§. 38.  counsel as to Judgements, and mercies, Rewards, and Punishments, needs no farther proof nor confirmation, but what will arise from a mere review of the things before mentioned, by God so foretold, as was to be proved. They were things of the greatest import in the World, as to the good or evil of the inhabitants thereof;& 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 what ever. Those things which he hath disposed of, as to be subservient to so great ends, certainly he knew that they would be. The selling of joseph, the crucyfying of his Son, the destruction of Antichrist, are things of greater concernment, then that God should only conjecture at their event. And indeed the taking away of Gods fore-knowledge of things contingent, renders his Providence useless, as to the government of the World. To what end should any rely upon him, seek unto him, commit themselves to his care through the course of their lives, when he knows not what will, or may befall them the next day? How shall he judge, or rule the world, who every moment is surprised with new emergencyes, which he foresaw not, which must necessitate him to new counsels and determinations? On the consideration of this Argument doth Episcopius conclude for the Prescience of God, Epist. 2. ad Beverovicium de termino vitae, which he had allowed to be questioned in his 
Speciem& pondus videtur habere haec objectia; nec pauci sunt, qui ejus, vi adeo moventur, ut divinam futurorum contingentium praescientiam negart,& quae pro eâ facere videntur loca, atque Argumenta, magno conatu torquere malint,& flectere in sensus, non minus periculos s quam difficiles. Adme quod attinet, Ego hactenus sieve Religione quadam animi, sieve divinae Majestatis reverentia, non potui prorsus in animum meum inducere, rationem istam allegitam tanti esse, ut propfer eam Deo futurorum contingentium praescientia detrabenda sit: maxim cum vix videam, quomodo alioquin divinarum praedictionum vertias salvari posset, sine all ●ua aut incertitudinis macula, aut falsi possibilis suspicione: Sim: Episcop. Respons. ad second. Epist. Johan: Beverovi.  private theological Disputations, 
Episcop. institut: Theol: lib. 4. cap. 17, 18. Episcop: disput. de Deo Thes: 10.  though in his public afterwards he pled for it. The sum of the Argument insisted on, amounts to this,  
Those things which God foretells, that they shall certainly and infallibly come to pass; before they so do, those he certainly and infallibly knoweth, whilst they are future, and that they will come to pass.  
But God foretells, and hath foretold all manner of future contingencies, and free Actions of men, good and evil, duties, and sins, therefore he certainly and infallibly knows them, whilst they are yet future.  
The Proposition stands and falls unto the honour of Gods Truth, Veracity, and Power.  
The Assumption is proved by the former, and sundry other instances that may be given.  
He foretold, that the egyptians should afflict his People 400 yeares, that in so doing they would sin, and that for it he would punish them, Gen: 15. 13, 14, 15, 16. And surely the 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 daies 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; 
§. 39.  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 then he that knows it not. The more any one knows, the more excellent is he. To know all things is an absolute perfection in the good of knowledge: to know them in, and by himself, who so knows them,& not from any discourses, made to him from without, is an absolute perfection in itself, and is required where there is Infinite wisdom and Understanding. This we ascribe to God, as worthy of him, as by himself ascribed to himself. To affirm on the other side( 1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and so is taught wisdom and Understanding, as we are, from the events of things, for the more any one knows the wiser he is.( 2.) That he hath( as we have) a successive knowledge of things, knowing that one day, which he knew not another, and that thereupon there is( 3.) A daily and hourly change, and alterati●n in him, as from the increasing of his knowledge there must actually and formally be; and that he( 4.) sits conjecturing at events, To assert I say, these and the like monstrous figments, concerning God, and his Knowledge, is as much as in them lieth, who so assert them, to shut his Providence out of the World, and to divest him of all his blessedness, self sufficiency, and infinite Perfections. And in dead if M. B. believe his own principles, and would speak out, he must assert these things, how desperate soever; for having granted the premises, 'tis stupidity to stick at the conclusion. And therefore some of those whom M. B. is pleased to follow in these wild vagaries, 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. 18. 19. I know( saith God) Abraham will command his Children after him, &c. Therefore future contingents may be certainly known of him. They deny the 
Anonymus ad 5. cap. priora Math. p. 28. Nego consequentiam Deus dicere potuit se scire quid facturus erat Abraham, etsi id certo non praenoverit, said probabiliter. Induciturenim Deus saepius humano more loquens: Solent autem homines affirmare se scire ca futura, quae verisimiliter futura sunt &c.  consequence, and granting that he may be said to know them, yet say 'tis only by guess, and conjecture, as we do. And for the present vindication of the Attributes of God this may suffice.  
Before I close this discourse, it may not be impertinent to divert 
§. 44.  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 Gods certain Fore-knowledge of them: and therefore say they, doth the 
Arist. 1. de Inter p. c. 8.  Philosopher affirm, that propositions concerning them, are neither true nor false. But  
1. That there is, or may be, that there hath been, a certain prediction of future contingents, hath been demonstrated, and therefore they must on some account or other,( and what that account is hath been declared) have a determinate Truth. And I had much rather conclude, that there are certain predictions of future contingents in the Scripture, and therefore they have a determinate truth: Then 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 be together. Therefore if a man before the Flood had used this Proposition in the affirmative, it had been certainly and determinately true; for that Proposition, which was once not true, cannot be true afterward upon the same account.  
3. If no affirmative 
Alphons. de Mendoza. Con. Theol. Scholast. q. 1. pag. 534. Vasquez. in 1. Tho. disput 16. Ruvio in 1. Interpret. cap. 6. q. unica &c.  Proposition, about future contingents, be determinately true, then every such affirmative proposition is determinately false; for from hence, that a thing is, or is not, is a proposition determinately true or false. And therefore if any one shall say, that that is determinately future, which is absolutely 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 certain. Truth, or Falseness are their proper& necessary affections, as even and odd of numbers: nor can any proposition be given, wherein there is a contradiction, whereof one part is not true, and the other false.  
4. This Proposition, Petrus or at, is determinately true de presenti, 
Vid. Rod. de Arriaga. disput. Log. 14. Sect. 5. subsect. 3 p 205. Suarez. in Opus. J. 1. de Praescientia Dei cap: 2. Vasquez. 1. Part. disp. 66. cap. 2. Pet, Hurtado de Mend. disp. 9. de Anima. Sect. 6.  when Peter doth actually pray:( for quiequid est, dum est, determinatè est) therefore this proposition de futuro, Petrus orabit, is determinately true. The former is the measure and rule, by which we judge of the latter. So that because 'tis true de presenti, Petrus orat, Ergo, This( de futuro) Petrus orabit, was ab aeterno true( ex parte rei) and then( ex parte modi) because this Proposition Petrus orat, is determinately true de presenti: Ergo, This Petrus orabit, was determinately true from all eternity. But enough of this.  
M. B. having made a sad complaint of the ignorance and darkness that men were bread up in, by being lead from the Scripture, and imposing himself upon them for a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and a teacher of the babes, doth in pursuit of his great undertakinge, in this Chapter instruct them, what the Scripture speaks concerning the Being, Nature, and Prope●tyes of God. Of his goodness, wisdom, Power, Truth, righteousness, faithfulness, Mercy, Independency, sovereignty, infiniteness, men had before been informed, by books, Tracts, and catechisms, composed according to the fancies and interests of men, the Scripture being utterly justled out of the way: Alas of these things the Scriptures speaks not at all: but the description wherein that abounds of God, and which is necessary that men should know,( whatever become of those other inconsiderable things, wherewith other poor catechisms are stuffed) is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to Passions, &c. Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege.   

CAP. VI.  
Of the Creation, and Condition of man before, and after the fall.  
Mr BIDDLE'S 3d Chapter.  
Qu. WEre the Heaven and Earth from all eternity, or created at a 
§. 1.  certain time? And by whom?  
A. Gen. 1. 1.  
Q. How long was God a making them?  
A. Exod. 20. 11.  
Q. How did God create man?  
A. Gen. 2. 7  
Q. How did he create Woman?  
A. Gen. 2. 21, 22.  
Q. Why was she called Woman?  
A. Gen. 2. 23.  
Q. What doth Moses infer from her being made a woman, and brought unto the man?  
A. Gen 2. 24.  
Q. Where did God put man, after he was created?  
A. Gen 2. 8.  
Q What commandment gave he to the man, when he put him into the Garden?  
A. Gen. 2. 16, 17.  
Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit?  
A. 1 Tim. 2. 14.  
Q. By whom was the woman deceived?  
A. 2 Cor. 11. 3.  
Q. How was the Woman induced to eat of the forbidden fruit? And how the Man?  
A. Gen. 3. 6.  
Q. What effect followed upon their eating?  
A. Gen. 3. 7.  
Q. Did the sin of our First Parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, bring both upon them, and their posterity, the guilt of hellfire, deface the Image of God in them, darken their understanding, enslave their will, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality? If not, what are the true penalties that God denounced against them for the said offence?  
A. Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.  

EXAMINATION.  
HAving delivered his thoughts concerning God himself, His Nature, and properties, in the foregoing Chapters; 
§. 1.  in this our Catechist proceeds to the consideration of his works, ascribing to God the Creation of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now although many questions might be proposed, from which M, B. would( I suppose) be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating to the impossibility of the proceeding of such a work, as the Creation of all things, from such an Agent as he hath described God to be, so limited both in his Essence and properties; Yet, it being no part of my business, to dispute, or perplex any thing, that is simply in its self true, and unquestionable, with the attendencyes 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& 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 fullness 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 
Quibus enim oculis intueri potuerit vester Plato fabricam illam tanti operis, quâ construia Deo& aedificari mundum faecit? Quae molitio? Quae ferramenta? Qui vectes? Quae machinae? Qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt? Quemadmodum autem obediendo parere voluntati architecti aer, ignis, aqua, terra, poteurunt? Velleius apud Ciceron, de Natu. dear. lib. 1. statim a principio.  Epicureans disputed for the impossibility of the Creation of the world.  
His first question then is, 
§. 2.   
Were the Heavens and Earth from all eternity, or Created at a certain time? And by whom?  
To which he answers with Gen. 1. 1. In the Beginning God created Heaven and Earth.  
Right! only in the Exposition of this verse, as it discovers the principal efficient cause of the Creation of all things, or the Author of this great work, M. B. afterwards 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 the way of Eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as that of Redemption is to the son, and that of Regeneration to the Holy Ghost; from neither of which notwithstanding is the Father excluded.  
Perhaps 
Poterat& illud de angels intelligi, faciamus hominem &c. said quia sequitur, ad imaginem nostram, nefas est credere, ad imagines Angelorum hominem esse factum, aut tandem esse imaginem Angelorum& Dei. Et ideo rectè intelligitur pluralitas Trinitatis. Quae tamen Trinitas, quia unus est Deus, etiam cum dixisset, faciamus,& fecit, inquit, Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei: non vero dixit, fecerunt Dii ad imaginem Deorum. August. de Civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 6.  the using of the name of God in the plural number, 
§. 3.  where mention is made of the Creation, in conjunction with a Verb singular, Gen. 1. 1. and the express calling of God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. 12. 1. Psal. 149. 2. Job. 35. 10. wants not a significancy to this thing. And indeed, he that shall consider the miserable evasions, that the 
george. Eniedin. Explicat. loc. Ver.& Nov. Testam. in Gen. 1. 26.  Adversaries have invented, to escape the Argument thence commonly insisted on, must needs be confirmed in the persuasion of the force of it, M. Biddle may happily close with Plato in this business; Who in his Timaeus brings in his {αβγδ}, 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. 
{αβγδ}. Plato. in Timaeo.  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. A speech fit enough for M. 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 fore-sight of what his Daemons would do,( wherein also M. Biddle likens God unto him) is farther declared: for they imprudently, causing a conflux of too much matter and humour, no small tumult followed thereon in Heaven, as at large you may see in the same Author. However, it is said expressly the Son or Word created all things, John 1. 3. and by him are all things, 1 Cor. 8. 6. Revel. 4. 11. Of the Holy Ghost the same is affirmed, Gen. 1. 2. Job. 26. 13. Psal. 33. 6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of principal efficient cause in this work, to a condition of instrumentallity only, which is urged,( especially in reference to the Spirit) unless we shall suppose them to have been created before any creation, and to have been instrumental of their own production. But of these things in their proper place.  
Q. His second question is, How long was God a making them? And he answers from Exod. 20. 11. In six dayes the Lord made Heaven 
§. 4.  and Earth, the Sea, and all that is in them.  
The rule formerly I prescribed to myself of dealing with M. 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 Gods Creation was finished, there is an intendment, to insinuate such a gross conception of the working of God, as will by no means be suited to his omnipotent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther then enforced, I shall not insist on this Query.  
Q. His third is, How did God Create man? And the Answer is, Gen. 2. 7. To which he adds a fourth, How did He Create Woman? 
§. 5.  which he resolves from Gen. 2. 21, 22.  
M. Biddle undertaking to give all the grounds of Religion in his catechisms, teacheth as well by his silence as his expressions. What he mentions not in the known Doctrine he opposeth, he may well be interpnted to reject. As to the matter whereof Man and Woman were made, M. Biddles Answers do express it; but as to the condition and state, wherein they were made, that he is silent; though he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in delivering the one then the other. Neither can his silence in this thing be imputed to oversight, or forgetfulness, considering how subservient it is to his intendment, in his two last questions, for the subverting of the Doctrine of Originel sin, and the denial of all those effects, and cons●quents 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, M. B. hath discovered, that it is only an expression of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man: which yet he will as hardly 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 un-God, in that immortal substance breathed into his nostrils, Gen. 2. 7. in the excellent rational faculties thereof; the dominion he was entrusted withall over a great part of Gods Creation, but especially in the integrity and uprightness of his person, Eccl. 7. 29. wherein he stood before God, in reference to the obedience required at his hands; which condition, by the implanting of new qualities in our soul, we are through Christ in some measure renewed unto, Coll. 3. 10, 12. Eph. 4. 24. the Scripture is clear, evident, and full in the discovery of; but hereof M. B. conceives not himself bound to take notice. But what is farther needful to be spoken, as to the state of man before the Fall, will fall under the consideration of the last Question of this Chapter.  
M. B's process in the following questions, is to express the story 
§. 6.  of mans outward condition, unto the eighth, where he inquires after the Commandement given of God, to man, when he put him into the Garden, in these words.  
Q. What commandement gave he to the man, when he put him into the Garden? This he resolves from Gen. 2. 16, 17. That God gave our first Parents the command expressed, is undeniable. That the matter chiefly expressed in that command, was all, or the principal part of what he required of them, M B. doth not go about to prove. I shall only desire to know of him, whether God did not in that estate require of them, that they should love him, fear him, believe him, aclowledge their dependence on him, in universal obedience to his will? And whether a cleanness 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 three 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, 
Vid. Diatrib. de Juslit. Vindicat.  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 then sacramental, and symbolical, as to the matter of it, being a thing of so small imimportance in its own nature, in comparison of those moral acknowledgements of God before mentioned. And to that question I shall not need to add more.  
Although it may justly be supposed, that M. B. is not without 
§. 7.  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 considerations of this Chapter. His question is thus proposed.  
Q. Did the sin of our first Parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, 
§. 8.  bring both upon them, and their posterity, the guilt of hell fire, deface the Image of God in them, darken their understandings, enslave their wills, deprive them of Power to do good, and cause mortality? If not, what are the true penalties denounced against them for that offence.  
To this he answers from Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18, 19.  
What the sin of our first Parents was, may easily be discovered 
§. 9.  from what was said before, concerning the commandement 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 Rebellion 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, whole whole nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin, commonly assigned, M. B. annumerates, and rejects Six: sundry whereof are coincident, and all but one, reducible to that general head of loss of the image of God. But for the exclusion of them all at once from being any effects of the first sin, M. Biddle thus argues; If there were no effects, not consequences of the first sin, but what are expressly mentioned Gen. 3. 16, 17. &c. then those now mentioned are no effects of it; but there are no effects, or consequences of that first sin, but what are mentioned in that place; therefore those recounted in his query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashired from any such place in the thoughts of men.  
Ans. The words insisted on by M. Biddle, being expressive of the Curse of God for sin, on man, and the whole creation here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him to evince, that none of the things he rejects, are not eminently enwrapped in them. Would God have denounced, and actually inflicted such a Curse on the whole Creation, which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man himself, and actually have inflicted it with so much dread, and severity, as he hath done, if the Transgression upon the account whereof he did it, had not been as universal a rebellion against him, as could be fallen into? Man fell in his whole 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 
§. 10.  of our apostasy from God, in the sin of our first Parents, are described? M. Biddle may as well tell us, that Gen. 3. 15. is the only place, where mention is made of Jesus Christ; for there he is mentioned. But a little to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath been spoken may suffice, to make naked M. B's Sophistry.  
1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every thing 
§. 11.  of evil, that either within, or without, in respect of a present, or future condition, in reference to God, and the fruition of Him, whereto man was created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God, which is come upon mankind, by the just ordination& appointment of God, whereunto 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 privative, what positive in original sin, of the way of the Traduction, or propagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sin, and adhesion of the pollution of our nature, defiled thereby, or any other questions, 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 what soever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is obnoxious and liable unto, that is hurtful, and destructive 
§. 12.  to him, and all men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or any Title wherewith they were at first entrusted, 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 
§. 13.  common cause equally respecting the whole kind: but now of the evils that are common to all mankind, and peculiar, or proper to them, and every one of them, there can be no cause, but that which equally concerns them all, which by the Testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam, Rom. 5. 15, 18.  
2. The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their natural condition,( which what they are, shall be afterward 
§. 14.  considered) were either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and fall of our first Parents, or they are come upon them since, through some interposing cause, or occasion. That they were not in them, on them, that they were not liable, nor obnoxious to those evils, which are now incumbent on them, in their first Creation, as they came forth from the hand of God,( besides what was said before, of the state and condition wherein man was Created, even upright in the sight of God, in his favour and Aceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger and wrath,) is evident, by the light of this one consideration, viz. That there was nothing in man, nor belonging to him, no Respect, no Regard, or Relation, but what was purely, and immediately of the holy Gods creation, and institution. Now it is contrary to all that he hath revealed, or made known to us of himself, that he should be the immediate Author of so much evil, as is now by his own Testimony in man by nature, and without any Occasion, of so much vanity, and misery as he is subject unto: and besides, directly thwarting the Testimony which he gave of all the works of his hands, that they were exceeding good: it being evident, that man in the condition whereof we speak, is exceeding evil.  
3. If all the evil mentioned, hath since befallen mankind, 
§. 15.  then it hath done so by some chance and Accident, whereof God was not ware, or by his righteous judgement 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& 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 
Rom. 1. 18.  our first Parents; especially considering, that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain, and source of the evils insisted on, Rom. 5.  
4. These things then being premised, it will quickly appear, 
§. 16.  that every one of the particulars, rejected by M. B. from being fruits or effects of the first sin, are indeed the proper issues of it: and though M. 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 writ it again, and add many more Words of the like importance.  
1. The first Effect or fruit of the first sin, rejected by M. B. 
§. 17.  is, its rendering men guilty of Hell fire; but the Scripture seems to be of another mind Rom. 5. 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men for that all have sinned. That all men sinned in Adam, that they contracted the guilt of the same death with him, that death entred by sin, the holy Ghost is express in. The death here mentioned is, that which God threatened to Adam, if he did transgress, Gen. 2. which that it was not death temporal only, yea not at all, M. 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 remaines, but that which hath Hell following after it, we shall afterwards consider.  
Besides, that death which Christ dyed to deliver us from, 
§. 18.  was that which we were obnoxious to, upon the account of the first sin: for he came to save that which was lost: and tasted death to deliver us from death; dying to deliver them, who for fear of death were in bondage all their lives, Heb. 2, 13. But that this was such a death, as hath hellfire attending it, he manifests, by affirming, that he delivers us from the wrath to come; By Hell fire we understand nothing but the wrath of God for sin, into whose hand it is a fearful thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, that hath both Curse and Wrath attending it, and that it is the proper wages of sin, the Testimony of God is evident. 
Rom. 6. 13.  What other death men are obnoxious to, on the account of the first sin, that hath not these concomitants, M. B. hath not as yet revealed. By nature also we are children of wrath; 
Ephes. 2. 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.  
The defacing of the Image of God in us, by this sin, as it is usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man was 
§. 19.  created in the Image of God, and wherein that image of God doth consist, was before declared. That we are now born with that Character upon us, as it was at first enstamped upon us, must be affirmed, or some common cause of the defect, that is in us, wherein all and every one of the posterity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of the first sin, is to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done, hath been already declared. He that shall undertake to make good the former, must engage in a more difficult work, then M. B. in the midst of his other employments, is willing to undertake. To insist on all particulars relating to the Image of God in man, how far it is defaced, whether any thing properly and directly thereunto belonging, be yet left remaining in us; to declare how far our souls, in respect of their immortal substance, faculties, and Consciences, our Persons, in respect of that dominion over the Creatures, which yet by Gods gracious and merciful Providence we retain, may be said to bare the Image of God, is a work of another nature, then what I am now engaged in. For the asserting of what is here denied by M. B. concerning the defacing of the Image of God in us by sin, no more is required, but only the tender of some demonstrations to the main of our intendment in the Assertion, touching the loss by the first sin,& our present want in the state of nature, of that righteousness and Holinesse, wherein man at his first Creation stood before God,( in reference unto the End whereunto he was Created,) in uprightness, and ability of walking unto all well pleasing. And as this will be fully manifested in the consideration of the ensuing particulars instanced in by M. B. so it is sufficiently clear and evident, from the renovation of that Image, which we have by Jesus Christ,& that expressed both in general,& 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 treated him, Coll. 3. 10. is that which we want, by sins defacing( s●o more) of that Image of God in us, which we had in knowledge; so Ephes. 4. 23, 24. That new man is said to consist in the Renewing of our mind, whereby after God we are Created in righteousness and Holinesse. So that whereas we were created in the image of God, in righteousness and Holinesse, and are to be renewed again by Christ, unto the same condition of his Image in righteousness and Holinesse, we doubt not to affirm, that by the first same ( the only interposition, of general concernment to all the sons of men,) the Image of God in us was exceedingly defaced. In sum, that which made us sinners, brought sin and death upon us, that which made us liable to condemnation, that defaced the image of God in us; that all this was done by the first sin, the Apostle plainly asserts, Rom. 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, &c.  
To the next particular effect of sin, by M. B. rejected,( the darkening of our under standings,) I shall only inquire of him, whether 
§. 20.  God made us at first with our understandings dark, and ignorant, as to those things which are of absolute necessity that we should be acquainted withall, for the attaimment of the End whereunto he made us? For once, I will suppose he will not affirm it; and shall therefore proceed one stop 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 withall, that will again attain that glory of God, which we are born short of: Now because this is that which will most probably be denied, I shall by the way only desire him.  
1. To cast aside all the places of Scripture, where it is positively; and punctually asserted, that we are so 
§. 21.  dark and blind, and darkness itself in the things of God: and then,  
2. All those where it is no less punctually, and positively 
§. 22.  asserted, that Christ gives us Light, Knowledge, Understanding, which of ourselves we have not. And if he be not able to do so, then  
3. To tell me, whether the darkness mentioned in the former 
§. 23.  places, and innumerable others, and as to the manner and cause of its removal and taking away, in the latter, be part of that death which passed on all men, by the offence of one, or by what other chance it is come upon us?  
Of the enslaving of our wills, and the depriving us of power to do good, there is the same Reason, as of that next before. It is 
§. 24.  not my purpose to handle the common place of the corruption of nature by sin; nor can I say, that it is well for M. Biddle, that he finds none of those effects of sin in himself; ●n thing, of darkness, Bondage, or Disabillity; 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, then those who by a fever of pride, have lost the sense of their own miserable condition: Only to stop him in his hast 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 take them as they come to mind, Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 5. Joh. 5. 25. Math 8. 22. Ephes. 5. 8. Luk. 4. 18. 2 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Joh. 8. 34. Rom. 6, 16. Gen. 6. 5. Rom. 7. 5. Joh: 3. 6. 1 Cor. 2 14. Rom. 3. 12. Acts 8. 31. Joh. 5. 41. Rom. 8. 7. Jerem. 13. 23 &c.  
The last thing denied is, its causing mortality. God threatening 
§. 25.  man with death if he sinned, Gen. 2. 17. seems to instruct us, that if he had not sinned, he should not have dyed; And upon his sin, affirming, that on that account he should be dissolved, and return to his dust, Gen. 3. 18, 19. no less evidently convinces us, that his sin caused mortality actually, and in the event. The Apostle also affirming, that death entred by sin, and passed upon all, in as much as all have sinned, seems to be of our mind. Neither can any other sufficient cause be assigned on the account whereof, innocent man should have been actually, mortal, or eventually have dyed. M. Biddle it seems is of another persuasion. And for the confirmation of his judgement, gives you the words of the Curse of God to man upon his sinning; dust thou art, and unto dust then shalt return; The strength of his reason therein lying in this, that if God denounced the sentence of mortality on man after his 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 
§. 26.  to the first man in the state of Innocency, that none be mistaken in the expressions used, may put a close to our considerations of this Chapter. In respect of his own Essence and 
Illud corpus ante peccatum,& mortal secundum aliam,& immortal secundum aliam causam dici poterat. id est, mortal, quia poterat mori, immortal, quip quia poterat non mort. Aliud est enim non posse moti, sicut quasdam naturas immortales creavit Deus, aliud est autem posse non mori; secundum quem inodum primus creatus est homo immortalis, quod ei praestabatur de ligno vitae, non de constitutione nat●rae: a quo ligno seperatus est, cum peccasset, ut posset mori, qui nisi peccasset posset non mori. Mortalis e●go erat conditione corporis animalis, immortalis autem beneficio conditeris. Si enim corpus animale, utique& mortal, quia& mori poterat, quamvis& immortate dico, quia& mori non poterat. August. Tom. Tertio. de Genesi ad literam lib. 6. cap. 24.  Being, as also of all outward and extrinsical causes, God alone is eminently and perfectly immortal; He only in that sense hath life and immortality. Angells and souls of men, in material substances, are immortal as to their intrinsical 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 immortality we ascribe to man in innocency, is only an assured preservation, by the power of God, from actual dying; notwithstanding the possibility thereof, which he was in, upon the account of the constitution of his person, and the principles there unto concurring: So that though from his own nature, he had a possibility of dying, and in that sense was mortal, yet from 
Quicunque dicit Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, ita ut sieve peccaret, sieve non peccaret, moreretur in co●pore, hoc est de corpore exiret non pe●cati mer into said necessitate naturae. Anathema sit. council. Milevitan. cap. 1.  Gods institution, assigning him life in the way of obedience, he had a possibility of not dying, and was in that sense immortal, as hath been declared. If any desire farther satisfaction herein, let him consult Johannes Junius his Answer to Socinus his Prelections, in the first Chapter whereof he pretends to answer in proof the assertion in title, Primus homo unte lapsum natura mortalis fuit: wherein he partly mistakes the thing in question, which respects not the constitution of mans nature, but the event of the condition wherein he was created. 
Quaestio est de immortalitate hoins pujus concreti ex anima& corpore conflati. Quando loquor de morte, de disso utione hujus concreti loquor. Socin. contra Puccium pag 228.  And himself in another place states it 
Vid. River. Exercitat. in Gen. cap. 1. exerc. 9.  better.  
The sum of the whole may be reduced to what follows. 
§. 27.  Simply immortal and absolutely is God only: He only hath immortality. 1 Tim. 6 16. immortal in respect of its whole substance or Essence, is that which is separated from all matter, which is the principle of Corruption, as Angells, 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 constitution of his body, which was apt to die; immortal in respect of his soul, in its own substance; immortal in their union by Gods appointment, 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 tenor whereby he held his grant of immortality, which on his neglect, he was penally to be deprived of. In that estate he had( I.) The immortality mentioned or a power of not dying from the appointment of God.( 2.) An uprightenesse 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,& 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 three of Life. He lost it for himself& us, which if he never had it, he could not do. The Death, wherewith he was threatened, stood in opposition to all these. It being most ridiculous to suppose, that any thing penal in the Scripture comes under the name of death, that was not here threatened to Adam. Death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortality spoken of; of the soul, spritually 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, 
§. 27.  and see what answer the Scripture will positively give in to our inquiries.  
First then.  
1. Q. In what state, and condition was man at first created?  
A. God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him, Male and Female Created he them. Gen. 1. 27.  
And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good. v. 31.  
In the Image God made he man. Gen. 9. 6.  
Lo! this only have I found, that God hath made man UPRIGHT, Eccles. 7. 29.  
Put on the new man, which after God, is created in righteousness and Holinesse, Eccles. 4. 24.  
Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the Image of him that Created him, Col. 3. 10.  
Q. 2. Should our First parents have dyed, had they not sinned, or were they obnoxious to death in the state of innocency? 
§. 28.   
A. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every three of the Garden thou mayst freely eat.  
But of the three of the Knowledge of Good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou earest thereof, thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2. 16, 17.  
By one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12.  
For the Wages of sin is death, Rom. 6. 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? 
§. 29.   
A. All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God, Rom. 3. 23.  
Lo! this only have I found, that God hath made man Upright, but he hath found out many inventions. Eccles. 7. 29.  
So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God, Rom. 8. 8.  
And you who were dead in trespasses and sins, Ephes. 2. 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 3. 3.  
The old man is corrupt according to deceitful lusts Ephes. 4. 22.  
Q. 4. Are we now born approved of God, and accepted with him, as when we were first created, or what is our 
§. 30.  condition now by nature, what say the Scriptures hereunto?  
A. We were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others, Ephes 3. 3.  
Excepta man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Joh. 3. 3.  
He that believeth not the son, the wrath of God abideth on him v. 36.  
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, Joh. 4. 6.  
Q. 4. Are our understandings by nature able to discern the things of God, or are they darkened, and blind. 
§. 31.   
A. The natural man receiveth not the things that are of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2. 14.  
The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not, Joh. 1. 5.  
— To preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind. Luk. 4. 18.  
Having their Understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, Ephes. 4. 18.  
Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord. Ephes. 5. 8.  
For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 4. 6.  
And we know that the son of God is come, and hath given us an Understanding, that we may know him that is true, 1 John 5. 20.  
Q: 5. Are we able to do those things now in the state of nature, which are spiritually good, and acceptable to 
§. 32.  God?  
A. The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be Rom. 8. 7.  
You were dead in trespasses and sins, Ephes. 2. 1.  
The imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth, Gen. 8. 21.  
Can the Aethiopian change his skin, or the Leopard his spots, then may ye also do good, that are accustomend to do evil, Jerem. 13. 23.  
For without me ye can do nothing, Joh. 15. 5.  
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves our sufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. 3. 5.  
For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing, Rom 7. 18.  
Q. 6. How came we into this miserable state and condition? 
§. 33.   
A. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, Psal. 51. 5.  
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one, Job. 14. 4.  
That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Joh. 3. 6.  
Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12.  
Q. 7. Is then the guilt of the first sin of our first Parents reckoned unto us? 
§. 34.   
A. But not as the offence so also is the free gift, for if through the offence of one many be dead, v. 15.  
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: For the judgement was by one to condemnation, v. 16.  
For by one mans offence death reigned, v. 17.  
Therefore by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemna●●on, v. 18.  
By one mans disobedience many were made sinners, v. 20.  
Thus, and much more fully, doth the Scripture set out, and declare the condition of man, both before and after the fall: concerning which, although the most evident demonstration of the latter, lies in the Revelation made of the exceeding Efficacy of that power& Grace, which God in Christ puts forth for our conversion, and delivery from that state and condition, before described, yet so much is spoken of this dark side of it, as will render vain the attempts of any, who shall endeavour to pled the cause of corrupted nature, or alleviate the Guilt of the first sin.  
It may not be amiss in the winding up of the whole, to give the Reader a brief account, of what slight thoughts this Gentleman and his Companions have concerning this whole matter, of the state and condition of the first man, his fall or sin, and the interest of all his Posterity therein, which confessedly lie at the bottom of that whole dispensation of Grace in Jesus Christ, which is revealed in the gospel.  
1. For Adam himself, they are so remote from assigning to him any eminency of Knowledge, righteousness, or Holinesse, in the State wherein he was created: That  
1. For his Knowledge, they say he 
Adamus instar infantis vel puerise nudum eff● gnoravit. S●alc. de ve. Dei fill. c. 7. p. 2.  was a mere great baby, that knew not that he was naked. So also taking away the difference between the simplo knowledge of nakedness in innocency, and the knowledge joined with shane, that followed sin. 
De conjuge propria, non nisi sensibus obvia cognovit. Soci. de star. prim. Hom. c. 4. p. 119.  Of his Wife he knew no more but what occurred to his senses. Though the expression which he used at first view and sight of her, do plainly argue another manner of Apprehension. Gen. 2. 23, 24. For 
Vim arboris scientiae boni& mali perspectam non habuerit. idem ibid. pag. 197.  the three of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew not the virtue of it. Which yet I know not how well it agrees with another place of the 
Socin. praelect. cap. 3. pag. 8.  same Author, where he concludes, that in the state of innocency, there was in Adam a predominancy of the natural appetite, which conquered or prevailed to the eating of the Fruit of that three. Also that 
Cum ipse mortalis esset, se tamen mortalem. esse nesciverit. Socin. de stat. prim. Hom. cap. 4. pag. 118.  being mortal, he knew not himself to be so: The sum is, he was even a very beast, that knew neither himself, his duty, nor the will of God concerning him.  
2. For his righteousness and Holinesse, which, as was said 
§. 36.  before, because he was made upright, in the image of God, we ascribe unto him, 
Utrum primus homo ante peccatum justitiam aliquam originalem habuerit? Plerique omnes eum illam habuisse affirmant. said ego scire vel in- concludamus igitur, Adamum, etiam antequam mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, rev●ra justum non fuisse. Cum nec impeccabilis esset, nec ullum peccandi occasionem habuisset; ve certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constet, eum ulla ratione a peccando abstinuisse. Socin. praelect. c. 3. p. 8. vid. c. 4. p. 11.  Socinus contend's in one whole chapter, in his Prelections, That he was neither Just, nor Holy, nor ought to be so esteemed or called.  
And 
Fit ment● destitutionis vel carentiae divinae gloriae, ergoprivationis Imaginis Dei& justitiae& Sanctitatis, ejusque originalis; fit mentio Carentiae divinae Gloriae, ergo in creatione eum homine fuit communicata: o ineptias! small. Refut. Thes. de peccat. Origi. Disput: 2. pag. 42. Porro ait Franzius, Paulum mox evestigio imagtnem Dei, seu novum hominem ita explicare, quod fuerit conditus primus homo ad justitiam& Sanctimoniam veram. Hic cum erroribus fallatiae, etiam& fortassis voluntariae, sunt commixtae- Videat lector benevelus quanti sit facienda illatie Franzii, dum ait: ergo image Dei in hemine ante lapsum consistebat in concreatâ justitiâ& vera sanctimonia primorum parentum. Si haec non sunt scopae dissolutae, equidem nescio quid eas tandem nominabimur. Smalcius. ubi sup. p. 50, 51.  Smalcius in his confutation of Franzius his Theses de peccato Originali, all along derides, and laughs to scorn, the apprehension or persuasion, that Adam was created in righteousness and Holinesse, or that ever he lost any thing of the Image of God, or that ever he had any thing of the Image of God, beyond or besides that Dominion over the Creatures which God gave him.  

Volkel. de Vera. relic. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 9. edit. cum lib. Crell. de Deo.  Most of the residue of the Heard, describing the estate and condition of man, in his creation, do wholly omit any mention of any moral uprightness in him.  
And this is the account these Gentlemen give us, concerning 
§. 37.  the condition and state, wherein the First man was of God created. An heavy burden of the earth, it seems he was, that had neither righteousness, nor Holinesse, 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.  
2. For his sin, the great 
Socin. Praelect. c. 3. p. 8.  Master of their Family disputes, 
§. 38.  that it was a bare transgression of that precept, of not eating the fruit of the three of knowledge of Good and evil. And that 
Etenim unum illud peccatum per se, non mod● universes po●eros, said neipsum quldem Adamum, corrumpendi vim habere petuit. Dei vero consilio, in peccati illius paenam id factum fuisse, nec usquam legitur,& plane incredibile est, imo impium id cog●tare. Socin. Praelect. cap. 4. Sect. 4. p. 13. Lapsus Adae, cum unus acius fuerit, vim eam, quae ●epravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus posterorum ipsius posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi ●ero in penam irrogatum fuisse, nec Scriptura do●et, ut superius exposui● us,& Deum illum, qui ●●is aequitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus est id facere voluisse: Catech. Racov. de Cogniti: Christ. cap. 10. quest. 2.  His nature was not viriated, or corrupted thereby. Wherein he is punctually followed by the Raccovian catechism; which also giveth this Reason, why his nature was not depraved by it, namely, because it was but one Act; so light are their thoughts, and expressions of that great transgression.  
3. For his state and condition, 
De Adamo eum immortalem creatum non fuisse, res apertissima est. Nam ex terra creatus, cibis usus, liberis gignend● destinatus,& animalis ante lapsum fait. S●alcius de Divin: Jes. Christ. cap. 7. de Promi●so Vitae Aeternae.  they all with open 
§. 39.  mouth cry out, that he was mortal, and obnoxious to death, which should in a natural way have come upon him, though he had not sinned. But of this before.  
4. Farther, that the 
Conclad mus igitur, ●d um, improprie etiam loquendo, peccatum originale esse; id est, ex peccato illo primi parents nullam labem aut pravitatem universo humano generi necessario ingenitam esse, sieve inflictam quodammodo fuisse. Socin. praelect. cap. 4. Sect. 4. p. 13, 14. Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est, quare nes liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit. Nec enim è Scriptura. id peccatum originis doceri potest. Catech. Raccov. de Cognit. Christ. cap. 10. de lib. Arbit.- quaedam ex falsissimis principiis de lucuntur. In illo genere illud potissimum est, quod ex peccato( ut vccant) originali depromitur: de quo ita disputant, ut crimen a primo parent conceptum, in sobelem derivatum esse defendant, eiusque contagione, tum omnes humanas vires corruptas& debravatas, tum potissimum voluntatis libertatem destructam esse asserant.- quae omnia nos pernegamus, ●pote& sanae mentis rationi,& divinae Scripturae contraria. Volkell. de Vera Religi. lib. 5. cap. 18. p. 547, 548. Prior pars Thesis Franzii falsa est. Nam nullum individuam un uam peccato originis fuit infectum. Qua peccatum illud mera est fabula, quam tanquam foetum alienum fovent Lutherani,& alii. Smal●ius Refut. Thes. Franz. disput. 2. p. 46, 47. Vid. compend. Sociuis. c. 3. small de vera divin. Jes. Christ. c. 7. Putas Adami peccatum& inobedientiam ejus posteritati imoutari. At hoqae●; tibi negamus, quam Christi obedientiam credentibus imputari. Jonas Schlictingius, disput. pro Socino adversus Meisnerum p. 251. vide ●tiam p. 100. Quibus ita exolicatis, facile eos qui- omnem Adami posteritatem, in ipso Adamo parentes●o peccasse,& mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. idem Comment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos ad cap. 7. p. 296.  Posterity of Adam were no way concerned, 
§. 40.  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 Austine, and the schoolmen that followed him, is the constant clamour of them all. And indeed this is the great foundation of all, or the greatest part of their Religion. Hence are the necessity of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, the efficacy of Grace, and the power of the Spirit in conversion, decried. On this account, is Salvation granted by them, without Christ; a power of keeping all the Commandements asserted; and Justification upon our Obedience; of which, in the process of our Discourse.  
Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions of M. B.'s 
§. 41.  Masters, concerning this whole matter. 
Ista sapientia rerum divinarum,& sanctimonia, quam Adamo ante Lapsum tribuit Franzius; una cum alits, Idea quaedam est, in cere●ro ipsorum nata. Smalcius ubi sup.  Such was Adam, in their esteem; Such was his Fall; and such our concernment therein. He had no righteousness, no Holinesse,( yea 
Socin. Epist. 5. ad Johan. Volkell pag. 489.  Socinus as length confesses, that he did not believe his soul was immortal.) We contracted no guilt in him, derive no pollution from him: whether these men are in any measure acquainted with the plague of their own hearts, the severity and spirituality of the Law of God, with that Redemption which is in the blood of Jesus, the Lord will one day manifest: but into their secret let not my soul descend.  
Least the weakest, or meanest Reader should be startled which 
§. 42.  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 Scriptures; the places before mentioned, being in them cast into that form and Method, wherein they are readily subservient to the purpose in hand.  
1. That man was Created in the Image of God, in Knowledge, righteousness, and Holinesse, is evident on the ensuing 
§. 43.  considerations.  
I. He who was made very good and upright, in a moral consideration, had the original righteousness pleaded for: for moral goodness, integrity, and uprightness, is equivalent unto righteousness; so are the words used in the description of Job. cap. 1. v. 1. And Righteous and Upright are terms equivalent. Psal. 33. 1. Now that man was made thus good and upright, was manifested in the Scriptures, cited in answer to the question before proposed, concerning the condition wherein our first Parents were created. And indeed this uprightness of man, this moral rectitude, was his formal aptitude, and fitness, for, and unto that obedience, which God required of him, and which was necessary for the end, whereunto he was created.  
2. He who was created Perfect in his kind, was created 
§. 44.  with the original righteousness pleaded for. This is evident from hence, because righteousness and Holinesse is a perfection of a rational being, made for the service of God. This in Angells is called the Truth, or that original Holinesse and rectitude, which the devils abode not in, Joh. 8. 44. Now( as before,) man was created very good and upright, therefore-perfect, as to his state and condition: and whatever is in him of imperfection, flows from the corruption and depravation of nature.  
3. He that was created in the Image of God, was created 
§. 45.  in a state of righteousness, Holinesse, and Knowledge. That Adam was created in the Image of God, is plainly affirmed in Scripture, and is not denied. That by the Image of God is especially intended the qualitys mentioned, is manifest from that farther description of the Image of God, which we have given us in the Scriptures before produced, in answer to our first Question. And what is recorded of the first man in his primitive condition, will not suffer us to esteem him such a baby in knowledge, as the Socinians would make him. His imposing of names on all Creatures, his knowing of his wife on first view, &c. exempt him from that imputation. Yea the very 
{αβγδ}. Plato in Cratylo.  Heathens could conclude, that he was very wise indeed, who first gave names to things.  
II. For the disproving of that mortality, which they ascribe 
§. 46.  to man in innocency. The ensuing Arguments may suffice.  
1. He that was created in the Image of God in righteousness and Holinesse, whilst he continued in that state and condition, was immortal. That man was so created, lies under the demonstration of the foregoing Arguments, and testimonies. The Assertion thereupon, or the inference of immortality from the Image of God, appears on this double consideration. 1. In our Renovation by Christ, unto the image of God, we are renewed to a blessed immortality: and our likeness to God consisted no less in that, then in any other communinicable property of his Nature. 2. Where ever is naturally perfect righteousness, there is naturally perfect life, that is, immortality: this is included in the very tenor of the promise of the Law. If a man keep mystatutes he shall live in them, Levit. 18. 5.  
2. That which the first man Contracted,& drew upon himself 
§. 47.  by sin, was not natural to him before he sinned: But that man contracted, 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. 2. 17, 19. Rom. 5. 12, 14. chap. 6. 23. &c.  
3. That which is besides, and contrary to nature, was not 
§. 48.  natural to the first man: but death is besides, and contrary to nature, as the voice of nature abundantly testifieth; therefore to man in his primitive condition it was not natural.  
Unto these may sundry other Arguments be added, from the Promise of the Law, the End of mans Obedience, His constitution and state, denying all proximate causes of death, &c. But these may suffice.  
III. That the sin of Adam is not to be consigned to the 
§. 49.  mere eating of the fruit of the three 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 
Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. Vin.  not need here again to insist upon it. That it began in Infidelity, is evident from the beginning of the Temptation, wherewith he was overcome. It was to doubt of the Truth, and veracity of God, to which the woman was at first solicited by satan. Gen: 3. 4. Hath God said so? pressing that it should be otherwise, then they seemed to have cause to apprehended from what God said: And their acquiescence in that reply of satan, without revolving to the truth, and faithfulness of God, was plain Unbeliefe. Now as Faith is the root of all righteousness and Obedience, so is Infidelity of all disobedience. Being overtaken, conquered, deceived into infidelity, man gave up himself to act contrary to God, and his will, shooke off his sovereignty, rose up against his Law, and manifested the frame of his heart, in the pledge of his disobedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally forbidden him.  
IV. That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sin is imputed to all his Posterity, is by them denied, but is easily 
§. 50.  evinced. For  
1. By whom sin entred into the world, so that all sinned in him, and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sin is called the sin of the world, in him all mankind sinned, and his sin is imputed to them. But that this was the condition, and state of the first sin of Adam, the Scriptures before mentioned, in answer to our seventh question, do abundantly manifest; and thence also is his sin called the sin of the world: John 1. 29,  
2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have contracted the guilt of death and condemnation, in him they have all 
§. 51.  sinned, and have his sin imputed to them. But in Adam all are dead: 1 Cor: 15. 22. as also Rom: 5. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. And death is the wages of sin only, Rom: 6. 23.  
3. As by the Obedience of Christ we are made Righteous, so by the disobedience of Adam we are made sinners. So the Apostle 
§. 52.  expressly, Rom: 5. 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: 1. 30. Phil: 3. 9. Therefore are we sinners, by the imputation of the sin of Adam to us, as though we had committed it: which the Apostle also affirms. To what hath been spoken, from the consideration of that state and condition, wherein by Gods appointment, in reference to all mankind, Adam was placed, namely, of a natural, and political, or Faederall Head,( of which the Apostle treats, 1 Cor. 15.) 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 
§. 53.  the same purpose with M. B's intimations, in the Raccovian catechism. But yet seeing that that task also is undertaken, that which may seem necessary for the discharging of what may thence be expected, shall briefly be submitted to the Reader. To this Head they speak, in the first Chapter, of the way Salvation; the first Question whereof, is of the import ensuing.  
Q. 
Cum dix●. initio, have viam quae adimmortalitatem ducat esse divinitus patefactam, scire velim, cur id abs te dictum sit?  Seeing thou saidst in the beginning, that this life, which leadeth to immortality, is Divinely revealed, I would know of thee, why thou saidst so?  
A. Because, as man by nature hath nothing to do with immortality( or hath no interest in it) so by himself he could by no means know the way which leadeth to immortality.  
Propterea, quia ut homo naturâ nihil habet commune cum immortalitate, ita eam ipse viam, quae nos ad immortalitatem duceret, nulla ratione per se cognoseere potuit. Catech. Raccov. de via Salut cap. 1.  
Both Question and Answer being sophistical and ambiguous, the 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 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 its self, for an eternal abiding of that which is said to be immortal.( 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( 1.) Strictly, for the consequences of the natural principles whereof man was constituted, or( 2.) More largely it comprizes Gods constitution and appointment, concerning man in that estate.  
On these considerations, it will be easy to take off this Head of our Catechist's discourse, whereby also the remaining trunk will fall to the ground.  
I say then, man by nature, in his primitive created condition, was by the appointment and constitution of God, immortal, 
Rom. 2. 7, 8, 9  as to the continuance of his life, and knew the way of perfect legal Obedience, tending to a blessed immortality, and that by himself, or by virtue of the Law of his Creation, which was concreated with him: But fallen man in his natural condition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death temporal and eternal, doth by no means know of himself, nor can know, the way of Faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immortality and Glory.  
It is not then our want of interest in immortality, upon the account whereof we know not of ourselves the way to immortality 
§. 54.  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 Gods infinite wisdom, and 
Joh. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 2. 7. Ephes. 3. 8, 9, 10, 11. Col. 2. 2, 3. 1 Tim. 3. 16.  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, or the Law written in the heart; but is solely revealed from the bosom of the Father, by the only begotten son, neither Angells, nor men, being able to discover the least glimpse of that Mystery, without that Revelation.  
2. Because man in his fallen condition, though there be retained in his heart some weak and faint expressions of Good and evil, reward and punishment, Rom. 2. 14, 15. yet is spiritually dead, blind, clienated from God, ignorant, dark, stub●orne, 
Ephes. 2. 1. Joh. 1. 5. Rom. 3. 17, 18 Rom. 8. 7. 8. 2 Cor. 2, 14. Tit. 3. 3. Ephes. 2. 8. 4. 18. Col. 1. 13. 2. 13. &c.  so far from being able of himself to find out the way of Grace unto blessed immortality, that he is not able upon the Revelation of it, savingly, and to the great end of its proposal, to receive, apprehended, believe, and wa●ke in it, without a new spiritual Creation, Resurrection from the dead, or new ●uth, wrought by the exceeding greatness of the power of God. And on these two doth depend our disability to discover, and know the way of Grace, leading to Life and Glory. And by this brief removal of the covering, is the weakness, and nakedness of their whole ensuing Discourse so discovered, as that I shall speedily take it, with its offence, out of the way. They proceed.  
Q. 
Cur vere nihil commune habet homo cum immortalitate?  But why hath man nothing to do with( or no interest in) immortality?  
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 necessary subject to eternal death? 
Idcirco, quod ab initio de humo formatus, proptereaque mortalis creatus fueri●: deinde vero, quod mandatum Dei, ipsi propositum, transgressus sit; ideoque decreto Dei ipsius in mandato expresso, aeternaemorti necessari● subjectus fuerit.   
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;& in that immediate constitution,& framing from the hand of God, was free from all nextly disposing causes unto dissolution: but his immortality we place on another account, as hath been declared, which is no way prejudiced by his being made of the Ground.  
2. The second reason belongs unto man only as having sinned, and being fallen out of that condition, and Covenant, wherein he was created. So that I shall need only to let the Reader know, that the eternal Death, in the judgement of our Catechists, whereunto man was subject 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 afterwards be farther manifest. They go on.  
Q. 
Qui vero id conveniet iis Scripturae locis, in quibus Scriptum extat, hominem adimaginem Dei cr●aelum esse,& creatum ad immortalitatem,& quod mors per peccatum in mundum introiret. Gen. 1. 26, 27. Sap. 2. 23. Rom. 5. 12.  But how doth this agree with those places of Scripture, wherein 
§. 56.  it is written, that man was created in the Image of God, and created unto immortality, and that death entred into the world by sin. Gen. 1. 26. Wisd. 2. 23. Rom. 5. 12.  
A. As to the Testimony, which declareth that man was created in the 
Quod ad Testimonium attinet, quod hominem creatum ad imaginem Dei pronunciat, sciendum est, imaginem Dei non significare immortalitatem:( quod hinc patet, quod Scripturaeo Tempore, quo homo aeternae morti subjectus erat, agnoscat in homine istam imaginem. Gen 9. 6. Jacob. 3. 9.) said potestatem hoins,& dominium in omnes res a Deo conditas supra terram, designare: ut idem locus, in quo de hac eadem imagine agitur. Gen. 1. 26. apart indicat.  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. 9. 6. Jam. 3. 9.) but it denoteth the power dominion over all things, made of God on the Earth: as the same place, where this Image is treated of, clearly sheweth: Gen. 1, 26.  
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. 9, 6. and Jam. 3. 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 then that would be, which should conclude, that the Sun did not give light because it gives heat. So that  
3. Though the Image of God, as to the 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 reference to our fellow Creatures, so much might be, and was retained, as to be a Reason one towards another, for our preservation from wrong and violence.  
4. That place of Gen. 1. 26. Let us make man in our Image, and let him have dominion over the fish of the Sea, &c. Is so far from proving, that the Image of God, wherein man was created, did consist only in the dominion mentioned, that it doth not prove that dominion to have been any part of, or to belong unto, that Image. It is rather a grant made to them, who were made in the Image of God, then 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 mans being created therein, is rightly inferred, as above was made more evident.  
Upon the Testimony of the Book of wisdom, it being confessedly 
§. 57.  apocryphal, I shall not insist. Neither do I think, that in the Orinall any new Argument, to that before mentioned, of the image God, is added: but that is evidently pressed,& the nature of the Image of God somewhat explained. The words are, {αβγδ}. The opposition that is put between the creation of man in integrity, and the Image of God, in one verse, and the entrance of sin, by the envy of the devil, in the next, plainly evinces, that the mind of the author of that book was, that man, by reason of his being created in the image of God, was immortal in his primitive condition. That which follows, is of an other nature, concerning which they thus inquire and Answer. 
§. 58.   

Quid pure adtertium respondebis? Apostolus to in loco non agit de immortalitate, verum de morte ipsa: mortalitas ●ero a norte multum dissidet; siquidem potest esse quis mortalis, nec tamen unquam mori.  What moreover wilt thou answer to the third Testimony?  
A. The Apostle in that place treateth not of immortality, but of death itself. But mortality differeth much from death: for a man may be mortal and yet never die. But  
1. The Apostle eminently treats of mans becoming obnoxious to death, which until he was, he was immortal. For he says, that death entred 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 entred 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,& is directly obnoxious to death: but that which we pled for from those words of the Apostle is, that man by Gods constitution and appointment, was so immortal, as not to be liable, nor obnoxious to death, until he sinned. But they will prove their assertion in their progress. 
§. 59.   
Q. 
Quae igitur est horum verborum sententia: quod mors per peccatum introierit in mundum? Haec, quod Adamus ob peccatum, decreto& sententia Dei aeternae morti subjectiv● 〈◇〉; ●●oinde, omnes homines, eo quod ex eo nati sunt, eidem aeternae morti subjaceant: re 〈…〉 Christi cum Adamo, quam Apostolus eodem capite, v. 12. adfinem, instituit, 〈◇〉 〈◇〉.  What therefore is the sense of these words, that death entred into the world by sin?  
This, that Adam for sin by the decree and sentence of God, was subject to eternal death; and therefore all men, because, or in as much 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 institu●●th, from v. 12. to the end of the chapter, doth declare.  
Be it so: that this is the meaning of those words, yet hence it inevitably follows, that man was no way liable, or 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 Gods appointment man was immortal, and the tenor of his immortality was his obedience; And thereupon, his Right thereunto he lost by his transgression.  
2. This is farther evident from the comparison between Christ and Adam, instituted by the Apostle. For as we are all dead without Christ, and his righteousness, and have not the l●●st right to life, or a blessed immortality; so antecedently to the consideration of Adam,& 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 Cat●chists have to pled for themselves, or to except against our Arguments, and Testimonys to 
§. 60.  the cause in hand. Which how weak it is in itself, and how short it comes of reaching to the strength we insist on, as little comparison of it, with what went before, will satisfy the pious Reader.  
What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depravation of two or three Texts of Scripture, to another purpose then that in hand, I shall not divert to the consideration of; seeing it will more orderly fall under debate in another place.  
What our Catechists add elsewhere about original sin, or their attempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a 
§. 61.  close to this discourse.  
Their tenth Chapter is de libero Arbitrio, where after, in Answer to the first Question proposed, they have asserted, that it is in our power to yield obedience unto God, as having free will in our Creation so to do, and having by no way, or means, lost that liberty ●ri●er: Their second Question is.  

Nonne peccato originis hoc liberum arbitrium viriatum est? Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est: Quare nec liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit; nec enim e Scriptura id peceatum originis doceri potest,& lapsus Adaecum unus actus fuerit vim eam, queen depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multominus vero posterorum ipsius passet, habere non potuit; ipsi vero in paenam irrogatum fa●●e, nec Scriptura docet, uti saperius exp●suimus;& Deum illum, qui omnis aequitatis fons est, incredibile pro●sus est, id facere vola●●se. Cap. 10. de lib. Arbit. q. 2.  Is not this f●●● will corrupted by original sin?  
A. There is no such thing as original sin: wherefore that cannot vitiate free will: Nor can that Original sin be proved out of the Scripture: and the fall of Adam being but one act, could not have that force as to corrupt his own 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. This is yet plain dealing. And it is, well that men who 
§. 62.  know neither God nor themselves, have yet so much honesty left, as to speak down right what they intend. Quickly dispatched; there is no such thing as original sin. To us the denying of it, is one Argument to prove it. Were not men blind, and dead in sin, they could not but be sensible of it. But men swimming with the waters, feel not the strength of the stream.  
2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing? Doth it nowhere 
§. 63.  teach, that we who were created upright, in the image of God, are now dead intrespasses 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 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 kingdom of Heaven. That all this is come upon us by the sin of one man, whence also judgement passed on all men to condemnation? Can nothing of all this be proved from the Scripture? These Gentlemen know, that we contend not about words or expressions; let them grant this hereditary corruption of our natures, alienation from God, impotency to good, deadness and obstinacy in sin, want of the Spirit, Image, and Grace of God, with obnoxiousness thereon to eternal condemnation; and give us a fitter expression to declare this state and condition by, in respect of every ones 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 
§. 64.  in its kind, as to induce an habit into the subject, and so Adams nature be vitiated by it; and he begot a son in his own likeness. The devils upon one sin, became obstinate in all the wickedness, that their nature is capable of. 2. This one act was a breach of Covenant with God, upon the tenor and observation whereof, depended the enjoyment of all that strength, and Rectitude with God, wherewith by the law of his creation, man was endowed withall. 3. All mans Covenant Good, for that eternal end, to which he was created, depending upon his conformity to God, his subjection to him, him, and dependence on him, all which by that one sinned he wilfully cast away, for himself and posterity,( whose common, natural, and faederall head he was.) and righteously fell into that condition which we described. 4. The Apostle is much of a different mind from our Catechists, Rom. 5. 15, 16, &c. as hath been declared.  
4. What is credible concerning God& his goodness with these Gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only in itself 
§. 65.  credible, which he hath revealed concerning himself, but of necessity to be believed. That he gave man a Law, threatening him, and all his Posterity in him and with him, with eternal death upon the breach of it, that upon that sin, he cast all man; kind judicially out of Covenant, imputing that sin unto them all, unto the guilt of condemnation, seeing it is his Judgement that they who commit sin are worthy of death, and that he is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, is to us credible, yea( as was said) of necessity to be believed. But they will answer the proofs that are produced from Scripture, in the asserting of this original sin. 
§. 66.   

Veruntamen esse peccatum originis illa Testimonia docere videntur: Gen. 6. ●. &c. Gen. 8. 21. Haec Testimonia agunt de peccat● veluntario: ex i● itaque effici nequit peccatum originis quod autem ad primum attinet, Meses id peccatum ejusmodi fuisse docet cujus causa paenituisse Deum quod hominem creasset,& eum diluvi● punire decrevisset; Qud certe de and 〈…〉 quod homini natura inesset, quale peccatum ●riginis censeat, aff●rmari nullo pac●o potest. In altero vero Testimoniodocet▪ peccatum hoins eam vim habiturum non esse, ut Deus mundum diluvio propter illua puniret: ●uod etiam peccato originis nullo mode convenit.  But that there is original sin, Those testimonies seem to prove Gen. 6. 5. Every cogitation of the heart of man is only evil every day. And Gen. 8. 21. The cogitation of m●ns heart is evil from his youth.  
A. These testimonies deal concerning voluntary sin: from them therefore original sin cannot be proved. As for the first, Moses sheweth it to be such a sin for whose sake God repented him that he had made man and decreed to destroy him with a flood: which certainly can by no means be affirmed concerning a sin which should be in no man by nature, such as they think original sin to be. In the other he sheweth, that the sin of man shall not have that efficacy, that God should punish the would for it with a flood; which by no means agreeth to original sin.  
That this attempt of our Catechists is most vain and frivolous, 
§. 67.  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, and proved by an 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, loose 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 mans 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& proved in these places: Not singly or exclusively to actual sins, not a parte 
§. 68.  ante, or from the causes of it, but from its effects. That such a frame of heart is universally by nature in all mankind, and every individual of them, as that it is ever, always, or continually casting, coining, and devising evil, and that only, without the intermixture of any thing of another kind, that is truly and spiriritually 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 i● not original, will not be granted. original sin, as it is taken 
§. 69.  for peccatum Originans, was voluntary in Adam; and as it is Originatum in us, is in our wills habitually, and not against them, in any actings of it, or them.( 2.) The Effects of it in the coining of sin, and in the thoughts of mens hearts, are all voluntary; which are here mentioned to demonstrate, and manifest that roote from whence they spring, that prevailing principle, and predominant habit, from whence they so uniformly proceed.  
2. Why it doth not agree to original sin, that the account mentioned, v. 6. of Gods repenting that He made man, and his resolution to destroy him, these Gentlemen offer not one word of Reason to manifest. We say, that it can agree to no other, but this original sin, with its infallible effects, wherein all mankind are equally concerned, and so became equally liable to the just judgement of God; though some from the same Principle had acted much more boldly against his Holy Majesty then others:( 2.) Its being in men by nature doth not at all l●ssen its guilt. It is not in their nature as created, nor in them so by nature: but is by the fall of Adam come upon the nature of all men, dwelling in the person of every one; which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its advantage for provocation.  
3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to original sin, they inform us not. The words joined with it, are an expression of that patience, and forbearance which God resolved, and promised to exercise towards the world, with a non Obstante, for sin. Now what sin should this be, but that which is the sin of the world. That actual sins are excluded we say not; but that original sin is expressed, and aggravated by the Effects of it, our Catechists cannot disprove. There are many considerations of these Texts, from whence the Argument from them, for the proof of that corruption of nature, which we call original sin, might be much improved; but that is not my present business; Our Catechists administering no occasion to such a Discourse. But they take some other texts into consideration.  
What thinkest thou of that which David speaks Psal. 51. 7. Behold, 
§. 70.  I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 
Quid vere ea de re saints quod David ait Psal. 51. 7. Animadvertendum est▪ hic Davidem non agere de quibusvis hominibus, said de se tantum, nec simpliciter, said habita ratione lapsus sui:& eo loquendi modo usum esse, cujus exemplum apud eundem Davidem habes Psal. 58. 4. Quamobrem nec eo Testimonio effici prorsus potest peccatum originis.   
It is to be observed, that David doth not here speak of any men but himself alum nor that simply, but with respect to his fall: and uses that form of speaking, which you have in him again, Psal. 58. 4. Wherefore original sin cannot be evinced by this Testimony.  
But  
1. Though David speak of himself, yet he speaks of himself, in respect of that 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 mans 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.  
2. Though David mention this by occasion of his fall, as having his conscience made tender, and awakened to search into the roote of his sin, and transgression thereby; yet it was no part of his fall, nor was he ever the more or less conceived in 〈◇〉 and brought forth in iniquity, for that fall, which were ridiculous to imagine. He here acknowledges it, upon the occasion of his fall, which was a fruit of the sin wherewith he was born, James 1. 14, 15. but was equally guilty of it before his fall and after.  
3. The expression here used, and that of Psal. 58. 3. The wicked are enstranged from the 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 mens constant practise from the womb. In himself he mentions the roote of all actual sin; in them the constant fruit that springs from that root in imregenerate men. So that by the favour of these Catechists, I yet say, that David doth here aclowledge a sin of nature, a sin wherewith he was defiled from his conception, and polluted when he was warmed, and so somented in his Mothers womb, and therefore this place doth prove original sin.  
One place more they call to an account, in these words. But Paulsaith, that in Adam all sinned. Rom. 5. 12. 
§. 71.   
It is not in that place, in Adam all sinned. But in the greek 
At Pausus ai● Rom. 5. 12. in Adamo &c. Non habetur eo loco, in Adam omnes peccasse; verum in Graeco verba; sunt. {αβγδ} passim interpretes reddunt latin●, in quo, quaetamen read li possunt perparticular queniam aut quatenus, ute locis similibus, Rom. 8. 3. Phil. 3. 12. Heb. 2. 18. 2 Cor. 5. 4. videre ess. A●pa. e igitur neque ex hoe loco extrui posse peccatum originis.  the words are {αβγδ} which Interpreters do frequently render in latin in quo, in whom, which yet may be rendered by the particles quoniam or quatenus, because, or in as much, as in like places Rom. 83. Phil. 3. 12. Heb. 2. 18. 2. Cor. 5. 4. It appeareth therefore that neither can original sin be built up out of this place.  
1. Stop these men from this shifting hole, and you may with much ease entangle and catch them 20 times a day. This word may be rendered otherwise, for it is so in another place. A course of tour that leaves nothing certain in the book of God. 〈◇〉. In two of the places cited, the words are not {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ} Rom. 5. 3. Heb. 2. 18. 3. The places are none of them parallel to this; for here the Apostle speaks of persons, or a person in an immediate precedency, in them of things. But 4. render {αβγδ} by quoniam, because, or for that, as our English translation doth: The Argument is no less evident for original sin, then if they were rendered by, in whom. In the beginning of the verse the Apostle tells us, that death entred the world by the sin of one man, that one man of whom he is speaking, namely Adam, and passed upon all men: of which dispensation, that death passed on all men, he gives you the reason in these words, for that all have sinned, that is, in that sin of that one man, whereby death entred on the world, and passed on them all. I wonder how our Catechists could once imagine; that this exception against the Translation of those words, should enervate the Argument from the text, for the proof of all mens 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 
§. 72.  acquitment of themselves from the guilt and stain of original sin, and for answer to the three testimonies on its behalf, which themselves choose to call forth, upon the strength whereof they so confidently reject it at the entrance of their Discourse, and in the following question triumph upon it, as a thing utterly discarded from the thoughts of their Catechumens: what Reason or ground they have for their confidence, the Reader will judge. In the mean time, 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 writ and teach these things, I should much admire their happiness, did I not so much as I do pitty them in their pride and distemper, keeping them from an acquaintance with their own miserable condition.    

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Person of Jesus Christ, and on what account He is the son of God.  
M. BIDDLE'S fourth Chapter Examined  
Q. HOW many Lords of Christians are there, by way of distinction from the one God?  
A. Eph. 4. 5.  
Q. Who is that one Lord?  
A 1 Cor. 8. 6.  
Q. How was Jesus Christ born?  
A Mat. 1. 18. Luk. 1. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35  
Q. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord, according to the opinion of the Apostle Paul?  
A Rom. 14. 9.  
Q What saith the Apostle Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord?  
A Act. 2. 32, 33, 36.  
Q Did not Jesus Christ approve 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 Act. 2. 22. Act 10. 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 5. 19, 20, 30. John 14. 10.  
Q What reason doth the son render, why the Father did not forsake him, and cast him out of favour? Was it because he was of the same Essence with him, so that it was impossible for the Father to forsake him, or ceasen love him?  
A John 8. 28, 29, John 15 9, 10.  
Q Doth the Scripture avouch Christ to be the son of God, because he was eternally begootten out of the divine Essence, or for other reasons agreeing 〈◇〉 him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.  
A Luke 1. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35. John 10. 36. Act. 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. Heb. 1. 4, 5. Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29.  
Q What saith the son himself concerning the prerogative of God the Father above him?  
A John 14. 28. Mark. 13. 32. Math. 24. 36.  
Q What saith the Apostle Paul?  
A 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28. 1 Cor. 11. 3. 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23.  
Q Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as with the title of Lord, so also with that of God, in the Scripture?  
A John 20. 28.  
Q Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himself in the mean time did not aclowledge another to be his God?  
A Joh. 20. 17. Revel. 3. 12.  
Q Have you any passage of the Scripture, where Christ, at the same time that he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God?  
A Heb. 1. 8, 9.  

EXAMINATION.  
THE aim and design of our Catechist in this Chapter, being to despoil our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his 
§. 1.  eternal Deity, and to substitute an imaginary God-head, made, and feigned in the vain hearts of himself& 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,& vindication from the vain sophisms, wherewith by others, as well as by M. B. it hath been opposed. This is done abundantly by other hands. In the next chapters that also will have its proper place, in the vindication of many Texts of Scripture from the exceptions of the Raccovians. The removal of M. B's Sophistry,& the disintangling of weaker souls, who may in any thing be intricated by his Queries, is my present intendment. To make our way clear and plain, that every one that runs may red the vanity of M. B's undertaking against the Lord Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks therein, I desire to premise these few observations.  
1. Distinction of persons( it being in an Infinite substance) doth no way prove difference of Essence between the Father 
§. 2.  and the son. Where Christ as mediator is said to be another from the Father, or God, spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least, that he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one Essence there can be but one person, may be true where the Substance is Finite, and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.  
2. Distinction and inequality in respect of office, in Christ, 
{αβγδ}. Athanas. dial. 1. contra Maced.  doth not in the least take away equality and sameness with the Father in respect of nature and Essence. A son of the same nature with his Father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior, his Subject.  
3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ, as mediator, 
§. 4.  to any dignity whatever, upon, or in reference to the work of our Redemption and Salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that essential {αβγδ} Honour, Dignity and Worth, which he hath in himself, as God blessed for ever. Though he humbled himself and was exalted, yet in nature he was one and the same, he changed not.  
4. The Scriptures asserting the Humanity of Christ with 
§. 5.  the concernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby deny his Deity, then by asserting his Deity, with the essential properties thereof, Eternity, Omniscience, and the like, it denies his Humanity.  
5. God's working any thing in and by Christ as he was 
§. 6.  mediator, denotes the Fathers 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 M. B's Arguments, and insinuations against the Deity of Christ, which is the business of the present Chapter.  
His first Question is, 
§. 7.   
How many Lords of Christians are there by way of distinction from that one God. And he Answers Ephes. 4. 5. One Lord.  
That of these two words there is not one that looks towards the confirmation of what M. Biddle chiefly aims at, in the Question proposed, is I presume sufficiently clear in the light of the thing itself inquired after. Christ it is true, is the one Lord of Christians; and therefore God equal with the Father. He is also one Lord, in distinction from his Father, as his Father, in respect of his personallity; in which regard, there are three that bear witness in Heaven, of which he is one; but in respect of Essence and Nature He and his Father are one. Farther, unless he were one God with his Father, it is utterly impossible he should be the one Lord of Christians. That he cannot be our Lord in the sense intended, whom we ought to invocate and worship, unless also he were our God, shall be afterwards declared. And although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he is also our mediator, yet he is the same God with him which worketh all in all, 1 Cor. 12 6. His being Lord then distinctly, in respect of his mediation, hinders not his being God, in respect of his participation in the same nature with his Father. And though here he be not spoken of in respect of his absolute sovereign Lordship, but of his Lordship over the Church to whom the whole Church is spiritually subject,( as he is elsewhere also so called on the same account, as Joh. 13. 13. Act. 7. 59. Rev. 22. 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 Polytheisme, and partly to manifest the oneness of them who are worshipped as God, the Father, Word, and Spirit, all which things are also severally testified unto.  
His second Question is an enquiry after this Lord who he is, 
§. 8.  in these words, Who is this Lord? And the Answer is from 1 Cer. 8. 6. Jesus Christ by whom are all things. The close of this second answer might have caused M. B. a little to recoil upon his insinuation in the first, concerning the distinction of this one Lord from that one God, in the sense by him insisted o● Who is he by whom are all things( in the same sense as they are said to be of the Father) who is that God? He that made all things is God, Heb. 3. 4. And it is manifest that he himself was not made, by whom all things were made. For he made not himself; not could so do, unless be were both before& after himself; nor was he made without his own concurrence by another, fo● by himself are all things. Thus M. B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak against the Lord Jesus Christ, but by the just Judgement of God, he stops it 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& corrupting of the Text which we have in Grotius his gloss upon the place, who interprets the 
Groti. Annot. in 1. Cor. 8. 6.  {αβγδ}, referred to the Father, of all things simply, but the {αβγδ}, referred to Christ, of the things only of the new Creation; There being not the least colour for any such variation, the frame and structure of the words requiring them to be expounded uniformly throughout. But to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus 
Enjedin: explicat. loc. yet.& nov Testam. in locum.  Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. The last expression and we by him, relates to the new creation: all things to the first. But Grotius follows Enjedinus, in this as well as other things.  
His enquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus Christ, In answer whereunto the Story is reported from matthew and 
§. 9.  Luke; which relating to his human nature, and no otherwise to the person of the son of God, but as he was therein made flesh, or assumed the Holy Thing, so born of the Virgin, into personal subsistence with himself, I shall let pass, with annexing 
Luk. 1. 35.  unto it the observation before mentioned, viz. That what is affirmed of the human Nature of Christ doth not at all prejudice that nature of his, in respect whereof he is said to be in the beginning with God, and to be God, and with reference 
Joh. 1. 1, 2. Joh. 8. 57. Prov. 8. 22. &c.  whereunto himself said, before Abraham was I am. God possessed him in the beginning of his ways, being then his only begotten son, full of Grace and Truth. M. B. indeed hath small hopes of dispoyling Christ of his eternal Glory by his Queries, if they spend themselves in such fruitless sophistry as this.  
Qu. 4, 5. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord according to the opinion of the Apostle Paul? The Answer is Rom. 14. 19. 
§. 10.   
What saith Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord? Answer Acts 2. 32, 33, 36.  
1. R. That Jesus Christ as 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, then 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 more, is any way denied by the asserting of this Lordship given him of his Father as mediator, M. B. wholly begs of 
Rom. 9. 5.  men to apprehended& grant, but doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The sum of what M. Biddle intends to Argue hence is, Christs submitting himself to the form& work of a servant unto the Father, was exalted by him, and had a name given him above every name, Therefore he was not the son of God, and equal to him. That his condescension into Office, is inconsistent with his divine Essence, is yet to be proved. But may we not beg of our Catechist at this le●sure to look a little farther into the Chapter, from whom be takes his first Testimony, concerning the Exaltation of Christ to be Lord; perhaps it may be worth his while. As another Argument to that of the Dominion and Lordship of Christ, to persuade Believers to a mutual for bearance, as to judging of one another, he adds v. 10. We shall all stand before the Iudgement seat of Christ. And this v. 11. The Apostle proves from that Testimony of the Prophet Isa. 45. 23. as he renders the sense of the Holy Ghost. As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall ●ow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So that Jesus Christ our Lord, is that I●hovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due, and in particulars, that of standing before his Judgement Seat. but this is over looked by Grotius, and not answered to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why should M. B. trouble himself with it.  
2. For the time assigned by him of his being 
§. 11.  made Lord, specified by the Apostle, it doth not denote his first inve●●ture with that Office and Power, but the solemn admission into the glorious execution of that Lordy power, which was given him as mediator. At his incarnation and Birth, God affirms by the angel, that he was then Christ the Lord, Luke 2. 11. And when he brought his first begotten into the world, the Angels were commanded to worship him, which, if he were not a Lord, I suppose M. B. will not say they could have done. Yea,& as he was both believed in,& worshipped before his death and Resurrection, Joh. 9. 38. John 14. 1. which is to be performed only to the Lord our God, Math. 4. 10. so he actually in some measure exercised his Lordship towards, and over Angells, Men, Divels, and the residue of the Creation, as is known from the very story of the gospel; not denying himself to be a King, yea witnessing thereunto when he was to be put to death. Luk. 23. 3. joh. 18. 37. As he was from his first showing unto men, Ich. 1. 49.  
Q. 6. Did not Iesus approve himself to be God by his miracles? And did he not these miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was 
§. 12.  God of himself, what is the determination of the Apostle Peter in this behalf? Aris Act. 2. 2●. Act. 10. 38.  
The intendment of M. Biddle in this Question, as is evident by his inserting of these words in a different Character.[ by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himself,] is to disprove, or insinuate an answer unto the Argument, taken from the Miracles that Christ did, to confirm his Deity. The naked working of Miracles, I confess, without the influence of such other Considerations, as this Argument is attended withall, in relation to Jesus Christ, will not alone of itself assert a divine nature in him, who is the instrument of their working or production. Though they are from divine power, or they are not miracles, yet it is not necessary, that he by whom they are wrought, should be possessor of that divine Power, as by whom may denote the instrumental, and not the principal cause of them. But for the Miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do them by him, because he appointed him to do them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby gave Testimony to the Truth of the Doctrine he preached from his bosom, as also because he was with him, not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in the son, joh. 10. 38. So he working these miracles by his own power; and at his own will, even as his Father doth, job 5. 21. and himself giving power and Authority to others to work miracles by his strength, and in his name, Mat. 10. 8. Mark. 16. 17, 18 Luk. 10. 19. There is that eminent evidence of his Deity in his working of miracles, as M. B. can by no means darken or obscure, by pointing to that which is of a clear consistency therewithal: as is his Fathers appointment of him to do them whereby he is said to do them in his name, &c. as in the place cited; of which afterwards. Act 2. 22. The intendment of Peter is to prove that he was the messiah of whom he spake; and therefore he calls him Iesus of Nazareth, as pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom seven or eight weekes before they had crucified and rejected. That this man was 
{αβγδ}. Graec. Schol.  approved of Ged, He convinces them from the Miracles which God wrought by him: which was enough for his present purpose. Of the other place there is another reason. For though Grotius expound those words {αβγδ}. For God was with Him, God always loved him, and always heard him, according to Mat. 3 17.( where yet there is a peculiar Testimony given to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ) and Joh. 11. 42. Yet the words of our Savious himself, about the same business, give us another interpretation, and sense of them. This I say he does, joh. 10. 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 you 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 {αβγδ}, but by that divine Indwelling, which oneness of nature gives to Father and son.  
His 7. Question is exceeding implicate and involved: a great deal is expressed that M. B. would deny, but by what 
§. 13.  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.  
Ans. Joh 5. 19, 20, 30. Joh. 14. 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 disprove. Christ being accused by the Jews, and persecuted for healing a man on the Sabbath day, and their rage being increased, by his asserting his Equality with the Father( of which afterwards) v. 17, 18. He lets them know, that in the discharge of the office committed to Him, He did nothing but according to the Will, Commandement and appointment of his Father, with whom he is equal, and doth of his own Wall also the things that he doth; so that they had no more to pled against him, for doing what he did, then they had against him, whom they acknowledged to be God. Wherein he is so far from declining the Assertion of his own Deity( which that he maintained, the Jews apprehended, affirming, that he made himself equal with God, whith 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 doth whatever the Father doth, 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 {αβγδ} is one kind of those things which are impossible, but also because of the oneness in Will, Nature, and power of himself, and his Father, which he asserts in many particulars. Nor doth he temper his speech as one that would ascribe all the honour to the Father, and so remove the charge that he made a man equal to the Father, as Grotius vainly imagines: for although as man he acknowledges 
Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur, Christus ●ta temperat, ut omnem honorem referat ad patrem,& removeat illud crimen, quasi hominem patri aequalem faciat. Grotius Annot. in Joh. cap. 5. v. 30.  his subjection to the Father, yea as mediator in the work he had in hand,& his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all things from him by divine& 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 Equaility therein with the Father, as shall afterwards be more fully manifested.  
So that though in regard of his divine Personallity, as the Son, he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as 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 ever more. And that it was an eternal son of God that took flesh upon him, &c. hath M. B. never red, that in the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the Word was made flesh: that God was manifested in the flesh, and that God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the Law? Of which places afterward, in their vindication from the exception of his Masters.  
His 8th Question is of the very same import with that going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the 
§. 14.  Unity of Essence with his Father, by his Obedience to him, and his Fathers Acceptation of him in the work of Mediation; which being a most ridiculous beggin of the thing in Question, as to what he pretends in the Query to be Argumentative, that I shall not farther insist upon it.  
Q. 9. We are come to the head of this Discourse, and of 
§. 15.  M. B's design in this Chapter; and indeed of the greatest design that he drives in Religion, viz. The denial of the eternal Deity of the son of God, which not only in this place directly, but in sundry others covertly he doth invade and oppose. His Question is, Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the son of God, because he was Eternally begotten out of the divine Essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.  
His Answer is from Luk. 1 31, 32, 34, 35. John 10. 36. Acts 
§. 16.  13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. Heb. 1-4, 5. Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29. most of which places are expressly contrary to him in his 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 M. B's Question, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and trouble, about sundry other ensuing Queries. For M. 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. 
§. 17.   
Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the son of God, because he was Eternally beggotten out of the Divine Essence, or for other Reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rebearse the passages to this purpose.  
The Reasons as far as I can gather which M. B. lays at the bottom of this appellation, are 1. His birth of the Virgin from Joh. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 2. His Mission, or sending into the world by the Father, Joh. 10. 36. 3. His Resurrection with power, Act. 13. 32, 33. Rev. 1. 5. Col. 1. 18. 4. His Exaltation, Heb. 5. 5. Rom. 8. 29.  
For the removeal of all this, from prejudicing the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, there is an abundant sufficiency arising from the consideration of this one Argument. If Jesus Christ be called the Son of God, antecedently to his Incarnation, Mission, Resurrection, and Exaltation, then there is a reason and cause of that Appellation, before, and above all these Considerations; and it cannot be on any of these accounts that he is called the son of God: but that he is so called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly manifest. Yet a little farther process in this business, as to the particulars intimated, may not be unseasonable.  
1. Then I shall propose the causes, on the account whereof 
§. 18.  alone these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called the son of God. Of these the first and chiefest they insist upon is, His Birth of the Virgin: viz. that he was called the son of God, because he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, this our Catechist in the first place proposes; And before him his Masters. So the Recovlans in answer to that question.  
Is therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man? 
Ergo dominus Jesus est purus homo?   
Ans. By no means, for he was conceived by the 
Nullo pacto Et●nim est conceptus a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Mar●a virgin, eoque ab ipsa conceptione& ortu Filius Dei est, ut de ear Luk. 1. 35. legimus. Catech. Racov. de Persona Christi Cap. 1.  Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin, and therefore from his Birth and Conception was the son of God, as we red in Luk. 1. 35. the place insisted on by the Gentleman we are dealing withall.  
Of the same mind are the residue of their Companions. So do Ostorodus and Voidovius give an account of their Faith, in their Compendium, as they call it, of the Doctrine of the Christian Church, flourishing now chiefly in Poland. They teach( say they) 
Jesum Christum docent esse h●minem illum, a spiritu Sancto conceptum,& natum ex beatâ virgin, extra vel ante quem, nullum agnoscant esse( aut) fuisse re ipsa existentem unigenitam Dei Filiam. Por●o h●●e, Deum& Filium Dei unigenitum esse docent, tum ratione con●eptionis, a Spiritu Sancto, &c. Compendiolum Doctrinae Eccles. Christianae &c. cap. 1.  Jesus Christ to be that man, that was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin, besides and before whom they aclowledge no only begotten son of God truly existing. Moreover they teach him to be God, and the only begotten son of God, by reason of his conception of the Holy Ghost, &c. Smakius hath written a whole book of the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein he hath gathered together whatever excellencys they will allow to be ascribed unto Him, making his Deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore is he God,& the son of God, because the things he there treates●of, are ascribed unto him. Among these in his 3d Chap. which is of the Conception and Nativity of Jesus Christ, he gives this principal Account why he is called the son of God, even from his Concepition and Nativity. He was( saith he) Conceived of the Holy 
Coceptus enim est de Spiritis Sancto,& natus ex virgin Maria. Obid genus conceptionis& nativitatis modam Filius etiam Dei ab ipso Angelo vocatus fuit,& ita naturalis Dei Filius( quiae scilicet talis natus fuit) dici vere potest Solus, Jesus Christus a Deo patre suo absque opera viri in lumen productus est. small. de vera divinit. Jes. Christ. cap. 3.  Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, because of which manner of Conception and Nativity, he was by the angel called the son of God: And may so really be called the natural son of God, because he was born such: only Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God his Father, without the help of man.  
The great Master of the Herd himself, from whom indeed 
§. 1. 6  the rest do glean, and gather almost all that they take so much pains to scatter about the world, gives continually this Reason of Christs being called the son of God, and his natural son. I say( saith he) that Christ is deservedly called 
Dico igitur, Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalem, quia natus est Dei Filius; tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem illum sub alia ratione, quam per generatic●●m ex ipsius Dei substantia probant Angeli verba, Mariae matri ojus dicta Luk. 1. 35. Quia igin● hemo ille Jesus Nazarenus, qui dictus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, said Spiritus Sancti operatione generanus est in matris utere; propterea Filius Dei est vocatus. Faust. Soci●. Responsie. ad Weick. capit. 4. p. 202.  the natural son of God, because he was born the son of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of God. And that He was born the son of God another way, and not by generation of the Substance of God, the words of the angel prove, Luk. 1. 35. Therefore because that man Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the help of any man, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, he is therefore, or for that cause, called the son of God: So He against Weick the Iesuire. He is followed by Volkelius,( Lib. 5. Cap. 11. P. 468.) whose book indeed is a mere casting into a kind of a method, what was written by Socinus and others, scattered in sundry particulars, and whose method is pursued and improved by Epistopius: jonas Schlictingius 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,& on an account 
Sunt quidem plurima, dicta quae ostendunt Christum, peculiari prorsus nee ulli alio communi ratione esse Dei Fi●ium: non tament hinc concludere licet eum esse naturali ratione filium: cum praeter have,& illam communem, alia dari posset,& in Cstristo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singulari prorsus ratione, nec ulli communi, Dei Filius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi& efficacia Spiritus Sancti, in utero virginis conceptus fuit& genitus? Schlicting ad Meisner. Artic. de Trinit. pag. 160.  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 common, another reason may be given, which hath place in Christ. Is he not the son of God on a singular account, and that which is common to no other, if of God himself, by the virtue and efficacy of the Holy spirit, he was Conceived, and begotten in the womb of his Mother?  
And this is the only Buckler which they have to keep off the 
§. 20.  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 M A Y another reason be given. Which is the general Evasion of them all, from any express Testimony of Scripture. The words MAY have another sense, therefore nothing from them can be concluded; whereby they have left nothing stable, or unshaken in Christian Religion; and yet wipe their mouths, and say they have done no evil.  
But now least any one should say, that they can see no reason 
§. 21.  why Christ should be called the son of God, because he was so conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a peculiar manner, and more eminently, then in respect of any other, be called the Father of Christ, to prevent any objection that on this hand might arise, Smalcius gives an account whence this is,& why God is called the Father of Christ, and what he did in his Conception; which, for the Abomination of it, I had rather you should hear in his words then in mine. In his answer to the second part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. 17, 18. he contends to manifest, and make good, that Christ was the son of God according to the flesh, in direct opposition to that of the Apostle, He was of the seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the son of God, &c. Rom. 1. 3, 4. He says then cap. 18. p. 156. Socinus affirmat Deum in generatione Christi vices patris supplevisse.— but how I pray? why! Satis est ad ostendendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si ostendatur, Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in generatione hoins ex parte viri, ad hominem producendum adjeci solet: but what is that, or how is that done? Nos Dei virtutem in Virginis uterum aliquam substantiam creatam vel immisisse, aut ibi creasse affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione& nativitate proprie non fuisset. cap. 17. pag. 150. Very good, unless this abominable sigment may pass current, Christ was not the son of God. Let the Reader observe by the way, that they cannot but aclowledge Christ to have been, and to have been called the son of God in a most peculiar manner: To avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that therefore he is God, of the same substance with his Father, They only have this shift, to say he is called the Son of God, upon the account of that, whereof there is not the least tittle, nor word in the whole book of God; yea which is expressly contrary to the Testimony thereof;& unless this be granted they affirm that Christ cannot be called the Son of God. But let us hear this great Rabbi of M. B's religion a little farther clearing up this mystery. Necessitas magna fuit, ut Christus ab initio vitae suae esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non suisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum suisset, quod ad constituendum Christi corpus, una cum Mariae Sanguine concurrit. Mansit sit autem nihilominus sanguis Mariae Virginis purissimus; etiansi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo purius seemen, a Deo creari,& proculdubis creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis Mariae. Communis deni● sensus,& fides Christianorum omnium, quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit; primum, communis error censendus est, si sacris literis repugnet: Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt, factle cum ipsa a veritate conciliari potest, ut scilicet seemen illud, quod a Deo creatum,& cum semine Mariae conjunctum fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro profectum sit, vel ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam opinantur, qui seemen Josephi translatum in Virginis uterum credunt. cap. 18. pag. 158. And thus far are men arrived. unless this horrible sigment may be admitted, Christ is not the son of God. He who is the true God and eternal Life, will one day pled the cause of his own glory against these men.  
I insist somewat the more on these things, that men may judge 
§. 22.  the better, whether in all probability M. Biddle in his impartial search into the Scripture, did not use the help of some of them that went before him, in the discovery of the same things, which He boasts himself to have found out.  
And this is the first reason which our Catechist hath taken 
§. 23.  from his Masters, to communicate to his Schollers, why Jesus Christ is called the son of God. This He and they insist on, exclusively to his eternal Sonship, or being the son of God, in respect of his eternal generation of the substance of his Father.  
The other causes which they assign, why he is called the 
§. 24.  son of God, I shall very briefly point unto. By the way that hath been spoken of, they say he was the son of God; the natural son of God. But they say he was the son of God, before he was God. He grew afterward to be a God by degrees as he had those Graces, and excellencies, and that power given him, wherein his God-head 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 
Nee enim omni tempore quo Christus Filius Dei fuit, Deus etiam svit. Filium enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem etiam- referri,& ob ortum ipsum aliquem Dei Filium appellari posse nemo non intelligit. At deum( praeter unum illum deum) nemo esse potest, nisi propter similitudinem cum deo. Itaque tunc cum Christus deo similis factus esse● per drvinas quae in ipso erant qualitates, summo jure eatenus dei Filius, qua deus,& vicissim eatenus deus, qua dei Filius: At ante obtentam illam cum deo similitudinem deus propriè dici non potuit. small. Respon. ad Smiglec. Cap: 17. P: 154.  He was the son of God. To be the son of God, is referred, to his birth, and all understand how one may be called the son of God, for his birth or original But God none can be( besides that one God) but for his likeness to God, So that when Christ was made like God, by the divine. Qualities which were in him, he was most rightly so far the son of God, as he was God, and so far God, as he was the son of God. But before he had obtained that likeness to God, properly he could not be said to be God.  
And these are some of those monstrous sigments which under 
§. 25.  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 more 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 M. B's conceit, being all made in the Image and likeness of God, which( says he) by sin we have not lost.  
But what kind of Sonship is added to Christ by all these excellencies, 
§. 26.  whereby he is made like to God? The same author tells us, that it is a Sonship by adoption, and that Christ on these accounts was the adopted son of God. If( saith he) what is the signification of this word[ adoptivus] may be considered 
Si quae fit vocabuli Adoptivus significatio ex mente sacrarum literarum consideretur, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivum dei Filium. Quia enim adoptivi Filii ea est conditio& proprietas, ut talis non fit natus qualis factus est post adoptionem; certe quia Christus talis natura, vel in ipsa conceptione& nativitate non fuit, qualis postea svit, aelate accident, sine injuria adoptivus dei Filius eo modo dici potest. Smalci. ad Smiglec. c. 20 p. 175.  the signification of this word[ adoptivus] may be considered from the Scripture, we deny not but that Christ in this manner may be called the adopted son of God. Seeing that such is the property and condition of an adopted son that he is not born such as he is afterward made by adoption; certainly seeing that Christ was not such by nature, or in his conception and nativity as he was afterward in hs succeeding age, he may justly on that account be called the adopted Son of God. Such miserable plunges doth satan drive men into, whose eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel should not shine into them. And by this we may understand whatever they add farther concerning the Sonship of Christ: That all belongs to this Adoptive Sonship, whereof there is not one tittle in the whole book of God.  
The reasons they commonly add, why in this sense Christ 
§. 25.  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, 
Filium Dei unigenitum esse docent, tum propter Sanctificationem, ac missionem in mundum, tum axaltationem ad dei dextram; adeout factum dominum& deum nostrum affirmant, Compendi. relic. cap. 1. pag. 2. ( say the Authors of the Compendium of the Religion before mentioned) because God sanctified him, and sent Him into the world, and because of his exaltation at the right hand of God, whereby he was made our Lord and God.  
If the Reader desire to hear them speak in their own words, let him consult Smalcius de vera Divinit. Jes. Christ. cap. 7. &c. Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum quatuor antecedent. Resut. Disput. de Christi natur a pag. 14, 15. Adversus Weickum p. 224, 245.& passim. Volkel. devera Religi. lib. 5. cap. 10, 11, 12. Jonas Schlict. ad Meisner. p. 192, 193. &c. Especially the same person, fully and distinctly opening and declaring the minds of his 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 Hebrewes p. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. as also his notes upon Vechnerus his Sermon on Joh. 1. pag. 14. &c. Anonym. Respon. ad centum argumenta Cichorii Jesuitae pag. 8, 9. 10. Confessio Fidei Christianae, edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polonia. pag. 24, 25.  
Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of Christs Filiation under four heads.  
The first way( saith he) whereby Christ is in the Scriptures 
Primus mo●us est, quia qu●tenus homo ex Spiritu dei Sancto conceptus est,& 〈◇〉 virgin natus est: nec dubium mihi est, quin ob hune modum, deus etiam {αβγδ} vecetur Pater domini nostri Jesu Christi. Secundus modus est, quia Iesus Christus ratione muneris illius, quod a patre speciali manda●o impositum ei fuit, at Re● Israelis esset, promissas ille per Prophetas,& praevisus ante secala Filias dei vocatur. Fertius modus est, quia a patre ex mortuis in vitam immortalem suscitatus,& quoddle, exuter● terrae, nullo, mediant master, denu● genit●● est.& Quartus. modus est, quia Iesus Christus ex morte suscitatus, hares ex ass constitutus est in domo patris sui, ac proinde bonorum omnium caelestium,& patris sui ministrorum omnium ●ive Angelorum dominus. Episcop. Institu. Theolog. lib. 4. cap. 33, S. 2. p. 195.  {αβγδ} called the son of God, is in that as man he was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a Virgin. And I doubt not( saith he) but that God is on this ground called eminently the Father of our Lord Christ.  
2. Jesus Christ by reason of that Duty or office which was imposed on him by his Father, that he should be the King of Israel promised by the Prophet, is called the son of God.  
3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an immortal life, and as it were born again from the womb of the Earth, without the help of any Mother.  
4. Because being so raised from death, he is made complete heir of his Fathers house,& Lord of all his Heavenly goods, Saints, and Angels. The like he had written before in his Apology for the Remonstrants cap. 2. Sect. 2.  
Thus He, evidently and plainly from the Persons before name. 
§. 28.  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. He answers himself: there is, namely, his eternal Generation of the Father; His being God of God from all Eternity, 
Insti. Theol. lib. 4. Sect. 2. c. 33. p. 335.  which he pursues with sundry Arguments; And yet in the close disputes, that the acknowledgement of this Truth is not fundamental, or the denial of it exclusive of Salvation. So this great reconciler of the Arminian and Socinian Religions, whole composition and unity, into an opposition to them whom he calls Galvinists, is the great design of his theological, institutions, and such at this day is the aim of Curcullaeus,& some others. By the way I shall desire,( before I answer what he offers to confirm his Assignation of this four fold manner of Filiation to Jesus Christ) to ask this learned Gentleman( or these of his mind who do survive him) this one Question seeing that Jesus Christ was from eternity the Son of God, and is called so after his Incarnation, and was on that account in his whole person the son of God, by their own confessions, what tittle he or they can find in the Scripture of a manifold Filiation of Jesus Christ, in respect of God his Father, or 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 
§. 29.  have to do, and from whom our Catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I shall briefly do these two things.  
1. show that the Filiation 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.  
2. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was called the son of God upon any other account, but that mentioned; and therein answer what by M. B. or others is objected to the contrary.  
3. To which I shall add Testimonies& Arguments for the Deity of Christ, whose opposition is the main business of that new Religion, which M. Biddle would catechize poor unstable souls into, in the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.  
For the demonstration of the first Assertion, I shall insist on some few of the Testimonies and Arguments, that might be produced 
§. 30.  for the same purpose.  
1. He who is the True, Proper, only begotten son of God, of the 
§. 31.  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 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, saving, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, Math. 3. 17. Thou, art Christ the son of the Living God, Math. 16. 16.& John 6. 6.  
Which place in matthew is the rather remarkable, because it is 
§. 32.  the Confession of the Faith of the Apostle, given in in answer to that question, who do you say that I the son of man am? They answer, the son of the Living God. And this in opposition to them, who said he was a Prophet, or as one of the Prophets, as mark expresses it, cap. 6. 15. that is, only so. And the whole Confession manifests, that they did in it aclowledge both his Office of being the mediator, and his divine nature, or person also. Thou art the Christ, those words comprise all the causes of Filiation, insisted on by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of the Mediation of Christ, but yet hereunto they add, the son of the Living God: expressing his divine nature, and Sonship on that account.  
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given is an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Iesus Christ, this is the true God,& eternal Life, joh. 5. 20. He spared not his own son, Rom. 8. 32. And the word was made flesh, and dwelled amongst us, and we saw his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten son of God. joh. 1. 14. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him, v. 18.— Said also, That God was his Father, making himself equal with God 1 joh. 5. 18. So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, joh. 3. 16. In this was manifest the Love of God, that he sent his only begotten son into the world, 1 joh. 4. 9. Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. &c. All which places will be afterwards vindicated at large.  
To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two 
§. 34.  of these instances.  
1. He who is {αβγδ}, the proper son of any, is begotten of the substance of his Father 〈◇〉 Christ is; the proper. son of God: and God he called of ten {αβγδ} 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 {αβγδ}, whereby Christ is distinguished, from that kind of Sonship, 
§. 35. Grot. Annot. Joh. ●8.  which the Jews laid claim unto. Now the Sonship they laid claim unto, and enjoyed so many of them, as were truly so, was by Adoption. For to them pertained the Adoption, Rom. 9. 4. wherein this emphasis then,& specially of Christs Sonship should consist, but in what we assert of his natural Sonship, cannot be made to appear. Grotius says it is, because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah. True, but on what account? Not that common of Adoption, but this of Nature, as shall afterwards appear.  
again, he who is properly a son, is distinguished from him who is metaphorically so only. For any thing what ever 
§. 36.  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 metaphoricall son of God, by way of Allusion, and cannot be called the proper son of God, being only one who hath but a similitude to a proper son. So that it is a plain contradiction, that Christ should be the proper son of God, and yet not be begotten of his Fathers Essence. Besides, in that 8th of the Romans, the Apostle had before mentioned other sons of God, who became so by Adoption, v. 15, 16. but when he comes to speak of Christ, in opposition to them, he calls Him Gods 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 noe other Reason of 
§. 37.  this Appellation. And this is farther clear from the Antithesis, of this only begotten, to adopted: They are Adopted Sons who are received to be such by grace and favour. He is only begotten, who alone is begotten of the substance of his Father. Neither can any other reason be assigned, why Christ should so constantly, in way of distinction from all others, be called the only begotten son of God. It were even ridiculous to say, that Christ were the only begotten son of God, and his proper son, if He were His son only metaphorically and improperly. That Christ is the proper, only begotten son of God, improperly and metaphorically, is that which is asserted to evade these Testimonies of Scripture. add hereunto, the emphatical discriminating significancy of that voice from Heaven, this is He, that well beloved son of ●ine; and that Testimony which in the same manner Peter gave to this sonship of Christ in his Confession, thou art the son of the Living God, and the ground of Christs 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.  
2. The same Truth may have farther evidence given unto 
§. 38.  it, from the consideration of what kind of son of God Jesus Christ is. He who is such a son as is equal to his Father in Essence and properties; He is a son begotten of the Essence of his Father. Nothing can give such an Equality, but a Communication of Essence. Then, with God Equality of Essence can alone give Equality of Dignity, and Honour. For between that Dignity, Power, and Honour, which belongs to God, as God, and that Dignity or Honour, that is, or may be given to any other, there is no proportion, much less Equality, as shall be evidenced at large afterwards. 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, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God, Joh. 5. 17, 18. v. 17. having called God his Father, in the particular manner before mentioned, and affirmed to himself an equal nature, and power for operation with his Father, the Iewes thence infer, that he testified of himself, that he was such a son of God, as that he was equal with God.  
The full opening of this place at large is not my present business. The Learned Readers know where to find that done to their 
§. 36. Sibi licere praedicans quicquid de● licet; neque magis Sabbato adstringi. Grassa Calumnia. Grot. Annot. Joh. 5. 18.  hand. The intendment of those words is plain& evident. Grotius expounds {αβγδ}; by, it was lawful for him to do what was so to God, and that he was no more bound to the Sabbath then he Which( saith he) was a gross calumn). So v. 19. 
Comparatie est sumpta a di scipulo sibi qui magistrum praeeumtem diligenter intuetur, ut imitari posser.  those words of our Saviour; The son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do( wherein the emphasis lies evidently in the words {αβγδ}, for the son can do nothing of himself, but what the Father doth, seeing he hath his Essence, and so consequently will, and Power communicated to him by the Father) He renders to be an Allusion to, and comparison between a Master and scholar: as the scholar hoo●es diligently to what his master doth, and strives to imi●●● him: so was it with Christ and God; which exposition was the very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place, as Maldona● upon the place makes appear. That it is not an equal licence with the Father, to work on the Sabbath, but an equality of Essence, Nature, and Power between Father and son, that the Jews concluded from the saying of Christ, is evident on this consideration; that there was no strength in that plea of our Saviour, of working on the Sabbath day, because his Father did so, without the violation of the Sabbath, unless there had been an equality between the Persons working. That the Iewes did herein caldmnidie Christ, or accused him falsely, the Tritheits said indeed, as Zanchius testifyes; and Socinus 
Zanchius de Tribus Elo. him. lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 151.  is of the same mind; whose Interest G●o●i●● chiefly serves in his Annotations. But the whole context and carriage of the business, with the whole Reply of our Saviour, do abundanly manifest, that the Iewes, as to their collection, were in the Bight, that he made himself such a son of God, as was equal to him.  
For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken,& so had ca●uniniated 
§. 40.  Christ; There be two grand causes, why He should have delivered them from that mistake, by expounding to them what manner of Son of God He was. First, because of the just scandal they might take at what he had spoken, apprehending 
Notemus igitur Christum Judaeos tanquam in verborum suorum intelligentia hallucinatos minime reprehendeniē se naturalem Dei Filium clear professum esse. Deinde, quod isto modo colligunt Christum se Deo aequalem facere recte fe●erun●; nec ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re ●anta nos errare non fuit passus. Cartwrightus Har. evan. in Loc.  that to be the sense of his words, which they professed. Secondly, because on that account they sought to slay him, which if they had done, He should by his death have born witness to that which was not true. They se●g●t to kill Him, because He made himself such a son of God, as by that sonship He was equal to God; which if it were not so, there was a necessity incumbent on him, to have cleared himself of that aspersion: which yet he is so far from, as that in the following verses, he farther confirms the same thing.  
So he thought it not Robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2. 6. 
§. 41.  It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as the Father; as it appears in the winding up of that Discourse, v. 1. 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 
§. 42.  one. joh. 10. 30 Which the Iewes again instantly interpret without the least reproof from him, that he being man, did yet aver himself to be God, v. 33.  
This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands by Grotius, though with no better success then the former. {αβγδ} 
§. 43. Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus. Si patris Potestati eripi non poterunt, nec meae poterunt. Nam potestas mea a patre emanat,& quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me aut a patre custodiri. vid. Gen. 41. 25, 27.  {αβγδ}. He joineth what he had spoken, with what went before:( saith he) if they cannot be taken from my Fathers power, they cannot be taken from mine; For I have my power of my Father, so that it is all to be kept of me, as of my Father: which he intends( as I suppose) to illustrate by the example of the power that joseph had under pharaoh, Gen. 41. though the verse he intend be false printed. But that it is an Unity of Essence, and Nature, as well as an a like Prevalency of power that our Saviour intends, 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 these words, which is given us in our Saviours following discourse. For v. 16. He tells us, this is as much as if he had said, I am the son of God. Now the unity between Father and son, is in Essence, and Nature principally:& then that he doth the works of the Father, the same works that his Father doth, v. 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, v. 38. of which words before, and afterwards.  
He then( that we may proceed) who is so the son of God, 
§. 44.  as that he is one with God, and therefore God, is the natural and eternal son of God; but that such a son is Jesus Christ, is thus plentifully testified unto, in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on sundry other places to prove the Deity of Christ, which also all confirm the Truth under demonstration, I shall here pass them by. The evidences of this Truth from scripture do so abound, that I shall but only mention some other heads of Arguments, that may be, and are commonly insisted on to this purpose. Then  
3. He who is the son of God, begotten of his Father, 
§. 45.  by an eternal communication of his divine Essence, He is the son begotten of the Essence of the Father. For these terms are the same, and of the same importance. But this is the description of Christ as to his Sonship, which the Holy Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the Father according to his own Testimony; Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. And he is the only begotten Son of God, Joh. 1. 14, And that he is so begotten by a communication of Essence, we have His own Testimony, when there were no hills I was brought forth, Prov. 8. 28. He was begotten and brought forth from Eternity. And how He tells you farther. joh. 5. 26. The Father hath given unto the Son to have life in himself. It was by the Fathers Communication of life unto him, and His living Essence or Substance; for the Life that is in God, differs not from his being: And all this from Eternity. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, 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 Mountaines were settled, before the Hills were brought forth, &c. Prov. 8. 22. &c. to the end of v. 32. And thou Bethlehem-Ephratah,— out of thee shall come forth unto me, he that is to be Ruler in Israel: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Mich. 5. 2. In the beginning was the Word Joh. 1. 1. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was, Joh. 17. 5. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world he saith, &c. Heb. 1. 6, &c.  
4. The farther description which we have given us of this son, makes it yet more evident. He is the brightness of his 
§. 46.  Fathers Glory, and the express image of his person. Heb. 1. 3. The image of the invisible God. Col. 1. 15. That Christ is the essential Image of his Father,& not an accidental Image; an Image so as no Creature is, or can be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on another occasion in this Treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the vindication of those Texts from the gloss of Grotius is also remitted.  
And this may suffice( without insisting upon what more 
§. 47.  might be added) for the demonstration of the first Assertion; that Christs Filiation ariseth from his eternal Generation; or He is the son of God, upon the account of his being begotten of the Essence of his Father from Eternity.  
2. That he is, and is termed the son of God, solely on 
§. 48.  this account, and not upon the Reasons mentioned by M. 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 
§. 49.  the Socinians, 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 Scripture: calling Him the Son of God in respect of his divine nature, in opposition to the Flesh, or his human nature, &c. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be Son of God with Power, Ro. 1. 2, 3. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. The same distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. 13. 4. 1 Pet. 3. 18. If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the son of David, in Contradistinction to the son of God, then doubtless he is not called the son of God according to the flesh: but this is the plain assertion of the Scripture in the places before name. Besides, on the same reason that Christ is the son of man, on the same He is not the son of God. But Christ was, and was called the son of man, upon the account of his Conception of the substance of his Mother, and particularly the son of David; and so is not on that account the son of God.  
Farther, That place of Rom. 1. 3, 4. passing not without some Exceptions, as to the sense insisted on, may be farther cleared, 
§. 50.  and vindicated. Jesus Christ is called the son of God, v. 1, 3. The gospel of God, concerning his son Iesus 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 {αβγδ}, in power or existing in the power of God: For so {αβγδ} put absolutely doth often signify; as Rom. 1. 20. Math. 6. 13. and chap. 26. 64. Luk. 4. 36. He had, or was, in the omnipotency of God: and was this declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in which he was made of a woman, but, {αβγδ}( which is opposed to {αβγδ}) 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 {αβγδ}. himself is called {αβγδ} Dan. 9. 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, {αβγδ}, by the( 〈◇〉 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) 
§. 51.  every ston, and heaves at every word; but in vain( 1.) {αβγδ}, He tells is as much as {αβγδ}; as by the vulgar latin it is translated, praedestinatus. So he pleads it was interpnted by many of the Ancients. The places he quotes were most of them collected by Beza, in his Annotations on the place; who yet rejects their Judgement therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luk. 22. 22. Acts 10. 42. Act. 17. 31. are also urged by him to evince this sense of the word: in each of which places it may be rendered declared, or to declare; and in neither of them ought to be by predestinated. Though the word may sometimes signify so, swhich is not proved) yet that it here doth so will not follow: {αβγδ}, a definition( from whence that word comes) declares what a thing is, makes it known. And {αβγδ} may best be rendered to declare Heb. 4. 7. So in this place: {αβγδ}; says Chry●ostome 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 mans Exposition of this place is admirable. 
§. 52.  Jesus( saith he) is many ways said to be the son of God.[ This is begged in the beginning, because it 
Jesus Filius Dei multis modis dicitur. maxim popula riter, ideo quod in regnum ae Deo evectus est; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad regnum pervenit, Christo aptantur. Act. 13. 33. & ad Haebreos 1. 5. Haee autem Filii, sieve regia dignitas Jesu praedestinabatur& praefigurabatur tum cum mortalem agens vitam magnae illa signae& prodigia ederet, quae {αβγδ} voice denotantur, saepe& singularites {αβγδ} ut Mar. 6. 5.& 9. 39. Luk. 4. 36. v. 17. 6. 19. 8. 46. 9. 1. Act. 13. 12. Haec signa edebat Iesus, per spiritum illum sanctitatis, id est, vim divinam, per quam ab initio conceptionis sanctificatus fuerat. Luk. 1. 35. Mark. 28. Joh. 9. 36. Ostenditur ergo Iesus nobilis ex maternae parte, utpote ex rege terreno ortus; said nobilior ex paternae parte, quip a Deo factus Rex caelestis post Resurrectionem. Grot. Annot. in Rom. 1. vers. 3, 4.  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 Testimony from Scripture, and take his whole interpretation. The son of God, as mediator, was exalted to a kingdom, and made a Prince and Saviour. But that, by that Exaltation, he was made the son of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved: yea, it is most false.] He goes on: In that sense the words of the second psalm were spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdom, which are applied to Christ, Act. 13. 33. Heb. 1. 5.[ But it is not proved that these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the type; nor any of the words from v. 7. to the end of the psalm. If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the manifestation, not constitution of him: and so they are applied to our Saviour when they relate to his Resurrection, as one who was thereby manifested to be the son of God, according as God had spoken of him.] But now how was Christ Predestinated to this sonship? This Kingly dignity, or the dignity of a son, of Iesus, was predestinated and prefigured, when leading a mortal life, he wrought signs and wonders which is the sense of the words {αβγδ}.[ The first sense of the word {αβγδ} 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, foreappointing things to their end: neither can this learned man give one instance from the Scripture of any other signification of the word. And how comes now {αβγδ} to be presigured. Is there the least colour for such a sense? Predestinated to be the son of God with power: that is, The sign he wrought presigured that he should be exalted to a kingdom. He was by them in a good towardlinesse for it. It is true, {αβγδ} and sometimes {αβγδ}, being in construction with some transitive verb, do signify great or marvelous works: but that {αβγδ}, spoken of one declared to be so, hath the same signification is not proved. He adds, These signs Iesus did by the spirit of Holinesse, that is, that divine efficacy wherewith he was sanctified from the beginning of his Conception Luk. 1. 35. Mark. 2. 8. Joh. 9. 36.[ In the two latter places there is not one word to the purpose in hand, perhaps he intended some other, and these are false printed. The first shall be afterwards considered. How it belongs to what is here asserted, I understand not. That Christ wrought miracles by the efficacy of the grace of the Spirit, with which he was sanctified, is ridiculous. If by the Spirit is understood his spiritual divine naure; This whole interpretation falls to the ground.] To make out the sense of the words he proceeds, Iesus therefore is shewed to be noble on the mothers side, as coming of an earthly King, but more noble on his Fathers part; being made a heavenly King of God after his resurrection. Heb. 5. 9. Act. 2. 30.& 26. 23,[ And thus is this most evident Testimony of the Deity of Christ cluded, or endeavoured to be so. Christ on the Mothers side was the son of David, that is, according to the flesh, of the same nature with her and him. On the Fathers 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 an heavenly King, is an hellish sigment. Neither is there any one word or tittle in the Texts cited to prove it: that it is a marvel to what end they are mentioned, one of them expressly affirming, that He was the Son of God before his Resurrection Heb. 5. 8, 9.  
2. He who was actually the Son of God, before his Conception, 
§. 53.  Nativity, Endowment with power, or exaltation, is not the Son of God on those accounts, but on that only, which is antecedent to them. Now by virtue of all the Arguments& Testimonies before recited, as also of all those that shall be produced for the proof and evincing of the eternal Deity of the son of God, the proposition is unmoveably established, and the inference evidently follows thereupon.  
But yet the proposition as laid down may admit of farther 
§. 54.  confirmation at present. It is then testified to, Prov. 30. 4. What is his name, and what is his sons name, if thou canst tell? He was therefore the son of God, and he was incomprehensible, even then before his Incarnation. Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Isa. 9. 6. Unto us a son is born, unto us a Child is given, and the Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. He is a son, as he is the everlasting Father. And to this head of testimonies belongs what we urged before from Prov. 8. 24. &c. He is the Image of the invisible God, the first born of every Creature, Col. 1. Which surely as to his Incarnation he was not, Before Abraham was I am. Joh. 8. 58. But of these places in the following Chapter I shall speak at large.  
3. Christ was so the Son of God, that he that was made like 
§. 55.  Him was to be without Father, Mother, or Genealogy, Heb. 7. 3. Without Father, without Mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like the Son of God. But now Christ in respect of his Conception& nativity, had a Mother,& one( they say) that supplied the room of Father, had a Genealogy that is upon record, and beginning of life, &c. 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 
§. 56.  cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which gives it, its being. The manifestation of it is only that which declares it to be so. That all the things insisted on, as the causes of Christs Filiation, by them with whom we have to do, did only declare& manifest him so to be, who was the Son of God, the Scripture witnesseth. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God. Luk. 1. 35. He shall be called so being thereby declared to be so. And great is the Mystery of godliness, God was manifested in the flesh, levied in the spirit, seen of Angells, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory 1 Tim. 3 16. All the causes of Christs Filiation, assigned by our Adversaries, are evidently placed as manifestations of God in him; or his being the son of God: Declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of Holinesse, by the Resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 3. The Absurdity of assigning distinct,& 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 Holinesse, 
§. 57.  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 
Praelect. cap. 8, 9, 10.  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 then we do, viz. by hearing the Word, learning the Mind, and doing the Will of God.( 3.) God did not give his only begotten son for us, but gave the son of Mary, that he might( by all that which we supposed he had done for us) be made the son of God. And so( 4) This sending of Christ doth not so much commend the Love of God to us, as to him, that he sent him to die& rise, that he might be made God,& the son of God. Neither( 5.) can any eximious love to us of Christ, be seen in what he did& suffered; for had he not done and suffered what he did, he had not been the son of God. And also( 6.) if Christ be on the account of his excellencies, Groces, and Gifts, the son of God, which is one way of his Filiation insisted on, and to be God, and the son of God, is as they say all one; and as it is indeed; then all who are renewed to the Image of God, and are thereby the sons of God( as are all believers) are Gods also.  
And this that hath been spoken, may suffice for the confirmation of the second Assertion, laid down at the entrance of this discourse.  
To the farther confirmation of this Assertion, two things are to be annexed. First, the Eversion of that fancy of Episcopius, 
§. 58.  before mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians, that Christ is called the son of God, both on the account of his eternal sonship, and also of those other particulars mentioned from him above. 2. To consider the texts of Scripture produced by M. B. for the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the Son of God, because of his eternal Generation of the Essence of his Father. The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing Arguments.  
1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may be 
§. 59.  renewed. For if Christ be the son of God, partly upon the account of his eternal Generation, and so he is Gods proper and natural son, and partly upon the other accounts mentioned. Then  
1. He is partly Gods natural Son, and partly his adopted Son; partly his eternal Son, partly a temporary Son; partly a begotten Son, partly a ma●e Son. Of which distinction in reference to Christ, there is not one Iota in the whole Book of God.  
2. He is made the 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 divers 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 Christs Filiation, as causes in, and of the same kind; but expressly 
§. 60.  makes the one the sole cause constituting,& 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.  
There remaineth only the consideration of those Texts of scripture, which M. Biddle produceth to insinuate the Filiation 
§. 61.  of Christ to depend on other causes, and not his eternal Generation of the Essence of his Father, which on the principles laid down and proved, will receive a quick and speedy dispatch.  
The first place name by him, and universally insisted on by the whole tribe, is Luk. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. It is the last 
§. 62.  verse only that I suppose weight is laid upon. Though M. B. name the others, his Masters never do so. That of v. 33. seems to deserve our notice in M. Biddles judgement, who changes the character of the words of it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are: Thou shalt conceive in thy 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 M. B. supposes may be proved from hence, at least how he would prove what he aims at, I know not. That Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was the son of the Highest, we contend. On what account He was so, the place mentioneth not; but the reason of it is plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been declared.  
The words of v. 35. are more generally managed by them. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
§. 63.  overshadow thee; therefore also the holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God. But neither do these particles, {αβγδ}, render a reason of Christs Filiation, nor are a note of the Consequen●, but only of an inference or consequence, that ensues from what he spake before. It being so as I have 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: {αβγδ}: that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee. {αβγδ} is not spoken in the concrete, or as an Adjective, but substantively, and points out the natural Essence of Christ, whence he was that Holy thing. Besides, if this be the cause of Christs 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 
§. 64.  of Isaiah should be accomplished, which you have Chap. 7. 14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name immanuel: as the express words of v. 31. in Luke declare; being the same with these of the prophecy, Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call &c. v. 31, 32. And Mat. 1. 21. this very thing being related, it is said expressly to be done according to what was foretold by the Prophet, v. 33. repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah foretelleth two things. First, that a Virgin should conceive. 2. That he that was so conceived should be Immanuel, God with us: or the son of God, as Luke here expresses it. And this is that which the Angel here acquaints the blessed Virgin withall upon her enquiry v. 34. even that according to the prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive, and bare a son, though a Virgin, and that that son of hers should be called the son of God.  
By the way, Grotius his dealing with this Text, both in his Annotations on Isa. 8. as also in his large discourse on Math. 1. 21, 22, 23. is intolerable, and full of offence, to●all that seriously weight it. It is too large here to be insited 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& leisure, farther to lay open the heap of Abominations, which are couched in those Learned Anotations throughout. Which also appears,  
3. From the Emphaticallnesse of the expression {αβγδ} even 
§. 65.  also, that holy Thing which is born of thee, even that shall be called the son of God; and not only that eternal Word that is incarnate. That {αβγδ}, being in itself {αβγδ}, 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 Christs Filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the Virgins 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 
§. 66.  Christ was compleately 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 
Consta● igitur( ut ad propositum revertamur,) Christum anto resurrectionem Dei Filium plene& perfect non fuisse: cum illi& immortalitatis& absoluti dominii cum deo similitudo deesset. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekum. pag. 225.  his Resurrection was not fully and completely the son of God: being like God before in immortality and absolute rule.  
M. Biddles next place, whereby the Sonship of Christ is placed 
§. 66.  on another account, as he supposes, is Joh. 10. 36. Say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God.  
That this Scripture is called to remembrance not at all to M. B's advantage will speedily appear. For  
1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or 
§. 67.  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 20 times in that Gospel, He who is sent of the Father. This is all that is in this place asserted, that he whom the Father 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 
§. 68.  such a son of God, as the Jews charged him with blasphemy, for affirming of himself that he was. For He justifies himself against their accusation; Not denying in the least, that they rightly apprehended and understood him, but maintaining what He had spoken to be most true. Now this was that which the Jews charged him withall, v. 33. that He being man, blasphemed in making himself God. For so they understood Him, that in asserting his Sonship, he asserted also his Deity. This Christ makes good, namely that he is such a son of God, as is God also. Yea he makes good what he had said, v. 30. which was the foundation of all the following discourse about his blasphemy: I and my Father are one. So that  
3. An invinsible Argument for the Sonship of Christ, to 
§. 69.  be placed only upon the account of his eternal Generation, ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose it. He who is the son of God, because he is one with the Father, and God equal to him, is the 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 wit●nesse to the Jews, although they are ready to ston him for it. And of his not biaspheming in this Assertion, be convinces his Adversaries by an Argument a minori, vers. 34, 35.  
A brief Analysis of this place will give evidence to this Interpretation of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given 
§. 70.  the Reason, why the Jews believed not on him, namely because they were not of his sheep, v. 26. describes thereupon both the nature of those Sheep of his v. 27. And their condition of safety v. 28. This he faerther confirms from the Consideration of his Fathers greatness and power, which is amplified by the comparison of it with others, who are all less them He, v. 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, v. 30. The Effect of this discourse of Christ by Accident, is the Jews taking up of stones, which is amplified by this, that it was the second time they did so and that to this purpose, that they might ston him, v. 31. Their folly and madness herein Christ disproves with an Argument ab absurds; telling them, that it must be for some good work that they stoned him, for evil he had done 〈◇〉. v. 32. This the Jews attempt to disprove, by a new Argument a disparati●, telling him that it was not for a good work, but for blasphemy, that he made himself to be God, whom they would prove to be but a man, v. 33. This pretence of Blasphemy Christ disproves( as I said before) by an Argment a mimori v. 35, 36. And with another from the Effects, or the works which he did, which sufficiently proved him to be God, v. 27, 38. Still maintaining what he said and what they thought to be Blasphemy, so that they attempt again to kill him, v. 39. It is evident then, that He still maintained what they charged him with.  
4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent in the Scripture, of Gods sending his son into the world, and that he 
§. 71.  came down from Heaven, and came into the world, J●●. 3. 13. God. 4. 4. All evincing his being the son of God, antecedently to that Mission, or Sanctification, whereby in the world he was declared so to be. Otherwise not the son of God was sent, but one to be his son.  
Act. 13. 32, 33. is also insisted on: We declare unto you glad 
§. 72.  tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfiled the same unto us, their Children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second psalm, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.  
He that can see in this Text, a cause assigned of the Filiation of Christ, that should relate to the Resurrection, I confess is sharper sighted then 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 dyed, 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 
§. 73.  us, that Christ was declared to be the Son of God with Power, by the Resurrection from the dead, Rom. 1. 3. Not that he was made so, but he was declared, or made known to be so. When being crucified through weakness, he lived by the Power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4. Which power also was his own, Joh. 10. 18.  
According as was before intimated, Grotius interprets these 
§. 74. Ego fili hody te genui, id est regem te feci: hoc in Christo impletum, cum ei data omnis potestas in Coelo& in terra. Math. 28. 18. &c. Grot. in Locum.  words, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: I have made thee a King; which( he says) was fulfiled in that, when all power was given him in Heaven and Earth Math. 28. 18. as Justin in his colloquy with Trypho. {αβγδ}. But then he was not the Son of God before his Resurrection: for he was the son of God by his being begotten of him: which as it is false, so contrary to his own gloss on Luk. 1. 35.( 2.) Christ was a King before his Resurrection, and owned himself so to be, as hath been shewed.( 3.) Iustins words are suited to our exposition of this place: He was said to be then begotten, because then he was made known to be so the son of God.( 4.) That these words are not applied to Christ in their first sense, in respect of Resurrection, from the pre-eminence assigned unto him above Angells by virtue of this expression, Heb. 1. 5. which he had before his death, Heb. 1. 6. Nor( 5.) Are the words here used to prove the Resurrection, which is done in the verses following out of Isaiah, and another psalm; And as concerning that he raised him from the dead &c. v. 34. but then  
3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that passage in the psalm, which Paul Act. 13. 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 M. B. intends by the next place mentioned by him, I know not. It is Rev. 1. 5. And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead. That Christ was the first who was raised from the dead, to a blessed and glorious immortality, and is thence called the first begotten of them, or from the dead, and that all that rise to such an immortality, riseafter him, and by virtue of his Resurrection, is most certain and granted; but that from thence he is that only begotten Son of God, though thereby he was only declared so to be, there is not the least tittle in the Text giving occasion to such an apprehension.  
And the same also is affirmed of the following place of Col. 1. 18. where the same words are used again. He is the head of the Church, who is the beginning, {αβγδ}: 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 {αβγδ}, the first born of all the Creation; so that he must surely be 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 before his Resurrection: nay he is so the first born of every creature, as to be 
So that 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 〈◇〉. qui genitus est prior omni creaturâ, vel ante omnem creaturam, forso {αβγδ} sometimes signifies comparatively. Arist: Auibus. {αβγδ} id est {αβγδ}. joh: 1. 15. {αβγδ}( i. e.) {αβγδ}.& 1 joh: 4. 19. {αβγδ}( i. e.) {αβγδ}. His generation was before the creation, indeed eternal. Tertullian saith so too. Lib. de Trinitate, Quomodo primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quia secundum divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre sermo processit.  none of them: for by him they were all created, v. 16. He who is so before all Creatures, as to be none of them, but that they are all created by him, is God blessed for ever: which when our Catechist disproves, he shall have me for one of his Disciples.  
Of the same kind is that which M. Biddle next urgeth from Heb. 1. 4, 5. only it hath this further disadvantage, that both the verses going immediately before, and that immediately following after, do inevitably evince, that the Constitutive cause of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, a priori, is in his participatin of the divine nature, and that it is only manifested by any ensuing Consideration, v. 2, 3. The Holy Ghost tells us, that by him God made the world, who is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as mediator:& v. 6. He brings in the first begotten into the world, and says, let all the Angells of God worship him. He is the first begotten before his bringing into the world; and that this is proved by the latter clause of the verse, shall be afterwards demonstrated. Between both these, much is not like to be spoken against the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Nor is the Apostle only declaring his pre-eminence above the Angells, upon the account of that name of his, the Son of God, which he is called upon record, in the old Testament; but the causes also of that appellatio● he had before declared.  
The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import. 
§. 79.  It is Heb. 5. 5. So Christ also 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. When M. B. proves any thing more towards his purpose from this place, but only that Christ did not of his own accord undertake the office of a mediator, but was designed to it of God his Father, who said unto him, Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee declaring of him so to be, with power after his Resurrection, I shall aclowledge him to have better skill in disputing, then as yet I am convinced he is possessed of.  
And thus have I cleared the eternal Sonship of Jesus 
§. 80.  Christ, and evidenced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein upon any other account: nor doubting; but that all who love him in sincerity, will be zealous of his 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 divers ●ind● inconsistent with one-another, to have had such a Conception& Generation, as modesty forbids to think, or express; not to have been the son of God, until after his death, and the like monstrous figments, I hope He will himself keep his own in an everlasting abhorring of.  
The farther confirmation of the Deity Christ, whereby M▪ Biddles whole design will be obviated, and the vindication of the testimonies where●ewith 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, and will upon the principles already laid down,& insisted on. easily, and in very few words be t●rned aside from prejudicing the eternal Deity of the son of God. His 10th then is,  
What saith the son concerning the prerogative of the Father above him? And answer is given, Joh. 14. 28. Mark. 13. 22. Math. 24. 36. Whereunto is subjoined another of the same; What saith the Apostle Paul? Answ. 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28. 1 Cor. 11. 3.  
The intendment of these questions being the application of what is spoken of Christ, either as Mediator or as man, unto his Person, to the exclusion of any other consideration, viz. that of adivine Nature therein, the whole of M Biddles aim in them is sufficiently already disappointed. It is true, there is an Order, yea a Subordination in the Persons of the Trinity themselves; whereby the son, as to his Personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him; but that is not the Subordination here aimed at by M. B. but that which he underwent by dispensation as Med●atour, or which attends him in respect of his human Nature. All the difficulty that may arise from these kinds of attribution to Christ, the Apostle abundantly salves in the discovery of the rise and occasion of them, Phil. 2. 7●8, 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 then he. And there is no more difficulty in the Questions wherewith M. B. amuses himself and his Disciples, then there was in that, wherewith our Saviour stopped the mouth of the Pharisees, viz. how Christ could be the son of David, and yet his Lord, whom he worshipped? For the places of Scripture in particular urged by M. Biddle Job. 14. 28. says our Saviour, my Father is greater then 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; 
Ide●●utem nusquam Scripture est, quòd Deus paten majer●fit, Spiritu, Sancto 〈◇〉 Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo patre: quia non sie assumpta est creatura in qua appareret S. S. sicut assumptus est Filius. hoins, in qua forma ips●●s Verbi D●i persona praesent●retur. August. lib. 1. de Trinit. cap. ●.  but inaequalitas officii non tollit aequalitatem naturae. A Kings Son is of the same nature with his Father, though he may be employed by him in an inferior office. He that was less then his Father, as to the work of Mediation, being the Fathers servant therein, is equal to him as his son, as God to be blessed for ever, Mark. 13. 32. Math. 24. 36. affirm, that the Father only knows the times and seasons mentioned, not the Angells, nor the son. And yet notwithstanding it was very truly said of Peter to Christ, Lord thou knowest all things, Joh. 22. 17. He that in, and of the knowledge& wisdom, which as man he had, and wherein he grew from his infancy, knew not that day, yet as he knew all things knew it: It was not hidden from him, being the day by him appointed. Let M. Biddle aclowledge, that his knowing all things proves him to be God, and we will not deny, but his not knowing the day of Judgement, proves him to have another capacity, and to be truly man.  

{αβγδ}. Proclus. Episcop. Constan. Epist. ad Armenios.  As man he took on him those Affections, which we call {αβγδ}; amongst which, or consequently unto which, he might be ignorant of some things. In the mean time he who made all times, as Christ did Heb. 1. 2. knew their end, as well as their beginning. He knew the Father, and the day by him appointed; yea all things that the Father hath were his: and in Him were all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hide, Col. 2. 3.  
Paul speaks to the same purpose, 1 Cor: 15. 24, 28. The kingdom 
§. 83.  that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise, is his Oeconomicall mediatory kingdom, which shall have an end put to it, when the whole of his intendment in that work shall be fulfilled, and accomplished. But that He is not also sharer with his Father, in that universal Monarchy, which, as God by nature, he hath over all, this doth not at all prove. All the Argument from this place is but this; Christ shall cease to be mediator, therefore he is not God. And that no more is here intended, is evident from the expression of it: Then shall the son himself be subject; which if it intend any 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. 11. 3.& 3. 22, 23. there is the same reason; both speaking of Christ as Mediator; whence that no Testimony can be produced against his Deity, hath been declared.  
He Adds 12th Q. Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as with the 
§. 84.  title of Lord, so with the title of God in the Scripture? Ans. Thomas saith my Lord, and my God. Verily, if Thomas said, that Christ was his God, and said true, M. B. is to blame, who 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 M. B. made mention of this portion of Scripture, that he might have the honour of cutting his own throat, and destroying his own cause; or rather, that God in his Righteous judgement hath forced him to open his mouth to his own shane. What ever be the cause of it, M. B. is very far from escaping this sword of the Lord, either by his insinuation in the present Quere, or diversion in the following: For the present: it was not the intent of Thomas to dignify Christ with Titles, but to make a 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 M. B. tells us that Christians have but one God, 1. Chap: Qu. 1. Eph. 4. 6. Jesus Christ then being the God of Thomas, he is the Christians one God: if 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 Believers Faith, that in these words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a Believer; Ergo, the only true God; as 1 Joh: 5. 19. M. B. perhaps will tell you, he was made a God; so one Abomination begets another, Infidelity Idolatry: of this afterward. But yet he was not according to his Companions made a God before his Ascention; which was not yet, when Thomas made his solemn Confession.  
Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. 
§. 85.  {αβγδ}. Here first( saith he) in the story of the gospel is this word sound ascribed by the Apostle unto Jesus Christ( which Maldonat before him observed for another purpose) to wit, after he had by his Resurrection proved himself to be him, from whom life and that eternal, ought to be expected. And this custom 
Hic primum 〈◇〉 vox in naturatione Evangeliea reperitur ab apostles Jesu tributa, p●stquim seilicet sun Resurrectione pro●●● erat se esse, a quo ● ita& quidera aeterna, expectari deberet. Mansit de●nde ille mos in Ecclesia, ut apparet ●n rautum in Scriptis Aposiolicis, ut Rom. 9. 5. &c veterum Christianorum ut vide●● est apu● Justimum A●●rty●em contra Triphenem, said& in P●●●ad Trajan●n● Epis●ola, ●●i ait Christianos Christo, ut De●, carmi●a ●ccinisse. Grot. in locu●●.  abode in the Church, as appears not only in the apostolical writings, Rom. 9. 5. and of the Ancient Christians, as may be seen in Just in Martyr against Trypho, but in the Epistle also of Plinie unto Trajane, where he says, that the Christians sang verses to Christ, as to God: or as the words are in the Author, Carmen Christo, quasi Beo, ●icere se●ù invitem. What the intendment of this discourse is, is evident to al those, who are a little exercised in the writings of them, whom out Author al along in his Annototions takes care of. That Christ was now made a God at his Resurrection,& is so called from the power wherewith he was entrusted at his Ascention, is the aim of this discourse. Hence he tells us, it became a custom to call him God among the Christians, which also abode amongst them. And to prove this custom, wrists that of the Apostle Rom. 9. 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 Christs Resurrection to call him God, and ●o continued; though John testify expressly, that he was God 〈◇〉 the beginning. It is true indeed, much is not to be argued from the expression of the Apostles, before the pow●ing out of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance with spiritual things: Yet they had before made this solemn Confession, that Christ was the son of the Living God, Math. 16. 16, 17, 18. which is to the full as much as what is hereby Thomas expressed. That the primitive Christians worshipped Christ, and invocated him, not only as a God, but professing him to be the true God and eternal life, we have better Testimonys then that of a blind Pagan, who knew nothing of them, nor their ways, but by the report of Apostates, as himself confesseth. But Learned men must have leave to make known their Readings, and observations, whatever become of the simplicity of the Scripture.  
To escape the dint of this sword M. Biddle nextly 
§. 86.  Queries.  
Was he so the God of Thomas, as that He himself in the moan time, did not aclowledge another to be his God? Ans. Joh. 20. 17. Revel. 3. 12.  
True, He who being partaker of the divine Essence, in the form of God, was Thomas his 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 M. B. fancies him: but God blessed for ever, in order of subsistence depending on the Father.  
Of the same nature is the last question, viz. Have you any passage in the Scripture, where Christ at the same time hath the Appellation 
§. 87.  of God given to him, and is said to have a God? Ans. Heb. 1. 8, 9.  
By M. B's favour, Christ is not said to have a God, thought God be said to be his God, 2. v. 8. Christ by M. Biddles 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& indeed such is the Christ that M. B. worshippeth. Whither this will be waved by the help of that expression v. 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 fellowes, 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 
§. 88.  without witness, hath produced instances, and evidences of the Truth opposed, abundantly sufficient, without farther enquiry and labour, to discover the sophistry and vanity of all M. Biddles former Queries, and insinuations; for which let him have the praise.    

CHAP. VIII.  
An entrance into the examination of the R●covian catechism, in the business of the Deity of Christ: their Arguments against it Answered: and testimonys of the Eternity of Christ vindicated.  
ALthough the Testimonies& Arguments for the Deity of 
§. 1.  Christ might be urged, and handled to a better advantage, if liberty might be used to insist upon them, in the method that seems most natural for the clearing and confirmation of this important Truth, yet that I may do two works at once, I shall insist chiefly, if not only, on those texts of Scripture, which are proposed to be handled, and answered by the Author, or Authors of the Racovian catechism, which work takes up near one fourth part of their Book, and( and as it is well known) there is no part of it, wherein so much diligence, pains, sophistry, and cunning are employed, as in that Chapter of the Person of Christ, which by Gods assistance we are entering upon the consideration of.  
Those who have considered their writings know, that the very 
§. 2.  substance of al they have to say, for the evading of the force of our Testimonys, 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 Abili●ys, do also know, that their great strength and ability for disputation, lys in giving plausible Answers, and making exceptions against Testimonys, caveling at every word and letter, being in proof and Argument for the most part weak and contemptible. And therefore in this long Chapter of near an 100d 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 
Interpres Lect. Prefat. ad Catech. Raco.  Apollogize for, as unbecoming Catechists.  
I shall then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole Chapter of theirs, in both parts of it; as to what they have to say for themselves, or to pled against the Deity of Christ; as also what they bring forth for their defence against the evidence of 
§. 3.  the light that shineth from the Texts, whose consideration they propose to themselves, to which many of like sort may be added.  
I shall only inform the Reader, that this is a business quiter 
§. 4.  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, 
§. 5.   

Rogatum te velim, ut ●i●i ea de Jesu Christo exponas, quae me scire oporteat?  Declare now to me, what I ought to know concerning Jesus Christ?  
A. Thou must know, that of the things which thou 
Sciondum tibi est, quaedam ad essentiam Jesu Christi, quaedam ad illius munus referri, quae te scire oportet.  oughtest to know, some belong to the Essence of Christ, and some to his office.  
Q. 2. What are they which relate to his Person? 
Quaenam ea sunt, quae ad personam ipsius referuntur●   
A. That only, that by nature he is a true man, even as the Scriptures do often witness: amongst others, 
Id selum, quod natura sit hom● verus, quemadmodum ea de re crebro Scripturae sacrae testantur: inter alias 1 Tim. 2. 5.& 1 Cor. 15. 21 qualemolim Deus per Prophetas promiserat,& qualem etiam esse testatur fidei Symbolum, quod vulgo Apostolicum vocant, quod nobiscum universi Christiani amplectuntur.  1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 21. Such an one as God of old promised by the Prophets, and such as the ●reed, commonly called the Apostles, witnesseth him to be, which with us all Christians embrace.  
Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature like 
§. 6.  unto us, sin only excepted, we believe: and do abhor the abominations of Paracelsus, Wig●lius, &c. and the Pamelists amongst ourselves, who destroy the verity of his human Nature. But that the Socinians believe the same, that he is a man in Heaven, whatever he was upon the 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 ●olly 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, which shall afterward be produced to evince the contrary: our plea from whence shall not here be Anticipated. The places of Scripture they mention prove him to be a true man: that as man he dyed and rose: but that he who was man, was not also in one person God,( The name of man there expressing the person, not the nature of man only,) they prove not. The Prophets foretold that Christ should be such a man, as should also be the son of God, begotten of him Psal. 2. 7. the mighty God, Isa. 9. 6, 7. Jehovah Jerem. 23. 6. The Lord of Hosts, Zech. 2 8, 9. And the Apostles Creed also( as it is unjustly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord, and requires us to believe in him, as we do in God the Father; which if he were not God, were an accursed thing, Jerem. 17. 5. 
§. 7.   
Q. 3. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure( or mere) man? 
Ergo Dominus Iesus est purus homo?   
A. By no means! for he was conceived 
Nullo pacto: etenim est conceptus e Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgin, co●; ab ipsa conceptione& ortu Filius Dei est, ut ea de re Luk. 1. 35. legimus ubi Angelus Ma●iam ita alloquitur: Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, &c. Ut alias causas non afferam, quas post modum in Iesu Christi persona deprehendes, quae evidentissime ostendunt, dominum jesum pro puro homine nullo modo accipi posse.  of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God: as we red Luk. 1. 35. that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt afterward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare, that the Lord Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure( or mere) man.  
1. Ans. But 1. I have abundantly demonstrated, that Christ neither was, nor was called the Son of God, upon the account here mentioned, nor any other intimated in the close of the Answer whatever; but merely and solely, on that of his eternal Generation of the Essence of his Father.  
2. The inquiry is after the Essence of Christ, which receives not any Alteration by any kind of eminency, or dignity that 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 then a man; that is, purus hom●, A mere man, and not {αβγδ} God by nature; but such a God as the Gentiles worshipped Gal: 4. 8. His being made God, and the Son of God, afterward, which our Catechists pretend, relating to Office and Dignity, not to his Nature; exempts him not at all from being a mere man. This then is but a flourish to delude poor simplo souls, into a belief of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of, then the Turkes do of Mahomet; nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, then as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols of the heathen, that they were not Gods by nature, may according to the apprehension of these Catechists be spoken of Christ; notwithstanding any Exaltation or Deification that he hath received; He is by nature no God. Yea the apprehensions of these Gentlemen concerning Christ, and his deity, are the same upon the matter with those of the Heathen, concerning their Worthies and Heroes, who by an {αβγδ} were translated into the number of their Gods; as Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them Gods indeed; but put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but one God, but that these men were honoured, as being upon their great Worth, and Noble achievements, taken up to blessedness and power. Such an Hero, an Hermes, or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ; who for his faithful declaring the will of God, was deified; But, in respect of Essence and nature, which here is enquired after, if he be any thing according to their principles,( of making which supposal I shall give the Reader a faire 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, then that, wherein he was like us in all things, sin only excepted. Heb. 2. 
§. 8.   
Q. 
Dixeras paulo superius Dominum Jesum natura esse hominem, an idem habet naturam divinam?  You said a little above, that the Lord Jesus is by nature man, hath he also a divine nature?  
A. No: for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, 
Nequaquam: nam id non solum rationi sanae, verum etiam Divinis literis repugnat.  but also to the Scriptures.  
But this is that which is now to be put to the trial; whether the Asserting of the deity of Christ be repugnant to the Scriptures or no? and as we shall see in, the issue, that as these Catechists have not been able to answer, or evade the evidence of any one Testimony of Scripture, of more then an hundred, that are produced for the confirmation of the Truth of his eternal Deity, so notwithstanding the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it. For that Right Reason, which in this matter of mere divine Revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence in their disputes against the Person of Christ, above the Scripture, unless they discover the consonancy of it to the Word, to the Law, and Testimonies, what ever they propose on that account, may be rejected with as much facility, as it is proposed. But yet! if by Right Reason, they understand Reason, so far captivated to the obedience of Faith, as to acquiesce in what ever God hath revealed, and to receive it as Truth, then 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 pled, that Reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot disceone the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves regenerate, before we admit them to judge of the Truth of the propositions under 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 undeniable demonstration compel them to) what ever 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. 
§. 9.   
Q. 1. 

Cedo quî rationi sanae repugnat?  
Primo, ad eum modum, quod duae substantiae, proprietatibus adversae, coire in unam personam nequeant, ut sunt, mortalem& immortalem esse, principium habere,& principio career: mutabilem& immutabilem existere.   Declare how it is contrary to Right Reason.  
A. First in this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot meet in one person; such as are, 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 
Deinde, quod duae natu●a●● personam singulae constituentes, in unam personam convenire itidem nequeant; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, atque ita duos Christos existere, quem unum esse,& unam ipsius personam omnes citra omnem controversiam agnoscunt.  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 aclowledge to be one, and his person one.  
And this is all which these Gentlemen offer to make good their Assertion, that the deity of Christ is repugnant to Right Reason; which therefore upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appear.  
1. It is true, that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two substances with such divers Properties, so as by that Union to make an Exequation, or an equalling of those divers properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in one Person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essential Properties, which are so divers, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union, is to beg the thing in Question, against evidence of many express Testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their Requests.  
2. In calling these Properties of the several natures in Christ, adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a consideration of them as of Qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both; or by amixture cause an Exurgency of Qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such Qualities, nor are they inherent in any common sub●ect, but inseparable Adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to Eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the Person, wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading Reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing in this first part of their Answer, but beg the thing in Question; which being of so much importance, and 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. We deny, that the human Nature of Christ had any 
§. 10.  such subsistence of its own, as to give it a proper personality, being from the time of its Conception, assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express Texts of Scripture, Isa: 7. 14. Chap: 9. 6. joh. 1. 14. Rom: 1. 3. Chap. 9. 5. Heb. 2. 15. Luk. 1. 35. Heb. 9. 14. Act. 3. 15. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 2. 8. &c. And by Arguments taken from the assigning of all the divers Properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, &c. That we would take it for granted, that this cannot be, is the modest Request of these Gentlemen with whom we have to do.  
2. If by natures constituting Persons, they mean those, who 
§. 11.  antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one Person; so that upon this union they should cease to be two Persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed, their different Beings could not be preserved. But if by constituting, they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of constituting a Person; then, as before, they only beg of us, that we would not believe, that the Person of the Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that holy thing, that was born of the Virgin, into subsistence with itself; which for the Reasons before mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.  
And this is the substance of all that these men pled, and 
§. 12.  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& buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christs being hungry, and dying, we say, it was in the human nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no less then we, being therein made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. When of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the Office of mediator, which he willingly undertook; and that his Inequality unto him, as to that Office, doth noe way prejudice his Equality with him, in respect of his nature and Being. But when with Scriptures, and Arguments from thence, as clear and convincing, as if they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord Jesus in respect of a divine nature whereof he was partaker from Eternity, to be God blessed for ever: they tell us it cannot be, that two such divers 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. 
§. 13.   

Cum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina& humana constare, quemadmodum homo ex animo& corpore constat, quid illis respondendum?  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 
Permagnum hic esse discrimen: illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, ut Christus fit Deus& homo; anima vero& corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut nec anima, nec corpus ipse homo sit, nec enim anima, nec corpus sigillatim personam constituunt. At ut natura divina per se constituit personam, ita humana constituat pierce, necesse est.  in Christ are so united, that Christ is both God and Man. But the soul and body are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body, nor neither soul nor body do singly of themselves constitute a person. But as the divine nature by its self constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the human nature should do.  
1. R. In what sense it may be said, that Christ, that is, the Person of Christ, consisteth of a divine& human nature, was before declared. The Person of the son of God assumed the human Nature into subsistence with itself, and both, in that one Person are Christ.  
2. If our Catechists have no more to say to the illustration given to the Union of the two Natures in the Person of Christ, by that of the soul and body in one human person, but that there is a great difference in something btween them, they do but filch away the grains that are allowed to every similitude; and show wherein the compara●s 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, either by the loss of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides the Union that is in physical Generation by mixture, whereby, and from whence, some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial union, whereby one thing is not turned into another, nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude,( which to please our Catechists we can forbear, acknowledging, that there is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which we confess without controversy to be a great mystery) is only to manifest the folly of that assertion of their Master on Joh. 1. that if the word be made flesh in our sense, it must be turned into flesh; for saith he, one thing cannot be made another, but by change, conversion, and mutation into it. The Absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced, by the substantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alteration and change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is the word made flesh by Alteration, but by Union.  
4. It is confessed, that the soul is not said to be made the body, nor the body said to be made the soul, as the word is said to be made flesh; for the union of soul and body, is not an union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, wherereof the one is the form of the other. And herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be justified in Christ; the word was made flesh, without any change or alteration, because of that subsistence 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 &c. but that he who is a man, is also become white.  
5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body; but a Person is the Exurgency of their conjunction; and therefore we do not say, that herein the similitude is urged; for the divine nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union: nor is the union of his Person, the union of several parts of the same nature, but the Concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.  
6. That 'tis of necessity that Christs human nature should of its self 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;& produce all the proofs before mentioned to make evident the Reason of our deny all. But our great Masters here, say the contrary; and our under-Catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a true man, because he had the true 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 an human Person. For the human nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which thought it be in itself divine, yet as to that act of sustentation, which it gives the human nature, it is the subsistence of a man. On which account the subsistence of the human nature of Christ is made more noble and excellent, then that of any other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our Catechists from Reason, that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the pre-eminence unto, in their attempts against the Deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only, engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from Scripture, whereof indeed they have the meanest pretence and show, that ever any of the sons of men had, who were necessitated to make a plea from them, in a matter of so great concernment, as that now under consideration, will quickly disappeare. Thus then they proceed.  
Q. 

Doce etiam, qui id repugn● Scripturae, Christum haber● divinam uaturam.  
Primum, eâ ratione, quod Scriptura nobis unum tantum naturâ Deum proponat, quem superius demonstravimus esse Christi patrem. Secundo, cadem Scriptura testatur, JesumChristum naturâ esse hominem, ut superius ostensum est; quo ipso, illi naturam adimit divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Christus habeat, Scriptura eum patris dono habere aperté doceat, Math. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 9. 1 Cor. 15. 27. John. 5. 19. 10. 25. Denique cum eadem Scriptura atertiss●mé offendat, Jesum Christum omnia suafacta divina non sibi, nec alicui naturae divinae su●; said patri suo vindicare solitum fuisse, planum facit, cam divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine omni causâ suturam fuisse.   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. 3. Because what ever divine thing Christ hath, the Scripture plainly teacheth that he had it by a gift of the Father; Mat: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 27. joh. 5. 19. 10. 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 that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vain, and would have been without any cause.  
And this is that which our Catechists have to pretend from Scripture against the deity of Christ, concluding, that any such divine nature in him would be superfluous and needless, themselves being Judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set themselves to evade the Evidence of near fifty express Texts of Scripture, by themselves produced, and insisted on, giving undeniable Testimony to the truth they oppose. Let then what they have brought forth be briefly considered.  
1. The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us one only God by 
§. 15.  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 Fathers 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 demonstrate in the person of Christ, Properties that are inseparable Adjuncts of a divine nature, and such also, as no less properly belong to an human nature: from the asserting of the one of these, to conclude to a denial of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to dig for.  
3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the son; 1. By eternal Generation, so the son receives his personality, and therein his Divine nature, from him, who said unto him, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee: and this is so far from disproving the Deity of Christ, that it abundantly confirms it: and this is mentioned, joh: 5. 19, 20, 21, 22. 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 himself to undergo, and for the full execution whereof, an investiture with Glory, Honour, and Power, was needful, which is mentioned, Math: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 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. Mat. 28. 18. Christ speaks of himself as thoroughly 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: 2. 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: 15. 27. relates to the same Exaltation of Christ as before.  
4. It is false, that Christ doth not ascribe the divine works which he wrought, to himself, and his own divine Power, although that he often also make mention of the Father, as by whose Appointment he wrought those works, as Mediator. joh. 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; v. 19. For whatsoever things the Father doth, these also doth the son: v. 21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the son quickeneth whom he will. himself wrought the works that he did, though as to the End of his working them, which belonged to his Office of Mediation, He still relates to his Fathers designation and appointment. And this is the whole of our Catechists plea from Reason, and Scripture against the Deity of Christ. For the conclusion of the superfluousnesse, and needlessness of such a Divine Nature in the Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scripture, and of the righteousness of God, and the nature of sin, so it might administer occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the necessity which there was, that he who was to be mediator between God and man, should be both God and Man; but that I aim at brevity, and the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account; so that here I shall not insist thereon.  
Nextly then, they address themselves to that which is their 
§ 16.  proper work,( wherein they are exceedingly delighted) viz. in giving in exceptions against the Testimonies produced for the confirmation of the Truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon.  


Atqui illi e scriptures illam divinam in Christo naturam asserere conantur?  
Conantur quidem va●iis modis; idque dum student, aut e scriptures quibusdam evincere, quae in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis, quae in scriptures habentur, perperam ratiocinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt.   But they endeavour to assert the Divine Nature of Christ from the Scriptures.  
A. They endeavour it indeed divers ways; and that whilst they study, either to evince out of certain Scriptures what is not in them, or whilst they argue perversely from these things which are in the Scriptures, and so evilly bring their business to pass.  
These it seems are the general heads of our Arguments for the Deity of Christ: but before we part we shall bring our Catechists to another reckoning: and manifest, both that what we assert is expressly contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by Ratiocination from them, hath an evidence in it, which they are not able to resist. But they say, 
§. 17.   


Quae vero sunt illa, quae illi de Christo e scriptures evincere laborant quae illic non habentur?  
Est illius, ut loquuntur, praeaeternitas, quam duplici Scripturarum genere approbare nituntur. Primum ejusmodi est, in quo praeaeternitatem have expressam putant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, eam tamen colligi arbitrantur.   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 preeternity, which they endeavour to confirm with two sorts of Scriptures. 1. Such as wherein they suppose this preeternity is expressed. 2. Such as wherein though it be not expressed, yet they think that it may be gathered from them.  
That we do not only suppose, but have also as great an Assurance as the plain, evident, and redoubled Testimony of the Holy Ghost can give us, of the Eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in the ensuing Testimonies, both of the one sort and the other; especially such as are express thereunto; for in this matter we shall very little trouble the Reader with collections and arguings, the matter inquired after being express and evident in the words, and terms of the Holy Ghost himself. They say then. 
§. 18.   
Q. Which are those Testimonies of Scripture 

i Quaenam sunt Testimonia Scripturae, quae videntur ipsis eam praeaeternitatem exprimero?  
Sunt ea, in quibus Scriptura testatur de Christo, ipsum fuisse in princi pio, fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante Abra. hamum, jo. 1. 1. jo. 6. 62. jo. 8. 58.   which seem to them to express his preeternity?  
A. They are these, in which the Scripture witnesseth of Christ, that he was in the beginning, that he was in Heaven, that he was before Abraham, joh. 1. 1. joh. 6. 62. joh. 8. 58.  
Before I come to the consideration of the particular places proposed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to premise one or two things. As  
1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their hypothesis concerning Christ, if we prove him to have been existent before his Incarnation, whether the Testimonies whereby we prove it, reach expressly to the proof of his Eternity or no. That which they have undertaken to maintain, is, that Christ had no existence before his conception, and birth of the Virgin: which if it be disproved, they do not, they cannot deny, but that it must be on the account of a divine nature; for as to the Incarnation of any preexisting creature,( which was the Arians madness) they disavow, and oppose it.  
2. That these three places mentioned, are very far from being all, wherein there is express confirmation of the Eternity of Christ: and therefore when I have gone through the consideration of them, I shall add some others also, which are of no less evidence and perspicuity then these, whose vindication we are by them called unto.  
To the first place mentioned they thus proceed. 
§. 19.   
i What dost thou answer to the first?  
In the place cited, there is nothing about 

k Quid vero ad primum respondes?  
In loco citato nihil habetur, de ista praeaeternitate, cum hic principii mentio fiat, quod praeaeternitati opponitur. Principii vero vox in scriptures fear semper ad subjectam refertur materiam, ut videre est, Dan. 8. 1. Joh. 15. 27. 16. 4. Act. 11. 15. cum igitur hic subjecta sit materia Evangelium, cujus descriptionem suscepit Joannes, sine dubio per vocem have principii, p●incipium Evangelii Jo● annes intellexit.   that preeternity, 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. 8. 1. Joh. 15. 27. 16. 4. Act. 11. 15. And therefore seeing the subject matter here, is the gospel, whose description John undertakes, without doubt, by this 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, 

Trenaeus ad haeres. lib: 3. c. 11.  
Epiphan. lib. 1. Tom: 2. haeres: 27, 28, 30, &c. lib: 2. Tom. 2. Haeres. 69.  
Theodoret. epitome: Haeret: lib. 2.  
Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. c. 27. Causam post alios hanc scribendi praecipuam tradunt omnes( veteres) ut veneno in Ecclesiam jam tum sparso, autoritate sua, quae apud omnes Christianum nomen prositentes, non poterat non esse maxima, medicinam faceret. Grot. Praefat. ad Annotat. in Evang Joan.   in the beginning of his gospel, intended to disprove and condemn sundry that were risen up in those dayes, denying it, or asserting the Creation, or making of the world to another Demiurgus, we have the unquestionable Testimony of the first Professors of the Religion of Jesus Christ, with as much evidence and clearness of Truth as any thing can be tendered on uncontrolled Tradition: which at least will give some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.  
2. That by {αβγδ}, howsoever rendered, verbum or sermo, or on what account soever he be so called, either of being the eternal Word and wisdom of the Father, or as the great Revealer of his will unto us,( which yet of itself is not a sufficient cause of that Appellation, for others also reveal the will of God unto us, Act. 20. 27. Heb. 1. 1.) Jesus Christ is intended, is on all hands confessed, and may be undeniably evinced from the Context. This {αβγδ}, came into the world, and was rejected by his own v. 11: yea expressly he was made flesh, and was the only begotten son of God, v. 14.  
3. That the whole of our Argument from this place, is very far from consisting in that Expression, in the beginning, though that, relating to the matter whereof the Apostle treats, doth evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our Catechists trade, so to divide the words of Scripture, that their main import and tendence, may not be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, in the beginning: in another to, he was with God, and he was God; in a third to that, all things were made by him; in a fourth,( all at a great distance one from another) to, the Word was made flesh: Which desperate: course of proceeding, argues that their cause is also desperate, and that they durst not meet this one Testimony as by the Holy Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our 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 
§. 20.  the words are placed in their Contexture by the Holy Ghost, 
Novum Testamentum divinitus oblatum aperio. aliud agenti exhibet se mihi adspetu primo augustissimum illud caput Johannis Evangelistae& Apostoli. In principio erat verbum. Lego partem capitis,& ita commoveor legens, ut repent divinitatem Argumenti,& scripti majestatem, autoritatemque senserim, longo intervallo omnibus eloquentiae humanae viribus praeeuntem. Horrebat corpus: stupebat animus,& totum illum diem sic afficiebar, ut qui essem, ipse mihi incertus viderer esse. Francise. Junius.  and vindicate them from what in several places they have excepted against several parcels of them. Thus then from these words,( these divine words( whose very reading reclaimed as eminent a scholar as the world enjoyed any in his dayes, from atheism) we proceed.  
1. He that was in the beginning, before the creation of the world, before any thing, of all things that are made, was made, Who was then with God, and was God, Who made all things, and without whom nothing was made, in whom was Life, He is God by nature blessed for ever; nor is there in the whole Scripture a more glorious, and eminent description of God, by his Attributes, name, and works, then 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 Iesus Christ, therefore he is God by nature blessed for ever. Unto the several parts of this plain and evident Testimony, in several places they except several things, thinking thereby to evade that strength and Light, which each part yields to other, as they lie, and all of them to the whole; I shall consider them in order as they come to hand.  
1. Against that expression, in the beginning, they except in 
§. 21.  the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify preeternity, which hath no beginning. But  
1. This imped's not at all the Existence of Jesus Christ before the Creation, although it denys, that his Eternity is expressly asserted. Now to affirm, that Christ did exist before the whole Creation, and made all things, doth no less prove him to be no more a Creature, but the eternal God, then the most express Testimony of his Eternity doth, or can do.  
2. Though Eternity have no beginning, and the sense of these words cannot be, in the beginning of Eternity, yet Eternity is before all things, and in the beginning may be the description of Eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. 8. 23. From everlasting, and in the beginning before the Earth was, are of the same import. And the Scripture saying, that in the beginning the word was, not, was made, 
Joh. 17. 5.  doth as evidently express Eternity, as it doth in those other phrases, of, before the world was, or before the foundation of the world, which more then once it insists on.  
3. By in the beginning, is intended before the Creation of all things. What will it avail our Catechists, if it doth not expressly denote Eternity? Why, the word beginning is to be interpnted variously, according to the subject matter spoken of, as Gen. 1. 1. which being here the gospel, it is the beginning of the gospel that is intended. But  
1. Be it agreed, that the word beginning is to be understood according to the subject matter, whereunto it is applied; that the Apostle doth firstly, and nextly treat of the gospel, as to the season of its preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the Person of the Author of the gospel, of the Word that was God, and was made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended, is clear; For 1. the Apostle evidently alludes to the first words of Genesis: in the beginning God created Heaven and earth: and the Syriack translator from the Hebrew, here places {αβγδ}: so here, in the beginning the word made all things. 2. The following words, the word was with God, manifests the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare what, and where the Word, was, before the Creation of the world, even with God. 3. The Testimony that he was God in the beginning, will no way agree with this gloss: take his being God in their sense, yet they deny, that he was God in the beginning of the gospel, or before his suffering, as hath been shewed. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this place is indeed senseless. In the beginning( say they) that is, when the gospel began to be preached by John Baptist,( which is plainly said to be, before the world was made) the word, or the man Jesus Christ( the Word being afterwards said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him, as the Word) was wi●h God, so hidden, as that he was known only to God,( which is false, for he was known to his Mother, to Joseph, to John Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to others) and the word was God, that is, God appointed, that he should be so afterwards, or made God( though it be said, he was God, then, when he was with God) and all things were made by him; the new Creature was made by him, or the world by his preaching, and teaching, and working Miracles was made, or reformed;( that is, something was mended by him,) such Interpretations we may at any time be supplied withall at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther. In the beginning, that is, when John preached Jesus, and said, behold the Lamb of God; was the word; or Jesus was, that is, He was, when John preached that he was: egregiam vero laudem! He was, when he was. The word was in the beginning: that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then was afterwards made flesh, and dwelled amongst us, when he had dwelled 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 afterwards he so studiously vented.  
Passing by those two weighty& most material passages of this 
§. 22.  Testimony, the word was God, and the word was with God, the one evidencing his oneness of nature with, and the other his distinctnesse of Personality from his Father, our Catechists after an interposition of near 20 pages, fix upon the 3. verse, 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;  


Expone igitur mihi, quibus testimoniis approbare contendunt, Christum coelum& terram creasse?  
Iis, ubi scriptum extat, quod per eum omnia facta sint,& sine eo factum sit nihil, quod factum sit, Joh: 1. 3.& iterum, mundus per ipsum factus est, v. 10.& rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita &c. Col. 1. 16. Et quod Deus per eum saecul● fecerit, Heb. 1. 2. denique& ex eo, tu in principio, &c. v. 10, 11, 12.  
Qui vero ad primum Testimonium respondes?  
Primum, non habetur in prim● testimonio creata sunt, verúm facta sunt. Deinde, ait Joannes, facta esse per eum; qui mod●s loquendi, non eum, qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam secundam aut mediam exprimit. Denique vox omnia non pro omnibus prorsus re●us hic sumitur, said ad subjectam materiam restringitur omnino, quod frequentissimum est in libris divinis, praesertim Novi Testamenti, cujus rei exemplum singular extat, 2 Cor. 5. 17. in quo habetur sermo de re, hui●, 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 unwelcome materia sit Evangelium, apparet vocem omnia, de iis omnibus, quae quoquo modo ad Evangelium pertinent, accipi debere.  
Cur vero addidit loaennes, quod sine eo factum est nihil, quod factum est?  
Add●dit haec joannes, ut eo mebius illustraret illa superiora, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quae eam vim habere videntur, per solum Verbum vel Filium Dei omnia illa facta esse, licet ejus generis quaedam,& quidem magni momenti, non per ipsum, verum per Apostolos facta fuerint: ut est vocatio Gentium,& legalium ceremoniarum abolitio; licet enim ●aec originem ab ipsis sermonibus& operibus Domini Iesu traxerint, ad effectum tamen non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, said per ipsius Apostolos, non tamen sine ipso. Apostoli enim omnia nomine,& authoritate ipsius administrarunt, ut etiam ipse Dominus ait, sine me nihil facere potestis. Joan. 15. 5.   Declare to me with what Testimonies they contend to prove, that Christ created the Heavens and the Earth?  
With those, where it is written, that by him all things, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and the world was made by him: Joh. 1. 3, 10. as also Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 2. and 10, 11, 12. verses.  
But how dost thou answer to the first Testimony?  
1. It is not in the first Testimony: they were created, but they were made. 2. John says, they were made by him; which manner of speaking doth not express him, who is the first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause. Lastly, the word al things, is not taken for all things universally, but is altogether related to the subject matter, which is most frequent in the Scriptures, especially of the new Testament, whereof there is a singular example, 2 Cor. 5. 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; whenas it is certain, that there are many things which are not made new: Now whereas the subject matter in John is the gospel, it appeareth, that this word all things, is to be received only of all those things which belong to the gospel?  
But why doth John add, that without him nothing was made, that was made?  
John added these words, that he might the better illustrate those before spoken, all things were made by him; which seem to import, that all those things were made by the word, or son of God, although some of them, and those of great moment, were of such sort, as were not done by him, but the Apostles. As the calling of the Gentiles, the abolishing of legal ceremonies. For although these things had their original from the preaching, and works of the Lord Jesus, yet they were not perfected by Christ himself, but by his Apostles; but yet not without him. For the Apostles administered all things in his name,& authority, as the Lord himself said, without me ye can do nothing, joh. 15. 5.  
Thus to the 3. verse, of which afterwards. We shall quickly 
§. 24.  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.  
1. The Connexion of the words is wholly omitted, He was God, and he was in the beginning with God, and all things were made by him. The words are an illustration of his divine nature, by his divine power and works: He was God, and he made all things. He that made all things is God: Heb. 3. 4. The Word made all things, joh. 1. 3. therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered.  
1. It is not said, they were created by him, but made. But the word 
§. 25.  here used by John, is the same, that in sundry places the Septuagint( whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the creation. As Gen. 1. 3. {αβγδ}. and v. 16. {αβγδ}: and if, as it is affirmed, he was in the Beginning( before all things) and made them all, he made them out of nothing; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce something out of nothing, Nothing supplying the' term from whence of their production. But  
2. They are said to be made by him: its {αβγδ}, which denotes 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 other things; and to have been the instrumental cause, whereby God created all other things; but how this concerns them to insist on, who deny that Christ had any Existence at all, before the world was some thousands of yeares old, is not easy to be apprehended.  
2. In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but expressly contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of answer to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say, He is not the principal efficient cause, but the second, and mediate: there, that all things were either done by him, or in his Name,& Authority: which certainly denotes the principal cause of the thing done. But  
3. This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the Father himself, whom our Catechists will not therefore deny to have been the principal efficient cause of the things ascribed to him: Rom. 11. 36. from him,& {αβγδ} by him are all things 1 Cor. 1. 9. God is faithful {αβγδ}, by whom you are called: Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but {αβγδ} {αβγδ}, by Iesus Christ, and God the Father Ephes. 1. 1. {αβγδ}, by the will of God: So that this also is frivolous: thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But  
4. Al things, are to be referred to the gospel; all things of the gospel whereof John treats: so are the words to be restrained by the subject matter: but  
1. This is merely begged: John speaks not one word of the gospel, as such; gives no description of it, its nature, or Effects: but evidently, plainly, and directly speaks of the Word, that was God, and that made all things, describing him in his Eternity, his works, his Incarnation, his employment, his coming into the World and his business: and treats of the gospel, or the declaration, of the Will of God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterwards, from verse 14. and forward.  
2. For the expression, 2 Cor. 5. 17. all things are become new: it 
§. 26.  is expressly restrained to the new Creature, to them that are in Jesus Christ; but as to this general expression here, there is no colour why it should be so restrained. The Expression itself every where signifying the Creation of all things; see Gen. 2. 1, 2. Psal. 33. 6. Psal. 121. 2. Isa. 37. 16. Chap. 44. 19.& 62. 2. Jen 32. 17. Acts 14. 15. Act. 17. 24. And this is it, which they pled to the first part of the verse, by him all things were made.  
2. The other Expression, they say, is added, to manifest, that 
§. 27.  what was done after by the Apostles, was not done without him: and that is the meaning of these words, and without him was nothing made, that was made. But  
1. Their {αβγδ}, of referring the whole passage to the description of the gospel, whereof there is not the least tittle, nor intimation in the Text, being removed out of the way, this following figment falls of itself.  
2. This gloss is expressly contrary to the Text. The all things here mentioned, are the all things that were made in the Beginning of the World; but this gloss refers it to the things made in the End of the World.  
3. It is contradictory to its self; for by the beginning, they understand the beginning of the gospel, at the first preaching of it; but the things, that they say here were made by Christ, are things that were done after his ascension.  
4. It is true, the Apostles wrought not any miracles, effected no mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with them,( though the Text cited to prove it joh: 15. 5. be quiter of another importance, as speaking of gospel obedience, not works of Miracles, or Conversions) but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offered to proof by our Catechists. And this is the sense of the words they give; Christ, in the beginning of the gospel, made all things; or all things were made by him; even those, which he made by others, after his ascension into heaven: or thus:( 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, 
§. 28.  He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things; which he first expresseth positively; and then by an universal negative confirms, and explains what was before asserted in an universal affirmative,( without him was nothing made, that was made.) And this is the sum of what they have to except against this part of our Testimony, then which nothing can be more vain and frivolous.  
2. The 10th verse is by them taken under consideration, and 
§. 29.  these words therein: The World was made by him: against which this is their tour.  


Quid vero respondes ad secundum?  
Primum, quod hic non scribat Johannes, mundum esse creatum, said factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui mediam cau●am designat, ait enim, mundum per eum factum: Denique haec vox mundus, quemadmodum& aliae, quae prorsus idem in scriptures valent, non solum Caelum& terram donotat, verum praeter alias significationes, vel genus humanum designat, ut locus praesens ostendit, ubi ait, In mundo erat,& mundus eum non agnovit, 1 joh. 1. 10.& mundus eum secutus est, joh. 12. 19. aut etiam futuram immortalitatem, ut apparet Heb. 1. 6. ubi ait,& cúm iterum introducit primogenitum in mundum, ait,& adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei; quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet e cap. 2. ejusdem Epistolae, ubi ait, etenim non angels subjecit mundum futurum, de quo loquimur. At nus●uam de eo locutus fuerat, nisi v. 6. cap. 1. praeterea, habes locum cap: 10. v. 5. ubi de Christo loquens, ait, propterea ingrediens in mundum, ait; hostiam& ob lationem noluisti, verum corpus adaptasti mihi; ubi cum palam sit cum loqui de mundo, in quem ingressus Iesus, sacerdos noster factus est,( ut circumstantiae omnes demonstrant) apparet, non de praesenti, said de futuro mundo agi, quandoquidem Cap. 8. v. 4, de Christo dixerat, si in terris esset, ne sacerdos ●uidem esset.   What dost thou answer to the second?  
1. That John doth not writ 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, do not only denote Heaven and Earth, but besides other significations, it either signifieth human kind, as the present place manifesteth, he was in the World, and the World knew him not: and joh. 12. 19. or also future immortality, as Heb: 1. 6. which is to be understood of the World to come, as it appears from Chap: 2. where he saith, he hath not put the world to come into subjection to the Angells, of which we speak: but he had no where spoken of it, but Chap. 1. 6. Furthermore you have a place, Chap: 10. 5. where speaking of Christ he saith: wherefore coming into the World, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body &c. Where seeing it is evident, that he speaks of that world, into which Jesus being entred, was made our Priest, as all the circumstances demonstrate, it appears, that he speaks not of the present, but of the world to come, seeing Chap. 8. v. 4. he had said of Christ, if he were on earth he should not be a Priest.  
The two First Exceptions have been already cashiered: those which follow are of as little weight or consideration. For  
1. It is confessed, that the word World hath in Scripture various acceptations; and is sometimes taken for men in the World: but that it can be so taken, when the World is said to be made, or created, when it is equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place, whereunto any comes, and where He is, as is the state of the Expression here, there can nothing more absurd, or foolish be imagined.  
2. Heb. 1. 6. speaks not of the World to come; nor is there any place in the Scripture, where the word World doth signify immortality, or the World to come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. 2. 5. mention is made not simply of the World, but of the World to come; nor doth that expression of the Apostle relate unto that of Chap. 1. 6. where the word World is used, but to what goes before, and after in the same Chapter, where the thing itself is insisted on, in other terms. Nor is the future Immortality intended there by the world to come, but the present state of the Christian Church, called the World to come, in reference to that of the Jews, which was past, in that use of speech, whereby it was expressed before it came; as also Chap. 6. 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 Math. 12. 32. Luk. 18. 30. Luk. 20. 35. Eph. 1. 21. nor can it be said of the world to come, that it knew not Christ, as it is of this that he made. Nor can Christ be said to come into that world in the beginning, which he did not until after his Resurrection; nor is the world to come, that whereof it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, he came {αβγδ}, to his own, for then, his own, {αβγδ}, knew him not: so that there is not the least colour, or pretence of this foppery, that here they would evade the Testimony of the Holy Ghost with all.  
3. Those words Heb. 11. 5. coming into the world he said, &c. do not in the least intimate any thing of the world to come, but express the present world, into which Christ came, when God prepared a body for him, at his Incarnation, and Birth, which was in order to the sacrifice, which he afterwards offered in this world, as shall be evidently manifested, when we come to the consideration of the Priesthood of Christ.  
It remaines only that we hear their sense of these words, which they give as followeth. 
§. 30.   


Quid veró per haec, Mundu● per cum factus est, intelligis?  
Duplex eorum sensus dari potest: prior, quod genus humanum per Christum reformatum,& quas● denuó factum sit, eó quód ille generi humano, quod perierat,& aeternae morti subjectum erat, vitane attulit, eamque sempiternam( quod etiam mundo Joannes exprobat, qui per Christum ab interitu vindicatus, eum non agnoverit, said spreverit,& rejecerit) Is enim mos Hebraici sermonis, quod in ejusmodi loquendi modis, verba facere, creare, idem valeant, quod denuo facere,& denuo creare, idq, propterea, quod verbis, quae composita vocant, ea lingua careat-Posterior vero sensus est, quod illa immortalitas, quam expectamus per Christum, quantum ad nos, facta sit: quemadmodum eadem futurum saeculum, habitâ ratione nostri, vocatur, licet jam Christo& angels sit praesens.   But what dost thou understand by these words, the World was made by him?  
A twofold sense may be given of them; 1. 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 withall, which being vindicated by Christ from destruction, acknowledged him not, but contemned and rejected him) for that is the manner of the Hebrew speech, that in such terms of speaking, the words, to make, and create, are as much as to make again, or to create again, because that tongue wants those words, that are called compounds. The latter sense is, that that immortality which we expect, is, as to us, made by Christ; as the same is called the world to come, in respect of us, although it be present to Christ, and the Angells.  
1. That these expositions are destructive to one another is evident: and yet which of them to adhere unto our 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 absurd gloss.  
3. Much less is the first sense of the words tolerable: for  
1. It is expressly contradictory to the Text. He made the world; that is, he reformed it, and the world knew him not; when the world is not reformed, but by the knowledge of him.  
2. To be made, doth no where simply signify to be renewed, or reformed, unless it be joined with other expressions, restraining its significancy to such Renovation.  
3. The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was in it: nor can it be said to be renewed by him, only on the account of laying the foundation of its Renovation in his Doctrine. By him the world was made, that is, He preached that Doctrine, whereby some in the world were to be reformed. The world that Christ made knew him not: but the renewed world know him.  
4. The hebraism of making, for reforming, is commonly pretended; 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 
§. 31.  insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine nature, antecedently to his Incarnation, and that is v. 14. The word was made flesh. Who the Word is, and what, we have heard. He who was in the beginning, who was God, and was with God, who made all things, who made the world, in whom was Light, and Life, He was made flesh. Flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelled amongst men, and conversed with them. How he was, and how he was said to be made flesh, I have declared in the consideration of his eternal Sonship, and shall not again insist thereon. This after the interposition of sundry Questions our Catechists take thus into consideration.  
How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate?  
From those testimonies, where according 

o E quibus vero testimoniis Scripturae demonstrare conantur, Christum( ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse?  
Ex iis, ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur, verbum caro factum esse, Jo. 1. 14.& Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 16▪ &c.  
Quomodo ad primum respondes?  
Eâ ratione, quod in eo Testimonio non habeatur Deum( ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpserit humanam. Aliudenim est, verbum caro factum est, aliud, Deus incarnatus est,( ut loquuntur) ve● natura divina assumpserit humanam. Praeterea, haec verba, verbum caro factum est, vel potius sermo caro factus est, possunt,& debent ita reddi, sermo caro fuit. Posse ita reddi, e testimoniis, in quibus voae {αβγδ}( quae hic per factum est translata est) verbo fuit reddita invenitur, apparet: ut in codem Cap. v. 6. & Luk. 24. 19. fuit, homo missus ● Deo, &c. Et, Qui fuit vir, Propheta, &c. Debete vero reddi per verbum fuit, ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter loquutus fuisset-sermonem carnem factum esse, id est, ut adversarii interpretantur, naturam divinam assumpsisse humanam, postquam ea jam de illo sermone exposuisset, quae nativitatem hoins Jesu Christi subsecuta sunt; ut sunt haec: Joannem Baptistam de illo testatum esse; illum in mundo fuisse, a suis non fuisse receptum; quod iis, a quibus receptus fuisset, potestatem dederit, ut filii Dei fierent.   to their translation it is red, the Word was made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. &c.  
How dost thou answer it?  
On this account, because in that Testimony, it is not said( as they 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 {αβγδ}( which is here translated) was made, is found rendered by the word, was: as in this chap. v. 6. and Luk. 24. 19. &c. Also that it ought to be so rendered, the order of Iohns words teacheth, who should have spoken very inconveniently, the word was made Flesh, that is, as our Adversaries interpret it, the Divine nature assumed the human, after he had spoken those things of the word, which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus, such as are these: John bear witness of him: he came into the world: he was not received of his own: that to them that received him, he gave Power to become the sons of God.  
This is the last plea they use in this case; the dying groans of their perishing cause are in it: which will provide them neither with succour, 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 Incarnation of the Son of God, and by the Divine nature assuming the human, we intend no more then what is here asserted, the Word, who was God, was made flesh.  
2. All they have to pled to the thing insisted on, is, that the word {αβγδ}, 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 withall 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 supposition of this new Translation, they may obtain something. But  
2. How will they prove, that so much as it MAY be rendered by fuit, was. They tell you it is so in two other places in the New Testament; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so rendered here? The proper sense, and common usage of it, is, was made; and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sense, may it be so rendered here, where nothing requires, that it be turned aside from its most usual acceptation; yea much enforcing it thereunto,  
3. That it ought to be rendered by fuit, was, they pled the mentioning before of things done after Christs Incarnation( as we call it,) so that it cannot be, he was made flesh: but  
1. Will they say, that this order is observed by the Apostle, that that which is first done, is first expressed, as to all particulars? What then becomes of their interpretation, who say the Word was made God by his Exaltation: and made flesh in his Humiliation; and yet how much is that, which in their sense was last, expressed before that which went before it? Or will they say, in him was the life of man, before he was made flesh? When the life of man, according to them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after he ceased to be flesh in their sense. Or what conscience have these men, that in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others, which they must receive, and embrace for the establishing of their own?  
2. The Order of the words is most proper; John having 
§. 32.  asserted the Deity of Christ, with some general concomitants and consequences of the dispensation, wherein he undertakes to be a mediator; in his 14. verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance upon his Employment, and his carrying it on in, 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 it is evident, that the Word neither may, nor ought to to be translated according to their desire. For  
1. It being so often said before, that the Word was, the Word is still {αβγδ}, and not {αβγδ}: in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God: The same was; he was in the world, he was the light; still the same word; so that if no more were intended, but what was before expressed, the terms would not be changed without exceedingly obscuring the sense; and therefore {αβγδ} must signify somewhat more then {αβγδ}.  
2. The word {αβγδ} applied to other things in this very place, denotes their making, or their original, which our Catechists did not question in the Consideration of the places where it is so used; as v. 3. all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and v. 10. the world was made by him.  
3. This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places; as Rom. 1. 3. {αβγδ}, made of the seed of David according to the Flesh. and Gal. 4. 4. {αβγδ}, made of a woman; but they think to salue all by the ensuing exposition of these words.  
How is that to be understood the word was 
§. 33.  
P Qua ratione illud intelligendum est, Sermonem carnem fuisse.  Flesh?  
That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, 
Quod is, per quem Deus voluntatem suam omnem perfecté exposuisset,& propterea a Joanne Sermo appellatus fuisset, homo fuerit, omnibus miseriis,& afflictionibus, ac morti denique subjectus. Etenim vocem caro eo sensu scriptura usurpat, ut ex iis locis perspicuum est; ubi Deus loquitur: non contendet spiritus meus cum homine in aternum, quia caro est, Gen. 6. 3. Et Petrus, Omnis caro ut foenum, 1 Pet. 1. 24.  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. 6. 3. and Peter, all Flesh is grass. 1 Pet. 1. 24.  
This is the upshot of our Catechists exposition of this first Chapter of John, as to the Person of Christ. Which is  
1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions, for the Testimonies produced affirm every man to be flesh; so that to say he is a man, is to say he is flesh: and to say that man was flesh, is to say that a man was a man, in as much as every man is flesh.  
2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the Holy Ghost; for He was made Flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst us; which immediately follows in the Text: Nor is his being made flesh suited to any thing in this place, but his conversation with men, which answers his Incarnation, not his mediation; neither is this Exposition confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures, of the like expression used concerning Jesus Christ; as that we urge is, Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. and other places. The place evidently affirms, the word to be made something, that it was not before, when he was the Word only; and cannot be affirmed of him, as he was man; in which sense he was always obnoxious to miseries and death.  
And this is all which our Catechists in several places have 
§. 34.  thought meet to insist on, by way of Exception, or opposition to our undeniable,& manifest Testimonies from this first Chap. of John, unto the great& sacred truth contended for; which I have at large insisted on, that the Reader from this one instance, may take a taste of their dealing in the rest; and of the desperateness of the cause which they have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts, for the maintenance, and protection of it: in the residue I shall be more brief.  
Joh. 6. 62. is in the next place taken into consideration. The 
§. 35.  words are, What and if you 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) quiter into another place, on pretence of the method wherein they proceed, indeed to take off from the evidence of the Testimony, as they dealt with what we pled from John the first: the places I intend are  
Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the son of man, who is in Heaven,  
Vers. 31. He that cometh from above, is above all. He that cometh from Heaven, is above all.  
John 8. 23. Ye are from beneath, I am am from above.  
Joh. 16. 28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; and 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,& who was also in Heaven, whilst he was on the earth, is the eternal God. But this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirm concerning himself; therefore he is the eternal God blessed for ever.  
In answer to the first place our Catechists thus proceed. 
§. 36.   


Adsecundum autem quid Respondes?  
Neque hic ullam praeaeternitatis mentionem factam express, nam hoc in loco filium hoins, id est, hominem in coelis fuisse testatur Scriptura, quem citra ullam controversiam praeaeternum non extitisse certum est.   What answerest thou to the second Testimony, Joh. 6. 62.  
Neither is here any mention made expressly of preeternity; 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. So they.  
1. It is expressly affirmed, that Christ was in Heaven, before his coming into the world. And if we evince his preexistence to his Incarnation, against the Socinians, the task will not be difficult to prove that preexistence 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 {αβγδ} 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, then the Affirmation that God redeemed his Church with his own Blood, doth prove, that the blood  shed was the blood of the divine nature. Both the Affirmations are concerning the Person of Christ. As he who was God,  shed his blood as he was man; so he who was man, was eternal, and in Heaven, as he was God. So that the Answer doth merely beg the thing in question; viz. that Christ is not God and man in one person.  
3. The insinuation here of Christs being in Heaven as man, before his assention, mentioned in the Scripture, shall be considered, when we come to the proposal made of that figment by M. Biddle in his Chapter of the prophetical office of Christ. In answer to the other testimonies recited, they thus proceed towards the later end of their Chapter, concerning the Person of Christ.  


Ubi vero Scriptura de Christo ait, quod de Caelo descendit, a patre exivit,& in mun●um venit. Joh. 3. 13. 10. 36. 16. 28. 17. 18. quid ad haec respondes?  
Ex iis non probari divinam naturam hic apparere, quod primi Testimonii verba, descendit de Caelo, possint figurate accipi, quemadmodum Jac. 1. v. 17. Omne datum bonum& donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a parte luminum.& Apoc. 21. v. 2, 10. vidi civitatem sanctam, jerusalem novam, descendentem de Caelo a Deo, &c. Quod si proprie accipi debeant, quod nos perlibenter admittimus, apparet, non de alio illa dicta, quam de filio hoins, qui cum personam humanam necessario habeat, Deus naturâ esse non potest. Porro, quod Scripturae testatur de Christo, quod Pater eum miserit in mundum, idem de apostles Christi legimus in iisdem verbis citatis superius. Quemadmodum me misisti in mundum,& ego misi eos in mundum Joh. 17. 18. Ea vero verba, quod Christus a patre exlerit, idem valent, quod de Caelc descendit. Venire vero in mundum, id ejusmodi est, quod Scriptura post nativitatem Christi extitisse ostendit; Joh. 18. v. 37. ubi ipse Dominus ait; Ego in hoc natus sum,& in mundum veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Et 1 Joh. 4. 1. Scriptum est, multos falsos Prophetas exiissein mundum. Quare ex ejusmodi loquendi modis natura divina in Christo probari non potest. In omnibus vero his locutionibus, quam divinum muncris Christi principium fuerit, duntaxat describitur.   What answerest thou to Joh. 3. 13. chap. 10. 36. chap. 16. 28. chap. 17. 18.  
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 Jam. 1. 17. every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights: and Revel. 21. 2, 10. I saw the holy City 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 then the son of man, who seeing he hath necessary an human Person, he cannot by nature be God; Moreover, for what the Scripture witnesseth of Christ, that the Father sent him into the world, the same we red of the Apostles of Christ in the same words above alleged: Joh. 17. 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. Joh. 18. 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 Joh. 4. 1. It is written, many false Prophets are gone forth into the world. Wherefore from this kind of speaking, a divine nature in Christ cannot be proved; but in all these speeches only what was the divine original of the office of Christ, is described.  
1. That these expressions are merely figuratively to be expounded, 
§. 38.  they dare not assert; nor is there any colour given that they may be so received from the instances produced from James 1. 17. and Revel. 21. 2. for there is only mention made of descending, or coming down, which word we insist not on by itself, but as it is conjoined with the Testimony of his being in Heaven before his descending; which takes off all pretence of a parity of Reason in the places compared.  
2. 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 an human personality. Personality belongs not to the Essence, but the Existence of a man. So that here they do but repeat their own Hypothesis, in answer to an express Testimony of Scripture against it. Their confession of the proper use of the word, is but to give colour to the figment formerly intimated, which shall be in due place( God assisting) discovered.  
3. They utterly omit, and take no notice of that place, where Christ says, he so came from Heaven, as that he was still in Heaven; nor do they mention any thing of that, which we lay greatest weight on, of his affirming that he was in Heaven before; but merely insist on the word descending, or coming down, and yet they can no other way deal with that neither, but by begging the thing in question.  
4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christs 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 Christs 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, then that wherein he was sent: the similitude alleged consists quiter in other things. Neither  
6. Doth the Scripture in Joh. 18. 37. testify, that Christs sending into the world was after his Nativity, but only that the end of them both, was to 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,& his coming into the world, is in the Testimonies cited, plainly asserted in reference to an Existence that he had in Heaven before. And thus as our Argument is not at all touched in this Answer, so is their Answer closed as it began, with the begging of that which is not only questioned, but sufficiently disproved, namely, that Christ was in his human nature taken up into Heaven, and instructed in the will of God, before his entrance upon his prophetical office.  
And this is the whole of what they have to except against this evident Testimony of the divine nature of Christ. He was in Heaven, with the Father, before he came forth from the Father, or was sent into the world; and {αβγδ}, was in Heaven, when he was in the Earth, and at his ascension returned thither where he was before. And so much for the vindication of this second Testimony.  
joh. 6. 62. is the second place I can meet with in all the Annotations of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union of the human nature of Christ with the eternal word: if he do so. It is not with the Man that I have any difference, nor do I impose any thing on him for his Judgement; I only take liberty, having so great cause given, to discuss his Annotations.  
There remaines one more of the first rank, as they are sorted 
§. 39.  by our Catechists, for the proof of the Eternity of Christ, which is also from John Chap. 8. 58. Before Abraham was I am, That they insist on.  

Hoc in loco non solum non exprimitur praeaeternitas, cum aliud sit; ante Abrahamian fuisse, aliud, praeaeternum; verum ne hoc quidem expressum est, ipsum ante Mariam virginem fuisse. Et enim ea verba aliter legi posse( nimirum hac ratione, Amen, Amen, dieo vobis, priusquam Abraham fiat, ego sum) apparet ex iis locis apud eundem Evangelistam, ubi similis& eadem graeca locutio habetur, cap: 13. 19.& modo dico vobis, priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis. Et cap. 14. 29.& nunc dixi vobis priusquam fiat, &c. Quae vero ejus sententia foret lectionis? Admodum egregia: etenim admonet Christus Judaeos, qui eum in sermone capere volebant, ut dum tempus haberent, crederent ipsum esse mundi lucem, antequam divina gratia, quam Christus iis offerebat, ab iis tolleretur,& 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 ejusorationis, ●. 12. constat& hinc, quod Christus bis seipsum iisdem verbis, Ego sum, lucem mundi vocaverit, v 24, 28. Ea vero verba, priusquam Abraham fiat, id significare quod diximus, e notatione nominis Abraham dephendi potest; constat inter omnes Abrahamum notare Patrem multarum Gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factus prius Abraham, quam Dei gratia, in Christo manifestata, in multas gentes redundaret, quip quod Abrahamus unius tantum gentis antea Pater fuerit, apparet sententiam horum verborum, quam attulimus, esse ipsissimam.  In this place the preeternity of Christ is not only not expressed, being it is one thing to be before Abraham, and another to be eternal, but also it is not so much as expressed, that he was before the Virgin Mary. For these words may otherwise be red; 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. 13. 19.& 14. 29.  
What then would be the sense of this reading? Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jews, who would have ensnared him in his speech, that whilst they had time, they should believe in him the light of the World, before the divine grace which Christ offered to them, should be taken from them, and be carried to the Gentiles. But that these words, I am, are to be supplied in that manner, as if himself had added to them, I am the light of the World, appears, because that in the beginning of his speech, v: 12. he had twice in those words, I am, called himself the light of the World. v: 24, 25. and that these words, before Abraham be, do signify that which we have said, may be perceived from the notation of that word Abraham; for it is evident, that Abraham notes the Father of many Nations: seeing then, that Abram was 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.  
If our Adversaries can well quit themselves of this Evidence, I believe they will have no small hopes of escaping in the whole trial. And if they meet with Judges so partially addicted to them, and their cause, as to accept of such manifest juggling, and perverting of the Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for. Especially, seeing how they exult, and triumph in this invention; as may be seen in the words of Socinus himself, in his Answer to Erasmus Johannes p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says, I confess in my whole life, I never 
Fateor me per omnem vitam meam non magis contortam scripturae interpretationem audivisse; ideoque eam penitus improbo: Eras: Joan. Cum primum fatendi verbum in tuis verbis animadverti, sperabam te potius nullam in tuae vita scripturae interpretationem audivisse, quae hac sit aut acutior aut verior; quaeque magis divinum quid saptat,& a Deo ipso patefactam fuisse praese ferat. Ego quidem certe non leves conjecturas habeo, illum, qui primus aetate nostra eam in lucem pertulit( hic autem is fuit, qui primus 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 tunc temporis incognita, patefecerit, vix quidquam inter illa omnia esse quod interpretatione hac divinius videri queat. Socin: disput. cum Eras. Johan. arg. 4. p. 67.  met with any Interpretation of Scripture more wrested, or violently perverting the sense of it. The other replies. I hoped rather that thou wouldest confess; that in thy whole life thou hadst never heard an interpretation more acute, and true, then this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light conjectures, that he who brought it first to light in our age( now this was he, who in this age renewed the opinion of the original of Christ, which I constantly defend)( that is, his Uncle Laelius) obtained it of Christ by many Prayers. This truly I dare affirm, that whereas God revealed many things to that man, at that time altogether unknown to others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them all, that may seem more divine, then this interpretation.  
Of this esteem is this Interpretation of these words with 
§. 40.  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 withall, I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture,& corrupting of the word of God, as the World can bear witness to.  
1. Let the Christian Reader, without the least prejudicial thoughts from the Interpretation of this, or that man, consult the Text, and Context. The Head of the discourse, which gives occasion to these words of Christ, concerning himself, lies evidently and undeniably in v. 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: v. 52. Then said the Iewes unto him, now we know that thou hast a devil; Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest, if a man keep my sayings he shall never taste of death. and v. 53. Art thou greater then our Father Abraham, who is dead, and the Prophets are dead, whom makest thou thyself to be. Two things are here charged on him by the Jews. First in general, that he preferred, exalted, and honoured himself. 2. In particular, that he made himself better then Abraham their Father. To both which charges Christ answers in order in the following words: To the First, or general charge of honouring himself. v. 54, 55. Iesus 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, but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, v. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Though Abraham was so truly great,& the Friend of God, yet his great joy was from his belief in me; whereby he saw my day. To this the Jews reply, labouring to convince him of falsehood, from the impossibility of the things that he had asserted, v. 57. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Abraham was dead so many hundred years before thou wast born; how couldst thou see him, or he thee? To this in the last place our Saviour replies, v. 58. verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. The Jews knowing that by these words he asserted his Deity, and that it was impossible on any other account to make good that he who in their esteem was not fifty years old,( indeed but a little above thirty) should be before Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they take up stones to ston him, v: 59. as was their perpetual manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his Deity, as Joh. 5. 18. Therefore thought the Jews the more to kill him,— because he said, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.  
This naked, and unprejudicate view of the Text, is sufficient 
§. 41.  to obviate all the operous and sophistical exceptions of our Catechists, so that I shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we have asserted may be thus proposed. He who in respect of his human nature, was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another respect existing before him; He had an existence before his birth, as to his divine nature. Now this doth Christ expressly affirm concerning himself. And nothing else is pretended but only his divine nature, wherein he should so exist. They say then,  
1. That these words do not signify preeternity, but only something before 
§. 42.  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, prinsquam Abraham fiat, ego sum; before Abraham be made. But 1. They may be so rendered, is no proof at all that they ought to be so: and, as was before observed, if this be sufficient to evade the sense of a place, that any word in it may otherwise be rendered, because it is, or 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 {αβγδ}, 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 construction as this, requires an Interpretation as to the time past. And 4. because this Interpretation of the words corrupts the whole sense of the place, and wrists 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 
§. 43.  before he be Abraham, or the Father of many Nations, which he was when the gospel was Preached to the conversion of the Gentiles. I am, that is, I am the light of the world, which you should do well to walk in, and attend unto.  
1. That this Interpretation in general is altogether alien, and strange from the scope of the place, the Christian Reader, upon the bare view of it, will be able to judge. 2. It is false. 1. Because Abraham was the Father of many Nations, Jews, and proselytes, before the Preaching of the gospel, as Gen. 15. 5. 2. It is false, that Abraham 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 constantly so called. 3. It is frivolous; for if Christ was, before Abram was made Abraham, we obtain what we pled for, for he was made so, when God gave him that name. But, it should be, before Abram be made Abraham, or there is no sense in the words: nor then neither, unless Abraham be taken as a common Appellative for the Father of many Nations, and not a Proper name, whereof in Scripture there is not any example. 4. It is horribly wrested, 1. In making the words, I am, Elipticall; whereas there is neither need of, nor colour for such a pretence. 2. In supplying the feigned Eclipsis with a word at such a distance, as from v. 12. to v. 58. 3. In making Christ to say, he is the Light of the world, before the Preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, when the World is every where in the gospel taken quiter in another sense, for the Jews, and Gentiles, and not for the Jews only, which according to this Interpretation it must be. 4. It leaves no reason of the following attempt of the Jews to ston him, upon the particular provocation of this Assertion, he having before affirmed himself to be the Light of the World, which they were not moved at. There is indeed no end of the falsities, follies, and corruptions of this perverting, and corrupting of the word of God.  
For the grammatical vindication of the words, and the Translation of the word {αβγδ}, in a sense of that which is past, there is no occasion administered by our Catechists, and therefore I shall not trouble the Reader therewith.  
And of the first sort of Testimonies, which they except against, and their exceptions, thus far.  
A little Animadversion upon the Catechists good friend Grotius, 
§. 44.  shuts up this Discourse and Chapter. In the End he agrees with them, but fixes on a new medium for the accomplishment of it, not daring to espouse an interpretation so absurd in itself, and so abhorrent from the common sense of all men, that ever professed the name of Christ. He takes then another course, yet no less aiming then they, to disappoint this evidence of the preexistence of Christ before his Nativity: {αβγδ}. Antequam esset,( saith he) before he was: and gives many instances to prove the propriety of so translating that expression. {αβγδ}: praesens pro imperfecto: eram: Syrus. {αβγδ} Nonnus: sit in Graeco Psal: 90. 2. {αβγδ}. very good● before Abraham was, or was born, Christ was, as in that of the psalm, before the Mountaines 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 praeterimperfect tense: as Chap. 14. 9. {αβγδ}. I am so long, for I was, or I have been so long with you: &c. And Chap: 15. 27. {αβγδ}: because you have been with me from the beginning: Thus far then we are agreed: but how should this be, that Christ thus was, before Abraham was, Fuerat( saith he) autem ante Abrahamum Iesus, divina constitutione. In Gods appointment Iesus was before Abraham was born: yea and so was Grotius, and Socinus, and every man in the World, for known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the World. And this is that great privilege in seems, that our Saviour vindicates to himself, without any occasion, to no purpose, insisting on that, which is common to him with all the Elect of God in the best sense of the words. Of that other Text of Scripture joh: 17. 5. which together with this he labours to corrupt, I shall speak afterwards. I shall only add that our great doctors do not in this business agree. Grotius here makes no mention of Socinus his gloss: and Socinus before hand rejects this of Grotius, as absurd and fond; and as such let it pass; as having no occasion given from the words foregoing, nor colour from the matter, nor phrase of words, no significancy to the business in hand.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Preeternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture vindicated.  
IN the consideration of the ensuing Testimonies I shall content 
§. 1.  myself with more brief observations upon, and discoveries of the corruption of our Adversaries, having given a large Testimony thereof in the Chapter foregoing. Thus then they proceed. 
§. 2.   
What are the Testimonies of Scripture wherein they think, that this Preeternity of Christ is not indeed expressed, 

Quae vero sunt Testimonia Scripturae, in quibus putant, non exprimi quidem prae-aeternitatem Christi, ex iis tamen effici posse?  
Ea quae videntur Domino Iesu quasdam res attribuere ab aeterno; quasdam vero tempore certo& definito.   but yet may thence be proved?  
Those which seem to attribute to the Lord Iesus some things from Eternity, and some things in a certain and determinate time.  
Let the Gentlemen take their own way and method; we shall meet with them at the first style, or rather brazen wall, which they endeavour to climb over. 
§. 3.   
What are the Testimonies which seem to attribute some 

Quaenam sunt Testimonia, quae Domino Iesu ab aeterno res quasdam attribuere videntur?  
Sunt ea, ex quibus conantur exstruere Christum ab aeterno ex essentia patris genitum.   things to the Lord Iesus from Eternity?  
They are those, from which they endeavour to confirm that Christ was begotten from Eternity of the Essence of his Father.  
These are some of the places wherein this Property of the God-head, Eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour; it is confessed.  
But from what places do they endeavour to prove, that 

Ex quibus vero locis exstruere conantur, Christum ab aeterno ex essentia Patris genitum?  
Ex his potissimum. Mich. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7.& 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.   Christ was from Eternity begotten of the Essence of his Father?  
From these chiefly, Mic. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7. and 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.  
These are only some of the Testimonies that are used to this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ eternal, if we prove him begotten of his Father, for no such thing can be new in God. 3. That he is the only begotten Son of the Father, which is of the same import, with that here opposed by our Catechists, hath been before declared and proved Chap. 6. 
§. 4.   
But how must we answer these Testimonies? 

Qui vero ad haec Testimonia respondendum est?  
Antequam ad singula Testimonia respondeam, sciendum est, eam ex essentia Patris generationem esse impossibilem. Nam si Christus ex essentia 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.    
Before I answer to each Testimony, it is to be known, that this Generation of the Essence of the Father is impossible. For if Christ were begotten of the Essence of his Father, either he took his whole Essence, or but part: part of his Essence he could not take, for the divine Essence is impartible: nor the whole, for it being one in number is incommunicable.  
And this is the fruit of measuring spiritual things by carnal; infinite by finite; God by ourselves; the object of Faith, by corrupted Rules of corrupted Reason. But 1. that which God hath 
Nisi Scriptura dixisset, non licuisset dicere, said ex qua scriptum est dici potest. Rabb. reuben. apud Galat. lib. 3.  revealed to be so, is not impossible to be so; let God be true& all men liars: that this is revealed, hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite, limited Essences, may be possible& convenient to that which is infinite& unlimited; as is that whereof we speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the sense wherein that word must here be used, if any thing be signified by it. It is not, it cannot be so, in limited things, therefore not in things infinite; we cannot comprehend it, therefore it cannot be so; but the nature of the thing, about which it is, is inconssistent with it; this is denied, for God hath revealed the contrary. 4. For the parting of the divine Essence, or receiving a part of the divine essence, our Catechists might have left out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way of that horn of their Dilemma. 5. We say then, that in the eternal Generation of the Son, the whole Essence of the Father is communicated to the son, as to a personal existence in the same Essence without multiplication or division of it; the same essence continuing still one in number; and this without the least show of impossibility in an infinite essence. All the Arguments that lie against it, being taken from the Propertys and attendencys of that which is finite.  
Come we to the particular testimonys: The first is Mic. 5. 2. 
§. 5.  But thou Bethlem-Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me, that is to be a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or the dayes of Eternity.  
How must this first testimony of the Scripture be answered? 

Qui tamen ad primum Scripturae Testimonium respondendum est?  
Id Testimonium de generatione ex essentia Patris nihil prorsus habet; generationem vero prae-aeternam nulla probat ratione, hic enim mentio sit initii& dierum, quae in aeternitate locum non habent,& verba haec, quae in vulgata leguntur, a diebus aeternitatis, in Haebraeo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vero seculi idem quod dies antiqui notant, ut Es. 63. 9.& 11. Mal. 3. 4. Sententia vero loci hujus est, Christum originem nativitatis suae ab ipso principio& annis antiquis ducturum, id est, ab eo tempore, quo Deus in populo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui& Bethlehemita fuit,& author stirpis,& familiae Christi.    
This Testimony hath nothing at all of his Generation of the Essence of his Father: and a preeternall Generation it no way proves. For here is mention of beginning and dayes, which in Eternity have no place. And these words which in the vulgar are from the dayes of Eternity, in the Hebrew are from the dayes of seculi the dayes of an age. And Dies seculi are the same with dies antiqui, as Isa. 63. 9, 11. Mal. 3. 4. The sense of this place is, that Christ should have the original of his Nativity from the beginning, and from the ancient yeares, that is, from that time wherein God established a King among his people; which was done really in David, who was a Bethlehemite, and the author of the stock, and Family of Christ.  
R. 1. Who necessitated our Catechists to urge this place to prove the Generation of Christ, when it is used only to prove his Generation to be eternal: the thing itself being proved by other Testimonies in abundance. That he was begotten of the Father is confessed: that he was begotten of the Essence of his Father was before proved. Yea that which is here called* his going forth, is his Generation of his Father, or somewhat else 
{αβγδ}  that our Adversaries can assign: That it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced.  
2. Here is no mention of the* Beginning; and those who 
{αβγδ}  in the latter words reject the vulgar edition, cannot honestly insist on the former from thence, because it serves their turn. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what sense it may be so, where Eternity is intended, hath been declared in the last Chapter.  
3. That dayes are not used with,& to express Eternity in Scripture, though strictly there be no dayes, nor Time in Eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirm, job. 10. 5. Are thy dayes as the dayes of man? Are thy yeares as mans dayes? Hence God is called the Ancient of dayes Dan. 7. 9. Thou art the same, and thy yeares shall not fail Heb. 1. 12.  
4. For the word Gnolam, translated seculi: it hath in the Scripture various significations. It comes from a* word signifying 
{αβγδ} later, abscondere, occultare. 2 Chr. 9. 2. Levit. 4. 13. in Niphal latuit, abscondi tus, occultatus fuit: in Hiphil abscondit, celavit, occultavit. ind {αβγδ} Virgo, quia viro occulta. Gen. 24. 43.  to hid; and denotes an unknown hidden duration. Principally perpetuum, aeternum, sempiternum: That which is preeternall and eternal. Sometimes a very long time. Gen. 9. 12.& v. 16. that is perpetual: so Gen. 17. 13. and in other places, with a reference to the sovereignty of God. Gen. 21. 33. It is ascribed to God as a property of his, and signifies eternal: Jehova Gnolam: so Psal. 89. 2. as also Isa. 45. 17. Let all places where the word in Scripture, in this sense is used, be reckoned up,( which are above 300) and it will appear, that in far the greatest number of them, it signifies absolutely Eternity. In the places of Isa. 63. 9, 11. and Mal. 3. 4. a long time indeed is signified; but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing, or matter treated of. And upon the same Rule where it is put absolutely it signifies Eternity. So doth {αβγδ} in the New Testament, by which the Septuagint often render Gnolam; whence {αβγδ}, may be from Eternity, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 1. 2. Wherein also with a like expression to that under consideration, the times of Eternity are mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at the beginning of the World. This then is here expressed. He that was in the fullness 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 
§. 6.  of the Text. For 1. it applies that to David, and his being born at Bethlehem, which the Holy Ghost expressly applies to Iesus Christ, Mat. 2. 6. and Joh. 1. 46. 2. The goings forth of Christ in this sense, are no more from Everlasting, then every other mans, who is from Adam: when yet this is peculiarly spoken of him, by way of incomparable Eminency. 3. They cannot give any one instance of the like expression; that his goings forth are from Eternity, should signify, he had his original from an ancient stock. 4. If only Christs original of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house of David were intended, why was not that expressed in plain terms, as it is in other places, and as the place of his birth, viz. Bethlehem, is in this? So that we have already met our Catechists, and 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 Wieck. cap. 7. p. 424. Smalcius against Smiglecius, Chap. 26. Osterod institut. Chap. 7. with the rest of them. He then, who was born at Bethlehem in the fullness of time, of the House of David as concerning the flesh, had also his goings forth, 
Rom. 1. 3.  his Birth, or Generation of the Father, of old, from the dayes of Eternity; which is that which this Testimony confirms.  
Grotius on this place( according to his wont) outgoes his 
§. 7.  Companions one step at least,( as he was a bold man at conjectures)& applies this prophecy to Zorobabell-Natus ex Bethlehem● Zorobabel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis Familia esset, quae orta Bethlehemo. zorobabel is rightly said to be born at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its original from Bethlehem.  
That zorobabel is here at all intended, he doth not attempt 
§. 8.  to prove, either from the Text, context, circumstances of the place, design of the prophecy, or any thing else, that might give light into the intendment of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us then Grotius, or any of his rabbis, Math. 2. 5. I know that in his Annotations on that place he allows the Accommodation of the words to Christ: But we cannot allow them to be spoken of any other. The Holy Ghost expressly fitting them to him. And if zorobabel, 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 Bethelehem? If it could not be said of Christ, that he was born at Bethelehem, though he were of the lineage of David ●nles he had actually been born there indeed: certainly zorobabel, who was born at Babylon, could not be said on the account of his progenitor five hundred yeares before, to be born there.  
For the second part of this Text, or the words we insist on 
§. 9.  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,& per quingentos annos regnatrice. His original is from of old, from a long time: that is, he hath his original from an ancient illustrious house, that had reigned 500. yeares.  
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. F or if his being born at Bethlehem signify his being of the Family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed born there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before? Yea and herein the learned man forsaketh his Masters, all generally concluding, that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended. The Chaldee Paraphrast expressly puts in the name of Messiah. His words are, out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before me. And some of them do Mystically interpret hedem of the mind of God, from whence the word, or wisdom of God is brought forth. Because as they say, the word denotes the first numeration of the Crown, or of that name of God which follies his Essence.  
The second is Psal. 2. 7. The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son 
§. 10.  this day have I begotten thee.  
To this second what is to be answered? 

Ad secundum vero quid?  
Neque in ea de generaetione ex essentia Patris, nec de generatione praeaeterna prorsus quicquam haberi: etenim vox hody, cum certum 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 hody genui te, primo sensu de Davide dicantur, quem constat neque ab aeterno, nec ex essentia Dei genitum. Deinde, quod Paulus Apostolus cadem verba ad approbandam Christi resurrectionem afferat. Act. 13. 33.& author ad Hebraeos ad glorificationem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. 1 5.& 5. 5. Denique ex ea re, quod constet Deum aliter quam ex essentia generare, dum a Deo genitos credentes Scriptura pronunciat, ut videre est. joh. 1. 13. 1 Joh. 3. 9. Jac. 1. 18.    
Neither in that is there any thing of Generation of the Essence of the Father, nor of a Preeternall generation. For the word[ to day] signifying a certain time, cannot denote preeternity. But that God begot him, doth not evince that he was begotten of his Essence; which appears from hence, that the same words, this day have I begotten thee, are in the first sense used of David: who was begotten neither from Eternity, nor of the Essence of the Father. 2. Because the Apostle Paul brings these words to prove the Resurrection of Christ. Act. 13. 33. And the Author to the Hebrewes cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. 1. 5. and 5. 5. And lastly from hence, that it is manifest that God otherwise begets then by his Essence, seeing the Scripture declares Believers to be begotten of God: as is to be seen Joh. 1. 13. 1 joh. 3. 9. Iam. 1. 18.  
1. There is mention in these words of Christs Generation of his 
§. 11.  Father; of being begotten of him before his Incarnation, this being spoken of him under the Old Testament; and to deny that there is any such thing in the Text, as that which upon this consideration we urge it to prove, is only to beg the thing in Question.  
2. To day, being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, to whom all time is so present, as that nothing is properly yesterday, nor to day, does not denote necessary such a proportion of time, as is intimated. But is expressive of an Act eternally present, nor past, nor future.  
3. It cannot be proved that the words are spoken at all of David, so much as Typically: nor any thing else in that psalm from v. 7. to the end. Yea the contrary is evident from every verse following; especially the 12. where Kings and Rulers are called to worship him, of whom he 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. 17. 5, 6, 7.  
4. It is granted that the Apostle makes use of these words, when he mentions the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ: not that Christ was then begotten, but that he was then declared to be the only begotten son of God: his Resurrection and Exaltation being manifestations of his Sonship, not causes of his Filiation, as hath been at large declared. So the Sun is said to arise when it doth first to us appear.  
5. True, God hath other Sons, and Believers are said to be begotten of God, but how? by Regeneration,& 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. 1. 5. For unto which of the Angells said he at any time, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son. Now the Angells are the sons of God by Creation, Job. 1. 6. and 38. 7. He is also such a Son, and so begotten, as Believers are not. For they are begotten by Regeneration from sin, and Adoption into the Family of God: Therefore Christ who is the son of God in another kind, then Angells 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: 
§. 12.  indeed in the entrance he tells us, that a mystical and abstruse 
Sensus primus& apertus ad Davidem pertinet; mystieus& abstrusior ad Messiam: quo modo ●umpsere Apost. Annot. in v. 1.  sense of it may belong to Christ,& so the rabbis aclowledge,& so the Apostle took it. 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 their Accomplishment in Christ, and the things which concerned him. These words, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, he says may be thus rendered O fili mi, hody( id est hoc tempore) ego te genui; novam vitam, scilicet regalem tibi contuli: but that the words may not aptly be so translated, that they are not so rendered by the Apostle( Heb. 1. 5.) He knew well enough. {αβγδ}, is filius meus tu, not fili mi: nor doth the rendering of it by the voca●ive, any way answer the words going before. I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son: that is the thing I will declare. 2. That hody should be hoc tempore, relating to any certain time of Davids reign, cannot be reconciled to the Apostles Application of that expression on sundry occasions, as hath been manifest. 3. I have given thee a new, or a regal life, is somewhat an uncouth exposition of genui and; without warrant, without Reason, or Argument; and it is inconsistent with the time of the psalms writing, according to Grotius himself: He refers it to 2 Sam. 8. when David had been King over Israel many years.  
To serve his Hypothesis, the two last verses are miserable wrested. 
§. 13.  The command of worshipping Christ, v. 12. is a command of doing homage to David. And the last verse is thus glossed, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo, i. e. qui fidei ejus regis( id est, meae) se permittunt. They are blessed( 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 every where declareth; yea this he makes always the property of a blessed man: but that they are so who trust in him, not the least word to that purpose did the holy person ever utter: he knew they were cursed of God, who put their trust in man. The word here is {αβγδ} from {αβγδ} to repair to any one for protection; and it is used to express our trusting in God. Psal. 18. 30. as also Psal. 31. 19. on which men are frequently pronounced blessed; but that it should be applied to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were to learn.  
The third Testimony of Psal. 110. 10. we pass over with our 
§. 14.  Adversaries, as not to the purpose in hand; being a mistake of the vulgar latin.  
The 4th is Prov. 8. 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.  
What-dost thou answer to this Testimony?  
Ad quartum vero quid? Ut rem melius accipias, scito eos ex hoc loco ad eum modum argumentari: Sapientia Dei ab aeterno est genita: Christus est Dei sapientia: ergo ab aeterno est genitus. 1 Cor. 1. 24. Id argumentum firmum non esse hinc patet; primum, quod Solomon agate de sapientia simpliciter,& absolutè considerata, sine additione vocis Dei: Paulus vero non simpliciter& absolutè; said cum additione, nempe, Dei. Deinde, Solomen agit de sapientia, quae neque est persona, nec esse potest, ut●e variis effects, quae huic sapientiae attribuit, apparet,& hoc 7, 8, 9. cap. ex quibus sunt ea, per me Reges regnant,& Principes justa decernunt:& initi● cap. 9. introducit sapientiam omnes ad se invitantem,& mittentem virgines suas. Paulus vero agit de sapientia, quae persona est. Tertio, verba haec, quae sunt reddita ab aeterno, in Haebraeo extant a seculo: aliud vero esse ab aeterno, aliud a seculo, indicant loci Isa. 64. 4. Jer. 2. 20. Luk. 1. 70.& alii permalti similes.  
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. 1. 24. That this Argument is not firm appears from hence, that 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 divers effects ascribed to this wisdom, Chap. 7, 8, 9. amongst which are these words; By me Kings rule, and Princes decree righteousness; and in the beginning of the Chapter, he brings in wisdom sending her maidens, and inviting all to her: But Paul treateth of that wisdom which is a Person, 3. The words which are rendered from everlasting, in the Hebrew are à seculo; but that from everlasting, and à seculo, are divers, Isa. 64. 4. Jer. 2. 20. Luk. 1. 70. with many like places do declare.  
1. Our Argument hence is: Christ the second Person of 
§. 15.  the Trinity is spoken of, Prov. 8. 22. under the name of wisdom. Now it is said expressly there of wisdom, that it was begotten from everlasting, and therefore the eternal Generation of Christ is hence confirmed. Our Reasons are, 1. Because the things here spoken of can be applied to no other. 2. Because the very same things are affirmed of Christ, Joh. 1. 1. 3. Because Christ is the wisdom of God, and so called in the Scripture; not only in the expression of {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ} 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2: That by wisdom, Solomon intended the wisdom of God, and that that word may be supplied, is most evident from what is spoken of it: Let the place be red, 3. Christ is called not only the wisdom of God, but also wisdom, absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. 1. 20. but Math. 11. 19. 4. The wisdom that Solomon treats of, is evidently a Person, and such things are ascribed thereunto, as can be proper to none but a Person: such are those v: 30, 31. I was by him, one brought up with him, I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable part of the Earth, &c. That it is the same wisdom spoken of Chap: 7. 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 9 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 judgement by the Authority of a Person; and without him they can do nothing.  
3. The word translated, from everlasting, is the same with that 
§. 16.  considered before Mich: 5. 2. 2. The words following do so evidently confirm the meaning of the word to be as expressed, that it is marvellous the Gentlemen durst venture upon the exception in this place. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: that is, before the Creation, as is at large expounded, v. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.  
And this is all, the whole sum of what any of our Adversaries, or rather the Adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to object in their cause against these Testimonies: whence we thus argue.  
He who was begotten of God the Father with an eternal Generation, is eternal; and so consequently God: but so is Jesus Christ begotten of God the Father, with an eternal Generation; Therefore he is eternal, and God blessed for ever.  
To clear what hath been spoken, I shall close my considerations 
§. 17.  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, Math. 11. 19. 
§. 18.  1 Cor. 1. 24. Col. 2. 3. 2. wisdom was set up from everlasting v. 23. Grace is given in Christ, {αβγδ}, from everlasting, 2 Tim. 1. 9. He is the beginning, Col. 1. 5. the first and last. Rev. 1. 17. 3. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, says wisdom v. 23. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, joh. 1. 1, 2. 4. Before the Mountaines were settled, before the hills were brought forth, v. 25. He is the First born of every Creature, Col. 1. 15. He is before all, v. 17. 5. I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, v. 30. This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased, Matth. 3. 17. The only begotten son is in the bosom of the Father, joh. 1. 18. 6. By me Kings reign, and Princes &c. v. 15, 16. He is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 1. 5. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Revel. 19. 16. 7. rejoicing in the habitable part of the Earth, and my delights were with the sons of Men, v. 31. For the Word was made Flesh, and dwelled amongst us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten son of God. 8. Compare also v. 34. with joh. 13. 17. Luk. 11. 28. joh. 10. 9. And v. 35, and 36. with joh. 6. 44, 47. and many the like instances might be given.  
Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea he seems 
§. 19.  evidently to exclude him from being here intended; his first note on v. 1. is, Haec de ea sapientia, quae in lege apparet, exponunt Haebraei;& merely ei, si non soli, at praecipuè haec attributa conveniunt. The Hebrews expound these things of that wisdom which appears in the Law; and truly these Attributes agree thereunto, if not only, yet chiefly. Of this assertion he gives no reason. The contrary is evident from what is above said, and proved. The Authority of the modern rabbis 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 mean time one no less versed in the Hebrew Authors, than our Annotatour, expounding this place, from them concludes, nec dubito, hinc 
Mercer in Loc. v. 22.  johannem augustum illud& magnificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse. In principio erat verbum: nam verbum& sapientia idem sunt,& 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.  
Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall add some of 
§. 20.  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 Joh. 17. 5. And now O Father glorify me with thine own 
§. 21.  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.  
What answerest thou to this? 
Quid ad hoc respondes? Neque hinc naturam divinam probari. Posse enim aliquem gloriam habere antequam mundus ●ieret apud Patrem, nec tamen hinc effici eum esse Deum, appaparet 2 Tim. 1. 9. ubi ait Apostolus de credentibus, illis datam fuisse gratiam, ante tempora secularia. Praeterea, hic scriptum est, Jesum rogare hanc gloriam, quod naturae Divinae prorsus repugnat. Loci vero senpentia est: Christum rogare Deum, ut ei gloriam reipsa debt, quam habuerit apud Deum in ipsius de creto antequam mundus fieret.   
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. 1. 9. where the Apostle says of Believers that grace was given unto them before the World began. Besides it is here written, that Jesus asked this Glory, which is repugnant to the Divine Nature. But the sense of the place is, that Christ asked God, that he would really give him that Glory, which he had with God in his decree before the World was.  
A Divine Glory proves a Divine Nature. This Christ had 
§. 22.  from Eternity, for he had it before the world began; therefore He had a divine nature also. It is the manifestation of his Glory, which he had celipsed, and laid aside for a season, that here he desires of God. Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11, 12. 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. 1. 9. Christ here positively says, he HAD Glory with his Father before the 
{αβγδ}.  world was; nor is this any where, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded, to be any otherwise, but in a real HAVING of that Glory. The grace that is given to Believers, is not said to be, before the world was, but {αβγδ}, which may denote the first promise, Gen. 3. 15. as it doth Tit. 1. 2. and if it be intended of the purpose of God, which was from Eternity( as the words will bear) it is so expounded in 20. places. 3. Though the Divine Nature pray not, yet he who was in the form of God, and humbled himself to take upon him the form, and Employment of a Servant, might, and did pray: the Godhead prayed not, but he who was God prayed. 4. For the sense assigned, let them once show us in the whole Book of God, where this Expression I had( {αβγδ}) may be possibly interpnted, 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 mean time they do but corrupt the word of God,( as many do) by this pretended interpretation of it. 5. If Predestination only be intended, here is nothing singular spoken of Christ, but what is common to him with all Believers; when evidently Christ speaks of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The very express tenor of the words will not admit of this gloss,( let what violence can be used:) {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}: 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: {αβγδ}, destinatione 
§. 23.  tua; ut 1 Pet. 1. 20. Rev. 13. 8. sicut Ephes. 1. 3, 4. & infra v. 24. Simile legendi genus: sic legem fuisse ante mundum dicunt Haebraei, again, {αβγδ}; refer ad illud {αβγδ}, & intellige ut diximus in decreto tuo.  
But what intends the Learned man by those places of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Revel. 13. 8? Is it to expound the thing that he supposes to be expressed? Or to intimate, that the phrase here used is expounded by the use of it in those other places. If the first, he begs that to be the sense of this place, which is the sense of them, though neither the scope of the places, nor the sense of the Words themselves, will bear it. If the latter, it is most false; there is not one word, Phrase, nor expression, in any of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different sences; the one speaking of Gods purpose, appointing Christ to be a Mediator; the other of the Promise given presently after the fall. 2. We grant, that Christ in respect of his human nature was predestinated unto Glory; but that he calls Gods purpose, his Glory, the glory which he had, which he had with God, wherewith he desires to be glorified with him again, is to be proved from the Text, or Context, or phrase of speech, or parallel place, or analogy of Faith or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. 8. 22, 30. Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. be consulted, as parallel to this place. Eph. 1. 3, 4 speaks indeed of our predestination in Christ, that we should be holy, and so come to Glory: but of the Glory, that Christ had before the world was, it speaks not. Yea v. 3. we are said to be actually blessed, or to have the Heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, v. 4. What the 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 Ep. 1. v. 10, 11. Of which 
§. 24.  salvation the Prophets have inquired, and preached diligently, who Prophesied of the Grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. To which add that more clear place, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19, 20. quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the Spirits that were in prison, which sometime were disobedient— in the dayes of Noah. He who was in the dayes of the Prophets of old, and in the dayes of Noah, so long before his being born according to the flesh, he was from everlasting; or had an Existence antecedent to his incarnation: but this is expressly affirmed of our Saviour; It was his Spirit that spake in the Prophets; which if he were not, it could not be; for of him who is not, nothing can be affirmed. He preached by his Spirit in the dayes of Noah, to the Spirits that are in prison.  
Of this latter place our Catechists take no notice; about the 
§. 25.  first they inquire. What answerest thou to this?  
Neither is a Divine nature proved from hence. 

Quid ad hoc respondes?  
Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici. Nam hic Spiritus, qui in Prophetis erat, Christi dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fuerit, said quod ea quae Christi fuerunt, praenunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, praenuncians illas in Christum passions,& post haec glorias. Quem loquendi modum etiam, 1 Joan. 4. 6. habes. Hinc cognoscimus Spiritum veritatis,& Spiritum erroris, ubi non propterea Spiritus veritatis& erroris Spiritus dicitur, quod veritas& error, tanquam personae, eum Spiritum conferant; verum eo quod Spiritus veritatis loquatur quae veritatis sunt,& Spiritus erroris quae sunt erroris.   For the Spirit which was in the Prophets, may be said to be the Spirit of Christ, not that he was given of Christ, but because he foredeclared the things of Christ, as Peter there speaks; he testified before hand of the sufferings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow. Which manner of speaking we have 1 Joh 4. 6. Hence know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Where it is not called the Spirit of Truth& error, because truth& error as persons do bestow the spirit but because the spirit of truth speaks the things of truth,& the Spirit of error the things of error.  
1. It is confessed, that if the Spirit that was in the Prophets, was 
§. 26.  the Spirit of Christ. then he hath a Divine nature: for the only evasion used, is, that it is not, or may not( possibly) be so meant in this place, not denying, but that if it be so, then the conclusion intended follows. 2. That this place is to be interpnted by 1 Joh. 4. 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 interpnted 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 Ro. 8. 9. Gal. 4. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ, is said directly, to take of him,& show it to his Apostles, Joh. 16. 15.& so he did to the Prophets. They may as well on the pretence of 1 Joh. 4. 6. deny him to be the Spirit of God the Father, as the Spirit of Christ, as being of him, and sent by him.  
And thus far of the Testimonies proving the preexistence of Christ unto his incarnation, and so consequently his Eternity; whence it follows, that he is God over all blessed for ever, having this evidence of his eternal power and God-head. Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under consideration in our progress.   

CHAP. X.  
Of the names of God given unto Christ.  
IN the next place, as a third Head, our Catechists consider the 
§. 1.  scriptural Attributions of the Names of God, unto our Saviour Jesus Christ. Whence this is our Argument.  
He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, He is God properly by nature. But Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true God, &c. Therefore he is God properly by nature.  
The proposition is clear in itself; of the innumerable Testimonies which are, or may be produced to confirm the Assumption, our Catechists fix upon a very few, namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Weicke the jesuit, whence most of their exceptions to these Witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed. 
§. 2.   
What are those places of Scripture, which seem to attribute 

Quaenam ea loca Scripturae quae videntur Christo quaedam tempore certo& definito attribuere?  
Ea sunt duplicia; quorum alia nomina, alia facta respiciunt, quae Christ● a Scriptura attribui opinantur.   something to Christ in a certain and definite time?  
They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the Names, other the works which they suppose in the Scriptures to be Attributed to Christ.  
Which are they that respect the names of Christ?  
Those, where they suppose in the Scripture 

Quaenam sunt quae Christi nomina respiciunt?  
Ea, ubi arbitrantur Jesum a Scriptura vocari Jehovam: Dominum exercituum, Deum verum, solum verum, Deum magnum, dominum Deum omnipotentem, qui fuit, qui est,& qui venturus est; Deum qui acquisivit proprio sanguine Ecclesiam; Deum qui animem posuit pro nobis. Jerem. 23. 6. Zac. 2. 8. 1 Joan. 5. 20. Jud. 4. Tit. 2. 13. Apoc. 1. 8. 4. 8. Act. 20. 28. 1 Joan. 3. 16.   that Christ is called Jehovah, &c. Jerem: 23. 6. Zach. 2. 8. 1 John 5. 20. judas 4. Titus 2. 13. Revel. 1. 18. and 4. 8. Acts 20. 28. 1 John 3. 16.  
The first Testimony is Jerem: 23. 6. in these words: In his dayes Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness. To which add the next, Zech. 2. 8.  
Before I come to consider their Exceptions to these Texts in particular, some things in general may be premised, for the better understanding of what we are about; and what from these places we intend to prove and confirm.  
1. The end of citing these two places, is to prove, that Jesus 
§. 4.  Christ is in the Old Testament called jehovah; which is by them denied; the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.  
2. It is granted, that jehovah is the proper and peculiar name of the one only true God of Israel: a name as far significant of his Nature and Being, as possibly we are enabled to understand: yea so far expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it, is incomprehensible, so many have thought the very word itself to be ineffable, or( at least) not lawful to be uttered. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himself, in an eminent manner, Exod: 6. 2, 9. So that this is taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is jehovah, is the only true God, the God of Israel; when ever that name is used properly, without a Trope or figure, it is used of him only. What the Adversaries of Christ except against this, shall be vindicated in its proper place.  
3. Our Catechists have very faintly brought forth the Testimonies, that are usually insisted on in this cause; naming but 
§. 5.  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. 40. 3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of jehovah, make strait in the desert an high way for our God. That it is Christ who is here called jehovah, is clear from that farther expression in Mal. 3. 1. and the execution of the thing itself, joh. 1. 23. Matth. 3. 3. Mark. 1. 2, 3. Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 25. Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none else, I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall ●ow, every tongue shall swear: surely, shall one say, in the Lord jehovah have I righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him, shall be ashamed; in Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and Glory. The Apostle expressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. 14. 11, 12, &c. Hos. 13. 14. is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 54, 55. He that would at once consider all the Texts of the Old Testament, chiefly ascribing this name to Christ, let him red Zanchius de tribus Elohim, who hath made a large collection of them.  
Let us now see what our Catechists except against the first 
§. 6.  Testimony.  
What dost thou Answer to the first Testimony?  
First, that hence it cannot be necessary evinced, 

Quid vero tu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad primum?  
Primum, quod ex eo confici non posset necessario nomen Jehovae Christo attribui. E● enim verba;& hoc est nomen ejus, quo vocabunt eum, Jehovah justitia nostra, referri possunt ad Israelem, de quo paulo superius eodem versu loquitur: In diebus ejus servibitur Juda,& Israel habitabit secure,& hoc est nomen ejus, &c. Ut e loco simili conspici potest apud eundem Prophetam cap. 33. v. 15, 16. ubi ait, in diebus illis,& in illo tempore, faciam ut existat Davidi surculus justitiae,& faciet judicium& justitiam in terra. In diebus illis servabitur Iuda& Jerusalem habitabit securè,& hoc( suppling nomen) quo vocabunt eam, Jehovah justitiae nostra. Etenim in Haebraeo express legitur, vocabunt eam, quam vocem posteriorem ad jerusalem referri prorsus est necesse;& hoc quidem loco Israeli, qui in priori loco positus est, respondet. Videtur igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in priori etiam loco, haec verba, vocabunt eum, ad Israelem referantur. At licet concedamus, nomen Jehovae ad Christum posse referri, ex altero tamen Testimonio apparet asseri non posse, Iehovam simpliciter Christum vocari: neque ex eo sequi, Christum reipsâ esse Iehovam; sieve igitur de Christo, sieve de Israele postrema verba in Testimonia Hieremiae accipiantur, sententia ipsorum est, tum Iehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum. Etenim illo tempore, cum Christus appariturus esset, Deus id in Israele facturus erat.   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 daies shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, &c. as from a like place may be seen in the same Prophet, Chap. 33. 15, 16. where he saith, In those daies, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgement and righteousness in the Land: In those daies shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our righteousness; for in the Hebrew it is expressly red, 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.  
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 daies of Christ. Of each briefly.  
1. The Subject spoken of all along is Christ; He is the subject 
§. 7.  matter of what ever 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 name together, and upon the same account,( yea and Judah hath the pre-eminence, being name 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. 1. 30. so that without departing from the propriety of the Words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing itself, these words cannot be so perverted. The violence used to them is notoriously manifest.  
2 The expression is not the same in both places. Neither is 
§. 8.  Jerusalem there called the Lord our righteousness; but He who calls her, is, the Lord our righteousness; and so are the words rendered by Arias Montanus, and others. And if what Jerusalem shall be called be intimated, and not what His Name is that calls her, it is merely by a Metonymy, upon the account of the presence of Christ in her; As the Church is called Christ improperly, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be rendered, this is the name whereby she shall be called, but this is the name whereby he shall call her, the Lord our righteousness; that is, he who is the Lord our righteousness shall call her to peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our righteousness, Jerusalem is not.  
3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in 
§. 9.  this, as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more. And it thence evidently follows, that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply says, his name is Jehovah, we believe him: and where he says, the name of the Branch 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 afterwards.  
4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse, 
§. 10.  and opposite to the meaning of them. The Prophet says not, that jehovah the one God shall be our righteousness, but the Branch of David shall be the Lord our righteousness. The subject is the Branch of David, not Jehovah. The Branch of David shall be called the Lord our righteousness; that is, the Lord shall justify us, when the Branch of David shall be brought forth: Who could have discovered this sense, but our Catechists and their Masters, whose words these are. It remaineth then, that the Branch of David, who Ruleth in righteousness, is Jehovah our righteousness: our righteousness, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as being so in himself.  
Grotius expounds this place, as that of Micha. 5. 2. of Zorubbabel, 
§. 11.  helping on his friends with a new diversion, which they knew 
Socin. de seruit p. 3. cap. 4. Franz. de Sacrif. p. 786.  not of. Socinus as he professes being not acquainted with the jewish Doctors, though some believe him not. And yet the learned Annotatour cannot hold out, as he begins, but is forced to put out the name of Zerubbabell, and to put in that of the People, when he comes to the name insisted on: so leaving no certain design in the whole words, from the beginning to the ending.  
Two things doth he here oppose himself in, to the received 
§. 12.  Interpretation of Christians. 1. That it is Zorubbabell who is here intended. 2. That it is the People who is called the Lord our righteousness.  
For the first, thus he on v. 5. Germen justum, a Righteous Branch: Zorubbabelem qui {αβγδ} ut hic appellatur, ita& Zechariae 6. 12. nimirum quod velut surculus renatus esset ex Arbore Davidis quasi ●raecisa. justitiae nomine commendatur Zorubbabel etiam apud Zechariam, 9. 9. Zorubbabel who is here called the Branch, as also Zech. 6. 12. because as a Branch he arose from the three of David which was as cut off. Also Zorubbabel is commended for justice or righteousness, Zech. 9. 9.  
That this is a prophecy of Christ, the circumstances of the 
§. 13.  place evince: The rabbis were also of the same mind, as plentiful collections from them are made to demonstrate it, by joseph de Voysin, pug. fid. par. 3. dist. 1. cap. 4. And the matter spoken of, can be accommodated to no other, as hath been declared. Grotius his proofs that Zorubbabell is intended, are worse then the opinion itself. That he is called the Branch, Zech. 6. 12. is most false: He who is called the Branch there, is a King and a Priest. He shall rule upon his Throne, and he shall be a Priest, which Zorubbabell was not; nor had any thing to do with the Priestly office, which in his daies was administered by Iehoshua, more evidently false is it, that he is spoken of Zech. 9. 9. which place is precisely interpnted of Christ, and the accomplishment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded, Math. 21. 5. The words are, rejoice greatly O Daughter of Sion, shout O Daughter of jerusalem, behold thy King cometh to thee, he is just, and having Salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a Colt the foal of an ass. That a man professing Christian Religion, should afffirme any one but Iesus Christ to be here intended, is somewhat strange.  
Upon the Accommodation of the next words to Zorubbabell, A King shall reign and prosper, &c. I shall not insist; they contain not the matter of our present contest, though they are pitifully wrested by the Annotatour, and do no ways serve his design.  
For the particular words about which our contest is, this is 
§. 14.  his Comment. And this is the name whereby they shall call him: nempe populum: namely the people: they shall call the people. How this change comes, in his daies 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 shewed; what hath been said need not to be repeated. He proceeds. Dominus justitia nostra, i. e. Deus nobis benefecit, God hath done well for us, or dealt kindly with us. But it is not about the intimation of goodness that is in the Words; but of the signification of the name given to Iesus Christ, that here we pled. In what sense Christ is the Lord our righteousness appears, Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 25. 1 Cor. 1. 30.  
The second Testimony is Zech. 2. 8. in these words: For thus 
§. 15.  saith the Lord of Hosts, after the Glory, hath he sent me unto the Nations which spoyled you: for be that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: for behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, &c. v. 9, 10, 11, 12.  
briefly to declare what this witness speaks to, before we permit him to the examination of our Adversaries: The Person speaking, is, the Lord of Hosts: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: And He is the person spoken of; after the Glory( saith he)( or after this glorious deliverance of you my people from the captivity wherein you were among the Nations) hath he sent me, even me the Lord of Hosts hath he sent. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, he hath sent me; and it was to the Nations, as in the words following; and who sent him? ye shall know, that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me; The people of Israel shall know, that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me the Lord of Hosts to the Nations: but how shall they know that he is so sent? He tells them v. 11. it shall be known by the conversion of the Nations: Many Nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day; and what then? They shall be my people; mine who am sent; my people, the people of the Lord of Hosts that was sent; that is, of Jesus Christ, and I( saith he) whose people they are, will dwell in the midst of them,( as God promised to do,) and thou shalt know the Lord of Hosts hath sent me: I omit the circumstances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by our Catechists. 
§. 16.   
What dost thou answer to this second Testimony? 

Ad secundum vero quid respondes?  
Locum Zechariae ad hunc modum citant hoc dicit Dominus Exerci●uum; Post gloriam misit me ad gentes, quae vos spoliarunt: qui enim vos tangit, tangit pupillam oculi mei, &c. Quae ad Christum torquent, quod hic ut arbitrantur, dicatur, dominum exercituum missum esse a Domino exercituum. Verum ea hic non habentur; quod hinc perspicuum est, quod ea verba, post gloriam misit me &c. sunt ab ali● prolata, nempe ab Angelo, qui cum Zecharia& alio Angelo colloquebatur, ut idem 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 exereituum, in Haebraeo legantur sic dicit Dominus exercituum item illa, tangit pupillam oculi mei, legantur pupillam oculi ejus, quae non ad Dominum exercituum, said ad Legatum referri necesse est.    
The place of Zechary they thus city. This saith the Lord of Hosts; after the Glory hath he sent me to the Nations which spoyled you; for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye; which they wrest unto Christ; because here as they suppose, it is said, that the Lord of Hosts is sent from the Lord of Hosts. But these things are not so; for it is evident that these words, after the Glory he hath sent me, are spoken of another, namely of the angel, who spake with Zechariah, and the other angel; the same is evident in the same Chapter a little before, beginning at the 4. v. where the angel is brought in speaking; which also is to be seen from hence, that those words which they city, this saith the Lord of Hosts, in the Hebrew may be red, thus said the Lord of Hosts, and those, toucheth the apple of mine eye, may be red, 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 
§. 17.  thereupon undertaking to answer any thing in the world, do not lightly acquit themselves more weakly, and jejunely in any place then in this. For  
1. We contend not with them about the translation of the words, their exceptions being to the vulgar 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 
§. 18.  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 read horse, 1. Chap. 8. v. who is called Angelus Jehovae, v. 11. and makes Intercession for the Church v. 12. which is the proper Office of Jesus Christ; and that he is no created angel, but jehovah himself, the second person of the Trinity, we prove, because he calls himself the Lord of Hosts; says he will destroy his enemies with the shaking of his hand, that he will convert a people, and make them his people, and that he will dwell in his Church, and yet unto all this he adds three times, that he is sent of the Lord of Hosts. We confess then all these things to be spoken of him, who was sent, but upon all these Testimonies conclude, that he who was sent was the Lord of Hosts.  
Grotius interprets all this place of an angel, and names him 
§. 19.  to boot. Michael it is; but who that Mitchaell is, and whither he be no more then an angel, that is, a Messenger, He inquires not. That the ancient* jewish Doctors interpnted this place of the 
Bereschith Rab. ad gen. 25. 28.  Messiah is evident. Of that no notice here is taken, it is not to the purpose in hand. To the reasons already offered, to prove that it is no mere 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 Apollogizers for this learned Annotatour would reconcile this exposition of this place to its self, 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 3 Testimony is 1 Joh. 5. 20. And we know that the son of God 
§. 20.  is come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son Iesus Christ; This is the true God and eternal life.  
What dost thou answer to this? 

Quid respondes ad tertium?  
In hoc Testimonio, scimus filium Dei venisse &c. Haec verba, hic est verus deus, nego referri ad dei Filium; non quodnegē Christum esse verum deum; said quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat: Etenim hic agitur non solum de vero deo; said de illo uno vero deo, ut articulus in Graeco additus indicat. Christus vero etsii verus deus sit, non est tamen ille ex se unus deus, qui per se& per sectissima ratione deus est, eum is deus tantum sit Pater. Nec vero quicquam juvat Adversarios qui propterea haec ad Christum referri volunt, quod verba, Hic est verus deus,& Christi mentio proxime antecesserit. Etenim pronomina relativa, ut hic& similia, non semper ad proxime antecedentia, verum saepenumero ad id, de quo potissimum sermo est, referuntur, ut patet ex his locis, Act. 7. 19, 20.& Act. 10. 6. Joh. 2. 7. e quibus locis apparet, pronomen relativum hic non ad proxime antecedentes personas, said ad remotiores referri.    
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 that place will not admit those words to be understood of Christ: for here he treats not only of the the true God, but of the only true God, as the article added in the greek doth declare. But Christ, although he be true God, he is not yet of himself that one God, who by himself, and upon the most excellent account is God, seeing that is only God the Father. Nor doth it avail the Adversaries, who would have those words referred to Christ, because the mention of Christ doth immediately go before those words, this is the true God. For pronounce relatives as this and the like, are not always referred to the next Antecedents, but often to that which is chiefly spoken of, as Acts 7. 19, 20. John 2. 7. from which places it appears, that the pronoun relative, this, is referred not to the next, but to the most remote person.  
1. It is well, it is acknowledged, that the only true God is 
§. 21.  here intended; and that this is proved by the prefixed Article, this may be of use afterward.  
2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be a true God, we know: a made God, a God by office, not nature: a man deified with Authority; so making two true Gods, contrary to innumerarable express Texts of Scripture, and the Nature of the Deity.  
3. That those words are not meant of Christ, they prove, because 
§. 22.  He is not the only true God, but only the Father: but Friends! these words are produced to prove the contrary; as expressly affirming it; and is it a sufficient Reason to deny it, by saying, He is not the only true God, therefore these words are not spoken of him; When the Argument is, these words are spoken of him, therefore He is the only true God.  
4. Their instances prove, that in some cases a Relative may 
§. 23.  relate to the more remote Antecedent, but that in this place, that mentioned ought to do so, they pretend not once to urge: yea their Reason they give is against themselves; namely, that it refers to him chiefly spoken of, which here is eminently, and indisputably Iesus Christ. In the places by them produced, it is impossible from the subject matter in hand, that the Relative should be referred to any but the remoter Antecedent; but that therefore here we must offer violence to the words, and strain them into an Incoherence, and transgress all rules of construction,( nothing enforcing to such a tour) is not proved.  
5 In the beginning of the 20. verse it is said, the son of God 
§. 24.  is come, and hath given us an understanding: and we are said to be in him, even in Iesus Christ, on which it immediately follows, {αβγδ}, this, this Iesus Christ is the true God and eternal Life.  
6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called Life, and 
§. 25.  Life eternal, is evident both from his gospel, and this Epistle; and without doubt, by the same term, in his usual manner. He expresses here the same person; Chap. 1. v. 2. The son of God is Life, eternal Life, He that hath the son, hath life; we are in him, the son Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and eternal Life: so he began, and so he ends his Epistle.  
And this is all our Adversaries have to say against this most express 
§. 26.  Testimony of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ; in their entrance whereunto they cry hail Master, as one before them did,( he is a true God,) but in the close betray him( as far as lies in them) by denying his divine nature.  
Even at the light of this most evident Testimony the eyes of 
§. 27.  Grotius dazzled, that he could not see the Truth: His note is, {αβγδ}. is nempe quem Iesus monstravit, colendumque d●cuit, non alius. {αβγδ} saepe refertur ad aliquid praecedens non {αβγδ}. Act. 8. 19. 10. 6. The very same plea with the former: only Acts 8. 19. is mistaken for Acts 7. 19. the place urged by our Catechists,& be fore them by Socinus against Wieke, to whom not only they, but Grotius is beholding. That citation of Acts 10. 6. helps not the business at all: {αβγδ} is twice used, once immediately at the beginning of the verse, secondly being guided by the first, the latter is referred to the same Person, nor can possibly signify any other. Here is no such thing. Not any one circumstance to cause us, to put any force upon the Constructure of the words: the discourse being still of the same Person without any Alteration: which in the other places is not.  
Of the next Testimony, which is from those words of Iude, 
§. 28.  denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Iesus Christ, v. 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 Math. 21. 12. but it is evident, that they are utterly things of another kind, and another manner of speaking, then what is here: but the judgement hereof is left to the Reader; it being not indeed clear to me, whether Christ be called {αβγδ} any where in the New Testament, though he be Lord and God, and the true God, full often.  
The 2 of Titus 13. must be more fully insisted on: Looking for 
§. 29.  the blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.  
What ●ost thou Answer to this? 
Ad quintum quid respondes?   
In this place they strive to evince by two Reasons, that the epithet of the Great God is 
Quintum Testimonium est: Expectantes beatam spe●● &c. Quo in loco epithetcn magni dei ad Christum referri duabus rationibus evincere conantur: Prior est superius, de articulo uno praefixa regula. Posterior, quod adventum non expectemus Patris, said Filii. Verum ad primum argumentum responsum habes in responsione ad quartum testimonium. Ad altorum respondeo, Paulum non dicere, expectantes adventum Magni dei, verum dicere, expectantes apparitionem gloriae Magni der. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei patris illustratam iri, cum Christus ad judicium venerit, verba Christi oftendunt, cum ait, quod venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum gloria dei Patris sui. Math. 16. 27. Marc. 8. 38. praeterea, quod est inconveniens si dicatur, Deus pater venturus( prout illi è vulgata citant) cum Filius ad mundum judicandum venerit? An Christus Dei patris personam, in judicio mundi, tanquam ejus, a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sustinebit?  referred to Christ. The first is the rule forementioned, of one Article prefixed to all the words: the other, that we do not expect that coming of the Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an Answer already, in the Answer to the Fourth Testimony; To the other I Answer, Paul doth not say, expecting the coming of the Great God, but expecting the appearance of the Glory of the Great God. But now the words of Christ show, that the Glory of God the Father may be said to be illustrated, when Christ comes to judgement; whereas he saith, that he shall come in Glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Math. 16. 27. Mark. 8. 38. Besides, what inconvenience is it, if it shall be said, that God the Father shall come,( as they city the words out of the vulgar) when the Son comes to judge the World? shall not Christ sustain the Person of the Father, as of him from whom he hath received this office of judging?  
About the Reading of the words, with them we shall not contend; 
§. 30.  It is the original we are to be tried by, and there is in that no ambiguity. That {αβγδ}, the Appearance of the Glory, is an hebraism, for the Glorious Appearance, cannot be questioned. An hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament, may be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed heap looked for, is the thing hoped for, the Resurrection to life and immortality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the subject spoken of be Iesus Christ, and his coming to judgement. The subject 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: {αβγδ}, which no less signifies one person, then that other expression, {αβγδ}, the God and Father of Iesus Christ: Should I say, that one Person is here intended, and not two,( God, and the Father of Jesus Christ being the same) our Catechists may say no; for it is found in another place, that there is but one Article prefixed, where sundry Persons are after spoken of. But is it not evident in those places from the subject matter, that they are sundry Persons, as also from the several conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Math: 21. 12. he cast out the sellers and buyers. The proper force then of the expression enforces this Attribution to Iesus Christ. 2. Mention is made {αβγδ}, of the glorious appearance of him, of whom the Apostle speaks. That Christ is the Person spoken of, and his Employment of coming to judgement, primarily and directly, is confessed. This word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and that in particular, in respect of the thing here spoken of. Yea it is properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first coming under contempt, scorn, and reproach, 1 Tim. 6. 14. Keep this commandement {αβγδ}: 2 Tim. 4. 18. which the Lord the Righteous judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to them that love {αβγδ}. Neither( as was said) is it ever used of the Father, but is the Word continually used to express the second coming of Iesus Christ; sometimes 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 hath the same signification, and is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what MAY be said to be done, whether the Glory of the Father may be said to be illustrated by the coming of Christ, but what IS said. The Glorious Appearance of the Great God is not the manifestation of his Glory, but his Glory is manifested in his Appearance. 4. It is true, it is said that Christ shall come in the Glory of his Father, Math. 16. 21. Mark. 8. 38. but it is no where said, that the Glory of the Father shall come or appear. 5. Their whole Interpretation of the words will scarce admit of any good sense; nor can it be properly said, that two Persons come, when only one comes, though that one have Glory and Authority from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own Name, and by the Laws, which as Lord he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming, and Appearance of the Great God, and our Saviour, which if our Saviour come really, and indeed, and the Great God only because he sends him; the one comes, and the other comes not; which is not doubtless they both come.  
Grotius agrees with our Catechists, but says not one word more 
§. 31.  for the proof of his Interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, then they say: as they say no more then Socinus against Bellarmine; nor He much more then Erasmus before him; from whom Grotius also borrowed his consent of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himself having proved that comment under the name of Ambrose, to be a Paltry, corrupted, depraved, foisted piece; but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.  
The next Testimony mentioned is Revel. 1. 8. I am ●●●ha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, 〈◇〉 and which 
§. 32.  was, and which is to come, the Almighty. To which is added that of Chap. 4. 8. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.  
What saist thou to this? 
Quid ad sextum resp●ndes?   
This place, they say, refers to Christ, because 
Eum vero locum propterea ad Christum referunt, quod arbitrentur neminem venturum, ni● Christum. Is enim venturus est ad judicandum vivos& mortuos. Verum tenendum est, eam voc●m quam ilii reddidere, venturus est, reddi aequè posse, futurus est. ut J●an. 16. 13. ubi Domi●us ait de Spiritu, quem apostles promittchat, quòd illis esset futura annunciaturus;& Act. 18. 21. ubi legimus, diem festum futurum: in quibus locis duobus, vex Graeca est {αβγδ}. Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prias dietum sit, qui erat,& qui est,& posterius hoc, quod additum est,  they suppose none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be noted, that that word, which they have rendered to come, may equally be rendered, is to be, as joh. 16. 13. Where the Lord says of the Spirit, which he promised to the Apostles, that he should show them things to come; and Act. 18. 21. we red, that the Feast day was to be, in which place the Greek word is {αβγδ}. Lastly, who is there that knows not, that seeing it is said before, which was and is, this last which is added, may be rendered to be, that the words in every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two former mention of existence, in the latter of coming. Neither is there any one who doth not observe, that the Eternity of 
per futurum esse reddi debere, ut ubique de existentia ea oratio accipiatur;& non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in postremo de adventu. Nec est quisquam qui non animadvertat hic describi aeternitatem Dei, quae tempus praeteritum, praesens,& futurum comprehendit. said quod erassum errorem hune detegit, est quod Apoc. 1. 4, 5. legimus. Gratia vobis,& pax ab eo, qui est,& qui erat,& qui futurus est,& a septem spiritibus, qui sunt ante faciem throni ejus,& a Jesu Christo, qui est testis fidelis. E quo testimonio apparet, Jesum Christum ab eo, qui est, qui erat,& qui futurus est, vel, ut illi credunt, venturus, esse long alium.  God is here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this gross error, is that, Revel. 1. 4, 5. where we red, 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 quiter another from him, which is, and was, and is to be, or as they think, is to come.  
1. There is not one place which they have mentioned, 
§. 33.  wherein the word here used, {αβγδ}, may not properly be translated to come, which they seem to aclowledge 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 {αβγδ}, which yet in conjunction with other things is not without its weight, being as it were a 
{αβγδ}. Gen. 49. 10. {αβγδ}. Mat. 11. 3.  name of the Messiah, Math. 11. 3. from Gen. 49. 10. though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no less triumphant doubtless in their following Answer, that these words describe the Eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ, when the Argument is, that Christ is God, because amongst other things these words ascribe Eternity to him: is this an Answer to us, who not only believe him, but prove him eternal? 4. And they are upon the same pin still, in their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father, v. 4. when they know that the Argument which they have undertaken to Answer, is, that the same names are ascribed to the Son, as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal with him. Their Answer is, this name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is ascribed to the Father. Men must beg, when they can make no earnings at work. 5. We confess Christ to be alius, another, another Person from the Father; not another God, as our Catechists pretend.  
Having stopped the mouths of our Catechists, we may briefly 
§. 34.  consider the Text itself. That by this expression, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh, Exod. 3. 14. which as the rabbis 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: v. 7. His coming is described in Glory: Behold He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the Earth shall wail because of him: whereupon himself immediately adds the words of this Testimony, I am Alpha and Omega: for 1. They are words spoken to John by him who gave him the Revelation, which was Iesus Christ: v. 1. 2. They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Iesus Christ, v. 18. 3. Iesus Christ twice in this Chapter afterwards gives himself the same title, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega; and v. 17. I am the first and the last; But who was He? I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I live for evermore, Amen: and have the keys of Hell and death, v. 18. He gave the Revelation; He is described; He speaks all always; He gives himself the same Titles twice again in this Chapter.  
But our Catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the 
§. 35.  words, as they are placed, Chap. 1. v. 8. considering the same words in Chap. 4. 8. where they want some of the circumstances, which in this place give light to their Application. They are not there spoken by any that ascribes them to himself, but by others are ascribed to him that sits on the Throne, who cry( as the Seraphims Isa. 6. 3) Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, which was, and which is to come. But yet there wants not evidence to evince, that these words belong immediately in this place also to Iesus Christ. For 1. They are the name( as we have seen) whereby not long before he reveals himself. 2. They are spoken of him, who sits on the Throne, in the midst of the Christian Churches here represented. And if Christ be not intended in these words, there is no mention of his presence in his Church, in that solemn Representation of its Assembly, although he promised to be in the midst of his, to the end of the World. 3. The honour that is here ascribed to him that is spoken of, is because he is {αβγδ}, worthy, as the same is assigned to the Lamb, by the same persons, in the same words, Chap. 5. 12. So that in both these places it is Iesus Christ who is described; He is, He was, He is to come,( or as another place expresses it, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever) the Lord God Almighty.  
I shall not need to add any thing to what Grotius hath observed 
§. 36.  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 {αβγδ}: 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 Act. 20. 28. 
§. 37.  feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. He who purchased the Church with his blood, is God: but it was Jesus Christ, who purchased his Church with his blood: Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. Tit. 2. 14. Heb. 9. 14. Therefore He is God.  
What dost thou answer to this? 
Quid ad septimum respondes?   
I answer, the name of God is not necessary in this place referred to Christ, but it may be 
Respondeo, nom●n Dei hoc loco non referri ad Christum necessario, said ad ipsum Deum Patrem referri posse, cujus Apostolus, eum sanguinem, quem Christus fudit, sanguinem vocat, eo genere loquendi,& eam ob causam, quo genere loquendi,& quam ob causam propheta ait, eum qui tangit populum Dei, tangere pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Etenim summa, quae est inter Deum patrem& Christum conjunctio, etsi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, our Christi sanguis, sanguis  referred to God the Father: whose blood the Apostles call that which Christ  shed, in that kind of speaking, and for that cause, with which God, and for which cause the Prophet 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 divers, 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 
ipsius Dei Patris dicatur: prasertim si quis expendat quatenus is est pro nobis fusus. Etenim Christus est agnus Dei, qui tollit 〈◇〉 Mundi. Vnde sanguis in eum finem fusus, ipsius dei sanguis jure vocaripotest. Nec vero praetereundum est silentio, quod in editione Syriaca loco dei legatur Christi.  be passed by in silence, that in the Syriach edition, in the place of God, Christ is red.  
There is scarce any place, in returning an answer whereunto, the Adversaries of the Deity of Christ do less agree among 
§. 38.  themselves, then about this. Some say the name of God is not here taken absolutely, but with relation to Office, and so Christ is spoken of, and called God by Office: So Socin. ad Bellar.& Wieek. pag. 200. &c. Some, that the words are thus to be red: Feed the Church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own blood: So Ochinus and Laelius Socinus, whom Zanchius Answers: de tribus Elohim. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 456.  
Some fly to the Syriach Translation, contrary to the constant 
§. 39.  consenting Testimony of all famous copies of the original, all agreeing in the word {αβγδ}, some adding {αβγδ}: so Grotius would have it; affirming that the manuscript he used had {αβγδ}; not telling them that it added {αβγδ}, which is the same with what we affirm. And therefore he ventures at asserting the Text to be corrupted, and in short writing, {αβγδ} to be crept in for {αβγδ}, contrary to the Faith, and consent of all ancient copies which is all he hath to pled. 2. Our Catechists know not what to say; necessary this word God is not to be referred to Christ; it may be referred to God the Father. Give an instance of the like phrase of speech, and take the interpretation. Can it be said that ones blood was  shed, when it was not  shed, but anothers, and no mention that that others blood was  shed? 3. If the Fathers blood was  shed, or said truly to be  shed, because Christs blood was  shed; Then you may say, that God the Father dyed, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and God the Father rose from the dead, that he was dead, and is alive: That that blood that was  shed, was not Christs, but some bodies else, that he loved& was near unto him. 4. There is no Analogy between that of the Prophet, of the Apple of Gods eye, and this here spoken of. Uncontrolably a Metaphor must there be allowed; here is no metaphor insisted on; but that which is the blood of Christ, is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that God is their 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? This work of redeeming the Church with his blood, is ever ascribed to Christ, as peculiar to him, constantly without exception; and never to God the Father: neither would our Adversaries allow it to be so here, but that they know not how to stand before the Testimony wherewith they are pressed.  
5. If because of the conjunction that is between God the Father 
§. 40.  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 butted, his rising again, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweeting, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and proper son, who hath a quiter different nature and essence from his own proper Father, as is here affirmed.  
6. Christ is called the Lamb of God, as answering and fullfilling all the Sacrifices, that were made to God of old: and if the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father, because he appointed it to be  shed for us: then the blood of any Sacrifice was also the blood of a man, that appointed it to be  shed, yea of God, who ordained it. The words are, {αβγδ}; if any words in the world can properly express, that it is one and the same person intended, that it is his own blood properly, that bought the Church with it, surely these words do it to the full. Christ then is God.  
The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to this 
§. 41.  head of Testimonies, about the name of God, is 1 Joh. 3. 16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. He who laid down his life for us was God: that is, he was so when he laid down his life for us, and not made a God since.  
To the eight what saist thou? 
Ad octavum vero quid?   
First take this account, that neither in any 
Primum igitur sic habeto, neque in Graecá editione ulla,( excepta complutensi) nec in editione Syriaca, vocem Deus  greek edition, but only, the Complutensis, nor in the Syriach, the word God is found; but suppose that this word were found in all copies, were therefore this word He to be referred to 
haberi, Verum etiamsa haec vox haberetur in omnibus exemplaribus, num idcirco ea vox ille, ad Deum erit referenda? Non certè; non solum ob eam causam, quam paulo superius attulimus, in responsione ad Testimonium tertium; quod verba ejusmodi non semper ad propinquiores personas referantur: verum etiam quod {αβγδ} vocem Graecam joannes in hac Epistola saepe adeum refert, qui long an●ea nominatus fuerat, ut& 3. 5.& 7. versu ejusdem capitis in Graeco apparet.  God? Not doubtless; not only for that Reason which we gave a little before, in answer to the third Testimony, that such words are not always referred to the next person; but moreover, because John doth often in this Epistle refer the greek word {αβγδ} to him who was name long before, as in the 3, 5, and 7. verses of this Chapter.  
1. Our Catechists do very faintly adhere to the first exception 
§. 42.  about the word {αβγδ} 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 necessary requires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they do, we deny, that this is a very just exception which they insist upon, that a Rel●●ive may sometimes, and in some cases, where the sense is evident, be referred to the more remote antecedent, therefore it may, or ought to do so in any place, contrary to the propriety of 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 {αβγδ} following after, where {αβγδ} is referred to any thing or Person more remote: much less here where the Apostle having treated of God, and the Love of God, draws an Argument from the Love of God, to enforce our Love of one another. 5. In the places they point unto, {αβγδ} in every of them is referred to the next and immediate Antecedent, as will be evident to the Reader upon the first view.  
Give them their great Associate, and we have done. {αβγδ} 
§. 43.  hi● est Christus ut supra v. 5. subintelligendum high autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est, Rom. 4. 8. That {αβγδ} is Christ is confessed; but the word being a Relative, & expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates unto {αβγδ}, the word going immediately before it. No says Grotius, but the sense is, Herein appeared the love of God, that by his a●pointment Christ dyed for us. That Christ laid down his life for us by the appointment of the Father, is most true; but that that is the intendment of this place, or that the grammatical, construction of the words will bear any such sense, we deny.  
And this is what they have to except to the Testimonies, 
§. 44.  which themselves choose to insist on, to give in their exceptions to, as to the names of Jehovah, and God, being ascribed unto Jesus Christ: which having vindicated from all their Sophistry, I shall shut up the discourse of them with this Argument, which they afford us for the confirmation of the sacred truth contended for. He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, &c. He is God by Nature: But thus is Jesus Christ God; and these are the names the Scripture calls and knows him by: Therefore He is so, God by Nature, blessed for ever.  
That many more Testimonies to this purpose may be produced, and have been so, by those who have pleaded the Deity 
§. 45.  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.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the work of Creation assigned to Jesus Christ. &c. The confirmation of his eternal Deity from thence.  
THe Scriptures, which assign the Creating of all things to Iesus 
§. 1.  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 particular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the gospel, about the Prophets seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which are of the first sort, they instance in joh. 1. 3.& 10. Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 2.& 10, 11, 12. verses.  
The first, and second of these, I have already vindicated in the 
§. 2.  consideration of them, as they lay in their conjuncture with them going before in v. 1.( 2.) Proceed we therefore to the third, which is Col. 1. 16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers; all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.  
That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ, is acknowledged. 
§. 3.  The verses foregoing prevent all Question thereof. He hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption 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 &c.  
2. In what sense Christ is the Image of the invisible God, even 
§. 4.  the express Image of his Fathers Person, shall be afterwards declared. The other part of the description of him belongs to that which we have in hand. He is {αβγδ} 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 {αβγδ}, first created, but {αβγδ}, the first born; now the term first in the Scripture, respects 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. 41. 4. because before him there is none, Isa. 43. 11. And in this sense is Christ the first born; so the first born, as to be the only begotten son of God, joh. 1. 14. This the Apostle proves, and gives an account of, in the following verses; for the clearing of his intendment wherein, a few things may be premised.  
1. Though he speaks of him who is mediator, and describes 
§. 5.  him, yet he speaks not of him as mediator; for that he enters upon v. 18. And He is the head of the body the Church. &c.  
2. That the things, whose Creation are here assigned unto Jesus 
§. 6.  Christ, are evidently contradistinguished to the things of the Church, or new Creation, which are mentioned v. 18. Here he is said to and 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 emphatically expressed. 1. In general; by him all things were created. 2. A distribution is made of those all things, into all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth; which is the common expression of all things that were made at the beginning: Exod. 20. 11. Act. 4. 24. 3. A description is given of the things so created, according to two Adjuncts, which divide all Creatures whatever, whether they are visible, or invisible. 4. An Annumeration is in particular made of one sort, of things invisible, which being of greatest Eminency and Dignity, might seem, if any, to be exempted from the state and condition of being created by Jesus Christ; whether they be thrones, &c. 5. This distribution and Annumeration 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 Annumeration foregoing, or no; All things were created by him: and this is amplified by the end of their creation; they were created for him, {αβγδ}: as it is said of the Father, Rom. 11. 36. which Revel. 4. 11. is said to be, for his will and pleasure. 6. For a farther description of him, v. 17. his preexistence before all things, and his providence in supporting them, and continuing that being to them, which he gave them by creation, is asserted. And He is before all things, and by him all things exist.  
Let us consider then what is excepted hereunto, by them with 
§. 8.  whom we have to do. Thus they,  
What dost thou answer to this place? 
Quid ad tertium?   
Besides this, that this Testimony speaks of 
Praeter id, quod& hoc testimonium loquatur de Christo, tanquam mediâ& secundâ causâ, verbum creata sunt, non solum de vetere, verum etiam de nova creatione in Scriptura usurpari constat: cujus rei exempla habes Ephes. 2. 10, 15. Jacob. 1. 18. Praeterea, ea verba, omnia in coelis,& in terra, non usurpari pro omnibus  Christ, as of the mediate and second cause, it is manifest, the words[ were created] are used in the Scripture, not only concerning the old, but also the new creation; of which you have example Ephes. 2. 10, 15. james 1. 18. Moreover, that these words All things in Heaven and in Earth, are not used for all things altogether, appeareth not only from the words subjoined a little after v. 20. where the Apostle saith, that by him are all things reconciled in Heaven and in earth, but 
prorsus, apparet non solum ex verbis paulo inferius subjectis, v. 20. ubi Ap●stolus ait, qued per eum reconciliata sint omnia in caelis& in terra, verum etiam ex iis ipsis verbis, in quibus Apostolus non ait, coelum& terram creata esse, verum e● omnia quae in ●aelis& in terra sunt.  also from those words themselves, wherein the Apostle said not, that the Heavens and the Earth were created, but all things that were in Heaven and in Earth.  
But how dost thou understand that Testimony?  
On that manner, wherein all things that are in Heaven and in Earth were reformed by Christ, after God raised him from the dead; 
Quî vero istud testimonium intelligis?  and by him translated into another state& condition, and this whereas God gave Christ to be 
Ad eum modum, quo per Christum omnia, quae sunt in coelis& in terra postquam eum Deus a mortuis excitavit, reformata sunt,& in alium statum& conditionem translata; id vero cum Deus& angels& hominibus Christum caput dederit, qui antea tantum Deum solum pro dom●no agnoverunt.  head to Angells and men, who before acknowledged God only for their Lord.  
What there is either in their Exceptions, or Exposition, of weight to take of this evident Testimony, shall briefly be considered.  
The first exception of the kind of causality, which is here ascribed to Christ, hath already been considered and removed, 
§. 10.  by manifesting the very same kind of Expression, about the same things, to be used concerning God the Father. 2. Though the word, Creation, be used concerning the New Creation, yet it is in places where it is evidently and distinctly spoken of, in opposition to the former state, wherein they were, who were so created. But here, as was above demonstrated, the old creation is spoken of, in direct distinction from the new, which the Apostle describes, and expresses in other terms( v. 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 to himself that are in Heaven and earth, he speaks plainly, and evidently of another work, distinct from that which he had, described in these verses; and where as Reconciliation supposes a past Enmity, the All things mentioned in the 20. verse, can be none, but those which were sometime at Enmity with God. Now none but men, that ever had any enmity against God, or were at enmity with him, were ever reconciled to God, It is then men in Heaven and Earth, to whose reconciliation in their several Generations, the efficacy of the blood of Christ did extend, that is there Intended. 4. Not Heaven and Earth are name, but all things in them, as being most immediately expressive of the Apostles purpose, who naming all things in general, choose to instance in Angells and men: as also insisting on the expression, which is used concerning the Creation of all things in sundry places, as hath been shewed; though he mentions not all the words in them used.  
For the Exposition they give of these words, it is most ridiculous, 
§. 11.  For 1. The Apostle doth not speak of Christ, as he is exalted after his Resurrection, but describes him in his divine nature and being. 2. To translate out of one condition into another, is not to create the thing so translated, though another new thing it may. When a man is made a magistrate, we do not say he is made a man, but he is made a Magistrate. 3. The new Creation which they here affirm to be spoken of, is by no means to be accommodated unto Angells; In both the places mentioned by themselves, and in all places where it is spoken of, it is expressive of a change from bad to good, from evil actions, to Grace, and is the same with Regeneration, or Conversion, which cannot be ascribed to Angells, who never sinned, nor 
Ea quae in caelis sunt personae( quae subjectae sunt Christo) sunt Angeli, iique tam boni quam mali: quae in coelis sunt,& personae non sunt, omnia illa continent quaecunque extra Angelos vel sunt, veletiam esse possunt. small. de Divin. Christi cap. 16. de Regno Christi supper Angelos.  which cannot be ascribed to Angells, who never sinned, nor lost their first habitation. 4. The Dominion of Christ over Angells and men is no where called a new creation; nor is there any colour or pretence why it should be so expressed. 5. The New Creation is in Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. 5. 17. but to be in Christ, is to be implanted into him by the Holy Spirit by believing, which by no means can be accommodated to Angells. 6. If only the Dominion of Christ be intended, then wherereas Christs Dominion is according to our Adversarys( Sm●●. de Divin. Christi. cap. 16.) extended over all Creatures, Men, Angells, devils, and all other things in the world, then Men, Angells, 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 ●olly and absurditys 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 
§. 12.  Christ over all; against all the reasons formerly insisted on, and with no other Argument then what he was from the Socinians supplied withall. His words on the place are. It is certain, that 
Certum est, per verbum creata omnia. said quae praecedunt, ostendunt hic de Christo agi, quod hoins nomen est, quomodo etiam Chrysostomus hunc accepit locum. said ille intelligit mundum creatum propter Christum, sensu non malo: said propter id quod praecessit, rectius est {αβγδ} hic interpretatari, ordinata sunt, novum quendam siatum sunt consecuta.  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 Chrysostome 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, {αβγδ} is better interpnted, were ordained, or obtained a certain new state. So He, in almost the very words of Socinus. But  
1. In what sense all things were created by the Word, and what Grotius intends by the Word, I shall speak elsewhere. 2. Is Christ the name of a man only? Or of him who is only a man? Or is he a man only as he is Christ? If he would have spoken out to this, we might have had some light into his meaning, in many other places of his Annotations. The Apostle tells us that Christ is over all, God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. And that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by the Resurrection from the dead, Ro. 1. 3. If Christ denote the Person of our 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 then 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 Gods 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 Chrysost●mes 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,[ created,] may not, cannot be rendered ordained, or placed in a new state and condition, I have before sufficiently evinced; neither doth Grotius add any thing to evince his interpretation of the place, or to remove what is objected against it.  
1. He tells us, that of that sense of the word {αβγδ}, he hath spoken 
§. 13.  in his prolegomena. And urges Ephes. 2. 10, 13. 3. 9. 4. 24. to prove the sense proposed. It is confessed, that God doth sometimes express the exceeding greatness of his power, and efficacy of his Grace, in the Regeneration of a sinner, and enabling him to live to God, by the word create; whence such a person is sometimes called the new creature, according to the many promises of the Old Testament, of creating a new heart in the Elect, whom He would take into Covenant with himself. A truth which wraps that in its bowels, whereunto Grotius was no Friend. But that this New Creation can be accommodated to the things here spoken of, is such a sigment, as so Learned a man might have been ashamed of. The constant use of the Word in the new Testament, is that which is proper, and that which in this place we insist on; as Rom. 1. 25. 1 Tim. 4. 3. Revel. 4. 11.( 2.) Ephes. 2. 10. speaks of the new creature in the sense declared, which is not illustrated by v. 13. which is quiter of another import. Chap. 4. 24. is to the same purpose. Chap. 3. 9. The Creation● of all things, simply, and absolutely, is ascribed to God; which to wrest to a new Creation there is no Reason, but what arises from opposition to Jesus Christ, because it is ascribed also to him.  
The latter part of the verse he thus illustrates, or rather obscures; 
§. 14.  {αβγδ}: intellige omnia quae ad novam creationem pertinent. How causelessly, how without ground, how contrary to the words, and scope of the place, hath been shewed; {αβγδ}: propter ipsum, ut ipse omnibus praeesset, Rev. 5. 13. Heb. 2. 8. This is to go forward in an ill way. What one instance can he give of this sense of the expression opened? The words as hath been shewed are used of God the Father, Rom. 11. 36. and are expressive of absolute sovereignty, as Rev. 4. 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 quiter evert his whole gloss. In both places the Dominion of Christ is asserted over the whole Creation; and particularly in Revel. 5. 13. things in Heaven, Earth, under the Earth, and in the Sea, are recounted. I desire to know whether all these are made new Creatures, or no? If not; it is not the Dominion of Christ over them, that is here spoken of; for he speaks only of them that He Created.  
Of the 17. v. he gives the same exposition; 〈◇〉 〈◇〉, ut ait Apocal. 1. 8. {αβγδ}, intellige ut jam 
§. 15.  diximus. Not contented to pervert this place, he draws another into society with it; wherein he is more highly engaged then our Catechists, who confess that place to be spoken of the Eternity of God. {αβγδ}: & haec vox de veteri creatione ad novam traducitur; vid. 2 Pet. 3. 5. Prove it by any one instance; or if that may not be done, beg no more in a matter of this importance. In Peter it is used of the existence of all things by the power of God, in, and upon their Creation; and so also here, but spoken with reference to Jesus Christ, who is God over all blessed for ever. And so much for the vindication of this Testimony.  
Heb. 1. 2. is nextly mentioned: By whom also he made the worlds. 
§. 16.   
That these words are spoken of Christ, is not denied. They are too express to bear any exception on that account. That God is said to make the World by Christ, doth not at all prejudice what we intend from this place. God could no way make the World by Christ, but as he was his own eternal wisdom, which exempts him from the condition of a 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. 8. So also the Word is said to make the World, as a principal efficient cause himself, joh: 1. 3. and Heb. 1. 10. The word here used is {αβγδ}. That {αβγδ} 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 joh. 9. 3●. In this place it signifies not Time simply, and solely, but the things created in the beginning of time, and in all times: and so expressly the word is used, Heb. 11. 2. the framing {αβγδ}, is the creation of the World, which by faith we come to know. The Worlds, that is, the World, and all in it, was made by Christ.  
Let us now hear our Catechists. 
§. 17.   
How dost thou answer to this Testimony? 
Quî respondes adquartum testimonium?   
On this manner, that it is here openly written, not that Christ made, but that God by 
Eo pacto, quod hic palam Scriptum sit, non, Christum fecisse, said, Deum per Christum fecisse secula. Vocem vero secula non solum praesentia& praeterita, verum etiam futura significare posse, in confesso est. Hic vero de futuris agi id demonstrat, quod idem author affirmet, per eum, quem haeredem universorum constituerit Deus, etiam secula esse condita. Nam Jesus Nazarenus non prius constitutus haeres universorum fuit, quam eum Deus a mortuis excitavit. Quod hinc patet, quod tum demum om nis potestas in Caelo& in terra cidem data a Deo Patre fuerit, ●ujus potestatis donatione,& non alia re, ista universorum haereditas eontinetur.  Christ made the worlds. It is also confessed, that the word secula, may signify not only the Ages past, and present, but also to come. But that here it signifies things future is demonstrated from hence, that the same Author affirmeth, that by him whom God appointed heir of al 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.  
For the first exception, it hath been sufficiently spoken to already: and if nothing else but the pre●xistere of Christ unto the whole creation be hence proved, yet the cause of our 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 follies not things future any where. This is gratis dictum, and cannot be proved by any instance. The world to come may do so, but the world simply doth not. That it doth not so signify in this place, is evident from these considerations. 1. These words, by whom he made the world, are given as a Reason, why God made him heir of all things: even because by him he made all things: which is no reason at all, if you understand only Heavenly things by the worlds here: which also removes the last exception of our Catechists, that Christ was appointed heir of all things, antecedently to his making of the worlds; which is most false; this being given as a reason of that; his making of the world, of his being made heir of all things. Besides, this answer, that Christ made not the world until his Resurrection, is directly opposite to that formerly given by them to Col. 1. 16. where they would have him to be said to make all things, because of the Reconciliation he made by his death. v. 20. 2. The same word or expression in the same Epistle is used for the world, in its Creation, as was before observed, chap. 11. 2. which makes it evident, that the Apostle in both places intends the same. 3. {αβγδ} is no where used absolutely for the world to come: which being spoken of in this Epistle is once called {αβγδ}, Chap. 2. 5. and {αβγδ}, Chap. 6. 5. but no where absolutely {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}. 4. The world to come, is no where said to be made; nor is this expression used of it. It is said Chap. 2. to be put into subjection to Christ, not to be made by him, and Chap. 6. The powers of it are mentioned, not its Creation. 5. That is said to be made by Christ, which he upholds with the word of his power; but this is said simply to be all things; he upholdeth all things by the word of his power, v. 3. 6. This plainly Answers the former expressions insisted on: He made the world, He made all things, &c. So that this Text also lies as a two edged sword, at the very heart of the Socinian cause.  
Grotius seeing that this Interpretation could not be made 
§. 18.  good, yet being no way willing to grant, that making of the world is ascribed to Christ, relieves his Friends, with one evasion more then they were ware of. It is that {αβγδ}, by whom is, put for {αβγδ}, for whom, or for whose sake. And {αβγδ} is to be rendered by the preterpluperfectiense, he had made: and so the sense, is God made the world for Christ, which Answereth an old saying of the Hebrewes; That the world was made for the Messiah.  
But what will not great ●its give a colour to? Grotius is not able to give me one instance in the whole new Testament, 
§. 19.  where {αβγδ} is taken for {αβγδ} and if it should be so any where, himself would confess, that it must have some cogent circumstance to enforce that construction, as all places must have where we go off from the propriety of the word. 2. If {αβγδ} be put for {αβγδ} must be put for {αβγδ}, as in the opinion of Beza it is once in the place quoted by Grotiu●; and so signify the final cause, as he makes {αβγδ} to do. Now the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two, in this business of making the World: Rom. 11. 36. {αβγδ}. So that doubtless in the same matter, one of these is not put for the other. 3. Why must {αβγδ} be condiderat, and what example can be given of so rendering that Aoristus? If men may say what they please, without taking care to give the least probability to what they say, these things may pass. 4. If the Apostle must be supposed to allude to any opinion, or saying of the Jews, it is much more probable that he alluded in the word 〈◇〉 〈◇〉, which he uses, to the threefold world they mention in their Liturgy: the lower, middle, and higher world, or souls of the blessed. Or the four fold mentioned by Rab. Alschech. Me●●i●s prosperabitur vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos complectitur: qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus Angelorum, mundus sphaerarum,& mundus supremus, &c. but of this enough.  
Though this last Testimony be sufficient to confounded all gainsayer,& to stop the mouths of men of common ingenuity, yet it is evident, that our Catechists are more perplexed with that which follows in the same chapter, which therefore they insist longer upon, then on any one single Testimony besides; with what success comes now to be considered.  
The words are Heb. 1. 10, 11, 12. And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the works of 
§. 20.  thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou ar● the same, and thy yeares shall not fail. That these words of the Bsalmist are spoken concerning Christ, we have the Testimony of the Apostle, applying them to him, wherein we are to acqui●sce. The thing also is clear in its self, for they are added in his discourse of the deliverance of the Church, which work is peculiar to the son of God; and where that is mentioned, it is he who eminently is intended. Now very many of the Arguments, where with the De●ty of Christ is confirmed, are wrapped up in these words. 1. His name Jehovah is asserted. And thou Lord, for of him the Psal●●● speaks though he report not that word. 2. His Eternity& preexistence to his incarnation. Thou Lord in the beginning; that is, before the world was made. 3. His Omnipotence,& divine power in the creation of all things: thou hast laid the foundation of the Earth,& the Heavens are the work of thy hands. 4. His immutability; thou art the same, and thy yeares fail not. as Mal. 3. 6. 5. His sovereignty and Dominion over all; as a vesture shall thou sold them up, and they shall be changed Let us now see what darkness they are able to poure forth upon this sun, shining in its strength. 
§. 21.   
What dost thou answer to this Testimony? 
Ad quintum quid respondes?   
To this Testimony I answer, that it is not to be understood of Christ but of God. But because this 
Ad id Testimonium id respondeo, quod non de Christ●, verum de Deo accipiendum sit. Quia vero idem Scriptor illud ad Fi●ium Dei referat, expendendum est, Sermonem in Testimonio non de●una re said de duabus potissimum habert express: una est Cali& terrae creatio; altera rerum crea●●um abolitio. Quod ●●ro is ●utor 〈◇〉 ad Christum non 〈◇〉 〈◇〉 perspicum est, 〈◇〉 pi●e, p●●stantism 〈◇〉 ●●monsirare sibi proposuer 〈◇〉 ●am, ajiam a seibso habeato ve●meam qua haereditavis,& qua praestantior angels effectus sit, ut e ver. 4. cuiv is planum est: cujus generis prastantia cum creatio Caeli& terr● non sit, nec esse posset, apparet manifeste, non in eum finem testimonium ab eo Scriptore allatum, ut Christum creasse Caelum& terram probaret. Cum igitur prior ad Christum referri nequeat, apparet, posteriorem tantum ad eum referendum esse, id vero propterea, quod Deus Caelum& terram per eum aboliturus sit, tum cum judicium extremum per ipsum est executurus. Quo quidem tantopere praestantia Christi prae angels conspicua futura est, ut ipsi Angeli sint ●ei●ea. ipsa in re ministraturi. Quae posterior oratio, cum sine verbis superioribus, in quibus fit caeli terraeque mentio, intelligi n●n  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 Angells, not that which he hath of himself, but that which he had by Inheritance, and whereby he is made better then the Angells, as is plain to any one v. 4. of which kind of excellence seeing that the Creation of Heaven and Earth is not, nor can be, it appeareth manifestly, that this Testimony is not urged by this writer to prove that Christ Created Heaven and Earth. Seeing therefore the first part cannot be referred to Christ, it appeareth, that the latter only is to be referred to him: and that because by him God will abolish Heaven and Earth, when by him he shall execute the Last Judgement: whereby the excellency of Christ above Angells shall be so conspicuous, that the Angells themselves shall in that very thing serve him. And seeing this last speech could not be understood without those former words, wherein mention is made of Heaven and Earth, being 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 city the Testimonies of Scripture, compelled by no necessity, much more was this man to do it being compelled 
potuerit, cum sit cum iis per vocem ipsi conjuncta,& eadem illa verba priora idem author cōmemorare necesse habuit. Nam si alii scriptores sacri ad eum modum citant Testimonia Scripturae, nulla adacti necessitate, multo magis huic necessitate compulso, id faciendum fuit.  thereunto.  
But where have the divine writers done this?  
Amongst many other Testimonies take Mat. 12. 18, 19, 20, 21. where it is most manifest, that only v. 19. belongeth to the purpose of the Evangelist, when he would prove, why Christ forbid, that he should be made known. So Act. 7. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. where also v. 
Ubi vero Scriptores Sacri id fecerunt?  17, 18. only do make to the Apostles purpose, which is to prove, that the Holy Ghost was 
Inter alia multa testimonia, habes Mat. 12. v. 18, 19, 20, 21. ubi nimis apertum est versiculum 19. tantum ad propositum Evangelistae Matthaei pertinere, cum id volverit probare, cur Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret. De●●de, Act. 2. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Ubi etiam tantum v. 17,& 18. ad propositum Petr● Apostoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum supra discipulos doceat:& ibidem v. 25, 26, 27, 28. Ubi palam est, versum tantum 27. adpropositum facere, quandoquidem id approbet Apostolus, Christum a morte detineri fuisse impossibile. Denique in hoc ipso capite, v. 9. ubi verba hac, dilexisti Justitiam& odio habuisti iniquitatem, apparet nihilpertinere ●drem quam prob● Apostolus, quae est, Christum praestantiorem factum angels.  poured forth on the Disciples. And there also v. 25, 26, 27, 28. where v. 27. only is to the purpose: the Apostle proving only, that it was impossible that Christ should be detained of death. Lastly, in this very Chap. v. 9. where these words, thou hast loved 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 then the Angels.  
That in all this discourse there is not any thing considerable, but the horrible boldness of these men in corrupting and perverting 
§. 22.  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; 
§. 23.  we prove Christ to be God, because these things are spoken of him, that are proper to God only.  
2. It is one thing in general that is spoken of, namely the Deity of Christ, which is proved by one Testimony from Psal. 
§. 24.  102. concerning one Property of Christ, viz. his Almighty Power, manifested in the making all things, and disposing of them in his sovereign will, himself abiding unchangeable.  
3. It is shameless impudence in these Gentlemen to take upon 
§. 25.  them to say, that this part of the Apostles Testimony, which he produceth, is to his purpose, that not; as if they were wiser then the Holy Ghost, and knew Pauls design better then himself.  
4. The foundation of their whole Evasion is most false, 
§. 26.  viz. that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ, above Angells, insisted on by the Apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to receive by Inheritance. The design of the Apostle is, to prove the Excellency of Christ, in himself, and then in comparison of Angels; and therefore before the mention of what he received by Inheritance, he affirms directly, that by him God made the 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, 
§. 27.  He was Eternally begotten of the Essence of his Father, and is thence by right of Inheritance his son, as the Apostle proves from Psal. 2. 5.  
6. Our Catechists speak not according to their own 
§. 28.  Principles, when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself, and what he ●●d from Inheritance: For they suppose he had nothing but by Divin● 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 
§. 29.  this first part of the Testimony to belong to Christ. The whole is spoken of, to the same purpose, to the same person, belongs to the same matter in general; and that first expression is, if not only, yet mainly, and chiefly effectual to confirm the intendment of the Apostle; proving directly, that Christ is better, and more excellent then the Angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made Heaven and Earth; they are but his Creatures: As God often compares himself with others. In the Psalmist the words respect chiefly the making of Heaven and Earth, and these words are applied to our Saviour. That the two works of making and abolishing the world, should be assigned distinctly unto two Persons, there is no pretence to affirm. This boldness indeed is intolerable.  
8. To abolish the world is no less a work of Almighty Power, then to make it: nor can it be done by any but him 
§. 30.  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 
§. 31.  thing in question; Yea the first words are chiefly and eminently to the Apostles purpose, as hath been shewed. We dare not say only, for the Holy Ghost knew better then we, what was to his purpose, though our Catechists be wiser in their own conceits then He. Neither is there any Reason imaginable, why the Apostle should rehearse more words here out of the psalm, then 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 
§. 32.  not to their purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in itself, and a bold imputation of weakness to the Penmen of the Holy Ghost. The instances hereof given by our Adversaries, are not at all to to the purpose, which they are pursuing. For  
1. In no one of them is there a Testimony cited, whereof one part should concern one Person, and another another, as is here pretended: and without farther process this is sufficient to evince this evasion of impertinency: for nothing will amount to the interpretation they enforce on this place, but the producing of some place of the New Testament, where a Testimony is cited out of the Old, speaking throughout of the same Person, whereof the one part belongs to him, and the other not: although that, which they say doth not belong to him, be most proper for the confirmation of what is affirmed of him, and what the whole is brought in proof of.  
2. There is not any of the places instanced in by them, wherein the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose in hand, although some of them are more immediately suited to the occasion on which the whole Testimony is produced; as it were easy to manifest by the consideration of the several places.  
3. These words, thou hast loved righteousness, and hated Iniquity, are not mentioned to prove immediately the Excellency of Christ above Angels, but his administration of his kingdom, on which account he is so Excellent, among others; and thereunto they are most proper.  
And this is the issue of their Attempt against this Testimony, 
§. 33.  which being thus briefly vindicated, is sufficient alone of itself to consume with its brightness al the opposition, which from the darkness of Hell or Men, is made against the Deity of Christ.  
And yet we have one more to consider, before this text be dismissed. Grotius is nibbling at this Testimony also. His 
§. 34.  words are: again, that which is spoken of God he applies to the Messiah: 
Rursum, quod de Deo dictum fuerat Messiae aptat: qui● constabat inter Haebraeos,& mundum hune Messiae causae conditum,( unde {αβγδ} recte intelligi putem, causa fuisti cur fundaretur;& opus manuum tuarum, id est propter to factum: {αβγδ} Haebraeis& Chaldeis etiam propter significat)& fore, ut no●●● mundus meliorque condatur per ipsum.  because it was confessed among the Hebrewes, that this world was created for the Messiahs sake,( whence I should think that {αβγδ} is rightly to be understood, thou wast the cause why it was founded; and the works of thy hands, that is, it was made for thee) and that a new and better world should be made by him. So he.  
This is not the first time we have met with this conceit. And I wish that it had sufficed this Learned man to have framed his old Testament-Annotations, to Rabinicall Traditions, that the New might have escaped. But jacta est alea. I say then, that the Apostle doth not apply that to one Person, which was spoken of another; but asserts the words in the psalm to be spoken of him, concerning whom he treats; and thence proves his Excellency, which is the business he hath in hand. It is not to adorn Christ with Titles, which were not due to him,( which to do were Robbery) but to prove by Testimonies that were given of him, that he is no less then he affirmed him to be, even God blessed for ever. 2. Let any man in his right wits consider this Interpretation, and try whether he can persuade himself to receive it: {αβγδ}, 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 Hebrewes, applying these words to Christ. 4. I marvel he saw not, that this interpretation doth most desperately cut its own throat, the parts of it being at an irreconcilable difference among themselves. For in the first place he says, the words are spoken of God, and applied to the Messiah, and then proves the sense of them to be such, as they cannot be spoken of God at all, but merely of the Messiah, for to that sense doth he labour to wrest both the Hebrew, and greek Text. Me thinks the Words being spoken of God, and not of the Messiah, but only fitted to him by the Apostle, there is no need to say that, thou hast laid the foundations of the Earth, is, that it was laid for thy sake: and the Heavens are the works of thy hands, that is, they were made for thee: seeing they are properly spoken of God. This one Rabinicall figment, of the worlds being made for the Messiah, is the engine, whereby the Learned man 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 examination.   

CHAP. XII.  
All-ruling and disposing Providence assigned unto Christ, and his eternal God-head thence farther confirmed, with other Testimonies thereof.  
THat Christ is that God who made all things, hath been proved 
§. 1.  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 God-head; some Testimonies whereof, in that order of tour, which by our Catechists is allotted unto us, come now to be considered.  
The first they propose is taken from Heb. 1. 3. where the 
§. 2.  words spoken of Christ are, {αβγδ}, 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 Fathers Glory, and express Image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himself purged our sins, &c.  
This place, or the Testimony therein given to the divine 
§. 3.  Power of Jesus Christ, they seek thus to clude.  
The word here all things, doth not, no more 
Hic verbum, omnia, non minus quam in pluribus aliis locis, non omnia in universum sine ulla exceptione designare; verum ad ea tantum, quae ad Christi reg num pertineant, referri: de quibus vere dici potest, Dominum Jesum omnia verbo virtutis suae portare, id est, conse●vare. Quod vero vox omnia, hoe loco ad ea duntaxat referatur, ex ipsa materia subjecta satis apparet- Fr●●erea, verbum, quo hic uti●●er scriptor, portare, magis gubernandi vel administrandi rationem quam conservandi significat, quemadmodum illa, quae annexa sunt, verbo virtutis suae, innuere vi●entur.  then in many other places, signify all things universally without exception, but is referred to those things only, which belong to the kingdom of Christ: of which it may truly be said, that the Lord Jesus beareth, that is, conserveth all things by the word of his Power. But that the word[ all things] is in this place referred unto those things only, appeareth sufficiently from the subject matter itself of it. Moreover the word, which this writer useth, to bear, doth rather signify Governing and Administration, then preservation, as these words annexed[ by the word of his power] seem to intimate.  
This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, if 
§. 4.  any things may be said so to be. For 1. why is {αβγδ} here, the things of the kingdom of Christ? It is the express description of the person of Christ, as the brightness of his Fathers Glory, and the express Image of his person, that the Apostle is treating of, and not at all of his kingdom as mediator. 2. It expressly answers the worlds that he is said to make, v. 2. which are not the things of the kingdom of Christ; nor do our Catechists pled 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 {αβγδ}, neither in its native signification, nor in the use of it in the Scripture, gives any countenance to the Interpretation of it, by governing or administering; nor can our Catechists give any one instance of that signification there. It is properly to bear, to carry, to sustain, to uphold. Out of nothing Christ, made all things, and preserves them by his power from returning into nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sense they have from that expression, by the word of his power, I know not. By the word of his power, is by his powerful word. And that that Word or command, is sometime taken for the effectual strength and efficacy of Gods Dominion, put forth for the accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not much proving. Grotius would have the words {αβγδ}, to refer to the power of the Father: Christ upholdeth all things by the Word of his Fathers Power; without Reason or proof; nor will the grammatical Account bear that rendition of the Relative mentioned.  
About that which they urge out of judas 15. I shall not contend. 
§. 5.  The Testimony from thence relies on the Authority of the vulgar latin translation; which, as to me, may pled for itself.  
Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. 10. shall I insist on 
§. 6.  any thing, but only the 9. verse, the words whereof are: Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of Serpents. The design of the Apostle is known. From the example of Gods dealing with the Children of Israel in the wilderness upon their sin and provocations, there being a parity of state and condition between them and Christians, as to their spiritual participation of Jesus Christ,( v. 2, 3, 4.) he dehorts Believers from the ways& sins, whereby God was provoked against them. Particularly in this verse, he insists on the tempting of Christ, for which the Lord sent fiery Serpents among them, by which they were destroyed: Num. 21. 6. He whom the people tempted in the wilderness,& 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 
§. 7.  Christ was really tempted in the wilderness: 
Ex iis verbis doceri non potest, Apostolum affirmare, Christum in deserto reveta tentatum fuisse: ut è si●●ili oratione, siquis it a diceret, dephendi potest: ne sitis refractarii Magistratui, quemadmodum quidam majorum nostrorum fuerunt, non illico concluderes eundem numero magistratum utrobique designari. Quod si reperiuntur in scriptures ejusmodi loquendi modi, in quibus similis oratio ad eum, cujus nomen paulo a●te expressum est, sine ulla illius ejusdem repetitione referatur, tum hoc ibi fit, ubi ullus alius praeter eum, cujus expressum est nomen, subintelligi posset: ut exemplum ejus rei babes in illo testimonio, Deut. 6. 16. non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum, quemadmodum tentasti in loco tentationis. Verum in ea oratione Apostoli, de quae agimus, potest subintelligi alius praeter Christum, ut Moses, Aaron, &c. de quo vide, Num. 21. 5.  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 Magistrate were in both places intended. And if the like phrases of Speech are found in Scripture, in which the like expression is referred to him, whose name was expressed a little before, without any repetition of the same name, it is there done where another besides him who is expressed cannot be understood: as you have an example here of Deut. 6. 16. you shall not tempt the Lord your God, as you tempted him in Massah. But in this speech of the Apostle, of which we treat, another besides Christ may be understood, as Moses or Aaron; of which see Numb. 21. 5.  
1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, do not 
§. 8.  tempt Christ as some of them tempted, and be not refractory against the Magistrate, as some of them were? Christ is the name of one singular 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 
§. 9.  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 pled; nor if they had a mind thereunto, is there any place for that plea. For if the Apostle had intended God, in distinction from Christ, it was of absolute necessity that He should have expressed it. Nor if it had been expressed, would the Apostles Argument been of any force, 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 
§. 10.  it can be said they tempted them: it is God they are every where said to tempt, Psal. 78. 18, 24. Psal. 106. 14. Heb. 3. 9. It is said indeed, that they murmured against Moses, that they provoked him, that they chode with him; but to tempt him, which is to require a sign, and manifestation of his Divine Power, that they did not, nor could be said to do, Numb. 21. 3.  
Grotius tries his last shift in this place, and tells us, from I 
§. 11.  know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, let us not tempt Christ, but let us not tempt God. Error commissus ex notis {αβγδ}& {αβγδ}. That neither the Syriack, nor the Vulgar latin translations, nor any copy, that either Stephanus, in his edition of the New Testament, or in his various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmus his, 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.  
As they please to proceed, the next place to be considered 
§. 12.  is, John 12. 41. these things said Esaias, when he saw his Glory, and spake of him.  
The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the Apostle, manifest, that it is the vision mentioned Isa. 6. that the Apostle relates unto: whence we thus argue: He whose Glory Isaiah saw, Chap. 6. was the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts v. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, v. 5. But this was Jesus Christ, whose Glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of Joh. 12. 41. What say our Catechists.  
First it appears that these words are not 
§. 13.  necessary referred to Christ, because they may 
Primum, ea verba ad Christum non necessario referri hinc apparet, quod de Deo Patre accipi possint: etemim verbae paulo superiora de eodem dicuntur. Excaecavit, induravit, sanavit. Deinde, gloriam, quam Esaias vidit poterat esse, imo erat, non praesens, said futura. Etenim proprium est vatibus futura videre, unde etiam, videntes appellati fuere, 1 Sam. 9. 9. Denique etiansi de gloria ea quae tum praesens erat Esaiae visa haec verba accipias, long e tamen aliud est, gloriam alicujus videre,& 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. 6. 3. Tum autem hoc reipsa factum est, cum Jesus christus illi populo primum apparuit,& post toti mundo annunciatus est.  be understood of God the Father. For the words a little before are spoken of him, He hath blinded, hardened, healed. Then the Glory that Isaiah saw might be, nay was not present but future: for it is proper to Prophets to see things future, whence they are called Seers: 1 Sam. 9. 9. Lastly although these words should be understood of that Glory which was then present and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the Glory of one and to see 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 v. 3. But then was this accomplished in reality, when Jesus appeared to that People, and was afterwards preached to the whole world.  
It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, nor 
§. 14.  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 he thus, or it may be thus. But 1. That these words cannot be referred to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to Christ, is evident, because there is no occasion of mentioning him in this place, but an account is given of what was spoken v. 37. but though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him: to which answers this verse, when he saw HIS Glory, and spake of HIM. The 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 Seraphims, when he heard their voice; when the door moved at the voice of him that cried, when the house was filled with Glory, and when he himself was so terrified, that he cried out, wo is me, for I am undone. If any thing in the world be certain, it is certain, that he saw that Glory present. 3. He did not only see his Glory, but he saw him: or he so saw his Glory, as that he saw him, so as he may be seen; So the Prophet says expressly: I have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts: And what the Prophet says of seeing the Lord of Hosts, the Apostle expresses by seeing his Glory, because he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious representation of his presence. 4. He did indeed see the Glory of the Lord Christ, in seeing the Glory of the one God, He being the true God of Israel, and on no other account is his Glory seen, then by seeing the Glory of the one true God. 5. The Prophet doth not say, that the Earth was full of the glory of God, but it is the Proclamation, that the Seraphims made one to another, concerning that God, whose presence was then there manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared to the People of the Jews, there was no great manifestation of Glory. The Earth was always full of the Glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relation to the Glory of the gospel, yet withall they prove, that He was then present, whose Glory in the gospel was afterwards to fill the Earth.  
Grotius hath not ought to add, to what was before insisted 
§. 15.  on by his Friends. A●epresentation he would have this be of Gods dealing in the gospel:( when it is, plainly, his proceeding in the rejection of the Jews for their incredulity) and tells you, dicitur Isaiah vidisse Gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus Diem ejus: Isaiah saw his Glory, as Abraham saw his day. Well aimed however: Abraham saw his day by Faith, Isaiah: saw his Glory in a vision; Abraham saw his day as Future, and rejoiced: Isaiah so saw his Glory, as God Present, that he trembled: Abraham saw the day of Christ, all the dayes of his believing, Isaiah saw his Glory only in the year that King Uzziah dyed: Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise of his coming, Isaiah saw his Glory with the circumstances before mentioned. Even such let all undertakings appear to be, that are against the eternal Deity of Jesus Christ.  
In his Annotations on the 6. of Isaiah, where the vision insisted on is expressed, He takes no notice at all of Jesus Christ, or the second Person of the Trinity. Nor( which is very strange) doth he so much as once intimate, that what is here spoken, is applied by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the gospel; Nor once names the Chapter where it is done. With what mind, and intention the business is thus carried, God knows, I know not.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of the Incarnation of Christ, and his preexistence thereunto.  
THe Testimonies of Scripture, which affirm Christ to 
§. 1.  have been Incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably proves his Preexistence, in another nature, to his so doing, they labour in their next attempt to corrupt, and so to evade the force, and efficacy, which from them appeareth so destructive to their cause; and herein they thus proceed.  
From what Testimonies of Scripture do they endeavour 
§. 2.  to demonstrate, that Christ was( as they speak) 
E quibus Testimoniis Scripturae demonstrare conantur, Christum( ut lequuntur) incarnatum esse?  incarnate.  
From these, Joh. 1. 14. Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 
Ex iis, ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur, verbum caro factum est, Joan. 1. 14. Et qui( Christus) cum esset in forma Dei &c. Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Heb. 2. 16. Joan. 4. 2, 3. Heb. 10. 11.  16. Heb. 2. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 2, 3. Heb. 10. 11.  
Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the handling of 
§. 3.  the beginning of that Chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it from all their exceptions; so that we may proceed immediately to the second.  
What dost thou answer to the second? 
§. 4.   
Neither is that here contained, which the 
Ad secundum quid respondes? Neque hic eoetare, quod adversa pars confectum velit. Aliud enim est, quod hic Apostolus ait, cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi assumpsit; aliud vero, natura divina assumpsit humanam. Etenim hic: forma Dei designare non potest Dei naturam, cum Apostolus scribat, eam formam Christum exin anivisse. Deus vero naturam suam nullo modo exinanire potest. Nec vero forma servi denotat naturam humanam, cum servum esse ad fortunam& conditionem hoins referatur. At ne id quoque dissimulandum est, scripta Novi Testamenuti hanc vocem, forma, semel fortassis tantum alibi usurpare, Mar. 16. 12. idque eo sensu, quo non naturam, said exteriorem speciem significat, cum ait, Jesum duobis discipulis suis apparuisse in alia forma. Ex iis vero verbis, quae Apostolus paulo post subjecit, babitu inventus est ut homo, nonne apparet eum( ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse? Nullo modo, etenim ea orato nihil in se habet ejusmodi. De Sampsone enim in literis sacris legimus, quod idem futurus erat, ut homo; Judic. 16. 7, 11.& Psal. 82. Asaph iis, hominibus, quos Deos& Filios altissimi vocaverat, denunciat, quod essent morituri ut hominos; de quibus certum est, non posse dici, eos( ut adversarii dicunt) incarnatos fuisse.  adverse party would prove; for it is one thing which the Apostle saith, being in the form of God he took the form of a servant: another, that the Divine nature assumed the human. For the form of God cannot here denote the divine Nature, seeing the Apostle writes, that Christ exinanivit, made that form of no reputation. But God can no way make his nature of no reputation. Neither doth the form of a servant, denote human Nature, seeing to be a servant is referred to the fortune and condition of a man. Neither is that also to be forgotten, that the writings of the New Testament do once only( it may be) use that word form elsewhere, viz. Mark. 16. 12 and that in that sense, wherein it follies, not nature, but the outward appearance, saying, Jesus appeared in another form, unto two of his Disciples.  
But from those words, which the Apostle afterwards adds, he was found in fashion as a man, doth it not appear, that He was as they say Incarnate?  
By no means; For that expression contains nothing of Christs Nature: for of samson we red that he should be as a man: Judge 16. 7, 11. and Psal. 82. Asaph denounceth 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.  
How dost thou understand this place? 
§. 5.   
On this manner, that Christ, who in the 
Qua ratione locum hunc totum intelligis? Ad eum modum, quod Christus, qui in mundo instar dei, opera dei efficiebut,& cvi sicut deo omnia parebant& cvi divina adoratio exhibebatur, ita volente deo,& hominum salute exigente, factus est tanquam servus,& mancipium,& tanquam unus ex aliis vulgaribus hominibus cum ultro se capi, vin●i●i, caedi,& occidi permiserat.  world, like God, did the works of God, to whom all yielded Obedience, as to God, and to whom divine adoration was given, God so willing, and the Salvation of men requiring it, was made as a servant, and a vassal, and as one of the vulgar, when he had of his own accord permitted himself to be taken, bound, beaten, and slain. Thus they.  
Now because it is most certain, and evident to every one, that ever considered this text, 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 it together, before we may proceed to remove this heap out of our way. Our Argument from this place, is not solely from hence, that he is said to be in the form of God; but also that he was so in the form of God, as to be equal to him, as is here expressed; nor merely that he took upon him the form of a servant, but that he took it upon him, when He was made in the likeness of man, or in the likeness of sinful flesh, as the Apostle expresses it Ro. 8. 3. Now these things our Catechists thought good to take no notice of, in this place, nor of one of them any more in any other. But seeing the very head of our Argument lies in this, that in the form of God, he is said to be equal to God, and that expression is in another place taken notice of by them, I must needs gather it into its own contexture before I do proceed. Thus then they  
How dost thou Answer to those places, where Christ is 
§. 7.  said to be equal to God, Joh. 5. 18. Phil. 2. 6.  
That Christ is equal to God, doth no way 
Qui porro ad ea loca respondes? Quod Christus sit aequalis deo, id divinam in co naturam nullo modo probat, imo hinc res adversa colligitur. Nam si Christus deo, qui natura deus est, aequalis est, efficitur, quod is idem deus esse non posset. Aequalitas vero christi cum Deo in eo est, quod ea virtute, quam in eum contulit deus, ea omnia efficeret,& efficient, quae ipsius der sunt, tanquam deus ipse.  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 Gods, as God himself.  
This being the whole of what they tender, to extricate themselves 
§. 8.  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 intendment and design of the Apostle in this place, 
§. 9.  being evidently to exhort Believers to selfedenyall, mutual love, and condescension 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 to God therein;( {αβγδ}, 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 pled.  
He that was in the form of God, and equal to God, existing 
§. 10.  therein, and took on him the nature, and form of a servant, He is God by nature, and was Incarnate, or made flesh, in the sense before spoken of: Now all this is affirmed of Jesus Christ: Ergo.  
1. To this they say,( that we may consider that first, which 
§. 11.  is first in the Text) that his being equal to God, doth not prove him to be God by nature: but the contrary, &c. as above. But 1. if none is, nor can, by the Testimony of God himself, be like God, or equal to him, who is not God by nature; then he that is equal to him, is so: but, to whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy one, lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, Isa. 40. 25. none, that hath not created all things of no thing, can be equal to him: And to whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like, Chap. 46. 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 Apostles Argument arises from hence, that he was equal to God, before he took on him the form of a Servant, which was before his working of those mighty works, wherein these Gentlemen assert him to be equal to God.  
2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousnesse of their 
§. 12.  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 
§. 13.  between Christ and God, in the works he wrought: For 1. God doth the works in his own Name, and Authority, Christ in Gods. 2. God doth them by his own Power, Christ by Gods. 3. God doth them himself, Christ not, but God in him, as another from him. 4. He doth not do them as God, however that expression be taken; for according to these men, He wrought them, neither in his own name, nor by his own power, nor for his own glory, all which he must do, who doth things, as God.  
2. He is said to be equal to God, not as He did such, and such 
§. 14.  works, but as, {αβγδ}, being in the form of God; antecedently to the taking in hand of that form, wherein He wrought the works intimated.  
3. To work great works, by the power of God, argues no 
§. 15.  Equality with him; or else all the Prophets, and Apostles, that wrought miracles, were also equal to God. The infinite inequality of nature between the creator and the most Glorious Creature, will not allow, that it be said on any account to be equal to him. Nor is it said, that Christ was equal to God, in respect of the works He did, but Absolutely, He thought it no Robbery to be equal to God. And so is their last plea to the first part of our Argument accounted for: come we to what they begin withall.  
1. We contend not( as hath been often said) about words 
§. 16.  and expressions. That the Divine nature assumed the human, we thus far abide by, That the Word, the son of God, took to himself, into personal subsistence with him, an human nature, whence they are both one Person, one Christ: and this is here punctually affirmed, viz. He that was, and is God, took upon him the form of a man. 2. The Apostle doth not say, that Christ made that form of no Reputation, or Christ {αβγδ} that form, but Christ being in that form {αβγδ}, made himself 
 of no reputation; not by any real change of his Divine nature, but taking to himself the human, wherein he was of no reputation. It being he that was so, in the nature& by the dispensation, wherein he was so; and it being not possible, that the Divine nature of itself, in itself, should be humbled, yet He was humbled, who was in the form of God, though the form of God was not.  
3. It is from his being equal with God, in the form of God, 
§. 17.  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.  
2. The form of a servant, is that which he took, when he 
§. 18.  was made {αβγδ}; as Adam begot a son in his own likeness. Now this was not only in condition a servant, but in reality, a man. 2. The form of a servant was that wherein he underwent death, the death of the cross; but he dyed as a man, and not only in the appearance of a Servant. 3. The very phrase of expression manifests the human nature of Christ to be denoted hereby: only as the Apostle had not before said directly that he was God, but in the form of God, expressing both his nature, and his Glory, so here he doth not say He was a man, but in the form of a Servant, expressing both his nature and his condition, wherein he was the servant of the Father. Of him it is said {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}: 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 to him, to be made in the form of a servant, and to be found as a man, and to be in that form put to death, denotes in the first place, a taking of that nature, wherein alone he could be a servant. And this Answers also to other expressions, of the Word being made flesh, and God sending forth his own son made of a woman. 5. This is manifest from the expression, {αβγδ}; He was found in fashion as a man: that is, He was truly so; which is exegetical of what was spoken before He took on him the form of a servant.  
But they say this is of no importance; For the same is said of 
§. 19.  samson, judge. 16. 7, 11. and of others Psal. 82. 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 then an hundred men, if he were dealt so and so withall, he would become as other men, for so the words expressly are: no stronger then another man; and these places are parallel: much good may these parallels do your Catechumens. And so of those in the psalm, that though in this world they are high in power for a season, yet they should dy as other men do. Hence, in a way of triumph and merriment, they ask, if these were incarnate, and answer themselves, that surely we will not say so. True, he who being as strong as many becomes by any means to be as one, and they who live in power, but die in weakness, as other men do, are not said to be incarnate: but He who being God, took on him the form of a Servant, and was in this world a very man, may( by our new Masters leave,) be said to be so.  
For the sense which they give us of this place,( for they are bold to venture at it) it hath been in part spoken to already. Christ 
§. 20.  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,& as one of the people; Therefore He was not made so by any thing afterwards: his being bound, and beate, and killed, is not his being made a servant; for that by the Apostle is afterwards expressed, when he tells us why, or for what end, not how, or wherein He was made a Servant; viz. He became obedient to death, the death of the cross.  
And this may suffice for the taking out of our way, all that 
§. 21.  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 pled for, some farther observations, for the illustration of it, may be added.  
The sense they intend to give us of these words is plainly 
§. 22.  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,& crucified: He began to be, they say, in the form of God, when after his baptism, He undertook the work of his public Ministry, and wrought mighty works in the world: which form he ceased to be in, when he was taken in the Garden, and exposed as a servant to all manner of reproach.  
That there is not any thing in this whole exposition, Answering 
§. 23.  the mind of the Holy Ghost, is evident as from what was said before; so also 1. Because it is said of Christ, that 〈◇〉 〈◇〉, He was in the form of God, before he took the form of a servant, and yet the taking of the form of a servant in this place, doth evidently answer his being made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. his being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom 8. 3. his coming or being sent into the world, Math. 10. 11. 20. 28. Joh. 3. 16, 17. &c. 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. 8. 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 withall in the world as a servant, under all manner of reproach, revilings, and persecutions. He was no more in the form of a servant when he was bound, then when he had not where to lay his head. 4. The state and condition of a Servant consists in this, that he is not sui juris: no more was Christ in the whole course of his Obedience; he did not any private will of his own, but the will of him that sent him. Those who desire to see the vindication of this place to the utmost, in all the particulars of it, may consult the confutation of the interpretation of Erasmus, by Beza, Annot. in Phil, 2. 6, 7. Of Ochinus, and Laelius Socinus, by Zinchius in locum;& de Tribus Elohim, pag. 227. &c. Of Faustus Socinus, by Beckman: exercitat: pag. 168. & Johan. Jun. Examen Respon. Socin. pag. 201, 202. Of Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul. ad Philip. cap. 2. Of Ostorodus, by Jacobus a porta, Fidei Orthodox. defence. pag. 89. 150. &c. 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; {αβγδ} in nostris libris 
§. 24.  non significat internum& occultum aliquid, said id quod in oculos incurrit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sanandi morbos omnes, ejiciendi daemons, excitandi mortuos, mutandi rerum naturas: quae verè Divina sunt, ita ut Moses, qui tam magna non fecit, dictus ob id fuit Deus Pharaonis: vocem {αβγδ} quo dixi sensu habes Mar. 16. 12. Isa: 44. 13. ubi in Hebraeo {αβγδ}; Dan. 4. 33. 6. 10. 6. 28. ubi in Chaldeo {αβγδ}: Job. 4. 16. ubi in Hebraeo {αβγδ}. {αβγδ} 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 Divels, raising the Dead, changing the Natures of things: which are truly Divine; so that Moses, who did not so great things, was therefore called the God of Pharaoh: The word {αβγδ}, in the sense spoken of, you have, Mar. 16. 12. Isa. 44. 13. where in the Hebrew it is {αβγδ} Dan: 4. 33. &c. where in the Chaldee it is {αβγδ}: Job. 14. 6. where in the Hebrew it is {αβγδ}.  
An. A form is either substantial, or accidental: that which is indeed, or that which appears. That it is the substantial form of 
§. 25.  God, which is here intended, yet with respect to the glorious manifestation of it,( which may be also as the accidental form) hath been formerly declared, and proved. So far it signifies that which is internal and hidden, or not visibly discerned, in as much as the Essence of God is invisible. The proofs of this I shall not now repeat. 2. Christs 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 Divels. So that if the power of doing the things mentioned, were {αβγδ}, that form was not visible, and exposed to the sight of men, for it was aliquid internum& occultum, a thing internal and hidden. 3. If to be in the form of God, and thereupon to be equal to him, be to have power, or Authority, of healing diseases, casting out Divels, 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 wought accordingly; casting out Divels, healing the diseased, raising the dead, &c. which whether it be not blasphemy to affirm, the reader may judge. 4. It is true, God says of Moses, Exod. 7. 1. I have made thee a God to Pharaoh; which is expounded c. 4. 16. where God tells him, that Aaron should be to him instead of a mouth,& he should be to him instead of God. That is, Aaron should speak& deliver to Pharaoh,& the people, what God revealed to Moses, Moses revealing it to Aaron; Aaron receiving his message from Moses, as other Prophets did from God, whence he is said to be to him instead of God: And this is given as the reason of that expression, c. 7. 1. of his being a God to Pharaoh; even as our Saviour speaks, because the word of God came by him; because he should reveal the will of God to him. Thou shalt be a God to Praraoh, and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet; Thou shalt speak all that I command thee, and Aaron thy Brother shall speak to Pharaoh. He is not upon the account of his working miracles called God, or said to be in the form of God, or to be made equal to God; but revealing the will of God to Aaron, who spake it to Pharaoh, he is said to be a God to Pharaoh, or in the stead of God, as to that business. 5. It is true, the word {αβγδ}, or form, is used Mar. 16. 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. 4. 19. {αβγδ}, until Christ be formed in you. So that the very first observation of our Annotatour, that in our books, that is, the Scriptures,( for in other Authors it is acknowledged, that this word follies the internal form of a thing) this word {αβγδ} signifies not any thing internal or hidden, is true only of that one place, Mar. 16. 12. in this it is otherwise,& the verb of the same signification is evidently otherwise used. And which may be added, other words, that bare the same Ambiguity of 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 {αβγδ}, Col. 1. 15.& {αβγδ} Heb. 1. 3. both of the same import with {αβγδ} here, save that the latter adds personality. 6. For the words mentioned out of the Old Testament, they are used in businesses quiter of another nature, and are restrained in their significations by the matter they speak of. {αβγδ}, is not {αβγδ} properly, but {αβγδ}, and is translated imago, by Arias Mon: {αβγδ}, is rather {αβγδ}, Gen. 29. 17. 1 Sam: 28. 14. {αβγδ} is used ten times in the Bible, and hath various significations, and is variously rendered: {αβγδ}, Deut. 4. 15. {αβγδ}, v. 16. so most commonly. {αβγδ} in Daniel is splendour, {αβγδ}, not {αβγδ}: and what all this is to our purpose in hand, I know not. The form of God, wherein Christ was, is that, wherein He was equal to God: that, which as to the Divine Nature, is the same, as his being in the form of a Servant, wherein He was obedient to death, was to the human. And which is 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. 42. 1.  
He proceeds on this foundation: {αβγδ}, 
§. 26.  {αβγδ}, est locutio Syriaca: in Liturgiâ Syriacâ, Johannes Baptista Christo Baptismum ab ipso expetenti, dieit, non assumam rapinam. Solent qui aliquid bellicâ virtute peperere, id omnibus ostentare, ut Romani in Triumpho merely solebant. Non multum aliter Plutarchus in Timoleon: {αβγδ}. Sensus est, non venditavit Christus, non jactavit istam potestatem: quia saepe etiam imperavit ne quod fecer at vulgaretur. {αβγδ} hic est adverbium; sic Odyss: O: {αβγδ}, dixit Scriptor, 2 Macc. 9. 12. {αβγδ}, 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 
§. 27.  Interpretations are given of them; and I may say, that of the very many which I have considered, this of all others, as being wrested to countenance a false hypothesis, is the worst. To insist particularly on the opening of the words, is not my present task. That Grotius is besides the sense of them, may be easily manifested; for 1. He brings nothing to enforce this interpretation; That the expression is Syriack, in the idiom of it, he abides not by: giving us an instance of the same phrase of expression out of Plutarch; who knew the propriety of the greek tongue very well, and of the Syriack not at all. Others also give a parallel expression out of thucydides, lib. 8. {αβγδ}. 2. I grant {αβγδ} may be used adverbially; and be rendered aequaliter: but now the words are to be interpnted pro subjecta materia. He who was in the form of God, counted it no Robbery;( that is, did not esteem it to be any wrong, on that account of his being in the form of God,) to be equal to his Father, did yet so submit himself, as is described. This being equal to God, is spoken of Christ accidentally to his taking on him the form of a Servant, which He did in his Incarnation, and must relate to his 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.  
{αβγδ}: He renders, libenter duxit vitam inopem; 
§. 28.  referring it to the poverty of Christ, whilst he conversed here in the world. But what ever be intended by this expression, it is not the same with {αβγδ}, which Grotius afterwards 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, {αβγδ}, 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 eepressly upon; and what greater demonstration of love, or condescension upon the account of love could possibly be given, then for him who was God, equal to his Father, in the same Deity, to lay aside the manifestation of his glory,& to take upon him our nature, therein to be a servant unto death.  
He proceeds {αβγδ}, similis factus servi●, qui nihil 
§. 29.  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 Math. 8. 20. better accommodated, then to the clause foregoing, for whose Exposition it is produced by our Annotatour.  
But 1. It is most certain, that the exposition of Grotius will 
§. 30.  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 graduation of the Apostle, that in being in the form of God, free from any thing of that which follows, He then debased and humbled himself,& 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 whe● Christ wrought miracles, He was so poor, and possessed nothing of his own; that there was no condescension nor relinquishment of one condition for another discernible therein. 2. The form of a servant that Christ took was that, wherein he was like man; as it is expounded in the words next following; he was made in the likeness of man; and what that is the same Apostle informs us, Heb. 2. 17. {αβγδ}, wherefore heought inall things to be made like his brethren: that is, {αβγδ}, He was made in the likeness of man: or as it is expressed Rom. 8. 3. {αβγδ}, in the likeness of flesh; which also is expounded Gal. 4. 4. {αβγδ}, made of a woman; which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of that, Joh. 1. 14. {αβγδ}, the word was made flesh. 3. The employment of Christ in that likeness of man, is confestly expressed in these words, Not his condition, that he had nothing, but his employment, that he was the servant of the Father, according as it was foretold that he should be, Isa. 42. 1, 19. and which He every where professed himself to be. He goes on.  
{αβγδ}: cum similis esset hominibus, 
§. 31.  illis nempe primis; id est, pecca●i expers; 2 Cor. 5. 21. whereas He was like men, namely those first, that is, without sin.  
That Christ was without sin, that in his being made like to 
§. 32.  us, there is an exception as to sin, is readily granted. He was {αβγδ}, Heb. 7. 26. But 1. That Christ is ever said to be made like Adam, on that account, or is compared with him therein, cannot be proved. He was {αβγδ}: but that he was made {αβγδ} is not said. 2. This expression was sufficiently cleared by the particular places formerly urged. It is not of his sinlesnesse in that condition, of which the Apostle hath no occasion here to speak, but of his Love in taking on him that condition, in being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, that these words are used. It is a likeness of nature to all men, and not a likeness of innocency to the first, that the Apostle speaks of: a likeness, wherein there is a {αβγδ}, as to the kind, a distinction in number: as Adam begot a son in his own likeness, Gen. 5. 1.  
All that follows in the Learned Annotater, is only an endeavour 
§. 33.  to make the following words speak in some Harmony, and conformity to what he hath before delivered; which being discerned not to be suited to the mind of the Holy Ghost in the place, I have no such delight to contend about Words, Phrases, and Expressions, as to insist any farther upon them. return we to our Catechists.  
The place they next propose to themselves to deal withall, is 1 Tim. 3. 16. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, 
§. 34.  God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angells, and revealed unto the Gentiles, believed on in the World, received up into Glory.  
If it be here evinced, that by God is meant Christ, it being spoken absolutely, and in the place of the subject in the proposition, this business is at a perfect 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 deaths 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 red the Books of the New Testament, might righteously be appealed unto; but because these are things of no importance with them, with whom we have to do, we must insist on other considerations.  
1. Then, that by the word {αβγδ}, God, some person is intended, 
§. 35.  is evident from hence, that the word is never used but to express some person; nor can in any place of the Scriptures be wrested possibly to denote any thing, but some person, to whom that name doth belong, 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 every where else, because it agrees not with our hypothesis; {αβγδ}! 2. That Christ, who is the second Person, the Son of God, is here intended, and none else; is evident from hence, that what ever is here spoken of {αβγδ}, of this God here, was true, and fulfilled in him, as to the matter, and the same expressions for the most of the particulars, as to their substance, are used concerning him, and no other. Neither are they possible to be accommodated to any Person but him. Let us a little accommodate the words to him. 1. He who as God, was in the beginning with God, in his own nature invisible, {αβγδ}, was manifested in the flesh, when {αβγδ}, when he was made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. and made {αβγδ}, Rom: 8. 3. in the likeness of flesh, {αβγδ}: Rom: 1. 3. so made visible and conspicuous,( or {αβγδ}, when {αβγδ}) dwelling amongst men, who also saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God, v. 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. {αβγδ}, He was justified in the spirit, from all their false accusations and imputations: He was justified by his eternal spirit, when he was raised from the dead, and declared to be the son of God with power, thereby, Rom: 1. 4. for though He was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4. so He also sent out his spirit to convince the World of sin, because they believed not in him, and of righteousness, because he went to his Father; Joh. 16. 9, 10. which he also did, justifying himself thereby, to the conviction and conversion of many thousands, who before condemned him, or consented to his condemnation, upon the account formerly mentioned, Act. 2 37. And this is He, who 3. {αβγδ}, 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 {αβγδ}, Heb. 1. 6. one came down at his Nativity to declare it, to whom He was seen, and instantly a multitude of the Heavenly Host saw him, Luk. 2. 9, 13. and afterwards went away into heaven; v. 15. In the beginning also of his Ministry, Angels were sent to him in the wilderness to minister to him, Math. 4. 11. and when he was going to his death in the garden, an angel was sent to comfort him, Luk. 22. 43. And he then knew, that He could at a words speaking, have more then twelve Legions of Angels to his assistance, Mat. 26. 53. And when he rose again, the Angels saw him again, and served him therein, Math. 28. 2. And as He shall come again with his holy Angels to judgement, Math. 25. 31. 2 Thess. 1. 7. so no doubt but in his Assention the Angels accompanied him: yea that they did so, is evident from Psal. 68. 17, 18. So that there was no eminent concernment of him, wherein it is not expressly affirmed, that {αβγδ}: at his Birth, Entrance on his Ministry, Death, Resurrection, Assention, {αβγδ}. 4. {αβγδ}, He was Preached unto the Gentiles, or among the people, or Gentiles: which besides the following Accomplishment of it to the full, in the Preaching the gospel concerning him throughout the World, so it had a signal entrance in that Declaration of him to devout men dwelling at Jerusalem, out of every Nation under Heaven, Act. 7. 5. And hereupon; 5. {αβγδ}, He was believed on in the World; He that had been rejected as a vile person, condemned and slain, being thus levied in 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, joh. 1. 10, 11. And for his own part, {αβγδ}, He was taken up into Glory; the story whereof we have, Act. 1. 9, 10, 11. when He had spoken to his Disciples, He was taken up, and a cloud received him. Of which Luke says briefly, as Paul here, {αβγδ}, Act. 1. 2. as Mark also doth, Chap. 16. 19. {αβγδ}; that is, {αβγδ}, He was taken up into Heaven, or to Glory; {αβγδ}, is as much as {αβγδ}, He was taken up( {αβγδ} for {αβγδ}) into Glory.  
This Harmony of the description of Christ here, both as to 
§. 36.  his person and Office, with what is elsewhere spoken of him,( this being evidently a summary collection of what is more largely in the gospel spoken of) makes it evident, that he is God, here intended: which is all that is needful to be evinced from this place.  
Let us now hear our Catechists pleading for themselves. 
§. 37.  What dost thou Answer to 1 Tim. 3. 16? 
Adtertium vero quid respondes?   
1. That in many ancient Copies, and in the vulgar latin itself, the word, God, is not red; 
Primum quidem, quod in multis exemplaribus vetustis& in ipsa vulgata, non legatur vox Deus. Quare ex eo loco certum nihil concludi potest. Deinde, etiansi ea vox legeretur, nullam esse causam cur ad Patrem referri non posset, cum haee de Patre affirmari possint, eum apparuisse in Christo,& apostles qui caro fuerunt. Quod autem inferiùs legitur, secundum usitatam versionem, receptus est in gloriam, id in Graeco habetur, receptus est in gloria, id est, cum gloria, aut gloriosè.  wherefore from that place nothing certain can be concluded. 2. Although that word should be red, yet there is no cause why it should not be referred to the Father, seeing these things may be affirmed of the Father: that he appeared in Christ, and the Apostles, who were flesh:& for what is afterwards red, 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.  
What then is the sense of this Testimony?  
That the Religion of Christ is full of Mysteries: for God, that is, his will, for the saving 
Quae vero futura est hujus testimonii sententia?  of men, was perfectly made known by infirm& mortal men; and yet because of the Miracles 
Religionem Christi plenane esse mysteriis. Nam Deus, id est, voluntas ipsius de servandis hominibus, per komines infirmos& mortales perfectè patefacta est:& nihilominus tamen propter miracula,& virtutes varias, quae per homines illes infirmes& mortales edita fuerant, pro vera est agnita: eadem ab ipsis angels fuit demum perspecta; non solum Judaeis, verum etiam gentibus fuit praedicata: omnes ei crediderunt,& insignem in modum,& summa cum gloria recepta fuit.  and various powerful works, which were performed by such weak mortal men, it[ was acknowledged for true, and it was at length perceived by the Angells 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 then 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, yet 
§. 39.  the unanimous constant consent of all the original Copies, confessed to be so, both by Beza, and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince, that the loss of that word in 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 understood.  
2. That what is here spoken MAY be referred to the Father, 
§. 40.  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 canno● 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 Angells, &c. that is spoken of; but 
§. 41.  that God was manifested in the flesh, &c. nor is any thing, that is here spoken of God, any where ascribed, no not once in the Scripture, to the Father. How was he manifested in the flesh, how was he levied in the Spirit, how was He taken up into glory?  
4. Though {αβγδ}, may be rendered gloriously, or with glory, yet {αβγδ}, may not, receptus est, but rather assumptus est; and is 
§. 42.  applied to the ascension of Christ in other places, as hath been shewed.  
2. For the sense they tender of these words; Let them 1. Give any one instance, where God, is put for the will of God, 
§. 43.  and that exclusively to any person of the Deity, or to speak to their own Hypothesis, exclusively to the Person of God. This is intolerable boldness, and argues something of searednesse. 2. The will of God for the salvation of men, is the gospel: how are these things appliable to that? How was the gospel levied in the spirit; how was it received into Gory, how was it seen of the Angels, {αβγδ}? In what place is any thing of all this spoken of the gospel? Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In sum, the Will of God is no where said to be manifest in the flesh, Christ was so. That the will of God should be preached by weak mortal men, was no great Mystery; that God should assume human nature, is so. The will of God cannot be said to appear to the Angells, Christ did so. Of the last expression there can be no doubt raised.  
Grotius insists upon the same interpretation with our Catechists 
§. 44.  in the whole, and in every part of it: nor doth he add any thing to what they pled, 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, or evincing what he embraces, to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, to any one that is otherwise minded. What he says, because he says it, deserves to be considered.  
{αβγδ}: suspectam nobishanc lectionem faciunt interpretes 
§. 45.  veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs,& Ambrosius, qui omnes legunt {αβγδ}. Addi● Hinemaerus Opusculo 55. illud. {αβγδ} hic positum a Nestorianis. 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 sometimes helps him at a need, doth not differ 2: One corruption in one translation makes many. 3. The Syriack reads the word God, and so Tremelius hath rendered it. Ambrose and Hin●marus followed the latin translation. And there is a thousand times more probability, that the word {αβγδ} was filch'd out by the Arians, then that it was foisted in by the Nestorians. But if the Agreement of all original Copies may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing certain left us. But saith he; sensum bonum facit illud {αβγδ}. Evangelium illud caeleste innotuit primum non per Angelos, said per homines moritales,& quantum extorna species ferebat infirmos, Christum,& Apostolos ejus. {αβγδ} been convenit mysterio, id est, rei latenti: Col. 1. 26, {αβγδ} hominem significat mortalem: 2 Cor: 2. 16. 1 John 4. 2.  
1. Our Annotatour having only a suspicion that the word 
§. 46.  {αβγδ} was not in the text, ought on all accounts to have interpnted the words according to the reading, whereof he had the better persuasion, and not according unto that, whereof he had only a suspicion. But then it was by no means easy to accommodate them according to his intention, nor to exclude the Person of Christ from being mentioned in them, which by joining in with his suspicion he thought himself able to do. 2. He s● not able to give us any one instance in the Scripture, of the like expression to this, of manifest in the flesh, being referred to the gospel; when referred to Christ, nothing is more frequent; John 1. 14. John 6. 53. Acts, 2. 31. Rom. 1. 3. Rom: 8. 3. Rom: 9. 5, Ephes. 2. 14, 15. Col: 1. 22. Heb: 5. 7. Heb. 10. 19, 20. 1 Pet: 3. 18. 1 Pet: 4. 1. 1 John 4. 2. &c. Of the flesh of the gospel, not one word. 3. There is not the least opposition intimated, between men and Angels, as to the means of preaching the gospel; nor is this any mystery, that the gospel was preached by men; {αβγδ} 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 words being made flesh, as it is elsewhere expressed. In the place urged out of the Corinthians, whether it be the 2. or 11. Chapter that is intended, there is nothing to prove, that {αβγδ} follies a mortal man. And this is the entrance of this exposition; Let us proceed.  
{αβγδ}; per plurima miracula approbata est ●a veritas. {αβγδ} sunt miracula divina, per {αβγδ} quae est 1 Cor. 
§. 47.  11. 4. & alibi. levied in the Spirit; that is, approved by many miracles; for {αβγδ} is miracles by a metonymy. Then let every thing be as the Learned man will have it. It is in vain to contend. For surely never was expression so wrested. That {αβγδ}, simply, is miracles, is false; that to have a thing done {αβγδ}, signifies miracles, is more evidently so; 1 Cor. 2. 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, righteousness, and judgement, according to the promise of Christ. The application of this expression to Jesus Christ see above. He adds; {αβγδ}( is here) approbare, ut Math. 11. 19. It is here to approve, and that because it was necessary that the Learned Annotatour should {αβγδ}. In what sense the word is taken, and how applied to Christ, with the genuine meaning of the place, see above. See also, Joh. 1. 33, 34. nor is the gospel any where said to be levied in Spirit, nor is this a tolerable exposition, levied in spirit, that is, it was approved by miracles.  
{αβγδ} nempe cum admiratione, Angeli hoc arcanum per homines morrales didicere; Ephes. 3. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 12. How eminently 
§. 48.  this suits what is spoken of Jesus Christ, was shewed before. It is true, the Angells as with admiration look into the things of the gospel; but that it is said, the gospel {αβγδ}, is not proved.  
It is true, the Gospel was Preached to the Gentiles; but yet this 
§. 49.  word is most frequently applied to Christ, Act. 3. 20. Act. 8. 25. Chap. 9. 20. Chap. 19. 13. 1 Cor. 1. 23. 1 Cor. 15. 12. 2 Cor. 1. 19. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 2 Cor. 11. 4. Phil. 1. 15. are Testimonies hereof.  
{αβγδ}, id est, in magna mundi parte, Rom. 1. 8. Col. 1. 
§. 50.  6. But then I pray, what difference between 〈◇〉 〈◇〉, and {αβγδ}? The first is, it was approved by miraeles, 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 joh. 3. 17, 18.& v. 35, 36. joh. 6. 40. Act. 10. 43. and Chap. 16. 31. Rom. 3. 22. Rom. 10. 8, 9. Gal. 2. 16. 1 joh. 5. 5. &c.  
The last clause is, {αβγδ}; Gloriose admodum exaltatumest, 
§. 51.  nempe quia majorem attulit sanctitatem, quàm ulla ante haec dogmata. And this must be the sense of the place, without any colour, much less evidence of proof. For the sense of the word {αβγδ} in this business, see Luk. 9. 51. Mar. 16. 19. Act. 1. 2. v. 11.& v. 22. And in this sense we are indifferent, whether {αβγδ}, be {αβγδ}, unto glory, which seems to be most properly intended, or {αβγδ}, with Glory, as our Adversaries would have it, or gloriously, as Grotius; for it was gloriously, with great Glory, and into that Glory, which He had with his Father before the World was. That the gospel is Glorious in its Doctrine of Holinesse is true, but not at all spoken of in this place.  
Heb: 2. 16. is another Testimony insisted on, to prove the incarnation 
§. 52.  of Christ, and so consequently his subsistence in a divine nature antecedently thereunto. The words are: For verily, he took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. To this they Answer; that  
Herein not so much as any likeness of the 
In co, ne similitudinem quidem incarnation is( ut vocant) apparere, cum is Scriptor non dicat, Christum assumpsisse( ut quidam reddunt,& vulgo eo sensu accipiunt) said assumere: nec dicit, naturam humanam, said seemen Abrahae quod in literis sacris not at eos, qui in Christum crediderunt, ut Gal 3. 29. videre est.  incarnation, as they call it, doth appear. For this writer doth not say, that Christ took( as some red it, and commonly they take it in that sense) but He takes. Nor doth he say, human nature, but the seed of Abraham: which in the Holy Scriptures denotes them, who believe in Christ, as Gal. 3. 29.  
What then is the sense of this place? 
Quid vero sensus hujus erit loci? Id sibi vult is Scriptor, Christum non esse Servatorem Angelorum, said hominum credentium, q●i quoniam& afflictionibus& morti subjecti sunt( quam rem superius expressit per participationem carnis& sanguinis) propterea Christus ultro illis se submisit, ut fideles suos a mortis metu liberaret,& in omni afflictione iisdem opem afferret.   
This is that which this Writer intends, that Christ is not the Saviour of Angells, but of men believing, who because they are subject to afflictions and death,( which He before expressed by the participation of flesh and blood) therefore did Christ willingly submit himself unto them, that he might deliver his faithful ones from the fear of death, and might help them in all their afflictions.  
The sense of this place is evident; the Objections against it 
§. 54.  weak. That the word is {αβγδ}, not {αβγδ}, assumit, not assumpsit, is an Enallage of Tense so usual, as that it can have no force of an Objection. And v. 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: {αβγδ}, for {αβγδ}; and {αβγδ} for {αβγδ}: see Joh: 3. 31. Joh: 21. 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, v: 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, 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: 1. 3. and to come of the Fathers as concerning the flesh, Rom: 9. 5. 4. Believers are called Abrahams seed sometimes spiritually, in relation to the Faith of Abraham, as Gal: 3. 29. where he is expressly spoken of, as Father of the faithful, by inheriting the Promises: but take it absolutely, to be of the seed of Abraham, is no more, but to be a man of his posterity, Joh. 8. 37. I know that ye are Abrahams seed, Rom. 9. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children, v. 8. that is, they are the Children of the flesh: so Rom. 11. 1. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I, 2 Cor. 11. 22. 2. For the sense assgined; it is evident, that in these words the Apostle treats not of the help given, but of the way whereby Christ came to help his Church, and the means thereof; his 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 Gregories Comment on Job) but not of this. 3. By partaking of Flesh and Blood, is not meant primarily, being obnoxious to death and afflictions; nor doth that expression in any place 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 an human nature of the seed of Abraham, into personal union with himself.  
Grotius is still at a perfect agreement with our Catechists. Saith 
§. 55.  he, {αβγδ} apud Platonem,& alios, est solenniter vindicare, his autem& superioribus intelligendum est, vindicare, seu asserere in libertatem manu injectâ. This word in Plato and others, is to vindicate into liberty; here, as is to be understood from what went before, it is to assert into Liberty by laying hold with the hand. Of the First, because he gives no instances, we shall need take no farther notice. The Second is denied; both the help afforded, and the means of it by Christ, is mentioned before. The help is Liberty: the means, partaking of Flesh and Blood to die. These words are not expressive of, nor do answer the latter, or the help afforded, but the means for the obtaining of it, as hath been declared. But he adds, the word signifies to lay hold of with the hand, as Mark. 8. 23. &c. Be it granted that it doth ●o●to lay hold with the hand, and to take to ones 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 interpnted pro subjectâ materiâ, according to the subject matter: which here is Christs taking a nature upon him, that was of Abraham, 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 Hebraeos liberet a 
§. 56.  peccatis& metu mortis; eventus enim nomen saepe datur operae, in id impensae. 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 of Abraham, is opposed to his not taking the seed of Angells; 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 accommodated only to the Jews, as that the contrary is every where asserted, as is known to all.  
1 John 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come 
§. 57.  in the flesh, is of God; He who comes into the world, or comes into flesh, or in the flesh, had a susibstence before he so came. It is very probable, that the intendment of the Apostle was to 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 Synecdothically called flesh. Our Catechists to this say, 
§. 58.   
That this is not to the purpose in hand; for that which some red, He came into the flesh, is 
Etiam in eo nihil prorsus de incarnatione( quam vocant) haberi. Etenim quod apud quosdam legitur, venit in carnem, in Graeco habetur, in carne venit. Propterea non scribit Joannes, quòd spiritus, qui confitetur Jesum Christum, qui in carne venit, ex Deo est. said quod ille Spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo est. Quorum verborum sensus est, eum spiritum ex Deo esse, qui confitetur Jesum illum, qui munus suum in terris fine ulla pompa& often tatione mundena, summa cum humilitate, quoad exteriorem specient sumino●; cum contemptu obiverit, martem denique ignominiosam opperierit, esse Christum,& populi Dei regem.  not in the greek, but he came in the flesh. Moreover, John doth not writ, 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,& lastly, underwent a contumelious death, is Christ,& King of the people of God.  
I shall not contend with them about the translation of the 
§. 59.  words: {αβγδ}, seems to be put for {αβγδ}; but the intendment is the same; for the word came is {αβγδ}, that is, that came, or did come. 2. It is not {αβγδ}, who did come, that thence any colour should be taken for the exposition given by them, of confessing that Christ, or him who is the Christ, the King of the people of God, or confessing him to be the Christ, the King of the people of God; but it is, that confesseth him who cam● in the flesh, that is, as to his whole Person and office, his coming, and what he came for. 3. They cannot give us any example, nor any one Reason, to evince, that that should be the meaning of {αβγδ}, which here they pretend. The meaning of it hath above been abundantly declared. So that there is no need that we should insist longer on this place. Nor why we should trouble ourselves with Grotius his long discourse on this place. The whole foundation of it is, that to come in the flesh, signifies to come in a low, abject condition; a pretence without 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. 10. 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and Offering 
§. 60.  thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. He who had a body prepared for him, when he came into the world, he subsisted in another nature, before that coming of his into the world. To this they say. 
§. 61.   
Neither is there here any mention made of 
Ne hic quidem de incarnatione( ut vocant) ullam mentionem factam, cum is mundus, in quem ingressum Jesum is author ait, sit ille mundus futurus, ut superius demonstratum est. Unde etiam ingredi in illum mundum, non nasci in mundum, said in coelum ingredi significat. Deinde, illis verbis, Corpus aptasti mihi, corporis ●ox( ●t ex eo apparuit, ubi de ingressu hoc in mundum actum est) pro corpore immortali accipi potest.  the incarnation,( as they call it) seeing that world, into which the Author says Christ entred is the world to come, as was above demonstrated. Whence to come into the world, doth not signify to be born into the world, but to enter into Heaven. Lastly, in these words, a body hast thou prepared me, that word a body( as appeared from what was said, where his entering this world was treated of) may be taken for an immortal body.  
What is the sense of this place? 
§. 62.   
That God fitted for Jesus such a body, after 
Quae sententia ejus lo●i est? Deum Jesu tale corpus aptasse, postquam in caelum est ingressus, quod ad obeundum munus Pontificis summi aptum& accommodatum foret.  He entred Heaven, as is fit and accommodate for the discharging of the duty of an High Priest.  
But doubtless, then this whole dream nothing can be more 
§. 63.  fond or absurd. How many times is it said, that Christ came into this world, where no other world but this can be understood? For this cause saith he, came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth? Joh▪ 18. Was it into Heaven that Christ came to bear witness to the truth? Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1. 15. was it into Heaven? 2. These words, a body hast thou prepared me, are a full expression of what is Synecdochically spoken of in the 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 to death, the death, of the cross. 3. as I have before▪ manifested the groundlessenesse of interpreting the word world, put absolutely, of the world to come, and so taken off all, that here they relate unto, so in that Demonstration, which God assisting I shall give, of Christs being a Priest, and offering sacrifice in this world, before he entred into Heaven▪ I shall remove what farther here they pretend unto. In the mean time, such expressions as this, that have no light, nor colour given them from the Text they pretend to unfold, had need of good strength of analogy given them from elsewhere, which here is not pretended. When he comes into the world, that is, when He enters Heaven; he says, a body hast thou prepared me, that is, an immortal body thou hast given me, and that by this immortal body they intend indeed no body, I shall afterward declare.  
Grotius turns these words quiter another way, not agreeing 
§. 64.  with our Catechists; yet doing still the same work▪ with them: which because he gives no proof of his exposition, it shall suffice so to have intimated: In sum, v. 4. he tells us, how the blood of Christ takes away sin, viz. because it begets faith in us, and gives right to Christ for the obtaining of all necessary helps for us, in pursuit of his former interpretation of chap. 9. where he wholly excludes the satisfaction of Christ. His coming into the world, is( he says) his showing himself to the world, after he had led a private life therein for a while; contrary to the perpetual use of that expression in the New Testament; and so the whole design of the place is eluded; the exposition whereof I shall defer to the place of the satisfaction of Christ.  
And these are the Texts of Scripture our Catechists thought 
§. 65.  good to endeavour a delivery of themselves from, as to that Head or Argument of our plea, for his subsistence in a divine nature, antecedently to his being born of the Virgin, namely, because he is said to be incarnate, or made flesh.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Sundry other Testimonies, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated.  
IN the next place they heap up a great many Testimonie● 
§. 1.  confusedly, containing scriptural▪ Attributions unto Christ, o● 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. 
§. 2.   
In what Scriptures is Christ▪ called God? 

In quibus scriptures Christus vocatur deus?  
Joan. 1. v. 1.& verbum fuit deus;& cap. 20. v. 28. Thomas ad Christum ait, dominus meus,& deus meus;& Rom. 9. v. 5. Apostolus scribit Christum deum( esse) supra omnes benedictum in secula.  
Quid his testimoniis effici potest.  
Naturam divinam in Christo ex iis demonstrari non posse, praeter ea quae superius allata 〈◇〉, hinc manifestum est, quod in primo testimonio aga●ur de ve●bo, quod Joanes testatur apud illum Deum fuisse. In secundo Thomas eum appellet deum, in cujus pedibus& manibus clavorum, in later lanceae vestigia deprehendit;& Paulus eum, qui secundum carnem a patribus erat, deum supra omnia benedictum vocat. Quae omnia dici de eo, qui natura deus sit nullo modo posse, planum est. Etenim ex illo sequeretur duos esse deos, quorum alter apud a●terum fuerit. Haec vero, vestigia vulnerum habere, ex patribus esse, hoins sunt prorsus; quae ei qui natura deus sit, ascribi nimis absonum esset. Quod si illud distinctionis naturarum velum quis praetendat, jam superiu● illud amovimus& docu●mus, hanc distinctionem nullo modo posse sustineri.    
Joh. 1 1. The word was God. Joh. 20. 28. Thomas saith unto Christ, my Lord, and my God. Rom. 9. 5. The Apostle saith, that Christ is God over all blessed for ever.  
What can be proved by these Testimonies?  
That a divine nature▪ cannot be demonstrated from them, besides the things that are before produced, is hence manifest, that in the first Testimony, the word is spoken of, and John saith that he was with God: In the second Thomas calleth him God, in whose feet and hands he found the print of the nailes, 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 th● Fathers, belong wholly to a man; which were absurd to ascribe to him, who is God by nature. And if any one shall pretend that vail of the distinction of natures, we have above removed that, and have shewed, that this distinction cannot be maintained.  
That in all this Answer our Catechists do nothing but begg● 
§. 4.  the thing in Question, and fly to their own Hypothesis, not against assertions but Arguments, themselves so far know, as to be forced to Apologize for it in the close. That Christ is not God, because He is not the Person of the Father; that he is not God, because He is man, is the sum of their Answer. And yet these men knew, that we insisted on these Testimonies to prove him God, though He be man, and though He be not the same Person 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 1. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above abundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another nature, that he had before He took flesh, and dwelled with men: v. 14. Herein is He said to be with the Father, in respect of his distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the Father, as to his nature and Essence. And this is that which we prove from this Testimony, which will not be warded with a bare denial. The word was with God, and the word was God. God by nature, and with God in his personal distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nailes; as God is said to Redeem the Church with his own blood. He was the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his human nature  shed his blood, and had the print of the nailes in his hands and feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before;& therefore I shall not now farther insist upon it. He whom Thomas in the Confession of his faith, as a Believer, owned for his Lord and God, He is the true God, God by nature; of a made God, a God by Office, to be confessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is affirmed of Ro. 9. 5. The Apostle distinguishes of Christ, as to his flesh▪ and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or human nature, he says, he was of the Fathers; but in the other regard He is God over all blessed for ever. And as this is a signal expression of the true God, God over all blessed for ever, so there is no occasion of that expression, {αβγδ}, as to the Fl●sh, but to assert something in Christ, which he afterwards affirms to be his everlasting Deity, in regard whereof he is not of the Fathers. He is then of the Fathers, {αβγδ}. The words are most emphatically expressive of the eternal Deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the Fathers: {αβγδ}, even then when he took Flesh of the Fathers, then was he, and now he is, and ever will be God over all; that is, the most High God blessed for ever. It is evident, that the Apostle intends to ascribe to Christ here, two most solemn Attributes of God; the most High, and the Blessed one. Nor is this Testimony to be partend with for their begging, or with their importunity. 6. It is our Adversaries who say, there are two Gods, as hath been shewed, not we; and the prints of wounds are proper to him who is God by nature, though not in that regard, on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have said to oppose the distinction of two natures, in the one Person of Christ, hath already been considered, and manifested to be false and frivolous.  
I could wish to these Testimonies they had added one or 
§. 5.  two more; as that of Isaiah 54. 5. Thy maker is thine Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy one of Israel, the God of the whole Earth shall He be called. That Jesus Christ is the Husband& Spouse of the Church, will not be denied, Eph: 5. 25. Revel: 21. 9. but he who is so, is the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole Earth. And Heb. 3. 4. the Apostle says, that▪ He that made all things is God; that is, his Church; for of that he treats: He that created all things, that is, the Church, as well as all other things, He is God; none could do it but God: but Christ built this house: v. 3. But this is not my present employment.  
The Learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the two 
§. 6.  last places urged by our Catechists. Of his slight in dealing with that of joh. 20. 28. I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christs Resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom: 9. 5. but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling of him God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed Apostle plainly affirming, that He is God ●ver all, blessed for ever; and therefore forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon a worse, and more desperate evasion, affirming, that the word {αβγδ}, ought not to be in the Text: because Erasmus had observed, that Cyprian and Hi●ary, citing this Text, did not name the word: and this he rests upon; although he knew, that all original copies whatever, constantly without any exception do red it; and that Beza had manifested against Erasmus, that Cyprian lib. ad Judae 2. cap▪ 5. and Hilary ad Psal. ●2. do both city 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 pardonned. I am well contented with all, that from what he writes on John 1. 1.( the first place mentioned) do apprehended, that when he wrote his Annotations on that place, he was no opposer of the D●ity of Christ: but I must take leave to say, that for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words, that he doth at all assert the assuming of the 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.  
Where doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with 
§. 7.  the Father? 

Ubi vero Scriptura testatur Christum cum Patre esse unum?  
Joan. 10. v. 29, 30. ubi Dominus ait; Pater qui mihi( oves) dedit, mayor omnibus est,& nemo eas ●apere potest è manibus Patris mei: Ego& Pater unum sumus.    
Joh. 10. 29, 30, 31. My Father which gave them me, is greater then all; and no man is able to pluck them out of his hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to ston him.  
How dost thou Answer this Testimony?  
That from hence that Christ is said to be one 
§. 8.  with the Father, that it cannot be proved that 
Quâ ratione respondes ad id testimonium▪ Ex eo, quod di●atur Christus esse cum patre unum, effici non posse, esse unum cum eo natura, verba Christi, quae ad Patrem de discipulis habuit, demonstrant. Joan. 17. 11. Pater saint, serva illos in nomine ●uo, ut sint unum, quemadmodum& nos unum sumus▪ Et paulo inferius▪ v. 22. Ego gloriam quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis, ut sint unum, quemadmodum nos unum sumus. Quod vero Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de voluntate, aut de p●tentia in salutis nostrae ratione accipi debet: unde naturam divinam non probari ex eodem loco constat, ubi Christus ait, Patrem omnibus esse maj●rem, ac proinde etiam ipso Domino, quemadmodum idem Dominus expressè fatetur,& quod eas oves ei dederit, Joan 14. 28.  He is one with him in nature, the words of Christ to his Father of the Disciples do show, Joh. 17. 11. That they may be one as we are; and a little after, v. 22. That they may be one, even as we are one. That Christ is one with the Father, this ought to be understood either of Will, or Power, in the business of our Salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved, is manifest from those places, where Christ saith, his Father is greater then all, and consequently then Christ himself, as He expressly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep, joh: 14. 28.  
Of this place I have spoken before: That it is an Unity of 
§. 9.  Essence that is here intended by our Saviour, appears; 1. From the Apprehension the jews had of his meaning in those words, who immediately upon them took up stones to ston him for blasphemy, rendering an account of their so doing v. 33. because he being a man, did make himself God. 2. From the exposition He makes himself of his words, v. 36. I am the Son of God: that is it I intended; I am so one with him, as a Son is with the Father, that is▪ one in Nature and Essence. 3. He is so one with him, as that the Father is in him, and He in him, by a divine immanency of Persons. 2. Those words of our Saviour, joh. 17. 12, 22. do not argue a parity in the union of Believers among themselves, with that of him and his Father, but a similitude;( see Math. 17. 20.) that they may be one in Affection, as his Father and He are in Essence. We are to be holy, as God is Holy. 2. If 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. Gods Power is Omnipotent, and none can be one with him in Power, but He who is Omnipotent; that is, who is God. And if it be Unity of Power here asserted, it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater then Christ, as is affirmed joh. 14. 28. in respect of his ●ffice 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 then 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 then He. This Testimony then abides; He that is One with the Father, is God by Nature: Christ is thus one with the Father:( One) is the Unity of Nature;( are) their distinction of Persons. I and my Father are one.  
Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our Catechists, 
§. 10.  only he goes one step farther in corrupting the Text. His words are, {αβγδ}: connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus: si Patris potestati ●ripi non poterunt, nec meae poterunt: nam mea potestas a Patre emanat,& quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me, aut a Patre custodiri: vid: Gen. 41. 25, 27. I suppose he means v. 44. being the words of Pharaoh, delegating Power and Authority immediately under him to joseph; but, as it is known, p●testas is {αβγδ}, Authority,& may belong to Office: but potentia is {αβγδ}, force, virtue, or power,& belongs to Essence. It is not potestas or Authority that Christ speaks of, but strength, might, and Power; which is so great in God, that none can take his sheep out of his hand. Now though unitas potestatis, do not prove Unity of Essence in men, yet unitas potentiae, which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth: yea none can have unitatem Potestatis with God, but he who hath unitatem Essentiae.  
What they except in the next place against Christs being 
§. 11.  equal with God, from Joh. 5. 18.& Phil. 2. 6. hath been already removed, and the places fully vindicated. They proceed.  
But where is it that Christ is called the son of the 
§. 12.  Living God, the proper and only beg●tten son of God? 

Filium autem Dei vive●tis, filium Dei proprium& unigenitum esse Christum, ubi habetur?  
De hoc Matth. 16. v. 16. l●gimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Christus filius Dei viventis. Et Rom. 8. v. 32. ubi Apostolus ait; Qui( Deus) proprio filio non pepercit, verum eum pr●pter nos tradidit. Et Joan. 3. 16. Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Et v. 18. nomen unigeniti filii Dei.  
Quomodo vero ad haec loca respondetur?  
Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo modo probari posse naturam ejus divinam. Nam quod ad primum attinet, notissimum est Petrum fateri, quod filius hoins sit Christus,& filius Dei viventis, quem constat divinam naturam, qualem illi comminiscuntur, non habuisse; praet●rea, testatur Scriptura de aliis hominibus quod sint filii Dei viventis, ut ex Hosea, Rom. 9. v. 26. Et erit loco ejus, ubi iis dictum est; non p●pulus meus( estis) vos; illic vocabuntur filii Dei viventis. Quod vero secundum& tertium locum attinet, in his legimus proprium& unigenitum Dei filium in mortem traditum, quod de eo, qui natura deus sit, dici non potest. Im● vero ex eo, quod Christus dei Filius sit, apparet deum illum non esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius esset. Causa vero cur Christo ista Attributa competant, haec est, quod inter omnes dei Filios& praecipuus sit,& deo charissimus, quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo charissimus& haeres exsti●it, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. ●1. 17. licet fratrem Ismaelem habuerit:& Solomon unige●itus coram master sua, licet plures ex eadem ma●re fratres fuerint. 1 Paral. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Prov▪ 4. 3.    
Mat. 16. 16. Rom. 8. 32. Joh. 3. 16, 18.  
But how are these places answered?  
From all these Attributes of Christ a divine nature can by no 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, Ro. 9 26. and as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we red 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. 11. 17. although he had his brother Ishmael: and Solomon the only begotteen of his Mother, although he had many brethren by the same Mother: 1 Chron. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Prov. 4▪ 3.  
I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore 
§. 13.  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 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, then that wherein he is the son of man, the son of the Living God. And if Peter had intended no more in this Assertion, but only that he was one among the many sons of God, How doth he answer that Question, but whom say ye that I am? being exceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a Prophet, one come out from God, and favoured of him. It is evident, that it is something much more noble and divine that is here affirmed by him, in this solemn confession of him, on whom the Church is built. It is true, Believers are called Children of the living God, Rom. 9. 26. in opposition to the Idols whom they served before their Conversion; neither do we argue from this expression barely, of the Living God, but in conjunction with those other that follow, and in the Emphaticalnesse of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a rock, which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the proper and only begotten son of God hath been already abundantly evinced; nor is it disproved by saying, that the proper and only son of God was given to death; for so he was, and thereby God redeemed his Church with his own blood. He that is the proper and only begotten son of God, was given to death, though not in that nature, and in respect of that wherein he is the proper and only begotten Son of God. 3. Christ is the son of the Father, who is God, and therein the son of God, without any danger of being the son of himself, that is, of God as he is the son. This is a begging the thing in question, without offering any plea for what they pretend to, but their own unbelief, and carnal apprehensions of the things of God. 4. Our Catechists have exceedingly forgotten themselves, and their Masters, in affirming, that Christ is called the proper and only begotten son of God, because he is most dear to God of all his sons; themselves and their Master having as was shewed at large before, given us reasons quiter of another nature for this appellation, which we have discussed& disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the only begotten son of God, only on this account, because he is most dear among all the sons of God, then He is the son of God upon the same account with them; that is, by Regeneration and Adoption; which that it is most false hath been shewed elsewhere. Christ is the proper, natural, only begotten son of God, in contradistinction to all others, the Adopted sons of God, as was wade manifest. Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abraham, not absolutely, but in reference to the Promise: He was his only begotten son to whom the Promise did belong: He that received the promise offered up his only begotten son. Solomon is not said to be the only begotten of his Mother, Prov. 4. 3. but only before the face, or in the sight of his Mother; eminently expressing his preferment a● 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 
§. 14.  from none of th●se Expressions in any place, doth he take the least notice of what is necessary concluded concerning the Deity of Christ, wherein he might use his own liberty. The opening, interpretation,& improvement of these Testimonies to the end aimed at, I desire the Reader to see C. 7. They proceed.  
What Scripture calls Christ the first born of every 
§. 15.  Creature? 

Quae Scriptura eum vocat, Primo genitum omnis creaturae?  
Col. 1. 15.  
Quid ad eam respondes?  
Neque hinc naturam divinam Christum habere ex sculpi posse. Etenim cum Christus primogenitus omnis creaturae sit, eum unum e numero creaturarum esse oportere, necesse est. Ea enim in scriptures vis est primogeniti ut primogenitum unum ex eorum genere quorum primogenitus est, esse, necess● sit. Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. Apoc. 1. 5. Ut vero unus e rebus conditis creationis veteris existat dominus Jesus, nec Adversarii quidem concedent ●isi Ariani esse velint. Unum igitur esse e novae creationis genere dominum Jesum concedant oportet. Vnde non solum divina Christi natura effici▪ non potest; verum etiam quod nullam divinam naturam Christus habeat, firmiter conficitur. Quod vero eo nomine vocatur ab Apostolo Jesus, ●o fit, quod tempore& praestantia res omnes novae creationis l●nge antecedat.    
Col. 1. 15.  
What dost thou Answer thereunto?  
Neither can it hence be gathered that Christ hath a divine Nature: for seeing Christ is the first born of every Creature, it is necessary that he be one of the number of the Creatures. For that is the force of the word first born in the Scriptures, that it is of necessity, that he who is first born, be one of the number of them of whom he is the first born: Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. Apoc. 1. 5. Neither that our Lord Jesus was one of the things created in the old Creation, can our Adversaries grant, 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& worth he far exceedeth all other things of the new Creation.  
That by the Creation, in this verse, and the things annumerated 
§. 16.  to be created in the verses following, is intended the Creation of the world, and all things therein visible,& invisible, was before abundantly evinced, in the consideration of the ensuing verses,& the exceptions of these Catechists wholly removed, from being any hindrance to the embracing of the first obvious sense of the words. All then that is here inferred from a supposition of the new Creation being here intended,( which is a most vain supposition) falls to 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& yet not one▪ of them is evident from the Context: The very next words to these, He is the first born of every Creature, are, and by him all things were created. He by whom all things, all Creatures were Created, is no Creature; for he else must create himself. And so we are neither Arians, nor Photinians: Though the former have more colour of saving themselves from the sword of the word, then the latter, yet they both perish by it. 3. The word {αβγδ} first born, in this place is Metaphoricall: and the expression is intended to set out the excellency of Christ above all other things. That that is the 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; First 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 significations suits the Apostles 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. {αβγδ}, is, begotten before all creatures, or every creature. The Apostle doth not say, Christ was {αβγδ}, 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,& which are not compared, but one preferred above the other, it requires no such signification. See Job. 18. 13. Ps. 89. 27. Jer. 31. 9. Grotius is perfectly agreed with our Catechists, and uses their very words in the exposition of this place; but that also hath been considered, and his expositions called to an account formerly.  
The next Testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to 
§. 17.  this question.  
What Scriptures affirm, that Christ hath all things that the Father hath? 

ubi vero Scriptura eum omnia, quae Pater habeat, hab●re asserit?  
Joan. 16. v. 15. Christus ait Omnia▪ quae Pater habet, mea sunt,& infra capite 17. 10. Mea omnia tua sunt,& tua mea.  
Quid tu ad haec?  
Vox omnia ad subjectam materiam ut superius aliquoties demonstravimus fear semper refertur. Quare ex ejusmodi locis non potest ullo modo, quod volunt, effici. Materia vero subjecta cap. 16. est, id nimirum, quod Spiritus Sanctus apostles ad Christi regnum spectans revelaturus erat. Et 17. cap. constat apertissime agi de discipulis ipsius Iesu quos ipsi deus dederat, unde eos etiam suos vocat. Praeterea, 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 habeat.    
Joh. 16. 15. Joh. 17. 10.  
What saist thou to these?  
We have above declared, that the word omnia, all things, is almost always referred to the subject matter▪ wherefore from these places that which they intend can no way be proved. The subject matter Chap. 16. is that which the Holy Spirit was to reveal to the Apostles, which belonged to the kingdom of Christ. And Chap. 17. it is most apparent that he treateth of his Disciples, whom God gave him, whom he calls his. Moreover seeing that whatever Christ hath, He hath it by gift from the Father, and not of himself, it hence appeareth, that he can by no means have a divine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things of himself.  
Of these texts the consideration will soon be dispatched. 
§. 18.  Joh. 16. 15. Christ saith; All things that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I he shall take of mine, and show it unto you. Now if all things that the Father hath, are his, then the Divine nature is his, for the Father hath a divine nature. But they say, this All things, is to be expounded according to the subject matter treated of, that is, only what the Holy Ghost was to reveal to the Apostles. Let thē the expression be expounded according to the subject matter. Christ renders a Reason why he said that the Spirit should take of his, even because what he had of the Father, He had also of him; all that the Father hath being his. Now it was the knowledge of all truth, and all things to come, and all things 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. Joh. 17. 10. A Reason is rendered why those who are 
§. 19.  Christs, are also Gods, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things( {αβγδ}) were the Fathers, and all the Fathers his. It is not then spoken of the Disciples, but a Reason given why the Disciples are so in the love of God, because of the unity of Essence which is between Father and son, whence all the sons things are the Fathers, and all the Fathers are the sons.  
3. Christs having all things not from himself, but by 
§. 20.  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, {αβγδ}: etiam 
§. 21.  praescientia& 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 Foreknowledge 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 grant, by restraining this participation of Christ, in the foreknowledge& 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 Francken p. 15. But it being certain, that he whose the Prescience of God,& his purposes are properly, as to any one thing, his they are universally; it is too evident, that he intends these things to belong to Christ, no otherwise, but as God revealeth the things that are to come concerning his Church to him, which respects his Office as 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. 
§. 22.   
But what Scripture calleth Christ the eternal Father? 

At quae Scriptura Christum Patrem Aeternitatis vocat?  
Isaiae 9. v. 6.  
Tu vero quid ad haec.  
Ex eo naturam divinam probari non posse, cum certam ob causam Pater aeternitatis Christus sit vocatus, ex ipsis verbis ibidem paulo superius expressis, videre est. Mirum vero est, Adversarios hunc locum, ubi igitur de patre aeterno, ad filium refer, quem constat secundum eos ipsos patrem non esse. Pater vero aeternitatis aut futuri seculi propterea dictus est Christus, quod sit princeps& Autorvitae aeternae, quae futura est.    
Isaiah 9. 6.  
What sayest thou thereunto?  
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 
§. 23.  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.  
Our Catechists confessing that this is spoken of Christ, and 
§. 24.  that he is here called the Everlasting Father,( they are more modest then 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: this is that which is here affirmed of him, that his name shall be called, or He shall be,& shall be known to be( for both these are contained in this expression) wonderful, counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He who is the mighty God,& the Everlasting Father, is God by nature; but so is Jesus Christ. The expression here used of the Mighty God, is ascribed to God, Deut. 10. 17. Nehem. 9. 32. Jerem. 32. 18. and is a most eminent name of God; a name discriminating him from all that are not God by nature. And this may be added to the other names of God, that are attributed to Christ: as Adonai, Psal. 110. 1. Elohim, Psal. 46. 5. Heb. 1. 8. Jehovah, Jerem. 23. 6. Chap. 33. 16. Mal. 3. 1. Psal. 83. 18, God, Joh. 1. 1. The true God, 1 Joh. 5. 20. The great God, Tit. 2. 13.( of which places before) and here the Mighty God, the eternal Father.  
2. What say our Catechists to all this; they fix only on that 
§. 25.  expression, the eternal Father; and say that we cannot intend the son here, because we say, he is not the Father; and yet so do these Gentlemen themselves: they say Christ is the son of God, and no way the same with the Father, and yet they say upon a peculiar account he is here called, the eternal Father.  
3. On what account then soever Christ is called the eternal 
§. 26.  Father, yet he is called so; and is eternal; whether it be, because in nature He is one with the Father, or because of his tender and Fatherly affections to his Church, because he is the Author of eternal Life, because in him is Life, it is all one as to the Testimony to his Deity in the words produced. He who is the Mighty God, the eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, is God by nature, which was to be confirmed.  
So much for them. But our other Friend, must not be forgotten. 
§. 27.  The place is of great importance. The Testimony in it, evident& clear:& we must not suffer ourselves on any pretence to be deprived of the support thereof. Thus then he proceeds in the Exposition of this place.  
For unto us a Child is born, id est, nascetur, nam Hebraea praeterita 
§. 28.  sumuntur pro futuris: i. e. shall be born &c. of this we shall have use in the very next words.  
Unto us a son is given.] dabitur. Ezechias patri Achazo 
§. 29.  multum dissimilis. Sic tamen ut multo excellentius haec ad Messiam pertinere, non Christiani tantum agnoscunt, said& Chaldaeus hoc loco. i. e. Shall he given: Ezechiah most unlike his Father Ahaz. Yet so that these things belong more excellently to the Messiah, not only as the Christians aclowledge; but the Chaldee in this place.  
Here begins the exposition. Hezekiah is intended. So indeed 
§. 30.  say some of the rabbis. But 1. This prophecy is evidently a continuance of that which is begun c. 7.& was given at the time of the invasion of Judah by Rezin, and Pekah; which was after Ahaz had reigned some years; as is evident, 2 King. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Now he reigned but 16. yeares in all; and when Hezekiah came to the Crown in succession to him he was 25. yeares of age: 2 Kin. 18. so that he must needs be born before this prophecy; there is then already an inconsistency in these Annotations; making the Prophet to speak of that which was past as future and to come.  
2. It is true, that the Chaldee Paraphrast applies this 
§. 31.  prophecy unto the Messiah, whose words are. Dicit propheta Domui David; Quoniam parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis,& suscepit legem supper se, ut servaret eam;& vocabitur nomen ejus, a fancy admirabilis consilii Deus, vir permanens in aeternum: Christus cujuus pax multiplicabitur supper 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 council.  
3. Neither is he alone; but the ancient rabbis generally 
§. 32.  are of the same Judgement, as Petrus Galatinus, and Raymundus Martinus abundantly manifest. To repeat what is, or may be collected from them to that purpose, is not much to mine.  
4. The present difference between us and the learned Annotatour 
§. 33.  is, whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no: to what hath been spoken, we have that to add in opposition to him, which we chiefly insist upon, namely, that none of the things ascribed to the person here spoken of, can be attributed to Hezekiah, as expressing somewhat more Divine then can be ascribed to any mere man whatever. Indeed as Grotius wrists the words in his following interpretation, they may be ascribed to any other; for he leaves no name of God, nor any expression of any thing Divine, to him that is spoken of.  
Among the rabbis that interpret this place of Hezekiah, one 
§. 34.  of the chief said he was the Messiah indeed; and that they were to look for no other: This is the judgement of Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud. Hence because Maimonides said somewhere, that the faith of the Messiah to come is the foundation of the Law; It is disputed by Rabbi Joseph Albo, Orat. 1. cap. 1. Whether Hillel were not to be reckoned among the Aposta●es, and such as should have no portion in the World to come: but he resolves the question on Hillel's side, and denies that the faith of the Messiah to come, is the foundation of the Law. Others who apply these words to Hezekiah, say he should have been the Messiah, but that God altered his purpose, upon the account which they assign: this they prove from v. 7. where in the word {αβγδ} v. 7. mem clausum is put in the middle of a word. This Grotius takes notice of v. 7. and says, eo stabilitatem significari volunt Hebraei, ut per mem apertum in fine rupturam: perhaps sometimes they do so; but here some of them turn it to another purpose; as they may use it to what purpose they please: the observation being ludicrous. The words of Rabbi Tanchum, in libro Sanhedrim to this purpose are; Dixit Rabbi Tanchum, quomodo omne mem, quod est in medio vocis, apertum est,& istud {αβγδ} Esa. 9. 7. clausum est? Quaesivit Deus sanctus benedictus facere Hezekiam Messiam,& Senacheribum Gog& Magog. Dixit proprietas judicii coram eo, domine mundi,& quid Davidem, qui dixit faciei tuae tot cantica,& lauds, non fecisti Messiam, Ezechiamvero, cvi fecisti omnia signa haec,& non dixit canticum faciei tuae, vis facere Messiam? Propterea clausum fuit statim, &c. Egressa est vox coelestis, secretum meum mihi. Rabbi Tanchum said, seeing every mem that is in the middle of a word is open, how comes that in {αβγδ} to be closed? The holy blessed God sought to make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, and Senacherib to be Gog and Magog: propriety of judgement( that is, the right measure of judgement) said before him, Lord of the whole earth, why didst thou not make David Messiah, who spake so many Songs and Praises before thee? and wilt make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, for whom thou hast wrought those great signs, and he spake no song before thee? instantly mem was shut, and an heavenly voice went forth, my secret belongs to me.  
And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a Song. 
§. 35.  And these are good Masters in the Interpretation of Prophesies concerning Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned Annotator 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 then those of the Jews: as that by this mem clausum is signified the birth of Christ of a Virgin; and whereas, in number it signifies 600▪ it denotes the space of time at the End whereof Christ was to be 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 
§. 36.  any importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, where men are dealing seriously about the things of ●●od; but only to show what little cause Grotius had to follow the modern rabbis in their Exposition of this place; whose conceits upon it are so foolish and ridiculous.  
return we to the Annotations, the first passage he fixes on is; 
§. 37.  And the Government shall be on his shoulder; saith he, id est, erit {αβγδ}. ab ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, ut inregnum natus; confer Ezech. 28. 13. He shall be born to Purple: From his very cradle he shall bear the Kingly Purple, being born to the kingdom.  
But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah; his son Menassah 
§. 38.  was all this as well as He. And how this being in itself a light and trivial thing, common to all other Kings sons with him, should be thus prophesied of as an eminent 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 C●at; which the Prophet when he gave forth this prophecy, perhaps saw him playing in every day. certainly it is a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to a mans 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& government of the Church of God, committed to the management of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ the mediator, to the unconceivable benefit and consolation of his People, the Reader may find evinced in all expositors on the place;( unless some one or other of late; Persons of no note, who to appear somebodys 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 
§. 39.  Haebraeo est vocabit. suppling quisque. Etiam Chaldaeus vocabitur transtulit. Notum autem Haebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cvi tales Tituli aut {αβγδ} 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;& 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 〈◇〉 seeing how it is possible that the names following should be ascribed to Hezekiah, some of them directly terming him God, they pervert the words, and red them thus; The wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God &c. shall call his name, the Prince of Peace; so ascribing the last name only to Hezekiah, all the former to God. The advantage they take is from the want of variation by cases in the Hebrew. And this way go all the present rabbis, being set into it by Solomon Jarchi, on the 
Vid. Pet. Gal. lib. 3. cap. 19. Raymun. Martin. 3. p. Dist. 1. cap. 9.  place. But as this is expressly contrary to the Judgement of the old Doctors▪ as hath been abundantly proved out of their Targum and Talmud, where▪ Ezekiah is called the Lord of eight names, and is opposed to Senacherib, who they say had eight names also; So it is contrary to all their own Rules of 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 Hezekiah: shift with them afterwards as well as he can. So he proceeds.  
wonderful: ob summas quae in eo erunt virtutes. For the excellent 
§. 40.  virtues that shall be in him. But I pray why more then David, or Josiah? This is his name wonderful, that is, he shall be very virtuous,& men shall admire him: How much better this name agrees to him,& how much more proper it is, whose Person is so great a Mystery 2 Tim. 3. 16.& whose name is so abstruse, Prov. 30. 4.& that upon the 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.  
councillor, the Mighty God: imo consultator Dei fortis. id est, qui in 
§. 41.  omnibus negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per Prophetas scilicet, ut jam sequetur. Yea he who taketh council of the Mighty God: that is, who in all his affairs asks council of God, namely by the Prophets.  
And is not this boldness thus to correct the Text: counselor, 
§. 42.  the mighty God; yea He that asketh counsel of the mighty God. What colour, what Pretence, what Reason or Plea, may be used for this perverting the words of the Text, our Annotator not in the least intimates.  
The words are evidently belonging to the same Person, equally parts of that Name, whereby he is to be called, and the casting of them without any cause into this construction, in a matter of this importance( because it is to be said) is intolerable boldness. It is not without great probability of Truth pleaded by some, that the two first words should go together, the wonderful counselor, as those that follow do; not that {αβγδ} 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 counselor, 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 Annotatour, because in the close of his Observations on this place, he confesses, that all the things here mentioned have a signification in Christ, much more sublime and plain, then that which he hath insisted on; so that had he been any friend to the Deity of Christ, he would not have endeavoured to have robbed him of his Proper name, the Mighty God, in this place; but this was necessary, that the rabbinical accommodation of this place to Hezekiah might be retained. That this place then is spoken of Christ we have evinced, nor can it be waved without open perverting of the words; and he is here called the Mighty God, as was before declared.  
Grotius proceeds to apply the Residue of this Glorious name 
§. 43.  to Hezekiah, The Everlasting Father; or as it is in the vulgar latin, Pater futuri seculi; In Hebrae● non est futuri; Pater seculi est, qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros,& in longum tempus. In the Hebrew the word future is not; the Father of the Age, is he who leaves many of his posterity behind him, and that for a long time.  
About the vulgar latin Translation we do not contend. Of 
§. 44.  the meaning and use of the word Gnolam I have spoken already; when it is applied to God, it signifies Eternity; but the word 
Psal. 48, 14. Psal. 9. 6, 7. &c.  here is not Gnolam, but {αβγδ} properly Eternity when applied to God, Psal. 10. 16. God is King, {αβγδ} seculi& aeternitatis, for ever and ever; Instances might be multiplied to this purpose. That this should be, Hezekiah shall leave many Children, and that for a long season, credat Apella; what sons he left, besides one, and he a wicked one for the most part of his daies, is uncertain; within an 130 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,& a possibility for his posterity to continue in the condition wherein he was for an 130 years; many such Everlasting Fathers may we find out; what in all this is peculiar to Hezekiah, that this should so emphatically be said to be his Name?  
The next is, Princeps Pacis, the Prince of Peace. Princeps Pacificus,& in place victurus. A peaceable Prince, and one that should live in Peace.  
1. On how much better, more Noble, and Glorious account 
§. 45.  this Title belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of Peace, is not a peaceable Prince, but the Author, Giver, Procurer, Establisher of Peace. 3. Neither did Hezekiah reign in Peace all his daies; His kingdom was invaded, his fenced cities taken, and himself and chief city delivered by a miraculous slaughter of his enemies.  
Of the increase of his Government, and of Peace no end. Which he 
§. 45  reads according to the vulgar latin; Multiplicabitur ejus imperium,& Pacis ejus non erit finis. Litera●ly, for the multiplying▪ of his kingdom, and of Peace no end; As to the first part, his exposition is; id est, durabit per annos 29. His kingdom shall continue for 29 years. Who would believe such gross darkness should cover the face of so Learned a man. Of the increase of his Government there shall be no end; that is, He shall reign nine and twenty years. This might almost twice as properly be spoken▪ of his son Manasses, who ●aigned 55. 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 Judgement of God, giving up men trusting to their own Learning and abilities, refusing to captivated their hearts to the obedience▪ of the truth, to such foolish and childish imaginations, as men of common sense must needs abhor.  
It appears then that we have here a description of Jesus 
§. 46.  Christ, and of him only; and that the names here ascribed to him, are proper to him, and declare who he was, and is, even the mighty God, the Prince of Peace; &c. Let us proceed with our Catechists.  
In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they return 
§. 47.  slight Answers unto; and yet to provide them in such manner, as that they might be the easier deal● withall, they cut off parcels, and Expressions in the middle of sentences, and from the Context, from whence the greatest evid●nce, as to the Testimony they give in this matter, doth arise. I shall ●●nsider them apart as they are proposed.  
1. Christ is called the Word of God, Joh. 1. 1. Revel. 19. 13. 
§. 48.  They say.  
From hence that Christ is called the Word 
〈◇〉 quod ●erbum Dei s● Chr●s●us 〈…〉 i divina in ●hris●o▪ natura n●n potest, imo a●vers●m▪ ●potius▪ colligitur. ●●m ●nim ●●sius unius Dei verbum sit, apparet cum non ●sse ipsum unum Deum. Quod etiam ad singula haec testimonia simul responderi potest. Verbum vero, vel sermo Dei Jesus ideo nuncupatur, quod omnem Dei voluntatem nobis exposuerit, ut ibidem Johannes inserius exposuit, Joan. 1. 18. Quemadmodum etiam eodem sensu& vita& veritas dicitur.  of God, a divine nature▪ in Christ cannot be proved, yea th● contrary may b● ga 〈…〉 er●d. For seeing He is the Word of the One God, it is 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, joh. 1. 18. as He is also in the same sense said to be life and Truth.  
Christ is the Word of God; the Word or {αβγδ}, is either {αβγδ}, 
§. 49.  or the Word which outwardly is spoken of God: or {αβγδ}, 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 Gods eternal Word, or wisdom, and so consequently God. 2. Christ is so called the Word of God,( joh. 1. 1.) as that He is in the same place said to be God. And our Adversaries are indeed too impudent, whereas they say, if He be the word of the one God, He cannot be the One God; the Holy Ghost affirming the flat contrary, namely, that He was the Word, and was with God, and was God: that is doubtless the one true God, v. 1, 2, 3. He was with God, in his Person, as the Son, and He was God as to his nature. 3. Christ is not called the Word, joh. 1. 1. upon the account of his actual revealing the word of God to us, in his own Person on the Earth,( which He did v. 18.) because he is called so in his everlasting residence with the Father, before the World was, v. 1. Nor is He so called on that account, Revel. 19. 13. it being applied to him, in reference to the work of executing Judgement on his enemies, as a King, and not his revealing the word of God, as a Prophet. So that notwithstanding this Exception, this name of the Word of God, applied to Christ, as in the places mentioned, proves him to have a divine nature, and to be God blessed for ever.  
The next place is Col. 1. 15. Christ is the Image of the Invisible 
§. 50.  God. To which they say only;  
The same may be said of this, as of that foregoing. 
Hoc idem dici potest de ●●, quod imago Dei conspicui vocatur.  But, An Image is either an essential Image, or accidental. A Representation 
§. 51.  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. 1. 3. He is the express Image of his Person. 
§. 52.   
This is to be understood, that▪ whatever God hath promised, 
Quod vero character Hypostaseos ejus dictus s●, hoc intelligi debet; Deum quicquid n●bis promisit, jam reipsa in eo exhibuisse.  He hath now really exhibited in Christ.  
Well expounded; Christ is the Character of his Fathers person, 
§. 53.  that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ▪ Would not any man admire these mens accumen, and readiness to interpret Scriptures? The words are part of the description of the Person of the Son of God: He is the brightness of his Fathers Glory, and the express Image of his Person, upholding all things by the word of his Power: that is, He reveals the will of God. This the Apostle had expressly affirmed v. 1. in plain& familiar terms; that he should now repeat over the same thing again in words so exceedingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The Apostle speaks of the Hypostasis of the Father, not of his Will: of his subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We do not deny, that Christ doth represent his Father to us, and is to us the express image of his Person, but antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in himself. Grotius his corruption of this whole Chapter, was before discovered, and in part removed.  
Joh. 14. 9. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; is next 
§. 54.  proposed. To which they say;  
Neither can any Divine nature be proved from 
Quod vero attiret ad dictum domini Jesu. Qui me videt videt Patr●m, neque hinc naturam divinam probari certum cuique esse potest, ●um ea ratio videndi non posset de essentia dei accipi, qu● invisibilis sit pr●rsus, verum de cognitione eorum quae dixit& fecit Christus.  hence, for this seeing, cannot be spoken of the Essence of God, which is invisible, but of the knowledge of the things that Christ did and spake.  
Christ so speaks of his Father and his oneness, whereby he 
§. 55.  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. N●w that the Father is in him, and he in the Father, and that he and the Father are one in nature and Essence, hath been before sufficiently demonstrated. The seeing here intended, is that of Faith, whereby both Father and son are seen unto Believers.  
Col. 2. 9. is the last in this Collection. In whom dwelleth all the 
§. 56.  fu●lnesse of the God-head b●dily.  
To this they say 1. That this word Divinitas, 
Nec illis denique verbis, quod plenitudo divinitat●s in eo habitat corpopaliter probatur natura divina primum enim, vox ●aec divinitas, designare poorest voluntatem dei, eam●ue orationem cum Apostolus opponat non personi●, said philosophiae& Legi, hinc perspieuum e●, eam de doctrina domini Iesu non de pers●n● accipi, de hac vero voice corporaliter, quid ea notet, inferius suo loco audies.  may signify the will of God; And seeing the Apostle opp●s●th ●hat speech not to Persons, bu● to P●ilosophy& the Law, it is manifest, that it is to be un●●rstood of the Doctrine, and not of the Person of Christ. Of this word Bodily thou shalt hear afterward.  
But, 1. It is not Divinity, but Deity, not {αβγδ} but {αβγδ}, 
§ 57.  that is here spoken of; and that not simply neither, but {αβγδ}, the fullness of the God-head. 2. That {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}, 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 {αβγδ}, doth dwell bodily in any, or what can be the sen●e of that expre●sion? Where they afterwards interpret the word Bodily I do not remember, when I meet with their exposition it shall be con●ider●d. 4. That the words are to be referred to the Person of Christ, and not his Doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words themselves, that will not 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 hide all treasures of wisdom and knowledge, v. 3. Him we receive, v. 6. In him we are built up, v. 7. In him we are complete, v. 10. In him we are circumcised, v. 11. With him we are butted. v. 12. Together with him are we quickened, v. 13. And it was He that was crucified for us, v. 14, 15. but also the design of the Holy Ghost enforces this sense; it being to discover a fullness and sufficiency in Christ, of all Grace and wisdom, that men should not need to seek relief from either Law or philosophy. The fullness of the God-head inhabiting in the Person of Christ substantially, He is God by nature. And of these places so far: the three following, of Joh. 17. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 10, 11. Joh. 3. 13. have been in their proper places already vindicated.  
Grotius interprets that of Col. 2. 9. according to the Analogy 
§. 58.  of the Faith of our Catechists; Christi doctrina non modo Philosophiae said& Legi plurimum praestat. That {αβγδ}, should be Doctrina, and {αβγδ}, should make it the Doctrine of Christ, and {αβγδ}, 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 Annotatour mentions are taken from his Epist. 57. ad Dardan. though he ●enti●ns i● not. The reason will quickly appear to any one that shall consult th● 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 h●re insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have now proposed.  
Our Catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places 
§. 59.  where Christ is called the only Lord, the Lord of Glory: the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords; all which being Titles of the one true God, prove him to be so: and the first proposed is; To us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him, 1 Cor. 8. 6.  
A little to give light to our Argument from hence, and that 
§. 60.  the strength of it may appear, some few observations concerning the Context, and the words themselves, will be necessary.  
1. V. 7. The Apostle speaking of the Heathens, and their opinion 
§. 61.  of the Deity, says there be, that is, to them, in their apprehension, Gods many, and Lords many: that is, many supreme Powers who are Gods and 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 Polutheisme of theirs, he declares that Christians have but one God, one Lord; wherein if the Apostle did not intend to assert one only God unto Christians, in the different Persons of Father and son, he had not spoken in such an opposition, as the Adversative {αβγδ} at the beginning of the words, and the comparison instituted do require.  
2. That this one Lord of Christians is the only true God, 
§. 62.  is manifest from Deut. 6. 4. The Lord our God is one Lord. So the Apostle here; to us there is one Lord: not many Gods, as the Heathens fancied; in opposition also to wh 〈…〉 Idolatry is that assertion of Moses. And so Thom●s 〈◇〉 co●fe●sion joins these two together, intending one and the 〈◇〉 Person, my Lord, and my God.  
3. {αβγδ}, being put to signify God, is the word which the 
§. 63.  Septuagint render Jehovah by, and so {αβγδ}, is that only Jehovah.  
4. The Attribution of the same works in this verse to Father 
§. 64.  and son, manifest them to be the same one God: Of whom are all things, and we in him; by whom are all things, and we by him. These things being premised, what our Catechists except to this Testimony may be considered: thus then they.  
Hence a Divine nature cannot be proved; 
§. 65.  For. 1. He doth manifestly difference him from 
Ex eo quod Christum Apostolus Dominum suum vocet, natura divina effici nequit. Nam eum primo manifeste ab illo Patre, quem ibidem deum unum fatetur, secernit, quem solum natura deum esse superius docuimus: deinde, hoc ipsum quod de eo dicit, omnia per 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 tamem 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, nec sint ejusmodi, ut sine iis ille agere non posset: de Christo vero dicuntur, quod per eum alius quis, nempe Deus omnia operetur ut Ephes. 3. 9. express habetur. Ne commemorandum mihi sit, verbum, omnia,( uti superius ostensum est) ad subjectam materiam referri. Quod ita habere ind apparet, quod Apostolus agit de iis omnibus rebus, quae ad populum Christianum pertinent, ut dvo haec verba demonstrant, nobis& Pater. Vnde efficitur Christum non simpliciter& absolute, verum certa de causa v●catum Dominum unum, per quem omnia. Quare hinc natura divina non probatur.  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, then of the son. It is manifest that this is said of the Father, because all mediate causes, by which any thing is done, are not from any other, but from himself; nor are they such, as that He cannot work without them: but it is spoken of Christ, because by him, another, namely God, worketh all things, as it is expressly said Eph. 3. 9. That I need not to remember, that the word all things, as was shewed above, is to be referred to the subject matter. Which that it is so appeareth hence, that the Apostle dealeth of al those things which belong to the Christian people, as these two words,[ to us, and Father,] do declare. Whence it is proved, that Christ is not simply and absolutely, but in some certain respect, called the one Lord, by whom are all things. Wherefore his Divine nature is not proved from hence.  
It is very evident, that they are much entangled with this 
§. 66.  Testimony, which necessitates them to turn themselves into all manner of shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no. Their several attempts to evade shall be considered in their order,  
1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearly from the Father, 
§. 67.  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, then the Assertion that the son is the one Lord, denies the Fathers being so also.  
2. That cavil at the word by, hath been already considered, 
§. 68.  and removed. It is enough for us to manifest, that this Assignation of the Creation of all things to Christ, by the Expression of, by him are all things, doth by no means depose him from the honour of principal efficient Cause in that work, the same Attribution being made to the Father in the same words. And to say as our Catechists do, that this Expression is ascribed to the Father, in such a sense, and not to Christ, is purely without any pretence of proof to beg the thing in Question. Neither is that any thing to the purpose, which is urged from Ephes. 3. 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 consideration, 
§. 69.  is the demonstra●ion of the one God, and Lord of Christians, asserted in opposition to the many Gods, and Lords of the Heathen, from the effects or works of that one God, and Lord; from him, and by him are all things. And this is the difference that God elsewhere puts between himself and Idols, Jer. 10. 10, 11. And if there be any such subject matter, as proves Christ not to be the one Lord absolutely, but in some respect, it proves 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 
§. 70.  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 
§ 71.  on Grotius his Annotations on this place: I do it only where he seems to add some new shifts to the Interpretation of our Adversaries, or varies from them in the way, though he agree in the end; neither of which Reasons occurring in this place, I shall not trouble the Reader with the consideration of his words. By {αβγδ}, to maintain his former Expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things of the n●w Creation only intended, but without colour or pretence of proof; or any thing to give light to such an expo●ition of the words.  
Our Catechists next mention, 1 Cor 2. 8. for if they had known 
§. 72.  it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.  
Who is the Lord of Glory, or God of Glory, the Holy Ghost declares, Act: 7. 2. The God of Glory appeared to our Father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia:& Psal. 24. 9. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. Christ therefore is this God; and indeed is intended in that psalm. But they say: 
§. 73.   
Divine Nature cannot be proved from 
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 Gloriae dicitur, hoc est, dominus gloriosus, quod a deo gloria& ●●nore coronatus sit.  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 crwoned of God with Glory and Honour.  
But,  
1. Though the Divine Nature could not be Crucified, yet He 
§. 74.  that had a Divine Nature might be, and was Crucified in the nature of a Man, which He also had. Our Catechists know they do but beg in these things; and would feign have us grant, that because Christ had an human nature, He had not a Divine. 2. He is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory, and these terms are equivalent, as hath been shewed. 3. He was the Lord of Glory when the Jews crucified him; or else they had not crucified him, who was the Lord of Glory, but one that was to be so: for He was not crwoned with Glory and Honour, until after his crucifying.  
Grotius his Annotation on this place, is worth our observation, 
§. 75.  as having somewhat new, and peculiar in it. {αβγδ}, Eum quem Deus vult esse omnium Judicem, nam Gloria Christi maximè illum diem respicit; 1 Pet. 4. 13. Christus {αβγδ}, praefiguratus per arcam, quae {αβγδ} Psal. 24. 9. For the matter and substance of it, this is the same plea with that before mentioned; the Additions only deserve our notice: Christ is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory. And that term is given him to testify, that he is the God of Glory. If his Glory at the day of Judgement 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 Christs Glory is mentioned, 1 Pet. 4. 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 judgement. 2. That the ark is called {αβγδ} is little less then Blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of Hosts, who is called the Lord of Glory, Psal. 24. 9. But this is another shift, for the obtaining of the end designed; namely to give an instance where a creature is called Jehovah,( as that King of Glory is) then 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 Davids bringing home the Ark●, 2 Sam. 6. That it might be occasioned thereby I will not deny; that the ark is called the King of Glory, and the Lord of Hosts, and not He, of whose Presence and Favour, the ark was a Testimony, no attempt of proof is offered. Neither( by the way) can I assent unto his Interpretation of these words; Lift up your heads O ye Gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors: that is, ye Gates of Sion, made of Cedar, that are made hanging down, and when they are opened▪ they are lifted up. Certainly something more sublime and Glorious is intended.  
The process of our Catechists is unto Revel. 17. 14.& Chap. 
§. 76.  19. 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. 6. 16. Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, &c. To this they say. 
§. 77.   
In this Testimony He is treated of who is the 
In tertio testimonio, cum agatur de eo, qui agnus est,& qui vestimenta habet, quem& oc●isum,& sanguine suo nos redimisse apertissime idem Joannes fatetur, quae referri ad divinam naturam nulla ratione possunt, apparet eo naturam divinam Christi astrui non posse. Omnia vero▪ quae hic Christo in iis testim●niis tribuuntur, sigularem ipsius pocestatem, quam d●us Christo in iis, quae ad novum faedus pertinent, dedit, arguunt.  Lamb, who hath garments, who was killed, and Redeemed us with his blood, as John evidently testifieth, which can by no means be referred to a Divine nature, and therefore a Divine nature cannot hence be proved. But all things that in these Testimonies are attributed to Christ do argue that singular Authority which God hath given unto Christ, in those things that belong to the New Covenant.  
These are but drops, the shower is past. Because he who was the 
§. 78.  Lamb, who was slain, is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, we prove him to have another nature, in respect whereof he could be neither killed nor slain. Therefore he is God; God only is so; And the Answer is; because He was the Lamb, He was killed, slain, therefore He is not God; that is, He is not King of Kings,& Lord of Lords, which the Holy Ghost, who gave him this name will prove against them. 2. Our Adversaries have nothing to except against this Testimony, but that the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords is not God; which they do not prove, nor labour to disprove our confirmation of it. 3. Kings and Lords of the world, are not of the things of the New Covenant, so that Christs 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, 
§. 79.  relates to the divine Worship attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, though it be marvelous faintly urged by them. Some few Texts are name, but so much as the intendment of our Argument from them is not once mentioned. But because I must take up this elsewhere, viz. in Answer to M. Biddle( C. 10.) I shall remit the consideration of what here they except, to the proper place of it, where God assisting, from the Divine worship and Invocation of Jesus Christ, I shall invincibly demonstrate his eternal power and God-head.  
In the last place, they heap up together a number of Testimonies, 
§. 80.  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,& then consider their Answer.  
The first is Is. 8. 13, 14. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, let him 
§. 81.  be your fear,& let him be your dread. And He shall be for a Sanctuary: but for a ston of stumbling,& a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel. He that is to be for a Rock of offence,& a ston 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: Luk. 2. 34. This Child is set for the rising and fall of many in Israel: As it is written, behold I lay in Sion a stumbling block, a rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed: Rom. 9. 32, 33. the ston which the builders refused,— and a ston of stumbling, and a rock of offence: 1 Pet. 2. 7. In all which places that prophecy is repeated. Christ therefore is the Lord of Hosts, whom we are to sanctify in our heart, and to make him our dread, and our fear.  
Isa. 45. 22, 23. I am the Lord, and there is none else: I have sworn 
§. 82.  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 must all stand before the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ, for it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12▪ It is the Judgement 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. 41. 4. I Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. Chap. 44. 
§. 83.  6. I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. So Chap. 48. 12. That this is spoken of Christ we have his own Testimony, Revel. 1. 17. 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. 12. 10. I will poure on the House of David, and upon the Inhabitants 
§. 84.  of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced. He that speaks is unquestionably Jehovah the Lord of Hosts: So the whole context, so the promising of the Spirit in this verse evinces: but that Jesus Christ is here intended, that it is He who is spoken of is evident. Rev. 1. 7. Every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him: He then is Jehovah the Lord of Hosts. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, not a bone of him shall be broken. And again, another Scripture saith they shall look on him whom they have pierced. Joh. 19. 36, 37. It is as I said beyond dispute, that it is Jehovah the only true God that spake, and what he spoken of himself is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  
Psal. 68. 17. The Chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands 
§. 85.  of Angels: the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy place: Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast lead captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them. This also is a Glorious description of the triumphant Majesty of God; and yet the God here intended is Jesus Christ, Ephes. 4. 8, 9, 10. Wherefore he saith, when He ascended up on high, He lead captivity captive and gave gifts to men▪ Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth; He that descended is the same that ascended.  
Grotius on both these places says; that what is properly spoken of God, is by Paul mystically applied to Christ: to the same purpose with what our Catechists afterwards insist on. That it is the same person who is intended in both places, and not that applied to one, which was spoken of another( which is most evident in the Context) He takes no notice. There being nothing of plea or Argument in his Annotations, against our Testimonies from hence, but only an endeavour to divert the meaning of the places to another sense, 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 
§. 86.  it may appear, that a divine nature in Christ 
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& dicta sunt. Nimirum propter illam summam, quae inter Deum& Christum est, ratione imperii, potestatis, atque muneris, conjunctionem, quae omnia illum Dei dono consecutum esse Scripturae novi Testamenti passim testantur. Quod si Scriptura ea tradit de Mose, ●um Israelem ex Aegypto duxisse Ezod. 32. 7. & quod Redemptor illius populi fuerit, Act. 7. 35. & de aliis idem, quod de ipso Deo apertissime Scriptum erat. Cum nec Moses, neque alii, tantam cum Deo conjunctionem hab●●ent, quanta inter Deum& Christum intercessit, mu●to justius haec, quae de Deo primo respectu dicta sunt, Christo accommodari possunt, propter summam illam& arctissimam inter Deum& Christum conjunctionem.  cannot from them be proved. For those things which are spoken of God under the Law, may be spoken of Christ under the gospel: as also they are spoken for another cause; namely, because of that eminent conjunction that is between God& 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. 32. 7. and that he was the Redeemer of the people;& 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 between God and Christ, much more justly may those things, which in the first respect are spoken of God, be accommodated to Christ, because of the eminent and near conjunction that was between them.  
And this is their defence: the Answer they fix upon to all 
§. 87.  the Testimonies recited: wherein how little Truth or strength there is, will quickly appear. 1. These Scriptures perhaps may be Answered thus or thus, as what will not the serpentine wits of men find out, to wrest the Word withall to their own destruction? But the question is, how they ought to be interpnted, and what is their sense and intendment. 2. We do not say, that what is spoken of God under the Law, is accommodated to Christ under the gospel; but that the things instanced in, that were spoken of God, were then spoken of Christ, as to his nature wherein He is God; which appears by the event, expounded in the books of the New Testament. The Scripture doth not say in the New Testament of Christ, what was said in the Old of God; but evinces those things which were so spoken of God, to have been spoken of Christ. So that 3. The folly of that pretence, that what was spoken of God is referred to Christ, upon the account of the conjunction mentioned, which whatever it be, is a thing of nought in comparison of the distance that is between the creator and a mere creature, is manifest; for let any one be in never so near conjunction with God, yet if he be not God, what is spoken of God, and where it is spoken of God, and denoting God only, cannot be spoken of him; nor indeed accommodated to him. 4. The instances of Moses are most remote from the business in hand: It is said of Moses, that he brought the Children of Israel out of egypt, and so he did, as their chief Leader and Ruler, so that he was a Redeemer to that people, as he was instrumental in the hand of God, working by his power and Presence with him those mighty works, which made way for their deliverance and Redemption. But where is it said of Moses, or any one else, that he was God; that what God said of himself, was said of Moses& 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 instrumental cause, and so may every other creature in the world; as the sun gives light and heat; but shall therefore that which God speaks in his own name of himself, be so much as accommodated unto them? 6. The Conjunction that is between God and Christ, according to to our Catechists, is but of Love and Favour on the part of God, of Obedience and dependence on the part of Christ; but this in the same kind, though not in the same degree, is between God& all Believr●s; so that of them also, what is spoken of God may be spoken.  
And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through 
§. 88.  with the consideration of all the Testimonies, given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, which these Catechists thought good to take notice of; with a full Answer to their long Chap. de Persona Christi. The Learned Reader knows how much all the Arguments we insist on, and the Testimonies we produce in this cause, might have been improved to a greater Advantage of clearness and evidence, had I taken liberty to handle them, as they naturally fall into several heads, from the Demonstration of all the Names, and Properties, all the works, and laws, all the Worship, and Honour of God, to be given and ascribed to Jesus Christ. But the work I had to do cast my endeavour in this business into that order and method, wherein it is here presented to the Reader.  
The conclusion of our Catechists is a long Harangue, wherein 
§. 89.  they labour to insinuate the prejudicialnesse of our Doctrine to the true knowledge of Christ, and the obtaining of Salvation by him, with the certain foundation that is laid in theirs, for the participation of all the benefits of the gospel. The only medium they fix upon, for to gain both these ends by, is this, that we deny Christ to be a true man, which they assert. That the first of these is notoriously false, is known to all other men, and is acknowledged in their own Consciences. Of the truth of the latter elsewhere. He that had a perfect human nature, soul and body, with all the natural and essential properties of them both; He who was born so, lived so, dyed 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 mean time, the great foundation of our Faith, Hope, and Expectation lies in this, that He is the son of the Living God, and so, that God redeemed his Church with his own blood; He who was of the Fathers, according to the flesh, being God over all, blessed for ever: Which if He had not been, He could not have performed the work, which for us He had to do. It is true, perhaps as a mere man He might do all that our Catechists aclowledge him to have done, and accomplish all that they expect from him; but for us, who fly to him, as one that suffered for our sins, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them, who wrought out a righteousness, that is reckoned to all that believe, that quickens us when we are dead, and sends the Holy Ghost to dwell and abide in us, and is himself present with us, &c. It is impossible we should ever have the least consolation in our flying for refuge to him, unless we had this grounded persuasion concerning his eternal Power and Godhead. We cannot think He was made the son of God, and a God, upon the account of what he did for us; but that being God, and the Son of God, herein was his Love made manifest, that he was made flesh, took upon him the form of a servant, and became therein for us obedient unto death, the death of the cross. Many indeed and inexpressible are the encouragements unto Faith, and Consolation in believing, that we do receive from Christs being made like to us, a perfect man, wherein he underwent what we were obnoxious unto, and whereby He knows how to be compassionate unto us; but that any sweetness can be hence derived unto any, who do refuse to own the fountain, whence all the streams of Love and Mercy, that run in the human nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea that our Adversaries in this business have any foundation for faith Love, or Hope, or can have any acceptance with God, or with Jesus Christ, but rather that they are cursed on the one hand for robbing him of the Glory of his Deity, and on the other for putting their confidence in a man, we daily demonstrate from innumerable Testimonies of Scripture. And for these men, the truth is, as they lay out the choicest of all their endeavoures to prove him not to be God by nature, and so not at all,( for a made God, a second-rank God, a deified man, is no God, the Lord our God being one, and the conceit of it brings in the Polutheisme of the Heathen amongst the professors of the name of Christ) so they also deny him to be true man, now he is in Heaven, or to 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 M. B. after his Masters, instructs his Disciples in, in his lesser catechism C. 10. 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 disposed of it, he doth not declare.   

CHAP. XV.  
Of the Holy Ghost, his Deity, Graces, and Operations.  
Mr BIDDLE'S 5th Chapter examined.  
Q. HOW many Holy Spirits of Christians are there?  
A. Eph. 4. 4.  
Q. Wherein consists the prerogative of the Holy Spirit above other Spirits?  
A. 1 Cor 2. 10, 11.  
Q. Whence is the Holy Ghost sent?  
A. 1 Pet. 1. 12.  
Q. By whom?  
A. Gal. 4. 6.  
Q. Doth not Christ affirm that he also sends him? How speaketh he?  
A. Joh. 16. 7.  
Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to sand the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain it at a certain time?  
A. Act. 2. 32, 33. Joh. 7. 39.  
Q. What were the general benefits accrueing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?  
A. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 16, 26, 27. Rom. 5. 5. Col. 1. 8. Eph. 1. 17. Rom. 15. 13. Rom. 14. 17. Act. 9. 31. Eph. 3. 16.  
Q. What are the special benefits accrueing to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost? What saith Christ to them hereof?  
A. Joh. 15. 26. Joh. 16. 13.  
Q. Should the Holy Ghost led them into all truth, as speaking of himself, and imparting of his own fullness? What saith Christ concerning him?  
A. Joh. 16. 13, 14.  
Q.. Do men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world, and in their natural condition, to the end that they may become the Children of God, may receive the word, may believe, may repent, may obey Christ? or, after they are become the Children of God, have received the word, do believe, do repent, do obey Christ?  
A. Joh. 14. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Gal. 4. 6. Act. 8. 14, 15, 16. Joh. 7. 38, 39. Act. 19. 1, 2. Eph. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Act. 15. 7, 8. Act. 2. 38. Act. 5. 32.  

EXAMINATION.  
Of the Deity of the Holy Ghost: and his work, &c.  
THE Fifth Chapter of our Catechist, is, concerning the Holy 
§. 1.  Ghost, for reducing of whom into the Order and rank of 
See his confe●sion in his Epistle to his Book against the Deity of Christ.  Creatures, Mr B. hath formerly taken great pains; following therein the Macedonians of Old, and leaving his new Masters, the Socinians, who deny him his Personality, and leave him to be only the efficacy, or Energy of the power of 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 
Clopenburgius vindiciae pro Deitate S. S. adversus Pneumatomach. Bedellum Anglum.  God, to be no creature, do therefore deny his Personality; Mr B. being not able to stand before the clear evidence of his Personality, denies his Deity. What he hath done in this Chapter I shall consider; what he hath elsewhere done, hath already met with a detection from another hand.  
Q. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there? Ans. One spirit. 
§. 2.  Eph. 4. 4.  
I must take leave to put one Question to M. B. that we may the better know the mind and meaning of his: and that is; What he means by the Holy Spirits of Christians: If he intend that Spirit which they worship, invocate, believe, and are 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. 4, 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 intends created spiritual beings, sent out of God for the good of Christians, of those that believe, there are then an innumerable company of Holy Spirits of Believers; for all the Angells are ministering Spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of Salvation, Heb. 1. 13, 14 So that by this one Testimony, that there is but one Holy Spirit of Christians, that Holy Spirit is exempted from the number of all created Spirits, and reckoned as the object of their worship, with the one God, and one Lord; Ephes. 4. 4, 5, 6. When yet they worship the Lord their God alone, and him only do they serve, Mat. 4. 10.  
His second Q. is, Wherein consists the Prerogative of that Holy Spirit 
§. 3.  above other Spirits. Ans. 1. Cor. 2. 10, 11.  
The Prerogative of that Holy Spirit, of whom we speak, is, that of God above his Creature: the Prerogative of an Infinite, eternal, Selfe-subsisting Being. Yea and that this is indeed his Prerogative, we need not seek for proof beyond that Testimony here produced by Mr B.( though to another purpose) in Answer to his Question. He that searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God, is God. To search all things is the same with knowing all things; so the Apostle interprets it in the next verse: None knoweth the things of God, save the Spirit of God. To know all things, is to be omniscient. But he that is Omniscient, is God. His Angels he 
De Adoratione Jesu Christi disputatio: p. 18, 19.  charged with folly. Omniscience is an essential Attribute of God▪ And therefore Socinus in his disputation with* Franken, durst not allow Christ to be omniscient, least he should also grant him to be Infinite in Essence. again; He that searches, or 
§. 4.  knows {αβγδ}, the deep things of God, is God; None can know the deep things of an Infinite wisdom and Understanding, but He that is Infinite. All creatures are excluded from an acquaintance with the deep things of God, but only as he voluntarily revealeth them, Rom. 11. 34. Who hath known the mind of God, or who hath been his counselor? That is; no Creature hath so been; {αβγδ}, joh. 1. 18. Now the Spirit doth not know the deep things of God, by his voluntary Revelation of them. For as the Spirit of a man knows the things of a Man, so doth the Spirit of God know the things of God. This is not because they are revealed to the Spirit of a man, but because that is the Principle of Operation in a man, and is conscious to all its own Actions and A●●aires. And so it is with the Spirit of God; being God, and having the same Understanding, and Will, and Power with God the Father, and son; as the Spirit of a man knows the things of a man, so doth He the things of God. Thus in the beginning of this, as in the close of the last Chapter, Mr B. hath provided sufficiently for his own conviction, and the scattering of all his paralogisms, and sophistical insinuations, running through them both.  
The design of this present Chapter, being to pursue what 
§. 5.  Mr B. hath some years since publicly undertaken, viz. to disprove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; his aim here being to divert the thoughts of his Catechumens from an apprehension thereof, by his proposal and Answers of such Questions, as serve to his design, pretending to deliver the doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost from the Scripture, and not once producing any of 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 eternal Deity of the Person of the Holy Ghost; and then consider his Questions in their order, so far as shall be judged meet or necessary.  
I shall not go forth unto any long discourse on this subject: 
§. 6.  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.  
I. Then, The spirit created, formed, and adorned this World; 
§. 7.  and is therefore God. He that made all things, is God. Heb. 3. 4. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the SPIRIT of his mouth: Psal. 33. 6. By his SPIRIT hath he garnished the Heavens. Job. 26. 13. The SPIRIT of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Chap. 33. 4. Psal. 104. 30. He that makes the Heavens, and garnisheth them; He that maketh man, and giveth him life, is God. So in the beginning {αβγδ} motabat 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. 4. 15. Numb. 12. 8. what it is affirmed that God doth, will do, or did, is affirmed of the Spirit, Act. 1. 16. cap. 28. 25. so Numbers. 14. 22. Deut. 6. 16. What is said of God, is affirmed of the Spirit, Isa. 63. 10. Acts 7. 51. so also Deut. 32. 12. compared with Isa. 63▪ 14. innumerable other instances of the same kind might be added.  
II. He Regenerates us; unless we are born again of Water and 
§. 8.  the Spirit, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, joh. 3. 5. 2 Thessalon. 2. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 2. He also searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, as was before observed, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. From him is our Illumination, Ephes. 1. 17, 18. 2 Cor. 3. 18. joh. 14. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach you all things, Chap. 16. 13. The spirit of Truth shall guide you into all Truth; The Holy Ghost shall teach you, Luk. 12. 12. And he foretelleth things to come. Joh 16. 13. 1 Tim. 4. 1. which is a property of God, whereby he will be known from all false Gods, Isa. 41. 22, 23. &c. and he is in some of these places expressly called God: as also, 1 Cor. 12. v. 6. ●ompared with v. 11. and he is immense, who dwells in all▪ Believers.  
III. He dwelleth in us as God in a Temple, Rom. 8 9. 1 Cor. 
§. 9.  3. 16. thereby sanctifying us 1 Cor. 6. 11. comforting us Joh. 16. 8. and helping our infirmities. Rom. 8. 26. Mortifying our sins, Rom. 8. 13. Creating in us Christian Graces, Gal. 6. yea he is the Author of all Grace; as is evident in that promise made of his presence with the Messiah, Isa. 11. 2. I say with the Messiah, for of him only are those words to be understood; to which purpose, I cannot but add the words of an old friar to the shane of some amongst us, who should know more, or be more Christian in their expositions of Scripture; saith he( speaking of this place) Note that in innumerable places of the Talmud, this is expounded 
Nota quod in locis innumeris in Talmud hoc exponitur de Messiah,& nunquam de alio, ab aliquo qui ●licujus apud Haebraeos authoritatis sit; quare patet quod errand, nimium Judaizantes nostri, qui hoc de▪ Iosia ad literam non verentur exponere: de solo quip Messia hoc intelligendum fore, ostenditur per R. Solomoh, qui hoc de ipso non de josiah exponit; quod juxta morem suum nunquam egisset, si absque injuria sui Talmud& Targum,& sine praedecessorum svorum omnium praejudicio, aliter exponere potuisset. Reymund. Marti: pug: fid: p. 3 D. 1. c. 11.  of the Messiah, and never of any other, by any one, who is of any Authority among the Hebrews: Wherefore it is evident, that some amongst, us, too much Judaizing, do err, whilst▪ they fear not to expound this literally of Josiah: but that this is to be understood of the Messiah only is shewed by Rabbi Solomon, who expounds it of him, and not of Josiah; which according to his way, he would never have done, if without the injury of his Talmud and Targum, and the prejudice of all his predecessors, he could have expounded it otherwise. So far he.  
It is not a little strange▪ that some▪ Christians should venture farther in perverting the Testimonies of Scripture concerning the Messiah, then the Jews dare to do.  
IV. He makes, and appoints to himself, and his service, Ministers 
§. 10.  of the Church, Act. 13. 2. giving unto them Powers, and working various and wonderful works, as he pleaseth, 1 Cor. 12. 8.  
V. He is sinned against; and so offended with sin, that the 
§. 11.  sin against him shall never be forgiven, Math. 12. 31. Though it be not against his Person, but some especial Grace and Dispensation of his.  
VI. He is the Object of Divine Worship; We being Baptized into 
§. 12.  his Name, as that of the Father and son, Mat. 28. 19. And 
{αβγδ}. Epiphan. Anrat. c. 73, {αβγδ}. Symbol. Conc: Constantinop:  Grace is prayed for from him, as from Father and son, 2 Cor. 13. 13. Revel. 1. 4. Rom. 10. 14. He is to be Head of Churches, Revel. 2. 3. But God will not give this glory to another, Isa. 42. 8. Also he hath the Name of God given him, Esa. 6. 9. compared with Acts 28. 25, 26. and Isa. the 63. ch. v. 13, 14. with Ps. 18. 41, 52. 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. Act. 5. 3.& the Attributes of God are ascribed to him, as( 1.) Ubiquity, or Omnipresence, Psal: 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16.( 2.) Omniscience, 1 Cor. 2. 10. joh. 16. 13. His Omnipotency and Eternity are both manifest from the Creation.  
To all this, in a word, it may be added, that he is a Person: the denial whereof is the only {αβγδ} of the Socinians. They aclowledge, 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, Mat. 28. 19. And( 2) He is conjoined with the other Divine Persons, as one of them, 2 Cor. 13. 13, Revel. 1. 4, 5. Math. 28. 19.( 3.) He hath an Understanding, 1 Cor. 2. 11. and a Will, 1 Cor. 12. 11.( 4.) To him are Speaking, and Words ascribed, and such actions, as are peculiar to Persons, Acts 13. 2. Acts 20. 28. &c.  
What remaines of this Chapter will be of a brief and easy 
§. 13.  dispatch: The next question is.  
Whence is the Holy Ghost sent? Answ. 1 Pet. 1. 12. Down from Heaven.  
1. This advantageth not at all M. Biddles 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 
§. 14.  the prerogative of his divine Being. For he, who is God, equal in nature to the Father, and the Son, yet in respect of the order of that dispensation, that these three who are in Heaven, who are also one, have engaged in for the Salvation of men, may be sent 
1 joh: 5. 7.  of the Father and the Son, having the Execution of that work which they respectively concur in, in an eminent manner to him committed.  
3. Where ever the Spirit is said to descend from Heaven, it is 
§. 15.  to be understood according to the Analogy of what we have already spoken, concerning the presence of God in Heaven, with his Looking, and going down from thence, which I shall not repeat again. Essentially he is every where Psal. 139▪ 1, 2, 3, &c.  
4. In that place of Peter alleged by M. Biddle, not the Person of the Spirit, but his gifts on the Apostles, and his Operations in them, whose great and visible foundations were laid▪ Act. 2. on the day of Pentecost, are intended.  
The two next Question, leading only to an Expression of the 
§. 16.  sending of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, though M. Biddles Christians differ about the interpretation of the places produced for the proof thereof, and there ly no small Argument and Evidence of the Deity of Christ, in his sending of the Holy Ghost, as the Father sends him, yet there being an Agreement in the Expressions themselves, I shall not insist upon them. He proceeds.  
Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to sand the Holy Ghost, 
§. 17.  or did he obtain it at a certain time. Ans. Act. 2. 32, 33. Joh. 7. 39.  
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, 
{αβγδ}  plentiful, eminent manner, as to the Effusion of his gifts and Graces, to the sending of him absolutely, which me thinks a Master of Arts should know to be a sophistical way of arguing. 2. It endeavours also, from the Exercise of Power to conclude to the receiving of the Power itself; and that not the absolute Exercise of it neither, but in some certain respect, as was spoken. This then is that, which M. Biddle concludes. Because Christ when he was exalted, or when he ascended into Heaven, had the acomplishment of the Promise actually in the sending forth of the spirit, in that abundant and plentiful manner which was prophesied of by Joel Cap. 2. 28. therefore he then first received Power to sand the Spirit. Which 4. by the Testimony of Christ himself is false, and not the sense of the Holy 
joh. 20. 22.  Ghost in the places mentioned; seeing that before his Ascension he breathed on his Disciples, and bad them receive the Holy Ghost. Nay 5. that he had power of sending the Holy Ghost, and did actually sand him, not only before his Ascension and Exaltation, but also before his Incarnation, is expressly affirmed 1 Pet. 1. 11. The Spirit that was in the Prophets of old, was the Spirit of Christ, and sent by him; as was that Spirit, by which he preached in the dayes of the old disobedient world; which places have been formerly vindicated at large. So that 6. as that place Act. 2. 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 Joh. 7. 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 afterwards. And so neither of them conclude any thing, as to the time of Christs receiving power to sand the spirit; which upon the supposition of such a work, as for the accomplishment whereof it was necessary the Holy Ghost should be sent, he had from Eternity.  
About the next Question we shall not contend. It is, 
§. 18.   
Q. What were the general benefits accrueing 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.  
1. If by the word general benefits, he limits the receiving of 
§. 19.  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 contrary to the express prayer of our Saviour▪ desiring the same things for them, who should believe on his name to the end of the world, as he did for those who conversed with him in the dayes of his flesh. But I will 
Soci●us. Epist. 3. ad Math. Rad. Rom. 8. 9.  suppose this is not his intention: because it would plainly deny that there are any Christians in the world,(* which yet was the opinion of some of his friends heretofore,) for if we have not the Spirit of Christ we are none of his.  
2. The things annumerated, may be called general benefits, 
§. 20.  because they are common to all Believers, as to the substance, Essence, or Being of them; though in respect of their degrees they are communicated variously to the several Individuals; the same 
1 Cor. 12. 11.  spirit dividing to every one as he will; they are so general to them all, that every particular Believer enjoys them all.  
3. The Annumeration here given us, is very far and remote 
§. 21.  from being complete; there being only some few fruits of the Spirit, and privileges, which we receive by our receiving of him, recounted: and that in a very confused manner, one thing being added after another, without any order or coherence at all. Yea of the Benefits we receive by the spirit, of the Graces he 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 presence, the privileges by him imparted, there is not by any in this life a full account to be given. To insist on particulars is not my present task: I have 
Perseverance of Saints c. 8.  also in part done it elsewhere.  
4. I desire M. Biddle seriously to consider, whether even the things which he thinks good to mention, may possibly be ascribed to a mere Creature, or that all believers are by such an one baptized into one body; that we are all made to drink into one Spirit, &c. But of these things before. Unto this he adds,  
Q. What are the special benefits accrueing to the Apostles by the 
§. 22.  Holy Ghost: and what saith Christ to them thereof? Answ. Joh. 15. 26. Act. 16. 13.  
Besides the Graces of the Spirit, which the Apostles as Believers, received in a 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 Act. 13. 2. So whatever work they were to perform either as Apostles, or as penmen of the Scripture of the New Testament; they had suitable Gifts bestowed on them, by him 1 Cor. 12. inspiration from him suitable to their work: 2 Pet. 1. 21. and 2 Tim. 3 17. the Scripture being of inspiration from God, because the Holy men, that wrote it, were inspired or moved by the Holy Ghost. And as this Holy Ghost, who is 
{αβγδ}.  God, working all in all, that divideth of his gifts, as he will 1 Cor. 12. 6, 12. and giveth all Gifts whatever to the Church, that it doth enjoy; so did he in an especial manner with the Apostles.  
Now our Saviour Christ being to leave the World, giving gracious 
§. 23.  promises to his Disciples, he considered them under a twofold capacity or condition: 1. Of Believers, of such as followed him, and Believed in him, wherein their estate was common with that of all them, who were to Believe on him to the end of the World 2 Of Apostles& of such, as he intended to employ 
joh. 17. 20.  in that great work of planting his Church in the world,& propagating his gospel to the ends of it. Under both these considerations doth he promise the Spirit to his Disciples. Joh. 13, 14, 15, 16. praying his Father for the Accomplishment of those promises: Chap. 17. that, as Believers they might be kept in the Course of their obedience to the end: in which regard he made those promises no less to us, then to them. And  
2. That as Apostles they might be furnished for their work, preserved, and made prosperous therein. Of this latter sort, some passages in the verses here mentioned seem to be,& may have a peculiar regard thereunto,& yet in their substance are of the first kind,& are made good to all believers. Neither is there any more said concerning the teaching and guidance of the Spirit into the Truth, in Joh. 15. 26.& 16▪ 13. then is said 1 Joh. 2. 20, 27. where it is expressly assigned to all Believers. Of that Unction and teaching of the Spirit, of his preserving us in all Truth needful for our Communion with God; of his bringing to mind what Christ had spoken for our Consolation and Establishment with efficacy and power, things I fear despised by M. Biddle, this is not a season to treat.  
That which follows concerns the Order and way of procedure, 
§. 24.  insisted on by the son, and Holy Ghost, in carrying on the work of our Salvation, and propagation of the gospel, whose sovereign fountain is in the bosom of the Father. His query is.  
Q. Should the Holy Ghost led them into all truth, as speaking of himself, and imparting of his own fullness? What saith Christ concerning him? Ans. Joh. 16. 13, 14.  
1. The Scripture proposeth the Holy Ghost in the Communication 
§. 25.  of his Gifts and Graces under a double consideration. 1. Absolutely: as he is God himself: and so he speaketh of himself, and the Churches are commanded to attend to what he so saith, Revel. 2. 29. and he imparts of his own fullness: the self s●me spirit dividing to every one, as he will, 1 Cor. 12. 11. And in this sense what the Prophets say in the Old Testament, The word of the Lord, and thus saith the Lord; in the New, they are said to speak by the Spirit: Mat. 22. 43. Acts 1. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 21.  
2. Relatively: and that both in respect of Subsistence and Operation, as to the great work of saving sinners by Jesus Christ. And as in the first of these senses, he is not of himself, being the Spirit of the Father and the son, proceeding from them both. So neither doth he speak of himself, but according to what he receiveth of the Father, and the son. 2. Our Saviour Christ says here, he shall not speak of himself: but he no where says, He shall not impart of his own fullness, which is M. Biddles Addition. To speak 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 fullness, is to give out of that, which is eminently 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 thē, & upon them in that clear, eminent,& abundant manner, which he had promised; which is not any new work, or any other, then what he had already acquainted them with, nor the Accomplishment of any thing, but what he had laid the foundation of: yea that all the Mercy, Grace, Light, Guidance, Direction, Consolation, Peace, Joy, Gifts, that he should communicate to them, and bless them withall, should be no other, but what were procured and purchased for them by himself. These things is the Spirit said to hear and speak, to receive and communicate, as being the proper purchase, and Inheritance of another: and in so doing to glorify him, whose they are, in that peculiar sense, and manner. All that discourse which we have of the Mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding or coming forth from the Father and son, for the ends specified, Joh. 14. 26.& 15. 26.& 16. 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 O●con●my or dispensation of 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 are gathered in 
§. 26.  answer to it, seems to have most weight laid upon it: but is indeed of all the rest most weakly S●phisticall: The words of it are.  
Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost, while they are of the World, and 
§. 27.  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?  
Ans. The Answer is as above. To the same purpose is that of the Racovian catechism.  
Is there not need of the internal Gift of the Spirit, that 

Nonne ad credendum Evangelio S. S. interiore dono opus est?  
Nullo modo, non enim in scriptures legimus, cuiquam id conferri donum, nisi credenti Evangelio Cap. 6. de promise. S. S.   we may believe the gospel.  
Ans. By no means; for we do not red in the Scripture, that that gift is conferred on any, but him that believes the gospel.  
Remove the ambiguity of that Expression, Believe the gospel, and those two Questions perfectly fall in together. It may then be taken either for, Believing the Doctrine of the gospel, in opposition to the Law, and in this sense it is not here inquired after; or for the power of Believing in the subject, and in that sense it is here denied.  
Now the design of this Question is, to deny the effectual 
§. 28.  Operation of the Holy Ghost, for,& in the Conversion, Regeneration, and Sanctification of the Elect, and to vindicate the whole work of Faith, Holinesse, quickening, &c. to ourselves. The way designed for the proof and establishment of this Insinuation consists, in producing sundry Testimonies, wherein it is affirmed, that those who do believe, and are the Children of God, do receive the Spirit for other ends and purposes, then 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, the Confirmation and enlargement of what they have received, with Joy, Consolation, and Peace, with other Gifts, that are necessary for any work or employment, that they are called unto; then the Holy Spirit doth not quicken, nor regenera●e them, nor work Faith in them, nor make them the Children of God, nor implant them into Christ. Now when M. B. proves this 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. 
§. 29.  He asks, whether men do receive the Holy Ghost, when they are of the World; And for a confutation of any such Apprehension, produceth Testimonies of Scripture, that the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost, nor the natural Man the things of God. But who  told this Gentleman that we say, men whilst they are in, and of the World, do receive the Spirit of God, or the things of the Spirit, in the Scripture sense of the use of that word, receiving? The expression is metaphoricall, yet always in the case of the things of the gospel denoting the Actings of Faith in them, who are said to receive any thing from God. Now if this Gentleman could persuade us that we say, that we receive the Spirit by Faith, to the end that we may have Faith, he might as easily led us about whether he pleased, as the philistines did samson, when they had put out his eyes. A little then to instruct this Catechist; I desire him to take notice, that properly the spirit is received by Faith, to the Ends and purposes by him mentioned, with many such others, as might be added; but yet before mens 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, and the consequents thereof. In the first sense he works in men in order of nature, antecedent to their believing; Faith being a fruit of the Spirit: In the latter, and for the ends and purposes thereof, he is received by Faith, and given in order of nature upon believing.  
3. That the World cannot receive the Spirit, nor the natural Man 
§. 30.  the things of God, is from hence; that the Spirit hath not wrought in them, that which is necessary to enable them thereunto; which is evident from what is affirmed of the Impotency of the natural Man, as to his receiving the things of God; for if the Reason, why he cannot receive the things of God, is, because he is a natural Man, then, unless there be some other Power, then 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, 
§. 31.  and Faith in men, I shall not now insist on the many Testimonies, whereby it is usually, and invincibly confirmed. There is no one Testimony given to our utter impotency, to convert, or regenerate ourselves, to believe, repent, and turn to God; no promise of the Covenant, to give a new Heart, new Obedience through Christ; no assertion of the Grace of God, and the efficacy of his power, which is exalted in the vocation and conversion of Sinners, but sufficiently evinces the Truth thereof. That one eminent instance shall close our Consideration of this Chapter, which we have Titus 3. 5, 6. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of Regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he  shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ our Saviour.  
Of the First head made by men, professing the Religion of 
§. 3●.  Jesus Christ, unto the Deity of the Spirit, attempting to rank him among the works of his own hand, of the peculiar espousing of an enmity against him by Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, from whom the ensuing {αβγδ} took their name, of the novel inventions of Faustus Socinus and his followers, denying the Personality of the Spirit, making him to be nothing, but the efficacy of the Power of God, or the Power of God, this is no place to treat. Besides, the Truth is, until they will speak clearly what they mean by the Spirit of God, and so assert something, as well as deny, they may justly be neglected. They tell us it is virtus Dei: but whether that virtus be substantia or accidence, they will not tell us; it is they say potentia Dei: this we confess; but say, he is not potentia {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}; and that because we prove him to be God. What then hath been spoken of Father, son, and Holy Ghost, I shall shut up with that Distich of Gregor. Naz. Sent. Spir. lib. 3.  {αβγδ}.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Of Salvation by Christ.  

Mr Biddles 6th Chapter Considered.  
THis is a short Chapter, and will speedily receive its Consideration. That Christ is a Saviour, and that He is so called 
§. 1.  in Scripture, is confessed on all hands. M. B's Masters were the first, who directly called into question amongst Christians, on what account principally he is so called. Of his Faith in this 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 Sibran●us Labba●us. The Nerves of it cut by Grotius, De satisfactione Christi; and the reply of Crell●us thereunto thoroughly removed by Essenius in his Triumphus Crucis. The whole Argumentative part of it, summed up into five heads, by Michael Gittichius, is answered by Ludovicus Lucius, and that Answer vindicated from the Reply of Gittichius. And generally those who have written upon the Satisfaction of Christ have looked upon that Book, as the main Master-piece of the Adversaries, and have made it their business to remove its Sophistry, and unmask its pretensions.  
M. B. is very slight and overly in this business, being not able in the method of Procedure imposed on himself, so much as to deliver his mind significantly, as to what he does intend. The denial and rejection of the satisfaction, and merit of Christ, is that which the man intends, as is evident from his Preface, where he denys them name and thing. This he attempts▪ partly in this Chapter, partly in that concerning the Death of Christ, and also ●hat of Justification. In this he would attempt the notion of Salvation, and refer it only to deliverance from death, by a glorious Resurrection. Some brief Animadversions may possibly rectify the mans 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.  
Q. Is Christ our Saviour originally, and of himself; or because he 
§. 2.  was given, exalted, and raised up by another to be a Saviour?  
Ans. Act. 4. 12.& 5. 31.& 13. 23.  
The intendment of this Quere is, to pursue the former insinuations of our Catechist against the Deity of Christ; as though his appointment to his Office of Mediation, were inconsistent with his Divine Nature: the vanity of which pretence hath been sufficiently already discovered. In brief, Christ is considered either absolutely, with respect to his Divine Nature, and Person, as he is God in himself: and so he is a Saviour originally, of himself: For as for our Redeemer the Lord of Hosts is his Name, the Holy one of Israel, Isa. 47. 4. For thy Maker is thine Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his Name, the Holy one of Israel, Ch. 54. 5. In this sense was Christ a Saviour originally, and of himself; But as He took flesh, to accomplish the work of our Redemption, by tasting death for us, though his own merciful and gracious Will did concur therein, yet was he eminently designed to that work, and given by his Father, in Love, and Mercy, contriving the work of our Salvation. And this latter is mentioned not only in the places cited by our Catechist, but also in an hundred more, and not one of them lying in the least subserviency to M. B's design.  
His last Quere is. 
§. 3.   
Q. How do the Saints expect to be saved by Christ?  
Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Philip. 3. 20, 21.  
The intendment of this Question, must be to Answer the 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& Answer, as connected, the Saints expecting Salvation by Christ, in the complete accomplishment of it by his Power in Heaven, yet as here proposed to give an account of the whole sense, wherein Christ is our Saviour, is most false and deceitful. Christ is a Saviour principally, as he was promised, and came to save his people from their sins, whence he had his name of Jesus, or a Saviour, Mat. 1. 21. and that by his death, Heb. 2. 14, 15. or laying down his life a ransom for us, Math. 20. 28. and giving himself a price of Redemption for us, 1 Tim. 2. 6. by whom we have Redemption by his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Eph. 1. 7. so saving or delivering us from the wrath, that is for to come; 1 Thes. 1. last. The Salvation, which we have by Christ, which this Chapter in Title pretends to discover, is from 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. 5. 10. and what is there intended by the Life of Christ, I shall farther treat, when I come to speak about Justification: and of the whole business under our Consideration of the death of Christ.    

CHAP. XVII.  
IN his Seventh Chap. he proposeth two Questions in general, 
§. 1.  about the Mediation of Christ: Answering first, that he is a Mediator, from 1 Tim. 2. 5. 2. That he is the Mediator of the New Covenant, Heb. 8. 6.& 12. 24. But as to his work of Mediation, what it is, wherein it doth consist, on what account principally Christ is called our Mediator, whether he be a Mediator with God for us, as well as a Mediator with us for God; and how he carries on that work; wherein he knows the difference between us, and his Masters, about this matter doth lie, he speaks not one word, nor gives any occasion to me, to enter into the consideration of it. What I suppose necessary to offer to this head, I shall do it in the ensuing discourse of the Death of Christ, the ends thereof, and the satisfaction thereby.  
And therefore I shall hereunto add his Ninth Chapter also, 
§. 2.  which is concerning Bemission of sins by Jesus Christ. The difference between his Masters and us, being about the meritorious and procuring Cause of Remission of sins by Christ, which here he mentions not; What is farther to be added thereabout, will fall in also under our Consideration of the Death of Christ, and our Justification thereby.  
His first Question is altogether out of Question, namely, Wh● 
§. 3.  shall have remission of sins by Christ? It is granted, All, and only Believers. He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned, Mark. 16. 16. To as many as receive him, power is given to become the Sons of God, even as many as believe in his name, Joh. 1. 12.  
To his next Question an Answer may be given, that will 
§. 4.  svit that following also; which is the whole of this Chapter; The Question is; Doth not Christ forgive sins? Ans. Christ forgave you, Col: 3. 13.  
That Christ forgives sins, is taken for granted; And yet forgiveness of Sin is the supremest Act of sovereign Divine Power, that God exerciseth in the World. Now Christ may be considered two ways. 1. Absolutely, as God over all, blessed for ever; So he forgave sins by his own original Authority and power, as the Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy. 2. As mediator, God and Man; and so his Power was delegated to him by God the Father, as himself speaks: All power is given unto me, in Heaven and in Earth, and Mat. 9. he saith, that he had Power on earth to forgive sins, i. e. given unto him. Now forgiveness of sins, is either Autheritative, 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 withall. forgiveness of sins, which we term Authoritative, being an act of sovereign Divine Power, exercised about the Law, and Persons concerned therein, may be said to be given to Christ two ways. 1. As to the possession of it: And so he hath it from his Father, as God; as he hath his Nature, Essence, and Life from him. Whence whatever works the Father doth, He doht likewise; quicken, as he quickens; Pardon, as he Pardons; as hath been declared. 2. As to the Execusion of it, for such an end and purpose; as the carrying on of the Work of Mediation committed to him. And so it is given him in Commission from the Father, who sent him into the World to do his will; and in this sense had He, the Son of Man, power to forgive sins, whilst he was in the Earth. And to Mr B's Ninth Chapter this may suffice.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of Christs prophetical Office.  
THE eighth Chapter in M. Biddle is of Christs prophetical 
§. 1.  Office; or his entrance into a dealing with Christ, in respect of his Office, as he hath done with him in respect of his Person already.  
His first Quest. is. Is not Christ dignified as with the title of mediator, so also with that of Prophet. Ans. Act. 3. 20, 22.  
M. Biddle tells us C. 4. that Christ is dignified with the title of God, 
§. 2.  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 
Gen. 3. 15. Col. 2. 15, 16. Gen. 12. 2. Dcut. 18. 18.  b●using of his own heel. The next solemn renovation of it to Abraham, was of him as King, taking all nations to be his Inheritance. And the third by Moses after the giving of the Law, as a Prophet, to teach and instruct his redeemed people. And a Prophet he is; the great Prophet of his Church; not only dignified with that Title, but so he is indeed.  
2. But says M. Biddle, he is dignified with the title of a Prophet, 
§. 3.  as well as of mediator. As though his being a Prophet were contradistinguished from his being a mediator. Christs teaching of his people is part of the Mediation he hath undertaken. All that he doth on their part, in offering gifts and sacrifices to God for them, all that he doth on the part of God towards them, by instructing and ruling of them, He doth, as he is the 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. M. B. indeed tells us not, what he understands by the Mediation of Christ His Masters so describe it, as to make it all one with his prophetical Office, and nothing else: Which makes me somewhat to wonder, why this man seems to distinguish between them.  
Many more notions of M. Biddles Masters are here omitted; 
§. 4.  as that Christ was not the Prophet of his People under the Old Testament, though by his Spirit he preached even to those that were disobedient in the dayes of Noahs, and it was the Spirit of 
1 Pet. 3. 19, 20 1 Pet. 1. 11.  Christ, that was in all the Prophets of old, whereby God instructed his Church: That he is a Prophet only, because he hath 
Isa. 61. 1. Luke 14 18▪ John 16. 7, 8, 9, 10. 1 John 5. 20.  given unto us a New Law; though he promise effectually to open blind eyes, and to sand his Spirit to teach us, and to led us into all truth▪ giving us understanding, that we may know him that is true. But he lays dirt enough in our way, so that we shall not need farther to rak into the dunghill.  
4. I should not have thought that M. Biddle could have 
§. 5.  taken advantage for his End and purpose from the place of Scripture he mentions Act. 3. 20, 22. For Moses said truly, a Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Br●theren like unto me, but that I find him in his next query repeating that expression[ like unto me] and wresting of it to be the foundation of a conceit plainly jocular. Christ was like to Moses, as he was a Prophet, and like to Aaron, as he was a Priest, and like to David, as he was a King. That is, he was represented and typified, by all these,& had that likeness to them, which the Antitype( as the thing typifyed is usually, but improperly called) hath to the Type: But that therefore he must not only be like them in the general Office wherein the correspondency doth consist, but also in all the particular concernments of the Office, as by them administered, is to confounded the Type and( the Antitype, or rather) thing typifyed. Nor do the words used either by Moses, Deut 18. 18. or by Peter, Acts 3. 22. intimate any such similitude or likeness between Christ and Moses, as should extend to such particulars, as are afterwards intimated. The words of Peter are, God shall raise you up a Prophet {αβγδ}: rather as he raised up me, then like to me: not the least similitude being intimated between them, but in this, that they were both Prophets and both to be hearkned unto. And so the word used by God to Moses: {αβγδ} sicut tu,( a Prophet as thou art) doth import: I will raise up one that shall be a Prophet, as thou art a Prophet: The likeness is only in the Office. For such a similitude as should give the least occasion to M: Biddles following figments there is no colour. And so the whole foundation being rooted up, the tottering superstruction will easily fall to the ground. But then to proceed;  
For as much as Christ was to be a Prophet like unto Moses, and Moses 
§. 6.  had the privilege above other Prophets, that God made not himself known to him in a vision, nor spake to him in a dream, but face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend, and shewed to him the similitude of▪ the Lord Exod. 33▪ 11. Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8. Can you tell any passage of Scripture which intimateth, that Christ did see God before the discharge of his prophetical Office. Ans. John 6. 45, 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father.  
1. This passage is indeed very pretty; whether the principles, 
§. 7.  or the inferences of it are considered.  
The principles of it are sundry: 1. That God hath a bodily 
See Chap. 3.  shape, and similitude, face, and hands, and the like corporeal 
{αβγδ}. Antiphanes. de Deo.  Properties. 2. That Moses saw the face of God, as the face of a man. 3. That Christ was in all things like Moses, so that what Moses did, He must do also▪ Therefore, 1. Christ did see the face of God, as a man: 2. He did it before he entred 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, of Moses seeing his face, I have 
§. 7.  already spoken that, which M: B: will not take out of his way. Of Christs being like Moses, something also hath now been delivered.  
That which Exod: 33. 11. in the Hebrew is, {αβγδ}, panim al panim, the Septuagint have rendered {αβγδ}, that is, 
fancy in faciem, ita ut homines cum hominibus colloquentes solent; quod refer ad vocum percepti●nem distinctam; non ad conspicuum aliquod: nihil enim viderunt, Grot. Annot. in locum.  praesens praesenti, as one present With him: and the Chaldee Paraphrast 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 Gods speaking to all the people; of whom yet it is expressly said, that they saw no likeness at all: Deut. 5. 4.  
If from the likeness mentioned, there must be a sameness asserted unto the particular attendencys of the discharge of that Office; Then Christ must divide the Sea, lift up a Brazen Serpent, and die in a mountain, and be butted by God, where no man could ever know. Moses indeed enjoyed an eminency of Revelation above other Prophets, which is called his conversing with God, as a friend, and beholding him face to face; but even in that wherein he is exalted above all others, he is infinitely short of the great Prophet of his Church; for Moses indeed as a servant was faithful in all the house of God, but this man is over his house, whose house we are, Heb. 3. 5, 6▪  
3. This figment is for ever, and utterly everted by the Holy 
§. 9.  Ghost, John 1. 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 M. B. is Christ like to Moses, that as Moses saw God face to face; so He saw God face to face: No saith the Holy Ghost; the Law indeed was given by Moses, but no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten ●son in the 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, then he did to other Prophets; though he  told him plainly, that he should not, or could not see his face, Exod. 33. 18, 19. though he gave him some lower manifestations of his glory. So that notwithstanding 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▪& is in his bosom love, He hath seen him, Joh. 6. 46.& 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 M. Biddle.  
4. To lay this axe then also to the Root of M. B's. three, to cut 
§. 10.  it down for the Fire; The Foundation of Christs prophetical Office, as to his knowledge of the will of his Father, which he was to reveal, doth not consist in his being taken up into Heaven, and there being taught the will of God in his human Nature: but in that He was the only begotten son of the Father, who Eternally knew him, and his whole Will and Mind, and in the dispensation which he undertook, revealed him, and his mind, according as it was appointed to him. In respect indeed of his human Nature, wherein he declared and Preached the Will of God, He was taught of God, being filled with wisdom and Understanding, 
Luk. 2. 52. Is. 61. 1. Heb. 1. 9.  by the Spirit, whereto he was anointed for that purpose; but as the only begotten son, in the bosom of the Father, He always saw him▪ knew him, and revealed him.  
I shall only add, that this fancy of M. B. and the rest of the 
§. 11.  Socinians,( socinianism being indeed a kind of modest, and subtle 
Socinismus est verecundi●r, aut subtilior Mahumetismus. Censemus script● Socinianorum ad Turcismum proxime accedere. Censu. Facult. Theol. Leid. An. 1598.  Mahumedisme) of Christs seeing God, as did Moses, seems to be taken from, or taken up to comply with the Alcoran, where the same is affirmed of Mahomet. So Beidavi, on those words of the Alcoran: Et sunt ex iis quibuscum locutus est ipse Deus. saith he. Est hic Moses: aut juxta alios Moses& Mahumed, supper quibus Pax: Mosi Deus locutus est ea nocte, qua in exstasi quasi fuit in monte Sinai. Mahumedi vero locutus est illa nocte, qua s●alis coelo admotis, Angelos vidit ascendere, tunc enim vix jactum duarum sagittarum ab eo fuit. How near Moses came is not expressed; but Mahomet came within two bow-shoot of him: how near the Socinian Christ came, I know not, nor doth M. B. inform us.  
But yet as M. B. eats his word, as to Moses, and after he had 
§. 12.  affirmed, that he saw the face of God, says, he only saw the face of an angel, so do the mahometans also, as to the vision of their Prophet, and tell us▪ that indeed he was not able to see an angel in his own proper shape, as Socinus says we cannot see a spiritual Body, though M. B. thinks, that we may see Gods right hand and his left: But of this you have a notable story in K●ssaeus. Saith he: They report of the Prophet, 
Tradunt de Propheta, quod die quodam dixerit Gabrieli; O Gabriel, optem te in specie figurae tuae magnae videre, secundum quam Deus creavit te; dixit Gabriel; O dilect Deo, est figura mea valde terribilis, nemo eam poterit videre,& sic neque tu, quin animi deliquium passus concidat. reponit M●humed, etsi maxim ita sit, velim tamen te videre in figura majeri. Respondit ergo Gabriel, O dilect Deo ubi me videre desideras? Extra urbem Meccam resp●ndit Mahumed, in Villa Lapidosa. Dixit Gabriel, valla ista me non capiet; ergo respondit Mahumed, in Monte Orphath. Hic inquit Gabriel locus aptior erit& ●apacior. Abiit ergo Mahumed in Montem Orphath,& ecce Gabriel, cum magno fragore& strepitu, totum figura sua operiens horizontem, quod cum Propheta vidisset, concidit, deliquium passus, in terram. Ubi vero Gabriel, supper quo pax, ad priorem rediisset figuram, accessit ad Prophetam, eumque amplexus& esculatus, ita compellavit: ne timeas O dilect Deo, sum enim frater ●uus Gabriel; Dixit Propheta, vera dixisti, O frater mi Gabriel, nunquam existimassem ullam esse Dei creaturam, tanta praeditam figura. Respondit Gabriel, O dilect Deo, quid si igitur videres figuram Europhil Angeli. Kessaeus Vi●. Patr: p. 12. Interpret. Hotting.  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, O beloved of God; my shape is very terrible, no man can see it, and so not thou, but he will fall into a swoon: Mahomet answered, although it be so, yet I would see thee in a bigger shape: Gabriel therefore answered; O beloved of God; where dost thou desire to see me? Mahomet answered, without the city of Mecca, in the stony Village; says Gabriel, that Village will not hold me; therefore answered Mahomet, let it be in Mount Orphath, that is a larger and fitter place says Gabriel; away therefore went Mahomet to Mount Orphath, and behold Gabriel with a great noise covered the 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 O beloved of God, I am thy brother Gabriel. The Prophet answers; thou speakest truly O my brother Gabriel, I could never have thought, that any creature of God had had such a figure or shape. Gabriel answered, O beloved of God, what wouldest thou say, if thou sawest the shape of the Angel Europhil?  
They who know any thing of the Mahumedan forgeries and abominations, in applying things spoken of in the Scripture to their Great Impostor, will quickly perceive the composition of this fiction, from what is spoken of Moses and Daniel. This lying Knave it seems was of M. B's mind, that it was not God indeed, but an angel, that appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai; and thence is this Tale, which came to pass once upon a time.  
He proceeds.  
From whence doth it appear, that Christ like Moses heard from God 
§. 13.  the things that he spake?  
Ans. John 8. 40. John 8. 26, 28. Joh. 15. 15. Joh. 14. 8.  
All the difficulty of this Question ariseth from those Words, like Moses, and the sense by M. 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 M. B. would impose upon the words, is rejected: Christ heard of the 
Isa. 42. 1, 19. Phil. 4. 7. Isa. 52. 13. Isa. 61. 1.  Father, who taught him as his Servant, in the work of his Mediation, by his Spirit, wherewith He was anointed; but it is his going into Heaven, to hear a lesson with his bodily ●aress, which M. B. aims at; and labours under the next query to prove, how unsuccessefully shall briefly be demonstrated.  
Saith he.  
Can you farther city any passage to prove, that Christ as a man ascended 
§. 14.  into Heaven, and was there, and came from God, out of Heaven, before he shewed himself to the World, and discharged his prophetical office: So that the talking of Moses with God, in the person of an angel, bearing the name of God, was but a shadow of Christs talking with God?  
Ans. John 3. 13. Chap. 6. 38, 51. Chap. 7. 32, 33, 41, 42, 57, 58. Chap. 8. 29. Chap. 13. 1, 2. Chap. 16. 28, 29, 30. Chap. 17. 8.  
We are come now to the head of this affair; to that which 
§. 15.  has been aimed at all along in the former Querys. 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 lead into the wilderness, to be tempted, He was rapt up into Heaven, and 
Smalcius. de divin. Christi cap. 4.  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 know the Will of God, by being his only begotten son, full of Grace 
Joh. 1. 18. Luk. 4 1. Isa. 61. 1. Math. 3. 15, 16, 17.  and Truth, and that he was full of the Spirit, when he went to the wilderness, being by him anointed to Preach the gospel; though at his solemn entrance so to do, the Heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended on him in the form of a Dove, God giving solemn Testimony to him, and charge to hear him, yet because M. B's Masters are not able to answer the Testimonies of Scripture, for the Divine Nature of Christ, which affirm that he was in Heaven before his Incarnation, and came down to his work, by Incarnation▪ this figment is set on foot to the unspeakable dishonour of the son of God. Before I proceed farther in the Examination of this Invention, and detection of its falsehood, that it may appear, that M. B. made not this discovery himself, by his impartial study,( as he reports) of the Scripture, it may not be amiss to inquire after the mind of them in this business, whose Assistance M. B. has in some measure made use of.  
The Racovian catechism gives us almost the very same Question 
§. 16.  and Answer.( Unde apparet Christum Dei voluntatem perfect manifestasse? Hinc, quod ipse Jesus perfectissima ration●, eam, a Deo in coelis sit edo●tus,& Deum hominibus pub●●candum e coelo magnifice sit ●issus,& eam perfect iisdem annu●●iavit. Ubi vero Scriptum est Christum fuisse in coelo,& a coelo missum. Joh. 6 38. Chap. 3. 13. Catech. Ra●ov. de office. Christi Prophetico Qu. 4, 5.) Whence is it manifest, that Christ revealed the Will of God perfectly unto u●? Hence, because Jesus himself was in a most perfect manner ●aught it of God in Heaven, and was sent from Heaven magnificently for the publishing of it to men, and did perfectly declare it to them; but where is it written, that Christ was in Heaven, and was sent from Heaven: Joh. 6. 38. And so do they proceed with the places of Scripture here cited by M B. The same Smalcius spends one whole Chap. in his Book of the Divinity of Christ, whose title is, De initiatione Christi ad munus Propheticum, to declare and prove this thing; that Christ was so taken up into Heaven, and there taught the mind of God,( small. de Divin▪ Jes. Christ: cap. 4.) only in this he seems to be at variance with M. B. that he deny's, that Moses saw the Face of God, which this man makes the ground of affirming, that Christ did so. But here M. B. is at variance also with himself, in the end of the last Question, intimating that Mos●s saw only the Face of an angel, that bare the name of God, which now serves his turn as the other did before. Ostorodus in his Institutions▪ Cap. 16. 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 g●udemus▪( idem ibid.) And of all his Companions, this man lays most weigh● on this Invention: His 8. chap. in the Refutation of Martinus S●iglecius de verbi incarnat: natur: is spent in the pursuit of it. So also is a good part of his Book against Raven Spergerus: Socinus 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▪ Dogmaticall; His▪ discourse of it, is in his first Answer to the Parianesis of Volanus, pag. 38, 39, 40. 

Aut verba Christi sine ullo prorsus tropo interpretanda sunt,& p●oinde ex ipsis ducta argumentatio vestra, penitus dossolvetur: aut si tropus aliquis in Christi verbis admittendus est, no● videmus, cur non potius dicamus, ideo dixisse Christum filium hoins fuisse in caelo, antequam pos● resurrectionem eo ascenderet, quia jam ante illud tempus, non modo in caelo mente,& cogitatione perpetuo versabatur, verum etiam omnia caelestia, id est arcana quaeque divinissima,& ipsa omni● quae in caelo sunt,& siunt, adeo cognita& perspecta habebat, ut ea tanquam praesentia intueretur▪& ita quamvis in terris degens, in ipso tamen caelo commorari dici posset.  
Nam in caelo antequam moreretur revera esse potuit, post●uam ex Ma●ia natus est: nec solu● potuit, said( ut ita dicamus) debuit: si enim homo ille Paulus Christi servus, ad tertium usque cael●● ante mortem raptus est, nullo pacto nobis veresimile sit, Christum ipsum ante mortem in caelo no● fuisse. Socin. Resp. prior. ad paren. Vol. p. 38, 39, 40.   One while he says the words are to be taken Metaphorically; then, that Christ was in Heaven in his mind and Meditation: and at last, it may be he was taken into Heaven, as Paul was.  
To return to our Catechists, and to the thing itself, the Reader 
§. 17.  may take of it this brief account.  
1. There is indeed in the New Testament abundant mention of our Saviours coming down from Heaven, of hi● coming forth from God, which in what sense it is spoken hath been fully before declared. But of his being taken up into Heaven after his Incarnation before his death, and being there taught the mind of God, and the gospel, which he was to preach, there is not one word nor syllable. Can it be supposed▪ that whereas so many lesser things are not only taken notice of, but also to the full expressed with all their circumstances; that this which according to the Hypothesis of them with whom we have to do, is of such importance to the confirmation of his doctrine, and upon a supposition of his being a mere man, eminently suited to the Honour of his Ministry, above all the Miracles that he wrought, that He, and all his followers, should be utterly silent therein? That when his doctrine was decried for novelty and folly, and what ever is evil and contemptible, that none of the Apostles in its vindication, none of the ancients against the Pagans should once make use of this defensative, that Christ was taken up into Heaven& there instructed in the mind of God. Let one word, Testimony, or ●xpre●sion be produ●ed to this purpose, that Christ was tak●n up into Heaven, to be instructed in the mind of God, before his entrance upon his Office,& let our Adversaries take the cause. If not, let this story be kept in the old Golden Legend, as a match for any it contains.  
2. There was no cause of this R●pture or taking of Christ 
§. 18.  into Heaven; That which is assigned, that there He might be taught the Gosp●ll, 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, 
John 1. 18. John 1. 1. Pro●. 8. 15, 16, 17, 18. Col. 2. 3. Heb. 1. 9. John 3. 34.  being his only begotten son, hi● Word, and wisdom, as also( in respect of his condescension to the Office of Mediation) his being anointed with the fullness of the Spirit, as was promised, and P●ophesied of him; But also affirms, that this was accomplished both on him, and towards him, before such time as this fiction is pretended to fall out.  
Instantly upon his baptism Luke tells you, that he was {αβγδ}, full of the Holy G●ost, Chap. 4. 1. which was all that was required to give him a full furnishment for his Office, and all that was promised on that account. This answers what he expresses to be necessary for the discharge of his prophetical Office: {αβγδ}, is as much as {αβγδ} Isa. 61. 1. and upon that he says, He hath sent me to preach: God also solemnly bare witness to him from Heaven, to the same purpose, Ma●. 3. 17. And before this, John affirms, that he was the Light of the world, the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world( Joh. 1. 9.) which how he should be, and yet himself be in darkness not knowing the will of God, is not easily to be apprehended.  
3. To what purpose served all that Glory at his baptism: that 
§. 19.  solemn Inauguration, when he took upon him the immediate administration 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 Joh. 1. 32, 35? To what end was that voice from Heaven, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased? I say to what end were all these, if after all this he was ignorant of the Gospel, and of the Will of God, and was to be taken up into heaven to b● instructed?  
4. If this must be supposed to be, without any mention, yet 
§. 20.  why is it said alway, that Christ came from heaven to the earth? If he was first on the earth,& was taken into heaven,& came again to the earth, he had spoken to the understanding of men, if he had said I am returned from Heaven;& not as he doth, I am come from Heaven. This in lesser matters is observed▪ Having gone out of Galilee to Jordan& coming again it is said, he returned from Jordan, Luk. 4. 1.& having 
{αβγδ}.  been with the Gadarens, upon his coming to the other side from whence he went, it is said, he returned from the Gadarens back 
{αβγδ}.  again Luk. 8. 40. But where is it said that he returned from Heaven, which on the supposition that is made, had alone in this case been proper? which propriety of speech is in all other cases every where observed by the holy writ●rs.  
5. It is said, that Christ entred once into the Holy place, and that having obtained eternal Redemption▪ Heb. 9. 12. yea, and expressly that he ought to suffer before he so entred, Luk. 24. 26. but according to these men, he went twice into Heaven: once before he suffered, and had obtained eternal Redemption, and once afterward. It may also be observed, that when they are 
Smalcius de divin. Christ. cap 4.  pressed to tell us some of the circumstances of this great matter, being silent to all other, they only tel us that they con●●cture the Time to be in the space of that forty days, wherein he was in the 
{αβγδ}.  wilderness; on purpose through the Righteous judgement of God to entangle themselves in their own imaginations, the Holy Ghost affirming expressly, that he was the whole forty days in the wilderness, amongst the wild beasts, Mark. 1. 13.  
Enough being said to the disprovement of this fiction, I shall 
§. 21.  very briefly touch upon the sense of the places, that are produced to give countenance thereunto. In most of the places insist●d on, there is this expression. He that came down from Heaven, or, I came down from Heaven, so Joh. 6. 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58. Joh. 3. 30, 31, 32. hence this is the Conclusion, If our Saviour came down from Heaven, then after he had lived some time in the world he was taken up into Heaven, there to be taught the mind of God: He that hath a mind to grant this consequence, is willing to be these mens Disci●le. The Scripture gives us another account of the intendment of this phrase. Namely, that the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the word was made 
joh. 1. 1, 2, 14.  flesh, and dwelled amongst us, and his glory was seen, as the glory of the only begotten son of God; so that it is not a locali descension, but a gracious condescension, that is in●imated, with his voluntary humiliation, when he who was in the form of God humbled himself to take upon him the form of a Servant, therein to learn obedience. So that these expressions yield very little relief to our adversary.  
2. The second sort are those, wherein He is said to come 
§. 22.  forth from God, or from the Father; this is expressed. joh. 3. 42. joh. 13. 1, 3. joh. 16. 28, 29, 30. joh. 17. 3. joh. 16. 27. from whence an Argument of the same importance with the former, doth arise. If Christ came from God, from the Father, then after he had been many years in the world, he was taken into Heaven, and there taught the gospel, and sent again into the world. With such invincible demonstrations do these men contend. That Christ came from God, from the Father, that is, had his Mission and Commission from God, as he was mediator, the great Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church, none denies, and this is all that in those places is expressed. Of which afterwards.  
3 Some particular places are yet remaining. The first is 
§. 23.  Joh. 3. 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, M. B. renders rather, which was: whether with greater prejudice to his caus●, or conscience I know not. To his cause, in that he manifest, that it cannot be d●fended without corrupting the word of God: To his Conscience, by corrupting it to serve his own ends and turn accordingly. The words are, {αβγδ}, which will by no means admit of his corrupting gloss.  
I say then, let the words speak themselves, and you need no other to cut the throat of the whole cause, that this man hath undertaken to manage. He that speaks is the son of man, and all the time of his speaking he was in Heaven. He( saith he) is in Heaven: in his human Nature he was then on the Earth, not in Heaven; therefore he had another nature, wherein at that Time he was in Heaven also; He who was so, being the son of man; and what then becomes of M. B's Christ? And what need of the Rapture whereof he speaks.  
For the Ascending into Heaven, mentioned in the beginning of 
§. 24.  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. 4. 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( v. 12.) that they were so slow of Believing▪ that they could not receive the plainest Doctrine, nor understand even the visible things of the Earth, as the blowing of the wind, nor the causes, and issue of it: much less did they understand the Heavenly things of the Gospel, which none( saith he, v. 13.) hath pierced into, is acquainted withall, hath ascended into Heaven, in the knowledge of, but he who is in 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. 
§. 25.  
{αβγδ}. Theoph. in loc.   
Thus I say the context of the Discourse seems to exact a metaphoricall interpretation of the words: our Saviour in them informing Nicodemus of his acquaintance with Heavenly things, whereof he was ignorant. But yet the propriety of the word may be observed without the least advantage to our Adversaries; For it is evident, that the words are ecliptical; {αβγδ}. ascend, must be repeated again to make the sense complete: and why may not, {αβγδ} be inserted, as well as {αβγδ}. So are the words rendered by Theophilact: and in that sense relate not to what was before, but what was to be. And an instance of the necessity of an alike supplement, is given in Math. 11. 27. moreover some suppose, that {αβγδ}, affirming the want of a potential conjunction, as {αβγδ}, or the like,( which the following exceptives {αβγδ}, require) in the place, is not to be taken for the act don, but for the power of doing it: of which examples may be given: So that the propriety of the word may also be preserved, without the least countenance afforded to the figment under consideration.  
The remaining place is, Joh. 6. 62. What and if you shall see the 
§. 26.  son of man ascending up where he was before: {αβγδ}. 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 b●some; He was not furnished for the declaring of it, in his own immediate Ministry, by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and his being filled therewith; He was not solemnly inaugurated thereunto by the glorious presence of the Father, and Holy Ghost with him, one in a voice, the other in a bodily shape, bearing witness to him, to be the Prophet sent from God; but being for many yeares 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 Mahomet pretended he was also,) and so sent into the world, after he had been sent into the world many a year.  
Here the Racovians add. 
§. 27.   
What is that will of God which by Christ is revealed? 

Quae vero est illa voluntas Dei per jesum nobis patefacta?  
Res. Est illud faedus novum quod cum genere human● Christus nomine Dei pepigit, unde etiam Mediator novi faederis vocatur: Heb. 8. 6. 1. Tim. 2. 5. Catech. Rac. de Prophet mun. Christi.    
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.  
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: Math. 1. 21.( 2.) Christ did not make the Covenant with us as mediator; but confirmed& ratified it: Heb. 9. 15, 16, 17. God gave him in the Covenant which he made; and therefore is said to give him for a Covenant, Isa. 42. 6.( 3.) The Covenant of Grace is not made with all mankind, but with the seed of the woman: Gen. 3 15. Gal. 3. 16. Rom. 9. 7, 8.( 4.) Christ is not called the mediator of the 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. 2. 5, 6. and the promises of it were confirmed in his blood, Heb. 9, 15. ch. 10. 16. 28.( 5.) This covenant was not first made,& revealed, when Christ taught it in his own Person. It was not only made, but confirmed to Abaham in Christ 430. yeares before the Law, Gal. 3. 17. yea ever since the entrance of sin, no man hath walked with God but in the same Covenant of Grace: as elsewhere is declared.  
Let us see what follows in M. B. says he.  
You have already shewed that Christ was like unto Moses, in seeing 
§. 28.  God, and hearing from him the things which he speak, but Moses exceeded all other Prophets likewise in that he only was a Law giver; was Christ therefore like unto Moses in giving of a Law also, and is there any mention of this Law. Ans. Gal. 6. 2. fulfil the Law of Christ, Rom. 3. 27. by the Law of Faith, Jam. 2. 12. by the Law of liberty, Jam. 1. 25.  
That Moses did not see the face of God hath been shewed, and M. Biddle confesseth the same. That Christ was not rapt into Heaven for any such end or purpose as is pretended, that He is not compared to Moses as to his initiation into his prophetical Office, that there is no one word in the Scripture giving countenance to any of these figments hath been evinced. Nor hath M. Biddle showed any such thing to them, who have their sences exercised to discern good and evil; what apprehensions soever his Catechumens may have of his skill and proofs.  
2. What is added to this question will be of an easy dispatch. 
§. 29.  The word[ Law] may be considered generally, as to the nature of it, in the sense of Scripture, for a Revelation of the mind of God; and so we say Christ did give a Law, in that he revealed fully and clearly the whole mind of God, as to our Salvation and the Obedience he requireth of us. And so there is a Law of Faith; that is, a doctrine of Faith, opposite to the Law, as to its Covenant ends simply so called. And he also instituted some peculiar significant Ceremonies, to be used in the worship of God; pressing in particular in his teaching, and by his example the duty of love, which thence is particularly called a new Commandement, and the Law of Christ, Gal. 6. 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 Joh. 1. 18. Heb. 1. 1. And as he was,& 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 may detract. But take the word Law, strictly, in reference to a Covenant end, that He which performs it shall be levied by his performance thereof; So we may say, he gave the Law originally as God, but as mediator he gave no such Law, or no Law in that sense, but revealed fully and clearly our justification with God upon another Account; and gave no new precepts of Obedience, but what were before given in the Law, written Originally in the heart of man by nature, and delivered to the Church of the Jews by Moses in the wilderness; of which in the chapter of Justification.  
For the places quoted by M. Biddle, that of Gal. 6. 2. bear one 
§. 30.  anothers burden, and 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 eminent accomplishment of it by him, who loved us, and gave himself for us, transmitting it a new to us, with such new motives, and inducements, as it had not received before, nor ever shall again. The Law of Faith mentioned Rom. 3. 27. is no more but the Doctrine of the gospel, and of Justification without the works of the Law, that is, all works commanded by what Law soever: as the whole doctrine of the word of God is called the Law, near an hundred times in the psalms. The law of Faith is that which is opposed to the law of works, as a means of obtaining righteousness, which is not by obedience to new Commands.  
The places in Ja. 2. 12. Ja. 1. 25. speak directly of the moral Law, which is manifest by that particular annumeration of its precepts, which we have subjoined, v. 13, 14.  
3. But M. Biddles Masters have a farther reach in the asserting 
§. 31.  Christ to have given a new Law: namely, whereas they place justification as a Consequent of our own obedience, and observing how impossible it is to do it, on the Obedience yielded to the moral Law, the Apostle having so frequently,& expressly decried all possibility of justification thereby, they have therefore feigned to themselves, that Christ Jesus hath given a New Law, in Obedience whereunto we may be levied; which when they attempt to prove, it will be needful for them to produce other manner of evidences, then that hereby M. 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 Math. 5. in the next query, he calls them very ignorantly the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant. If M. B. knows no more of the New Covenant, but that it is a New Law given by our Saviour Mat. 5. 6, 7.( as upon other accounts) I pitty the man: He proceeds.  
Doth not Christ then partly perfect, partly correct the Law of Moses, 
§. 32.  what is the determination of Christ concerning this matter. Math. 5. 21, 22, 23, 24.  
1. The reason of this query, I acquainted the Reader with before. These men seeking for a righteousness as it were by the 
{αβγδ}, Rom. 9. 32.  works of the Law, and not daring to lay it upon that, which the Apostle doth expressly so often reject, they strive to relieve themselves with this; that our Saviour hath so dealt with the Law as here is expressed; so that to yield obedience to it now as mended, perfected, and reformed, must needs be sufficient to our justification.  
2. Two things are here affirmed to be done by the Lord 
§. 33.  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 ●aid on the Law of God. 1. Of Imperfection. 2. Of Corruption, that needed Amendment or Correction.  
Before I proceed to examine the particular instances, 
§. 34.  whereby the man attempts to make good his insinuation, the Honour of God, and his Law, requires of us, that it be vindicated from this double Calumny, and demonstrated to be neither imperfect, nor to stand in need of correction.  
For its perfection we have the Testimony of God himself expressly given thereunto, Psal. 19. 7. The Law of the Lord is PERFECT converting the Soul. It is the perfect Law of liberty, Jam. 1. 25. Yea so perfect, as that God hath forbidden any thing to be added to it, or to be taken from it Deut. 4. 1, 2. Deut. 12. 32.  
2. If the Law wants Perfection, it is in respect of its essential 
§. 35.  parts, or its integral parts, or in respect of degrees. But for its 
Rom. 7.  essential parts it is perfect, being in matter, and form, in sense, and sentence, Divine, Holy, Just, Good. For its Integrals, it compriseth the whole Duty of man Eccles. 12. and the last; which doing he was to live; And for the degrees of its commands, It requireth that we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and all our souls, and our neighbours as ourselves; which our Saviour confirms as a Rule of perfection. Math. 22. 37.  
3. If the Law of God was not perfect, but needed correction 
§. 36.  it is either because God could not, or would not give a perfect and complete Law: To say the first, is Blasphemy: for the latter, theres no pretence for it. God giving a Law for his Service, proclaiming his wisdom and Holinesse 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 
§. 37.  precepts of Christ wherein our obedience requires us to be perfect, are the same, and no other then the precepts of the Law: his new commandment of love is also an old one, 1 John 2. 7, 8. which Christ calls his new command, Joh. 13. 34. and the like instances might be multiplied, neither will the instance of M. B. evince the contrary which he argues from Mat 5. for that Christ doth not in that chapter correct the Law, or add any new precept thereunto, but expounds and vindicates it from the corrupt gloss of the scribes and Pharisees, appears,  
1. From the Occasion of the discourse, and the Proposition 
§. 38.  which our Saviour makes good, establisheth, and confirmeth therein: which is laid down v. 21. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. In pursuit of this proposition. He manifesteth what their righteousness was, by examining their catechism upon the Commandements, and the Exposition they made therein of them. It is not the righteousness of the Law that our Saviour rejects, and requires more in his Disciples, but that of the Pharisees whom he every where called Hypocrites: But for the Law he tells them a Tittle of it shall not pass away,& 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 
§. 39.  our Saviour, manifests of whom, and concerning what he speaks; you have HEARD that it was SAID to them of old time; you have heard, not you have red; you have heard it of the Scribes and Pharisees, out of Moses chair they have  told you, that it was thus said; and you have heard that it was SAID to them of Old; not that it was written, that it was written in the Law, the Expression whereby he citeth what was written. And it was said to them of Old; the common pret●nce of the Pharisees in the imposing their Traditions, and Expositions of the Law. It is the tradition of the Elders; it was said to them, by such and such blessed Masters of old.  
3. Things are instanced in, that are no where written in the 
§. 40▪  Law, nor ever were; as that, thou shalt love thy Neighbour, and hate thine enemy; which is so remote from the Law, as that the contrary is directly commanded, Levit. 19. 18. Exod. 23. 4, 5. Prov. 21. 21, 22. To them who gave this Rule, thou shalt love thy Neighbour, and hate thine enemy, doth Christ oppose himself. But those were the Scribes and Pharisees in their corrupt Glosses, from which Gods Law is vindicated, not in its self before corrupted.  
4. Whose saying 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 
Math. 5. 17.  in that form of speech, but I say unto you.  
Before I come to the consideration of the particular instances 
§. 41.  given by M. B. a brief Consideration of what is offered to this purpose by Smalcius, in his Racovian catechism, may be premised. His first Chapter about the prophetical Office of Christ, is de praeceptis Christi, quae legi addidit, Of the Precepts of Christ, which he added to the Law. And therein this is his first Question and Answer.  
What are the Perfect commands of God, revealed by 
Quaenam sunt perfecta mandata Dei per Christum tradita?  Christ?  
Part of them is contained in the Precepts given 
Pars eorum continetur in praeceptis a Mose traditis, una ●um iis, quae sunt eis in novo faedere addita. Pars vero cont●netur in iis, quae peculiariter ipse Christus praescripsit.  by Moses, with those which are added thereunto in the New Covenant: part is contained in those things, which Christ himself prescribed.  
The commands of God, revealed by Jesus Christ, are here referred to three heads. 1. The Ten Commandements given by Moses: for so that part is explained in the next Question, where they are said to be the Decalogue. 2. The additions made by Christ thereunto. 3. His own peculiar institutions.  
As to the first, I desire only to know how the ten Commandements 
§. 42.  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 Commandement, is not so termed in respect of the matter of it, but its new enforcement by Christ: we grant Christ revealed that Law by Moses, with its new Covenant Ends, as he was the great Prophet of his Church, by his Spirit, from the foundation of the World; but this Smalcius denies.  
2. That Christ made no new additions to the moral Law, 
§. 43.  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 
§. 44.  of the New Testament institute the two Ordinances of baptism and the Lords Supper, in the room of them, which together with their representation of the benefits, which Believers receive by him, did also prefigure him as to come. But 1. these are no new Law, nor part of a new Law, with a Law design in them. 2. Though there is an obedience in their performance yielded to God& Christ, yet they belong rather to the Promise, th●n the Precepts of Christ; to our privilege, before unto our duty.  
In the progress of that Catechist, after some discourse about 
§. 45.  the ceremonial and judicial Law, with their abolition, and his allowance of Magistrates among Christians notwithstanding,( which they do, upon condition he  shed no blood for any cause whatever) He attempts in particular, to 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 afterwards in the Chapter designed to the consideration of what Mr B. speaks to the same purpose. 2. That we aclowledge 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, then in the New, that I shall not insist thereon. The residue of his plea is the same with M. B's from Mat. 5. where what they pretend shall be considered in order.  
To consider then briefly the particular Instances: The first 
§. 46.  is in reference to the Sixth Commandement, Thou shalt not Kill. This the Pharisees so interpnted, 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 Commandement. Our Saviour 
See a full and clear exposition of this place by D. Lightfeet, in his Preface to the Harmony of the gospel.  lets his Disciples know, that there is a closer, and nearer sense of this Law: I say unto you, in the Exposition of this Commandement, that any rash anger, anger without a cause, all offence given, proceeding from thence, in light vilifying expressions, such as Racha, much more all provoking taunts and reproaches, as thou fool, are forbidden therein, so as to render a man obnoxious to the judgement of God, and condemnation in their several degrees of sinfulness; as there were amongst themselves several Councells, according to several Offences; the judgement, the council, and utter cutting off, as a child of Hell. Hence then having manifested the least breach of Love and Charity towards our Brother to be a breach of the Sixth Commandement, and so to render a man obnoxious to the judgement 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 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.  
2. In the next place, he proceeds to the vindication, and 
§. 47.  Exposition of the Seventh Commandement, v. 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery: which the Pharisees had so expounded, as that if a man kept himself from actual uncleanness, however he lived loosely, and put away his Wife at his Pleasure, he was free from the breach thereof. To give them the true meaning, and sense of this Commandement, and farther to discover the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he lets them know;  
1. That the Concupiscence of the Heart, and inordinate desire of any Person, is the Adultery here no less forbidden, then 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 Women, was forbidden by the Law, and under the Old Testament.  
2. As to their living with their Wives, he mentions indeed the words of Moses, whosoever shall put away his Wife, let him give her a Bill of Divorcement; but opposeth not himself thereunto at all, but only shows, that, that permi●sion of Divorce is to be interpnted according to the Rule and Instruction given in the first Institution of Marriage,( as afterward, on another occasion he explains himself Math 19) And not that men might therefore for every cause, that they would, or could pretend, instantly put away their Wives, as the Pharisees taught men to do; And as Josephus, one of them testifies of 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, v. 27, 28. And thereupon descends to caution his Disciples, to be careful and circumspectly in their walking in this particular, and not be lead by an offending eye, or hand,( the beginning of evil,) to greater Abominations.  
3. In like manner doth he proceed in the vindication of the 
§. 48.  third Commandement; The Scribes and Pharisees had invented, or approved of Swearing by Creatures, the Temple, Altar, jerusalem, the Head, and the like; and thereupon raised many wicked and cursed distinctions, on purpose to make a cloak for hypocrisy, and lying, as you may see Math. 23. 16, 17, 18. 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 conversations, there was nothing sincere, or open, and plain, left amongst them. This wicked gloss of theirs( being such as their successors abound withall to this day) our blessed Saviour decry's; and commands his Disciples to use plainness, and simplicity in their conversation, in plain Affirmations, and Negations, without the mixture of such profane, and cursed execrations, v. 34, 35, 36, 37. which that it was no new duty, nor unknown to the Saints of the Old Testament, is known to all that have but red it.  
4. In matter of Judgement between man and man, he proceeds 
§. 49.  in the same manner; because the Law had appointed the Magistrate to exercise talionem in some cases, and to ●ake an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, the blind Pharisees wrested this to countenance private men in revenging themselves, and pursuing them who had injured them with an hostile mind, at least until the sentence of the Law was executed on them. To root out the rancour and malice of the minds of Men, which by this means were nourished, and fomented in them, our Saviour lets them know, that notwithstanding that tour 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, v. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. pressing also lending, and giving, as works of charity, whereunto a blessing is so often pronounced in the Old Testament.  
5. His last instance is in the matter of Love, concerning 
§. 50.  which the Pharisees had given out this note; Thou shalt Love thy Neighbour, and Hate thine Enemy. For whereas there were certain Nations whom God had appointed to utter destruction; at his peoples first coming into Canaan, he commanded them to show them no mercy, but utterly to destroy them, Deut. 7. 2. This the wretched Hypocrites laid hold of, to make up a Rule, and Law for private men to walk by, in reference to them, whom they accounted their Enemies, in express contradiction to the command of God, Ex. 23. 4, 5. Levit. 19. 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, v. 43, 44, 45. So that in none of the instances mentioned, is there the least evidence of what was proposed to be confirmed by them, namely, that our Saviour gave a new Law, in that he did partly perfect, partly correct the Law of Moses; seeing he did only vindicate the sense and meaning of the Law, in sundry precepts thereof, from the false Glosses and Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, invented and imposed on their Disciples, to be a cloak to their hypocrisy and wickedness. And this also may fully suffice to remove what on this account is delivered by the Racovian catechism. But on this foundation M. B. proceeds. 
§. 51.   
You have made it appear plainly that the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant, whereof Christ was the Mediator, is better then the Law of works, or the Old Covenant, whereof Moses was the Mediator in respect of Precepts, is it also better in respect of Promises? A. Heb: 8. 6. Heb. 7. 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 
§. 52.  Law, in the same sense as Moses was Mediator of the Old Law, the Law of works.  
2. Christs Addition of Precepts and Promises to the Law of Moses, is the Law of Faith, or the New Covenant.  
3. The People, or the Church of the Jews, lived under the Old Covenant, or the Law of works: whereof Moses, not Christ was the Mediator▪  
4. The difference betweenthe Old, and the New Covenant, lies in this; that the New hath more Precepts of Obedience, and more Promises then the Old.  
And now truly he that thinks, that this man understands 
§. 53.  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, then what the man himself hath here delivered.  
For my part, I have much other work to do, occasioned by M. B. and therefore I shall not here divert to the consideration of the two Covenants, and their difference, with the twofold Administration of the Covenant of Grace, both before, and after Christs coming in the flesh; but I shall content myself with some brief Animadversions upon the forementioned Propositions, and proceed.  
1. In what sense Christ is the mediator of the new Covenant, 
§. 54.  I shall( God assisting) at large declare, when I come to treat of his death, and satisfaction; and shall not here prevent myself in any thing of what must then, and there, be delivered.  
2. That there are precepts, and Promises attending the new Covenant, is granted; but that it consists in any addition of precepts to the 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 undertaking of Jesus Christ, to lay down his Life a ransom for us, our justification by his blood, his being of God made righteousness to us, the free pardon of our sins, and Acceptation with God, by, and for him, as he is the end of the Law for righteousness, all communication of effectual grace, to work in us new Obedience, the giving of a new clean heart, wi●h the Law of God written in it by the Spirit, in a word, the whole promise made to Abraham, the whole new Covenant, is excluded from the Covenant, and men left yet in their 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 
Heb. ●.  by it: The Law thereof through sin was become weak, and 
Rom. 8. 3.  insufficient as to any such end and purpose; what then doth God substitute in room thereof: why a new Covenant, that hath more precepts added to the old, with all those of the Old continued, that respected moral Obedience. But is this a remedy? Is not this rather a new burden? If the Law could not save us before, because it was impossible through sin that we should perfectly accomplish it, and therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no man be levied: Is it a likely way to relieve us, by making an addition of more precepts to them, which before we could not observe? But that through the Righteous hand of God, the interest of mens immortal souls is come to be concerned therein; I should think the time exceedingly lavished, that is spent in this Discourse. Let him that is ignorant, be ignorant still, were a sufficient answer. And this that hath been said, may suffice to the fourth particular also.  
3. That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of works, properly▪ 
§. 55. & formally so called,& that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of works, is a no less pernicious figment then the former. The Covenant of works was, do this and live; on perfect obedience you shall have life. Mercy, and pardon of sins were utter strangers to that Covenant, and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us, that no man could be Saved. The Church of old had the Promises of Christ, Rom. 9. 5. Gen. 3. 15. Chap. 12. 3. were levied by Faith, Gen 15. 6. Rom. 4. Gal 3. obtained Mercy for their sins, and were levied in the Lord, Isa. 42. 24. had the Spirit for conversion, Regeneration, and Sanctification, Ezek. 11. 19. Chap. 36. 26. expected, and obtained Salvation by Jesus Christ: things as remote from the Covenant of works as the East 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 
Rom. 4. 4, 5.  ours.  
Let us now see what answer▪ M. B. applies to his query: 
§. 56.  The first text he mentions is, Heb. 8. 6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better Covenant, built upon better promises. That which the Holy Ghost here affirms, is, that the New Covenant, whereof Christ is the mediator, is better then the Old; and that it hath better Promises: which I suppose none ever doubted. The Covenant is better, seeing that could by no means save us, which by this Christ doth to the uttermost. The promises are better, for it hath innumerable promises of Co●version, 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 M. B's purpose.  
No more is the second place which he mentioneth, Heb. 7. 
§. 57.  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 intended, but the legal Administration of the Covenant of Grace. This saith the Apostle, made nothing perfect; men were kept under Types, and shadows, and though they were Children of God by Adoption, yet in comparison, they were kept as servants, being under Age until the fullness of time came, when the bringing in of Jesus Christ, that better hope, made the Administration of 
Gal. 4.  Grace perfect, and complete. Mr B. all along obscures himself under the ambiguous term of the Law; confounding its covenant& subsequent use; For the Covenant use of the Law, or as it was the tenor of the Covenant of works, the Saints of the Old Testament were no more concerned in it, then are we. The Subsequent use of it, may be considered two ways. 1. As it is purely moral, exacting perfect Obedience, and so the use of it is common to them and us. 2. As attended with ceremonial and judicial institutions in the Administration of it, and so it was peculiar to them: And this one observation will led the Reader through much of the Sophistry of this Chapter, whose next Question is.  
Were those better promises of God touching eternal Life, and immortality 
§. 58.  hidden in the dark, and not brought to light under the Law?  
Ans. Christ Jesus hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2 Tim. 1. 10.  
The whole ambiguity of this Question lies in those expressions, hidden in the dark, and not brought to light, if he intend comparatively, in respect of the clear revelation made of the mind, and will of God by Jesus Christ, we grant it: if he mean it absolutely, that there were no promises of life& immortality given under the Law, it is absolutely false. For  
1. There are innumerable promises of Life and immortality 
§. 59.  in the Old Testament, given to the Church under the Law. See Heb. 11. 4. Deu. 12. 1. Deut. 30. 6. Psal. 19. 10, 11. Deut. 33. 29. Psal. 130. 8. Isa. 25. 8, 9. Chap. 45. 17. Chap. 15. 6, 7. Jerem. 23. 6. Psal. 2. 12. Psal. 32. 1, 2. Psal. 33. 12.  
2. They Believed eternal life,& therefore they had the promise 
§. 60.  of it, for Faith relieth always on the word of promise; Thus did Job, Chap. 19. 25, 26, 27. and David, Psal. 17. 15. So did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Heb. 11. 10, 11, 12. Yea and some of them as a pattern and Example, without dying obtained it, as Enoch and Elias.  
3. The Covenant of Abraham was that, which they lived in, and under; But this Covenant of Abraham had promises of eternal Life: Even that God would be his God, dead and alive, Gen. 17. 1, 7. And that the promises thereof were promises of eternal Life, Paul manifests Rom. 4. 3. Gal. 3. 14. but this hath been so abundantly manifested by others, that I shall not longer insist upon it: we are come to the last query of this Chapter. which is,  
Though the Promises of the gospel be better then those of the Law, yet are they not as well as those of the Law, proposed under conditions of Faith, and perseverance therein, of Holinesse, and Obedience, of repentance, and suffering for Christ; how speak the Scriptures? John 3. 14, 15, 16, 18, 26. Hab. 2. 14. Heb. 2. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 11. Rom. 8. 13. Acts 3. 19. Rev. 2. 5, 16. joh. 5. 17.  
Neither will this query long detain us: In the New Testament 
§. 61.  there being means designed for the attainment of an End, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance, for the attaimment of Salvation, and enjoyment of God through Christ; The Promises of it are of two sorts: Some respect the End, or our whole acceptation with God; Some the means, or way whereby we come to be accepted in Christ. The first sort are those insisted on by M. B. and they are so far conditional, as that they declare the firm connexion and concatenation of the end and means proposed: So that without them it is not to be attained; but the other of working Faith, and new Obedience, and Perseverance, are all Absolute to the Children of the Covenant, as I have so fully and largely elsewhere declared, that I shall not here repeat any thing there written 
Persever▪ of Sain●s.  nor do I know any necessity of adding any thing thereunto. 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 Francker, and therefore that I may not actum agere, nor seem to enter an others labour, I shall not directly, and {αβγδ}, 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.   

CHAP. XIX.  
Of the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, and of the Worship that is ascribed, and due to him.  
OF the Nature of the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, his Investiture 
§. 1.  with it, his Administration of it, with the efficacy of that Power which therein he puts forth, both towards his Elect, and others, M. B. doth not administer any occasion to discourse. It is acknowledged by him, that he was,( or at least is) a King, by the designation and Appointment of the Father, to whom, as he was Mediator, he was subject: that he abides in his Rule and Dominion as such, and shall do so to the end of the World, and I shall not make any farther enquiry, as to these things, unless farther occasion be administered▪ Upon the account of this Authority, they say, he is God. Now whereas it is certain, that this Authority of his shall cease at the end of the World, 1 Cor. 15. 28. it seems, that he shall then also cease to be God: such a God as they now allow him to be.  
By some passages in his Second and Third Questions, he seems 
§. 2.  to intimate, that Christ was not invested in his kingdom before his Ascension into Heaven. So Quest. the Second. Is 
§. 2.  Christ already invested in his kingdom, and did he after his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, exercise Dominion, and sovereignty ●ver men and Angells? And Quest. third. For what cause, and to what end was Jesus Christ exalted to his kingdom? To which he Answers from Phil▪ 2. 8, 9, 10. In both places intimating, that Christ was not invested with his Kingly power, until after his Exaltation.( As for the en●s of his Exaltation, these being some mentioned, though not all, no● the chief, I shall not farther insist on them.) But that this, a● 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 a●oynted; so it is altogether inconsistent with M. B's principles, who maintains, that he was worshipped with Religious worship and Honour, whilst he was upon the Earth; which Honour and Worship( says he) is due to him, and to be performed merely upon the account of that Power and Authority, which is given him of God, as also say all his companions: and certainly his Power and Authority belong to him as King. The making of him a King, and the making of him a God, is with them all one. But that he was a God, whilst he was upon the Earth, they aclowledge from the words of Thomas to him, my Lord and my God.  
And the Title of the twelfth chapter of Smalcius his Book, De 
§. 3.  ve●a Jesu Christi Divinitate, is, De nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus in terris m●rtalis degens habuit 
Divinitas autem Iesu Christi qualis sit, discimus ex sacris literis, nempe talis, quae propter munus ipsius divinum tota ei tribuitur. small▪ de Divin. less. Ch. Cap. 12. . 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 expreseth not. The name of God they say is a name of Office and Authority: The Authority of Christ on which account he is to be worshipped, is, that which he hath as King. And yet the same Author 
Nec enim prius D. Iesus Rec re●ps● fa●tas est, qu●● cum consedit ad dextram Dei Patris,& regnare reipsa in cael●,& in terra caepit. idem cap: 13. Sec. 3. c Dominus& Deus proculdu●io ● Th●ma appella●ur, quia sit talis Dominus, qui divino modo in homines imperium habeat,& divino etiam illud modo exercere posset,& exerceat. idem cap. 24. de fid. in Christum. &c.  afterward contends, that Christ was not a King until after his Resurrection and Ascension. For my part I am not solicitous about reconciling him to himself; let them that are so, take pains if they please therein. Some pains I conceive it may cost them; considering, that ihe afterwards affirms expressly, that he was called Lord and God of Thomas, because of his Divine Rule, or kingdom; which, as I remember, was before his Ascension.  
As for his Exaltation at his Ascension, it was not by any 
§. 4.  investiture in any new Office, but by an Admission to the Execution of that part of his work of Mediatorship which did remain, in a full and glorious manner; the whole concernment of his humiliation being past; In the mean time doubtless he 
1 Cor. 2. 8.  was a King, when the Lord of Glory was crucified.  
But that which remaines of this Chap. is more fully to be 
§. 5.  considered.  
Question 4. is. How ought men to Honour the son of God?  
From hence to the end of the Chap. M. B. insists on the Religious Worship, and invocation of Jesus Christ: which with all his Companions, he places as the consequent of his Kingly Office, and that Authority, wherewith for the execution and discharge thereof from God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider what is tendered by M. B. to the purpose in hand, and then take liberty a little more largely to handle the whole business of the Worship of Jesus Christ, with the Grounds, Reasons, and Motives thereof.  
His Fifth Question to this matter is, How ought men to Honour 
§. 6.  the son of God, Christ Jesus.  
And it is Answered Joh. 5. 23. Even as they honour the Father.  
This then is consented unto on both sides; that Jesus Christ is to be Worshipped, and Honoured with the same Worship, and Honour 
{αβγδ}. Epithan. in Anchorat.  wherewith the Father is Worshipped and Honoured; that is, with that Worship and Honour, which is Divine and Religious, with that subjection of soul, and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone. How Socinus himself doubled in this business, and was entangled, shall be afterwards discovered. What use will be made of this, in the issue of this discourse, the Reader may easily conjecture.  
His next Question discovering the danger of the non performance 
§. 7.  of this duty, of yielding Divine Honour and Worship to Christ, strengtheners the former Assertion, and therefore I have nothing to except, or add thereunto.  
In Question the Sixth M. B. labours to defend▪ the throat of his 
§. 8.  Cause, against the edge of that Weapon, which is sharpened against it by this concession, That Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with Divine Worship, as the Father is, by a diversion of it; with a consideration of the grounds of the Assignation of this Worship to Christ. His words are; Ought men to Honour the Son, as they Honour the Father, because he hath the same Essence with the Father, or because he hath the same judiciary power, what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point?  
Ans. Joh. 5. 22, 23▪  
The sum is: The same Worship is to be given to the Father and the Son, but upon several grounds; To the Father, because He is God by Nature, because of his Divine Essence: to the Son, because of a Delegated judiciary Power committed to him by the Father. For the discovery of the vanity of this Assertion, in the close of our Consideration of this matter, I shall manifest.  
1. That there neither is, nor can be, any more then one formal 
§. 9.  cause of the Attribution of the same Divine Worship to any; so that to whomsoever it is ascribed, it is upon one and the same individual account, as to the formal, and fundamental cause thereof.  
2. That no delegated Power of Judgement is, or can be a sufficient 
§. 10.  ground, or cause of yielding that Worship and Honour to him, to whom it is delegated, which is proper to God. For the present, to the Text pleaded,( the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father.) I say in brief, that {αβγδ}, is not expressive of the formal cause of the honouring, and Adoration of Christ, but of an effectual motive to men to honour him, to whom upon the account of his divine Nature that honour is due. As in the First Commandement, I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage, thou shalt have no other Gods but me. That Expression, That brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, is a motive to the Worship of God, but not the 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 afterwrd.  
Quest. 7. A farther diversion from the matter in hand is attempted 
§. 11.  by this inquiry. Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he had in him the Divine Nature, personally united to the human, or because he was the Son of Man: what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point also?  
A. He hath given him authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of Man, joh. 5. 27.  
1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision inquired after, wherein there is no such difference at all. Nor do we say, that God gave Christ the judiciary Power, wherewith as mediator he is invested, because he had in him the Divine Nature personally united to his human. The Power that Christ hath upon the account of his Divine Nature, is not delegated, but essential to him: nor can M. B. name any, that have so stated the difference as he here proposes it.  
2. We say not that Christ had in him the Divine Nature personally united to the human; but that the human Nature was Personally united to the Divine. His Personality belonging to him upon the account of his Divine nature, not his human.  
3. We grant, that the judiciary power, that was delegated to Christ, as Mediator, he being appointed of God to judge the World; was given him because he is the Son of Man, or was made Man to be our Mediator; and to accomplish the great work of the Salvation of Man-kind. But that Divine Worship, proper to God the Father, is due, and to be yielded, and ascribed to him on this ground and Reason, because he is the Son of Man, M. B. cannot prove, nor doth attempt it.  
The 8, 9, 10. Quest▪ belong not to us: we grant it was, and 
§. 12.  is, the Will and Command of God, that lesus Christ the Mediator should be worshipped of Angells and Men; and that he was so worshipped even in this World; for when he brought his first begotten into the World, he said, let all the Angels of God worship him; and that he is also to be worshipped now, having finished his 
Heb. 1. 6.  work, being exalted on the Right hand of God; but that the bottom, foundation, and sole formal cause of the Worship, which God so commands to be yielded to him, is any thing but his being God blessed for evermore, or his being the only begotten Son of God, there is not in the places mentioned the least intimation.  
The 11, 12. look again the same way with the former, but 
§. 13.  with the same success. Saith he, When men ascribe Glory and Dominion to Jesus Christ in the Scripture, and withall intimate the ground thereof, is it because they conceive him to be very God, and to have been eternally begotten out of the Divine Essence, or because he gave himself to death: let me hear how they explain themselves?  
Ans. Rev. 5. 6.  
Q. 12. Are the Angels of the same Opinion with the Saints▪ when they also ascribe Glory and Dominion to him, let me hear how they also explain themselves?  
Ans: Rev. 5. 11, 12: Of both these places afterward.  
At present 1. Christ as a Lamb, is Christ as Mediator, both God and Man, to whom all Honour and Glory is due.  
2. Neither Saints, nor Angels, do give, or intend to give the Reason why Christ is to be 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,& to ascribe all glory to him. As David often cries, praise the Lord O my soul( or assigns glory and Honour to him) because he hath done such or such things; intimating a motive to his Worship, and not the prime foundation and cause, why he is to be worshipped.  
Having spoken thus to the Adoration of Christ, his last Question 
§. 14.  is about his Invocation, which he proves from sundry places of Scripture, not enquiring into the Reasons of it; so that adding that to the former Concession of the Worship and Honour due to him, I shall close these considerations with this one syllogism. He who is to be worshipped by Angels and Men with that Divine worship, which is due to God the Father,& to be prayed unto, called on, believed in, is God by nature, blessed for ever: but according to the confession of Mr B. Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by Angells and Men with that Divine worship, which is due even to God the Father, and to be prayed unto: Therefore is he God by Nature over all, blessed for ever. The inference of the mayor Proposition I shall farther confirm in the ensuing Considerations of the Worship, that is ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scripture.  
In the endeavour of Faustus Socinus to set up a new Religion, 
§. 15.  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, then in this, about the Worship and Invocation of Iesus Christ. He and his uncle Laelius, urging( amongst others) this Proposition, that Christ was not God, Franciscus David, Budnaeus, Christianus Franken, Paleologus, with others, made the conclusion, that he was not to be worshipped as God, nor called upon. With some of these he had sundry Disputes and conferences, and was miserable intricated by them, being unable to defend his opinion, upon his Hypothesis of the Person of Christ. That Christ is to be worshipped, and Invocated, indeed he proves well and Learnedly, as in many places, so especially in his third Epistle to Mathias Radecius: But coming to knit his Arguments to his other opinion concerning Christ, he was perpetually gravelled, as more especially it befell him in his dispute with Christianus Franken An. 1584. as is evident in what is extant of that Dispute, written by Socinus himself. Of the chief argument insisted on by Franken, I shall speak afterwards: see Disput, cum Franken, p. 24, 25, 28, 35, &c. Against Franciscus David, he wrote a peculiar Tract;& to him an Epistle, to prove that the words of Thomas, my Lord and my God, were spoken of Christ, and therefore he was to be worshipped;( Epist. pag. 186.) wherein 
Primum ●gitur quod attinet ad priorem rationem dico, diversam illam lectionem non extare, ut arbitror, neque in ullo probate codice, neque apud ullum probatum Scrip●orem, quod vel ex eo constare potest, quod Erasmus in suis Annotationibus, quaemvis de hoc ipso loco agate, ejus rei nullam prorsus mentionem facit: Qui Erasmus, cum hoc in genere nus●uam non diligentissime versatur; tum in omnibus locis, in quibus Christus Deus appellari videtur, adco diligenter omnia verba expendit, atque examinat, ut non immerito& Trinitartis. Arianismi suspectus fuerit,& ab Antitrinitariis inter eos relatus, quae subobscure Trinitati reclamaverint. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Fran. David. p. 186, 187.  he positively affirms, that there was no other reading of the words( as David vainly pretended) but what is in common use, because Erasmus made mention of no such thing, who would not have omitted it, could he have made any discovery thereof, being justly supposed to be no good friend to the Trinity. That men may know what to judge of some of his Annotations, as well as those of Grotius, who walks in the same paths, is this remarked. Wherefore He and his Associates rejected this Franciscus David, afterward as a detestable heretic, and utterly deserted him when he was cast into Prison by the Prince of Transilvania, where he dyed miserable raving and crying out, that the Divels expected, and waited for his company in his journey, which he had to go.( Florim: Raem. l. 4. c. 12.) the account whereof Smalcius also gives us, in his relation of 
Exemplum denique affert nostrorum Thes. 108. Quomodo se gesseriat in Transilvania in negotio Francisci Davidis, quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant vafriciae, perfidiae, crudelitatis, sanguinariae proditionis, &c. said his primùm regero: non exemplis, said legibus judicandum esse: si nostri ita se gesserunt ut scribit Frantzius, &c. Deinde dico fals● ista objecta fuisse ab autoribus scripti, quod citat Frantzius nostris: nec enim fraternè tractarunt Franciscum Davidem, usque ad ipsum agonem, quanquam cum ut fratrem tractare non tenebantur, qui in Jesu Christi veram divinitatem tam impie involabat, ut dicere non dubitaret, tantum peccatum esse eum invocare, quantum est, si virgo Maria invo●etur, &c. small. Refut. Thes. Franz. disp. 9. p. 298.  Franzius, Theses de hypocrite. disput. 9. p. 298.  
After these stirs, and disputations, it grew the common 
§. 16.  tenant 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 
Recte igitur existimasti, mihi quoque verisimile videri, eum, qui Dominum Jesum Christum invocare non vult, aut non audet, vix Christiani nomine dignum esse: nisi quod non modo vix, said ne vix quidem,& non modo verisimile id mihi videtur, said persuasissimum mihi est.  Nemojevium Ep. 1. who is followed by Volkelius. 
Eum invocare si non audeamus, Christiano nomine haud satis digni merito existimari possemus. Volkel. de Ve●a ●elig. lib. 4. cap. 11. de Christi invocatione p. 221.  Unlesse( saith he) we dare to call on the name of Christ we should not be worthy of the name of Christians. And he is attended by the Racovian catechism, de precept, Christi cap. 1. whose Author affirms plainly, that he esteemed them not Christians who worshipped him not; and 
Quid vero saints de iis hominib●s qui Christum non invo●ant, nec invocandum censent? Prorsus non esse Christianos sentio: cum reipsa Christum non habeant,& licet ve●bis id negare non audeant, reipsa tamen negent. Catec. Rac. de praecep. Christi, cap. 1. p. 126.  accounted that indeed they had not Christ, however in word they durst not deny him.  
And of the rest, the same is the Judgement: but yet with what consistency with what they also affirm concerning this Invocation of Christ, we shall now briefly consider.  

Eruditione, virtute, pietato praestantissimo viro D. Mathaeo Radecio, amico,& Domino mihi plurimum observando, &c. Praestantissime vir, amice, frater, ac domine plurimum observande.  Socinus in his third Epistle to Mathias Radecius, whom he every where speaks honourably of, and calls him excellent man, Friend, Brother, and much to be observed Lord( because he was a great man) who yet denied, and opposed this invocation of Christ, lays this down in the entrance of his Discourse, That 
i Video enim nihil hody edi posse in totae Christiana Relig●one majoris momenti quam hoc sit, demonstratio, videlicet, quod Christo licet creaturae tamen invocatio& adoratio seu cultus divinus conveniat. Socin. Epist. ad Rad. 3. pag. 143.  there is nothing of greater moment in Christian Religion, then the demonstration of this, that invocation, and Adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ, although he be a created thing. And in the following words he gives you the Reason of the importance of the proof of this Assertion: namely, because the 
Si enim hoc demonstratum fuerit, concident omnes Trinitariorum enunitiones, quae revera uno hoc fundamento nituntur adhuc, quod Christo▪ Adoratio& Invocatio conveniunt, quae solius Dei illius altissimi omni ratione videtur esse propria. id. ibid.  Trinitarians main strength and Argument lies in this; that Adoration and Invocation are due to Christ, which are proper only to the high God. Which makes me bold on the other side to affirm, that there is nothing in Christian Religion, more clear, nor more needful to be confirmed, then this, that divine worship neither is, can, nor ought by the will of God, to be ascribed to any who by nature is not God, to any that is a mere creature, of what dignity, power, and authority soever. But yet now when this zealous▪ Champion for the invocation of Christ comes to prove his Assertion, being utterly destitute of the use of that which is the sure bottom and foundation thereof, he dares go no farther but only says that we MAY call upon Christ if we will, but for any precept making it necessary so to do, that he says there is none.  
And therefore he distinguisheth between the 
Hic primum adoratione 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,& etiansi non extaret, tamen eum a nobis adorari omnino debere, non idem tamen existimem de codem invocando, cum videlicet invocatio pro ipsae opis imploratione,& directione precum nostrarum accipitur. Hic enim statuo id quidem merito a nobis fieri posse, id est, posse nos jure ad ipsum Christum preces nostras dirigere, nihil tamen esse quod nos id facere cogat. Socin. Epist. ad Radec. 3. pag. 151.  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 
Christum Dominum invocare possumus, said non debemus, sieve non tenemur.  Franciscus David. Yea in the same discourse he affirms, that if 
Quod si quis tan●a est fide praeditus, ut ad Deum ipsum perpetuo recte accedere audeat; huic non opus est, ut Christum invocet. Disput. cum Fran. pag. 4.  we have so much faith, as that we can go with confidence to God without him, we need not invocate Christ. We may( saith he) invocate Christ, but we are not bound so to do. Whence 
Legi quoque diligenter responsionem tuam ad argumenta Francisci D●vidis; ubi Christi domini invocationem honoremque nomini ejus sacr●sancto convenientem asseris, ac contra calumnias Francisci Davidis defendis. Attame● videris mihi, paucis verbis, optimam sententiam non tantum obscurasse, said quasi in dubium revocasse, adversariosque in error confirmasse. Quaeris quid sit, quod tantum malum secum importare posset? Breviter respondeo, verba illa quae saepius addis; Christum Dominum invocare possumus, said non debemus, sieve non tenemur, &c. ruinam negotio, causaeque tuae minantur: Non possum percipere, quomo●o haec conciliari possint: non debemus, said possumus. quasi in negotio salutis nostrae liberum sit facere vel omittere, prout nobis aliquid magis necessarium, vel●e contra visum fuerit: Niemojevius Epist. 1. ad Faust. Socin. An. 1587.  Niemojevius falls upon him,& tells him, that he had utterly spoiled their cause by that concession. To deliver himself from which charge, how pitifully he intricates himself, may be seen in his answer to that Epistle. Now whether this man hath sufficient cause to exclude any from being Christians, for the non-performance of that, which himself dares not affirm that they ought to do, and with what consistency of principles these things are affirmed, is easy to Judge.  
Of the same judgement with him is Volk. de vera Rel. l. 4. c. 11. 
§. 18.  de Christi invocatione. Schlincting. ad: Meisner. pag. 206, 207. and generally the rest of them. Which again how consistent it is, with what they affirm in the 
Quid praeterea huic praecepto primo dominus Jesus addidit, id, quod etiam dominum Jesum pro Deo agnoscere tenemur: id est, pro eo qui in nos potestatem habet divinam& cvi nos divinum exhibere honorem ob●tricti sumus. Catec. Racov. de praecep. Christi cap. 1.  Racovian catechism, namely, that this is an addition which Jesus Christ hath made to the first Commandement, that he himself is to be acknowledged a God, to whom we are bound to yield divine Honour, I see not. For if this be added to the first Commandement, 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 
Cum itaque nuper, libellus de Christi divini●ate conscriptus, esset mihi a Pastore meo, viro cum primis pio& literat●, oblatus, in qu●— disseruit. Epist dedic. ad sigismond  Book that he offered to sigismond the third King of Poland, by the means of Jacobus Sienienska Palatine of Podolia in the year 1608. who in his Epistle to the King calls him his Pastor. And yet the same 
Videtur autem hoc inprimis modo diabolus insidi●s struere domin● Iesu, dum scilicet tales excitat, qui non dubitant affirmare Dominum jesum nunc plane esse otiosu●n in caelis,& res humanas vel salutem hominum non aliter curare, quam Moses curat salutem judaeorum. Qui quidem homines, professione videri volunt Christiani, intern vero Christum abnegarunt,& spiritu judaico, qui semper Christo fuit inimicissimus, inflati sunt;& si quis jure cum eis age●e velit▪ indigni plane sunt, qui inter Christianos numerentur, quantumvis ore tenus Ch●i●tum profiteantur,& multa de eo garriant; adeo ut multo tolerabilior sit error illorum qui Christum pro illo uno Deo habent& colunt, quam istorum:& praestet ex duobus malis minus quod a●unt, eligendo, Trinitarium quam hujusmodi blasphemum esse. small. de ver. Christi divin. cap. 15. de reign. Christi Moderno.  Person doth in another place of the the same Treatise, most bitterly inveigh against them▪ who will not worship, nor invocate Christ, affirming, that they are worse then the Trinitarians themselves, then which it seems he could invent nothing more vile to compare them with. 
Est enim invocatio Iesu Christi, ex numero earum rerum, quas praecipere nullo modo opus est. idem. cap. 24. de fide in Christum.& de Adorat:& Invocat. Christi.  And yet again that there is no precept, that he should be invocated. Cat. Rac.( That is the same p●rson with the former) c. 5. de praecep: Christi quae legem prefecerunt. So also Ostorodus, Compendiolum Doctrinae Ecclesiae Christianae nunc in Polonia potissimum florentis. Cap. 1. Sect. 2.  
It is then on all hands concluded, that Jesus Christ is to be 
§. 19.  worshipped with Divine and Religious worship, due to God only.  
Fixing this as a common and indisputable principle, I shall subjoin and prove these two Assertions.  
1. In general, divine worship is not to be ascribed to any, that is not God by nature, who is not partaker of the divine Essence and Being.  
2. In particular, Jesus Christ is not to be t 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: And this is all that is required in answer to this Tenth Chapter of M. B. what follows on the Heads mentioned, is for the further 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 withall. I shall be brief in them both.  

t 〈◇〉 〈◇〉.  
{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}. Gregor. Theol.   
For the first: Divine Worship is not to be ascribed to them 
§. 20.  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. 10. 10, 11. Thus shall ye say unto them, the Gods that have not made the Heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the Earth,& from under these 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 concerned in those dayes, 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 Assertion is universal, to all whatever, that have not made the Heavens and Earth, and so is applicable to the Socinians Christ; A God they say he is, as Elijah said of Baal, 1 Kings 18. 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, 
§. 21.  that they worshipped them who by nature were not Gods, Gal. 4. 8. 
{αβγδ}.  from which we are delivered by the knowledge of God in the gospel. And the weight of the Apostles Assertion of the sin of Gentiles, lies in this, that by nature they were not God, who were worshipped. So that this is a thing indispensible, 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 practise of that, which is the greatest sin of the Heathens, that knew not God. And to manifest that this is a thing which the Law of nature gives direction in, not depending on i●stitution; Rom. 1. it is reckoned among those sins, which are against the Light of nature; they worshipped the Creature( besides or) more then( or with) the creator, v. 25. who is God blessed for ever more. To 
{αβγδ}.  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 
Vid. Diatrib. de Just. div.  men( for he cannot deny himself) much less institute and appoint them so to do. It being then on all hands confessed, that Christ is to be worshipped with divine or Religious worship, it will be easy to make the conclusion, that he is God by nature, blessed for ever more.  
That also is general and indispensible which you have 
§. 22.  Jerem. 17. 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 those words, and whose heart departeth from the Lord, are not so much an addition to what is before cursed, as a declaration of it. All Trust in man, that is no more but so, with that kind of Trust, wherewith we trust in Jehovah( as by the antithesis v. 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.  
Revel. 19. 20. and Chap. 22. 9. do add the command of 
§. 23.  God to the general Reason insisted on in the places before mentioned; I fell at his feet to worship him; and he said, see thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and thy bretheren, that have the Testimony of Jesus, worship God, so again, Chap. 22. 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 
Revel. 4. 11.  in respect of God, and a fellow servant of his Saints and no more. All his Creatures serve him, and for his will they were made. Such and no other is the Socinians Christ, and is clearly deprived of all worship by this prohibition, and Reason of it. 2. From the Command, and the natural, and eternal Obligation of it, in those repeated words 
{αβγδ}. justin. Mar. Apol.  {αβγδ}. It is the word of the Law, that our Saviour himself insists on, Mat. 4. 10. that is here repeated; and the force of the Angells 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, Math. 4. is to be worshipped. For if the intendment of the words were only Positive, that God is to be worshipped, and did not also at the same time exclude every one whatever from all divine worship, who is not that God, they would be of no force for the reproof of John, in his attempt to worship the Angels, nor have any influence into his prohibition. And thus that Angel, who Chap. 8. 9, 11. shows John all Creatures in Heaven and Earth, yielding divine worship, and Adoration to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ; in the close of all appropriates all that worship to God himself alone, and for ever shuts out the most glorious Creature from our thoughts and intentions in the performance of any divine worship, or religious Adoration.  
And it may hence appear, how vain is that plea of the 
§. 24.  Adversaries to avoid the force of this reproof, which is managed by Schlictingius against Meisnerus. To those places 
Respondeo particulis istis exclusivis, qualis& solus, & similis, cum de deo us●rpantur, nun●uam eos simpliciter e●cludi, qui a deo▪ in ea re de qua agitur, dependant: sic dicitur solus deus sapiens, solus potens, solus immortalos, neque tamen simpliciter a sapientia, a potentia, immortalitate excludi debent& alii, qui istarum rerum participes sunt effecti: Quare jam cum solus deus adorandus au● invocandus esse dicitur, excludi simpliciter non debet is, qui hac in parte a deo pendet, propter divi●um ab ipso in cancta acceptum imp●rium, said potius tacite simul includendus est. Schlicting. ad Meis. Artic. de deo. p. 206, 207. ( saith he) where mention is made of God alone to be worshipped; I answer that by those exclusive particles alone, and the like, when they are used of God, they are not simply excluded, who depend on God in that thing which is treated of; so is he said to be only wise, only powerful, only immortal, and yet these who are made partakers of them from God, ought not simply to be excluded from wisdom, Power, and Immortality: wherefore when it is said, that God alone is to be worshipped and adored, he ought not to be simply excluded, who herein dependeth on God, because of that divine rule over all, which he hath of him received, yea he is rather included. So the most Learned of that Tribe.  
But  
1. By this Rule nothing is appropriated unto God, nor any thing 
§. 25.  excluded from a participation with him by that particle mentioned; and wherever any thing is said of God only, we are to understand it of God and others, for of him, in all things, do all other things depend.  
2. When it is said, ●hat God only is wise &c. though it do not 
§. 26.  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 be worshipped, and honoured; though it do not exclude all others from any kind of Worship and Honour, but that they may have that which is due to them by Gods 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, 
§. 27.  and Dominion, they say is given to Christ, and whatever excellency in him doth thence arise, yet it is quiter of another kind and stands upon another foot of account, then that ●ssentiall 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 
§. 28.  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 formal cause of divine worship is incommunicable; nor can be delegated, nor is in any who is not essentially God: So that the power of Christ and Angels being of the same kind, though his be more and greater then theirs, as to degrees, they are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship, though he may be worshipped more then they▪  
5. This is the substance of Schlictingius his Rule; 
§. 29.  when any thing is affirmed of God exclusively to others, indeed others are not excluded, but included.  
6. We argue not only from the exclusive particle, but from the 
§. 30.  nature of the thing itself. So that this pretended Rule and Exception, notwithstanding, all, and every thing whatever that is not God, is by God himself everlastingly excluded from the least share in divine or Religious Worship, with express condemnation of them, who assign it to them.  
The same evasion with that insisted on by Schlictingius, 
§. 31.  Socinus himself had before used: and professes that this is the bottom& 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 3. Epist. to Volkelius, where he labours to answer the objection of Johns praying for Grace from the seven spirits that are before the throne of Christ, Revel. 1. But why I pray is it absurd to 
● said cur quaes● absurdum est affirmare septem illos spiritus a Johanne fuisse invocatos? An quia solus Deus est invocandus? Atqui hanc rationem nihili esse tota illa disputatione demonstratur. Non mod● quia nunquam desert interdictum est, quemquam alium praeter deum ipsum invocare, said etiam,& multo magis, quia ejusmodi interdictiones( ut sic loquar) nunquam eos excludunt, qui ipsi deo sunt subordinati. Socin. Epist. ad Volk. 3.  affirm, that those seven spirits( supposing them mere creatures) were invocated of John?▪ Is it because God alone is to be invocated? But that this Reason is of no value, that whole disputation doth demonstrate, not only because it is no where forbidden that we should invocate none but God,( as durum) but also, and much rather, because those interdictions never exclude those who are subordinate to God himself. That is, as was observed before, they exclude none at all; for all Creatures whatever are subordinate to God. To say that they are subordinate as to this end, that under him they may be worshipped is purely to beg the Question. We deny that any is, or may be in such a subordination to God. And the Reasons the man adds of this his Assertion, contain the grand plea of all idolaters, Heathenish, and Antichristian. 
Q●icquid enim ab eo qui subordinationem istam recte novit& mente sua illam probat, in istos conferur, in deum ipsum confertur.  whatever is given to them( saith he) who are in that subordination is given to God. So said the Pagans of old; so the Papists at this day, all redounds to the glory of God, when they worship stocks and stones, because he appoints them so to do. And so said the Israelites when they worshipped the Golden calf: it is a feast to Jehovah. But if John might worship, and invocate( which is the highest Act of Worship) the seven Spirits, Rev. 1. because of their subordination to God, supposing them to be so many Created Spirits, why might he not as well worship the Spirit, or Angel in the end of the book, Chap. 20. 22. who was no less subordinate to God? was the matter so altered during his Visions, that whom he might invocate in the entrance, he might not so much as worship in the close?  
The Racovian catechism takes another course, and tells you, 
§. 32.  that the foundation of the Worship and Adoration of Christ, is, because 
Quid praeterea dominus Iesus huic praecept● primo addidit? Res. Id quod etiamnum dominum jesum pro deo cognoscere ten●mur, id est pro eo qui in nos potestatem habet divinam,& cvi nos divinum exhibere honorem obstricti sumus. Catech. Racov▪ de praecep. Christi.  Christ had added to the first Commandement, that we should aclowledge him for God. That is; he who hath divine Authority ov●r us, to whom we are bound to yield Divine Honour. But  
1. That Iesus Christ, who is not God by Nature, did add to the 
§. 33.  command of God, that he himself should be acknowledged for God, is intolerable Blasphemy; asserted without the least colour or pretence from the Scripture, and opens a door to downright atheism.  
2. The Exposition of his being God, that is, one who hath Divine 
§. 34.  Authority over us, is false: God is a Name of Nature, not of Office and power, Gal: 4. 8. 3. Christ was worshipped and commanded to be worshipped, before his coming in the flesh, Ps. 2. 12. Gen. 48. 16. Exod. 23. 21.  
But if this be added to the First Commandement, that Christ 
§. 35.  be worshipped as God: Then is he to be worshipped with the worship required in the first Commandement: Now this Worship is that which is proper to the only true God, as the very words of it import: Thou shalt have no other Gods▪ but me: how then will Smalcius reconcile himself with his Master, who plainly affirms, that Iesus Christ is not to be worshipped with that ●ivine worship, which is due to God alone; and strives to answer that place of John 5. 23. to the contrary, 
Nos Paul● ante ostendimus divinum cultum, qui Christo debetur,& direct ipsum Christum respicit, non esse illum qui uni illi soli deo convenit. Socin. ad Wieck. re●pon. ad cap. 10. Class. 5. Arg. 6. pag. 422, 423.  that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father. That Christ should be commanded to be worshipped in the First Commandement,( 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 mens Religion: but to proceed.  
Where the formal cause of Divine Worship is not, there Divine 
§. 36.  Worship ought not to be exhibited. But in no Creature there is, or can be the formal cause▪ of Divine Worship; therefore no creature, who is only such, can be worshipped without Idolatry. The formal Reason of any thing is but one; the reason of all worship is Excellency or pre-eminence; The reason of Divine or Religious worship is divine pre-eminence and excellency. Now divine Excellency and pre-eminence is peculiar unto ●he Divine Nature. Wherein is it that God is so infinitely excellent above all creatures? Is it not from his infinitely good, and incomprehensible nature? Now look what difference there is between the Essence of the Creator and the Creature, the same is between their Excellency. Let a Creature be exalted to never so great an height of Dignity and Excellency, yet his dignity is not at all nigher to the dignity and excellency of God; because there is no proportion between that which is infinite, and that which is finite, and limited. If then Excellency and pre-eminence be the cause of worship, and the distance between the excellency of God, and that of the most excellent, and most highly advanced creature, be infinite, it is impossible that the respect and worship due to them, should be of the same kind. Now it is Religious, or Divine Adoration that is due to God, whereof the Excellency of his nature is the formal cause; this then cannot be ascribed to any other. And to whomsoever it is ascribed, thereby do we aclowledge to be in him all divine perfections; which if he be not God by Nature, is gross Idolatry. In sum▪ Adorability( if I may so say) is an absolute incommunicable property of God. Adoration thence arising, a respect that relates to him only.  
I shall for a close of this Chapter proceed to manifest, that 
§. 37.  Christ himself is not by us worshipped, under any other formal Reason, but as he is God; which will add some light to what hath already been spoken. And here least there should be any mistake among the meanest, in a matter of so great consequence, I shall deliver my thoughts to the whole of the worship of Christ in the ensuing observations.  
1. Iesus Christ, the mediator, {αβγδ}, God and Man, 
§. 38.  the Son of God, having assumed {αβγδ},( Luk. 1. 35.) that holy thing, that was born of the Virgin, {αβγδ}, having no subsistence of its own, into personal subsistence with himself, is to be Worshipped with divine Religious worship, even as the Father. By worshipped with Divine Worship, I mean believed in, hoped in, trusted in, invocated as God, as an independent fountain of all good, and a sovereign disposer of all our present, and everlasting concernments; by doing whereof, we aclowledge in him, and ascribe to him all divine perfections; Omni potency, Omniscience, ●nfinite goodness, Omnipresence, and the like.  
This proposition was sufficiently confirmed before. In the Revelation you have the most solemn representation of the divine spiritual worship of the Church, both that militant in the Earth, and that triumphant in the Heavens, and by both is the Worship mentioned given to the Mediator; to him( to Iesus Christ) that washed us in his blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever, amen. Cap. 1. 6. so again the same Church represented by f●wer living Creatures, and 24 Elders, falls down before the Lamb. cap. 5. 8. and 12. worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and glory, and blessing: and v. 13, 14. joint worship is given to him upon the Throne, and to the Lamb▪ by the whole Creation. And every Creature, which is in Heaven and in Earth, and under the Earth, and such as are in the Sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, Honour, Glory, and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever, &c. And this also is particularly done by the Church triumphant, cap. 7. 9, 10. Now the Lamb is neither Christ in respect of the Divine Nature, nor Christ in respect of the human Nature, but it is Christ the Mediator. That Christ was Mediator in respect of both Natures shall in due time be demonstrated. It is then the Person of the Mediator God and Man, who is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the World, to whom all this Honour and Worship is ascribed. This the Apostle perfectly confirms, Rom. 14. 8, 9, 10, 11. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord, whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lords: for to this End Christ both dyed, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living: but why dost thou judge thy Brother, or why dost thou set at nought thy Brother: we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ; For it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. To Christ exalted in his dominion and sovereignty, we live, and die: to him do we bow the knee, and confess, that is, perform all Worship, and stand before him, as at his disposal; we swear by him, as▪ in the place from whence these words are taken.  
2. That our 
Unum Deum,& unum ejus fil●um,& verbum, imagine●q,, quantum possumus supplicationibus,& honoribus veneremur, offerentes Deo univers●rum domino preces per suum unigenitum: cvi pr●us eas adhib●●us rogantes ut ipse, qui est propitiator pro peccatis nostris, dignetur tanquam pontif●x preces nostras,& s●crificia& intercession●s, offer Deo. Origen. ad Celsum lib. 8.  Religious, Divine, and spiritual worship, hath a double, or twofold respect unto Jesus Christ.  
1. As he is the ultimate formal object of our worship, being God to be blessed for evermore, as was before declared. 2. As the way, means,& 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. 1. 2. In the other, we ask the Father in his name, according to his command, joh: 16. 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. 2. 8. the fellow of the Lord of Hosts. In the other, as one that doth intercede yet with the Father, Heb. 7. 25. praying him yet to sand the Comforter to us, being yet in that regard less then the Father; and in which respect, as he is our head, so God is his head, as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor: 11. 3. the Head of every man( that is every believer) is Christ, and the head 
Joh. 14. 6.  of Christ is God; In this sense, is he the way whereby we go to the Father. And through him we have an access to the Father, Eph. 2▪ 18. {αβγδ}. 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, wee look upon Christ as the High Priest over the House of God, Heb. 4. 14, 15, 16. by whom we have admission; who offers up our Prayers and supplications for us, Revel. 8. 3. In this state as he is the head of Angells, and his whole Church, so is he in subordination to the Father, and therefore he is said at the same time to receive Revelations from the Father, and to sand an angel as his servant, on his work and employment; Rev. 1. 1. And thus is he our Advocate with the Father, 1 John 2. 1. In this respect then, seeing that in our access to God, even the Father, as the Father of Him, and His, with our Worship, Homage, Service, our 
John 20. 17.  Faith, Love, Hope, Confidence, and Supplications, eyeing Christ, as our mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, upon whose Account we are accepted, for whose sake we are pardonned, 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 ultimate, adequate, formal object of it: But as the meritorious cause of our Approach and acceptance, and so of great consideration therein. And therefore whereas Rom. 3. 25. it is said, that God hath set him forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood: it is not intended, that Faith fixes on his blood, or blood-shedding, or on him as shedding his blood, as the prime object of it, but as the meritorious cause of our forgiveness of sin, through the righteousness of God. 
§. 41.   
And these two distinct respects have we to Jesus Christ our 
{αβγδ}. Synod. Ephes. An●th. 8. cyril.  Mediator, who is {αβγδ}, God and Man, in our Religious Worship, and all Acts of Communion with him:* As one with the Father we Honour him, Believe in him, Worship him, as we do the Father: As mediator depending on the Father, in subordination to him, so our Faith regards him, we Love him, and Hope in him, as the Way, means, and Meritorious cause of our Acceptance with the Father. And in both these respects we have distinct communion with him.  
3. That Jesus Christ our mediator, {αβγδ}, God and 
§. 42.  Man, who is to be worshipped with Divine or Religious worship, is to be so worshped, 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, Revel. 1. 5, 6. To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God, and his Father, to him be Glory, and Dominion for ever and ever. Who would not love him, who would not ascribe Honour to him, who hath so loved us, and washed us in his own blood? So Revel. 5. 12. there is an Acknowledgement of the power, riches, goodness, wisdom, strength, glory, and blessing, that belongs to him, because, as the Lamb, as mediator, he hath done so great things for us. And I dare say, there is none of his redeemed ones, who finds not the power of this motive upon his heart. The Love of Christ in his Mediation, the work he has gone through in it, and that which he continueth in, the benefits we receive thereby, and 
{αβγδ}. 2 Cor. 5. 14.  our everlasting misery without it, are all chains upon our souls, to bind us to the Lord Christ in Faith, Love, and Obedience. But yet this Mediation of Christ is not the formal and fundamental cause of our worship,( as shall be shewed) but only a motive thereunto. It is not the ratio formalis,& fundamentalis cultus; but only the ratio quia, or an Argument thereunto; Thus God dealing with his people, and exhorting them of old to worship and obedience, he says, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage, thou shall have no other Gods but me. He makes his benefit of bringing 
Exod. 20. 2, 3  them out of the land of Egypt, the reason of that eternally indispensab●e moral Worship, which he requires in the First Commandement; Not that that was the formal cause of that worship, for God is to be worshipped▪ as the first▪ sovereign independent Good, as the absolute Lord of all, and fountain of all Good, whether he gives any such▪ benefits or no: But yet all his Mercies, all his Benefits, every thing he doth for us, in his Providence, in his Grace, as to the things of this life, or of another, are all Arguments and M●tives to press us to the performance of all that Worship and Service, which we owe unto 
Psal. 103. 1, 2.  him, as our God and Creator. Praise the Lord O my soul, for all his Benefits, saith David: So is it in the case of our Mediator. For the work of his Mediation we are eternally obliged to render all Glory, Honour, and Thanksgiving to him. But yet his Mediation is not the formal cause thereof, but only an invincible motive thereunto. Let this therefore be our fourth and last Observation.  
4. Though Jesus Christ, who is our Mediator, God and 
§. 43.  Man, be to be worshipped with Divine worship, as we honour the Father, yet this is not as he is Mediator, but as he is God blessed for evermore. He is not to be worshipped under this red●plication, 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 ultimatly 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 whereof it is the cause or Reason, without any other help doth arise, or result from it. Now the formal cause or Reason of all Divine Worship is the Deity, or Divine Nature: That being granted, Divine worship necessary 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 impossible) Religious worship would not have been yielded to him. And if the Son of God had never been our Mediator, yet he was to be worshipped.  
It is the 
{αβγδ}. Athan. Epist. ad Adelph. Episc.  Deity of Christ then, which is the fundamental, formal cause and Reason, and the proper object of our worship; for that being granted, though we had no other Reason, or argument for it, yet we ought to worship him; and that being denied, all other Reasons and Motives whatever would not be a sufficient cause, or warrant for any such proceeding.  
It is true, Christ hath a power given him of his Father, above 
§. 44.  all Angels, principalities, and powers: called all power in Heaven 
Math. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 7.  and Earth: a name above every name, giving him an excellency, an {αβγδ}, as he is {αβγδ}; as he is the King and head of his Church, which is to be acknowledged, owned, ascribed to him; and the consideration whereof, with his ability and willingness therein to succour, relieve, and save us to the uttermost, in a way of Mediation, is a powerful, effectual motive▪( as was said before) to his worship. But yet this is an Excellency which is distinct from that, which is purely, and properly divine; and so cannot be the formal reason of religious worship. Excellency is the cause of honour: every distinct Excellency& eminence is the cause of honour: every distinct Excellen●y& eminence, is the cause of distinct honour and worship. Now what excellency or dignity soever is communicated by a way of delegation, is distinct, and of another kind▪ from that which is original, infinite, and communicating: and therefore cannot be the formal cause of the same honour and worship.  
I shall briefly give the reasons of the Assertion insisted on▪ 
§. 45.  and so pass on to what remaines.  
The first is taken from the nature of divine, or religious worship. It is that whereby we ascribe the Honour, and 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-sufficient, almighty, all-seeing, omnipotent, eternal, the only rewarder, as such we submit ourselves to him religiously, in Faith, Love, Obedience, Adoration, and Invocation. But now we cannot ascribe these divine Excellencys,& perfections unto Christ, as mediator: for then his Mediation should be the reason why he is all this; which it is not: but it is from his divine nature alone, that so he is; and therefore thence alone is it that he is so worshipped.  
2. Christ under this formal conception( as they speak,) as 
§. 46.  mediator, is not God; but under this, as partaker of the nature of God. Christ as mediator is an expression, as they speak, in the concreté, 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, 
§. 47.  and hath all his power committed to him from God, Math. 11. 27. All things( saith he) are given me of my Father. And Math. 28. 18. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth. Joh. 17. 2. Thou hast given unto him power over all flesh; and in innumerable other places is the same testified. God gives him as mediator his Name, that is, his Authority. Now God is worshipped because he is independent, he is, and there is none besides him. He is {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, the first and the last; And if the reason why we worship God with divine worship be, because he is {αβγδ}, and independent: certainly that wherein Christ is dependant, and in subordination to him, as receiving it from him, cannot be the formal cause of attributing divine worship to him.  
4. Christ in respect of his divine nature is equal with God, 
§. 48.  that is, the Father: 2 Phil. 9, 10. but in respect of his Mediation, he is not equal to him, he is less then he: my Father( saith he) is greater then I. John 14. 28. now whatever is less then God, is not equal to him, is infinitely so; for between God, and that which is not God, there is no proportion neither in Being, nor Excellency. That Christ in respect of his Office is not equal to God is commonly received in that axiom, whereby the arguments thence taken against his Deity are answered; inaequalitas Officii non tollit aequalitatem 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, 
§. 49.  cannot be the formal cause of our worship: for the formal reason of worship can no more cease, then God can cease to be God: for when that ceaseth, we cease to worship him; which whiles he is the Creator, and sovereign Lord of his Creatures, cannot be. Now that the Mediatory Office of Christ shall cease the Holy Ghost affirmeth, 1 Cor. 15. 24. he then gives up his kingdom to God; and there is the same Reason of the other parts of his Mediatory office. It is true indeed, the Efficacy of his Office abideth to Eternity, whilst the Redeemed ones live with God, and praise him; but as to the administration of his Office, that ceaseth, when at the last day the whole work of it shall be perfectly consummated,& he hath saved to the uttermost all that come to God by him.  
The sum of all is, Jesus Christ, God& man, our mediator, 
§. 50.  who is to be worshipped in all things,& invocated as the Father,& whom we ought night and day to honour▪ praise, love, and adore, because of his mediation, and the office of it, which for our sakes he hath undertaken, is so to be honoured and worshipped▪ Not as mediator, exalted of God, and entrusted with all power and dignity from him, but as being equal with him, God to be bessed for ever; his divine nature being the fundamental formal reason of that worship, and proper ultimate object of it. And to close up this digression, there is not any thing that more sharply and severely cuts the throat of the whole sophistical plea of the Socinians, against the Deity of Christ, then this one observation. Themselves acknowedge, 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 mentioned were. Now if there be no possible reason to be assigned for the ●ormall cause of this worship, but his Deity, they must either aclowledge him to be God, or deny themselves to be Christians.  
Some directions( by the way) may be given from that which 
§. 51.  hath been spoken, as to Guidance of our souls in the worship of God: Or in our addresses to the Throne of Grace by Jesus Christ. What God hath discovered of himself unto us, he would have us act faith upon, in all that we have to deal with him in. By this we are assured we worship the true God, and not an Idol, when we worship him, who has revealed himself in his word, and as he has revealed himself. Now God hath declared himself to be three in one, for, there are three that bear witness in Heaven,& these three are one, 1 Joh. 5. 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 {αβγδ}. The son begotten of the Father: having the glory of the only begotten son of God, and so is {αβγδ}, in respect of his Nature, Essence, and Being, not in respect of his Personality, which he hath of the Father. The Spirit is of the Father& the Son. He is often so called, the Spirit of God,& the spirit of the Son. For the 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 soever, He is equally the Spirit of the Father and the son: and is of them both, and from them both. God then, by us is to be worshipped, as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three Persons in this order, and so are we to deal with him in our approaches to him. Not that wear to frame any conception in our minds of distinct substances, which are not; but by Faith closing with this reve●ation of them, we give up our souls in contemplation and admiration of that we cannot comprehend.  
2. There in an external economy and dispensation of the 
§. 52.  persons, in reference to the work of our Salvation,& what we draw nigh to them for: so the Father is considered as the foundation of all Mercy, Grace, Glory, every thing that is dispensed in the Covenant, or revealed in the gospel. The Son receiving all from him: and the Spirit sent by the Son, to effect and complete the whole good pleasure of God in us,& toward us;& in,& under the consideration of this economy, is God of us to be worshipped.  
All things( saith Christ) are given me of the Father Math. 11. 27. 
§. 53.  that is, to me, as mediator; therefore come to me: And in his prayer Joh. 17. 8. I have given to them the words thou gavest unto me, and they know that I came out from thee, and believe that thou hast sent me. So most fully Joh. 3. 34, 35. He is sent of God, and from the love of the Father to him as mediator are all things given him, it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell Joh. 1. 16. Col. 23. Joh. 5. 26. He hath given him to have life: that is, as he is Mediator, appointed him to be the fountain of spiritual life to his elect and Revel▪ 1. 1. the Revelation of the will of God is given unto Christ by the Father, as to this end of discovering it to the Church.  
Hence ariseth the second way of faiths acting itself toward 
§. 54.  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,& the Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers the son under those two distinct notions. 1. As the Ordinance and servant of the Father, in the great work of Mediation: so it loves him, delights in him, and rejoiceth in the wisdom of God, in finding out, and giving such a means of Life, Salvation, and union with himself; and so by Christ believes in God, even the Father. It considers him 2ly as the way of going to the Father, and there it rests, a● the ultimate object of all the Religious actings of the soul. So we are very often said, through, and by Christ, to believe in God, by him to have an access to God, and an entrance to the throne of grace. In this sense, I say, when we draw nigh to God, in any religious worship yea in all the first actings, and movings of our souls towards him in faith, and love, the Lord Christ is considered as Mediator, as clothed with his offices, as doing the will of the Father, as serving the design of his Love: and so the soul is immediately fixed on God, through Christ, being strengthened, supported, and sustained by the consideration of Christ, as the only procuring cause of all the good things we seek from God, and of our interest in those excellencies, which are in him, which make him excellent to us.  
And this is the general consideration that faith hath of 
§. 55.  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 ●mediately in our eye, as the primary object of our worship. But yet now again, this Christ, as mediator, so sent& entrusted by the Father, as above, is also one with the Father, God to be blessed for evermore. Faith also takes in this consideration,& so he who before was the 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& above then the distinction that the eternal Persons have in the manner of in-being in the same Essence, which also is the object of our Faith: that distinction which they have in the external economy, is to be considered in our Religious worship of God: and herein is Christ partly eyed as the Fathers servant, the means, and cause of all our communion with God, and so is the medium of our worship, not the object; partly as God and man vested with that office, and so he is the object primary, and ultimate of it also: And this may give us( I say) some assistance to order our thoughts aright towards God, and some light into that variety of expressions, which we have in Scripture, about worshipping of God in Christ: and worshipping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the Spirit.  
Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may 
§. 56.  be worth the while, a little to consider the condition of our Adversaries, in reference to this business, wherein of all other things( as I said before) they are most entangled. Of the contests and disputes of Socinus with Franciscus David, about this business, I have given the Reader an account formerly, and the little success he had therein. The man would fain have stood, when he had kicked away the ground from under his feet, but was not able. And never was he more shamefully gravelled in any dispute, then 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 subtle fellow, who, denying 
§. 57.  with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently, that it was impossible to find out a foundation of yielding Religious worship or Adoration unto him. With him, about this matter, Socinus had a solemn dispute in the house of one 
Disputatio inter Faustum Socinum & Christianum Franken de honore Christi, id est, utrum Christus cum ipse perfectissima ratione deus non sit, religiosa tamen adoratione colendus sit, Habita, 14. Martii. An. 1584. in aula Christophori Paulicovii.  Paulicovius. An. 1584. March 14. Franken in this Disputation was the opponent, and his first Argument is this. 
Quanta d●stantia inter Creatorem est& creaturam, tanta ●sse debet differentia inter hononorem qui creatori exhibetur,& qui creaturae tribuitur: atqui inter creatorem& creaturam maxima est distantia; sieve essentiam& naturam spectes, sieve dignitatem& excellentiam: Ergo& maxima esse debet differentia inter honor●m Dei& Creaturae: at honor qui prae●ipue debetur Deo est religiosa adoratio, ergo haec non est tribuenda creaturae; ergo neque Christo, quem tu puram esse creaturam fateris: de adorat. Christi disput. cum Christoph. Fran p. 4.  Look how great distance there is between the Creator and the Creature, so great ought the difference to be between the Honour that is exhibited to the one, and the other: But between the Creator and the Creature there is the greatest difference, whether you respect nature and Essence, or dignity& excellency, and therefore there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of the Creator and the Creature. But the honour that chiefly is due to God, is religious worship, therefore this is not to be given to a Creature, therefore not to Christ, whom you confess to be a mere Creature. This I say was his first Argument. To which Socinus 
Etsi summ● est inter Deum& creaturam distantia, non tamen necesse est, tantam esse differentiam inter honore● Dei et creaturae, nam potest deus cvi vult communicare honorem suum, Christo praesertim, qui dignus est tali▪ honore, quique non sine grávissimis causis ad●●ari jubetur in sacris literis. disputat. de adorat. Christi. pag. 6.  Answers: Although the difference between God and the Creature be the greatest, yet it doth not follow, that the difference▪ between their honour must be so; for God can communicate his honour to whom he will, especially to Christ, who is worthy of such honour, and who is not commanded to be worshipped without weighty causes for it.  
But by the favour of this Disputant, God cannot give that 
§. 58.  honour that is due unto him upon the account of his Excellency and eminency, as he is the first cause of all things, and the last end, which is the ground of divine worship, to any one, who hath not his nature; The honour due to God, cannot be given to him who is not God. His honour, the honour of him as God, is that which is due to him as God; now that he should give that honour, that is due to him as God, to him which is not God, is utterly impossible and contradictory to its self. 2. We confess that there be most weighty causes, why Christ should be worshipped, yet but one formal Reason of that worship we can acknowledge. And therefore when Franken had taken off this absurd answer, by sundry instances,& Reasons, Socinus is driven to miserable evasions: first he cries out, 
Ad illa omnia tes●imoni● ego possum respondere p. 7.  I can answer all these testimonies: to which when the other replied, And I can give a probable answer to all the texts you produce, arguing the adoration of Christ: being driven to hard shifts he adds, 
De veritate meae sententiae tam sum certus, quam certo scio me istum pileum manibus tenere. pag. 9.  I am as certain of the truth of my 
e Et ego ad omnes tuos locos, Christi adorationem ●gen●es, probabilem p●●ero responsionem ●fferre. pag. 8.  opinion, as I am, that I hold this hat in my hand; Which is a way of arguing that is commonly used by men that have nothing else to say. Wherefore Franken laughs at him, and tells him, 
Tua ista certitudo non potest& mihi& aliis esse veritatis regula, nam reperietur alius quispiam, qui dicat, sententi●m tu● contrariam ex sacris libris▪ sibi esse persuasissimā. ▪ 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 of the contrary opinion; so that prevailing nothing by this means, he is forced to turn the Tables,& instead of an answer, which he could not give to Frankens Argument, to become opponent, and urge an Argument against him: saith he, My certainty of this thing is as true, as it is true, that the Apostle saith of Christ, let all the Angels of God worship him But by the favour of this disputant, this is not his business. He was to answer Frankens Argument, whereby he proved, that he was not to be worshipped; and not to have 
h Tam vera est hac de re mea▪ certitud●, quam verum est Apostolum de Christo dixisse, adorent eum omnes Angeli. pag. 10.  brought a contrary Testimony, which is certainly to be interpnted 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 
§. 59.  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 
Duplex est adoratio, altera quidem quae sine ullo medio dirigitur in Deum: altera vero per medium Christum defertur ad Deum; illa adoratio est soli Deo propria, haec vero convenit Christo tantum▪ pag. 11.  Christ only: Now he is blind that doth not see, that for what he doth here to save himself, that he doth not beg the thing in question; who granted him that there wa a twofold Religious worship? One of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer for a man to repeat his own Hypothesis, to answer an Argument lying directly against it. 2. He grants 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 
Estne utraque adoratio ista ejusde● speciei. pag. 11.  same kind or no? To which he answered, that it was, because it 
Est, quia adoratio Christi est ipsius Dei, quip quae in Christo non conquiescat, said per eum trans 〈…〉 in Deum. pag. 12. Hoc sequetur, quod ipsius etiam Christi imago sit adoranda, qui● una& ead●m adoratio respicit in imaginem, tanquam medium, in Christum tanquam finem, quemadmodum Thomas Aquinas docet, a quo tuum tu commentum es mutuatus. p. 13.  abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which after the interposition of another entangling Question, the man thus replys upon him. m This then will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshipped, because one& the sam● worship respects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Th. Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment: Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a Table, showing how it passed by some hands, where truly it was, but stayed not until it came to the end: For which gross Allusion he was sufficiently derided by his Adversary. I shall not insist on the other Arguments, wherewith on his own Hypothesis he was miserable gravelled by this Franken: and after all his pretence of reason, forced to cry out, these are philosophical Arguments; and contrary to the gospel. The Disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication, which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.   

CHAP. XX.  
Of the Priestly Office of Christ: How he was a Priest: when He entred on his Office: and how He dischargeth it.  

Mr BIDDLE'S 11h Chap. Examined.  
HIS 11th Chapter is, concerning the Priestly Office of Jesus 
§. 1.  Christ. In the First and Second Question he grants Him to be a Priest, from( Heb. 4. 14.) and to be appointed to that Office by the Father, from Heb. 5. 5. The remainder of the Chapter is spent in sundry attempts to prove, that Christ was not a Priest, whilst he was on the Earth▪ as also to take off from the End of his Priest-hood, with the benefit redounding to the Church thereby.  
For the first, a man would suppose M. Biddle were faire and 
§. 2.  ingenious in his Concessions, concerning the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: May we but be allowed to propose a few Questions to him, and to have Answers suggested according to the Analogy of his Faith, I suppose his acknowledgement of this Truth will be found to come exceedingly short of what may be expected. Let him therefore show, whether Christ be an High Priest properly so called, or only in a Metaphoricall 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 M. 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 Metaphoricall; 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 ensuing discourse, will hinder me from insisting much on the demonstration of this, that Christ was a Priest properly so called, and offered to God a 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 
§. 3.  of His Office of His Mediation, was, and is a Priest, an High Priest, that it is amongst all that aclowledge 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 an High Priest properly so called; and then evince when he was so; or when he entred on that Office. This first is evident from that description, or definition of an High Priest, which the Apostle gives, Heb. 5. 1. Every High Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men, that he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifices for sin. That this is the description of an High Priest properly so called, is manifest from the Apostles accommodation of this Office spoken of to Aaron, or his exemplifying of the way of entrance thereinto, from that of Aaron, v. 4. And no man taketh this Honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. That is, to be such an High Priest as Aaron was, which here he describes. One that had that honour, which Aaron had. Now certainly Aaron was an High Priest properly and truly, if ever any one was so in the World. That Jesus Christ was such an High Priest, as is here described, yea that he is the very High Priest so described by the Holy Ghost, appears upon this twofold consideration. 1. In general; the Apostle accommodates this definition, or description of an High Priest to Iesus Christ, v. 5. So also Christ glorified not himself, to be made a High Priest. Were it not that very Priesthood of which he Treats, that Christ was so called to; it were easy so to reply: true! to a proper Priesthood a man must be called, but that which is improper& Metaphoricall 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 an High Priest, if this be the description of such an one.  
1. He was taken from amongst men. That great prophecy of him 
§. 4.  so describes him, Deut. 18. 18. I will raise you up a Prophet from AMONG YOUR BRETHREN. He was taken 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. 7. 13, 14. For he, of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another Tribe: For it is evident, that our Lord sprung out of Juda. And the Family he was of in that Tribe, namely that of David, is every where mentioned. God raised up the horn of Salvation in the House of his Servant David, Luk. 1. 69.  
2. He was ordained for men, {αβγδ}, as to things appointed 
§. 5.  by God: {αβγδ}, 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 Ordination to this Office, 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, &c. He had his Ordination from God: He who made him both Lord and Christ, made him also an High Priest; and he was made in a more solemn manner then ever any Priest was; even by an Oath, chap. 7. 20, 21. For as much as no● without an Oath, &c. and he was so appointed for men, to preside and 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, Heb. 3. 6. Christ is as a Son over his own house, whose house are we. He is for us, and over us, in the things of the Worship, and house of God. And that he was ordained for men, the Holy Ghost assures us farther, chap. 7. 26. Such an High Priest BECAME US; he was so, for us: which is the first part of the description of an High Priest, properly so called.  
3. The prime and peculiar end of this Office, is to offer Gifts, 
§. 6.  and Sacrifice for sin. And as we shall abundantly manifest afterwards, 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 an High Priest, chap. 8. 3. For every High Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity, that this man have somewhat also to Offer. The force of the Apostles Argument, concerning the necessity of the offering of Christ, lies thus: Every High Priest is to offer Gifts and Sacrifices; but Christ is an High Priest; therefore he must have somewhat to Offer. Now if Christ was not a Priest properly so called, it is evident his Argument would be inconclusive; for from that which is properly so, to that which is only so Metaphorically, and as to some likeness, and proportion, no Argument will lie: for instance; 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 an High Priest properly so called, in all the parts of it, belonging unto Christ, it is necessary that the thing defined belong also unto him.  
2. He who is a Priest, according to the Order of a True and real 
§. 7.  Priesthood, he is a True, and real Priest. Believers are called Priests, Rev. 1. 5. And are said to Offer up Sacrifices to God; spiritual 
Heb. 13. 16.  Sacrifices, such as God is pleased with. 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 
1 Pet. 2. 9. Ephes. 2. 18. Heb. 10. 22.  of some Allusion to, and Resemblance of the Priests of Old, in their access unto God. This will also by the way discover the vanity of them among us, who would have the sisters 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, then by affirming, that Priest was an abbreviation 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 appoynted 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 Melchisedeck, Psal. 110. 4. which the Apostle often insists on, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If you say, that Christ is called an High Priest, after the Order of Melchisedeck, not properly, but by reason of some proportion, and Analogy, or by way of Allusion to him: you may as well say, that he was a Priest according to the order of Aaron; there being a great similitude between them, against which the Apostle expressly disputes in the whole 7. chap. 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 
§. 8.  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 
§. 9.  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 Metaphorically only so in any kind, is clearly and evidently less so, then that which is properly, and directly so. If Christ be Metaphorically only a Priest, He is less then Aaron on that consideration. He may be far●e more excellent then Aaron in other respe●●s, yet in respect of the Priesthood he is l●sse excellent, which ●s 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 an High Priest: which was the first thing designed for confirmation.  
The Racovian catechism doth not directly ask or answer this 
§. 10.  Question, whether Christ be an High Priest properly so called, but yet insinuates its Authors Judgement expressly to the contrary. 
Munus igitur Sacerdotale in eo situm est, quod quemadmodum pro Regio munere pote●t nobis in omnibus nostris necessitatibus subvenire: it● pro munere Sacerdotali subvenire vult, ac porro subvenit; Atque haec illius subveniendi, seu opis afferendae ratio, sacrificium ejus appellatur. Catec. Rac. de Mun. Chr. Sacer. p. 1.  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.  
Thus they begin. But 1. That any Office of Christ should 
§. 11.  bespeak power to relieve us, without a Will, as is here affirmed of his Kingly, is a proud, foolish, and ignorant fancy. Is this enough for a King among men, that he be 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 as well willing, as able to save, Isa 32. 1, 2▪ 2. Christ as an High Priest, is no less able, then willing also,&, as a King, he is no less willing, then able, Heb. 7. 27. That is, as a King he is both able and willing to save us, as to the Application of salvation, and the 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 afterwards.  
But they proceed to give us their whole sense, in the next 
§. 12.  Question and Answer, which are as followeth.  
Why is this way of his affording help called a Sacrifice? 

Quare haec ejus opis afferendae ratio Sacrificium vocatur?  
Vocatur ita figura●o loquendi mod●, quod quemadmodum in prisco foedere summus Pontifex ingressus in sanctum sanctorum, ea quae ad expianda peccata populi spectarent, perficiebat, it● Christus nunc pene●ravit caelos, ut illic Deo appareat pro nobis,& omnia ad expiationem peccatorum nostrorum spectanti● peragat. Heb. 2. 17. & 4. 14.& 5. 1.& 9. 24. De Mun. Chr. Sacerdot. Q. 2.    
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 entred the Heavens, that there he might appear before God for us, and perform all things that belong to the expiation of our sins.  
The sum of what is here insinuated, is, 1. That the Sacrifice of Christ is but a figurative Sacrifice, and so consequently, that he himself is a figurative Priest: for as the Priest is, such is his Sacrifice: Proper, if proper; metaphoricall, if metaphoricall●; what say our Catechists for the proof hereof? they have said it; not one word of Reason, or any one Testimony of Scripture is produced to give countenance to this figment. 2. That the High Priest made atonement and expiation of sins, only by his entering into the most holy place, and what he did there: which is notoriously false, and contrary to very many express Testimonies of Scripture, Levit. 4. 3, 13, 21, 27. chap. 5. 16. chap 6. 5, 6, 7. Levit. 16. &c. 3. That Christ was not an High Priest, until he entred the holy place; of which afterwards. 4. That he made not expiation of our sins, until he entred heaven, and appeared in the presence of God: Of the Truth whereof, let the Reader consult Heb. 1. 3. If Christ be a figurative Priest, I see no reason why he is not a figurative King also; and such indeed those men seem to make him.  
The second thing proposed is, that Christ was an High Priest, 
§. 13.  whilst he was on the the Earth; and offered a sacrifice to God. I shall here first answer what was objected by M. Biddle to the contrary, and then confirm the truth itself.  
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 
§. 14.  Jesu Christo servatore against Covet. For some time the venom of that error was not taken notice of. Six yeares after, as himself telleth us,( 
Nam annos abhinc sex atque eo amplius idem paradoxum in mea de Jesu Christo servat●re disputatione sine dubio legisti. Faust. Socin. Res. ad Joh: Niemojev. Ep. 1.  Epistola ad Niemojev. 1.) 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,& 
Verum non sine maerore,( ne quid gravius addam) incidi inter legendum in quoddam paradoxon, dum Chri●tum in morte, sieve in cruce sacrificium obtulisse perneagas, Joh. Niemojev. Epist. 1. ad Faust. Socin.  asks him sharply( in substance) if he was not mad to affirm a thing so contrary to express Texts of Scripture.( Epist Joh. Niemojev. 1. ad Faust. Socin.) Before him, that atheistical monk Ochinus had dropped some few things in his Dialogues hereabout. Before him also Abailardus had made an entrance into the same abomination, of whom sa●es 
Vide Bernard. Epist. 109.  Bernard( Epistola 190.) Habemus in Francia novum de Doctore Magistro theologum: qui ab ineunte aetate sua in arte Dialectica lusit,& nunc in scriptures sacris insanit.  
How the whole Nation of the Socinians have since consented 
§. 15.  into this notion of their Master, I need not manifest. It is grown one of the Ar●icles of their Creed;( as this man here lay● it down among the substantial grounds of Christian Religion.) Confessedly on their part, the whole doctrine of the satisfact●on of Ch●ist, and Justification turns on this hinge. For though we have other innumerable demonstrations of the Truth we assert, yet as to them, if this be proved, no more is needful For if Christ was a Priest,& offered himself a Sacrifice it cannot but be a Sacrifice of atonement, seeing it was by blood& death. Crellius tells us, that Christ dyed for us on a double account; 
Etenim mortem, Christus subiit, duplici ratione: partim quidem, ut faederis mediator, seu sponsor,& quoddle testator quidem partim ut Sacerdas Deo ipsum oblaturus. Crell. de cause. ●ort. Christi p. 6.  Partly as the Mediator, and surety of the New Covenant; Partly as a Priest, that was to offer himself to God. A man might think he granted Christ to have been a Priest on the Earth, and as such to have offered himself a Sacrifice. So also doth 
Partes hu●us maneris haec sunt potissim um; mactatio victimae, in Tabernaculum ad oblationem peragen●am ●ngressio,& ex ●odem egressio. Ac mactatio quidem mortem Christi violentam, sanguinisque profusionem conti●et. Volkel de vera relic. lib. 3. cap. 37. p. 145.  Volkelius allow the killing of the Sacrifice, to represent the death of Christ. Now the killing of the Sacrifice, was the Sacrificing of it. So Stuckus proves from that of the Poet, Et nigram mactabis ovem, lucumque revises. But Crellius afterwards expounds himself, and tells us, 
In morte utrumque munus( Mediatoris,& Sacerdotis) quoddle coi●:& prius quidem in ea definite, eaque confirmatur postremum autem incipit,& ad Christus fuit quodammodo praeparatus. p. 8.  that this two fold Office of Christ( then 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 
Hin● co●●igitur solam Christi mortem, nequaqu●m illam perfectam absolutamque ipsius oblationem de qua in Epist. a● Hebraeos agitur, fuisse— said principium& praeparationem quandam istius Sacerdotii in caelo demum administrandi, extitisse. idem. ibid.  Volkelius doth the like; with a sufficient contradiction to his Assertion, calling the death of Christ the beginning and entrance of his Priesthood. For his Mediatorship Crellius telleth us that it is most evident, that Christ there in was subordinate to God: so he Phrases it; that is, he was a mediator with us, from God, and not at all 
Jam vero satis apparet, Christum priori modo spectatum, penitus Deo subordinatum esse. p. 6.  with God for us. And this he proves, because he 
Neque enim vel ipsum ingessit, vel a nobis missus est ad faedus inter Deum,& nos peragendum: said Dei, qui ipsum in hunc finem miserat, minister, ac internuntius h●c in parte fuit. p. 7.  Put not himself into this Office, nor was put it into it by us, so to confirm the Covenant between God and us; but was a Minister and Messenger of God. who sent him for this purpose. But the folly of this shall be afterwa●ds manifested. Christ was given of God, by his own consent, to to be a M●diatour, for us, and to lay down his life a ransom for us.( 1. Tim. 2. 4, 5, 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 priest hood He is at a loss. 
Cum vero consideratur ut Sacerdos, etsi similitude nem refert ejus, qui Deo aliquid hominum nomine pr●stet. Si tamen rem ipsam penitius spectes, deprehendes, talem cum esse sacerdotem, qui Dei nomine nobis aliquod praeslet. pag. 7.  When( saith he) he is considered as a Priest( for that he was properly a Priest he denys, calling it Sacerdotit,& oblatioonis metaphora) although he seemeth 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.  
This proof is, {αβγδ}. But this is no new thing with these men. Because Christ as an High Priest, doth something with us for God, therefore He did nothing with God for us. As though because the High Priest of old, was ov●● the House of God, and ruled therein; therefore he did not offer Sacrifices to God for the sins of the People. All that Crellius in his ensuing Discourse hath to prove this by, is, because as h● saith, Christ Offered not his Sacrifice until he came to Heaven. Which because he p●oves not, nor endeavoures to do it, we may see what are the Texts of Scripture urged for the confirmation of that conceit by M. B. and others.  
Seeing all the proofs collected for this purpose are out of the 
§. 16.  Epistle to the Hebrewes, 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 eleventh Question.) thus insinuated; Why would God have Christ come to his Priestly Office by suffering? According 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. 2. 10. 17, 18.  
Ans. 1. The Apostle doth not say absolutely, that it became 
§. 17.  Christ to be made like us, that he might be an High Priest, but that he might be a merciful high Priest. That is, his suffering and death were not required antecedently, that he might be a Priest, but they were required to the Excecution of that End of his Priesthood, which consists in Sympathy and Sufferance together with them, in whose stead he was a Priest. He sustained all his Afflictions, and death itself, not that he might be a Priest, but that being merciful, and having experience, he might on that account be ready to succour them that are Tempted; and this the words of the last verse do evidently evince to be the meaning of the Holy Ghost: in that he suffered, being tempted. 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 an High Priest {αβγδ}, to make Reconciliation for the sins of the People. Now that Reconciliation was made by his death and blood the Scripture informs us, Rom. 5. 10. Whilst we were enemies, we were reconciled by the death of his son. Dan. 9. 24. So that even from this place of Scripture, produced to the contrary, it is evident, that Christ was an high Priest on Earth, because he was so when he made reconciliation, which he did in his death on the cross.  
But yet M. Biddles candid tour in this business may 
§. 18.  be remarked; with his Huckstering the word of God. He reads the words in this order: It became him to make the captain of their Salvation perfect through fuffering; that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest. Who would not conclude, that this is the series and tenor of the Apostles 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 suffering, are part of the 10. verse: that he might be a merciful High Priest, part of the 17. Between which two there intercedes a Discourse of a business quiter of another nature; namely, his being made like his Bretheren in taking on him the seed of Abraham, whereof these words, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, are the immediate issue: That is, he had a body prepared him, that he might be a Priest, an● have a Sacrifice. Our High Priest was exercised with sufferings and temptations, says the Apostle: Jesus was exercised with sufferings and temptations, that he might be our High Priest, says M. Biddle.  
Heb. 8. 1, 2. is insisted on to the same purpose in his third 
§. 19.  Question, which is; What manner of High Priest is Christ?  
Ans. Heb. 8. 1, 2. We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens. A Minister of the Sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle, &c. I name this in the next place, because it is coincident with that of Ch. 4. 14.( insisted on by Socinus, though omitted by our Author.)  
Hence it is inferred, that Christ entred the Heavens before he was an High Priest; and is an High Priest only when he is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on High.  
Ans. That Christ is an high Priest there also, we grant? that he is so there only, there is not one word in the place cited to prove. Heb. 4. 14. saith indeed, that our High Priest is entred into the Heavens; but it says not, that he was not our High Priest before he did so. As the High Priest of the Jews entred into the Holy place, but yet he was an High Priest before, or he could not have entred into it. He is such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of Majesty; that is, not like the typical High Priest who dyed, and was no more; but he abides in his Office of Priesthood; not to Offer Sacrifice, for that he did once for all, but to intercede for us for ever.  
Heb. 8 4. is nextly produced in Answer to this Question. 
§. 20.   
Was not Christ a Priest whilst he was upon Earth, namely when he dyed on the cross? Ans. Heb. 8 4. Chap. 7. 15, 16.  
The same Question and Answer is given by the Racovian catechism, and this is the main place insisted on by all the Socinions: 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. {αβγδ} may be interpnted of the state and Condition of him spoken of, and not of the place wherein he was. If he were {αβγδ} 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. 3. v. 2. we are commanded not to mind {αβγδ}; that is terrene things, earthly things. And v. 5. mortify your members, {αβγδ}, that is, your Earthly members.  
2. If the word signify the place, and not the Condition of the things, whereof they are, they may be referred to the Tabernacle, of which he speaks, and not to the High Priest. v. 2. the Apostle tells us, that he is the Minister, or Priest of the true Tabernacle, which God made, and not man: and then v. 3. that in the other Tabernacle there were Priests that Offered daily sacrifices: So that saith he, if this Tabernacle {αβγδ}, 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 
§. 21.  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 continue on the Earth, and to have done what Priests did, or were to do upon the Earth, there was neither need of him, nor room for him: but now is He a Priest, seeing he was not to take upon him their work; but had an eternal Priest-hood of his own to Administer. There is no more in this place, then there is, Chap. 7. 19, 23, 24. which is a 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 v. 13, 14, 15. of Chap. 7. 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 Heavenly. So that neither doth this at all evince, that Christ was not a Priest of the order of Melchisedeck, even before his ascension.  
To this Heb. 7. 15, 16. is urged, and those words; after the 
§. 22.  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 Priest-hood of Melchisedeck, or a Priest-hood 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 {αβγδ}, according to the Law of a carnal Commandement: that is, by carnal rights and ceremonies, by carnal oil and Ordinances; but this man is made a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck, {αβγδ}, 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 dayes, yet his Person was never dissolved, as to the Administration of his Office of Priest-hood: which is the thing spoken of, and in respect of that he had an endless life.  
Quest 9. is to the same purpose. How did Christ enter into the 
§. 23.  Holy place to offer himself?  
Ans. By his own blood, Heb. 9. 12.  
Ans. Would not any one imagine, that it was said in the Scripture, that Christ entred into the Holy place to Offer himself; that, that is taken for granted, and the modus, or manner how he did it, is alone enqui●ed after? This is but one part of the Sophistry M. 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 entred thereinto, to appear in the presence of God for us. Christ entred by his own blood into the holy place, in as much as having  shed and offered his blood a sacrifice to God, with the efficacy of it he entred into his presence, to carry on the work of his Pri●sthood in his intercession for us. As the High Priest, having offered without, a Sacrifice to God, entred with the blood of it into the most holy place, there to perfect and complete the duties of his Office, in offering, and interceding for the people.  
The remaining Questions of this Chapter may be speedily 
§. 24.  dispatched. His sixth is.  
What benefit happeneth by Christs Priesthood?  
Ans. Heb. 5. 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 Priesthood principally, and eminently Christ is become the Author of Salvation, we shall not dissent, as to this Question and Answer. Only we add as to the manner, that the way whereby Christ by his Priesthood became the Author of Salvation, consists principally in the Offering up of himself to death, in, and by the shedding of his blood, whereby he obtained for us eternal Redemption, Heb. 9. 14, 26.  
But this M. B. makes enquiry after. Qu. 8. How can Christ save 
§. 25.  them by his Priesthood? Ans. Heb. 7. 25. Heb. 9. 28.  
Ans. 1. We aclowledge the use of the Intercession of Christ, for the carrying on, and the completing of the work of our Salvation: as that also it is the Apostles design there, to manifest his Ability to save, beyond what the aaronical Priests could pretend unto, which is mentioned chap. 7. 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,( Redemption being meritoriously procured thereby) I suppose M. 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 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 v. 26. that the Apostle there speaks.  
There is not any thing else, that is needful for me to insist 
§. 26.  upon in this Chapter; for though the Scripture instructs us in many other uses, that we are to make of the Doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ, then what he expresses in his last question, yet that being one Eminent one 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, M. 
§. 27.  B. acknowledging that Christ is an 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 an High Priest whilst he was upon Earth, and show afterwards what he had to Offer, with the Efficacy of his Sacrifice, and the Intent thereof. First, the Scripture will speedily determine the difference, Eph. 5. 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: 5. 1. He is one taken from amongst men, and ordained to offer Gifts, and Sacrifices for sins. Now thus did Christ do, i● his giving himself for us: {αβγδ}, 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. 5. 25. Gal. 2. 22. Rom. 8. 32. Rom. 4. 25 {αβγδ}. In that delivery of himself he Sacrificed; therefore he was then a Priest.  
To this Socinus invented an Answer, in his Book de Servatore, 
§. 28.  which he insists on again Epist. 2. ad Niemojev. and whereunto 
Volkel. de ver. relic. lib. 3. cap. 37. p. 461.  his followers have added nothing, it being fixed on by them all; in particular by Smalcius in Catech. Racov. And yet it is in itself ludicrous, and almost jocular. The words they tell us are thus to be red, {αβγδ}. and there they place a point in the verse. {αβγδ}: without any dependence upon the former words, making this to be the sense of the whole. Christ gave himself to death for us; and O what an offering was that to God, and O what a Sacrifice! that is in a metaphoricall 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. 4. 18. That is: the Dying of Christ was praeclarum facinus, as Volkelius speaks. But,  
1. It is easy to Answer or avoid any thing by such ways as this; divide, cut off sentences in the dependence of the words, and you may make what sense of them you please; or none at all.  
2. These words, {αβγδ}, have no other word to be regulated by, but {αβγδ}: and therefore must relate thereunto; and Christ is affirmed in them to have given himself an offering, and a Sacrifice▪  
3. These word an Offering and a Sacrifice, are not a commendation of Christs giving himself, but an illustration, and a description 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. 5. 6, 7. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest 
§. 29.  for ever, after the Order of M●lchisedeck: who in the dayes of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears, unto him that was able to save him from Death. v. 6. The Apostle tells us, that he was a Priest, and v. 7. what he did by virtue of that Priesthood, {αβγδ}: It is a temple expression of the Office of a Priest, that is used. So v. 1 An High Priest is appointed {αβγδ}, that he may offer. Now when did Christ do this. It was in the dayes of his flesh, with strong cries 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 concomitants 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. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins, sate down at the Right hand of the Majesty on high. The purging of our sins 
§. 30.  was by Sacrifice; There was never any other way {αβγδ}; but now Christ did this before his Ascension: {αβγδ}, when he had himself, or after he had purged our sins; and that {αβγδ}, 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 wash us from all our sins. And Heb. 
1 Joh. 1. 7.  10. 10. sanctified, is the same with purged: and this through the offering of the body of Christ, {αβγδ} Christ then offering this Sacrifice whilst he was on the Earth, was a Priest in so doing.  
Unto this may be added sundry others of the same import, C. 7. 27. Who needed not daily, as those High Priests, to offer up Sacrifice, 
§. 31.  first for his own sins, and then for the peoples; for this he did once, when he offered up himself. The one Sacrifice of Christ is here compared to the daily Sacrifices of the Priests. Now those daily Sacrifices were not performed in the most holy place, whither the High Priest entred 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 entred the Holy Place, not made with hands.  
And Ch 9. 12. He entred by his own blood into the holy place, {αβγδ}, after he had obtained eternal redemption. Redemption 
§. 32.  is every where in the Scripture ascribed to the blood of Christ. And himself abundantly manifesteth on what account 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●●s, is as evident, ch. 9. 26. He puts away sin( which is our Redemption) by the Sacrifice of himself; so that this Sacrifice of himself was before he entred 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 sate down at the Right hand of the Majesty on high, which was to be proved from them.  
4. Christ is often said to offer himself once for all: designing by that expression some individual Action of Christ, and not such 
§. 33.  a continued course of tour, as is his presentation of himself in Heaven; or the continuation of his oblation, as to its efficacy by his Intercession; so Heb: 7. 27. {αβγδ}. Heb: 9. 28. {αβγδ}. &c. 10. 10. v 12, 14. In all these places the offering of Christ is not only said to be one, but to be once offered; now no offering of Christ, besides that which he offered on the Earth, can be said to be once offered. For that which is don in Heaven is done 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 Christs 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 {αβγδ}, as to be opposed unto {αβγδ}, whereby the Apostle expresses that of the aaronical Sacrifice, which in two other words he had before delivered; they were offered {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}; that is, {αβγδ}, in which sense his offering himself in Heaven cannot be said to be done {αβγδ}, but only that on the cross. Besides, he was {αβγδ} v. 28. and how he did that we are informed, 1 Pet. 2. 24. {αβγδ}: he did it in his body on the three.  
Besides, the Apostle Heb. 9. 26. tells us, that he speaks of such 
§. 34.  an offering, as was accompanied with suffering: he must have often 
§. 34.  suffered since the foundation of the World: It was such an offering, as could neither be repeated, nor continued without suffering that he treats of. We do not deny, that Christ offers 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 therefore there was he a Priest.  
5. Once more; that Sacrifice which answered those Sacrifices, 
§. 35.  whose Blood was never carried into the Holy place; that must be performed on earth, and not in Heaven. That many proper Sacrifices were offered as types of Christ, whose blood was not carried into the Holy place, the Apostle assures us, Heb. 10. 11. The 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 Sacrifices 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 asserted by the Apostle, Heb. 7. 27. Who needeth not daily as those High Priests, to offer up Sacrifices, for this he did once, when he offere up himself. Those Sacrifices which were offered {αβγδ}, daily, were types of the Sacrifice of Christ; and that of his, which was offered {αβγδ}, did answer thereunto; which was his death, and nothing else.    

CHAP. XXI.  
Of the Death of Christ, the Causes, Ends, and Fruits thereof, with an entrance into the Doctrine of his Satisfaction thereby.  
MR Biddles 12th Chapter is concerning the Death of Christ, 
§. 1.  the Causes, and Fruits, and Ends thereof: The error and mistake whereabout, 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 
§. 2.  Sufferings 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 Second Great Article of the Creed, which they 
Vid. Faust. Socin. de Jes. Christ. Servator. Praelect: Theol. Lect. Saec. Paeraen. ad Volan. Epistola ad Niemojev. Thes. de justif. small: Ref. Thes. Fran. adv. Smigl. Nov. Monst. Catec. Rac. &c. Crelli. de cause. Mor. Christ. Vindic. ad Grot. Volkel. Ver. relic. Christ. Ostored. Institut. cap. 11. Schlicting. Epist. ad Hebrae. &c.  labour to assert and maintain.  
There is not any thing about which they have laid out so 
§. 3.  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 
§. 4.  difficulty he got it to be entertained, with the men of his own profession, as to the Doctrine of the Trinity, has been before declared. What weight he laid upon this opinion about the 
Preface.  Death of Christ, and the opposition he had engaged in against his satisfaction, with the diligence 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 Praelections; his Lectiones Sacrae are some of them of the same subject;& his Paraenesis against Volanus; many of his Epistles, especially those to Smalcius, and Volkelius, and Niemojevius, as also his treatises about Justification have the same design. Smalcius is no less industrious in the same cause, both in his Racovian catechism, and his Answers and Replys with Franzius and Smiglecius. It is the main design of Schlictingius his Comment on the Hebrews; Crellius de Causis mortis Christi, and his defence of Socinus against Grotius dwells wholly on this Doctrine. Volkelius hath his share in the same Work, &c.  
What those at large contend for, M. Biddle endeavours 
§. 5.  slily to insinuate into his Catechumens in this Chapter; Having therefore briefly spoken of Salvation by Christ, and of his Mediation in general, in consideration of his 6, and 7. 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 tour, I shall first consider M. Biddles 
§. 6.  Questions; then state the point in difference, by expressing what is the judgement of our Adversaries concerning the Death of Christ, and what we ascribe thereto; and then demonstrate from the Scripture the Truth contended for.  
M. Biddles first Question is, 
§. 7.   
Was it the will and purpose of God that Christ should suffer the Death of the cross? What saith the Apostle Peter to the Jews concerning this? Ans. Acts 2. 22, 23. to which he subjoins, What say the Disciples in general concerning the same? Ans. Acts 4. 24, 27, 28.  
It is not unknown what difference we have, both with the Socinians and Arminians about the purposes and efficacious decrees, and the Infallibility of the Prescience of God: something already hath been spoken to this purpose, in our Discourse concerning the Prescience of God, as formerly in that of Perseverance. How unable M. Biddles companions are to disentangle themselves from the Evidence of that Testimony, which is given to the Truth we contend for, by these Texts which here he with so much confidence recites, hath been abundantly by others Demonstrated. I shall not here enter into the merits of that cause, nor shall I impose on M. Biddle the opinion of any other men, which he doth not expressly own; only I shall desire him to reconcile what he here speaks in his query, with what he before delivered concerning Gods not foreseing 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 dy 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 foresaw that it should be accomplished, and so foresaw all the free actions whereby it was accomplished. And if he foresee any one free action, why not all? There being the same Reason of one and all. But at the present let this pass. His second Question is.  
Did Christ die to reconcile and bring God to us, or on the contrary, to 
§. 8▪  bring us to God? Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Ephes. 2. 14. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 19.& 1 Pet. 3. ●8.  
That I may( by the way) speak a little to this Question, reserving the full discussion of the matter int●nded to the ensuing discourse; The terms of it are first to be explained.  
1. By Reconciling God, we intend the making of such an atonement, whereby his wrath or Anger, in all the ●ffects of it, are turned away. Though we use not the expr●ssion of Reconciling God to us, but of Reconc●●●ng 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 dyed to reconcile God to Us, which in the progress of the Discourse with plentiful demonstrations from the Scripture shall be evinced.  
2. Of bringing God to us, we speak not; unless by bringing 
§. 9.  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 
§. 10.  stands on our part, is our Conversion unto God, our deliverance from all that Enmity and opposition unto God, which is in us by nature; and this also we say is the effect, and fruit of the Death of Christ.  
4. Our bringing unto God, mentioned 1 Pet. 3. 18. is of a 
§. 11.  larger and more comprehensive signification, than that of our Reconciliation; containing the whole effect of the death of Christ, in the removal of every hindrance and the Collation of every thing necessary 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 M. Biddle inquires, Whether 
§. 12.  Christ by his death reconciled God to us, or on the contrary, us to God; So insinuating, that one of these Effects of the Death of Christ is inconsistent with the other; This seems to be the mans aim,  
1. To intimate, that this is the state of the difference between him and us; that we say, Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us; and he, that he dyed to Reconcile us to God.  
2. That these things are contrary; so that they who say the one, must deny the other; That we who say, that Christ dyed to Reconcile God to us, must of necessity deny that he dyed, to Reconcile us to God; and that he also, who saith, he dyed to Reconcile us to God, may, and must deny on that account the other effect by us ascribed to his death. But this Sophistry is so gross, as it is not worth the while to insist upon its discovery; We say, that Christ dyed to Reconcile 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 
§. 13.  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 parts 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 Christ, then the Reconciliation of God to us, and our Reconciliation to God, are both of them one entire effect of the death of Christ. That there is in us by nature a real Enmity against God▪ before it be taken away by the 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 Rom. 8. 18. Tit. 3. 3. Ephes. 2. 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 consideration of the Death of Christ, is no less clear. The great Sanction of the Law, Gen. 3. Deut. 27. 29. cons●dered in conjunction with the Justice of God, Rom. 1. 32. Hab. 1. 13. Psal. 5. 4, 5, 6. 2 Thess. 10. 5, 6. and the Testimonies given concerning the state and condition of man in reference to the Law and Justice of God, Joh. 3. 36. Rom. 5. 18. Ephes. 2. 3, 12. &c. with the express assignation of the Reconciliation pleaded for, to be made by the Death of Christ, Dan. 9. 24. Heb. 2. 18. do abundantly evince it; There being then a 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 mediator making up peace and friendship between us, doth not only Reconcile 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 M. Biddle, as making to his purpose, 
§. 14.  the most, if not all of them look, another way then he intends to use them. They will in the following Chapter come under full consideration. Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were Reconciled to God by the death of his son; is the first mentioned. That our being Reconciled 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 10. is being levied by his blood, vers. 9. The observation of the same Antithesis in both verses makes this evident. Now to be levied 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 therefore it is the Reconciliation of God to us, that i● intended▪  
3. Verse 11. we are said to receive this Reconciliation; or as the word is rendered, the atonement; the word is the same with 
{αβγδ}  that used v. 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 M. Biddles 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 Ephes. 2. 14, 16. speaks the same language; 
§. 15.  He is our peace, who hath made both one, that we might reconcile both unto God in one body, by the death of his cross, having slain the enmity thereby; Setting aside the joint design of the Apostle to manifest the Reconciliation made of Iewes and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, it is evident, the Reconciliation here meant consists in slaying the enmity mentioned, so making peace; Now what is the enmity intended? Not the Enmity that is in our hearts to God, but the legal enmity that lay against us, on the part of God; as is evident from v. 15. and the whole design of the place, as afterwards will appear more fully.  
There is indeed 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. mention made of Reconciliation 
§. 16.  in both the sences insisted on; of us to God, v. 20. where the Apostle saith, the end of the ministry is to reconcile us to God; to prevail with us to lay down our enmity against him,& opposition to him; of God to us, v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; which to be the import of the words is evinced from the exegetical expression immediately following; not imputing to them their sins& transgressions▪ 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 to th●m▪ The legal enmity he had against them, on the account whereof alone mens 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 v. 21. declaring how God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; For( saith he) he 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 the 1 Pet. 3. 18. In the last place mentioned, 
§. 17.  speak at all to M. B's purpose: Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; bringing to God, is a general expression of the Accomplishment of the whole work of our Salvation, both in the removal of all hindrances, 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 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 Dyed to Reconcile 
§. 18.  us to God, by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by M. Biddle to prove it,( so unhappy is he in his Quotation●) 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 
§. 19.  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. 5. 14, 15. 1 Tim. 5. 6. Heb. 2. 9. Joh. 6. 8 where mention is made of all, and the World, in reference to the death of Christ. The Question concerning the object of the Death of Christ, or whom he dyed for, hath of late by very many been so fully discussed; and I have myself spoken elsewhere somewhat to that purpose; It shall not then here be in●●sted on; In 
Salus Electorum sanguis Jesu.  a word, we confess that Christ died for all, and for the World; but whereas it is very seldom 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 no where 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; What was the procuring cause of Christs death? 
§. 20.   
Ans. Rom. 4. 25. Isa. 53. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 3. The Expressions are; That Christ was delivered for our offences, that Christ died for our sins, and was bruised for our iniquities.  
That in these, and the like places, that clause for our sins, offences, and transgressions, is expressive of the procuring cause of the death of Christ, M. 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 put to death for them, M. B. hath in this one Question granted the whole of what in this subject he contends against. If our 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 in his death underwent the penalty of our sins, suffering in our stead▪ and making thereby satisfaction for what we had done amiss: M. Biddles 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 obedience whereunto we shall receive forgiveness of sins; This grant of M. B's, that the procuring cause of the Death of Christ is hereby expressed, will perhaps appear more prejudicial to his whole cause, then he is yet ware of; especially being proposed in distinction from the final cause, or end of the Death of Christ, which in the next place he mentions, 
Crellius de Causis Mortis Christi. p. 13.  as afterward will more fully appear; although I confess he is not alone; Crellius making the same concession.  
The last Question of this Chapter is, What are the ends of 
§. 21.  Christs 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, something 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 underwent the punishment due to our sins, making atonement, and giving satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by the price of his blood, &c. being of so great weight and importance as it is, lying at the very bottom, and foundation of all our hope and confidence, I shall, leaving M. Biddle, handle the whole matter at large in the ensuing Chapters.  
For our more clear and distinct tour in this Important head of the Religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay down the most Eminent Considerations of the Death of Christ, as proposed in the Scripture, and then give an Account of the most special Effects of it in particular, answering to those Considerations of it; in all manifesting wherein the expiation of our sins by his blood doth consist.  
The principal Considerations of the Death of Christ, are of it, 

1. As a PRICE.  
2. As a SACRIFICE.  
3. As a PENALTY.    
Of which in the order wherein they are mentioned.   

CHAP. XXII.  
The 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.  
1. THe Death of Christ in this business is a Price: and that 
§. 1.  properly so called: 1 Cor. 6. 20 {αβγδ} you were 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. 1. 17, 18. ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. It is the blood of Christ, which in this business hath that use which silver and gold have in the Redeeming 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 a kind of Price it is, that is so paid; it is {αβγδ}, Mat. 20. 28. He came to lay down his life, {αβγδ}; which for its more evidence and clearness, is called {αβγδ}, 1 Tim 2. 6. A Price of Redemption, for the delivery of another.  
The first mention of a ransom in the Scripture is in Exod. 
§. 2.  21. 30. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life, what ever is laid on him: the word in the original is {αβγδ}, which the Septuagint there render {αβγδ}: and it is used again in the same sense, Ps. 49. 9. and in both places intends a valuable price, to be paid for the deliverance of that, which upon guilt became obnoxious to death. It is true, the word is from {αβγδ} 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 Septuagint constantly render it by {αβγδ}, and sometimes {αβγδ}, otherwise by {αβγδ}, and the like.  
It is then confessed, that {αβγδ} in the Old Testament, is sometimes 
§. 3.  taken for redemit in a Metaphoricall sense, not strictly and literally, by the intervention of a Price; but that {αβγδ}, the word whereby it is rendered, when a Price intervened, is ever so taken in the New Testament, is denied. Indeed Moses is called {αβγδ}, Acts 1. 35. in reference to the Metaphoricall Redemption of Israel out of egypt: a deliverance by Power and 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; 
§. 4.  to ransom, and ransomed, in two or three more. In two of these places, Exod. 21. 30. and Lev. 49. 8. the word is {αβγδ} from {αβγδ} as before, and rendered by the Septuagint {αβγδ}, in all other place it is in the Hebrew {αβγδ}, which properly signifies a propitiation, as Psal. 49. 7. which the LXX have variously rendered. Twice it is mentioned in Job. Ch. 33. 24. and Chap. 36. 18. In the first place, they have left it quiter out, and in the latter so corrupted the sense, that they have rendered it altogether unintelligible, Prov. 6. 35.& 13. 8. they have properly rendered it {αβγδ}, or a price of Redemption, it being in both places used in such business, as a ransom useth to be accepted in: Chap. 21. 8. They have properly rendered it to the subject matter: {αβγδ}, are things publicly devoted to destruction, as it were to turn away Anger from others, coming upon them for their sakes.  
So is {αβγδ}, Homo piacularis pro lustration●& expiatione patriae 
§. 5  devotus; whence the word is often used as scelus in latin, for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away. {αβγδ}, says he in the Poet, {αβγδ} is used 
Aristoph. in Plut.  in the same sense by Herodotus, {αβγδ}. Athamas was made a piaculum, or a propitiation for the country. Whence Budaeus renders that of the Apostle, {αβγδ}: nos tanquam piacula mundi facti sumus,& succidaneae pro populo victimae. we are as the accursed things of the World, and Sacrifices for the people: reading the words, {αβγδ}: nos {αβγδ}. The Greek Scholiast, 
1 Cor. 4. 13.  who red it as we commonly do, rendering it by {αβγδ}; as the vulgar latin purgamenta, to the same purpose; such as have all manner of filth cast upon them.  
And Isaiah 43. 3. They have rendered the same word {αβγδ}, 
§. 6.  a commutation by price; so Mat. 16. 26. {αβγδ}: a Price in exchange. Now in all these places and others, the Hebrews use the word {αβγδ} 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 satisfaction, which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice together, Num: 35. 31. is {αβγδ} in the original. {αβγδ} indeed is Originally Pitch or Bitumen: Hence what God says to Noah about making the ark, {αβγδ} Gen. 6. 14. the Septuagint have rendered {αβγδ} bituminabis bitumine. {αβγδ} in P●hel, is Pla●avit, expiavit, expiationem fecit; because by Sacrifice sins are Covered, as if they had not been; to cover or hid, being the first use of the word.  
And this is the rise and use of the word ransom in the Scripture, 
§. 7.  both {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} which are rendered by {αβγδ}: 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 afterwards in the business of Redemption. For the present it sufficeth, that the death of Christ was a Price or ransom, and these are the words whereby it is expressed.  
2. It was a Sacrifice;& what sacrifice it was shall be declared. 
§. 8.   
1. That Christ offered a sacrifice, is abundantly evident from what was said before, in the consideration of the time and place, when, and wherein Christ was an high Priest. The necessity of this the Apostle confirms Heb. 8. 3. For every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. If he be a Priest, he must have a Sacrifice. The very nature of his employment requires it. The whole and entire office& employment of an High Priest, as a Priest, consists in offering Sacrifice, with the performance of those things, which did necessary precede and follow that Action. It is of necessity then that he should also have somewhat to offer as a sacrifice to God.  
For the other part of our inquiry, viz. What it was that he 
§. 9.  Sacrificed; I shall manifest in this order of process,( taking leave to enlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved before, as the manner of it.)  

1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice, that any Priest had offered before, by Gods appointment.  
2. He did not actually offer any such Sacrifice.  
3. I shall 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, then 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. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For the Law &c.  
This is the sum of the Apostles Discourse; The Sacrifices 
§. 10.  instituted by the Law, could not effect, nor work that which Christ our High Priest was to accomplish by his Sacrifice; and therefore he was no● to offer them; but they were to be abolished, and something else to be brought in that might supply their room and defect.  
What was wanting in these Sacrifices, the Apostle ascribes to 
§. 11.  the Law, whereby they were instituted. 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 instruction, 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 obscure representation of those good things, which when they were instituted and in force, were {αβγδ} 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 it drawn; then to make {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} here to differ but gradually, as the first rude shape and proportion, and the perfect limning of any thing do. The reason then why al the solemn, operous, burdensome service 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 
§. 12.  Law could not do this great work, of making the comers thereunto perfect. {αβγδ}, that is, those who come to God by it, the worshippers; which is spoken in opposition to what is said of Christ, Chap. 7. 25. He is able to save to the uttermost {αβγδ}, those that come to God by him. The word expresseth any man under the consideration of one coming to God for Acceptation. As Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh unto God {αβγδ}; these it could not make perfect; that is, it could not perfectly atone God, and take away their sins, so that the conscience should no more be troubled, nor tormented with the guilt of sin, as v. 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 
§. 13.  the Jews may be referred to 4. heads.  
1. The daily Sacrifice of morning and evening, which is instituted Exod. 29. 38, 39. which being omitted, was renewed by Nehemiah: 10. 33. And wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus according to the prophecy of Daniel, Dan. 11▪ 31. this is the juge sacrificium typifying Christs 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 Occasion and necessity was by providence administered. Now of these Sacrifices there was a peculiar Reason, that did not( as far as I can find) bellong unto any of the rest▪ The judicial government of that Nation being as their own Historian Josephus calls it, {αβγδ}; and immediately 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 Perversityes, Sacrifice was offered, and the guilty Person dyed 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 
Psal. 51. 16.  Adultery flies to mere Mercy acknowledging, that God had appointed 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. This was their political regard, which they had, or 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 
§. 14.  seem some of them to be Mixed of the two former kinds: stated and voluntary. Such was Solomons 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 dayes: as on the sabbath, 
§. 15.  new moons, passeover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater Jubilee but especially the solemn Anniversary Sacrifice of expiation, when the High Priest entred into the Holy place, with the blood of the beast Sacrificed, on the tenth day of the month Tizri. The institution of this Sacrifice you have Levit. 16. throughout. The matter of it was one Bullock, and two Goats, or Kids of Goats, v. 2, 5, The manner was this, 1. In the entrance Aaron offered one▪ Bullock peculiarly for himself and his house, v. 6. 2. Lots were cast on the two goats, one to be a sin offering, the other to be Azarel, v. 8. 9.( 3.) The Bullock and goat being slain, the blood was carried into the Holy place.( 4.) Azarel having all the sins of the people confessed over him, was sent into the wilderness to perish; v. 21.( 5.) The end of this Sacrifice was atonement and cleansing, v. 30. Of the whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this Sacrifice( as of others) elsewhere; at present, I attend only the Thesis proposed.  
Now if perfect atonement and Expiation might be expected 
§. 16.  from any of the Sacrifices so instituted by God, certainly it might be from this: therefore this doth the Apostle choose to instance in. This was the Sacrifice offered {αβγδ},& {αβγδ}: but these saith he could not do it; the Law by them could not do it, and this he proves with two Arguments.  
1. From the Event vers. 2, 3. For then would they not have ceased to be offered; because that the worshipper once purged, should have had no more conscience of sin? But in these Sacrifices, there was a remembrance made again of sins every year. The words of the second verse are to be red with an Interrogation, conclusive in 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 Copys the words are, {αβγδ}. Those that add the negative particle {αβγδ}, put it for {αβγδ}, as it is frequently used.  
2. From the nature of the thing itself, v. 4. For it was not possible, that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin; the Reason in these words is evident and plain, especially that of v. 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing.  
1. In regard of Impetration; it was impossible they should really atone God, who was provoked. 1. The conjunction between the sinner and the Sacrificed Beast, was not such, or so near( being onely that of possessor and possessed,) that really and beyond Representation, and Type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sin of the other. Much less secondly, was there an innate worth in the blood of any beast, though never so innocent, to atone the justice of God, that was offended at sin: Mich. 6. 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.  
2. In regard of application. The blood of Common Sacrifices being once  shed, was a dead thing, and had no more worth nor efficacy: it could not possibly be a living way for us to come to God by; nor could it be preserved, to be sprinkled upon the conscience of the sinner.  
Hence doth the Apostle make it evident, in the first place, 
§. 17.  that Christ was not to offer any of the Sacrifices which former Priests had offered, because it was utterly impossible, that by such Sacrifices, the end of the Sacrifice which he was to offer, should be accomplished. This also he proves.  
2. Because God had expressly ●isallowed of 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 expiation was( Levit. 16. 30.) to atone, and cleanse; 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 its self Passively, by undergoing the penalty of Death; Christ, who was both Priest& Sacrifice, did both) I answer; they were never appointed of God for to 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. 9. 10. they served the use of that people, in the under-age Condition, wherein God was pleased to keep them.  
But now that God rejected them as to this end and purpose, the Apostle proves by the Testimony of David, speaking of the Acceptance of Christ, Psalm. 40. 6. 7. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened; burnt-offering, and sin-offering hast thou not required: Then said I, ●o I come, &c. which the Apostle insists on, v. 6, 7, 8, 9. There are several accounts, upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard,& not to approve or accept of Sacrifices, which yet were of his own Institution. 1. In respect of the Hypocrisy of the offerers: That people being grown formal, and corrupt, trusted in Sacrifices, and the work wrought in them, and said by them, they should be justified; God expressing his indignation against such Sacrificers, 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, Isaiah 1. 12, 13. but this is not the cause of their rejection in this place of the Psalmist; for he speaketh of them who walked with God in uprightness, and waited for his Salvation; even of himself and other Saints, as appears in the Context, v. 5. &c. 2. Comparatively; they are rejected as to the outward Work of them, in comparison of his more spiritual Worship; as Psal. 50. 12, 13, 14. but neither are they here rejected on that account; nor is there mention of any opposition between the outward Worship of Sacrifice,& any other more spiritual and internal part thereof: but between Sacrifice, and the boring of the ear, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expressly, v. 6.  
Their Rejection then here mentioned, is, in reference to that 
§. 19.  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 
§. 20.  catechism gives us, as the difference between the expiation under the Old Testament, and that under the New, concerning which, Chap. de Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 5. they thus inquire.  
What is the difference between the expiation of sin 

Quodnam est discrimen inter Veteris,& Novi foederis peccatorum expiationem?  
Expiatio peccatorum sub novo foedere, non solum distat ab expiatione peccatorum sub vetere plurimùm, verum etiam long praestantior,& excellentior est. id vero duabus potissimum de causis: prior est, quod sub vetere foedere, iis tantum peccatis expiatio, per illa legalia Sacrificia, constituta fuit, quae per imprudentiam, vel per infirmitatem admissa fuere, unde etiam infirmitates,& ignorantiae nuncupabantur: verum pro peccatis gravioribus, quae transgressiones erant mandati Dei manifestae, nullae sacrificia institutae fuerant, said mortis poena fuit proposita. Quod si talia Deus alicui condonabat, id non vi foederis fiebat, said misericordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra foedus,& quando,& cvi libuit exhibebat: sub novo vero foedere peccata expiantur, non solum per imprudentiam& infirmitatem admissas, verum etiam ea, quae apertissimorum Dei mandatorum sunt transgressiones, dummodo is, cvi labi ad eum modum contige●it, in eo non pe●severet, verum per veram paenitentiam resipiscat, nec ad illud peccatum amplius relabatur. P●sterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco foedere ad eum modum expiatio peragebatur, ut poena temporaria tantum ab iis, quorum peccata expiabantur, tolleretur: sub Novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum poenas temporarias, verum etiam aeternas amo●eat,& loco paenarum, aeternam vitam in foedere promissam, iis quorum peccata fuerint expiata offerat. De Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 6.   in the Old and New Testament?  
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:& if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by virtue of the Covenant, but of singular mercy, which God besides 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●inue 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, offer eternal life promised in the Covenant, to them whose sins are expiated. Thus they.  
Some brief Animadversions will give the Reader a clear 
§. 21.  account of this discourse. 1▪ Sundry things are here splendidly supposed by our Catechists, then which nothing could be imagined or invented more false: as( 1.) That the Covenant was not the same for Substance under the Old and New Testament, before and after the coming of Christ in the flesh.( 2.) That those under the Old Testament were not pardonned or saved by Christ.( 3.) That death temporal was all that was threatened by the Law.( 4.) That God forgave sin, and not in, or by the Covenant( 5.) That there were no promises of eternal life under the Old Testament, &c. on these and the like goodly principles, is this whole discourse erected: let us now consider their Assertions: The first is;  
1. That expiation by legal Sacrifices was only for some sins, 
§. 22.  and not of all: as sins of infirmity and ignorance, not great crimes; wherein 1. They suppose, that the legal Sacrifices did by themselves, and their own efficacy, expiate sin, which is directly contrary to the discourse of the Apostle now insisted on.( 2.) Their affirmation hereon is most false: Aaron making an atonement for sin, confessed over the Goat ALL THE INIQUITIES of the Children of Israell, and ALL their Transgressions, in all their sins, Levit. 16. 21. and besides, all manner of sins are comprised under those expressions of Ignorances and Infirmities.  
2. They say, for greater sins there was then no expiation, but death was threatened to them. But then 1. None that ever committed such sins were saved; for without expiation there is no Salvation. 2. 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 threatened 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 Gods appointment in the Common-wealth of that People, and had no regard to the spiritual expiation of sin, which they typified.  
3. That God forgave the sins of his people of old, by singular mercy, and not by virtue of his Covenant, is a bold sigment. God exercises no singular mercy, but in the Covenant thereof: Eph. 2. 12.  
4. Their condition of Expiation( by the way) under the New Testament, that the sinner fall not again into the same sin, is a matter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discuss it.  
5. 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 punishment due to the transgression of the Law, as it was the Rule of obedience to God, as hath been proved; even the death that Christ delivered us from, Rom. 5. 12, &c. Heb. 2. 14, 15. God was atoned by those Sacrifices, according to their way of making atonement, Levit. 16. 30. so that the punishment avoided was eternal punishment. 2. Neither is this indeed spoken by our Catechists, as though they believed any punishment should be eternal; but they only hid themselves in ambiguity of the expression, it being annihilation they intend thereby. 3. The {αβγδ} of this discourse is, that expiation by Sacrifices was no other, then what was done really by the Sacrifices themselves, so everting their typica● nature and institution, and divesting them of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which they did represent.  
6. It is confessed, that there is a difference between the Expiation under the Old Testament, and that under the New; but this of Application and manifestation, not of impetration and procurement: This is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.  
But they pled proof of Scripture for what they say in the 
§. 23.  ensuing Question.  
How dost thou demonstrate both these? 

Qua ratione ver● utrumque demonstras?  
Peccata quae sub vetere foedere expiari non potuere omni● sub Novo expiari testatur Apostolus Paulus, in acts, cap. 13. 38, 39. idem habetur Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. Quod vera ea ratione expientur peccata sub novo foedere, ut etiam aeterna poena amoveatur,& vita aeterna donetur, habetur Heb. 9. 12. ubi sup. Q. 7.    
That the sins, which could not be expiated under the Old Testament, are all expiated under the New, Paul witnesseth, Act. 13. 38, 39. and the same is also affirmed, Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. But that sins are so expiated under the New Testament, as that also eternal punishment is removed, and life eternal given, we have Heb. 9. 12.  
This work will speedily be at an issue. 1. It is denied, that Paul Act: 13. 38, 39. makes a distinction of sins, whereof some might be expiated by Moses Law, and others not. He says no more there, then in this place to the Hebrews, namely, that the legal Sacrifices, wherein they restend 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 restend in by the Jews. Typically they expiated all, and so Paul calls them from them to the Antitype( or rather thing Typifyed) now actually exhibited.  
2. The two next places of Rom. 3. 25. Heb. 9. 15. do expressly 
§. 24.  condemn the Figment they st●ive to establish by them; both of them assigning the pardon of sins that were past, and their Expiation, unto the Blood and Sacrifice of Christ; though there were then purifications, purgations, sacrifices, yet the meritorious, and efficient cause of all Expiation, was the blood of Christ, which manifests the Expiation under the Old and New Testament for substance to have been the same.  
3. That the Expiation under the New Testament is accompanied 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 either to God, or the souls of men: but to proceed with the Sacrifice of Christ.  
This is the first thing I proposed, Christ being to offer Sacrifice, 
§. 25.  was not to offer the Sacrifice of the Priests of old; because they could never bring about wha● he aimed at in his Sacrifice; it was impossible in the nature of the thing itself, and they were expressly, as to that end, rejected of God himself.  
2. Christ as a Priest did never Offer these Sacrifices; it is true! 
§. 26.  as one made under the Law, and whom it became to fulfil all righteousness, he was present at them: but as a Priest he never offered them; for the Apostle expressly affirms, that he could not and 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 bad him go show himself to the Priest according to the Law.  
3. What Christ did offer indeed, as his Sacrifice, is nextly 
§. 27▪  mentioned. This the Apostle expresseth in that which is asserted, in opposition to the Sacrifices rejected, Heb. 10. 5. But a body hast thou prepared me.  
The words in the psalm are in the sound of them otherwise, Psal: 40. 6. {αβγδ} mine ears hast thou digged: which the Septuagint render, and the Apostle from them, {αβγδ}; a body hast thou prepared me; Of the accommodation of the Interpretation 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 because 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 Septuagint renders by preparing a body, wherein he might be so obedient; but this to me seems too curious on the part of the Allusion, and too much strained on the part of the Application, and therefore I shall not insist on it.  
Plainly, {αβγδ} signifies not only in its first s●nc● to dig▪ but also to prepare, and is so rendered by the Septuagint; now whereas the original expresseth only the ea●es, 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 ear Synecdochically, for the whole body, which God so prepared for obedience to himself: and that which the original expressed Synecdochically, the Septuagint, and after them the Apostle, rendered more plainly and fully, naming the whole body wherein he obeied, when the ears were only expressed, whereby he learned obedience.  
The Interpretation of this place by the Socinians, is as ridiculous, 
§. 28.  as any they make use of; take it in the words of 
add quod corpus mortal▪ quo Christus ante mortem, imo ante suum in caelum ascensum praeditus e●a●, ad hoc Sacerdotium obeundum,& sacrificium penitus a solvendum, aptum non fuit; ideoque tunc demum corpus, hu●c rei accommodatum, perfectum ei fuisse, divinus Author indicat, Heb. 10. 5. cum in mundum, nempe futurum illum, qui caelum est, ingrederetur. Volkel. de vera relic: lib. 3. cap▪ 37. de Sac. Christi. p. 14●.  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. 10. 5. declareth, that then he had a perfect body, accommodated unto this work, when he went into the World; that is, to come, which is Heaven. An heap of foolish Abominations. 1. 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. 2. It is false, that Christ had a mortal body after his Resurrection; or that he hath any other body now in Heaven, then what he rose withall. 3. It is false, that the World, spoken of simply, doth any where signify the World to come, or that the World here signifies Heaven. 4. It is false, that the coming into the World, signifies going out of the world: as it is here interpnted. 5. Christs bringing into the world, was by his Incarnation and birth, Heb. 1. 6. according to the constant use of that expression in the Scripture, as His ascension is his leaving the world, and going to his Father, Joh: 13. 1. Cap. 14. 19. Cap. 16▪ 28.  
But I must not insist on this; it is the Body that God prepared 
§. 29.  Christ for his obedience, that is, his whole human nature that is asserted for the matter of Christs 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. 10. 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 
1 John 1. 7. Ephes. 1. 13.  in his blood have we Redemption, and by his own blood did he enter into the Holy place, Heb. 9. 12. and most expressly, Heb. 13. 12.  
2. His soul: Isa. 53. 10. when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.  
3 It is most frequently said to be himself that was offered. Eph. 5. 2.& Heb. 1. 3. Heb. 9. 14& v. 25.& v. 26. Heb. 7. 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.  
Further to clear this, I must desire the Reader to take notice 
§. 30.  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 herein: himself as the Sacrificed, is only the human nature of Christ wherein, and whereof that Sacrifice was made▪ He makes the atonement actively as the Priest; himself passively, as the Sacrifice.  
1. He is the Person of Christ, God and man jointly and distinctly acting in the work.  
1. As God, Heb. 9. 14. through the eternal Spirit he offered himself to God; His eternal Spirit, or Deity, was the principal Agent, offering; and wherever there is mentioning of Christs offering himself, it relates principally to the person, God man, who offered.  
2. The free will of his human nature was in it also; So Heb. 10. 7. Lo! I come to do thy will; when God had prepared him a body, opened his ears, he says, Lo I come to do thy will; as it was written of him in the volume of Gods book; and that this expression Lo I come to do thy will, sets out the readiness of the human will of Christ, is evident from that Exposition which is given of it, Psal. 40. 8. yea thy Law is within my heart, or in the midst of my bowels; Thy Law, the Law of the 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 
§. 31.  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 Sacrificed was to be destroyed as to what it was. This is clear from all the Sacrifices that ever were: either they were slain, or burnt, or sent to destruction. Now the person of Christ was not dissolved; but the Union of his natures continued; even then when the human nature 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 typyfied by the two Go●ts▪ his 
§. 32.  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 is 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 the justice of God, for all the sins of all the Elect, whereunto it was appointed.  
Asw. Though the thing Sacrificed was but finite, yet the person sacrificing was infinite; and the {αβγδ} of the Action follows the Agent; that is, our mediator {αβγδ}; whence the Sacrifice was of infinite value.  
And this is the second consideration of the Death of Christ, it was a Sacrifice; what is the peculiar influence of his death as a Sacrifice, into the satisfaction he hath made, shall be declared afterwards▪  
From what hath been spoken, a brief Description of the 
§. 33.  Sacrifice of Christ, as to all the concernements of it maybe taken.  
1. The person designing, appointing, and instituting this Sacrifice, is God the Father; as in grace contriving the great work of the Salvation of the Elect: A body did he prepare him; and therein he came to do his Will( Heb. 10. 9.) In that which he did, which the Sacrifices of old could not do. He came to fulfil the Will of God, his Appointment,& Ordinance, being his Servant therein; made {αβγδ} less then 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 himselefe a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour: Eph. 5. 2. that is, to atone Him being provoked, as we shall see afterwards.  
3. The person Offering was Christ the mediator, God and man: He offered himself to God: Heb. 9. 14. And because He did it, who was God and man, and as God and man, God is said to redeem his Church with his own blood, Act. 20. 28.  
4. The matter of the sacrifice was his whole human Nature, body and soul, called himself, as I have shewed, in sundry particulars.  
5. The immediate efficient cause of his offering, and the destruction of that which he offered unto God, as before described, was his own will: Lo! I come( saith he) to do thy will: and no man( saith he) taketh my life from me; I lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again, Joh. 10. 17, 18. What men or devils did to him, as what he suffered from the Curse of the Law, comes under another Consideration, as his Death was a penalty: as it was a Sacrifice his own will was all the cause immediately effecting it.  
6. The fire that was to set this Holocaust on a flamme, was the Holy Spirit, Heb. 9. 14. Through the eternal Spirit; that the fire which came down from Heaven,& 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: Math. 23. 18, 19. If the cross was the Altar, it was greater then Christ, and sanctified him, which is Blasphemy. Besides▪ Christ himself is said to be an Altar. Heb. 13. 10. and he is said to Sanctify himself to be an offering or a Sacrifice Joh. 17. 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; 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 Reconciliation its self.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Of the Death of Christ, as it was a punishment, and the Satisfaction made thereby.  
SO is the Death of Christ revealed as a Price, and a Sacrifice; 
§. 1.  what are the proper effects of it, under these considerations, shall be afterward declared.  
The 3d consideration of it, is, its being a penalty, or a punishment. To clear this, I shall demonstrate four things.  
1. What Punishment properly so called, is.  
2. That Christs 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 the definition of it, or the description of its general nature.  
2. The Ends of it are to be considered. 
§. 2.   
For the first, that usual general description seemeth to be 
Si non reddit faciendo quod debet reddet patiendo quod debet. August. lib. 3. de lib. Arbit.  comprehensive of the whole nature of punishment; it is, malum passionnis, quod infl●gitur ob malum actionis, An evil of suffering inflicted 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 
§. 3.  is evil to himself, according to the demerit of his fault. 
Vid. Diat. de just. Vindic. {αβγδ}. Hier.   
1. It is an Effect of Justice; hence Gods punishing is often called an inflicting of Anger; as Rom. 3. 5. is God unrighteous, {αβγδ}; who inflicteth Anger? Anger is put for the justice of God, Rom. 1. 18. the Anger, or Wrath of God is revealed from Heaven, &c. That is, his vindict●ve justice against sin▪ is manifested by its effects; and again, the Cause for the Effect. Anger for the effect of it in punishment. And therefore we have translated the word vengeance, Rom. 3. 5. which denotes the punishment itself.  
2. It is of him, who hath sovereign Power, and Judiciary 
§. 4.  Right to dispose of the Offenders; and this is either immediate in God himself, as in the case whereof we speak: He is the only Law giver, who is able to save, and to destroy, Jam. 4. 12. or it is by him delegated to men, for the use of human Society; so Christ tells Pilate, he could have no Power over him( whom he considered as a Malefactor) unless it was given him from above., Joh. 19. 11. though that is spoken in reference to that peculiar dispensation.  
3. The Nature of it consists in this, that it be evil to him, on 
§. 5.  whom it is inflicted; either by the immission of that which is Corrupting, vexing, and destroying, or the substraction of that which is cheering, useful, good, and desirable, in what kind soever: And therefore did the ancients call punishment fraus, because when it came upon men, they had deceived, and cut short themselves of some good, that otherwise they might have enjoyed. So the Historian, Caeterae multitudini diem statuit, antequam 
sallust. bell. Catil.  liceret sine fraud ab armis discedere: that is, that they might go away freely, without punishment. And so is that expression explained by Ulpian, Dig. lib. 20. Capitalem fraudem admittere, est tale aliquid delinquere, propter quod, capite puniendus sit.  
The schoolmen have two Rules that pass amongst them 
§. 6.  without control. 1. That Omne peccatum est adeo voluntarium▪ ut si non sit voluntarium non est peccatum. It is so of the nature of sin, that it be voluntary, that if any thing be not voluntary, it is not sin. The other is, est ex naturâ poenae ut sit involuntaria: it is so of the nature of Punishment, that it be against the will of him that is punished, that if it be not so, it is not punishment.  
Neither of which Rules is true, yea the latter is undoubtedly false. For the first, 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 then theirs is, that it is, dictum, factum, concupitum contra legem; namely, that it is {αβγδ}, 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 there is an improper nolleity( if I may so speak) in nature, unto the substracting 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, then what was laid down in general before, that there be malum passionnis, 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 Souldiers of Caesar after their defeat at Dyrrachium, came to him, and 
Quanta fortitudine dimicaverint. testimonio est, quod adverso semel apud Dyrrachium praelio, poenam in se ultro depoposcerunt. Sueton. in Jul. Cael. cap. 68. More patrio decimari volverunt. Appianus.  desired that they might be punished, more antiquo: being ashamed of their flight. But what ever 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: Post m●hi non simili paena commissa luetis: luetis: persolvetis:& hic sermo a pecunia descendit, antiquorum enim poenae omnes pecuniariae fuerunt. And supplicium is of the same importance. Punishments were called supplicia, because with the mulcts of men, they sacrificed, and made their supplications to God; whence the word is sometimes used for that worship; as in Salustius, describing the old Romans, he says they were in suppliciis Deorum magnifici.  
4. There is the procuring cause of it, which is, doing evil, 
§. 7.  contrary to the Law and Rule, whereby the Offender ought to walk, and regulate his actings and proceedings: omnis poena, si justa est, peccati poena est, says Aug. indeed not only s● 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 poena, is used for any thing that is vexatious or troublesone, any toil or labour, as in the Tragedian, speaking of one who tired himself with travail in hunting: Quid te ipse poenis gravibus infestus gravas but improperly is it thus 
Senec. Hippol. Act. 2.  used. This Abraham evinceth in his plea with God, Gen. 18. 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 of 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 destroy the righteous with the wicked. And therefore that place of Job, chap. 9. 22. This is one thing, therefore I said it, he destroys the perfect and the wicked: Is not to be understood absolutely, but according to the subject of the dispute in hand, between him and Bildad. Bildad says, chap. 8. 20. That God will not cast away a perfect man. that is, he will not afflict a godly man to death. He grants that a Godly man may be afflicted, which Eliphas his companion seemed to deny: yet says he, he will not cast him away, that is, leave him without relief from that Affliction, even in this Life. To this Jobs answer is, this is one thing; that is, one thing I am resolved on, and therefore I said it, and will abide by it, he destroyeth the perfect and the wicked; not only Wicked men are destroyed, and cut off in this life, but Perfect men also; but yet in this very destruction, as there is a difference in the persons, one being perfect, the other wicked: So there is in Gods 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& punishment, so near& indissoluble is their relation. {αβγδ}. Plut. de Serâ Numin. vindicta.  
5. The measure of any penalty, is the demerit of the offence: 
§. 8.  it is a rendering to men, as for their works, so according to them  

Nec vincet Ratio hoc, tantundem ut peccet, idemque  
Qui teneros cawls alieni fregerit horti 
Hor. Sa. lib 1. 3.   
Et qui nocturnus Divum Sacra legerit. Adsit  
Regula, peccatis quae poenas irroget aequas,  
Nec scutica dignum, horribilisectere flagello. 
Vid. Catonis orat. apud sallust. Bel. Catalin.    
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 Judgement that they which commit sin are worthy of Death, Rom. 1. 32. This the Apostle fully declares: Chap. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10. The day of punishing, he calls the day of the Revelation of the Righteous Judgement of God. That is, what his Judgement is concerning the demerit of sin. The world shall then know, what in Justice he requires for the due vengeance of it. And this according to his Will, v▪ 6. He will in his Righteous judgement render to every one according to his deeds.  
And here it is to be observed, that though there be an exceeding great variation in sin, in respect of degrees, so that some seem as mountaines, others in comparison of them but as molehils, yet it is the general nature of sin,( which is the Creatures subducting its self from under the Dominion of God, and dependence upon him,) that punishment original is suited unto: 
§. 9.  Whence death is appointed to every sin, and that eternal; 
Puniendispeccatis trees esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est quae {αβγδ} dicitur: cum poena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratia, ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est, quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, {αβγδ} appellant, ea causa animadvertendi est, quum dignitas authoritasque ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemptum ejus pariat,& honorem elevet. &c. vid. A. Gell. lib. 6. cap. 24.  wherein the degrees of punishment vary not the kind.  
2.* For the several kinds of punishment( I call them so, in a general acceptation of both words) they are distinguished according to their ends, and Causes: the ends of punishments, or all such things as have in them the nature of punishments, may be referred to the ensuing heads.  
1. The first End of punishment, is, the good of him that is punished, and this is twofold. 1. For Amendment, and recovery from the evil, and sin that he hath committed. This kind of punishing is frequently mentioned in Scripture; so eminently Levit. 26. doth the Lord describe it at large, and insists upon it, reckoning up in a long series, a Catalogue of several judgements; he interposing, But if ye shall not be REFORMED by these things, but will walk contrary to me, as v. 25. 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;& the success of this tour we find variously expressed: sometimes the end of it in some measure was fulfilled, Psal. 18. 32, 33, 34, 35. sometimes otherwise, Isai. 1. 5. Why should you be smitten any more? you will revolt more and more; intimating, that the end of the former smiting was to cure their revoltings. And this kind of punishment is called 
{αβγδ}. Plut. de virtut.  {αβγδ}, correction for instruction; and is not punishment in its strict, and proper sense. 
§. 10.   
2. For the taking off of sinners, to prevent such other wickednesses as they would commit, should patience be exercised towards thē. The very Heathen saw, that he that was wicked& not to be reclaimed, it was even good for him,& to him, that he should be destroyed. Such an one as Plutarch says, was, {αβγδ}, hurtful to others, but most of all to himself. How much more is this evident to us, who know that future judgements shall be proportionably increased to the wickedness of men in this world;& if every drop of Judgement in the world to come, be incomparably greater, then the greatest& heaviest a man can possibly suffer in this life, or loose his life by, it is most evident, that a man may be punished with death for his own good: mitius punientur. This is {αβγδ}. And this hath no place in human Administrations 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 accidentally it may be for his good. Generally {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, is as Aristotle speaks 
Arist. Rhet. 1.  {αβγδ}: and is thereby differenced from {αβγδ}( of which afterwards) which as he says, is {αβγδ} Hence {αβγδ}, is one not corrected, not restrained, incastigatus. And therefore the punishment of death cannot at all properly be {αβγδ}: but cutting off by God to prevent farther sin, hath in it {αβγδ} thereunto.  
2. The second end of punishment, which gives a second 
§. 11.  kind of them in the general sense before mentioned, is for the good of others, and this also is various.  
1. For the good of them that may be like minded with him that is punished; that they may be deterred, affrighted, and persuaded from the like evils. This was the end of the punishing of the presumptuous sinner, Deut. 17. 12, 13. That man shall die, and all the people shall hear,& fear, and do no more presumptuously. The people; that is any among them that was like minded unto him that was stoned& destroyed. So in some places they have taken Lions that have destroyed men, and hung them on crosses, to fright others that should attempt the like. Hence exemplum, is 
Terent. Eunuch. Ac. 5. S●e. 4.  sometimes put absolutely for punishment because punishment is for that end. So in the Comedian, Quae futura exempla dicunt in eum indigna: on which place Donatus, graves poenae, quae possunt caeteris documento esse, exempla dicuntur. And this is a tacite 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 content that men take therein, is their sin, and cannot be absolutely good to them. So the Philosopher, nemo prudens punit quia 
Se●▪  peccatum est, said ne peccetur; revoc●ri enim praeterita non possunt, futura prohibeantur. And Rom. 13. 4. If ye do that which is evil, be afraid, &c. See what he hath done to others, and be afraid.  
2. It is for the good of others, that they may not be hurt in 
§. 12.  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 

Naturale jus talionis hic indicatur. Grot. in Gen. 9. 6.  
ind {αβγδ},& {αβγδ}. Math. 1. 19.   of human society, Let him that hath killed by violence be killed, that the rest of men may live in peace. And these kinds of punishments in reference to this end are called {αβγδ}, Examples: that others by impunity be not enticed to evil, and that the residue of men may be freed from the harm that is brought upon them, by reason of such evils.  
Hence the Historian says, that Commonwealths should rather be mindful of things done evilly, then of good turns: the forgetfulness of the latter, is a discouragement to some good, but of the former an encouragement to all licentiousness. Thus Joseph suspecting his espoused consort, yet refused {αβγδ}, to make an open example of her by punishment. And these punishments are thus called from their use, and not from their 
{αβγδ}. Thucid. lib. 3.  own nature: and therefore differ not from {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, but only as to the end and use from whence they have their denomination.  
3. The good of him that punisheth is aimed at, and this 
§. 13.  is proper to God. Man punisheth not, nor can, nor ought, for his own good, or the Satisfaction of his own justice; but God made all things for himself, and the wicked for the day evil, Prov. 16. 4. and Rom. 9. 22. and in Gods dealing with men, whatever he doth unless it be for this end, it is not properly punishment.  
This is {αβγδ}, vindicta noxae; purely the recompensing of the evil that is committed, that it may be revenged. This( I say) in Gods dealing is properly punishment, the revenge of the evil done, that himself, or his justice may be satisfied, as was seen before, from Rom. 2. 7, 8, 9. verse. Whatever of evil God doth to any, which is therefore called punishment, because it partaketh of the general nature of punishment, and is evil to him that is punished; yet if the intendment of God be not to revenge the evil past upon him, in a proportion 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 vindicta noxae, and that it is done {αβγδ}: 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;& what is punishment from God, properly so called. It is vindicta noxae, animo ulciscendi, ut ipsi satisfiat: and this kind of punishment was the death of Christ: which is to be proved.  
3. That the death of Christ was a punishment properly 
§. 14.  so called, which is the third consideration of it, as I said, is next to be proved. Of all the places of Scripture and Testimonys whereby this may be demonstrated, I shall fix only on one portion of Scripture: and that is Isai. 53. What in particular shall be produced from thence; will appear when I have given some general Considerations of the Chapter, which I shall do at large, as looking on that Portion of Scripture as the sum of what is spoken in the old Testament, concerning the Satisfactory Death of Jesus Christ.  
1. This whole prophecy from▪ v. 13. of chap. 52. which is 
§. 15.  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 rabbis, as is abundantly proved by others, were of the same mind. Which miserable entangles their present obdurate Masters, who would fix the prophecy upon any, rather then on the messiah. Seeing evidently, that if it be proved to belong to the messiah in Thesi, it can be applied to none other in Hypothesi, but Iesus of Nazareth.  
2. Because they are not able to find out, or fix on any 
§. 16.  one whatever, to whom the things here spoken of, may be accommodated. They speak indeed of jeremiah, josias, 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, do or can agree to any one, or all of them name, so that it must be brought home to its proper subject: of this at large in the ensuing digression against Grotius.  
3. That to us it is evident above all contradiction, that the 
§. 17.  whole belongs to Iesus Christ; because not only sea-shore Testimonies are taken from hence in the New Testament and applied to him, as Mat. 8. 17. Mark. 15 28. Luk. 22. 37. Rom 10. 16. but it is also expounded of him in general for the Conversion of souls, Act. 8. 28. The story is known of Philip and the Eunuch.  
3. This is such a prophecy of Christ, as belongs to him not 
§. 18.  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 indeed, that he doubted not but that these things did primarily belong to another, could he be discovered, who he was; and that from Him was the Allusion taken, and the 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 former Arguments, whereby the impudence of the Jews is confounded: And shall be farther in the ensuing digression where it shall be proved that it is impossible to fix on any one but Jesus Christ, to whom the several expressions, and matters expressed in this prophecy may be accommodated.  
2. Now there are three general parts of this prophecy, to 
§. 19.  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 condition, from v. 14. of Chap. 52. to v. 5. of Chap. 53. His visage was marred, and his form, more then the sons of men, he hath no form, nor comeliness v. 2. No beauty, a man of grief, and sorrows, despised, neglected, acquainted with grief, v. 3. looked on as strike and afflicted of God. v. 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 v. 5. to the 10. it was on the account of his being punished, and broken for us, and our sins.  
3. The issue of all this from v. 10. to the end, is the Justification 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 
§. 20.  done to great advantage, and ought to be done, did I purpose the through, and full handling of the business before me,( but I am in transitu, and pressing to ●omewhat farther) I shall only urge two things.  
1. The Expressions throughout, that describe the state and condition of Christ as here proposed.  
2. One or two singular Assertions, comprehensive of much of the rest.  
For the the first, let the Reader consider what is contained in 
§. 21.  the several words, here setting forth the condition of Christ: we have, despising and rejecting, sorrow and grief, v. 4. He was strike, smitten, afflicted; or there was striking, smiting, affliction on him. Wounded, bruised, chastised with stripes, v. 5. wounding, bruising, chastising unto soreness, oppressed, strike, cut off, killed, brought to slaughter, v. 7, 8, 9. Bruised, sacrificed, and his soul made a● offering for sin▪ v. 10.  
Now certainly for the material part, or the matter of punishment, here it is abundantly: here is malum passionnis in every kind. Immission of evil, substraction of Good in soul and body: here is plentiful measure heaped up, shaken together, and running over.  
But it may be said, though here be the matter of punishment, 
§. 22.  yet it may be all this was for some other end; and so it may be it was( {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ},) not {αβγδ}, or punishment properly 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, v. 9. He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth: He was perfectly innocent. So that he had no need of any Chastisement for his Amendment; and so signally in sundry places, where mention is made of the Death of Christ, his own spotless innocency is often pleaded. Neither was it for his instruction that he might be wise, and instructed in the will of God; for at the very entrance of the prophecy, Chap. 52. 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 {αβγδ}; punished for example; to be made en example to others, that they might not offend: For what can offenders learn from the punishment of one who never offended: He was ●ut off, but not for himself: and the end assigned v. 11. 12. which is not the Instruction only, but the justification, and Salvation of others, will not allow this end. He shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities; H● set us an example in his Obedience; but he was not punished for an Example. Neither  
4. Was it {αβγδ}, 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, fo● ou● iniquities▪ that is, he dyed to bear witness to his Doctrine▪ Credat Ap●lla.  
2. Then, the matter of punishment being expressed, see 
§ 23▪  the cause of the infliction of it. It was for Transgressions, for iniquities, v. 5. For wandring and iniquity, v. 6. For Transgressions, v. 8. For sin, v 12. Let us now remember the general description of punishment that was given at the beginning; It is Malum passionnis quod infligitur ob malum actionis, and see how directly it suits with this punishment of Jesus Christ. 1. Here is malum passionnis inflicted, wounding, bruising, killing. And 2. there is malum actionis deserving, sin, iniquity, and transgression. How these met on an innocent person, shall be afterwards declared. 2. go along to the peculiar description of punishment properly so called, as managed by God. It is vindicta noxae; now if all other ends and causes whatever, as of Chastisement or Example, &c. 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 particular consideration of them.  
And this is the first Argument from this place to prove; that the Death of Christ and his suffering, hath the nature of punishment.  
2. The second is, from the more particular expressions of 
§. 24,  it to this purpose, both on the part of the person punishing, and on the part of the person punished: a single expression on each part may be insisted on.  
1. On the part of God punishing, take that of v. 6. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all: of which sort also is that of v. 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he put him to grief, when th●u shalt make his soul an offering for sin.  
2. On the part of him punished, v. 11▪ He shall bear● their iniquities. From the consideration of these expressions, we shall evidently evince what we have proposed. Of these in the next Chapter.   

CHAP. XXIIII.  
Some particular Testimonies evincing the Death of Christ to be a punishment, properly so called.  
THE two Expressions that I choose in particular to consider, are 
§. 1.  nextly to be insisted on.  
The first relates to Him, who did inflict the punishment. The other to him that was punished.  
The first in v. 6. The Lord laid on him the iniquities 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 considered. 1. What is meant by that which is rendered l●id on Him, 2. What is meant by Iniquity.  
The first by our Translation is rendered in the margin, Made to 
§. 2.  meeet; He made to meet; ●n him the iniquities of us all; The vulgar latin, posuit Dominus ineo. The Lord put upon him according to our Translation in the Text. Montanus, dominus fecit occurrere. in ●um. God hath caused to meet on him, according to our Translation in the margin. Junius to the same purpose. Jehov●h fecit ut incurrat, the Lord made them meet,& fall on him. The Septuagint render it, {αβγδ}. The Lord delivered him to our sins, that is, to be punished for them. By others the word is rendered impegit, trad●xit, conj●cit, al to the same purpose, importing an act of God in conveying our sins to Christ.  
The word here used is {αβγδ}; its Root is {αβγδ} to which all 
§. 3.  the significations mentioned, are assigned; Occurrere, obviam ire, incurrere, aggredi, rogare, precari: The first general signification of it is to meet, as the bounds of a Field, or Country, or house, meet with one another. joshuah 19. 34. {αβγδ} 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 obviam ire, or to meet, and that either for good or evil; for good it is spoken of God, Psal 64. 5. thou meetest him, &c. and so for evil Amos▪ 5. 19. as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear meet him: {αβγδ} 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. 59. 16. there was no entreater, {αβγδ} none to meet, to come and ask. And in this very chap. v. 12. he made intercession 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. 2●. 17. the servants of the King would not put forth the hand {αβγδ} to meet, that is, as we have translated it, to fall upon the Priests and kill them; so 2 Sam. 1. 15. David bid his young man arise, {αβγδ} fall upon the Amalekite, that is, to kill him. judge. 15. 1●. samson made the men of Judah swear that they would not {αβγδ} meet with him, or fall on him themselves.  
Nextly, it may be inquired in what sense the word is here 
§. 4.  used, whether in the first spoken of, to ask, entreat, intercede; or in the latter, to meet; or to meet with.  
Grotius interpreteth it,( to remove, so much of his interpretation by the way) permisit Deus, ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignissima pateretur; that so he might svit what is spoken to Jeremiah, without pretence or colour of proof. For the word, it is 46 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 wi●kednesse to entreat him evilly, it is most remote from the intendment of the words, and the Holy Ghost in them.  
1. First then, that the words cannot be interpnted to pray, or intercede, 
§. 5.  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 {αβγδ} in this place, Socinus himself grants not to be proper, nor consistent. Porro significatio illa, precari, in loco nostro locum habere non potest; alioqui sequeretur Isaiam voluisse dicere, Deum fecisse, ut omnium nostrûm iniquitas per Christum, vel pro Christo precata fuerit, quod long absurdissimum esse nemo non videt▪ cap. 21. p. 132. Praelec. Socin.  
2. It is then to meet: now the word here used being in Hiphil, which makes a double Action of that expressed by 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 Iesus Christ, which is the most common use of the word, as hath been shewed.  
It is objected, that the word signifies to meet, yet no more but 
§. 6.  this may be the meaning of them; God in Christ met with all our iniquities; that is, for their pardoning, and removal,& 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.  
2. The Prophet in these words renders a reason of the contemptible sad condition of the Messiah, at which so many were scandalised, 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,& 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, Praelec. cap. 21. p. 133. But this also will farther appear in the explication of the next word: and that is, our iniquities.  
He hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all. {αβγδ} 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 
§. 7.  no new, or uncouth thing, that here it should be so, Gen. 4. 13. {αβγδ} mine iniquity is greater then I can bear, it is the same word here used; they are the words of Cain, upon the denunciation of God's judgement on him; and what iniquity it is, he gives you an account in the next words, behold thou hast cast me out, v▪ 14. that was only the punishment▪ laid on him. It is used in like manner several times Levit. 20. 17, 19. and 1 Sam. 28. 10. Saul swear to the Witch, that no iniquity should be fall her; that is, no punishment for that which she did at his command, in raising up a Spirit to consult withall, contrary to the Law. And also in sundry other places: so that this is no new signification of the word, and is here most proper.  
2. It appears from the explication that is given of this thing 
§. 8.  in many other expressions is the chapped. God laid on him the iniquity of us all. How? in that it pleased him to bruise him, and put him to grief, v. 10. In that he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities, v. 5. as will be made more evident when I come to the next Phrase: He bare our iniquities, which answers to this, He laid them on him.  
3. Because he did so lay our sin on Christ, that he made his 
§. 9.  Soul an offering for sin: when our iniquities were on him, his Soul▪ that is, He, by an usual Synecdoche,( the Soul for the Person) was made {αβγδ} 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 trespass, and a Sacrifice for the exp●ation of it. As another word, viz. {αβγδ} is used also Lev. 4. 3. He shall offer it {αβγδ} for a sin; that is, an Offering for sin; So also Exod 29. 14. Lev. 4. 29. And this very word is so used Levit: 7. 2. They shall kill {αβγδ} 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 th●m made himself {αβγδ} 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. 5. 21. he made him to be a sin for us, that is, an offering for sin, {αβγδ}▪ He made him sin, when he made him a Curse▪ the curse of the Law, Gal: 3. 13▪ that is, gave him up to the Punishment, by the Law due to sin: Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, {αβγδ}, for sin, a Sacrifice for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, Heb: 10. 6. {αβγδ}, in burnt Offerings,& for sin thou hadst no pleasure; and again, {αβγδ}. 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 
§. 10.  God this was, whereby he laid our iniquities on Christ; and these two things are considerable therein.  
1. How it was typically prefigured.  
2. How it was done, or in what Act of God the doing of it doth consist.  
1. This was eminently represented in the great Anniversary Sacrifice, of which I have spoken formerly; especially in that part which concerns the goat, on which the Lot fell to be sent 
{αβγδ}.  away: That that Goat was a Sacrifice, is evident from the 5. v. where both the Kids of the Goats,( afterward said to be two Goats) are said to be a sin Offering; how this was dealt withall, see v. 21. Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the live Goat,& confess our sin, all the iniquities of all the people, all their transgressions in all their sins,& put them upon the Head of the Goat, Now in what 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 p●aculum, an {αβγδ}; and he that touched him was defiled, so v. 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 carri●d away.  
2. The proper prav●ty, 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 som●thing 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, 
§. 11.  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 
{αβγδ}  of separation, a wilderness, there to perish, as all the Jewish Doctors agree: that is, to undergo the Punishment that was inflicted on him; That in such Sacrifices for sin, there was a real imputation of sin unto punishment, shall afterwards be farther cleared.  
Unto this Transaction doth the Prophet allude in this expression, 
§. 12.  he Laid on, or put on him. As the High Priest confessed all the sins, Iniquities,& Transgressions of the people& laid thē on the Head of the scape Goat, which he bare, undergoing the utmost punishment he was capable of, and that punishment, which in the 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 required on that account. He th●n took a view of all our sins and iniquities; He knew what was past and what was to come, knowing all our thoughts a far off. Not the least error of our minds, darkness of our understandings, perverseness of our Wills, carnality of our affections, sin of our nature, or lives, escaped him. All were {αβγδ} before him. This is set out by the variety of expressions used in this matter in the Type; all the iniquities, all the transgressions,& all the sins▪ And so by every word whereby we express sin, in this 53. of Isaiah: going astray, tur●ing aside, iniquity, 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 ou● sins on Christ. 
§. 13.   
I have elsewhere considered, how God in this business is to 
Vide Of the Death of Ch●●st, the price he paid, and the Purchase he made  be looked on: I said now in the entrance of this Discourse, that Punishment is an effect of Justice in him, who had power to dispose of the offender as such. To this two things are required.  
1. That he have in his hand power to dispose of all the concernments of the offence and sinner, as the governor of Him and them all. This is in God. He is by nature the King and governor of all the world. O●r Lawgiver, Jam. 4. 12. Having made rational Creatures, an● required obedience at their hands, it is essentially belonging to him to be their governor, and not only to have the sovereign disposal of them, as he hath the supreme dominion over them, with the legal dispose of them, 
Vid. Dia●ib. de Justit. Divin.  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 
§. 14.  he be a Judge to put in execution his Justice. Thus God is judge himself. Psal. 50. 6. He is the Judge of the world. Gen. 18. 25. Psal. 94. 2. Psal. 75. 7. Is. 33. 22. as in innumerable other places: Now as God is thus the great governor& 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 sin on Christ, there was a two fold Act of God: one as a governor, the other as a Judge properly. 
§. 15▪   
1. The first is, innovatio obligationis, the innovation of the obligation, wherein we were detained, and bound over to punishment. Whereas in the tenor of the Law as to its obligation unto punishment, there was none originally but the name of the Offender, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die: and Cursed is every one that continues not: and the soul that sinneth it shall die; God now puts in the name of the surety of Jesus Christ; that he might bccome responsible for our sins, and undergo the punishment that we were obliged to. Christ was {αβγδ}, he was made under the Law; that is, he was put into subjection, to the Obligation of it unto punishment: God put his name into the obligation, and so the Law came to have its 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 became liable to the punishment of it. He was the mediator of the new Covenant, the Mediator between God and man, 1 Tim. 2. 5. So a Mediator, as to lay down his life a ransom for them, for whom he was a Mediator, v. 6.& the surety of the covenant is he also Heb. 7. 22. Such a surety, as paid that which he never took, made satisfaction for those sins which he never did.  
2. The second Act of God as a Judge, is inflictio poenae. 
§. 16.  Christ b●ing 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 found 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 said he v. 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 world? The Reason is in the very next words, His soul was made an offering for sin, which before is expressed, he bare our grief, 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▪ 
§. 17.  or the Assignation of an Action to God in reference to him, that this Death of Christ was a punishment, He who had power to do it, bringing in him,( on his own voluntary offer) into the Obligation to punishment, and inflicting punishment on him accordingly.  
The second expression whereby the same thing is farther convinced is on the part of him that was punished,& this in v. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows, or which is more evident v. 11. He shall bear their iniquities.  
For the Right understanding of the words, I shall give a 
§. 18.  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, Act. 4. ●8. and Act. 2. 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 pleasure, when he might have otherwise done, Revel. 4▪ 11. So he would determine, that Christ should bear our iniquities, when he might otherwise have disposed of it, Rom. 11. 34, 35, 36, 37.  
2. In respect of us, this preappointment of God was an act 
§. 19.  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, Joh. 3. 16. and so in the fruit of it is it expressed, Rom. 8. 32. And on this John often insists in his gospel and Epist: 1 Joh. 4. 9, 10, 11. His aim on his own part was the declaration of his righteousness, Rom. 3. 25. and to make way for the praise of his glorious grace, Eph. 1. 6. on our parts, that we might have all those good things, which are the fruits of the most intense Love. 
§. 20.   
3. That Christ himself was willing to undergo this burden& undertake this work:& this as it is consistent with his death being a punishment, so it is of necessity to make good the other Considerations of it, namely, that it should be a price, and a Sacrifice. For no man gives a price,& therein parts with that which is precious to him unwillingly; nor is a Sacrifice acceptable that comes not from a free& willing mind. That he was thus willing himself professeth, both in the undertaking& carrying of it on; in the undertaking, Heb. 10. 9. Lo I come to do thy will O God: It is the Expression of one breaking out with a ready joy to do the thing proposed to him. So the Church of old looked on him, as one that came freely and cheerfully, Cant. 2. 8, 9. It is the voice of my beloved, behold he cometh leaping on the mountaines, skipping on the hills: My Beloved is like a row, or a young Hart, he standeth behind the wall, he looketh forth at the window, 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 thence shee says of him, that he stood behind the wall, that He looked forth at the window,& shewed himself at the lattices. There was a wall yet hindering the actual exhibition of Christ; the fullness of time was not come. The purpose of God was not yet to bring forth; but yet in the mean time, 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 ceremonial Types. They see him coming, leaping on the mountaines, and skipping on the hills, coming speedily with a great deal of Joy and willingness.  
So of himself he declares what his mind was from of old, from everlasting, Prov. 8. 30, 31. rejoicing always before him, that is, before God his Father: but in what did he rejoice? in the habitable parts of the earth,& my delight was with the Sons of men. When this Joy of his was, he tells you v. 22, 23, 26, 27. He 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, 
§. 21.  He must be doing his Fathers business, his Will who sent him. Luk. 12. 50. {αβγδ}. 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 readiness to it Joh. 18. 11. when Peter who once before would have advised him to spare himself, now being his counsel was not followed, would have rescu●d 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 substraction of that which was Good, He discovered that averseness to the drinking of the Cup, which the Truth of the human Nature absolutely required,( and which the amazing bitterness of the Cup overpowered him withall) yet still his will conquered and prevailed in all, Math. 26. 53, 54.  
4. Christ his love was also in it, his delight was in the 
§. 22.  sons of men; his love toward them carried him out to the work: And Paul proves it by the instance of himself, Gal. 2. 20. Who loved me. And John applies the same to all Believers, Revel. 1. 5, 6. To him that loved us, &c. 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 grief v. 4. it is {αβγδ}; A 
§. 23  word of as large, and as many various Acceptions as any, if not absolutely the most extensive in the whole Hebrew tongue. It hath usually assigned unto it by the Lexicographer, eight or nine several significations: And to make it evident, that it is of various acceptions, It is used( in the Collections of Calasius) 818 times in the Old Testament, whereof not a third part is answered in any language by one and the same word. With those sences of it, that are Metaphoricall, we have not any thing to do. That which is the first, or most proper sense of it& what is most frequently used, is to carry or bear,& 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, 
§. 24.  so saith he, God took away our sin in Christ, when by him he declared, and confirmed the way whereby Pardon and Remission is to be obtained; as he pardonned 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 interpnted 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. 34. 7. {αβγδ} 
§. 25.  ferens iniquitatem, as also 'tis again repeated, Numb. 14. 18. In both which places, we translate it forgiving, forgiving iniquities, transgressions, and sins. 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 metaphorically,& so he is often said to bear, to be pressed, to be weary,& 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, pard●ning 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 shewed.  
2. The Interpretation of this place by matthew, or the application 
§. 26.  of it is insisted on; which is of more importance, Math. 8. 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 Accommodations 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. 4. 8. citing that of the Psalmist, Psal. 68. 18. Thou hast ascended up on high, and hast lead Captivity Captive, and received gifts for men; renders it; when he ascended up on high, he lead 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 Foundation of his giving of them▪ the Effect and Fruit being here expressed, the Foundation and Ground supposed.  
So also, Mine ears hast thou bored, Psal. 40. is rendered, a body hast▪ thou prepared me, Heb: 10. because the end of the boring the ear of Christ was, that he might offer his body a Sacrifice to God; So it is here in this place of matthew: Christ his taking away the bodily Distempers, and Sicknesses of men, was an Effect, and an Evidence of his taking away their sin, which was done by bearing of them; And therefore matthew 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 Socinians themselves think that this was a full accomplishment of what is spoken by the Prophet, themselves insisting on another interpretation of the words: So that notwithstanding these exceptions, the Word here may have its Proper signification of bearing or carrying; which also that it hath, may be farther evidenced.  
1. Here is no cogent Reason, why the Metaphoricall use of the 
§. 27.  Word should be understood. When it is spoken of God, there is a Necessity, that i● should be interpnted by the Effect; because Properly he cannot 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 Punishment 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 
§. 28.  take away, in this place, confess it is by way of the Allusion before mentioned; 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 shewed, 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 
§. 29.  circumstances of the Text, and Context. Take three that are most considerable.  
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 Question, How did he bear our griefs? as will admit of no other sense: The Holy Ghost tells us how he did it, 1 Pet. 2. 24, 25. Who his ownselfe bare our sins in his body on the three. 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 v. 24▪ and the beginning of v. 25▪ of this Chapter make it so: They are the very words of the end of the 5& beginning of the 6th verses here; How then did Christ bear our griefs? Why in that he bare our sin in his own body on the three.  
I shall not insist on the precise signification of the word {αβγδ}, here used, as though it expressed the outward manner of that suffering of Christ for sin, when he was lifted up on the cross or three. It is enough, that our sins were on him, his body; that is, his whole human Nature,( by an usual Synecd●che) when he was on the three; that he did it when he suffered in the flesh, Cap. 4. 1. He that did so bear our grief, sin, 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 born, not taken away our griefs. But that this is the Case, in Christ his bearing our grief, the Holy Ghost doth thus manifest.  
2. The manner how Christ bare them evidently manifesteth, in 
§. 30.  what sense this expression is to be understood. He so bare them, that in doing so, he was wounded and bruised, grieved, chastised, s●ain, as it is at large expressed in the Context. Christ bare our grief, 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 grief, is assigned to be sin; 
§. 31.  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 5. 21.  
4. To put all out of Question, the Holy Ghost in this Chapter useth another word in the same matter, with this, that will admit of no other sense, then that which is proper. And that is {αβγδ} v. 11. {αβγδ} 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 {αβγδ} properly signifies to lift, to take up that which a man may carry, so {αβγδ} signifies to bear, and undergo the burden, that is taken, or that a man hath laid on his shoulders. And matthew hath rendered this word by {αβγδ}, that is bajulo, p●rto; 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 h●avy and burdensome; Thus did Christ bare 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 
§. 23.  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 iss●e. Lament. 5. 7. Our Fathers have sinned, and are not, and we h●ve born their ini●uitie. We have bo●ne their Iniquities, or the p●ni●hment that was d●e to them▪ They are not, they are gone out of the World, before the day of recompense came, and we lie under the punishment threatened and inflicted for their sins, and our own Distinctly.  
1. Men are said to bear their own sin, Levit: 19. 5. every one 
§. 33.  that eateth it shall bear his iniquity; that is, he shall be esteemed guilty, and be punished: Levit. 20. 17. He shall bear his iniquity, is the same with he shall be killed, v. 16. and he shall be cut off from his people, v. 18. For a man to bear his iniquity, is constantly for him to answer the Guilt, and undergo the Punishment due to it.  
2. So also of the sins of others, Numb. 14. 33. And your Children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and shall bear your whoredoms: bear your whoredoms; that is, my anger for them, and the punishment due to them. Numb. 30. 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. 18. 20. is an explanation of all these places: The soul that sins it shall die, it shall be punished, The Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, &c. 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 Scripture, but only for to undergo the Punishment due thereunto.  
Thus much then we have clearly evinced. God did so lay 
§. 34.  our sins on Christ, as that he bare and underwent that which was due to them; God inflicting it on him,& he willingly undergoing it. Which is my second demonstration from this place, that the Death of Christ is also a punishment. Which is all that I shall urge to that purpose. And this is that, and all that we intend by the Satisfaction of Christ.  
But now having laid so great stress as to our Doctrine under demonstration upon this place of the Prophet, and finding some attempting to take away our foundation, before I proceed, I shal divert to the consideration of the Annotations of Grotius on this whole chap& rescue it from his force& violence, used in contending to make what is here spoken to svit the Prophet Jeremiah, 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.   

CHAP. 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; 
§. 1.  a place of Scripture that sets them on the rack; and makes thē turn 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 Amstelredam, 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 rabbis could easily have extricated themselves from all other places of the Prophets, if Isaiah in this place had but held his peace. 
Aliqui Judaei mihi confessi sunt, Rabbinos suos ex Propheticis scriptures facile se extricare potuisse, modo Isaias tacuisset.  Huls. Theolog. Judaic. lib. 1. Part. 2. Dict. Sapp. de Tempor. Messiae. Though I value not their boasting of their extricating themselves from the other Prophesies, knowing that they are no less entangled with that of Daniel, chap. 9.( Of which there is an eminent story in Franzius, 
Disput. decima, de Sacrificiorum duratione, Thes. 82, 83, 84. &c.  de sacrificiis, concerning his dispute with a Learned Jew on that subject:) 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 
§. 2.  all the copies of Abrabaniel's Comment on this Chapter; so that it was very hard for a Christian, a long time to get a sight of it; as Constantine l' emperor acquaints us in his Preface to his refutation of it: because they thought themselves in some 
Abrabiniel tam avide a Judaeis passim conquiritur, ut vix tandem ejus compos fieri potuerim. Nam eum Christiani superiorem putant: qui solid eorum argumenta &c. Constant. l' Emper. prologue. ad Lectorem: praefix. come. Abrab. in cap. 53. Is.  measure instructed by him, to avoid the Arguments of the Christians from hence, by his application of the whole to Josiah: and I must needs say he hath put as good, yea a far better colour of probability upon his Interpretation, then he with whom I have to do, hath done on his.  
How ungrateful then,& how unacceptable to all professors of 
§. 3.  the name of Jesus Christ, must the labours of Grotius needs be; who hath to the uttermost of his power reached out his hand to relieve the poor blind Creatures from their rack and Torture, by applying( though successelesly) this whole prophecy of Jeremiah, casting himself into the same entanglements with them, not yielding them indeed the least relief, is easily to conjecture. And this is not a little aggravated, in that the Socinians who are no less racked& tortured with this Scripture then the▪ Iewes, durst never yet attempt to accommodate the things here spoken of to any other; though they have expressed a desire of so doing; and which if they could compass, 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 cannot from them be confirmed. This Digression then is to cast into the fire that br●ken Crutch, which this Learned man hath lent unto the Iewes and Socinians to lean upon, and keep themselves from sinking under their unbelief.  
To discover the rise of that Learned Mans opinion, that jeremiah 
§. 4.  is intended in this prophecy, the conceits of the jewish Doctors may a little be considered, who are divided amongst themselves; 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 Constantius l' emperor tells from 
Porrp libri istius, unde haec sectio in Esaiam desumpta est, Author per●ibetur D. Simeon, concionatorum princeps, qui Francofurti olim degebat. Hic● Judaeorum vetustissimis Scriptis, secundum bibliorum seriem, dicta& explicationes plurimas magna diligentia& labour collegit: unde libr● su● nomen {αβγδ} ac si peram dicas: quia ut in pera reconduntur plurima: l' Emper.  R. Simeon, in his book Salkout, that the Ancient rabbis, in their ancient Book Tancluma, and higher, were of the same Judgement. Rabbi Moses Alscheth is urged to the same purpose at large by Hulsius. And in his comment on this place he says expressly, Ecce doctors nostri lauda●ae memoriae uno ere statuunt,& a majoribus acceperunt, de rege Messia sermonem esse,& doctorun▪ L. M. v●stigiis insistemus. And one passage in him is very admirable in the same place saith he; Dicunt doctors nostri L▪ M. omnium afflictionum quae mundum ingressae sunt, tertia pars Davidi& Patriarchis obtigit: tertia altera seculo excisionis, ultima tertia pars regi Messiae incumbet. Where he urgeth the common consent of their Doctors for the sufferings of the Messiah. Of the same mind was R▪ Solomon, as he is cited by Pe●rus Galatinus lib. 8. cap. 14. As the same is affirmed by the Misedrach Resh. cap. 2. 14. And in Beresheth Rabba on Gen. 24. as is observed by Raimundus Martin, Pug. fedei 3a p. Dist. 1▪ cap. 10. 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 rabbis, 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 
§. 5.  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 daies; as R. D. Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Abarbiniel, Lipman, with what weak and mean pretences, with what inconsistency as to the words of the text hath been by others manifested.  
3. Abrabinel or Abrabaniel, a man of great note and honour amongst them, though he assent to the former Exposition of applying the whole prophecy to the People of the Jews, and interprets the words at large accordingly, which exposition is confuted by Constantine l' emperor, 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 Acc●mmodation to Christ. In this he hath the Company of one Rabbi; R. Saadias G●on, mentioned by Aben Ezra upon the 52. chapped. of this prophecy v. 13. But this fancy of Saadias is fully confuted by Abarbinel: which words because they sufficiently evert the whole design of Grotius also, I shall transcribe as they lie in the translation of Huls●us. Revera ne unum quidem versiculum video, qui de Jeremiah exponi posset: qua ratione de eo dicetur, Extolletur& altus erit valde? Item illud, Propter eum obdent Reges as suum, Nam aetas illa Prophetas habere consueverat. Quomodo etiam dici potest Morbos nostros portasse,& dolores nostros bajulasse,& in tumi●e ejus curationem nobis esse, Deum in ipsum incurrere fecisse peccata omnium nostrûm: quasi ipsi poena incubuisset,& Israel fuisset immunis▪ Jam illud, Propter pec●atum populi mei plaga ipsis, item, Dedit cum improbis sepulcrum ejus, ad ipsum referri nequit; multo minus illud, videbit seemen, prolongabit dies, item, Cum robustis partietur spolium. In quibus omnibus nihil est quod de ipso commode affi●mari posset. Unde vehementer mi●or, quomodo R. Hagaon in hanc sententiam perduci potuerit,& Sapientes dari qui hanc expositionem laudant: cum tamen tota ista exponendi ratio plane aliena sit,& e Scriptura non facta.  
Now certainly if this Jew thought he had sufficient cause to admire, that any 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 Discourse by Abarbinel, namely, that not one verse can, or may be expounded of Jeremiah, shall now particularly be made good against Grotius.  
1. He confesseth with us that the Head of this prophecy 
§. 6.  and Discourse is in vers. 13. chap. 52. 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 revelata cognoscet jeremiah. Exaltabitur& elevabitur& subl●mis erit valde.] In magno honore erit apud ipsos Chaldaeos, Ierem. 39. ch. v. 40. My servant Jeremiah shall have all these things clearly revealed to him, and he shall be in great honour with the Chaldeans. So he,  
First, for the words themselves: {αβγδ} with the vulgar 
§. 7.  latin, he renders intelliget, shall understand. The word signifies rather prudence for Action with success, then any speculativ● knowledge by Revelation: 1 Sam. 18. 30. it is used of David behaving himself wisely in the business of his military& civill employment. Its opposite saith Pagnin, is {αβγδ}( quod incogitantiam significat in rebus agendis& ignavā levitatem) which signifies incogitancy in the management of affairs and idle lightness: Whence the word is usually taken for to prosper in affairs, as it used of our Saviour Ierem. 23. 5. a King shall reign {αβγδ} and prosper. Nor can it be otherwise used here, considering the Connexion of the words wherein it stands: it being the precedent to his being highly exalted who is spoken of; which rather follows his dealing prudently, then his receiving revelations: So that in the very entrance there is a mistake in the sense of the word, and that mistake lies at the bottom of the whole Interpretation.  
2. I deny that God speaks any where in the Scripture of any 
§. 8.  one, besides Jesus Christ in this phrase, without any addition, My Servant, as here; Behold my Servant. So he speaks of Christ, Ch. 42. v. 1, 19. and other places; but not of any other Person whatever. It is an expression {αβγδ}, and not to be applied to any, but to him, who was the Great Servant of the Father, in the Work of Mediation.  
3. Even in respect of Revelations, there is no ground, why those made to Jeremiah, should be spoken of so Emphatically, and by way of Eminence above others; seeing he came short of the Prophet, by whom these words are written. Nor can any instance be given of such a prediction used concerning any Prophet whatever, that was to be 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 
§. 9. * ●xalted and extolled, and be very high:( the great Exaltation of 
Eminenti●●●tionem quavis formula expressit, quia illius emin●ntia erit sublimis excellentia. D. Kimchi.  the Lord Jesus Christ in his kingdom, when he was made a Prince, and a Saviour, in a most eminent manner, being set forth in various expressions, no one reaching to the glory of it) is unworthy the Learned Annotator. He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high; that is, the Chaldeans shall give him victuals, and a reward, Jerem. 40. 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 Christ, whom the Learned man confesseth to be intended in these words.  
The sense then of these words is, Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Servant of the Father, Isa. 42. 1, 19▪ Phil. 2. 7, 8. shall deal p●udently, and prosper in the business of doing his Fathers will, and carrying on the affairs of his own kingdom, Isa. 9. 7. And be exalted far above all Principalities and Powers, having a name given him above every name, that at the name of Jesus, &c. Phil. 2. 7, 8.  
The next verse is.  
As many were astonied at thee, his visage was so marred, more then any 
§. 10.  man, and his form more then 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. 22. His Condition was such,& his Visage such, as all that knew any thing of him▪ were astonied to the purpose. The marring of his visage and form, as it may point out all the Acts of violence, that were done upon his face, by spitting, buffeting, and the like; so they express his whole despis●d, contemned, persecuted estate, and condition. But let us attend to our Annotator.  
Modo secunda, modo tertia personâ de Jeremia loquitur, quod frequens 
§. 11.  Hebraeis: Sicut mul●i miratierant hominem tam egregium tam faedè tractari, in carcerem detrudi, deinde in lacum lutosum, ibique& paedore& cibi inopiâ tabescere: Sic contra, rebus mutatis, admirationi erit honos ipsi habitus. he speaks of Jeremiah, sometimes in the second, sometimes in the third Person, which is frequent with the Hebrews: As many wondered that so excellent a person should so vilely be dealt with, be thrust into Prison, and then into a miry lake, and there to pine with stink, and want of food: So on the contrary, affairs being changed, the Honour afforded him, shall be matter of admiration.  
1. To grant the first observation▪ as to the change of Persons 
§. 12.  in the discourse, the word( {αβγδ} shall be astonied) here used, signifies not every slight Admiration, by wondering upon any occasion, or that may be a little more then ordinary: but mostly, an Astonishment arising from the contemplation of some ●uthfull spectacle. So Levit. 26. 32. I will bring the Land into desolation, and the Enemies which dwell therein, shall be astonied at it; and the word is near twenty times used to the same purpose. This by way of diminution is made, mirati sunt, admirationi erit.  
2. This Astonishment of men, is by Grotius referred both to 
§. 13.  the dejection, and Exalta●ion of jeremiah, whereof there is nothing in the words. It is the Amazement of en, at the despicable condition of him, that is spoken of, only, that is intended; but without intruding something of his Exaltation, this discourse had wanted all colour or pretext.  
3. Was it so great a matter in jerusalem, that a Prophet should be put in Prison, there, where they imprisoned, stoned, tortured, and slay 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 jeremiah to be dealt so withall? Is it any matter of Astonishment to this very day? Was his Honour afterward, such an amazing thing, in that for a little season he was suffered to go at Liberty, and had victuals given him? Was not this, as to the thing itself, common to him with many Hundred others? Were his afflictions such, as to be beyond compare with those of any man, or any of the Sons of men? Or his Honours such, as to 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 
§. 14.  at him: for that which had not been  told them, shall they see, and that which they had not heard, shall they consider. 
Ita asperget gentes multas] in Hebr▪ sic asperget; ut responde●● illi sicut, quod praecessit. Multo●ex Gentibus ab Idolorum cultu ●vertet. Similitudo sumpta ab aspersionibus Legalibus; unde& 〈◇〉 est ●bjurgari. At LXX habent {αβγδ}. non malè, nam mirari est aspergi fulgore alicujus. In the Hebrew it is, So he shall sprinkle, that it might answer to the, As, that went before. He shall turn many of the Nations from the worship of Idols. A similitude taken from the legal washings. whence {αβγδ} with the Chaldees is to rebuk. 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 ones brightness.  
For the Exposition of the words.  
1. We agree that it is, So he shall sprinkle: an {αβγδ}, relating 
§. 15.  to the {αβγδ} v. 14. As many were astonied, &c. The great work of Christ, and his exaltation therein, being rendered in opposition to his Humiliation, and Dejection before mentioned: As he was in so mean a condition, that men were astonied 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 
§. 16.  to the legal washings, and purifications, which as they were typical of real Sanctification, and Holinesse; so from them is the Promise thereof so often expressed in the terms of washing and cleansing, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. the term being preserved and used in the New Testament frequently; the Blood of Christ, whereby this work is done, being therefore called the Blood of sprinkling; Eph. 5. 25, 26. Heb. 9. 14. The pouring out of the Spirit by Jesus Christ, for the purifying, and sanctifying of 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 {αβγδ} in the Chaldee to this purpose, is, I know not.  
3. The LXX have very badly rendered the words, Many Nations 
§. 17.  shall wonder at him; both as to words& sense. For 1. as the words will not bear it; so 2. they make that the Action of the Nations towards Christ, which is his towards thē; They loose the whole sense of the words,& what they say, falls in with what follows,& is clearly expressed. 3. It is not helped by the Explanation given to it, by the Annotator. The First expression is Metaphorical, which the LXX render by a word proper, remote from the sense intended; which the Annotator explains by another metaphor. By which kind of tour, men may led words and senses whither and which way they please.  
4. For the Accommodation of the words to jeremiah; how 
§. 18.  did he sprinkle many Nations; so as to answer the type of legal cleansing? Did he poure 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 purposely sent to them, what evidence have we? If a man may fain 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 mouth at him.] Reges, ut Nebuchodonosor Chaldaeorum, 
§. 19.  & Nechos Aegyptiorum, eorumque Satrapae admirabuntur cum silentio, ubi videbunt omnia, quae dixit jeremias ad amussim& suis temporibus impleta. Kings, as Nebuchodonosor of the Chaldees,& Necho of the egyptians, and their Princes, shall admire 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 astonied at his low condition; so even the greatest of them shall be Astonied at the prosperity of his work and Exaltation. The Reason of this their shutting 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.  
For the Application hereof to jeremiah. 1. That the Kings 
§. 20.  mentioned did so become silent with Admiration at him and Astonishment, is {αβγδ}: and all these magnificent thoughts of the Chaldeans dealing with jeremiah, is 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 expression 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 consider. Of which he says; They shall see that come to pass, foreseen and foretold by him, which they not heard of by their Astrologers or magicians.  
1. But what is it, that is here intended? The desolation of 
§. 21.  jerusalem: 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, or heard of, the Apostle tells us, Rom. 15. 21. Strange that this should be the desolation of Iersalem. 2. It is probable that the Magicians and Astrologers, whose life and trade it was to flatter their Kings with hope of success in their Warres, and undertaking, had foretold the taking of Jerusalem, considering that the King of the Chaldees, had used all 
Ezek. 21. 21, 22.  manner of divinations, before he undertook the war against it. It is too much trouble to abide on such vain imaginations. Nor doth Grotius take any care to evidence, how that which he delivers as the 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. 53. with the same continued 
§. 22.  discourse. 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 caepi agere, qui& meis prophetiis plenam habebit fidem,& ipse ae maximis rebus, quas potentia Dei peraget, revelationes accipiet exactissimas, omnibus circumstantiis additis: Dabo vobis geminas ejus notas, unde cognosci posset: Hae notae in Ieremiam quidem congruunt prius, said potius in Christum Will you know, saith he, who he shall be, of whom I have begun to treat? Who shall both fully believe my Prophecies, and shall 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.  
I suppose i● we had not the Advantage of receiving quiter 
§. 23.  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 revealed to very few of the Jews: so joh. 12. 37, 38. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that the saying of Isaias the Prophet might be fulfilled, Lord who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? So Rom▪ 10. 16. But they have not obeied the gospel; for Isaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?  
●. Let us now a little compare these several Interpretations: 
§. 24.  Who hath believ●d our report? Lord how few do believe on Christ, working miracles himself▪& 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 rev●lations, says Grotius. And this is counted Learnedly to interpret the Scriptures; and every day are such Annotations on the Scriptue multiplied.  
3. It is not then the Prophets prediction of what he should do, 
§. 25.  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 
§. 26.  chiefly, and magis {αβγδ}. This then must be the signification of them, according to his Interpretation, in relation unto Christ: He shall believe the Prophesies of Isaiah, and receive revelations of his own. For my part I am rather of the mind of John and Paul, concerning these words, then of the Learned Annotator's▪  
5. There is no mention of describing the person spoken of, by two notes: but in the first words the Prophet enters upon the description of Christ, what he was, what he did, and suffered for us, which he pursues to the end of the Chapter.  
V. 2. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a ro●● 
§▪ 28.  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 unsuitablenesse to their Expectation; They looked for a Person shining in Honour and Glory, raising a visible pompous 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 report that shall go of him, to see him, they shall be offended and return, and say, Is not this the Carpenters son, and are not his Brethren with us? This sword of the Lord, which lies at the Heart of the Jews to this day, the Learned Annotator labours to ●ase them of, by accommodating these words to jeremiah; which through the favour of the Reader, I shall no otherwise refute, then by its repetition: For he shall grow up before the Lord as a tender plant; Jeremiah shall serve God in his prophetical Office, whilst he is young: And as a root out of a dry ground: He shall be born at Anathoth, a poor village. He hath no form nor comeliness: He shall be heavy and Sad. And when we see him &c. He shall not have an amiable countenance. Who might not these things be spoken of him that was a Prophet, if the name of Anathoth be left out and some other 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.  
V. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows: Yet 
§. 29.  we did esteem him strike, 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 animadvert upon their accommodation to jeremiah by Grotius. Thus then he,  
Vere languore● nostros ipse tulit.] Ille non talia meritus, mala subiit quae nos eramu● meriti. Haec omnia ait judaeos dicturos post captam urbem He that deserved no such thing underwent the evils that we had deserved. All these things he saith the Iewes shall say after the taking of the city.  
It is of the unworthy dealing of the Iewes with the Prophet in jerusalem during the siege, that he supposes these words are spoken, and spoken by the Iewes after the taking of the city. The sum is, when he was so hardly treated, we deserved it, even to be so dealt withall, not he, who delivered the word of God.  
But 1. The words are, he bare our griefs, and carried our sorrows: 
§. 30.  That by our griefs& sorrows our sins, and the punishment due to them are intended, hath been declared. That the force of the words bearing and carrying do evince, that he took them upon himself, hath also been manifested. That he so took them, as that God made them meet upon him in his Justice, hat likewise been proved. That by his bearing of them we come to have peace, and are freed▪ shall be farther cleared; as it is expressly mentioned, v. 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 Ieremiah'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 Iewes had any 
§. 31.  such thoughts, or were at all greatly troubled after the taking of the City by the Chaldeans, concerning their dealings with Jeremiah; whom they afterwards accused to his face, of being a false Prophet, and lying to them in the name of the Lord. Neither are these words supposed to be spoken by the Jews, but by the Church of God.  
Et nos ex●stimavimus eum percussum( leprosum v. 6.) vulneratum& 
§. 32. Grot.  a Deo humiliatum] Nos credidimus Jeremiam merito conjectum in car●erem& lacum, Deo illum exosum habente, ut hostem Urbis, Templi,& Pseudoprophetam. We believed that jeremiah w●s deservedly cast into the prison and mire, God hating him as an enemy of the City and Temple, and as a false Prophet. But  
1. These words may be thus applied to any Prophet whatever, that suffered Persecution& martyrdom from the Jews, as who of thē did not, the one or the other? For they quickly saw their error and mistake as to one, though at the same time they fall upon another; as our Saviour upbraideth the Pharisees.  
Nor  
2. Was this any such great matter, that the 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 withall, this is that the Prophet might well bring in the Church thus signally complaining of. Of him to this day are the thoughts of the Jews no other then as here recorded, which they express by calling him {αβγδ}.  
The reason of the low condition of the Messiah, which was so 
§. 33.  misapprehended of the Jews, i● rendered in the next verse, and their mistake rectified.  
But he was wounded for our transgress●ons, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we ●re h●aled▪  
I suppose it▪ will not be questioned, but that these words belong to our Blessed Saviour, and that Redemption which he wrought for us by his death and blood. Not only the full accomplishment of the thing itself, as delivered in the New Te●●ament, but the quotation of the words themselves, to that end and purpose 1 Pet. 2. 24. do undeniably evince it. In what sense the words are to be understood of him, we have formerly declared. 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 Annotator.  
Ipse autem vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras] in Hebraeo. At 
§. 34. Grot.  vero ipse vulneratus est( id est, male tractatus est) crimine nostro: in nobis culpa fuit, non in ipso: Sic& quod sequitur, Attritus est per culpam nostrorum: Iniquissima de eo sens●mus& propterea crudeliter eum tractavimus: id nunc rebus ipsis appare●: Similia dixerant Judaei qui se converterunt die Pentecostes:& de●nceps.  
But he was wounded for our transgressions] in the Hebrew, But he was wounded( that is, evilly entreated) by our fault. The fault was in us, not in him: And so that which follows: He was bruised by our fault: we thought ill of him, and therefore handled Him cruelly: This now is evident from the things themselves: The like things said the Iewes who converted themselves on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards.  
The Reading of the words must first be considered, and then 
§. 35.  their sense and meaning: For against both these doth the Learned Annotate● transgress, perverting the former, that he might the more easily wr●st the latter. 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 interpnted by evil-entreated, the question is, whether the efficient, or procuring and meritorious cause o● Christs wounding be here expressed.  
2. The words used to express this cause of wounding are 
§. 36.  two, and both emphatical: the first is {αβγδ}, he was wounded {αβγδ}▪ for our prevarications, our proud transgressing of the Law▪ {αβγδ}, est rebellare,& exire a voluntate Domini, vel praecepto, ex superb●a: R. D. in Mich●. It is properly to ●ebell against man or God; Against man▪ 2 King. 3. 7. The King of Moab {αβγδ} hath rebelled against me: and Ch 8. v. 20. In his daies Edom {αβγδ} rebelled: as also against God, Isa. 1. ●. I have brought up Children, and they {αβγδ} have rebelled against me. Nor is i● used in any other sense in the Scripture, but for Pr●varication and Rebellion with an high hand, and through pride: The other word is {αβγδ}; He was bruised {αβγδ} for our iniquities; The word signifies, a declining from the right way, with perversity and frowardness. {αβγδ}, est iniquè vel perversè agere; propriè 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 
§. 37.  mentioned, is expressed in the Preposition {αβγδ} min, which properly is de, ex▪ à, è, 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 quiter 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 being then 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, smitton 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: {αβγδ} 
§. 38.  {αβγδ}: Rightly! to be wounded {αβγδ}, is to be wounded for, and not by sin, no otherwise then that also signifies the impulsive cause. And the Chaldee Paraphrast, not able to avoid the clearness of the Expression, denoting the meritorious cause of Punishment, and yet not understanding how the Messiah should be wounded, or punished, he thus rendered the words: Et ipse aedificabit domum Sanctuarii nostri, quod violatum est propter peccata nostra,& 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 
§. 39.  these: He was wounded for our sins; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed. Of these thus the Annotator  
Disciplina pacis nostrae supper eum] apud eum, id est, monitis, nobis attulit salutaria, si ea reciperemus. He gave us wholesome 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 then he.  
2. The words are not, He gave us good Counsel, if we would have 
§. 40.  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 three, 1 Pet. 2. 24.  
3. The word rendered by us, Chastisement; by the vulgar Latin● 
§. 41.  which Grotius follows, disciplina, is {αβγδ} Musar; which as it hath its first signification to learn, so it signifies also to correct, because Learn●ng 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 {αβγδ} he renders, apud eum, contrary to the known sense of the word; {αβγδ} is to ascend, to lift up, to make to ascend; a word of most frequent use; thence is the word used, rendered supper; intimating that the Chastisement of our Peace was made to ascend on him; as Peter expresseth the sense of this place; {αβγδ}: he carried up our sins on his body on the three; they were made to ascend on him. The LXX render the words {αβγδ}; the Vulgar latin supper eum: And there is not the least colour for the Annotators, Apud eum. Now the Chastisement of our Peace, that is, the punishment that was due, that we might have peace, or, whereby we have peace with God, was upon him; is( it seems) He gave us good counsel and admonition, if we would have followed it.  
4. Here is no word expressing any act of the person spoken 
§. 42.  of, but his suffering or undergoing punishment. But of this enough.  
Et livore ejus sanati sumus] Livore ejus, id est, ipsius patientiae, 
Grot.  nos sanati fuissemus, id est, liberati ab impendentibus malis, si verbis ipsius, tanta malorum tolerantia confirmatis, habuissemus fidem. Hebraei potentialem modum aliter quàm per indicativum exprimere nequeunt; ideo multa adhibenda attentio ad consequendos sensus. With his stripes we are healed.] with his wound, or sore, or stripe, that is, by his Patience we might have been healed; that is, freed from impendent evils, had we believed his words, confirmed 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 
§. 43.  figments of the jewish rabbis, I never in my whole life, met with an Interpretation of Scripture, offering more palpable violence to the Words, then 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, mentioned in the words foregoing: and so interpnted by Peter, 1 Ep. 2. 24. whereby we have Peace with God, which we have. The healing in the Annotator, is the deliverance from destruction by the Chaldeans which they were not delivered from, but might have been.  
3. {αβγδ} Chabura, in the Prophet, is {αβγδ} in Peter; but patience in the Annotator.  
4. By his stripes we are healed, is in the Annotator, By hearkening 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 then the Holy Ghost, 1 Pet. 2. 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 somewhat a strange attempt.  
6. To close with this verse; we do not esteem ourselves at 
§. 44.  all beholding 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, least any should mistake, and think their Conversion to have been the work of the Spirit, and Grace of God) on the day of Pentecost, used such words, as those that the Jews are feigned to use, in reference to jeremiah. It is quiter 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 crucified;  
— Munera quidem misit, said misit in hame.  
V. 6. All we like sheep are gone astray, we are turned every one to his 
§. 45.  own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  
Grotius. Erraveramus a Manassis temporibus, alii ad alia idola: Et permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indigna pateretur. We have all erred from the dayes of Manasseh, some 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 
§. 46.  times of Manasseh? and not afterwards? The expression is universal, {αβγδ} 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 {αβγδ} 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? Mens 
§. 47.  own ways which they walk in, when they turn from the ways of God, and know not the ways of peace, comprehend all their evils of every kind, that their hearts and lives are infected withall.  
3. The last words are unworthy a person of much less learning, 
§. 48.  and Judgement then the Annotatour. For  
1. The word {αβγδ} Hiphghiah( of which before) is interpnted without pretence▪ warrant, or colour, Permisit God permit●ed. But of that word sufficiently before.  
2. By his suffering unworthy things through our fault, he understands not the meritorious cause of his suffering, but the means whereby he suffered; even the unbelief& Cruelty of the Iewes, which is most remote from the sense of the place.  
3. He mentions here distinctly, the fault of them that speak, and his suffering that is spoken of. Permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indigna pateretur: when in the Text the fault of them that 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 Gods act: in the Annotations, the Iewes 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 ways whereby we are delivered: And therein a reason of the low and abject condition of the Messiah in this world. But of this at large elsewhere.  
Vers. 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he 
§. 49.  opened not his Mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her sharers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.  
Oblatus est, quia ipse volvit,& non aperuit as suum] in Hebr. oppressus.& afflictus fuit,& non aperuit as suum. Sensum been expresserunt LXX {αβγδ}. Etiam tunc cum in Carcerem ageretur,& in locum lutosum nihil fecit, dixitve iracunde.  
Sicut ovis] initissimum animal.  
Et quasi agnus] cum quo ipse jeremias se comparat, Cap. 11. v. 18.  
He was offered because he would, and he opened not his mouth] in the Hebrew, he was oppressed and afflicted. The LXX have well expressed the 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 mildred Creature.  
And as a Lamb] wherewith Jeremiah compares himself, Chap. 11. v. 18.  
The process of the words is to give an account of the same 
§. 50.  matter formerly insisted on, concerning ones suffering for the sin of others. That the words are spoken of the Lord Jesus, the Holy Ghost hath long since put it out of question, Act. 8. 32. And though there be some difficulty and variety in the Interpretation of the first words, yet his patient suffering as the lamb of God, typed out by all the Sac●●fices of the Jews, under the punishment due to our sins, shines through the whole.  
1. For the words themselves they are {αβγδ} which are variously rend●ed: {αβγδ} LXX. 
§. 51.  And he for, or because of affliction. Oblatus est quia ipse volvit. Vulg. Lat. He was offered because he would. Oppressus est& ipse afflictus est. Arias mount. Exigitur& ipse affligitur, Jun it was exacted, and he was afflicted. Others, It was exacted, and he answ●red, which seems most to agree with the Letter; {αβγδ} is sometimes written with the point on the right corner of {αβγδ} and then it signifies to approach, to draw nigh; and in the matter of Sacrifice it signifies to offer, because men drew nigh to the Lord in offering. So Amos 5. 25. {αβγδ} Have you made to draw nigh your offerings and Sacrifices? Or have you offered? Thus the Vulg. Lat. red the word, and rendered it Oblatus est, he was offer●d. With the point in 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 King. 23. 25. Jehojachim exacted silver and gold of the people of the Land. Thence is {αβγδ} an exactor, one that requires what is imposed on men Zec. 9. 8.& 10. 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 paena, Punishment was exacted. And this is more proper, then what we red, He was oppressed; though that also be significant of the same thing. How the punishment of our sin was exacted or required of Jeremiah, the Annotatour declares not.  
The other word is {αβγδ} Naanch; the Vulg. Lat. seems to 
§. 52.  look to the active use of the word, to answer; and therefore renders it volvit; 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,& he undertook it with willingness,& patience: so it denotes the will of Christ in undergoing the penalty due to our sins, which he expresseth Psal. 40. 8. Heb. 10. 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 Annotatour's friends to find out.  
The next words, He opened not his mouth, he applies unto the Patience 
§. 53.  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, was not found in holy jeremiah, who in his Affliction and trial opened his mouth, and cursed the day wherein he was born:& 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, Ierem. 11. 19. in those words, not denoting his patience, but his being exposed to their cruelty.  
V. 8. He was taken from prison and from judgement, and who 
§. 54.  shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he smitten.  
The person speaking is here changed, as is manifest from the closed of the verse, for the transgression of my people; who were the speakers before. These then are the words of God by the Prophet: and they are not without their difficulties, concerning which the Reader may consult commentators at large. Grotius thus  
De carcere& judicio ablatus est] id est, liberatus tandem: Judicium vocat hoc, quia specie judicii ipsi haec mala imposita fuerunt. Jerem. 32. 
Grot.  3. liberatur autem per Babylonios. Generationem ejus quis enarrabit?] Quis numerare poterit dies vitae ejus? id est, erit valde longaevus. Quia abscissus est de terra viventium] nempe cum actus fuit primum in carcerem, deinde in lacum illum caenosum,& rursum in carcerem.  
He was taken from prison and judgement.] that is, he was at length delivered. He calls it judgement, because these evils were imposed on him with a pretence of Judgement. But he was freed by the Babylonians: Who shall declare his generation?] Who shall be able to number the dayes of his life? that is, He shall live very long. For he was cut off out of the land of the living] namely, when he was 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( suppling supervenit) populi summo error, ac crimine, ut ante dictum est. For the wickedness of my people I have strike him] in the Hebrew it is, Stroke i● on him( that is, befell him) through the great error and fault of the people, as it before said. So far he.  
The sense of these words being a little tried out, their application will be manifest. The first words are not without 
§. 55.  their difficulty, {αβγδ} from prison say we. The word is from {αβγδ} prohibere, coercere; to forbid and restrain: and is no where used for a prison directly. The LXX have rendered it, {αβγδ}, in his humility or humiliation, his Judgement or sentence was taken away, referring one of the words to one thing, and another to another. The Vulgar latin, Angustia: Arias Mountanus, clausura: Junius, per coarctationem: rendering the preposition by, not from. The word is rendered by us, oppression: Psal. 107. 39. it is at the utmost in reference to a Prison, claustrum, a place where any may be ●hut up: but may as well be rendered Angustia, with the Vulgar latin; better coarctation, with Junius, being taken for any kind of st●ait and restraint. And indeed properly our Saviour was not cast into a Prison, though he was all night under restaint. If the intendment of the words be about what he was d●livered from under which he was; and not what he was delivered from, that he should not undergo it, {αβγδ} and from judgement, there is no difficulty in the word. Only whose judgement it is, that he was taken from, is worth inquiry; whither that of God or man▪ {αβγδ} he was taken, ublatus est. The Vulgar latin, he was taken up. {αβγδ} is capere, accipere, fe●re, 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 
§. 56.  taken away, that is, killed and slain by his pressures, and the pretended judgement that was passed on him, or else that he was delivered from the straights and judgement, that might have come upon him. Although he was so afflicted, yet he was taken away from distress& judgement. Iunius would have the former sense:& the exegesis of the word, taken away, by the following words he was cut off from the Land of the Living, seem to require it: In that sense the words are, B●durance, restraint, affliction& judgement, either the Righteous judgement of God,( as Iunius) 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. 50. 7, 8. Heb. 5. 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 
§. 57.  from prison and judgement by the Babylonians That {αβγδ} is delivered,& that he was delivered by the Babylonians from judgement, after that judgement had passed on him,& sentence been executed for many moneths, is strange. But let us proceed to what follows.  
Who shall declare his generation? Who shall speak it, or be able to speak it? {αβγδ} his generation. {αβγδ} is aetas, generatio, saeculum: gr. {αβγδ}; who shall expound his generation, or declare it: that is, though he be so taken away by opp●ession, and judgement, yet his continuance, his generation, his abiding shall be such, as Quis eloquetur? Who shall 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) Wo can declare the Generation of 
§. 58.  jeremiah? he shall live so great a space of time. He began his prophecy when he was very young, Ch. 1. v. 5. even in the 13th year of josiah: and he continued Prophesying in jerusalem until the 11th year of Zedekiah, about 40 years: and how long he lived after this is uncertain. Probably he might live in all 60 years; whereas it is evident that Hosea prophesied 80 years or very near. Now that this should be so marvelous a thing, that a man should live 60 or 70 years, that God should foretell it, as a strange thing, above twice so many years before, and 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 Abarbinel's Accommodation of these words to josiah, and he will see what shifts the poor man is put to, to give them any tolerable sense.  
For he was cut off out of the land of the living. {αβγδ} 
§. 59.  {αβγδ}. His life was taken from the Earth: to the sense, not the letter:] {αβγδ} cut off, as a branch is cut off a three; {αβγδ} is abscindere, succidere, excidere, to cut off. The Land of the living, is the state and condition of them that live in this world; so that to be cut off from the Land of the living, is a proper expression for to be slain, as in reference to Christ it is expressed by another word, Dan. 9. 26. The meaning of this is, says Grotius, Jeremiah was cast into the Prison, and into the miry lake. He was 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 from thence by the way of deliverance?  
For the transgression of my People was he strike. Of the sense of 
§. 60.  this expression, that Christ was smitten, 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 sins, that is, the People sinned in doing of it; that is, in putting Jeremiah into Prison. The whole Context evidently manifests, and the Preposition in the Relation wherein it stands to sin and punishment, necessary requires, that the impulsive, and meritorious, not the efficient cause, be denoted thereby.  
V. 9. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in 
§. 61.  his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.  
Et dabit impios pro sepulturâ& divitem pro morte suâ.] 
Grot.  Illi ipsi interficere eum etiam voluerant, ut legimus Jerem. 26. At Deus istius 'vice viros potentes quidem, said improbos, Sacerdotes nempe, mortem Jeremiae machinatos, morti dedit per Chaldaeos, 2 Reg. 25. 18, 19, 20, 21. Nihill illis divitiae suae profuerunt, quibus redimi se posse speraverant. eo quod iniquitatem non fecerit, neque dolus fuerit in ore ejus.] quanquam nihil aliud dixerat, quàm 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 red Ierem. 26. 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 King. 25. 18. their riches, whereby they hoped to redeem themselves, profited them nothing.— although he had not said any thing, but what God commanded him.  
It is confessed, that the first words are full of difficulty, and 
§. 62.  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, but to consider its Accommodation by Grotius. The most single sense of the words to me seems to bee, 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 butted in the Grave of a Rich man, by Joseph of Arimathea in his own grave; the consent of which Interpretation with the Text, is discovered by 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, 
§. 63.  who is spoken of, was {αβγδ} in mortibus 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 of giving, or placing his Grave with the wicked. Nor were those mentioned in the 2 King. 25. 18, 19. that were slain by the King of Babel, as it doth any way appear, of the peculiar enemies of jeremiah; the chief of th●m S●raiah being pr●bably he, to whom Jeremiah gave his prophecy against Babylon, who is said to be a quiet Prince, Ierem. 51. 59, 61.  
3. It is well that it is granted, that pro is as much as 'vice: for one, in ones stead: which the Learned Annotators friends will scarce allow.  
4. The application of those words, He did no violence, nor was there any deceit found in his mouth,( which are used to 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 then Blasphemy, and to restrain them to the Prophets message from God, is devoid of all pretence of plea.  
V. 10. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he shall put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see 
§. 64.  his seed, he shall prolong his daies, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.  
Tamen Deo visum est eum conterere& infirmare.] id est, attenuare famed, illuvie, squalore: verba activa apud Hebraeos saepè 
great.  permittendi habent significationem; causa sequitur, cur id Deus permiserit. Si posuerit pro delicto animam suam, videbit seemen longaevum.] verteris recte: ut cum semetipsum subjecerit paenis, videat seemen, diuque vivat. Hebraeis paena etiam injust irrogata {αβγδ} dicitur, quia infligitur si non sonti, certe quasi sonti; 〈◇〉 sumi apparet, Gen. 31. 39. Zech. 14. 19. Vixit diu Jeremias in Aegypto.  
Yet it seemed good to God to Bruise and Weaken him.] that is, to weaken him, and bring him down by hunger, filth, &c. Active verbs among the Hebrews, have often the signification of permitting: the Reason follows, why God suffered this. If he make his soul &c.] You shall rightly red it, that when he hath submitted himself to punishments, that then he may see his seed and live long. Amongst the Hebrews punishment un●ustly inflicted, is called asham, because it is inflicted on him that is guilty, or supposed so. So it is evident, that Chata is taken Gen. 31. 39. Zech. 14. 19. Jeremiah lived long in Egypt.  
The words and sense are both briefly to be considered. {αβγδ} 
§. 65.  volvit, the Lord would bruise him: delectatus est; Jun: It pleased the Lord, say we. The Greek renders this word {αβγδ}, properly; although in the following words it utterly departs from the original. The word is not only velle, but voluntatem seu complacentiam habere, to take delight to do the thing, and in the doing of it, which we will to be done, Numb. 14. 8. Iudges 13. 23. Our Translation refers it to the Purpose, and good pleasure of God; so is the word used Jonah 1. 14. and in sundry other places. The noun of the same signification is used again in this verse, {αβγδ} and translated▪ the pleasure; The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper; that is, the thing which pleases him, and which he hath purposed to do. The purpose and pleasure of the Lord in giving Christ up to death, Act. 2. 23.& 4 26, 27▪ is doubtless that which the Prophet here intends; which also as to the execution of it, is farther expressed, Zechar. 13. 7.  
2. It pleased the Lord, {αβγδ} eum contundere; conterere, frangere: 
§. 66.  to bruise, or break him: in answer to what was said before, v. 5. he was wounded, he was bruised, &c.  
That which is said to accommodate all this to Jeremiah, is, that by all this is intended, that God permitted it to be done to him. But,  
1. The word Chaphetz is no where used in that sense, nor will 
§. 67.  any where bear tha● Interpretation. And though some active verbs in the Hebrew may be interpnted in a sense of permitting, or suffering the thing to be done, which is said to be done: Yet that all may so be interpnted when we please, without a cogent Reason of such an Interpretation; that this verb signifying not only to will, but with delight and purpose, should be so interpnted, 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 pretence of Reason or Truth, I know not.  
2. As to Christ, to whom he confesseth these words properly 
§. 68.  to belong, the proper sense of the word is to be retained, as hath been shewed; and it is very marvelous, 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 or he shall make his 
§. 69.  soul an offering for sin: or as it may be red, when his soul shall make an offering for sin; it may relate either to God, giving him up for a Sacrfice, his soul for his whole human nature; or to Christ, whose soul was, or who offered himself as a Sacrifice to God, Eph. 5. 2. Which way soever it be taken, it is peculiar to Christ; for neither did God ever make any one else an Offering for 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 svit these words to jeremiah, it is said, that {αβγδ} in the Hebrew, signifies any punishment, though unjustly inflicted.  
I will not say that the Learned Annotator affirms this, with a 
§. 70.  mind to deceive; But yet I cannot but think, that as he hath not given, so he could not give one instance out of the Scripture, of that use of the word which he pretends. This I am sure, that his Assertion hath put me to the labour, of considering all the places of Scripture, where the word is used, in the full collections of Calasius; and I dare Confidently assure the Reader, that there is no colour for this Assertion, nor instance to make it good. The Greekes have rendered it {αβγδ}, an offering for sin; as is expressed, Rom. 8. 3 Heb. 10. 5, 8. so the word is used Levit. 5. 16.& 7. 1. But,  
If {αβγδ} be not used in that sense, yet {αβγδ} is, in Gen. 31. 39. Z●char. 14 19. But, 
§. 71.   
1. This doth not satisfy, If this word may not be so interpnted, which is here used; yet another, which is not here used, may be so interpnted; and therefore that which is here used, must have the same sense. Nor,  
2. Can he prove that {αβγδ} hath any other signification, but 
§. 72.  either of sin, or punishment, or satisfaction; In the first place instanced in, Gen. 31. 39. jacob says, that, for that, which was taken away out of the flock of Laban, he expiated it, he made satisfaction for it, as the Law afterwards required in such cases should be done, Exod. 22. 12. And in that place of Zech. 14. 19. it is precisely punishment for sin. But this word is not in our Text.  
Take then the word in any sense that it will admit of, to apply this expression to Jeremiah, is no less then 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 
§. 73.  how to make any application of them to jeremiah, and therefore he speaks nothing of them. How they belong to Christ, is evident, Psal 22. 30. Heb. 2, 8, 9. that, he shall prolong his daies, is not applicable to jeremiah, of whom the Annotator knew not how long he lived in Egypt, hath been formerly declared. Christ prolonged his daies, in that notwithstanding that he was dead, he is alive, and lives for ever.  
The last clause concerning the prospering of the good pleasure, the 
§. 74.  will, and pleasure of the Lord, in the hand of Jesus Christ, for the gathering of his Church, through his blood, and making peace between God and Man, hath little relation to any thing, that is spoken of Jeremiah, whose ministry for the conversion of souls, doth not seem to have had any thing eminent in it above 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.  
V. 11. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: 
§. 75.  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& saturabitur.] videbit diu ad satietatem: simile lequendi 
Grot.  genus in Hebraeo. Gen. 25. 8.& 35. 19. 1 Paralip. 23. 1.& 29. 28. 2 Paral. 24. 14.  
In scientiâ suâ.] per eam quam habet Dei cognitionem.  
Justificabit ipse justus servus meus multos.] Exemplo& institutione corriget multos, etiam ex gentibus. Haec est maximè propria verbi {αβγδ} significatio,& G●aeci {αβγδ}, ut apparet Dan. 12. 3. Apocal. 22. 11. & alibi saepè.  
Et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit.] id est, auferet, per {αβγδ}, quia qui sordes aliquas auferunt, solent eos coll● supposito portare: Abstulit Jeremias multorum peccata, ita ut diximus, corrigendo.  
He shall see and be satisfied] he shall see long, unto satiety; the like phrase of speech you have in the Hebrew, Gen. 25. 8. &c. By his knowledge] By that knowledge which he hath of God. He shall justify many.] by his example and institution he shall convert many, even from among the Heathen: this is the most proper sense of the word {αβγδ} and of {αβγδ} in the Greek; as appeareth Dan. 12. 3. Revel. 22. 11. &c. For he shall bare their iniquities] that is, take them away, by a Metonymy: because those that take away filth, use to take it on their necks, and 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 
§. 76.  poison, about the Death of Christ, to be enfolded in this Interpretation. His knowledge is the knowledge that he had of God, and his Will, which he decalres: to justify, is to amend mens lives, and to 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 see.  
1. Those words {αβγδ} which the vulgar latin rende●s, pro eo quod laboravit: ad verbum, propter laborem ainae suae, which express the object of the seeing mentioned, and that wherewith 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 {αβγδ} in many places signifies: verbs of sense with the Hebrews, having very large significations: {αβγδ} saturabitur, 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. 25. 8. &c. in all which mention is made of men that were old, and full of daies.  
1. But to live to satiety, is to live till a man be weary of living, 
§. 77.  which may not be ascribed to the Prophet.  
2. This of his long life, was spoken of immediately before, according to the Interpretation of our Annotator, and is not( probably) inst●ntly 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 wo●d 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 relation 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 s●tietatem, but videbit, saturabitur.  
6. The word shall see, evidently relates to the words going before, the travail of his soul: if it had been, he shall see many years, or many daies, and be satisfied; it had been something. But it is, He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.  
2. By his knowledge {αβγδ} in, or by his knowledge, in scientiâ 
§. 78.  suâ, Vulg. Lat. Cognitione sui, Jun. The LXX wholly perv●●t▪ all the words of this verse, except the last, as they do also of the former. That by the knowledge here mentioned, is meant the knowledge of Christ taken objectively, and not the knowledge of God taken actively, as our Annotator supposes, is evident from the fruit that is ascribed hereunto, which is the justification of them that have that knowledge. By his knowledge, that is, the knowledge of him, they shall be justified, Phil: 3 8. So, teach me thy 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.  
My righteous Servant shall justify many: that this term used 
§. 79.  thus absolutely, My righteous servant, is not applied to any in the Scripture besides Jesus Christ, hath been declared, especially, where that is ascribed to him, which here is spoken of, can it be no otherwise understood. {αβγδ} 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. 12. 3. and {αβγδ}, Revel. 22. 11. That both these words are to be taken in a forensicall signification, that commonly, mostly they are so taken in the Scriptures, that scarce on● and another instance can be given to the contrary, that in the matter of our Acceptation with God through Christ, they can no otherwise be interpnted, hath been abundantly manifested by those, who have written of the doctrine 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. For he shall bear their iniquities. Now what justification of men is a proper effect of anothers bearing their iniquities? doubtless the acquitting of them from the guilt of their sins, on the account of their sins being so born, and no other. But,  
says our Annotatour, To bear their sins, is to take them away, 
§. 80.  by a figurative expression: If this may not be unde●stood, 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 bearing our iniquities, be intended the undergoing of the punishment of those iniquities,& not the delivering men from their iniquities, the whole matter here treated of, can relate to none but Iesus Christ,& to him it doth relate in the sense contended for. Now to evince this sense we have al the Arguments that any place is capable to receive the confirmation of its proper sense by.  
For 1. The word as is confessed, signifies properly to bear or 
§. 18.  carry, and not to take away; Nor is it ever otherwise used in the Scripture, as hath beenn declared, and the the proper use of a word is not to be departed from,& a figurative admitted 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 bare 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 insisted on. From all which it is evident, how violently the Scripture is here perverted by rendering, My righteous servant shall justify many, for the shall bear their iniquities, by, jeremiah shall instruct many in godliness and so turn them from their sins.  
V. the last. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, 
§. 82.  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 bear the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.  
A further 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.  
Dispartiam ei plurimos.] Dabo ei partem in multis: id est, multos servabunt Chaldaei in ejus gratiam, vide Jerem. 39. 17. Et fortium dividet spolia.] id est, Nabuzardan Magister militum, capta urbe, de praeda ipsi dona mittet. Jer. 40. 5. Oblatus etiam ipsi a Chaldaeis locus quantum velvet. Pro eo quod tradidit in mortem animam suam] in Hebraeo, Quia effudit in mortem animam suam, id est, periculis mortis semet objecit, colendo veritatem quae odium parit. Vide historiam ad hanc rem oppositam, Jerem. 26. 13. Sic {αβγδ} dici pro periculo mortis semet objicere diximus ad Joh. 10. 11. Et come sceleratis reputatus est] Ita est tractatus quo modo scelerati solent in carcere, catenis& barathro. Et peccata multorum tulit] pessime tractatus fuit permultorum improbitatem uti sup. v. 5. Et pro Transgressoribus rogavit] {αβγδ} est depr ecari: Sensus est, eo ipso tempore cum tam dura patere tur a populis, non cessavit ad Deum preces pro eis fundere, vide Jerem. 14. 7. &c.  
I will divide him a portion with the great, or many] that is, the Chaldeans shall preserve many for his sake. Ierem. 39. 17. He shall divide the spoil with the strong,] that is, Nabuzardan the chief Captain, the City being taken, shall sand him gifts of the prey, jer. 40. 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 exposed himself to the dangers of death, by following truth, which begets hatred. See Iere. 26. 13. {αβγδ} is spoken for exposing a mans life to danger of death. He bare the sin of many] or was evilly treated by the wickedness of the many. And made intercession for the Toansgressours;] he prayed for the People, &c.  
To run briefly over this exposition 
§. 83.   
1. I will divide him a portion with the great, that is, the Chaldees shall save many for his sake. How is this proved? Ierem. 39 17, 18. Where God says, he will s●ve Ebedmelech, because he put his trust in him: Such is the issue commonly, when men will wrest the Scripture to their own imaginations. Such are their proofs of what they affirm.  
2. He shall divide the spoil with the strong: that is, the city being taken, the Captaines of the guard gave him victuals, and a reward, and set him at liberty, as we red Jerem. 40. 5.  
3. Because he poured out his soul to death; that is, he ventured 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 interpnted, he shall take away their sins: and that when a word of a more restrained signification is used to express bearing, then that here used. At this rate a man may make application of what he will, to whom he will. 
§. 84.   
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 observe  
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 wi●h affliction and persecution, in the discharge of his duty, and was delivered by the presence of God with him: So that there is no reason to persuade us, that jeremiah was peculiarly intended in this prophecy.  
2. That the Learned Annotatour, though he profess that Jesus Christ was intended in the letter of this Scripture, yet hath interpnted the whole, not only without the least mention of Iesus Christ, or application of it unto him, but also hath so opened the several words and expressions of it, as to leave no place nor room for the main Doctrine of his Satisfaction here principally intended. And how much the Church of God is beholding to him for his pain and travail herein, the Reader may judge.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
Of the matter of the punishment that Christ underwent, or what he suffered.  
HAving dispatched this Digression, I return again to the consideration 
§. 1.  of the death of Christ, as it was a punishment which shall now be pursued unto its issue.  
The third thing proposed to the Consideration on this Account was the matter of this punishment that Christ underwent which is commonly expressed by the name of his Death.  
Death is a name comprehensive of all evil, of what nature, or of what kind soever: All that was threatened, all that was ever inflicted on man: though much of it fall within the compass of this life, and short of death, yet it is evil purely on the account of its Relation 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 
§. 2.  considered two ways.  
1. In its self.  
2. In reference to the Law.  
On the first head, I shall only consider the general evident concomitants of it, as they lie in the story, which are all set down, as aggravations of the Punishment he underwent.  
In the latter, give an account of the whole, in refrence to the Law.  
1. Of death natural, which in its whole nature is penal, 
§. 3. ( 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 hight, met in the Death of Christ.  

1. It was violent and bloody, hence he is said to be 
§. 4.   
1. slain, Act. 2. 23. {αβγδ}, ye have slain.  
2. Killed, Act. 3. 15. {αβγδ}, ye have killed.  
3. Put to Death, joh. 18. 31, 32.  
4. Cut off, Dan. 9. 26.   
The death of Christ, and the blood of Christ, are on this account 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, then if he had been most unwilling thereunto.  
2. It was ignominious and shameful. Such was the Death 
§. 5.  of the 
{αβγδ}, seu crucifragium ut crux ipsa, servorum quasi peculiar supplicium fuit. Lipsius. Sublimes extra ordinem aliquae statuebantur cruces; si exempla edenda forent in famosa persona,& ob atrox facinus, aut si ho● 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 these of the thieves. been addit crucem, nam servorum non civium crucis erat supplicium. Nannius, in Terent. And. Ac. 3. Noli minitari, Scio Crucem● futuram mihi sepulchrum: ibi mei majores sunt siti, pater, avus, proavus, abavus: servus apud Pla ut. mill. Glor. 2. 4. 19. Vid. Trach. Histor. lib. 2. 72. Vulcat in Avid. Cassio. cap. 4. Capitolin. in Macrin. cap. 12. luke. florus lib. 3. cap. 19.  cross. 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 to Death, the death of the cross, Phil. 2. 8. that shameful and ignominious death. And when he endured the cross, he despised the shane also, Heb. 12. 2. To be brought forth 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, i● no small aggravation of it. Hence the most frequent expression of his death is by the cross, and Crucifying.  
3. It was lingering: It was the voice of cruelty itself, concerning 
§. 6.  one who was condemned to die: sentia● se mori: let him so die that he may feel himself dying; and of one, who to escape torture 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, in his body, to his death, it was six houres;& all this while was he under exquisite tortures, as on very many considerations might easily be manifest.  
4. It was legal; and so an Accursed death. There was process 
§. 7.  against him by witness and judgement: Though they were indeed all false and unjust, yet to the eye of the world, his death was legal, and consequently accursed. Gal. 3. 13. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a three: that is, because of the doom of the Law; whose sentence is called a curse, Deut: 27. 29. such was that of Christ, Isa: 53. 4.  
2: As all these Aggravations attended his death, as it was 
§. 8.  death itself, so there was an universality in all the concernements of it, as it was a legal punishment. briefly to give some instances.  
1. There was an universality of efficient Causes: Whether principal 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 2. 22, 23. Acts 4. 27, 28. not spared by him, but given up to death, Rom: 8. 32. but, it pleased him to bruise him, and to put him to grief, Isa: 53. 10. as also to forsake him, Psal. 2●. 1. so acting in his punishment, by the immission of that which is evil,& the substraction of that which is good, so putting the cup into his hand, which he was to drink,& mixing the wine thereof for him, as shall afterward be declared.  
2. Of Creatures one general division is, into intelligent, and 
§. 9.  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, or visible and corporeal also.  
Of the first sort are Angells and devils; which agree in the same nature, differing only in qualities, and states or Conditions. Of all things, the Angells seem to have 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 in 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. 
§. 10.   
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 14. 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: 2. 15. which was not done without wounds, and blood, when he broke the Serpents head, the serpent bruised his heel, Gen: 3. 15. 
§. 11.   
2. For men; the second rank of intellectual Creatures; they had their influence into this punishment of Christ, in all their distributions, that on any account they were cast into.  
1. In respect of Country or Nation, and trhe privileges thereon attending. The whole World on this account is divided into Jews and Gentiles; and both these had their Efficiency in this business, Psal. 2. 1. Why did the Heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? Heathens and People, Gentiles and jews, are all in it, as the place is interpnted by the Apostles, Acts 4. 25, 26. And to make this the more eminent, the great Representative of the two People conspired in it; the Sanhedrym of the jews, and the body of the People in the Metrop●liticall city, on the one hand; and the Romans, for the Gentiles, who then were r●rum Domini, and governed {αβγδ}, as Luke tells us, Chap. 2. 1. The whole on both hands is expressed Math. 20. 18. 19. 
§. 12.   
2. As to Order, men are distinguished into Rulers, and those under Authority, and both sorts herein concur●d.  
1. Rulers are either Civill or ecclesiastical: both which( notwithstanding al their Divisions) conspired in the d●ath of Christ.  
1. For Civill Rulers, as it was foretold▪ psal. 2. 2. Psal▪ 2●. 12. so it was accomplished, Acts 4. 25, 26. The story is known of the concurrence of Herod& Pilate in the thing: the one Ruler of the place where he lived, and conversed; the Other, of the Place, where he was taken and Crucified.  
2. For ecclesiastical Rulers; What was done by the Priests, and all the council of the Elders, is known. The matter of fact need not be in●isted on; indeed, they were the great contrivers, and malicious plotters of his death; using all ways and means for the accomplishing of it, Acts 3. 17. in particular, Annas, the usurper of the Priesthood, seems to have had a great hand in the business, and therefore to him was he first carried.  
2. For those under Authority: besides what we have in the 
§. 13.  Story, Peter tells the Body of the People, Acts 2. 23. that they took him, and with wicked hands crucified him, and slay him: and Ch: 3. 15. That they killed the Prince of life; so Zech. 12. 10. not only the house of David, the Rulers, but the inhabitants of jerusalem, the people, are said to pierce him, and thence, they who pierced him, is a periphrasis of the Jews. Rev. 1▪ 7. after, every eye shall see him, there is a distribution into them that pierced him, that is, the Iewes, and all the kindreds of the Earth, that is, the Gentiles. The very rabble was stirred up to cry crucify him, crucify him, and did it accordingly, Math: 27. 20. And they all consented as one man in the cry, v. 22. and that with violence and clamour, v. 23. abjects made mouths at him, Psal 35. 15. Psal: 22. 6.  
3. Distinguish man in Relation to himself, either upon a natural, 
§. 14.  or a moral account, as his kindred and relations, or strangers,& 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.  
2. On a moral account, as they were either his friends or his Enemies, he suffered from both.  
1. His Friends, all his Disciples forsook him, and fled, Mat: 26. 56. the worst of them betrayed him, Mat. 26. 14.& the b●st of them denied him, v. 10. and so there was none to help, Psal: 22. 11.  
And if it were thus with him in the house of his friends, what may be expected from  
2. His Enemies; their malice and conspiracy, their implacablenesse 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 
§. 15.  men of all sorts, you have heard already: and that tempting, ensnaring, captious question of the Maid to Peter manifests, that amongst his Persecutors, there were of that Sex also, Math: 26. 69.  
Of mens distinction by their employments, of Souldiers, 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, 
§. 16.  were universally, at least with a distributive universality, engaged in the suffering of the Lord Jesus; and the Reason of this general engagement, was, because the Curse, that was come upon them for sin, had filled them all with Enmity one against another. 1. Fallen Man, and Angells, were engaged into an everlasting Enmity, on the first Entrance of sin, Gen: 3▪ 15, 16. 2. Men one towards another were filled with malice, and envy, and hatred, Titus 3. 3.  
3. The Jews and Gentiles were engaged by way of visible representation of the Enmity which was come on all Mankind, joh: 4. 9. Eph: 2. 15, 16, 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.  
2. The residue of the Creatures concurred thus far to his sufferings, 
§. 17.  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 Conveniences, and Advantages, are as a thing of nought: The Glory of Heaven, is its light, Psal: 10 1, 2. And the glory of the Earth, is its stability; He hath fixed the Earth, that i● shall not be moved.  
Now both these were lost at once. The Heavens were darkened, when it might be expected in an ordinary cou●se, that the Sun should have shone in its full beauty, Math: 27. 45. Luke 23. 44, 45. And the Earth lost its stability, and shooke or trembled, v: 51. and the rocks rent, and the graves opened; all Evidences of that disspleasure against sin, which God was then putting in execution to the utmost, Rom. 1. 18.  
Thus first in his suffering there was an universality of efficient causes.  
2. There was an universality in respect of the Subject, wherein 
§. 18.  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 hi● soul.  
1. His Body, In general, as to its integral parts; his Body was broken, 1 Cor. 11. 24. and Crucified; his Blood was  shed, or poured out.  
2. His Soul. His Soul was made an Offering for sin, Isa. 53. 10. And his Soul was heavy unto Death, Math. 26. 27, 38.  
2. In particular: his Body suffered in all its concernments, namely, 
§. 19.  all his Senses, and all its parts or members.  
1. In all its Senses: as to instance,  
1. In his feeling; he was full of 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 out, and gave up the Ghost, Math. 27. 50.  
2. His Tasting. When he fainted with loss of Blood, and grew thirsty, they gave him gull and Vinegar to drink, Math. 27. 34. joh: 19. 29▪ Math. 27. 48. not to jockey his senses, but to increase h 〈…〉 orment.  
3. 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, joh: 19. 25▪ 26. And he saw his Enemies full of Rage and Horror, standing round abou● him, Psal 22. He saw them passing by, and wagging the head in sco●n, Math. 29. 39. Psal. 22. 7, 8.  
4. His ears were filled with Reproach and Blasphemy, of which he grievously complains, Psal: 22. 7, 8, 16. which also is expressed in its Accomplishment, Math. 27. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. Luke 23. 36, 37, 38. They reproached him with his God, and his Ministry, and his Profession: as did also one of the Thieves that was crucified with him. And  
5. They crucified him in a noisome place, a place of stink and loathsomeness: a place where they cast the dead bod●●s of men, from whose bones it got the name of Golgotha, a place of dead mens gaols, Math: 26. 33.  
2. He Suffer●d in all the Parts of his Body; especially those, 
§. 20▪  which are most ●ender and full of Sense.  
1. For his Head, they plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on him; and to increase his pain, smo●e it on( that the thorns might pierce him the deeper) with their staves, Math: 27. 28, 29. as the Jews had strike him before, Ch: 26. 68. joh. 19. 2, 3.  
2 His Face they spit upon, buffeted, stroke, and plucked off his hair, Isa: 50 6. Math: 26 67, 68.  
3 His Back was torn with whips and scourges, Math: 27. 27. joh: 19. 1. {αβγδ}; there they made long their furrows.  
4 His Hands, and Feet, and Side, were pierced with nailes and spears, Psal: 22. 16.  
5 To express the residue of his Body, and the Condition of it, 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, Psal: 22. 17. and also v: 14, 15.  
Thus was it with his Body, the like also is expressed of his soul, for 
§. 21.   
1 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, Psal: 22. 1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Math: 27. 46. Though his Faith was upon the whole of the matter prevalent and victorious, Isa: 50 8, 9: Yet he had many sore conflicts with the sense and apprehension of Gods wrath for sin, and that desertion he was then under, as to any cheering influences of his Love and Presence.  
For the rest of his faculties, he was not only under the pressure of the most perplexing, grievous, and burdensome passions, that human nature is obnoxious unto, as, 1. heaviness, His soul was heavy unto death, Math: 26. 37.  
2 grief; No Sorrow like to his, Lament. 1. 12.  
3 fear, Heb. 5. 7. But also was 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 22. 44. to be amazed, mark 14. 33. with the like expressions, intimating a condition miserable and distressed, beyond what we are able to comprehend or express.  
2 In his Name, his Repute, or credit, he suffered also; He was 
§.. 22  numbered amongst Transgressors, Isa: 53. 11 Psal: 22. counted a malefactor, and crucified amongst them; a Seducer, a Blasphemer, a Seditious person, a False Prophet, and was cruelly mocked, and derided on the cross, as an Impost●r, 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 Barrabas, a Rogue and a murderer, and rejected for him.  
3 In his Friends; The shepherd was Smitten, and the sheep scattered, 
§. 23.  Zech: 13. 7. All his Friends dist●essed, scattered, glad to fly for their lives, or to save themselves, by doing the things that were worse then death.  
4 In his Goods; even all that he had; they partend his Garments, and cast lots for his Vesture, Psal: 22. 18. Thus did he not in any thing go free; that the Curse of the Law in all things might be executed on him; the Law curses a man in all his Concernements; with the immission and infliction of every thing that is evil, and the substraction of every thing that is good: that is, with paena sensus,& paena damni, as they are called.  
In reference to the Law, I say, that Christ underwent that very 
§. 24.  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  
1. 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: 3. 15. Ezek. 15. 4. Rom: 5. 12. And by way of Aggravation, because of its comprising the death of Body and Soul, death unto death, 2 Cor: 2. 16. and the second death, Rev: 20. 14. and the curse, Deut: 27. 29. and Math: 25. 41. and wrath, &c. hence we are said to be delivered from wrath to come, 1 Thess. 1. 10▪ Rom: 2. 5. wrath, or the day of wrath: and in innumerable other places; all which are set out in many metaphoricall expressions by those things, which are to the Nature of man most dreadful; as of a Lake with fir● 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, 
§. 25.  Depart from me, Math: 7. 23. Go ye cursed, Math: 25. 41. as also 2 Thess: 1. 9.  
2 Sense or pain, whence it is called fire; as 2 Thess. 1. 9. Torments, &c. All this we say Christ underwent, as shall be farther manifested.  
2 Punishment of the Law may be considered relatively, to its subject, or the Person Punished, and that in two regards. 
§. 26.   
1 In reference to its own attendencyes, and necessary consequents, as it falls upon the Persons to be punished; and these are two.  
1 That it be a worm that death not, Math. 9. 44. Isa. 66. 24.  
2 That it be a fire, not to be quenched, that it be everlasting, that its torments be 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  
1 The worm, is from the inbeing, and everlasting abiding of a mans 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 imputed to him, who underwent it Willingly; It being the cruciating vexation of mens own thoughts, kindled by the Wrath of God against themselves, about their own sin.  
2 That this worm never dyes, 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 squall 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 infinite God, must abide by it for ever. This was Christ free from; the dignity of his person was such, as that he could fully sati●fy divine justice, in a limited season; after which, God in justice lo●sed the pains of death, for it was impossible he should be detained thereby, Acts 2. 24. and that because he was able to swallow up death into victory.  
2 Punishment, as it relates to the Persons Punished may be 
§. 27.  also considered in respect of the effects, which it produceth in them, which are not in the punishment absolutely considered, and these are generally two.  
1 Repining against God, and Blaspheming of him; as in that type of Hell, Isa. 8. 20. This is evil, or sin in its self, which punishment is not. It is from the righteous God, who will do no iniquity. This proceeds from mens hatred of God; They hate him in this world, when he doth them good; and blesses them with many mercies; how much more will their hatred be increased, when they shall be cut off from all favour or mercy whatever; and never enjoy one drop of refreshment from him. They hate him, his justice, yea his blessedness, and all his perfections; Hence they murmur, repined, and blaspheme him; Now this must needs be infinitely remote from him▪ who in love to his Father, and his fathers Glory, underwent this punishment; He was loved of the Father, and loved him, and willingly drank of 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 tormentors 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 the underwent, Heb. 12 2. Isa. 50. 8.  
But as to the punishment that is threatened in the Law, in it 
§. 28.  self considered▪ Christ underwent the same that the Law threatened, and which we should have undergone. For.  
1. The Law threatened death, Gen. 3. 15. Ezek. 18. 4. and he tasted death for us, Heb 2. 9. Psal. 22. 7, 8. The punishment of the Law is the curse, Deut. 27. 29. and he was made a curse, Gal. 3▪ 13. The Law threatened loss of the Love and the favour of God, and and lost it, Psal. 22. 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,& desertion threatened,( besides what shall be said afterward) would render the whole business of our Salvation unintelligible, as being revealed in terms equivocal no where explained.  
2. There is not the least intimation in the whole book of God, of any change of the punishment, in reference to the surety from what it was, or should have been, in respect of the sinner. God made all our iniquities to meet on him; that is,( as hath been declared) the punishment due to them. Was it the same punishment or another? Did we d●serve 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. 4. 4. that sin was condemned in his flesh, Ro. 8. 3 that God spared him not Ro. 8. 31. that he tasted death; that he was made a curse; all relating to the Law: that he suffered more or less there is no mention.  
It is strange to me, that we should deserve one punishment, and he who is punished for us, 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 every where made of a commutation of Persons, the just suffering for the unjust, the sponsor for the offender, his name as a surety being taken into the obligation, and the whole debt required of him; but of a change of punishment, there is no mention at all. And there is this desperate consequence that will be made readily, upon a supposal that any less then the curse of the Law and 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, 
§. 29.  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.  
For the first, it is expressed of him, Psal. 22. 1. and he actually complains of it himself, Math. 27. 46. and of this cry for a while, he says, O my God, I cry in the day time and thou hearest not Psal. 22. 2. until he gives out that grievous complaint, v. 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. 5. 7. They who would invent evasions for this express complaint of our Saviour, that he was deserted and forsaken, as that he spake it in reference to his Church, or of his own being left to the power and malice of the Jews, do indeed little less then 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 for his being forsaken, or given up to the hands of men, was that i●, 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 comfort and support him? Was he so much in courage and resolution below those many thousands who joyfully suffered the same things for him? If he was only forsaken to the power of the 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 grand Atheist, who was burned for atheism at 
Vidi ego dum plaustro per ora vulgi traducitur, illudentem Theollogo e Franciscanis, cujus cura mollire ferocitatem a●imi obstinati. Lucilius ferocitate contumax, dum in patibulum traditus, Monachi solatium aspernatus objectam Crucem aversatur, Christoque illudit in haec eadem verba; illi in extremis prae timore imbellis sudor, ego imperterritus morior. Falso merely imperterritum se dixit scelestus homo, quem vidimus dejectum animo, Philosophia uti pessime, cujus se mentiebatur professorem. Erat illi in extremis aspectus ferox& horridus▪ inquieta mens, an xium quodcunque loquebatur:& quanquam Philosophicè mori se clamabat identidem, finiisse ut brutum nemo negaverit. Antequam rogo subdere●ur ignis: jussus sacrilegam linguam cultro submittere, negat, neque exerit, nisi forcipum vi apprehensam carnifex ferro abscindit: non alias voci feratio horridior: diceres mugire ictum Bovem, &c. Hic Lucilii Vanini finis, cvi quanta conssantia fuerit, probat belluinus in morte clamour. Vidi ego in custodia, vidi in patibulo, videram antequam subiret vincula: flagitiosus in libertate,& voluptatum sectator avidus, in carcere Catholicus, in extremis, omni Philosophiae praesidio destitutus, amens moritur. Gramon: Histor. Gal. lib. 3. ad An. 1619.  Tholouse in France, all the way as he went to the stake did nothing but insult over the Friers, that attended him; telling them, that their Saviour when he was lead to death did sweat and tremble,& was in an Agony. But 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. 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 condition, 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 paena sensus: from what hath been spoken it is sufficiently 
§. 30.  manifest what he underwent on this account. To what hath been delivered before, of his being bruised, afflicted, broken of God from Isa. 53. although he was taken from prison, and iudgement, or everlasting condemnation, v. 8. add but this one consideration of what is affirmed of him, that he tasted death for us Heb: 2. 9. and this will be cleared. What death was it he tasted? The death that had the curse attending it, Gal: 3. 13. He was made a curse; and what death that was himself declares, Mat. 25. 41. where calling men accursed, he crys go into everlasting fire: you that are obnoxious to the Law, go to the punishment of hell; yea and that curse which he underwent Gal. 3. 13. is opposed to the blessing of Abraham, v: 14. or the blessing promised him, which was doubtless life eternal.  
And to make it yet more clear, it was by death that he delivered us from death, Heb. 2. 14, 15. and if he dyed 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 8. 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 
§. 31.  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 Person 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 no farther insist on it.  
Only I marvel, that any should think to implead this truth 
§. 32▪  of Christs suffering the same that we did, by saying that Christs obligation to punishment was sponsionis propriae, ours violatae legis: As though it were the manner how Christ came to be 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.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
Of the Covenant between the Father and the son, the Ground and Foundation of this Dispensation of Christs being punished for us, and in our stead.  
THE fourth thing considerable, is the ground of this dispensation 
§. 1.  of Christs being punished for us, which also hath influence into his whole mediation on our behalf. This is that compact, covenant, convention, and Agreement, that was between the Father, and the son, for the accomplishment of the work of our Redemption by the Mediation of Christ, to the praise of the glorious Grace of God.  
The Will of the Father, appointing& designing the Son to be the Head, Husband, Deliverer, and Redeemer of his Elect, his Church, his people, whom he did for●know, with the Will of the son voluntarily, freely undertaking tha● work, and all that was required thereunto, is that compact( for in that form it is proposed in the Scripture) that we treat of.  
It being so proposed, so we call it; though there be difficulty 
§. 2.  in its explication. Rabbi reuben in Galatinus says of Isa. 66. 15. 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 
{αβγδ}  fire is the Lord Judged; for it is not Sophet, that is, Judging, but misphet, that is, is judged: which by some is ●pplied to Christ, and the fire he underwent in his suffering. However the Rule is safe, that which is written may be spoken; for, for that end was it written: God in his Word teaching us, how we should speak of him; so it is in this matter.  
It is true; the Will of God the Father, son, and Holy Ghost, 
§. 3.  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 beconsidered in this business. Which though essentially one ●nd 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 
§. 4.  be that which might not have been, and so it hath the nature of the residue of Gods decrees in those regards, yet because of this distinct acting of the Will of the Father,& the will of the Son, with regard to each other, it is more then a decree, and hath the proper nature of a Covenant, or Compact Hence from the moment of it( I 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 esteemed to be Incarnate, and to have suffered; or the fruits of his Incarnation and Suffering could not have been imputed to any: for the thing ●t self being denied, the Effects of it are not.  
The Revelation of this Covenant is in the Scripture: not that 
§. 5.  it was then constituted, when it is first mentioned in the Promises and Prophesies of Christ, but then first declared or revealed. Christ was Declared to be the 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. 53. 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 Christs coming into the World: not constitutively, but declaratively. It is the greatest folly about such things as these, to suppose them then done, when revealed, though revealed in expressions of doing them. These things being premised, I proceed to manifest, how this Covenant is in the Scripture declared.  
Now this Convention or Agreement, as elsewhere, so it is most 
§. 6.  clearly expressed, Heb: 10. from Ps. 40. Lo! I come to do thy will O God. And what Will? v. 10. The Will by which we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Iesus once for all. The Will of God was, that Jesus should be offered; and to this End, that we might be sanctified and saved: It is called the offering of the body of Jesus, in Answer to what was said before, a body hast thou prepared me; or an 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 am come to do thy Will. I accept of the Condition, and give up myself to the performance of thy Will.  
To make this more distintly evident, the nature of such a 
§. 7.  compact, 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& agreement: 1. That there be sundry Persons, two at least, namely a Promiser, and undertaker, agreeing 
Nec dari quicquam necesse est, ut substantiam capiat obligatio; said sufficit eos qui negotia gerunt consentire. Institut. l. 3. de oblige. ex consensu.  voluntarily together in counsel and design, for the Accomplishment, and bringing about some common End, acceptable to them both, so agreeing together; being both to do somewhat, 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 it on each hand incumbent 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 
§. 8.  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 Accomplishment of the end aimed at, is to depend.  
3. That He make to him who doth undertake, such Promises, as are necessary for his supportment and encouragement, and which may fully balance in his judgement, 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 formerly 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 
{αβγδ}. Formula Jur. institut. lib. 3. c. Tollitur. §. 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.  pleaded by the undertaker, and approved by the Promiser, 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, to be found in the Compact between the Father and the son, whereof we speak; as upon the consideration of the severals will appear. 
§. 9.   
On the account of these things, found at least virtually, and effectually, in this Agreement of the Father and son, we call it a Covenant; not with respect to the latin word Faedus, and the precise use of it, but to the Hebrew {αβγδ}, and the greek {αβγδ}, whose signification and use alone is to be attended, 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 import. The rise of the word faedus, is properly paganish and superstitious; 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, 

Faecialis sumpto in manibus lapide, postquam de faedere inter partes convenerat, haec verba dixit, Si recte ac sine dolo malo, hoc faedus atque hoc iusiurandum▪ facio, dii mihi cuncta felicia praestent; sin aliter aut ago, aut cogito, caeteris omnibus salvis, in propriis legibus, in propriis laribus, in propriis templis, in propriis sepulchris, solus ego peream, ut hic lapis de manibus meis decidet. Polyb. lib. 3. Audi jupiter, audi pater patrate, ut illa palam prima postrema, ex illis tabulis recitata sunt sine dolo malo, utque ea his hody rectissime intellecta sunt: illis legibus populus Romanus prior non desiciet: si prior defecerit public● consilio, dolo malo, tu ille Diespiter, populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hody, feriam; tantoque magis ferito, quanto magis potes, pollesque id ubi dixit, porcum saxon silice percussit▪ Livius.  
Armati, Jovis ante aram, paterasque tenentes,  
Stabant,& caesa jungebant foed●ra porca. Virgil. Aeneid. lib. 8. Ad quem locum Servius: faedera dicta sunt, à porea faede& crudeliter occisa: nam cum a●te gladiis configeretur, a fecialibus inventum, ut silice feriretur, ea caus● quod antiquum Jovis signum, lapidis ●silicem putaverunt esse.   Ita foede me percutiat magnus Jupiter, ●● foede hunc porcum macto, si pactum faederis non servaver●: whence is that phrase of one in danger; sto inter sacrum& saxum. The H●g being killed with a ston; so faedus is a feriendo.  
Though sometimes even that word be used in a very large sense, for any orderly disposed Government: as in the Poet:  — Regemque dedit qui faedere certo 
Virg. Aeneid. 1.  
Et premere,& laxas sciret dare jussus habenas, &c. 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 
§. 10.  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 ●. 9, 10. Heb. 12. 1. Now thus it was, Zech. 6 13. and the counsel of Peace shall be between them both, Inter 
{αβγδ}  ambos ipsos. That is the two Persons spoken of, not the two Offices there intimated, that shall meet in Christ; and who are these? The Lord Jehovah, who speaks, and the Man whose name is {αβγδ} the Branch, v. 12. who is to do all the great things there mentioned. He shall grow up &c. 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 9 6. wonderful counsellor. It is in reference to the business there spoken of, that be is so called. This is expressed at the beginning of the verse: to us a Child is born, to us a son is given; to what end that was, is known; namely, that he might be a Saviou● or a Redeemer: whence he is afterwards called the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace; that is, a Father to his Church and People, in Everlasting Mercy; the grand Author of their Peace, that procured it for them, and established it unto them. Now as to this work, that he who 〈◇〉 the mighty God, might be {αβγδ} a son given, a child born; and carry on a work of mercy and peace towards his Church, is he called the wonderful counsellor, as concurring 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, {αβγδ}, my Neighbour in counsel and advice, as David describes 
Zec. 13. 7.  his, fellow or companion, Psal. 55. 14▪ We took sweet, counsel together. He was the fellow of the Lord of Hosts, on this account that they took council together about the work of our Salvation to the Glory of God. Prov. 8. 21. to ●●. 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 i● here said of him? I was 〈…〉 ly the delight of God, rejoicing before him, rejoicing in the habitable parts of the Earth, and my delight was in the sons of Men. When was this, that the wisdom of God the Father did so rejoice before him, on the account of the sons of men, v. 24, 25. When there was no depths, when there were no fountains abounding with water, before the Mountains were settled &c. whilst as yet he had not made the Earth, &c. But how could this be? Namely by the counsel 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 concurrence, and distinct consent of the Father and son, for the Accomplishment of the work of our peace, and bringing us to God.  
2. For the Accomplishment of this work, the Father who 
§. 11.  is principal in the Covenant, the promiser, whose Love sets all on work, as is frequenly 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 ●nd proposed; prescribing to him a Law for the performance thereof; which is called his will so often in Scripture.  
What it was that was required, is expressed both negatively and positively.  
1. Negatively, that he should not do, or bring about this work, by any of those Sacrifices that had been appointed to make atonement suo more, and to typify out what was by him really to be performed. This the Lord Jesus professeth at the entrance of his work, when he addresses himself to the doing of that, which was indeed required. Sacrifice▪ and burnt offerings, &c. thou wouldest not have. He was not to offer any of the Sacrifices that had been offered before, as at large hath been recounted: it was the will of God that by them, He,& what he was to do, should be shadowed out& represented; whereupon, at his coming to his work, they were all to be abrogated▪ Nor was He to bring silver or gold for our Redemption, according to the contrivance of the poor convinced sinner, Mic. 7. 6. but he was to tender God another manner of price, 1 Pet. 1. 18.  
He was to do that which the old Sacrifices could not do, as 
§. 12.  hath been declared. For it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins, Heb. 10. 5. {αβγδ}, quod supra {αβγδ}& {αβγδ} est extinguere peccata, sieve facere ne ultra peccetur; id sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi. Grot in Loc. Falsely and injuriously to the blood of Christ. {αβγδ}, is no where 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: v. 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 consequent of them. The blood of Christ takes away sin, as to their guilt, by justification,& not only as to their filth by Sanctification. This purification also by blood, He expounds in his Annotations C. 9. v. 14. Sanguini autem purgatio ista tribuitur, quia per sanguinem, id est, mortem Christi, secuta ejus excitatione,& evectione, gignitur in nobis fides, Rom. 3. 25▪ quae deinde fides corda purgat. Act. 15. 19. The meaning of these words is evident to all that have their sences exercised in these things. The eversion of the Expiation of our sins, by the way of Satisfaction and atonement, is that which is aimed at. Now because the Annotatour saw, that the comparison insisted on with the Sacrifices of old, would not admit of this gloss: He adds▪ Similitudo autem purgationis legalis,& evangelicae, non est in modo purgandi, said in effectu. Then which nothing is more false, nor more directly contrary to the Apostles discourse, chap. 9, 10.  
2. Positively, and here, to lay aside the manner how he was to 
§. 13.  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 
§. 14.  he was to bring to God. This is as it were prescribed to him, Heb. 10. 5. a body hast thou prepared me; or appointed that I should be made flesh, take a body therein to do thy will. And the Apostle sets out the infinite Love of the son of God, in that he condescended to this inexpressible exinanition, and eclipsing of his Glory, Phil▪ 2. 6, 7. being in the form of God▪ and equal to God, he made himself of no reputation, but took upon him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of man; or made a man. He did it upon his Fathers 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. 4. 4. and God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8. 3. and properly in answer to this of the Fathers appointing 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 afterwards. So Heb. 2. 14, 15. And though I see no sufficient reason of relinquishing the usual interpretation of {αβγδ} Heb. 2. 16. yet if it be apprehendit, and expressive of the effect; not assumpsit, relating to the way of his yielding us assistance and deliverance, the same thing is intimated.  
2. That in this body or human nature, he should be a Servant 
§. 15.  or yield obedience; hence God calls him his Servant, Isa. 42. 1. Behold my Servant whom I uphold;& that this was also in the condition prescribed to him, our Saviour acknowledges▪ Isa. 49. 5. Now saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his Servant; And in pursuit hereof, Christ takes upon him the form of a servant Phil. ●▪ 6. and this is his perpetual profession, I come to do the will of him that sent me.  
And th●● commandemene●▪ I have received of my Father. So though he was a Son yet learned ●● obedience. All alon● in the carrying on of his 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 then he, not only in respect of his humiliation 
Joh. 14. 28.  but also in respect of the dispensation▪ whereunto he as the Son of God, submitted himself▪ to perform his Will▪ and yield him obedience: And this God declares to be the condition whereon he will deliver man▪ Job 33. 23. ●f there be a messenger( a servant) 
Vid Cocceium in locum.  one of a thousand to undertake for him, it shall be so▪ I will say, deliver man; otherwise not.  
3. That he should suffer and undergo what in Justice is 
§. 16.  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 Is. 53▪ 10. where thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, or rather if his soul shall make▪ an offering for sin, 
{αβγδ}  then he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his pay●, and the pleas●●e▪ of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. As if he should say, if this 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 suffering; and this is the third thing in this Convention and Agreement.  
4. Promises are made upon the supposition of undertaking 
§. ●7.  that which was required; and these of all sorts, that might either concern 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 and passed through, in what he was to do, and undergo; Promises of the Assistance of his Father by his presence with him,& carrying him through all perpl●xities and trials, are given to him in abundance▪ Some of these you have Isa. 42. 4. He shall not faint, nor be discouraged, until he hath set judgement in the earth. And v. 6. I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and▪ will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee▪ a Covenant of the People. What ever opposition▪ thou mayst meet withall, I will hold thee, and keep thee, and preserve thee, I will not leave thy soul in Hell, nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption Psal. 16 3. So Psal. 89. 28. My mercy will I keep for him evermo●e,& my Covenant shall stand fast with him. And hence was our blessed Saviours confidence in his greatest trial. I●a. 50. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. v. 5, 6. our Saviour expresses his undertaking▪&, what he suffered herein v. 7, 8, 9. The assistance that he was promised of his Father in this great trial, on the account whereof he despises all his Enemies, with full Assurance of success: even upon the Fathers 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 judgement into victory. Hence in his greatest trial, he mades his addresses to God himself, on the account of these promises, to be delivered from that which he feared, Heb. 5. 7. Who in the dayes &c. So Psal. 89. 27, 28.  
2. There were promises in this compact, that concerned the 
§. 18.  work itself, that Christ undertook; namely, that if he did what was required of him, not only that he should be perserved in it▪ but also, that the work itself should▪ th●i●e and prosper in his hand▪ So Isa. 53. 10, 1●. When thou shalt make &c. What▪ ever he aimed at is here promised to be accomplished; the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper: the design of Father and Sone, for the accomplishment of our Salvation, shall prosper: He shall see his seed, a seed of Believers▪ shall be raised up, that shall prolong th●● days: that is, the seed shall prolong, o● continue whiles the sun and Moon● ind●res▪ all the▪ Elect▪ shall be levied and Saved. 〈…〉 hang shall be conquered, and the 〈◇〉 delivered from him. And this our▪ Saviour comforts himself withall in his greatest distress, Psal. 22. 30, 31. and for this glory that was set before him, the glory of bringing many Sons to glory that was promised to him, He despised the shane, and endured the cross, Heb. 12. 2. So also Isa. 42. 1, 2.  
And this is the 3d thing in this compact, he who prescribes the hard Conditions of Incarnation, obedience,& death, doth also make the glorious promises of Preservation, Protection, and success. And to make these promises the more eminent, God confirms them solemnly by an Oath; he is consecrated an High Priest for evermore by the word of the Oath, Heb. 7. 28. The Lord swear and will not repent, thou art a Priest for ever, &c.  
4. The Lord Jesus Christ accepts of the Condition, and the 
§. 19.  Promise, and voluntarily undertakes the work. Psal. 40. 7, 8. Then said I, lo! I come to do thy will, yea I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea thy Law is within my heart. He freely, willingly, cheerfully, undertakes to do, and suffer whatever it was the will of his Father, that he should do, or suffer, for the bringing about the common end aimed at; He undertakes to be the Fathers servant in this work: And says to the Lord, thou art my Lord, Psal. 16. 2. thou art He, to whom I am to yield obedience, to submit to thee in tihs work. Mine ear hast thou bored, and I am thy Servant. I am not Rebellious, I do not withdraw from it, Isa. 50. 8. 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. 2. 8. and so by his own voluntary consent he came under the Law of the mediator, which afterwards 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 suffered comes to be called Obediene●, 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 fith and last thing is, that on: the one side, the promiser 
§. 20.  do approve& 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 fulfilled. All this also is fully manifest, in this Compact or Convention. God the Father he accepts of the performance of what was to the son prescribed. This God fully declares Isa. 49. 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 should●st and 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 mayst be my Salvation to the ends of the earth. And eminently v. 8, 9. Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee: and in a day of Salvation have I helped thee and I will preserve thee& give thee for a Covenant of the people, to establish the earth to cause to inherit the desolate heritages. That thou mayst say to the prisoners go forth; to them that are in darkness sh●w yourselves, &c. Now I have been with thee& helped thee in thy work& thou hast performed it, now thou shalt do al that thy heart desires, according to my promise. Hence that which was originally spoken of the eternal generation of the Son Ps. 2. 7. Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee, is applied by the Apostle to his Resurrection from the dead. Act. 13. 33. God hath fulfilled his word unto us, in that he hath raised up▪ Jesus from the dead, as it is also written in the 2. Psal. Thou art my 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 w●ll pleased, and who did all his pleasure. So Rom. 1. 4. He was declared to be the son 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, Psal. 2. 8. ask of me, and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance: now ask▪ what thou wilt, what ever I have promised, what ever thou didst, or couldst expect upon thy undertaking this work, it shall de done, it shall be granted thee. And  
2. Christ accordingly makes his demand solemnly on Earth, 
§. 21▪  and in Heaven; On earth joh. 17. 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, both which concerned himself and his Church; see v. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. &c. and in Heaven also; He is gone into the presence of God, there to appear for us, Heb. 9. 24. and is able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by him, seeing he liveth for ever, to make intercession for them, Heb. 7. 25. not as in the daies of his flesh, with strong 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 
§. 22.  brought about; For in the Death of Christ he finished the Transgression, and made an end of sin, and made Reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness, Dan. 9. 24. and of sinful man, God says, deliver him, for I have found a ransom, Job. 33. 24. Hence our Reconciliation, Justification, yea our salvation, are in the Scripture spoken of, as things actually done and accomplished, in the death, and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, not as though we were all then actually justified and saved, but upon the account of the certainty of the performance, and 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, necessary, and as I may so say, naturally, and whether he would or no; Christ is so to his, voluntarily, and by his own consent and undertaking, as hath been demonstrated; now as we all die in Adam faederally and Meritoriously, yet the several individuals are not in their persons actually dead in sin, and obnoxious 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 faederally 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 of the good things mentioned, before we are united to Christ, by the communication of his spirit to us.  
And this I say is the Covenant and Compact, that was between 
§. 23.  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 done 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 Power to take it again, this command have I received of my Father; whereby the glory both of the Love, and justice of God is exceedingly exalted. And,  
1. This stops the mouth of the Socinian clamour, concerning the unrighteousness of one mans suffering personally, for another mans 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 offena, that the head be smitten; but Christ is our head, we are his members. It is true; if he that suffereth hath not power over that wherein he suffers; but Christ had power to lay down his life, and take it again. It is true, if he that is to suffer, or he that is to punish, be not willing, or agreed to the commutatin: 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 suffering; not, where the cross is endured, and the shane despised, for the Glory proposed, or set before him, that suffers: not, where he is made Low for a season, that he may be crwoned with Dignity and Honour. And,  
2. This is the foundation of the merit of Christ: The Apostle 
§. 24.  tells us, Rom▪ 4. 4. what merit is; it is such an adjunct of obedience, as whereby the Reward is reckoned, not of Grace, but of debt. God having proposed a Law for Obedience unto Christ, with Promises of such and such Rewards, upon condition of fulfilling the obedience required: He performing that Obedience, the Reward is rekoned to him of debt, or he righteously merited what ever was so promised to him. Though the compact was of grace, yet the reward is of debt. Look then what ever God 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 the should see his seed, that he should justify and save them, sanctify and glorify them, was all promised to him; all merited by him. But of this more afterwards.  
Having thus fully considered the three fold notion of the death 
§. 25.  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.  

1. Redemption as it is a Price.  
2. Reconciliation as it is a Sacrifice.  
3. Satisfaction as it is a punishment. Upon which foundation, Union with Christ, Vocation, Justification, Sanctification, and glory are built.    

CHAP. XXVIII.  
Of Redemption by the Death of Christ, as it was a Price or ransom.  
HAving given before the general Notions of the Death of 
§. 1.  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.  
The first consideration proposed of the Death of Christ, was 
§. 2.  of it, as a Price; and the issue and effect thereof, is Redemption. Hence Christ is spoken of in the Old Testament as a Redeemer, Joh. 19. 25. I know that my Redeemer lives; the word there used is {αβγδ} whose rise and use is commonly known.  
{αβγδ} is vindicare, redimere, as {αβγδ} in Greek which is commonly used for suum vindicare: {αβγδ}. Plato de Legib. 12. And that may be the sense of the word {αβγδ}, if not in the effect, yet in the cause, Heb. 2. 16.  
The rise and use of this word, in this business of our deliverance by Christ, we have Levit. 25. 25. if any of his Kin come to redeem it. {αβγδ} redimens illud propinquus; the next who is goel too, redeem it, or vindicate the possession out of mortgage; on this account Boaz tells Ruth, that in respect of the possession of Elimelech, he was Goel, Ruth. 3. 13. a Redeemer, which we have translated, a Kinsman, because he was to 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; so also is he termed, I●a 41. 14. {αβγδ} thy Redeemer, or thy next Kinsman; and Chap. 4●. 6. in that Excellent description of Ch●i●t, v. 24. c. 46. c. Chap. 48. 17. C. 49. 26. C. 54. 5. C. 59. 20. C. 60. 16 C. 63. 16. and in sundry other places; Neither is the Church of God at all beholding to some late Expositors, 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 oif the word plainly restrains the redemption intended, to the paying of a Price for it, which was done only by Jesus Christ; so Jerem. 32. 7, 8. Hence they that looked for the Messiah, according to the promise, are said to look for, or to wait for {αβγδ}, Redemption in Izrael, Luk. 2. 28. and in the Accomplishment of the promise, the Apostle tells us, that Christ by his blood obtained for us eternal Redemption, Heb. 9. 12. and he having so obtained it, we are justified freely by the grace of God, {αβγδ}, by the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, {αβγδ} for {αβγδ}, in him, for, by him, or wrought by him: And this being brought home to us, we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. whence he is said to be made unto us, {αβγδ}, or Redemption, 1 Cor. 1. 30.  
How this is done, will be made evident, by applying of what 
§. 4.  is now spoken, to what was spoken of the Death of Christ, as a Price; Christ giving himself or his life, {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, a Price of redemption, as hath been shewed, a ransom; those for whom he did it, become to have {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, redemption thereby, or deliverance from the Captivity wherein they were. And our Saviour expresses particularly, how this was done as to both parts, Math. 20. 28. He came {αβγδ}, that is, he came to be an {αβγδ}, 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 description 
§. 5.  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 captivity, 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 usually given. They are on the part of the Redeemer.  
1. Propinquus esto, Let him be near of Kin.  
2. Consanguinitatis jure redimito, Let him redeem by right of Consanguinity.  
3. Injusto possessori praedum eripito; Let him deliver the Prey from the unjust possessor.  
4. Huic praetium nullum solvito; to him let no price be paid.  
5. Sanguinem pro redemptionis praetio vero demino offerto; Let him offer, or give his blood to the true Lord for a ransom, or price of Redemption.  
2. On the part of the Redeemed.  
1. Libertatis jure felix gaudeto; Let him enjoy his liberty.  
2. Servitutis jugum ne iterum sponte suscipito; Let him not again willingly take on him the yoke of Bondage.  
3. Deinceps servum te exhibeto Redemptori; let him in liberty be a Servant to his Redeemer.  
The general parts of this description of Redemption, Socinus 
§. 6.  himself consents unto: for whereas Covel had a little inconveniently defined to redeem, saying, Redimere aliquem est aebitum solvere creditoris ejus nomine, qui solvendo non erat, sicque satisfacere creditori: which is a proper description of the payment of another mans debt, and not of his Redemption; Socinus correcting this mistake, affirms, that, Redimere aliquem, nihil aliud propriè significat, quam Captivum e manibus illius qui eum detinet pretio illi daeto 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. Which as to the general nature of Redemption, contains as much as what was before given in for the description of it:( Socin. de Jes. Christo Servatore lib. 1. Part. 2. Cap. 1.) with the accommodation therefore of that description to the Redemption which we have by the blood of Christ, I shall proceed; Desiring the Reader to remember, that if I evince the Redemption we have by Christ to be proper, and properly so called, the whole business of satisfaction is confessedly evinced.  
1 The general Nature of it consists in deliverance; thence 
§. 7.  Christ is called {αβγδ}, the delivers; Rom. 11. 26. as it is written, there shall come out of Sion the deliverer; The word in the Prophet, Isa: 59. 20. is {αβγδ} that we may know what kind of deliverer Christ is; A deliverer by Redemption: He gave himself for our sin, {αβγδ}, Gal. 1. 4. that he might deliver us; He delivered us; but it is by giving himself for our sin, 1 Thes. 1. 10. To wait for his Son from Heaven, whom he raised from the dead, {αβγδ}, Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come, so Luk. 1. 74. Rom. 7. 6. Heb. 2. 15. Col. 1. 13.  
Now as Redemption, because its general Nature consists in 
§. 8.  Deliverance, 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 agree in the End, and Effect only: thence Moses is said to be {αβγδ}, Acts 7. 35. {αβγδ}. Him did God sand a Price, and a Redeemer: that is, a Deliverer; on whom God used for the Deliverance of his People. And because what he did, even the Delivery of his People out of Bondage, agreed with Redemption, in it's end, the Work of 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, that God being said to redeem his people in sundry plaees in the Old Testament, which he could not possibly do, by a ransom, therefore the Redemption mentioned in the Scripture, is Metaphoricall: a mere deliverance:& such is also that we have by Christ without the intervention of any Price.  
2. Moses who was a Type of Christ, and a Redeemer, who is so often said to 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 Redemption by Christ, not to be proper, but Metaphoricall,& so consequently that no Satisfaction can be thence evinced. Everbo▪ redimendi non posse effici satisfactionem hanc hinc est planum, quod de ipso Deo in novo& inprisco faedere scribitur, eum redimisse populum suum ex Egypto▪ eum fccis●e redemptionem populo suo: quod Moses fuerit Redemptor, Act▪ 7. 35. Vox ideo Redemptionis, simpliciter liberationem denotat. Rac. Catec. cap. 8. de Christo.  
And indeed what there they speak is the sum of the plea of Sociunus as to this part of our description of Redemption: de Jesu Christo Servatore, Lib. 1. Part. 2 Cap. 1, 2, 3.  
To remove these difficulties( if they may be so called) I shall only tender the ensuing considerations.  
1. That because Redemption is sometime to be taken Metaphorically 
§. 10.  for mere deliverance, when it is spoken of God without any mention 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 Childrem of Israel from egypt,& Pharaoh,) 
Deut. 4. 34.  when it is expressly said to be done by power, and outstretched arm, therefore it must be so understood, when it is spoken of Christ the mediator, with express mention of a price or ransom,& 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 
§. 11.  of God being a Redeemer, and Rededming 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 immediately to the son of God,( the manner of his Redemption being described in the New Testament) and so proper Redemption is intended in them. Is. 54. 5, 6. with Ep. 5. 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 Redmption, not so much from the general nature of deliverance, as from its pointing out to us that real and proper Redemption, that was typifyed by it. Such was Gods redeeming his people out of egypt▪ So there is no mention of Redemption in the Scripture, but either it is proper, or receives that Apellation from its Relation to that which is so.  
3. This is indeed a very wretched and cursed way 
§. 12.  of interpreting Scripture, especially those passages of it which set out the grace of God, and t●e Love of Christ to us; namely, to do it by way of diminution, and lessening; God takes and uses this word that is of use amongst men; namely of 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 Metaphoricall, a bare deliverance, is to Blasph●ame 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 interpnted 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 kindness, and the fruits of it to us, in great and weighty words, that in their ordinary use and significancy, contain a great deal more then 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 
§. 13.  brought about we know. God tells us, that Christ hath Redeemed us, and that with his own blood; is it no● better to believe the Lord, and venture our souls upon it▪ then to go to God and say, this thou hast said indeed; but it is an improper and Metaphoricall Redemption, a deliverance that we have. The truth i●, it is so far from truth, that God hath delivered the wo●ke of his Grace, and our benefit thereby, in the death of Christ, in words too big in their proper signification for th● things themselves, that no words whatever are sufficient▪ to express it and convey it to our understandings.  
4. That Moses who was a Type of Christ in the work of 
§. 14.  Redemption, and is called a Redeemer, did redeem the People without the proper payment of a valuable ransom; therefore Christ did so also; to conclude thus, I say, is to say, that the type, and things typifyed must in all things be alike; yea, that a similitude between them in that, wherein their relation 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 3. 14. As Moses lifted up the brazen Serpent in the wilderness, ●ven 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  shed his blood, would he be attended unto? The like may be said of Jonas, who ws alive in the belly of the Whale, when he was a type of Christ, being dead in the Earth; in the 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 represent the other; the one being said expressly to be done by power, the other by a ransom.  
2. It is the delivery of one in captivity; all men considered 
§. 15.  in the state of sin, and alienation from God are in captivity. Hence they are said to be captives& to be bound inprison, Isa. 61. 1. and the work of Christ is to bring the prisoners out of prison, and them that sit in darkness,( that is, in the Dungeon) out of the Prison house, Isa. 42. 7. he says to the prisoners go forth, to them that are in darkness, show yourselves, Chap. 49. 9. as it is eminently expressed Zech: 9. 11. As for thee also by the blood of the Covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein there is no water. Here are prisoners, Prisoners belonging to the daughter of Sion, for unto them, the Church, he speaks, v. 9. rejoice greatly O daughter of Sion; 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 there 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 delivered? By the blood of this Covenant. Of whom he speaks, see v. 9. 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. It is a description of Christ when the deliverance of the prisoners with his own blood; which is therefore called the blood of the Covenant, with which he was sanctified He●. 10. 29. hence in the next verse, prisoners of hope is a description of the Elect Zec. 9. 12.  
So also are they called Captives expressly, Isa. 49. 25. Thus 
§. 16.  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 delivered; and who shall do this? The Lord thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer, the Mighty one of Jacob, v. 26. He proclaims liberty to the Captives. Isa. 61. 1. Luk. 4. 18. And this is given in as the great fruit of the death of Christ, that upon his conquest of it he lead captivity captive, Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 8. that is, either captivity actively, satan who held and detained his in captivity, or passively those who were in captivity to him.  
Thus being both Prisoners and Captives they are said to be in Bondage; Christ gives us liberty from that yoke of bondage. Gal 5. 1. and men are in Bondage by reason of death all their dayes, Heb. 2. 14. There is indeed nothing that the Scripture more abounds in, then this, that men in the state of sin are in Prison, Captivity,& Bondage, are Captives, Prisoners, and Slaves.  
Concerning this two things are considerable.  
1. The cause of mens Bondage and Captivity, deserving, 
§. 17.  or procuring it.  
2. The efficient principal cause of it, to whom they are in Captivity.  
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, Math. 6. 12. {αβγδ}, remit to us our debts; And in the Parable of the Lord and his Servants, Math. 18. 27, 28, 29. he calls it, {αβγδ}, v. 27. and {αβγδ}, v. 30. due ●ebt; all which he expounds by {αβγδ}, v. 35. offences or transgressio●s Debt makes men liable to Prison for non payment, and so doth sin( without satisfaction made) to the Prison of Hell; so our Saviour expresses it, Math. 5. 25, 6. Agree quickly with thine Adversary, whiles thou art in the way with him, least at any time the Adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into Prison: Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the utmost farthing. On this account, 1. 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 was cast into Prison, for that Great Debt they contracted in Adam, in their Trustee; being there, in stead of making any Earnings to pay the Debt already upon them by the Law, they contract more, and increase 1000s of Talents. But this use of the word Debt and Prison, applied to Sin and Punishment, is Metaphoricall.  
2. As a Crime, Rebellion, Transgression against God, the 
§. 18.  great governor, and Judge of all the World. The Criminalnesse, Rebellion, and 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& Punishment.  
2. For the principal Cause of this Captivity and Imprisonment, 
§. 19.  it is God: For  
1. He is the Creditor to whom these Debts are due, Math. 6. 12. Our Father which art in Heaven, forgive us our Debts; It is to him that we stand Indebted the ten thousand Talents; Against thee only have I sinned, says David, Psal: 51. 4. God hath entrusted us with all we have to sin by, or withall; he hath lent it us, to lay out for his Glory; our spending of what we have received upon our Lusts, is running into Debt unto God; Though he doth not Reap, where he did not, Sow, yet he requires his principal with advantage.  
2. And properly, He is the great King, Judge, and governor of the World, who hath given his Law, 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 every where expressed. God is the Law-giver, Ja: 4. 12. Who is able to kill and to destroy for the transgres-sion of it; It is his Law chih is broken, and upon the Breach whereof, he says, cursed be every one that hath so done, Deut. 29. 29. He is the Judge of all the Earth, Gen 18. 25, 26. Yea The Lord is Judge h●mselfe, Psal. 50 6 and we shall be judged by his Law, James 2. 19, 11, 12. and his judgement is, that they that commit sin are worthy of Death, Rom. 1. 32. and he is the King for ever and ever, Psal. 10. 16. He reigneth and executeth Judgement. Now who should commit the Reb●ll that offends, who should be the Author of the Captivity, and imprisonment of the Delinquent, but he who is the King, Judge, and Law-maker.  
3. He doth actually ●o● it, Rom: 11. 32. {αβγδ} 
§. 20.  {αβγδ}, God hath shut up all under disobedience: he hath laid them up close Prisoners, for their disobedience: and they shall not go ou●, until satisfaction be made. In the Parable Math: 18. of the Lord, or Master, and his Servants, this is evident; and Math. 5. 25. It is the Judge, that delivers the Man to the Officer, to be cast into Prison. Look who it is that shall inflict the final Punishment 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, Math: 10. 28. and wicked men shall be destroyed from the terror of his Presence, and the power of his Glory, 2 Thes: 1. 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 wherewith 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: 2. 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 Jaylor: to their sin, it is but as to their Fetters, as shall be afterwards ore fully discovered.  
And this removes the First Question and Answer of the ●acovians 
§. 21.  to this purpose Socinus De Servatore, expresses himself to the whole business of Redemption, in 3. Chapters: Lib: 1, Part. 2. Cap: 1, 2, 3. the summer of which, the Catechists have laboured to comprise in as many Questions and Answers. The first is.  
What dost thou Answer to those Testimonies, 

Qid ad ea Testimonia, quae nos a Christo testantur Redemptos, Respondes?  
R. E verbo redimendi non posse effici satisfactionem hanc, hinc est planum, quod de ipso Deo& in novo,& in prisco foedere scribitur, eum redimisse p●pulum suum ex Aegypto; eum fecisse redemptionem populo suo; deinde cum scriptum sit, quod Deus redemit Abrahamum& Davidem,& quod Moses fuerit Redemptor,& quod simus redempti●●e nostris iniquitatibus, aut e vana conversatione nostra,& e maledictione legis: Certum autem est Deum nemini satisfeciss; nec vero aut iniquitatibus, aut conversationi vanae, aut legi satisfactum esse dici posse.   which witness that we are redeemed of Christ?  
Ans. It is hence evident, that satisfaction cannot be confirmed from the word Redeeming, because it is written of God himself, both in the Old and New Testament, that he redeemed his people. 2. Because it is written that God redeemed Abraham, and David, and that Moses was a Redeemer, and that we are redeemed from our iniquities, and our vain conversation, and from the Curse of the Law; for it is certain, that God made satisfaction to none, nor can it be said, that satisfaction is made either to our iniquities, or our vain conversation, or to the Law.  
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 conversation, when we are redeemed: but Satisfaction being made to him to whom it is due, we are delivered from them. But of this afterwards.  
3. Satisfaction is properly to the Law, when the penalty which it threatens, and prescribes, is undergone, as in the case insisted on it was. In the mean time, 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. 
§. 22.   
This Socinus thus expresses.  
There is also required he who held the Captive, 
Requiritur& is, qui captivum detineat: alioqui captivus non esset: huic in liberatione nostra, si exactius rem ipsam considerare vellmus, resp●ndent multa. Multa siquidem nos tanquam captivos detinebant: ea autem sunt peccatum, Diabolus, Mundus,& qui peccatum consequuntur, mortis aeternae reatus seu mortis aeternae nobis decre●u supplicium. De Servator. Lib. 1. Cap. 2.  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.  
Ans. A lawful Captive is detained two ways directly, and that two ways also, Legally, Juridically, and Authoritatively: so is sinful Man detained Captive of God. The wrath of God abideth on him, Joh: 3. 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 deathto come, Heb. 2. 14, 15.  
2. Consequentially, and by accident; so a man is detained by his shackles, as in the filth of the Prison: so is a man Captive to sin, and the World; nor are all these properly the detainers of us in Captivity, from which we are redeemed, any more then the gallows keeps a Malefactor in Prison, from which by a Pardon and ransom he is delivered.  
To proceed with the description of Redemption given; It 
§. 23.  is the delivery 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 hold him captive be God, by his Justice making him liable to Punishment, 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. 3. 23, 24, 25. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: Being levied freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins tha are past, through the forbearance of God. v. 23. is the description of the state of our Captivity, having sinned we are come short of the Glory of God; {αβγδ} they fall short in their race, and are by no meats able to come up to a participation of God; our d●livery and the means of it, is expressed v. 24. our delivery: 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, {αβγδ}, by the Redemption 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 v. 25. God sent him forth, for that end, that we might have deliverance through Faith in his blood, or by Faith be made partakers of the Redepmtion that is in his blood, or purchased by it: and this to declare his 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 
§. 24.  on them, Joh. 3. 36. and the full accomplishment of the execution of that wrath is called the wrath to come, 1 Thes. 1. 10. which we are delivered from.  
In this sense are we said to have Redemption Col. 1. 14. in his blood, or to have deliverance from our captivity by the price he paid; and by his death to be delivered from the fear of death Heb. 2 15. or our obnoxiousness thereto; it being the Justice or Judgement of God, that they which commit sin, are worthy of death, Rom. 1. 32. Christ by undergoing it delivered us from it.  
Whence is that of the Apostle Rom 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to their charge, who shall 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,& inflict penalty accordingly. Yea, but it is God that Justifies: that is, that frees men from their obnoxiousness to punishment 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 dyed, it is by the death of Christ that we have this Redemption.  
2 From all the miseries that attend that state and condition. 
§. 25.  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 jailor, filth, and fetters of the Prison, wherein the Captives are righteously detained.  
For the first Col 1. 13, 14. Who hath delivered us from the power of 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, in the power of the prince of darkness, of satan: that God delivers us from v. 14. by the Redemption that is in the blood of Christ;& how? Even as he who delivers a captive from the judge by a price, delivers him also from the jailor who kept him in prison. By his death, which as hath been shewed, was a price& a Ransom, he deprived satan of al his power over us, which is called his destroying of him, Heb. 2. 14. that is, not the devil as to his Essence& Being, but as to his Power and Authority over those who are made partakers of his death.  
The Words of Socinus to this purpose may be taken notice 
§. 26.  of. Lib. De Servat. 1. Part. 2. Cap. 2.  
Nothing is wanting in this deliverance, that 
Nihil in hac liberatione desideratur, ut omnino verae redemptioni respondeat, nisi ut is qui captivum detinebat, Pretium accipiat: quamvis autem quibusdam videatur, dici posse, Diabolum, pretium quod in nostra liberatione intervenit, accepisse, quamadmodum antiquiores Theolegi, inter quos Ambrosius,& Augustinus ausi sunt dicere, tamen id perabsurdum videri debet,& recte est neminem id pretium accepisse aff●rmare. Ea siquidem ratione potissimum, non vera said 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 detinebat) fuisset, jamnon metaphoricum, said verum pretium intervenisset,& propterea vera Redemptio esset.  it might wholly answer a true▪ Redemption, 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 Ambrose& Augustine made bold to speak, yet that ought to seem most absured;& it is true that this price was received by none. For on that account chiefly is our deliverance not a true, but a metaphoricall redemption, because in it there is none that should receive the Price. For if that which is in ●he place of a price, be received,( by him who delivers the Captive) then not a metaphoricall but a true Price had intervened,& thereupon our Redemption had been proper.  
1. It is confessed, that nothing is wanting to constitute that we speak of to be a true, proper,& 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 shal nextly prove.  
2. 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 transgressed? Was he the judge that cast us into Prison? Was it to he whom we were indebted? Was it ever h●ard ●hat the price of Redemption was paid to the Jaylor? whether any of the ancients said so or no, I shal not now trouble myself to inquire, or in what sense they said it; the thing in itself is ridiculouus& blasphemous.  
2. sin. He Redeemed us from all iniquity, Tit. 2. 14, and we 
§. 27.  were Redeemed by the precious blood of Christ from our vain conversation received by tradition from our Fathers, 1 Pet. 1. 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 place mentioned, it is the latter that is principally intended, which is evident from what was opposed to the captivity under sin that is spoken of; in the one place, it is Purchasing to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, Tit. 2. 14. in the other, the purifying of our souls in obedience to the truth through the Spirit, v. 22. Now we are redeemed from the power of our sin, by the blood of Christ; not immediately, but consequentially; as a Captive is delivered from his Fatters and Filth upon the payment of his ransom; Christs satisfying the Justice of God, reconciling him to us by his death, hath alsoprocured the gift of his Spirit for us, to deliver us from the power of our sin. 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 Adversary, that this redemption is not proper, because we are redeemed from our iniquities, and vain conversation, 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 Prisoners fetters before his delivery; whereunto our sins do rather answer, then to the Judge.  
2. There is a Redeeming of us from the Guilt of sin, 
§. 28.  which hath a twofold expression. 1. Of redeeming us from the Curse of the Law, Gal: 3. 13. And 2. Of the redemption of Transgression, Heb: 9. 15.  
For the First, the Curse of the Law, is the Curse due to sin, Deut. 27. 29. that is, to the transgression of the Law. This may be considered two ways: 1. In respect of its rise& fountain, or its terminus a quo. 2. In respect of its End, and Effect, or its terminus ad quem.  
For the First; Or the Rise of it; it is the Justice of God, or the just and Holy Will of God, requiring punishment for sin; as the vengeance that is inflicted actually for sin, is called the Wrath of God, Rom: 1. 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. 2. 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.  
2. For the {αβγδ}, Heb: 9. 15. It can be nothing 
§. 29.  but making reparation for the injury done by transgression: It is a singular phrase, but may receive some light from that of Heb. 2. 17. Where Christ is said to be an High Priest, {αβγδ}. to reconcile the sin of the People: that is, to make reconciliation for them, of the sense whereof afterwards. 3. He Redeemes from the World, Gal. 4. 5.  
3. The Third thing is; That this deliverance from Captivity 
§. 30.  be by the intervention of a price properly so called; that Christ did pay such a Price I proved before, which is the foundation of this discourse.  
The word {αβγδ}, and those arising from thence, were specially insisted on; The known use of the word is, redemptionis pretium; so among the best Authors of the Greek tongue; {αβγδ}. Zeneph. helen. 7. they took him away without paying his ransom, or the price of his redemption; and {αβγδ}: saie● Plutarch in Fabius: he sent their ransom to Hanniball, and received the Prisoners: and from thence {αβγδ} is of the same import and signification. So in the Argument of the first Book of the Iliads, speaking of Chrysis, that he came to the Camp, {αβγδ}, to pay a price for the redemption of his Daughter. And Arist. Ethic. lib. 9. cap. 2. Disputing whether a Benefit, or Good turn, be not to be repaid, rather then a favour done to any other, gives an instance of a Prisoner redeemed; {αβγδ} &c. whether he who is redeemed by the payment of a ransom from a rober be to redeem him, who redeemed him, if Captive, &c. 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 Chrisis such a Price, I proved abundantly, 
§. 31.  at the entrance of this discourse; it is so frequently and evidently expressed in the Scripture to be such, that it is not to be questioned, I shall not farther insist upon it.  
All that our Adversaries have to object, is,( as was said) that seeing this Price is not paid to any, it cannot be a price 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 
Propriam enim verbi redimendi significationem intelligo, cum verum pretium intervenit; verum autem pretium voo, non pecuniam tantum said qui●quid ut ei satissiat qui captivum detinet datur, licet alioqui multa metaphorico in ejusmodi redemptione reperiantur Socin. de serve. lib. 1. Part. 1. Cap. 1.  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 Metaphoricall.  
That God detains the Captive, hath been proved; that the 
§. 32.  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; it remaines then that we farther manifest, that the price was paid to God.  
Although enough hath been said already to evince the truth 
§. 33.  of this, yet I shall farther put it out of question by the ensuing Observations and inferrences.  
1. To the payment of a price or ransom properly so called which as is acknowledged is not necessary that it should be money or the like 1 Pet. 1. 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 reuires as the condition of releasing the Captive. It may consist in personal service, which is impossible to be properl● bid into the hand of any. For instance; If a Father be held captive, and he that holds him so, requires that for the delivery of his Father, the Sone undertake a difficult and hazardous Warfare, wherein he is concerned;& he do it accordingly; this 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 valuable Compensation, for the delivery of sinners.  
2. The p●opriety of paying a ransom to any, where it 
§. 34.  lies in undergoing 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 Lawgiver, who had seized on us for our Transgressions. So hat not his Power and Will was to be treated withall, but his Law and Justice, and so the ransom was properly paid to him, in the undergoing that penalty which his Justice required.  
3. There must some differences be allowed between Spiritual, 
§. 35.  eternal, and Civill, corporeal, temporal deliverances, which yet doth not make spiritual Redemption to be improper: nay rather the other 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 expected that they should agree.  
4. There are two things distinctly in God to be considered 
§. 36.  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 ransom. The giving of Christ is ascribed to his Love, Will, and good pleasure, joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8& 8. 32. 1 joh. 4. 9, 10. as he had promised by his Prophets of old, Luk. 1. 67. But his Law and Truth& Justice in their several considerations, reuired the ransom, and in respect of them he accepted it, as hath been shewed at large: So that nothing in the world is more vain, then that of our Adversaries; that God procured and appointed this price, therefore he did not accept it: That is, either Gods 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,& the most vnexpressible Love to some sinners in the blood of his only son, lies the great mystery of the gospel, which these men are unacquainted withall.  
5. That God may be said to receive this Price, it was not 
§. 37.  necessary that any Accession should be made to his Riches by the ransom, but that he underwent no loss by our deliverance. This is the difference between a conqueror or a Tyrant and a just Rule●, 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 injred; that my Law be satisfied, and I will deliver the prisoners. It is enough to make good Gods acceptance of the Price, that this Justice suffered not by the delivery of the Prisoner; as it did not Rom. 3. 25. yea it was exalted and made glorious above all that it could have been, in the everlasting destruction of the sinner.  
These things being thus premised, it will not be difficult to 
§. 38.  establish 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 or other: The nature of the thing requires it. That the death of Christ was a price or ransom properly so called, hath been shewed before; the ridiculous Objection, that then it must be paid to satan or our sin, hath also been sufficiently removed, so that God alone remaines 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 
§. 39.  the Captive by way of Jurisdiction, Right, and Law Power. That God is he who thus detained the Captive, was also proved before. He is great householder that calls all his Servants that do, or should serve him, to an account, Math. 18. 23. 24. {αβγδ}: and wicked men are 〈◇〉 ● Pet. 2. 14. the children of his curse, obnoxious to it. It is his Iudgement that they which commit sin are worthy of death, Rom. 1. 32. and Christ is a propitiation to declare his righteousness, Ro. 3. 25. And it is his wrath from whence we are delivered by this ransom, Rom. 2. 5. 1 Thess. 1. last. the Law was his to which Christ was made obdoxious. Gal. 4. 4. the Curse his which he was made, gull. 3. 13. it was his will he came to do and suffer, Heb. 10. 5. It was his will that he should drink off the cup of his passion, Mat. 26. It pleased him to bruise him. If. 53. He made all our iniquities to meet upon him v. 5. so that doubtless this ransom was paid to him; we intend no more by it then what in those places is expressed.  
3. This ransom was also a Sacrifice, as hath been declared. 
§. 40.  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. 5. 2. to him then also, and only was this ransom paid.  
4. Christ paid this ransom as he was a mediator and surety: 
§. 41.  nos he was the Mediator between God and man, and therefore he must pay this Price to one of them, either God or man;& i● is not difficult to determine whether: 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6. gives us this fully. He is the mediator, and as such he gave himself {αβγδ}, a Price of Redemption to God.  
From this description of redemption properly so called, and 
§. 42.  the Application of it to the redemption made by Jesus Christ we thus argue.  
He who by his own blood and death paid the price of our redemption to God, in that he underwent what was due to us,& procured liberty& deliverance thereby, He made satisfaction properly for our sins; but when we were Captives for sin to the justice of God,& committed thereon to the power of 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, 
§. 43.  some few of the most eminent Testimonies given to this truth, are to be explained and vindicated, wherewith I shall close this Discourse of our Redemption by Christ. Out of the very many that may be insisted on, I shall choose out only those that follow.  
1. Rom. 3. 24, 25. Being levied freely by his Grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; 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. Redemption in its self, in its Effect, in respect of us, with all its causes is here expressed. Its effect in respect of us, is, that we are levied freely: {αβγδ}, not brought easily, and with little labour to be righteous or honest, as some vainly imagine( Grot. in locum) but accepted freely with God, without the performance of the works of the Law, whereby the Jews sought after righteousness. 2. The End on the part of God, is, the declaration of his righteousness. 3. The means pocuring this end is, the blood of Christ: redemption by Christ, and in his blood.  
4. The means of communicating this effect on the part of God is the setting forth Christ a propitiation: on our part as to application, it is faith in his blood.  
As to the Effect of our justification, it shall afterwards be 
§. 44.  considered. The manner, or rise of it rather,( for both may be denoted) on the part of God, is {αβγδ}, that is, freely: or as it is expounded in the next words, {αβγδ}, by his grace. Our redemption and the effects of it are free 1. On the part of God, in respect of his purpose and decree, which is called {αβγδ}, Rom: 11. 5. His great design, and contrivance of the work of our Salvation, and deliverance. This he did according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, Ephes. 1. 5, 6. according to his good pleasure which he had purposed in himself, v. 9. according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, v. 11. And it is free in regard of the Love, from whence Christ was sent, joh. 3. 16. which also is ascribed {αβγδ}, Heb. 2. 9. And it is free in respect of us: we do not obtain it by the works of the Law, Rom. 4. 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 Son, but with him freely gives us all things, Rom. 8. {αβγδ}, 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.  
Ad justitiam vero perducuntur etiam sine labour qui ad minores virtuies, 
§. 45.  id est, philosophicas requiri solet, fides enim ejus laboris compendium facit. {αβγδ}. Grot. in loc. They are brought to righteousness, without that labour that is required for lesser, even philosophical virtues: Faith makes an abridgement of the work.  
The {αβγδ} 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 practise 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,  
2. Let him tell us Freely, what instance he can give of this use of the word {αβγδ}, which here he imposeth on us? that it should signify the facility of doing a thing: And withall, whether these words {αβγδ}, denote an Act of God, or of them that are justified? Whether being justified freely by his grace, be his free justifying of us, as to what is actively denoted, or our Easy performance of the works of righteousness? that {αβγδ}, 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.  
3. For the philosophical virtues, which the Gods sold for labour, they were splendid a peccata, and no more.  
As to this part of the words, Socinus himself was not so far out of the way, as the Annotator; saith he, Justificati gratis, sensus est, partem nobis esse peccatorum nostrorum absolutionem( id enim ut scis quod ad nos attinet reipsa justificari est) non quidem per legis opera, quibus illam commeriti sumus, said gratis per gratiam Dei. De Servat. lib. 1. part. 2. cap. 2.  
2. The End on the part of God, is {αβγδ}, the 
§. 46.  declaration of his righteousness, {αβγδ}, is properly Gods justice as he is a Judge. It is true {αβγδ} is often rendered by the Seventy {αβγδ}, and by us from thence, righteousness, which signifies indeed benignity, kindness, and goodness: and so {αβγδ} which is righteousness, is rendered by them sometimes {αβγδ} mercy, and the circumstances of the place may sometime 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 
Diatrib. de Justit. Div.  punishing transgressions; This I have elsewhere declared at large: Hence he is {αβγδ} Psal. 9. 4. which as Paul speaks 2. Tim. 4, 8. is, {αβγδ}, the righteous Judge, so Rom. 1. 32. 2 Thess. 1. 6. Rev. 15. 4. so Isa. 59. 16. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor, therefore his arm brought Salvation unto him,& 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. 8. 3. Hence did God appear to be exceeding righteous, of purer eyes, then 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. 8. 3. 
§. 47.   
Grotius would have {αβγδ} 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 no where is direct and proper: for the thing intended by it in that sense, is expressed before in those words {αβγδ}, and is not consistent with that, that follows, {αβγδ}, which represents God, as he is, {αβγδ}, as was spoken before,  
Socinus goes another way, says he. In Christo, Deus ut ostenderet 
§. 48.  se veracem& fidelem esse, quod significant verba illa, justitiae suae, &c. Referring it to Gods righteousness of veracity and fidelity, in fulfilling his promise of forgiveness of sins. But, says Grotius, righteousness cannot be here interpnted, de fide in promissis praestandis, quia haec verba pertinent non ad Judaeos tantum, said ad Gentes etiam, quibus nulla promissio facta est. Because Gentiles are spoken of, and not the Jews only, but to them there was no promise given. A reason worthy the Annotations; as though the promise was not made to Abraham, that he should be heir of the world, and to all his seed, not only according to the flesh; 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 
§. 49.  {αβγδ}; and yet there should be, {αβγδ}?  
3. Ans. The means procuring all this, is the blood of Christ; it is, {αβγδ}: by the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; and how that Redemption is wrought, he expresseth, when he shows how we are made partakers of it, {αβγδ}, through faith in his blood. The redemption wrought and procured by the blood of Christ, is the procuring cause of all this. The causa {αβγδ}, is the Grace of God, of which before, the causa {αβγδ}, is this blood of Christ; This Redemption, as here, is called {αβγδ}, Luk. 21. 28. Eph. 1. 7. Coll. 1. 14. {αβγδ}, Luke 1. 68. John 2. 38. Heb. 9. 12. {αβγδ}, Math. 20. 28. Math. 10. 45. {αβγδ}, 1 Tim. 2. 6. and in respect of the effect. {αβγδ} Rom. 4. 24. Rom. 11. 26. Col. 1. 13. 1 Thess. 1 10. This is the procuring cause as I said of the whole effect of Gods 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 on the former sense of {αβγδ}( from whence is {αβγδ}) to be a price of redemption, then 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. Christus per obedientiam 
§. 50.  suam( maxim in morte)& preces ei accedentes, hoc a patre obtinuit, ne is humanum genus gravibus peccatis immersum desereret, atque obduraret; said viam illis daret ad justitiam perveniendi per Christum:& liberaret, nempe a necessitate moriendi in peccatis, viam parefociendo per quam exire ista liceret. Christ by his obedience( especially in his death) and the prayers accompanying it, obtained this of his Father, that he should not forsake and harden mankind, drenched in 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. It is well it is granted, that the death of Christ respected God in the first place, and the obtaining somewhat of him, which the Annotators friends deny.  
2. That the purchase of Christ was not for all Mankind, that they might be delivered, but for the Elect, that they should be delivered, 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 Salvation, 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, any where 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 Bloodshedding of Jesus Christ; this is the Redemption we have thereby. He obtained of his Father, that a better way of coming to righteousness, then 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. 
§. 51.   
The intervention of the Blood of Christ, 
Interventus sanguinis Christi, ●icet Deum ad liberationem hanc a peccatorum nostrorum paena nobis concedendum movere non potuerit, movit tamen nos ad eam nobis oblitam accipiendam,& Christo fidem habendam, Socin. ubi sup.  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 Redemption, hath no effect, in respect of him to whom it is paid, but only in respect of them, for whom it is paid; then which imagination nothing can be more ridiculous.  
4. The means of Application of the Redemption mentioned, 
§. 52.  or participation in respect of us, is faith: It is {αβγδ} of this we have no occasion to speak.  
5. The means of Communication on the part of God, is in these 
§. 53.  words, {αβγδ}; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation. God set him forth for this end and Purpose; the word {αβγδ}, may design various Acts of God: As,  
1. His purpose and determination, or Decree of giving Christ; whence our Translators have in the m●rgent rendered it fore-ordained, as the word is used, Eph. 1. 9. {αβγδ}; which he fore-purposed in himself. Or,  
2. Gods proposal of him before hand, in Types and Sacrifices to the Jews; the preposition {αβγδ} being often in composition used in that sense in this Epistle, Chap. 3. 9. Chap. 11. 35. Chap. 15. 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 afterwards show, the ensuing words hold out an Allusion to the ark, which now in Christ the vail being Rent, is exposed to the open view of Believers; Hence John tells us, Rev. 11. 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 Temple in 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 {αβγδ}, God hath set it forth to Believers.  
Now he was set forth {αβγδ}, a propitiation. There is none 
§. 54.  but have observed, that this is the name of the Covering of the ark, or the Mercy seat, that is applied to Christ, Heb. 9. 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 Sacrifice of himself: that may have something from the general noton of the word, referred to the sacrificia {αβγδ}( whereof afterwards) 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 
§. 55.  was provoked, and some way was used for his atonement. And  
2. This is indeed the true import of that Type, and the Application 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 atonement, Levit. 16. 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; declares himself to be appeased adn reconciled; but how? by the blood of Christ; by the sacrifice of himself, by the Price of Redemption 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 vail of the Temple being Rent, to the eye of all Believers, as the Mercy seat wherein we may see God fully reconciled to us. And this may serve for the vindication of the Testimony to the Truth insisted on; and this is the same with 2 Cor. 3. 17.  
It would be too long for me to insist in particular, on the 
§. 56.  full vindication 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.  
1. We are bought by Christ saith the Apostle; {αβγδ}, ye are bought, 1 Cor. 6. 20. but this buying may be taken Metaphorically for a mere Deliverance, as certainly it is, 2 Pet. 2. 1. denying the Lord that bought them: i. e. delivered them, for it is spoken of God the Father? It may be so, the word may be so used,& therefore to show the propriety of it here, the Apostle adds {αβγδ}, with a price: ye are bought with a price: To be bought with a price, doth no where signify to be barely delivered, but to be delivered with a valuable compensation for our deliverance; but what is this price wherewith we are bought? 1 Pet. 1. 18. not with silver or gold, but {αβγδ}; with the precious honourable blood of Christ: why {αβγδ}, 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 civill Redemption is done by silver and Gold, which are given as a Valuable Consideration for the Captive. But what kind of Price is this Blood of Christ? It is {αβγδ}, Math. 20. 28. That is, a Price of redemption; whence it is said, that he gave himself for us; {αβγδ}, Titus 2. 14. that he might fetch us off with a ransom: but it may be that it is called {αβγδ}, not that he put himself in our stead, and underwent 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 {αβγδ} properly, and therefore he calls it also {αβγδ}, 1 Tim. 2. 6. {αβγδ}, in composition signifies either opposition, as 1 Pet. 2. 25. or substitution and commutation, Math. 2. 22. in the first sense, here it cannot be taken, therefore it must be in the latter; He was {αβγδ}: that is, did so pay a ransom, that he himself became that, which we should have been, as it is expressed, Gal. 3. 13. He redeemed us from the Curse, being made a curse for us: to whom he paid this Price was before declared, and the Apostle expresseth it, Eph. 5. 2. what now is the issue of all this; We have Redemption thereby, Eph. 1. 7. in whom we have {αβγδ}, redemption by his blood; as it is again asserted in the same words, Col. 1. 14. But how came we by this Redemption? He obtained it of God for us, he entred into Heaven, {αβγδ}, having found, or obtained everlasting redemption for us; by the Price of his blood he procured this deliverance at the hand of God. And that we may know that this Effect of the death of Christ is Properly towards God, what the immediate issue of this Redemption is, is expressed. It is forgiveness of sins, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 13. Rom. 3. 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.   

CHAP. XXIX.  
Of Reconciliation by the Death of Christ as it is a Sacrifice.  
THE next consideration of the Death of Christ, is of it as a Sacrifice; and the proper Effect thereof is Reconciliation 
§. 1.  by his Death as a Sacrifice.  
1. 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 Creature: He approved him to be good: and appointed him to walk in peace, communion, confidence, and boldness with him. Gen. 3. Nor had man, on whose heart the Law and Love of his Maker was written, any enmity against his Creator, God, and Rewarder.  
2. That by sin there is division, separation and breach of peace and friendship introduced between God and the Creature; Isa. 59. 2. Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, 
§. 2.  and your sins have hide his face from you, Isa. 63. 10. They rebelled against him, therefore he was turned to be their enemy and fought against them. There is no peace to the wicked saith my God. Is. 48 22. and therefore it is that upon a delivery from this condition we are said( and not before) to have peace with God. Rom. 5. 1.  
3. That by this breach of peace and friendship with God, God 
§. 3.  was alienated from the sinner, so as to be angry with him,& to renounce all peace and friendship with him, considered as such, and in that condition. He that believeth not, the wrath of God abides on him. Joh. 3. 36. And therefore by nature, and in our natural condition, we are children of wrath Ep. 2. 3. that is, obnoxious to the wrath of God, that abides upon unbelievers; that is, unreconciled Persons.  
4. This enmity on the part of God, consists  
1. In the purity and holinesse of his nature, whence he 
§. 4.  cannot admit a guilty defiled Creature to have any communion with him; He is a God of purer eyes then to behold iniquity. Heb. 1. 13. And sinners cannot serve him because he is an Holy God, a jealous God, that will not forgive their Transgressions nor their sins. Josh. 24. 19.  
2. In his will of punishing for sin, Rom. 1. 32. It is the Judgement of God that they which commit sin are worthy of death; and this from the righteousness of the thing itself 2 Thess. 1. 6. It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulations to sinners: He is not a God that hath pleasure in iniquity, Psal. 5. 4, 5, 6.  
3. In the sentence of his Law, in the establishing and execution whereof his truth and honour were engaged, In the day thou eatest thou shalt die, Gen. 2. 17. And cursed is every one that continueth not &c. Deut. 27. 29. 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, Psal. 1. 4, 5, 6. rejects and hates their duties and ways, Prov. 15. 8, 9. And prepares Wrath and Vengeance for them to be inflicted in his appointed time, Ro. 2. 5. All which make up perfect enmity on the part of God.  
2. That man was at enmity with God as on his part, I 
§. 5.  shall not need to prove; because I am not treating of our Reconciliation to God, but of his Reconciliation to us.  
5. Where there is such an enmity as this, begun by offence on 
§. 6.  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 Offendor into favour with him again, and to an enjoyment of the same, or a friendship built on better conditions then the former. This description of Reconciliation doth God himself give us, Job. 42. 7, 8, 9. And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the 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, least I deal with you after your folly, in that you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, like my servant Job, &c The offenders are Eliphaz and his two Friends: The offence is their folly in not speaking aright of God: The issue of the breach is, that the wrath or anger of God was towards them; Reconciliation is the turning away of that wrath; the 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, 
§. 7.  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 Discourse, 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 
§. 8.  and his being appeased toward 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 sometime 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 his being appeased toward us, his being satisfied as to all the bars so laid in the way from receiving us to favour, without the least alteration in him, his nature, will, or Justice:& according to the analogy hereof, I desire that whatever is spoken of the Anger of God,& his being appeased or altered which is the language wherein he converseth with us, and instructs us to wisdom, may be measured and interpnted.  
2. The objection I shall propose in the words of Crellius. 
§. 9.  Siin co sita est dilectio, quod Deus nos dilexerit& filium suum miserii {αβγδ}, pro peccaris nostris, quomodo Christus morte sua demum iram Dei adversus nos incensam placarit? nam cum dilectio illa dei quae plane fuit summa, causa fuit cur Deus filium suum charissimum miserit, necesse est ut iram jam suam adversus nos deposuerit: nonne aliter eodem tempore& impense amabit,& non amabit? si Deus etiam tum potuit nobis irasci, cum filium suum charissimum supremae nostrae felicitatis causa morti acerbissima objiceret, quod satis magnum argumentum erit, ex effectu ejus petitum, unde cognoscamus Deum nobis non irasci amplius. Crell: deafen. Socin. con. Grot. part. 6.  
To the same purpose Sacinus himself. Demonstra●i non modo Christum Deo nos, non autem Deum nobis reconciliasse, verum etiam Deum ipsum fuisse qui hanc reconciliationem fecerit. Socin. de Servator. lib. 1. pa. 1. cap. 1.  
If this be the chiefest and highest love of God, that he sent Christ his only 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 Gods 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?  
To the same purpose is the Plea of the Catechist: Cap. 8.  
De Morte Christi. Quest. 31, 32.  
Ans. The Love wherewith God loved us, when he sent his Son 
§. 10.  to die for us, was the most intense, and supreme in its own kind: nor would admit of any hatred or enmity in God toward us, that stood in opposition thereunto. It is every where set forth as the most intense Love, Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 7, 8, 1 Joh. 4. 10. Now this Love of God, is an eternal free act of his Will: his Purpose, Rom: 9. 11. His good Pleasure, his Purpose tha the purposed in himself, as it is called; It is his {αβγδ}, ● Pet. ●. 2. {αβγδ}, as I have elsewhere distinctly declared; a Love that was to have an efficacy by means appointed: but for a Love of Friendship, Approbation, Acceptation, as to our Persons and duties, God bears none unto us, but as considered in Christ, and for his sake. It is contrary to the whole design of the Scripture, and innumerable particular Testimonies, once to fancy a love of friendship, and acceptation toward any in God, and not consequent to the Death of Christ.  
2. This Love of Gods purpose and good Pleasure, this charitas ordinativa, 
§. 11.  hath not the least inconsistency with those hindrances of Peace and Friendship, on the part of God, before mentioned; for though the Holinesse of Gods Nature, the justice of his Government, the veracity of his word, will not allow that he take a Sinner into Friendship and communion with 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 sand 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 his sinners.  
4. It is true, that we can have no greater Evidence and Argument of the Love of Gods good will and pleasure in general, then in sending 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 
§. 12.  was proposed ensues.  
1. The use and sense of the words, whereby this Doctrine of our reconciliation is expressed; evinces the Truth contended for. {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, which are the words used in this business, 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. {αβγδ}, propitior, placor, {αβγδ}, placio, exoratio: Gloss. vetus; and in this sense is the word used; {αβγδ}. Plut. in Fabio. to appease their Gods, and turn away the things they feared. And the same Author tells us of a way taken, {αβγδ}, to appease the anger of God. And Xenophon useth the word to the same purpose; {αβγδ}. And so also doth Livy use the word reconcilio: non movit modo talis oratio regem, said 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 
§. 13.  one caution: It is not said any where 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 Math. 5. 23, 24. If thy Brother have ought against thee, go and be reconciled to him; The Brother being the party offended, he that had offended, was to be 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 consideration; 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. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the 
§. 14.  death of his son; {αβγδ}: we were reconciled to God, or brought again into his favour. Amongst the many reasons that might be given to prove the intention of this Expression to be, that we were reconciled to God, by the averting of his Anger from us, and our accepting into favour; I shall insist on some few from the Context.  
1. It appears from the Relation that this expression bears to that of v. 8. whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us; with which this upon the matter is the same, we are reconciled to God by the death of his son: Now the intent of this expression, Christ died for us sinners, is, He dyed to bring us sinners into the favour of God; nor will it admit of any other 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, v. 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 
§. 15.  v. 9. being levied by his blood: that it is the same thing upon the matter that is here intended, appears from the contexture of the Apostles speech, whilst we were yet enemies Christ dyed for us; much more being levied by his blood. And if when when we were enemies we were reconciled to God; the Apostle repeats what he had said before; if when we were enemies Christ dyed for us, and we were levied by the blood of Christ, that is, if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God? Now to be levied, is Gods Reconciliation to us, his Acceptation of us into favour, not our Conversion to him, as is known and confessed.  
3. The Reconciliation we have with God, is a thing ●endred 
§. 16.  to us, and we do receive it: v. 11. {αβγδ}, we have received 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 
§. 17.  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 an one reconciled to his prince; what is it that you intend? Is it that he begins to like and love his Prince only, or that his Prince lays down his wrath and pardons him?  
5. All the considerations before insisted on, declaring in what 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. 5. 18, 19, 20, 21. Is a place of the same importance 
§. 18.  with that obove mentioned, wherein the Reconciliation pleaded for, is asserted, and the nature of it explained. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of Reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ Reconciling 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 Christs 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 the words a twofold Reconciliation.  
1. Of God to man v. 18. God hath Reconciled us to himself by Iesus 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 dyed are brought into his favour; which comprises the Satisfaction proposed to confirmation. For  
1. unless it be that God is so Reconciled and atoned, 
§. 19.  whence is it that he is thus proclaimed to be a Father towards sinners as he is here expressed? Out of Christ he is a consuming fire to sinners, and everlasting burnings, Is. 33. 14. Being of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, Hab 1. 13. Before whom no sinner shall appear or stand, Ps. 5. 4, 5. So that where there is no Sacrifice for sin, there remaines nothing to Sinners, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement, and fiery indignation that shall consume the Adversaries, Heb. 10, 26, 27. How comes then this jealous God, this Holy God, and just 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 Iustice satisfied, and himself appeased, or Reconciled to us.  
2. The Reconciliation mentioned, is so expounded in the 
§. 20.  Cause and Effect of it, as not to admit of any other interpretation.  
1. The Effect of Gods being reconciled, or his reconciling the world to himself, is in those 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 Christs Remitting the penalty due to them; laying away his Anger, and receiving us to favour. This is the immediate fruit of the Reconciliation spoken of: If not the Reconciliation its self, non-imputation of sin, is not our Conversion to God.  
2. The cause of it is expressed v. 21. He made him to be sin 
§. 21.  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 so 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 righteousness 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 them to us, can be nothing but his being appeased and atoned towards us, with his receiving us to his favour, by and upon the account of the death of Christ.  
3. This Reconciling of us to himself, is the Matter committed 
§. 22.  to the Preachers of the gospel, whereby, or by the declaration whereof, they should persuade us to be reconciled to God. He hath committed to us, {αβγδ}; this Doctrine concerning Reconciliation 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, viz. 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 persuade 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.  
3. The next place of the same import is, Eph. 2. 12, 13. 14, 
§. 22.  15, 16. That at hat time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,& strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who 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 commandements 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.  
Here is mention of a twofold Enmity.  
1. Of the Gentiles unto God. 
§. 23.   
2. Of the Iewes, and Gentiles, among themselves.  
Of the Gentiles unto God, v. 12. Consider them as they are there described, and their Enmity to God is sufficiently 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, Joh. 3. 36. they are children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. So are they there expressly called: He hateth all the workers of iniquity, Psal. 5. 5. And will by no means acquit the guilty, Exod. 34. 7. Yea he nurseth those families that call not on his name.  
2. Of the Iewes and Gentiles among themselves: which is expressed, both in the thing itself, and in the cause of it; It is called Enmity, and said to arise from, or be occasioned, and improved by the Law of Commandements contained in Ordinances; The occasion, improvement, and management of this Enmity between them, see elsewhere.  
2. Here is mention of a twofold Reconciliation. 
§. 24.   
1. Of the Iewes and Gentiles among themselves, v. 14, 15. He is our peace, and hath made both one, slaying the enmity, so making peace.  
2. Of both unto God, v. 16. that he might reconcile both unto God.  
3. The manner whereby this Reconciliation was wrought; in his body by the 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, 
§. 25.  by the cross; or the death of Christ. Now the Death of Christ was immediately for the forgiveness of sins. This is the blood of the new Testament that was  shed for many for the forgiveness 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: {αβγδ} 
§. 26.  denotes one party in the business of Reconciliation He made peace between them both; between the Gentiles on the one hand, and the Iewes on the other; and he made peace between them both, and God; Iewes and Gentiles, on the one hand, and God on the other: So that God is a party in the business of Reconciliation, and is therein reconciled to us: for our reconciliation to him, is mentioned in our Reconciliation together, which cannot be done without our Conversion.  
3. From the description of the enmity given v. 12. which 
§. 27.  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 of God, is the great 
§. 28.  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 places, Col. 1. 20, 21. But 
§. 29.  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. The observations given on these Texts, being suited to obviate the Exceptions of Socinus treating of this subject, in his book de Servatore, without troubling the Reader with the Repetition of his words.  
That which in the next place I thought to do, is to prove that 
§. 30.  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 aaronical 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 proceed in it; but refer it to a peculiar discourse on that subject.  
That which I proposed to confirmation at the entrance of 
§. 31.  this Discourse, 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 Adversarys themselves being Judges. The Sacrifice that he offered in his death hath also been manifested. Hereof is the Reconciliation now delivered, the Fruit, and Effect. This also is no 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 31, and 32, 
§. 32.  Questions of the 8 Chap. which is about the Death of Christ.  
What say you then to those places, that affirm that he 
Ad haec vero, quod nos Deo Reconciliârit quid affers?  reconciled us to God?  
1. That the Scripture no where says, that God 
Primum, nusquam scripturam 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, quae de hac reconciliatione agunt, videre est. Quare nullo modo ex iis omnibus locis ea satisfactio extrui potest. deinde vero qd apart in scriptures extat, Deum nos sibi reconciliasse, id opinionem Adversariorum prorsus falsam esse evincit. 2. Cor. 5. 18. Col. 1. 20, 23.  was reconciled to us by Christ. But this only, that by Christ, or the Death of Christ we are reconciled, or reconciled to God, as may 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. 5. 18. Col. 1. 20, 22.  
Ans. 1. Whether there be any mention of such a Reconciliation, as whereby the Anger of God is turned away, and we Received into Favour, in the Scripture, the Reader will judge, from what hath been already proposed, and thither we appeal. It is not about words and syllables that we contend, but things themselves. The Reconciliation of God to us, by Christ, is so expressed, as the Reconciliation of a Judge to an Offender, of a King to a rebel, may be expressed.  
2. If Christ made Reconciliation for us, and for our sins an atonement, he made the Satisfaction for us, which we pled 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 thereby, and declaring to us the atonement; that we may turn unto him.  
They add. 
§. 34.   
But what thinkest thou of this Reconciliation?  
Quid vero de hac reconciliatione saints? Christum Jesum nobis, qui propter pec●ata nostra Dei inimici eramus,& ab eo abalienati, viam oftendisse, quemadmodum nos ad Deum converti, atque ad eum modum ei reconciliari oporteat.  
Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ shewed 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.  
Ans. I suppose there was never a more perverse description of 
§. 35.  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 Reconciliation but of one; the other excluded.  
2. An Enmity on one side only, between God and Sinners, is supposed, and that on the part of the Sinners; when the Scripture● 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 every where distinguished.  
4. We are said to be Enemies to God, propter peccata nostra, when the Scripture says every where, that God is an Enemy to us, propter 
Rom. 1. 32.  peccata nostra. He hateth and is Angry with sinners, his judgement is that they which commit sin, are worthy of Death.  
5. Here is no mention of the Death and Blood of Christ, which in every place in the whole Scripture, where this Reconciliation is spoken of, is expressly laid down as the Cause of it; and necessary 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 
§. 36.  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.  
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 Teacheth; 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.   

CHAP. XXX.  
The Satisfaction of Christ, on the Consideration of His Death, being a Punishment, farther evinced; and vindicated from the Exceptions of Smalcius.  
THE Third consideration of the Death of Christ, was of 
§. 1.  it, as it was Penal, as therein he underwent Punishment for us, or that punishment which for sin was due to us. Thence directly is it said to be satisfactory. About the word its self, 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 an end. Farther to open the nature of Satisfaction, then by what is said before, about bearing of sins, &c. I see no reason; our aim in that word is known to all; and the sense of it obvious. This is made by some the general head of the whole business. I have placed it on the peculiar consideration of Christs bearing our sins, and undergoing punishment for us. What our Catechists say to the whole, I shall briefly consider.  
Having assigned some Causes, and Effects of the Death of 
§. 2.  Christ, partly true in their own place, partly false. They ask Q. 12.  
Is there no other cause of the Death of Christ?  
Nonne est etiam aliqua alia mortis Christi causa? Nulla prorsus; etsi nunc vulgo Christiani sentiunt, Christum morte sua nobis salutem meruisse,& pro peccatis nostris planarie satisfecisse, quae sententia fallae● est& erronea,& admodum perniciosa. Cat. Racov. de Mor. Christi cap. 8. q. 12.  
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.  
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.  
2. Of the Merit of Christ, I have spoken briefly before. His 
§. 3.  Satisfaction is the thing opposed chiefly; What they have to say against it, shall now be considered. As also how this imputation, or Charge, on the common faith of Christians, about the Satisfaction of Christ, to be false, erroneous, and pernicious, will be managed.  
Q 13. How is it false, or deceitful?  
§. 4.  
That it is false( or deceitful) and eroneous 
Quaratione? Quod ad id quod fallax sit& erronea, attinet, id hinc perspicuum est, quod non solum de ea nihil extet in scriptures, verum etiam scriptures& sanae rationi repugnat?  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.  
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, nor his being our Mediator and Surety in his death) they shall have liberty( for me) to boast in this manner. In the mean time we are not concerned in their wretched confidence. But let us see how they make good their Assertion by instances.  
Q. 14. show that in order? 
§. 5.   
That it is not in the Scripture, this is an Argument, 
Demonstra id ordine? Id non haberi in scriptures argumento est, quod istius opinionis assertores nunquam perspicuas scripturas afferunt, ad probandam is●●m opinionem: verum quasdam consecutiones nectunt, quibus quod asserunt efficer conantur; quas at admittere aequum est, cum ex scriptures necessario adstruuntur, ita ubi scriptures repugnantur, ●eas nullum vim habere certum est: Quest. 15.  that the asserters 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 necessary deduced from Scripture, so it is certain 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 iniquitys,& that in his own body on the three, that he was made sin for us, and a Curse; that we deserved death, and he dyed 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 {αβγδ} is, and {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}, {αβγδ},( all words of a cognate significancy thereto, and of the same importance as to the Doctrine under consideration) are frequently used; It is indeed an hard task to find, Satisfaction, the word, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, or the greek of the New; But the thing itself is found expressly an 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 sences, never heard of before amongst men professing the name of Christ, we could willingly abstain wholly from any expression, that is not {αβγδ} 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 pled and contend for, were it not but that they are repugnant to other Scriptures. Let them then manifest the Truth of their pretention, by producing those other Scriptures, or confess that they are selfecondemned.  
Wherefore they ask.  
§. 6.  
Q. How is it repugnant to the Scripture? 
Qui vero Scripturae repugnat? Ad eum modum, quod Scripturae passim, Deum peccata hominibus gratuito remittere, testentur, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 3. 24, 25. potissimum vero sub N. Faedere, Ephes. 2. 8. Math 18 23. &c At remissioni gratuitae nihil adversatur magis quam satisfactio. cvi enim creditori satisfit, vel ab ipso debitore, vel ab alio debitoris nomine, de eo dici non potest vere, eum debitum gratuito ex ipsa gratia remisisse.   
A. In this sort, that the Scriptures do every where testify, that God forgives sin freely, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 3. 24, 25. But Principally under the New Covenant, Ephes. 2. 8. Math. 18. 23. Now nothing is more opposite to free remission, then satisfaction; so that if a Creditor be satisfied, either by the Debtor himself, or by any other in the name of the Debtor, he cannot be said to forgive freely.  
If this be all that our Consequences are repugnant unto in the Scripture, we doubt not to make a speedy Reconciliation. Indeed there was never the least difference between them. Not to dwell long upon that which is of an easy dispatch.  
1. This Objection is stated solely to the consideration of 
§. 7.  sin as a Debt, which is Metaphoricall-Sinne properly is an Offence, a Rebellion, a Transgression of the Law, an Injury done, not to a private Person, but a Governor in his Government.  
2, The two first places mentioned, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. Rom. 
§. 8.  3. 24, 25. do expressly mention the payment of this Debt by Christ, as the Ground of Gods 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.  
3. We say, that God doth most freely forgive us, as Ephes. 2. 
§. 9.  8. Math: 18. 23. without requiring any of the debt at our hands, without requiring any Price or ransom from us, or any satisfaction at our hands; but yet he forgives us for Christs sake, setting forth him to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, he laying down his Life a ransom 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 
§. 10.  Debtor, intends either one procured by the debtor, and at his entreaty undertaking 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 satisfaction made by Christ, the surety, and Mediator of the new Covenant, and free Remission made to us, are utterly ignorant of the whole mystery of the gospel, nature of the Covenant, and whole Mediation of Christ; advancing carnal imaginations against innumerable Testimonies of the Scripture, witnessing the blessed Conspiration between them, to the praise of the glorious grace of God. But they say,  
That it is contrary to Reason also, Because it would hence 
§. 11.  follow, That Christ underwent eternal 
Ce●o qui ●istud rationi repugnet? Id quidem hinc perspicuum est, quod sequeretur Christum aeternam mortem subiisse, si Deo pro peccatis notris satisfecisset: Cum cons●et paenam quam homines peccatis meruerant aeternam mortem esse: deinde con●equeretur, nos Christo, quam Deo ipsi devinctiores esse, quip qui satisfactione multum gratiae nobis ostendisset; Deus vero exacta satisfactione, nulla prorsus Gratia nos prosecutus fuisset.  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, then to God himself, as to him who had shown us greater favour in satisfaction, but God receiving satisfaction afforded us no favour.  
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& eternal love to die for us, causing al our iniquties to meet on him, justifying us freely,( who could do nothing for our own delivery) through the Redemption that is in the blood of Christ, we must tell them, that( we bless his holy name) we are not of that mind; but finding a daily fruit of his love and kindness, 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.  
2. For the enquiry made, and comparison instituted, between 
§. 12.  our obligation to the Father and the son, or which of them we are most beholding to, we profess we cannot speak unto it. Our obligation to both, and either respectively, is such, that if our Affections were extended 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 to 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, then 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 
§. 13.  Scripture, thus to Reason. They add.  
How also is it pernicious? 
Cedo etiam, qui haec opinio est perniciosa? Ad eum modum, quod hominibus fenestram ad peccandi licentiam aperiat, aut certe ad socordiam in pietate colenda eos invitet. Scriptura vero testatur, eum inter alios Christi mortis finem esse, ut redimeremur ab omni iniquitate, ex hoc seculo nequam eriperemur,& redimeremur ex vana conversatione a patribus tra●ita,& mundaremur conscientia a mortuis operibus ad serviendum Deo viventi. Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Heb. 9. 14.   
A. In that it openeth a door unto men to sin, or at least incites them to sloth in following after holinesse. But the Scripture witnesseth that this amongst others is an end of the death of Christ, that he might redeem us from our iniquity and deliver us from this evil world that we might be redeemed from our vain conversation, and have our consciences purged from dead works, that we might serve the living God, Tit. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Heb. 9. 14.  
That the deliverance of us from the Power and Pollution of our 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 suplyes of Grace from him, that we might grow up in holinesse 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 Satisfaction made thereby, should open a door of licentiousness to sin, or encourage 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 
§. 14.  thus dispose men to licentiousness and sloth? Is it that God is so provoked with every sin, that it is impossible, and against his nature to forgive it, without inflicting the punishment due thereto? Or is it that God so loved us, that he gave his only son to die for us, or that Christ loved us, and washed us in his own blood? Or is it that God for Christs sake doth freely forgive us? Yea but our Adversaries say, that God freely forgives us; yea but they say it is without Satisfaction. Is it then an encouragement to sin, to affirm that God forgives us freely for the Satisfaction of his son? and not to say, that he forgives 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,& give the Encouragement? Who could have discovered this but our Catechists and their Companions? Were this a season for that Purpose, I could easily demonstrate that there is no powerful or effectual motive to abstain from sin, no encouragement or incitation unto holinesse, but what riseth from or relateth unto the Satisfaction of Christ.  
And this is that which they have to make good their charge 
§. 15.  against the 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 
§. 16. ( they say) we produce for the confirmation of the truth contended for. What( they say) we pretend from Reason( though indeed it be from innumerable places of Scripture) I have vindicated not long since to the full in my book of the vindictive 
De Justit. divin. Diatrib  Justice of God, and answered all the Exceptions given thereunto; so that I shall not translate from ●hence what I have delivered to this purpose, but pass to what follows.  
Question 12 they make this enquiry.  

§. 17.  Which are the Scriptures out of which they endeavour 
Quae vero sunt Scripturae e quibus illi opinionem suam adstruere conantur? Eae, quae testantur Christum vel pro peccatis nostris mortuum. deande, quod nos redemit, aut dedit semetipsum,& animam suam. Redemptionem pro multis: Tum quod noster. Mediator est. Porro quod nos reconciliarit Deo,& sit propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; Denique ex illis Sacrificiis, quae mortem Christi, seu figurae adumb●averunt.  to confirm their opinion?  
A. Those which testify that Christ dyed for us, or for our sins, also that he redeemed 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 sin. Lastly, from those Sacrifices which as figures shadowed forth the death of Christ.  
So do they huddle up together those very many express Testimonies of the Truth we pled for, which are recorded in the Scripture. Of which I may clearly 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 of the Testimonies that may be referred to the heads before recounted,( except those which have been already spoken to) shall be considered in the order wherein they proceed.  
They say then 
§. 18.   
For what belongeth unto those Testimonies 

Quod attinet ad illa Testimonia in quibus habetur Christum pro nobis mortuum, ex iis satisfactionem aastrui necessario non posse hinc manifestum est, quod Scriptura testetur, etiam nos pro fratribus animas ponere debere 1 Joh. 3. 16.& Paulus de se seribat Col. 1. 24. nunc gaudeo &c. Certum autem est, nec 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 express loquitur, 1 Cor. 8. 11. Quod etiam similia verba indicant, cum Scriptura loquitur, pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse Christum; quae verba eum sensum habere nequeunt, loco seu 'vice nostrotum peccatorum mortuum esse; verum propter peccata nostra esse mortuum; uti Rom. 4. 25. manifeste Scriptum legimus. Ea porro verba( Christum pro nobis mortum esse● hanc habent vim, eum idcirco mortuum, ut, nos salutem aeternam, quam is nobis caelitus attulit ●amplecteremur,& consequemur; quod qua ratione fiat, paulo superius accepisti.   wherein it is contended that Christ dyed for us, it is manifest that Satisfaction cannot necessary be therein asserted, because the Script●re witnesseth that we ought even to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 Joh. 3 16. And Paul writes of himself, Col. 1. 14. 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 bretheren; nor did Paul make satisfaction to any for the Church.  
Qest. 23. What then is the sense of these words[ Christ dyed for us.]  
That these words[ for us] do not signify in our place or stead, but for us, as the Apostle expressly speaks 1 Cor. 8. 11. which also alike places do show; where the Scripture saith, that Christ dyed for our sins, which word cannot have this sense, that Christ dyed instead of our sins, but that he dyed for our sins, as it is expressly written Rom. 4. 25. Moreover these words[ Christ dyed for us] have this sense, that he therefore dyed, that we might embrace and obtain that eternal Salvation which he brought to us from Heaven, which how it is done you heard before.  
Resp. briefly to state the difference between us about the 
§. 19.  meaning of this expression[ Christ dyed for us] I shall give one or two observations 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& inconsistent;& make this their Argument, that Christ did not dy 'vice nostri, because he dyed propter nos. When it is one Argument whereby we prove that Christ dyed in our stead, because he dyed for us, in the sense mentioned, 1 Cor. 8. 11. where it is expressed by {αβγδ}, 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 dyed for us, that is, he underwent the death and Curse that was due to us, that we might be delivered therefrom.  
3. The last words of the Catechists are those wherein they 
§. 20.  strive to hid the abomination of their hearts in reference to this business. I shall a little lay it open.  
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 dyed that we might receive it; that is, rather then 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,& so our obtaining Salvation. And this is the sense of these words,( Christ dyed for us.)  
For the confirmation of our Faith from this expression, 
§. 21. ( Christ dyed for us.) we have  
1. The common sense, and customary usage of human kind as to this expression. When ever 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 {αβγδ} of old, as Damon and Pythias &c. make this manifest.  
2. The Common usage of this expression in Scripture confirms 
§. 22.  the sense insisted on. So David wished that he had dyed for his son absalon, that is, dyed in his stead, that he might have lived 2 Sam. 18. 33. And that supposal of Paul Rom. 1. 11. of one daring to die for a good man, relating( as by all expositors on the place is evinced) to the practise of some in former dayes, who to deliver others from death, had given themselves up to that whereunto they were obnoxious, confirms the same.  
3. The Phrase itself, of {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, 
§. 23.  which is used Heb. 2. 9. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Rom. 5. 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 5. 14. sufficiently proves our intention, compared with the use of the preposition in other places; especially being farther explained by the use of the preposition {αβγδ}, which ever denotes a substitution, in the same sense and business, Math 20. 28. Math. 10. 45. 1 Tim. 2. That a Substitution and Commutation is always denoted by this preposition( if not an opposition which here can have no place) 1 Pet. 3. 9. Rom. 12 14. Math. 5. 38. Luk. 11. 13. Heb. 12. 16. 1 Cor. 11. 15. amongst other places are sufficient evidences.  
4. Christ is so said to die {αβγδ}, so as that he is said in 
§. 24.  his death to have our iniquities laid upon him, to bear our sin in his own body on the three, 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 condemnation, and sin. Now whether thus to die for us, be not to die in our place and stead, let Angels and men judge.  
5. But, say they, this is all that we have to say in this business; 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 bodies 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 pled for the sense of this Expression, Christ died for us, depended solely on the sense and use of that 
§. 25.  word {αβγδ}, 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 making 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 Jo. 3. 16. being a part of the Apostles persuasive to Love, Charity, and the fruits of them, tending to the relief of the Brethren, in Poverty, and distress, disclaims all intendment, and possibility of a substitution or Commutation, nor hath any intimation of undergoing that which was due to another, but only of being ready to the utmost to assist and relieve them. The same is the condition of what is affirmed of Paul; Of the measure of affliction, which in the infinite wise Providence, and Fatherly care of God, is proportioned to the mystical body of Christ his Church, Paul underwent his share for the good of the whole. But that Paul, that any Believers were Crucified for the Church, or dyed for it, in the 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 iniquity, and redeeming us by his blood, died in our place and stead, and by his Death made satisfaction to God for our sin.  
Also that Christ made satisfaction for our sin, appears 
§. 26.  from hence, that he was our Mediator. Concerning this, after their Attempt against proper Redemption by his blood, which we have already considered, Q. 28. They inquire.  
What say you to this, that Christ is the Mediator of the 

Quid ad haec dicis, quod Christus sit Mediator inter Deum& homines, aut N. faederis?  
Cum legatur Moses fuisse Mediator Gal. 3. 19.( puta inter Deum& populum Izrael aut prisci faederis) neque eum satisfecisse deo ullo modo constet, ne hinc quidem quod mediator dei& hominum Christus sit, colligi certo poterit, eum satisfactionem aliquam, qua deo pro peccatis nostris satisfieret peregisse.   New Covenant between God and Man? and Answer  
Ans. Seeing it is red, that Moses was a Mediator, Gal: 3. 19.( namely of the Old 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 man, can it be certainly gathered, that he made any satisfaction to God for our sin.  
I shall take leave before I proceed, to make a return of this Argument 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 an High Priest, and yet he did not offer himself in Heaven, and therefore it cannot be certainly proved, that Christ offered himself in Heaven, because he was an 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 Sidelius: But for the former, I doubt not but Smalcius would quickly have Answered, that it is true; it cannot be necessary proved, that Christ Offereth himself in Heaven, because he was an High Priest, which Aaron was also, but because he was such an High Priest, as entred into the Heavens to 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 Argument, I hope he will be content with this of ours to his. It is true, it doth not appear, nor can be evinced necessary, 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 Man, as gave his Life a Price of Redemption for them for whom with God he mediated, 1 Tim. 2. 6. it is most evident and undeniable; and hereunto Smalcius is silent.  
What remaines of this Chapter in the Catechists, hath been 
§. 28.  already fully considered; so to them and Mr B. as to his 12th 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 confess are omitted; and yet more perhaps have been delivered, then by our Adversaries occasion hath been administered unto. But this business is the very Center of the New Covenant, and cannot sufficiently be weighed. God assisting, a farther attempt will ere long be made, for the brief stating all the several concernements of it.   

CHAP. XXXI.  
Of Election, and Universall Grace: Of the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead.  
MR Biddles Intention in this 13th Chapter, being to decry 
§. 1.  Gods eternal Election, finding himself destitute of any Scripture, that should to the least outward appearance speak to his purpose, he deserts the way and method of procedure imposed on himself, and in the very Entrance falls into a Dispute against it, with such Arguments as the Texts of Scripture after mentioned, give not the least colour or countenance unto. Nor that from me he incurs any blame, for using any Arguments whereby he supposeth he may further or promote his Cause, is this spoken; but having at the Entrance professed against such a tour, 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 
§. 2.  for whom Christ died, intimate the universality of Gods Love to men: yet for as much as this is a point of the greatest importance, without the knowledge and belief 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. Joh. 3. 16, 17. Joh. 6. 33. Joh. 4. 42. 1 Joh. 4. 14. Joh. 12. 46, 47. Mark. 16. 15, 16. Col. 1. 22 Col. 1. 18. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. 2 Pet. 3. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 19. 1 Joh. 2. 1, 2.  
That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, 
§. 3.  powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations, and various communications of his goodness to them; and may in that regard, be said to have an Universall 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 expressed for whom Christ died; as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.  
2. It is confessed, that this is a point of the greatest importance 
§. 4 ( 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 universality 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 
§. 5.  to a few, &c. He intended much good to all, and every man in the world,& accordingly in Abundance of variety accomplisheth that his intention towards them; to Some in a greater, to Some in a lesser measure, according as seems good to his infinite wisdom and pleasure, for which all things were made and created, Rev. 4. 11. And for that particular eminent good of Salvation by Jesus Christ, for the praise of his Glorious Grace, we do not say, that he intended that from eternity, for a few absolutely considered; for these will appear in the issue, to be a great multitude, which no man can number, Rev. 7. 9. but that in comparison of them who shall everlastingly come short of his Glory, we say that they are but a little flock, yea few they are that are chosen, as our Saviour expressly affirms, what ever M. B. be pleased to tell us to the contrary.  
4. That the granting that they are but few, that are chosen 
§. 6. ( 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 discouragement to any to come to God, M. B. shall persuade us, when he can evince, that the secret and eternal purpose of Gods discriminating between persons, as to their eternal conditions, is the great ground and bottom of our approach unto God; and not the Truth and faithfulness of the promises which He hath given, with his holy and righteous commands. The issue that lies before them, who are commanded to draw nigh to God, is, not whether they are Elected or no, but whether they will believe or no; God having given them eternal, and unchangeable Rules; He that Believes shall be saved, and he that believes not, shall be damned, though no mans name be written in the Scripture, he that believes hath the Faith of Gods veracity, to assure him, that he shall be saved. It is a most vain Surmisall, that as to that obedience which God requires of us, there is any obstruction laid, by this consideration, that they are but few which are chosen.  
5. This is indeed the only true and solid ground of coming 
§. 7.  unto God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoined Faith and Salvation, so that whosoever believes, shall be saved; neither doth the granting of the pretended universality of Gods Love, afford any other ground whatever; and thi is not in the least shaken or impaired, by the effectual Love and Purpose of God, for the Salvation of Some. And if M. B. hath any other true and solid ground of encouraging men to come to God by Christ, besides, and beyond this, which may not on one account or other, be edu●ed from it, or resolved into it,( I mean of Gods command and promise) I do here beg of him to acquaint me with it, and I shall give him more thankes for it, if I live to see it done, then as yet I can 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 
§. 8.  Christ, yet that the names of those some are not expressed in Scripture; the doing whereof would have been destructive to the main end of the Word, the Nature of Faith, and all the 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 ground there is none, nor can be offered by the asserters of the pretended universality of Gods Love. Nor is this proposition, he that believes shall be saved, founded on the universality of Love pleaded for, but the Sufficiency of the means, for the Accomplishment of what is therein Asserted▪ namely the blood of Christ, who is believed on.  
Now because M. B. expresseth, that the end of his Asserting 
§. 9.  this Universality of Gods 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 mentioned by M B. are, from giving countenance to the former, in the sense wherein by him who Asserts it it is understood.  
For the first, me thinks a little respect and Reverence to that 
§. 10  Testimony of our Saviour, many are called, but few are chosen, might have detained this Gentleman from asserting with so much confidence, that the persuasion of Gods choosing but a few, is an obstruction of mens 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 
§. 11.  of God, as to the good men●ioned. 2. Those some, are some only, not All: and therefore as to the good intended, there is not an Universall Love in God, as to the objects of it, but such a distinguishing one as is spoken against. Eph. 1. 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 Eternity, or before the foundation of the World, and this to the Good of Holinesse, Adoption, Salvation; and this is only of some, and not of all the World, as the whole tenor of the Discourse being referred to Believers, doth abundantly manifest.  
Rom. 8. 28, 29, 30. And we know, that all things work together for 
§. 12.  good, to them that are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the first born amongst 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 withall; Whom he justified, them he also glorified. The means of that End, consists 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 distinguished, to the end expressed, is from the purpose, foreknowledge, and predestination of God,( that is) his everlasting intention. Were it another man, with whom we have to 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 13. 48. but some, that are given to Christ, joh. 17. 6. A remnant according to Election, Rom 11. 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, Rom 9. 11, 12. and those who attain salvation, are chosen thereunto, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, 2 Thes. 2. 13. All that is intended by them, whom M. 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 appointed 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 more, in comparison of the rest of the World, the Event doth manifest.  
Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God, or intention 
§. 13.  spoken of, is peculiar and distinguishing, there is express mention of another sort of men, who are not thus chosen, but lie under the purpose 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. 16. 4. They are persons, whose names are not written in the Lambs book of Life, Rev. 13 8. Being of old ordained to condemnation, judas 4. being as natural bruit beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, 2 Pet. 2. 12. And therefore the Apostle distinguisheth all men into those who are appointed to wrath, and those who are appointed to the obtaining of life by Jesus Christ, 1 Thess. 5. 9. An instance of which eternally discriminating purpose of God, is given in Jacob and Esau, Rom. 9. 11, 12. which way, and procedure therein of God, the Apostle vindicates from all appearance of 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, v. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Concluding that in opposition to them, whom God hath made vessells of mercy, prepared unto Glory; there are also vessells of Wrath fitted to destruction, v. 22, 23.  
Moreover in all eminent Effects and Fruits of Love, in all the 
§. 14.  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 everlasting good of men, as it was before described, is peculiar, and not universally comprehensive of all, and every one of man-kind.  
In the pursuit of that Love, he gave his son to die; For God commendeth his Love to us, in that whilst we were yet sinners, Christ dyed for us, Rom. 5. 8. Here in is Love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the Propitiation for our sins, 1 Joh. 4. 10. Now though he dyed not for the Jews only, but for all, for the whole World, or Men throughout the whole World, yet that he dyed 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, Joh. 17. 9. I pray for them, I pray not for the World, but for them which thou hast given me, thine they were, and thou gavest them me, v. 6. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, v. 17. Even as he had said before, that he came to give his life a ransom for many, Mat. 20. 28. which Paul afterwards abundantly confirms, affirming, that God redeemed his Church with his own blood, Acts 20. 28. Not the world, as contradistinguished from his Church, nor absolutely, but his Church throughout the World: And to give us a clearer insight into his intendment, in naming the Church in this business, he tells us, they are Gods Elect whom he means, Rom. 8. 32, 33, 34. He that spared not his son, but delivered him up to death for us all, how shall he not with him, freely give us all things? who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? It is God that Justifieth: who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed, 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 eminently sets out v. 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 
§. 15.  Love of God, which is extended to the whole object of that Love, was not universal. 1. The Promise of giving him was not so: God promised Christ to all, for, and to whom he giveth him. The Lord God of Israel by him visited and redeemed his people, raising up a 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, Luk. 1 68, 69, 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 3. 15. And it was renewed again, not to all the world, but to Abraham& his seed Gen. 12. 2, 3. Act. 2. 39. Act. 3. 25. And for many Ages, the Promise was so apropriated to the seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 5▪ with some few, that joined themselves to them, Is. 56. 3, 4, 5. that the people of God prayed for a curse on the residue of the world Jer. 10 25. as they which were strangers from the Covenant of promise, Eph. 2. 12. they belonged not to them, So that God made not a promise of Christ to the universality of mankind; which sufficeintly evinceth, that it was not from an universal, but a peculiar Love that he was given. Nor  
2. When Christ was exhibited in the flesh, according to the 
§. 16.  promise, was he given to all, but to the Church, Is. 9. 6. neither really as to their good, nor ministerially for the promulgation of the gospel to any, but to the Jews. And therefore when he came to his own, though his own received him not, Joh 1. 11. yet as to the ministry which he was to accomplish, he professed he was not sent but to the lost sheep of Israel; and gives order to them whom he sent forth to preach in his own life time, not to go into the way of the Gentiles, nor to enter into any City of the Samaritans, Mat. 10. 5 yea when he had been lifted up, to draw all men to him, Joh. 3. 14. and chap. 12. 32. and being Ascended had broken down the partition wall, and took away all distinction of Jew and gentle, circumcision and uncircumcision, having dyed not only for that nation of the Jews( for the remnant of them according to the election of grace, Rom. 11.) but that he might gather together in one the Children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11. 52. whence the language and expressions of the Scripture as to the people of God are changed, and in stead of Judah and Israel, they are expressed by the world Joh 3. 16. the whole world, 1 Joh. 2. 1, 2. and all men, 1 Tim. 4. 6. in opposition to the Jews only, some of all sorts being now taken into Grace and favour with God; yet neither then doth he do what did remain, for the full administration of the Covenant of Grace towards all; namely, the poufing out of his Spirit with efficacy 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 
§. 17.  and people and Nation, Rev. 5. 9.  
It appears then, from the consideration of this first most eminent effect of the love of God, in all the concernements of it, that that Love, which is the foundation of all the grace and Glory, of all the spiritual and eternal good things, whereof the sons of men are made partakers, is not universal, but peculiar and distinguishing.  
M. Biddle being to prove his former Assertion of the universallity of Gods Love, mentions sundry places, where God is 
§. 18.  said to love the world, and to sand his son to be the Saviour of the world, Joh. 3. 16, 17. John 6. 33. John 4. 42. 1 John 4. 14. John 12, 46, 47. 1 John 2. 1, 2. The reason of which expression the Reader was before acquainted with. The benefits of the death of Christ being now no more to be confined to one Nation, but promiscuously to be imparted to the Children, that were scattered abroad throughout the world in every kindred, tongue, and Nation under Heaven, the word, world, being used to signify men living in the world, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, seldom or never, All( unless a distribution of them into several sorts comprehensive of the universality of mankind be subjoined) 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 mediation. Men of all sorts throughout the world, being now admitted thereunto: as was before asserted.  
2. The benefit of Redemption being thus grounded upon the 
§. 19.  principle of peculiar, not universal Love, whom doth God reveal his will concerning it unto? and whom doth he call to the participation thereof? If it be equally provided for all, out of the same love, it is all the Reason in the world that all should equally be called to a participation thereof, or at least so be called, as to have it made known unto them. For a 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 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 of this, out of an equal love to them all? Now not only for the space of almost 4000 yeares did God suffer incomparably the greatest part of the whole world, to walk in their own ways, not calling them to repent Act. 14. 16. winking at that long time of their ignorance, wherein they worshipped stocks, stones,& Divels; all that while making known his word unto jacob his statutes and judgements unto Israel, not dealing so with any Nation, whereby they knew not his judgements, Psal. 147. 19, 20. So in the pursuit of his Eternal Love, calling a few, only in comparison leaving the bulk of mankind in sin, without hope or God in the world, Eph. 2. 12. but even also since the giving out of a Commission and express command, not to confine the preaching of Word,& calling of men, to Iudaeah, but to go into all the world and to preach the gospel to every Creature Mark. 16. 15. whereupon it is shortly after said, to be preached to every creature under Heaven, Col. 1. 22. the Apostle thereby warning every man and teaching every man, that they might present every man to Iesus Christ Col. 1. 28 namely, of all those to whom he came and preached, not the Iewes only, but of all sorts of men under Heaven, and that on this ground, that God would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth 1 Tim 2. 3, 4. be they of what sort they will, Kings, Rulers, and all under authority; yet even to this very day, many whole Nations, great and numerous sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, having neither in their own dayes, nor in the dayes of their forefathers, ever been made partakers of the glorious gospel 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 
§. 20.  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 connexion of Faith and Salvation according to the tenor of it, Math. 16. 16. He that believeth shall be saved; which is accompanied with Gods command to believe, wherein he declares his will for their Salvation, upon the terms proposed, approving the obedience of Faith, and giving assurance of Salvation thereupon, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4. there is moreover required 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 purpose, Rom. 8. 28. that is, to them who are predestinated v. 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 
§. 21.  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 
§. 22.  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 converted, as he dealt with the house of Israel( not all the world, but) those who had his word and ordinances Ezek. 18. 31, 32. affirming that it is not for his pleasure, but for their sins, that they die; but that this manifests an universal Love in God in the way spoken of, or any thing more then the connexion of Repentance and Acceptation with God, with his 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 
§. 23.  should come to Repentance, 2 Pet. 3. 9. even all those towards whom he exercises patience and long suffering for that end,( which, as the Apostle there informs, is to us ward) that is, to Believers of whom he is speaking. To them also it is said, that he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men, Lam. 3. 33. even his Church of which the Prophet is speaking: although this also may be extended to all; God never afflicting or grieving men, but it is for some other Reason and cause, then merely his own will; their destruction being of themselves. David indeed tells us, that the Lord is gracious, 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 Psal. 145. 8, 9. But he tells us withall, whom he intends by the all in this place, even the generation which praise his works and declare his mighty acts, v. 4. those who abundantly utter the memory of his great goodness, and sing of his righteousness, v. 7. or his Saints, as he expressly calls them v. 10. The word he there mentions, is the word of the Kingdom of Christ over all, wherein the tender 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 providence, wherein he abounds towards them in all goodness, but that is not here intended. So that M. B. hath fruitlessly from these Texts of Scripture, endeavoured to prove an universallity of Love in God, inconsistent with his peculiar Love, purpose and intention of doing good in the sense declared to some only.  
And thus have I briefly gone through this Chapter, and by 
§. 24.  the way taken into Consideration all the Texts of Scripture, which he there wrists 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 M. 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 
§. 25.  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 Controversy about Grace, and Free-will, and the Death of Christ, with especial reference to the late management thereof amongst the Romanists, between the Molinists and Jesuits on the one side, with the Jansenians, or Bayans on the other; with the late ecclesiastical and political transactions in Italy, France, and Flanders, in reference thereunto, with an account of the Books lately written on the one side and the other, and my Thoughts of them; but finding this Treatise grown utterly beyond my 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 14th Chapter of the Catechist, is about the Resurrection of 
§. 26.  Christ. What are the proper fruits of the Resurrection of Christ, and the benefits we receive thereby, and upon what account our Justification is ascribed thereto, whether as the great and eminent confirmation of the doctrine he taught, or as the issue, pledge, and evidence of the Accomplishment of the work of our Salvation by deat, it being impossible for him to be detained thereby, is not here discussed; that which the great design of this Chapter appears to disprove, is, Christs raising himself by his own power: concerning which this is the Question.  
Did Christ rise by his own power, yea did he raise himself at all? or 
§. 27.  was he raised by the power of another? and did another raise him? What is the perpetual 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 M. B. is to come to another reckoning, before he can make any work of this Argument; God raised him, therefore he did not raise himself: When he hath proved that he is not God, let him freely make such an inference and conclusion as this: In the mean time, we say, because God raised him from the Dead, he raised himself; for he is God over all blessed for ever.  
2. It is true, that Christ is said to be raised by God, taken 
§. 28.  personally for the Father, whose joint Power, with his Own, as that also of the Spirit, was put forth in this work of raising Christ from the Dead. And for his own raising himself, if M. 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 up again, no man( saith he) taketh it from me, I have power to lay it down of myself, and I have power to take it again, Joh. 10. 17, 18. And speaking of the Temple of his Body, He bad the Jews destroy it, and, that he would raise it again within three daies: which we believe he did, and if M. B. be otherwise minded, we cannot help it.   

CHAP. XXXII.  
Of justification and Faith.  
THIS Chapter, for the Title and Subject of it, would require 
§. 1.  a large& serious consideration; But by M. Biddles 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,  
Q. 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 u●, Justification is his Act concerning man, considered as vested or induced with that righteousness which he requires: righteousness is the Qualification of the person to be levied; Justification the Act of him that Justifies. A mans 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 M. B. answers from Rom. 10. 5. the righteousness which is of the Law, and Phil. 3. 9. The righteousness which is of God by Faith.  
It is true, there is this twofold righteousness that men may 
§. 3.  be partakers of, a righteousness consisting in exact, perfect& 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 afterwards: Answerable hereunto there is, hath been, or may be, a twofold Justification: the one consisting in Gods declaration 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 require. And the other Answers that righteousness which shall afterward 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& destructive of each other; So that it is utterly impossible they should ever meet in and upon the same person.  
For the description of the first, M. B. gives it in answer to 
§. 4.  this Question.  
How is the righteousness which is of the Law described?  
Ans. Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, that the man that doth these things shall live by them, Rom. 10. 5.  
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 commandements that we may enter into life, make 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 levied, 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 belongs to the righteousness here described: and of this we may have some use, in the consideration of M. B's ensuing Queries. He adds, 
§. 5.   
What speaketh the righteousness which is of Faith?  
A. Ro. 10. 8, 9. The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  
The Object of Justifying Faith, namely, Iesus Christ as dying, and rising 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 levied.  
His next question is,  
In the justification of a Believer is the righteousness of Christ imputed 
§. 6.  to him, or is his own Faith counted for righteousness?  
Ans. Rom. 4. 5. His Faith is counted for righteousness.  
What M. 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 pharisaical Justification, and no other: as shall elsewhere be abundantly manifested. For the present, I shall only say, that M. Biddle doth most ignorantly oppose the imputing of the 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 righteousness of Christ are every way one and the same; the one denoting that whereby we receive it, and are made partakers of it, the other that which is received, and whereby we are levied. And indeed there is a perfect inconsistency between the Apostles intention in this expression, to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his Faith is accounted to him for righteousness, taken with his explication of it, that we are made partakers of the righteousness of Christ by Faith,& therein he is made righteousness to them that believe, with M. B's interpretation of it, which is( as shall be farther manifested) to him that worketh and believes on him, that Justifies the righteous his obedience is his righteousness. But of this elsewhere.  
The next Question and Answer is about Abraham and his 
§. 7.  Justification, which being but an instance exemplifying what was spoken before, I shall not need to insist thereon. Of his believing on God only, our believing on Christ, which is also mentioned, I have spoken already, and shall not trouble the Reader with repetition thereof.  
But he farther argues. 
§. 8.   
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 Christs blood was sufficient to satiisfy for a thousand worlds? if not, how are they Saved?  
Ans, Being levied freely, Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 17.  
That Christ did pay a full price, or ransom for us that he did stand in our stead, that he was not bated any jot of the penalty of the Law, that was due to sinners, that on this account we are fully acquitted, and that the forgiveness of our sins is by the Redemption that is in his blood, hath been already fully and at large evinced; Let M. B. if he please, attempt to evert what hath been spoken to that purpose.  
The expression about one drop of Christs blood is a fancy, or imagination 
§. 9.  of idle monks, men ignorant of the righteousness of God, and the whole nature of the mediation which our blessed Saviour undertook; wherein they have not the least communion. The close of the Chapter is?  
Did not Christ merit eternal life and purchase the kingdom of Heaven 
§. 10.  for us?  
Ans. The gift of God is eternal Life, Rom. 6. 23. It is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom, Luk. 12. 32.  
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. 9. 12. that he did not purchase us to himself, Tit. 2. 14. or that the merit of Christ for us, and the free Grace of God unto us, are inconsistent, our Catechist attempts not to prove Of the reconciliation of Gods purpose, and good pleasure, mentioned Luk. 12. 32. with the Satisfaction and merit of the mediator, I have spoken also at large already.  
I have thus briefly passed through this Chapter, although is treateth 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 just Treatise to that purpose.   

CHAP. XXXIII.  
Of keeping the Commandements of God: And of Perfection of Obedience, how attaineable in this Life.  
THE Title of Chapter 16th in our Catechist, is of Keeping 
§. 1.  the Commandements, and having an eye to the reward, of perfection in virtue and godliness to be attained; and of departing from righteousness and Faith. What the man hath to offer on these several heads, shall be considered in order. His first Question is.  
Q. Are the Commandements Possible to be kept?  
Ans. His Commandements are not grievous, Joh. 5. 3. My yoke is easy, and my burden light, Math: 11. 30.  
1. I presume it is evident to every one, at the first view, that 
§. 2.  there is very little relation between the Question and the Answer thereunto suggested. The inquiry is of our strength& power: the Answer speaks to the nature of the Commands of God. It never came sure into the mind of any living, that the meaning of this Question, Are the Commandements possible to be kept? Is, is there an absolute impossibility from the nature of the Commands of God themselves that they cannot be kept by any. Nor did ever any man say so, or can without the greatest Blasphemy against God. But the Question is, what Power there is in Man to keep those Commandements of God; which certainly the Texts insisted on by M. B. do not in the least give an Answer unto.  
2. He tells us not, in what state or condition he supposes that person 
§. 3.  to be, concerning whom the inquiry is made, whether he can possibly keep the Commandements of God or no: Whether he speaks of all men in general, or any man indefinitely, or restrainedly of Believers. 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, Circumstances and Concernements of them: or whether the keeping of them in an universal sincerity, accepted before God, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, be intended. Nor,  
4. What Commandements 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 Gods commands, which he intends to deny; that which is absolutely so from the nature of the thing its self, or that which is so only in some respect, with reference to some certain state and Condition of Man.  
When we know in what sense the Question is proposed, we 
§. 4.  shall be enabled to return an Answer thereunto, which he that hath proposed it here, knew not how to do: In the mean time, to the thing its self intended, according to the light of the premised Distinctions, we say that all the Commandements of God, the whole Law is excellent, precious, not grievous in its self, or its own Nature, but admirably expressing the goodness, and kindness, and Holinesse of him that gave it, in Relation to them to whom it was given, and can by no means be said, as from it's self and upon its own account, to be impossible to be kept. Yet,  
2. No unregenerate man can possibly keep, that is, hath in himself a Power to keep any one of all the Commandements of God, as to the matter required, and the manner wherein it is required. This impossibility is not in the least relating to the Nature of the Law, but to the impotency, and corruption of the Person lying under it.  
3. No man though regenerate, can fulfil the Law of God Perfectly, or keep all the Commandements of God, according to the original tenor of the Law, in all the Parts and Degrees of it; nor ever any man did so, since sin entred into the World; for it is impossible that any regenerate man should keep the Commandements 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 who works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure.  
5. That to keep the Commandements of God, not as the tenor of the Covenant of Works, nor 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 Commandements of God, in yielding 
§. 5.  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 Gods Commandements as he ought, is impossible, not from the Nature of Gods Commands, but from his own state and Condition.  
3. That a Person, though Regenerate, yet being so but in part, and carrying about him a body of Death, should keep the Commands of God, in a perfection of Obedience, according to the Law of the Covenant of Works, is impossible from the condition of a Regenerate man, and not from the Nature of Gods Commands. What is it now that M. B. opposes? Or what is that he Asserts?  
I suppose he declares his mind in his Lesser catechism, Chap. 
§. 6.  7. Q. 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, Math. 19. 17, 18, 19. If thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commandements.  
The intendment of this inquiry must be the same with his that made it, as his Argument in the whole is; or the Answer of our Saviour, is no way suited thereunto: Now it is most evident, that the Inquiry was made according to the principles of the Pharifees, 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 M B's sense, wherein he affirms that it is possible to keep the Commandements, so as for doing good, and keeping them, to enter into life, I shall only remit him, as our Saviour did the Pharisees to the Law: but yet I shall withall pray, that our 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, sand him forth of the Prison wherein is no water.  
Q. 2. But though it be possible, to keep the Commandements, yet is it 
§. 7.  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 dead?  
Ans. 1 Cor. 7. 19. Math. 7, 21, 24, 26. Jam. 1. 25. Rom. 2. 10. Joh. 13. 17. Luk. 11. 24. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Mat. 16. 27. Revel. 22. 21. Mat. 19. 18, 19. In all which places, there is mention of doing the will of God, of keeping the Commandements of God.  
The aim of this Question, is to take advantage at 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 bowed down under the sense of their own weakness, and insufficiency for obedience, and the exceeding unsuitablenesse of their best performances 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 their 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, Nehemiah describing the Saints of God by this character, that they desire to fear the name of God, Neh. 1. 11. and David every where 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 floath, 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 M. 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 dead, 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 Commandements that is intended in any of the places quoted by M. 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 afterwards. He farther argues,  
Though it be not only possible but also necessary to keep the Commandements, 
§. 8.  yet is it lawful so to do that we may have 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 expectation of the hope hereafter? and finally ought weto 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?  
An. Revel. 22. 14. Rom. 2. 6, 7, 8. Tit. 2. 11, 13. 2 Thess. 1. 5.  
Ans. 1. In what sense it is possible to keep the Commandements, in what not, hath been declared. 2. How it is necessary or in what sense, or for what end, M. B. hath not yet spoken, though he supposeth he hath; but we will take it for granted that it is necessary for us so to do; in that 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 tour by a multiplication of entangled queries; and to take them in that order wherein they lie.  
To the first, whether we may keep the commandements that we may have right to eternal life. I say 1. keeping of the Commandements in the sense acknowledged may be looked on in respect of eternal life, either as the cause procuring it, or as the means conducing to it. 2. A right to eternal life may be considered in respectof the Rise and Constitution of it, or of the present evidence& last enjoyment of it. There is a twofold Right to the kingdom of Heaven; a Right of desert according to the tenor of the Covenant of works;& 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,& tenor of the gospel, that we should do or keep the commandements, so that that doing or keeping should be the cause procuring& obtaining an original Right, as to the rise and constitution of it, or a Right of desert to 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 will enter into life, keep the Commandements; which if there be any gospel or new Covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ, is antiquated as to its efficacy, and was ever since the entrance of sin into the world, as being ineffectual for the bringing of any soul unto God, Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 8. 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 purchased for us by Christ,& is the Gift of God, plainly excludes all such confidence in keeping the Commandements, as is pleaded for. For my part, I willingly ascribe to obedience any thing that hath a 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,& obtaining of the Inheritance so fully purchased and freely given, for the evidencing of the right given us thereto by the blood of Christ,& giving actual admission to the enjoyment of the purchase, and to testify our free acceptation with God, and Adoption on that account, so we ought to do, and keep the commandments, that is, walk in holinesse, without which none shall see God. This is all that is intended, Re. 22. 14. Christ speaks not there to Unbelievers, showing what they must do to be levied& saved; but to redeemed, levied,& sanctified ons, showing them their way of admission& 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 immortality 
§. 9.  by well-doing? which words are taken from Rom. 2. 7, 8.  
I answer, the words there are used in a law sense, and are declarative of the righteousness of God, in rewarding the keepers of the Law of nature, or the moral Law, according to the Law of the Covenant 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 the impossibility of the obtainig the Glory of God thereby. So in particular from v. 10. where Salvation is annexed to works, in the very terms wherein the righteousness of the Law is expressed by M. B in the Chapter of Justification; and in direct opposition whereunto, the Apostle sets up the righteousness of the gospel Chap. 1. 17. Chap. 3.& 4. 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, 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, seek for glory 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 limitations 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 perfectly, 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 in the words of the Scripture, produced for the proof of our Catechists intention. The Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and a glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ Tit. 2. 11, 12, 13. Christ the great God our Saviour, having promised an inheritance to us with himself, at his glorious appearance, raiseth up our hearts with an hope and Expectation thereof; his Grace or the Doctrine of it, teacheth us to perform all manner of holinesse, and righteousness all our dayes; and this is the tenor and law of the gospel, that so we do; but what this is to M. Biddles purpose I know not.  
His last attempt is upon the exposition of some( I know not 
§. 11.  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. 1. 5. That you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you 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 Believers, and thereupon being said to be within us, and the word, from, denoting the principle of obedience in suffering, there is a truth in the expression, and that very consistent with suffering for the kingdom of God, which here is opposed unto it. To suffer from the kingdom of God, is no more, then 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 persecution 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. 1. Have you any examples of keeping the 
§. 12.  Commandements under the Law? what saith David of himself? Psal. 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. And  
2. Have you any example under the gospel? 1 Joh. 3. 10. because we keep his commandements.  
All this trouble is M. B. advantaged to make from the ambiguity of this expression of keeping the C●mmandements; 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 Commandements was in respect of sincerity, as to all the Commandements of God, and all the parts of them: but not as to his perfection in keeping all or any of them. And he who says we keep his Commandements, says also, that if we say we have no sin, we lie, and deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  
He adds, Have you not examples of the choicest Saints who obeied 
§. 13.  God in hope of the reward both before, under, and after the Law? Heb. 11. 8, 9, 10, 24, 25, 26. Heb. 12. 12. Tit. 1. 1, 2.  
To obey in hope of 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, an hope of the enjoyment of the promised inheritance in due time, and to be encouraged, and strengthened in Obeying thereby. Thus the Saints of God walk with God, in hope,& 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 
§. 14.  perfection of virtue and godliness, and that it is the intention of God and Christ, and his Ministers, to bring them to this pitch? rehearse the Texts to this effect.  
Ans. Eph. 1. 4.  
Not to make long Work of that, which is capable of a speedy dispatch; by virtue and godliness, M. B. understands that universal righteousness and Holinesse, which the Law requires; by perfection in it, an Absolute, complete answerableness to the Law, in that righteousness and Holinesse, both as to the matter wherein they consist, 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 a perfection of virtue and godliness; For,  
1. All our works are done out of Faith, 1 Tim. 1. 5. Gal. 5. 6. now this Faith, is the Faith of the forgiveness of sins by Christ, and that purifieth the Heart, Acts 15 8, 9. But the works that proceed from Faith, for the forgiveness of sins by Christ, cannot be perfect absolutely and 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 
§. 15.  or Cause of the Saints obedience in this life is imperfect; so therefore is their obedience. That our santification is imperfect in this life, the Apostle witnesseth, 2 Cor. 4. 16. 1 Cor. 13. 9.  
3. Where there is flesh and Spirit, there is not perfection: for 
§. 16.  the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, from whence our perfection must proceed if we have any: but there is flesh and Spirit in all Believers, whilst they live in this World, Gal. 5. 17. Rom. 7. 14.  
4. They that are not without sin, are not absolutely perfect; 
§. 17.  for to be Perfect, is to have no sin: but the Saints in this life are not without sin, 1 joh. 1. 8. Math. 6. 12. james 3. 2. Eccles. 7. 21. Isa. 64 6. but to what end should I multiply Arguments, or Testimonies to this purpose? If all the Saints of God have acknowledged themselves sinners all their dayes, always deprecated the Justice 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 Grace, this pharisaical figment may be rejected as the foolish imagination of men ignorant of the righteousness of God, and of him who is the end of the Law for righteousness to thom that do Believe.  
But take perfection as it is often used in the Scripture, and ascribed 
§. 18.  to men, of whom yet many great and eminent failings are recorded( which certainly were inconsistent with perfection absolutely considered) and so it denotes two things. 1. Sincerity in opposition to hypocrisy: And 2. ●niversality, as to all the parts of obedience, in opposition to partiality, and halveing with God: So we say, perfection is not only attaineable by the Saints of God, but is in every one of them; but this is not such a perfection, as consists in a point, which if it deflects from, it ceases to be perfection; but such a condition as admits of 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, Psal. 37. 14. Psal. 119. 100. &c.  
No then to insist on all the places mentioned by M. B. in 
§. 19.  particular, they may all be referred to four heads; 1. Such as mention an unblameablenesse before God in Christ, which argues a Perfection in Christ, but only sincerity in us; Or 2. Such as mention a perfection in fieri, but not in facto esse, as we speak; a pressing towards perfection, but not a perfection obtained, or here obtainable; Or 3. A comparative perfection in respect of others; or a Perfection of Sincerity, accompanied with Universality of obedience, consistent with Indwelling sin, and many transgressions. The application 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 proceeds.  
If works be so necessary to Salvation, as you have before shewed from 
§. 20.  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? Rom. 2. 2, 28. We are justified by Faith, without the works of the Law.  
A. How, and in what sense works are necessary to Salvation, hath been declared, and therefore I remit the Reader to its proper place.  
2. A full Handling of the Doctrine of Justification, was waved before, and therefore I shall not here take it up, but content myself with a brief removal of M. B's attempts to deface it. I say then,  
3. That Paul is very troublesone to all the Pharisees of this Age, who therefore turn themselves a thousand ways to escape the Authority of the Word and Truth of God,( by him fully declared and vindicated against their fore-fathers) labouring to fortify themselves with distinctions, which as they suppose( but falsely) their Predecessors 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 
§. 21.  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 Calling; which( if any) should be exempted from being works of the Law: For though the Law requires them, yet they are not done from a principle, nor to an end of the Law; these Paul excludes expressly, Ephes. 8. 9. 10. By Grace we are 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 an opposition to Grace in this business, Rom. 1. 5, 6. If it be of Grace, it is no more of Works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of Works, it is no more Grace, otherwise Works is no more Works▪ and Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5.  
4. All Works are excluded, that take off from the Absolute freedom of the justification of sinners, by the Redemption that is in Christ, Rom. 3. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Now this is not Peculiar to any one sort of Works, or to any one Work, more then to another, as might be demonstrated; but this is not a place for so great a Work, as the thorough handling of this Doctrine requires. He adds,  
Can you make it appear from else-where, that Paul intended to exclude 
§. 22.  from justification, only the perfect Works of the Law, which leave no place for either Grace or Faith, and not such Works as include both, and that by a justifying Faith he meant a working Faith, and such an one as is accompanied with righteousness?  
Ans. Eph. 2. 8, 9, 10. Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5. Rom. 11. 5, 6. Rom. 4. 14, 15, 16. Gal. 5. 6. Rom. 1. 17, 18,  
A. Still Paul and his Doctrine trouble he man, as they did his Predecessors. That Paul excluded all Works of what sort soever, from our justification, as precedaneous causes or conditions thereof, was before Declared. M. B. would only have it, that the perfect Works of the Law only are excluded, when if any Works take place in our justification with God, those only may be admitted; for certainly, if we are Justified, or pronounced Righteous for our Works, it must be for the Works that are Perfect, or else the judgement of God is not according to Truth. Those only it seems are excluded, that only may be accepted; and imperfect 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 M. 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 Pharasaisme, to give direction for his own condemnation. Let the places be considered by the Reader.  
3. The Grace mentioned, as the Cause of our justification, is 
§. 23.  not the Grace of God, bringing forth good Works in us, which stand thereupon in opposition to the works of the Law, as done in the strength of the Law, but the free Favour and Grace of God towards us in Christ Jesus, which excludes all Works of ours whatever, as is undeniably manifest, Rom. 4. 4. Chap. 11. 5, 6.  
4. It is true, Justifying Faith is a Living Faith, purging the Heart, working by Love, and bringing forth fruits of 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 opposition to all Fruits of Faith whatever, which God hath ordained us to bring forth: That Faith whereby we are justified, will never be without works, yet we are not Justified by the Works of it, but freely by the Blood of Christ; how; and in what sense we are justified by Faith its self, what part, office, and place, it hath in our Justification, its consistency in its due place and Office, with Christs being our righteousness, and its receiving of Remission of sins, which is said to be our blessedness, shall elsewhere( God assisting) be manifested.  
What then hath M. B. yet remaining to pled in this business? 
§. 24.  the Old abused refuge, of opposing james to Paul, is fixed on▪ This is the beaten plea of Papists, Socinians, and Arminians. Saith he,  
What Answer then would you give to a man, who wresting the words of Paul in certain places of his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians should bear you in hand, that all good Works whatever, are excluded from justification and Salvation, and that it is enough only to Believe. Jam. 2. 20, 21, 22. 23, 24, 25 26.  
Ans. He that shall exclude Good Works from Salvation, so as not to be the way and means appointed of God, wherein we ought to walk, who seek and expect salvation from God; and affirms 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 Galatians, 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, affirming that it is by Faith only, without works; and affirms, that the Truth and Sincerity of that Faith, with its Efficacy in its own kind for our justification, is evinced by Works,& the mans Acceptation with God thereon justified by them, doth not wre●t 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 before 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 Justifying Faith by its Effects; but of this also elsewhere. To all this he subjoins.  
I would know of you, who is a just or Righteous man? Is it not such an 
§. 25.  one, as apprehendeth, and applieth Christs righteousness to himself, or at most desires to do Righteously, is not he accepted of God?.  
Ans. 1 Joh. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. 1 Joh. 2. 29. Acts 10. 34, 35. Ezek. 18. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.  
He to whom God imputes righteousness, is righteous. This he doth to him, who works not, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4. 5, 6, 7. there is then a righteousness without the wo●ks of the Law, Phil. 3. 10. To apprehended and apply Christs righteousness to ourselves, are expressions of Believing unto justification, which the Scripture will warrant, joh. 1. 12. 2 Cor. 1. 30. He that Believeth, so as to have Christ made righteousness to him, to have righteousness imparted 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 reckoning him, and his righteousness 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 expression, 
§. 26.  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. There M. B. would oppose, and from the Assertion of the one, argue to the destruction of the other; though they Sweetly, and Eminently comply in our Communion with God. The other righteousness was before evinced: Even our Sanctification also is called righteousness, and we are said to be just in that respect.  
1. Because our Faith and interest in Christ is justified thereby to be true, and such as will abide the fiery trial.  
2. Because all the acts of it are fruits of righteousness, Rom. 6. 19, 22.  
3. Because it stands in opposition to all Unrighteousnesse, 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 M. Biddle treat, without the least contradiction, or colour of it, to the imputed righteousness of Christ, wherewith we are Righteous before God.  
The in●endment of the last query in this Chapter, is to prove 
§. 27.  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 
Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance Vindicated.  consideration of the whole Doctrine opposed; wherein not only the Texts here quoted by M. B. but many others, set off by the Management of an able head; and dexterous hand●, are at large considered, thither therefore I refer the Reader.  
It might perhaps have been expected, that having insisted 
§. 28.  so largely as I have done, upon some other heads of the Doctrine of the gospel corrupted by M. B. and his Companions, that I should not thus briefly have passed over this important Article of Faith, concerning Justification: but besides my weariness of the work before me, I have for a defensative farther to pled, that this Doctrine is of late become the Subject of very many polemical discourses; to what Advantage 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 something purposely, for the vindication, and clearing of the whole Doctrine its self; 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 before 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.   

CHAP. 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,  
Is Prayer a Christian duty? 
§. 1.   
Ans. Pray without ceasing, 1 Thess. 5. 17.  
If by a Christian duty, a duty whereunto all Christians are obliged is understood, we grant it a Christian duty. The commands for it, encouragements to it, Promises concerning it, are innumerable; and the use and benefit of it, in our Communion with God, considering the state and condition of sin, emptiness, Want, Temptation, 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 acknowledgement of God, that every man is everlastingly, 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 whereunto we fall, or are brought. Every one that lives in dependency on God, and hath his suplys 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.  
How ought men to pray? Ans. Lifting up holy hands without wrath 
§. 2.  and doubting. 1 Tim. 2. 8.  
The enquiry being made of the manner of acceptable prayer, the answer given respecting only one or two Particulars, is narrow and scanty. The qualification of the person praying, the 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 connexion capable of a good and faire interpretation, though all be not expressed that the Scripture gives, in Answer to such Questions,& 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. 11. Did not Christ prescribe a form of prayer to his disciples, so that 
§. 3.  there remaineth no doubt touching the lawfulness of using a form?  
A. Luk 11. 1, 2, 3, 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 that supposition, will not be so easily determined. The words of Christ are, when you pray, say, Our Father &c. If in this prescription, not the matter only, but the words also are attended, 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, seing our Saviours command is positive, when you pray, say, Our Father, &c.  
That which M. B. is to prove is, that Our Saviour hath prescribed 
§. 4.  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 imperfection 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 &c. therefore we may use another, which he hath not prescribed, hath neither show nor colour of Reason in it. 
§. 5.   
But how will M. B. prove that Christ doth not here instruct his disciples in what they ought to pray for, and for what they ought in prayer to address themselves to God, and under what considerations they are to look on God in their aproaches to him and the like, only, but also that he prescribes the words there mentioned by him to be repeated by them in their supplications. Luk. 11. he bids them say Our Father &c. which at large Mat. 6. is, pray after this manner: {αβγδ} to this purpose. I do not think the Prophet prescribes a form of words, to be used by the Church when he says, Take with you words, and turn to the Lord, and say unto him, Take away iniquity,( Hos. 14. 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. 
§. 6.   
Our Saviour says when ye pray, say, Our Father; 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 you pray, say: whether we may say any thing else, or use any other words? whether the saying of these words be a part of the worship of God? Or whether any promise of Acceptation be annexed to the saying so? whether the spirit of grace and supplication be not promised to all believers? And 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 siprit of prayer be consistent? whether the form be prescribed because Believers are not able to pray without it? Or be cause there is a peculiar Holinesse force and energy in the letters words and syllables, as they stand in that form? And whether to say the first of those be not derogatory to the Glory of God, and efficacy of the Spirit, promised and given to Believers, and the second, to assert the using of a 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& 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,& his Grace in the prayers of his people? And whether the repetition of those words, after men have been long praying for the things contained in them, as the manner of some is, be not so remote from any pretence or colour of warrant in the Scripture, as that it is in plain terms ridiculous? When M. Biddle, or any on his behalf, 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, 
§. 7.  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 enquiry thereabout. That which follows is all that in this Chapter needs any Animadversion. The words are these,  
Was it the custom during the time that Christ conversed on the earth 
§. 8.  ( 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?  
Ans. Joh. 16. 24, 25, 26.  
The times of the Saints in this world are here distinguished into different seasons: that before Christs coming in the flesh, the time of his conversation on earth, and the time following his Resurrection and Exaltation. What was the custom in these several seasons of praying to God in the name of Christ, or through him, is inquired after; and as to the first and second it is denied, granted as to the latter, which is further confirmed in the Answer to the last Question, from Heb. 13. 20, 21. Some brief observations will disentangle M. B's Catechumens, if they shall be pleased to attend unto them.  
1. It is not what was the custom of men to do, 
§. 9.  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: One in general, in these, of a mediator, the Messiah promised, which was the knowledge of the Saints under the Old Testament. 2. Particular, in hypothess, that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah, which also was known, and is to the Saints under the New Testament. 4. That as to an 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 Assention of Christ then before: the Spirit of Revelation being then poured out in a more abundant manner then before. 5. There is a twofold praying unto God in the name of Christ. One in express words▪ clear and distinct intention of mind, insisting on his Mediation, and our acceptance with God on his account. The other implyed in all Acts of Faith, and 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 Christs coming 
§. 10.  into the world, the Saints of the Old Testament did pray, and were appointed of God to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, in as much as in all their Addresses unto God they learned on him,( as promised 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 Sacrices wherein they had by Gods institution respect to him, with Abraham, by Faith even as we: So that whether we consider the promise, on the account whereof they came to God, which was of Christ, and of blessing in him; or the means whereby they came, which were Sacrifices,& types of him; or the confidence wherein they came, which was of atonement and forgiveness of sin by him, it is evident, that all their prayers were made to God in the name of Christ, and not any upon any other account. And one of them is express in terms to this purpose Dan. 9. 17. If they had any promise of him, if any Covenant in him, if any Types representing him, if any light of him, if any longing after him, if any benefit by him or fruit of his Mediation, all their Worship of God was in him, and through him.  
2. For them who lived with Him in the dayes of his flesh, 
§. 11.  their Faith and Worship was 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 Promises 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 fullness 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 pedagogy 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 dayes of the gospel. And this is all that M. B. gives Occasion unto in this Chapter.   

CHAP. XXXV.  
Of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the State of the Wicked at the Last Day.  
IN his last Chapter, M. Biddle strives to make his Friends amends 
§. 1.  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 amnihilated, or utterly deprived of their being, Body and soul, in the day of Judgement. For that everlasting Fire, those endless Torments, wherewith they have been so scared and terrified formerly, by the catechisms 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 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 Judgement, and what shall be the final Condition of the Righteous and Wicked thereupon.  
The first Questions led only to Answers, that there shall 
§. 2.  be a resurrection of the dead in general; 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 proposed; 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 M. B. may be expounded 
§. 3.  by his 
Deinde negant Resurrectionem carnis: hoc est, hujus ipsius corporis, quod carne ac sanguine praeditum est, etsi fateantur corporae esse resurrectura, h●e. ipsos homines fideles; qui tunc novis corporibus caelestibus induendi sum compendiolum doctrine. Eccles. in Polon.  Masters, 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 substantial parts. This his Masters think not possible; and therefore reject it, though it be never so expressly affirmed in the Scripture. But M. Biddle is silent of this discovery made by his Masters, and so shall I be also.  
That wherewith I am to deal he enters upon in this question. 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. Joh. 3. 36.  
The Assertion herein couched is, that the* wicked shall not live 
§. 4. Itaque negan? cruciatus impiorum& Diabolorum duraturos esse in aeternum, verum omnes simul penitus esse abolendos: adeo ut mers ●● infernus ipse dicantur conjiciendi in stagnum illud ardens, Ap. 10. Rationem addunt, quod absurd●m sit, deum irasci in aeternum;& peccata creaturarum finita, paenis infinitis mulctare: praesertim cum hinc nulla ipsius gloria illustretur: Compen. Doct. Eccles. in Polon.  for ever in torments: and the proof of it is, because eternal life is promised only to the faithful: yea, he that hath not the Son shall never see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Joh. 3. 36. As to the Assertion itself we shall attend further unto it instantly.  
When 
Nam quod ais, ca ibi, tum de Christianorum Resurrectione, tum de morte impiorum fassim contineti, quo ●multis fi●● magna offensione, tum nostris tum aliis, legi non poss●nt: s●io equidem ea ibi centir●●●, said 〈◇〉 judicio nee pass●m, nec it a apart( cavi enim istud quantum potui.) ut quisqua● 〈…〉 offendi posset, adeo ut quod nominatim attinet ad impiorum mortem, in quo● 〈◇〉 main● est 〈◇〉 offensionis periculum, ea potius ex i●s colligi posset, qua ibi d●sputantur, quam expres●e 〈…〉 signata extet: adeo ut lector, qui aliequi sententiam meam adversus Puccium de 〈…〉 hoins, quae toto libro agitatur, quaeque ob non pauces quis habet fautores parum 〈…〉 onis parers potest, probandam censeat, prius sentiat doctrinam i●●am sibi jam persuasum 〈…〉 suaderi animadvertat. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Johan. Volkel. o. p. 431.  Socinus first broached this Abomination, he did it with the greatest cunning and slight 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 mans success was in most things beyond his own imagination.  
For the proof insinuated; Life,& eternal Life in the gospel, as 
§. 5.  they are mentioned as the end,& Reward of our Obedieoce, are not taken merely Physically, nor do express only the abode, duration,& continuance of our being, but our continuance in a state& condition of blessedness and Glory. This is so evident, that there is no one place, where Life to come, or 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, nor 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 torments, is a wild inference. I desire to know of M. 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 says 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 it promised.  
The proof insisted on by M. Biddle says, that the wrath of God 
§. 6.  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 
§. 7.  Law, and the mention made of them therein, as they express the condition of man in way of Reward or punishment, are not opposed naturally, but morally; not in respect of their being( if I may so say) and Relation, as one is the privation of the other in the way of nature, but in respect of the state and condition which is expressed by the one& the other, viz. 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, 
§. 8.  and eternal Life, doth not any where denote annihilation, but only a deprivation and coming short of that blessedness which is promised 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 M. Biddle proceeds, and saith,  
Though this passage which you have quoted seem clearly to prove that 
§. 9.  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 corrupted, burnt up, devoured, slain, pass away, and perish?  
Ans. Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 8. 13. Revel. 21. 6, 8. Revel. 2. 10, 11. 1 Thess. 5. 3. 2 Pet. 3. 7. 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8, 9. Gal. 6. 8 2 Pet. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 3. 17. Heb. 10. 39. Mat. 3. 12. Heb. 10. 26, 27. Luk. 19. 27 1 Joh. 2. 17. 2 Cor. 2. 15, 16.  
How well M. B. hath proved his intention by the place of 
§. 10.  Scripture before mentioned, hath been in part discovered, and will in our process yet farther appear. The Ambiguity of the word life and eternal Life( which yet is not ambiguous in the Scripture, being constantly used in one sense and signification, as to the purpose 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 abides on them.  
2. This is common with this Gentleman and his Masters; 
§. 11.  Christians generally think otherwise, but we say thus; so slight do they make of the common Faith which was once delivered to the Saints. But he may be pleased to take notice, that not only Christians think so, but assuredly believe that it shall be so, having the express word of God to bottom that their faith upon. 
{αβγδ}. Plato in Phaedo.  And not only Christians believe it, but mankind generally in all ages consented to it; as might abundantly be evinced,  
3. But let the expressions wherewith M. B. endeavours to 
§. 12.  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 i●, may be discovered.  
The first is that they are said to die, and that the second death Rom. 6. 23. Rom. 8. 13. Revel 21. 18. Revel. 2. 10, 11. but how now will M B prove, that by dying is meant the Annihilation of body and 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 M. B. 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 Persons being, but a moral condition wherein he is. And why must the last death be the Annihilation pretended? As to a coming short of that which is the proper life of the soul in the enjoyment of God, which is called life absolutely, and eternal life, it is a death; And as to any comfortable attendencies of a being continued, 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 shewed) there is no colour.  
2. It is called destruction, and perdition, and everlasting destruction, 
§. 13.  1 Thes. 5. 3. 2 Pet. 3. 7. 2 Thes. 1. 7, 8, 9. True, it is a destruction as to the utter casting men off from all and every thing wherein they had any hope or dependence; a casting them eternally off from the happiness of rational Creatures,& 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 destruction, 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. 6. 8. 2 Pet 2. 12. 1 Cor. 3. 17. 2 Pet. 3. 16.  
3. Burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire, is mentioned 
§. 14.  Mat. 3. 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 metaphoricall, 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, not that they shall no more be, but that they shall never see happiness any more; All these expressions being metaphoricall,& 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. Christs punishment of Unbelievers at the last day, is compared to a King saying, bring hither mine Enemies, and slay them before me, Luk. 19. 27. because as a natural death is the utmost punishment, that men are able to inflict, which cuts men off from hopes and enjoyments, as to their natural condition, so Christ will lay on them the utmost of his Wrath, cutting them off from all hopes and enjoyments as to their spiritual and moral condition. It is said the fashion of this world passeth away 1 Joh 2. 17. because it can give no abiding continuing refreshment to any of the Sonne● of men; when he that doth the will of God hath an everlasting continuance in a good condition, notwithstanding the intervening of all troubles, which are in this life. But that wicked men have not their being continued to eternity, nothing is here expressed.  
A very few words will put an issue to this controversy, if our 
§. 15.  blessed Saviour may be accepted for an Umpire; saith he, Mat. 25 46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal: certainly he that shall be everlastingly punished, shall be everlastingly. His punishment shall not continue, when he is not. He that hath an end, cannot be everlastingly punished. again, saith our Saviour, in Hell the fire shall never be quenched; Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched Mat. 9. 43, 44. which he repeats again v. 46. and that M. B. may not cause any to hope the contrary, again v. 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 torment them when they are not, and the burning of a fire, when their whole Essence is consumed. So also Isa. 66. 24. their torments shall be endless, and the means of their torments continued for ever: but for themselves( it seems) they shall have an end, as to their being; 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 wailing and gnashing of teeth, Mat. 8. 12. the utmost sorrow and indignation expressible, yea beyond expression; and yet they shall not be. God threatens men with death and destruction, and describes that death and destruction to consist in the abiding under his wrath in endless torments: which unexpressible sorrow 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. 
A. Ita jocaris, quasi ego dicam, eos esse miseres, qui nati non sunt& 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 tam pugnat, quam non modo miserum, said omnino quidquam esse, qui non sit. A. Quo●iam me verbo premis, postha● non ita dicam, miseros esse, said tantum, miseros, ob id. ipsum quia non sunt. M. non dicis igitur, miser est M Crassus, said miser Crassus. A. Ita plane. M quasi non necesse sit, quic quid isto modo pronunties, id aut esse, aut non esse, an tu dialecticis ne imbutus quidem es &c. Cicer. Tuscul. Quest. Lib. 1.   
What hath been the intention and design of M. B. in this his 
§. 16.  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 estimated. That the greatest part of them to whom the mind of God, as revealed in Scripture, is in some measure made known, are not won and Prevailed upon by the Grace, Love and Mercy 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 men are yet so over powred by the terror of the Lord therein discovered, 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,& the Temptations of satan meeting in conjunction, would carry them out unto, as it hath daily& 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 Judgement which they are to undergo, which doth so ●maze their souls, and fill them with horror and Astonishment, so strike off their hands when they are ready to stretch them out to violence& uncleanness, or so frequently makes their conception of sin abortive, as this of the Eternity of their punishment, which impenitent sinners must undergo. Is not this that which makes bitter the otherwise sweet morsels that they role 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 
Haec Caesar disseruit, credo falsa existimans ea quae de infernis memorantur diverso itinere malos a bonis leea tetra, inculta, foeda atque fomidolosa habere. Cato apud sallust. Bell. catiline.  the great engine of the providence of God for the preserving of mankind from the outragiousnesse and unmeasurablenesse 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. To undeceive the wretched world, and to set sinful man at liberty from this bondage and thraldom to his own causeless fears, M. B. comes forth, and assures them all, that the Eternity of torments is a fable and everlasting punishment a lie; let them trouble themselves no more, the worst of their misery may be past in a moment; it is but annihilation, or rather perdition of soul and body, and they are for ever freed from the 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 farewell 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 give 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 condition 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& disobedience, then he who labours also to pervert the righteous and obedient from their Faith?   

TO close this whole Discourse I shall present M. Biddles Catechumens with a shorter catechism then either of his, collected out of their Masters Questions, with some few inferences, naturally flowing from them; and it is as follows.  
1. What is God?  
Ans. God is a Spirit, that hath a Body, shape, eyes, ears, hands, feet like to us.  
2. Where is this God?  
Ans. In a certain place in Heaven, upon a throne, where a man may see from his right hand to his left.  
3. Doth he ever move out of that place?  
Ans. I cannot tell what he doth ordinarily, but he hath formerly come down sometimes upon the earth.  
4. What doth he do there in that place?  
Ans. Among other things, he conjectures at what men will do here below.  
5. Doth he then not know what we do?  
Ans. He doth what we have done, but not what we will do.  
6. What frame is he in, upon his knowledge and Conjecture?  
Ans. Sometimes he is afraid, sometimes grieved, sometimes joyful, and sometimes troubled.  
7. What peaee and comfort can I have in committing myself to his Providence, if he knows not what will befall me to morrow?  
Ans. What is that to me, see you to that.  
8. Is Jesus Christ God?  
Ans. He is dignified with the title of God, but he is not God?  
9. Why then was he called the only begotten son of God?  
Ans. Because he was born of the Virgin Mary.  
10. Was He Christ the Lord then when he was born?  
Ans. No, he became the Lord afterwards.  
11. Hath he still in Heaven an human body?  
Ans. No, but he is made a Spirit, So that being not God but man, he was made a God, and being made a God, he is a spirit, and not a man.  
12. What is the Holy Ghost?  
Ans. A principal angel.  
13. Did death enter by sin, or was mortality actually caused by sin?  
Ans. No.  
14. Why is Christ called a Saviour?  
Ans. Because at the Resurrection he shall change our vile bodies.  
15. On what other account?  
Ans. None that I know of.  
16. How then shall I be saved from sin and wrath?  
Ans. Keep the Commandements, that thou maiest have a right to eternal Life.  
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 Mahomet pretended?  
Ans. He ascended into Heaven, and talked with God, before he came and shewed himself to the world.  
18. What did Christ do as a Prophet?  
Ans. He gave a new Law.  
19. Wherein?  
Ans. He corrected the Law of Moses.  
20 Who was it that said of old, thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy?  
Ans. God in the Law of Moses, which Christ corrects.  
21. Is Christ to be worshipped because he is God?  
Ans. No, but because he redeemed us.  
22. May one that is a mere Creature be worshipped with Divine or Religious worship?  
Ans. Yes.  
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?  
Ans. I cannot tell, for God himself doth not know that there are such actions, as our free actions are, but upon enquiry.  
24. Did Christ give himself for an offering and Sacrifice to God in his Death?  
Ans. No, for he was not then a Priest.  
25. Did Christ by his death make reconciliation for our sins, the sins of his people, bear their iniquities that they might have peace with God?  
A. No, but only dyed that they might turn themselves to God.  
26. Did he so undergo the curse of the Law and was so made sin for us; 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.  
27. Did he merit or procure eternal life for us by his Obedience and suffering?  
A. No, this is a fiction of the Generality of Christians.  
28. Did he redeem us properly with the price of his blood, that we should be saved from wrath, death, and Hell?  
A. No, there is no such use or fruit of his death and blood-shedding.  
29. If he neither suffered in our stead, nor unde● went the Curse of the Law for us, nor 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 the our Saviour?  
A. He taught us the way to Heaven, and dyed to leave us an example.  
30. How then did he save them, or was he their Saviour, who dyed before his teaching and dying?  
A. He did not save them, nor was their Saviour, nor did they ask any thing in his name, or received any thing on his account.  
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.  
32. Hath God from eternity loved some even before they did any good,& elected them to life and Salvation to be obtained by Jesus Chrsst?  
A. No, but he loved all alike.  
33. Did God in the sending of Christ aim at the Salvation of a certain number of his Elect?  
A. No, but at the Salvation of men in general whether ever any be Saved or no.  
34. Are all those Saved for whom Christ dyed?  
A. The least part of them are Saved.  
35. Is faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, or are we converted by the efficacy of his Grace?  
A. No, but of ourselves we believe and are converted, and then we are made partakers of the Spirit and his grace.  
36. Are all true Beeeeeeeeievers preserved by the power of God unto Salvation?  
A. No, many of them fall away and perish.  
37. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for our Justification?  
A. No, but our own Faith and works.  
38. Are we to receive or apprehended Christ and his righteousness by Faith, that we may be levied through him?  
A. NO, but believe on him that raised him from the dead, and without that, it suffices.  
39. Are we able to keep all Gods Commandements?  
A. Yes.  
40. Perhaps in our sincere endeavours? but can we do it absolutely and perfectly?  
A. Yes, we can keep them perfectly.  
41. What need a man then to apprehended Christs righteousness and apply it to himself by Faith?  
A. None at all, for there is no such thing required.  
42. What shall become of wicked men after the Resurrection?  
A. They shall be so consumed body and soul, as not at all to remain on torments.    

Places of Scripture Opened and Explained in the Preceding Treatise.  
Cap. Vers. Pag. GENESIS. 1. 1. 112   26. 139 2. 16, 17. 114, 115 3. 4. 133   16, 17. 116, 117   22, 23. 83 5 1. 63 6 5. 144 6 6. 78 7 9 78 &c. 8. 21. 144 9. 6. 138 15 13, 14. 103 18 18, 19. 102   21 89   25. 484 22. 1, 2, 30, 11. 85. EXODUS. 13. 17. 83 34. 7. 516 LEVITICUS. 16 2, 5. &c. 469   21 474 25 25 583 NUMBERS▪ 12 7, 8. 64 14 27, 30. 83 DEUTERONOMY. 8. 2 86, 87 13 3 86, 87 17 12, 13 488 18 18 371, 429 31 16, 17, 18. 103 32 26, 27 83 JOSHUAH. 2 11 52, 56 JUDGES. 16 7, 11. 295 RUTH 3 19 583 1 SAMVEL 2 3 97   30 83 15 10, 11. 83   29 78, 85 1 KINGS 8 7 52, 56 13 2 103 22 28 103 NEHEMIAH. 1 11 655 JOB. 4 16 64 9 22 485 19 25 582 26 13 354 42 7, 8, 9 611, 612 psalms. 2 7 236, 237, &c. 18 20, 21, &c. 659 22 1 565, &c. 33 6 354 40 6, 7. 471, 472▪ 476, &c 579, &c 51 7 145, 146 58 3 146 135 3 46 139. 7, 8, 9, 10. 52, 56, 101 147 5 69 PROVERBS 8 23 239, 240, &c.   21 573   30, 31 515 30 4 177 CANTICLES. 2 8, 9 514 ISAIAH. 8 13, 14 345, &c. 9 6 327, 328, &c. 572, 573 40 3 247   13, 14 91   18 67 41 21, 22, 27 104 45 22, 23 347 49 5 575, 579   25 589 52 13 500, &c. 501, 525, &c   4 516   6 504, 505, &c.   10 576, 577   11 513, &c. 59 20 585 66 15 568, 569 JEREMIAH. 10 10, 11 407, 408 17 56 408, 409 23 6 247, 248   23 52, 57, &c. EZEKIEL. 5 2 233, 234 &c. ZACHARIAH. 2 8 247, 249 &c. 252, &c. 9 11 588 12 10 346 matthew. 3 17 166 5 21, 22, &c. 385, 386, &c   25, 26 590 8 16, 17 517 11 30 651 16 16 166, 167 &c   321, 322 19 17, 18, 19 654 LUKE ●. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 180 181, &c. 2 34 345 JOHN ●. 1, 2, 3, &c. 205, 206, &c.     210, 211, &c.   14. 216, 217, 218, 219, &c. 3 13. 222, 223     380, 381 4 24 48, 381 4 24 48, 49 5 17, 18 169, 170   19, 20, 30. 155, 156   23 399, &c.   27 4●1   37 66 6 62 221, 222, &c, 382. 8 44 132.   58 225, 226, &c. 10 29, &c. 119, 320, &c.   30 171   36 182, 183,& 222, &c. ●2 41 286, 287, &c. 14 9 337   10 155, 156   28 187 15 26 359, 360 16 13, 14 358, 361. 362   15 325, 326   28 222, 223, &c. 17 5 242, 243, &c.   10 325, c.   18 222, 223, &c. 18 37 227 20 17 191     189 20 28 262, 263, &c     316, 317 ACTS. ● 22 154, 155 3 20, 22 370 4 24, 27, 28 457 10 38 154, &c 13 32 33 184, 579   38, 39 475 15 18 91, 101 16 13 358, &c 20 28 262, 263, &c. ROMANS. 1 2, 3 173, 174. &c   32 487 2 5 60   6, 7, 8 655 3 5 69   25 476   23, 24, 25. 593 602, 603, &c. 4 5 649 5 10. 615 616, &c.   12. 119 1●9 140.& 146, 147,   18 457, 558, &c. 8 28, 29, 30. 639   33, 34 594 9 5 117, 318   32, 33 345   26 585 11 34, 35 91   32 591 14 9, 10, 11. 152, 153 1 CORINTHIANS 2 8 342 8 6. 46, 47. 151, 152     339, 340 6 20 6. 8 10 9 285, 286, &c 15 24, 28 188. 189 2 CORINTHIANS. 5 17 212   19 457, &c.   21 510   18, 19, 20, 21. 617, 618, &c GALATIANS. 4 8 408 6 2 384 EPHESIANS. 1 45 639, 659 2 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 618, 619, &c 4 4 352   5 15●, 151, &c.   6. 46, 47, 69 5 2 451   6 69   7 660 8 9, 10 662 PHILIPIANS. 2 67 289, 290, &c COLOSSIANS. 1 15 323, 324   16 267, 267, &c   8 185 2 9 33● 1 THESSALONIANS 2 4 87 5 17 666 2 THESSALONIANS 1 5 655 1 TIMOTHY 1 5 660 3 16 302, &c. TITUS. 2 11 655   13 257, 258   14 596 HEBREWS.   2 273   3. 452, 283, 284, &c.     337   4, 5 185   8, 9 191   10, 11, 12 276, 277, &c 2 10 436   16 309, 310, &c     575   14, 15 567, &c.   17, 18 436, 437 3 4 151 4 12 91   13 100 5 1 428, 429, &c.   5 186   6,7 452   9,10 450 7 3 177   15 449   1● 395   25 450   27 453 8 1,2,4 437, &c. 9 12 449, &c. 453   15 597   26 454 10 1,2,3,4. 467,468 &c.   5 215, 313 476 477, &c. 574, 575   9,10 570, &c. JAMES. 2 20,21, &c. 664 3 9 65 1 PETER. 1 10,11 244, 245   12 356,357   18,19 596,608 2 24 537 3 18 457, &c   19,20 244,245 2 PETER. 3 9 645 1 Ep JOHN. 3 10 659   20 91,101 4 3 312,313 Cap. Vers. Pag. 5 3 651, &c.   20 167, 254     255, &c judas.   4 256 REVELATION. 1 5 185   8 259,260,261 4 8 261, &c. 17 14 344 19 13 335,336   16 345   20 409 22 9 404   14 655   

ERRATA.  
Some of the mistakes in Printing may be thus rectified.  
PAg. 45. lin. 5. task, l. 3. Christianity, I shall not, p: 46. l: 6. doth not profess, p: 49. l. 22. question, p. 52. l. 12. r. and l: 16. r. us. p. 54. l. ult. quantitative. p. 55. l. 27. indistant. p. 57. l. 2 distant. l. 16. distant. p. 60. l. ult. one. p. 63. l. 27. neither. p. 65. l. 27. r. {αβγδ} p. 69. l. 30. though. p. 74. l. 2. phrase. p. 114. l. 16. unto. p. 134. l. 3. way of Salvation, p. 139. l. 5. mortality. p. 141. l. 6. r. a p. 142. l. ult. depended, p: 151. l: 34. r: but, p. 155. l. 5. r: disappeare, p. 157. l: 9 deal that, l: ult. r. Luke, p. 167. l: 2. Apostles, p: 174. l. 21. {αβγδ} p: 181. from l. 26. to which, l: 25. in a parenthesis. p: 182. l. 5. invincible. p: 196. l: 28. discern, p: 215, l: 13. Heb: 10. p: 243. l: ult. loquendi. p: 276. l: 33. repeat, p: 666. l. 2. imputed, l: 5, 6. receiving.  
In the Appendix.  
Pag. 32 l: 8. his, p: 33. l: 35, contractibus, contractibus, p: 39. l: 13. should, p: 40. l: ● if, l: ●● tellitur.   

Of the Death of Christ, and of justification.  
The doctrine concerning them formerly delivered Vindicated from the Animadversions of Master R. B.  
OF this task I would complain if I durst: but I know not how it may be taken; and whither 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 {αβγδ}. 
Sophocles in Aiac: Chrysost: Con: ●, {αβγδ}. Sucton. in vit. Tib.  And Chrysostome tells us, that {αβγδ}. I desire to be content with my portion, being better yet then that of Livius Drusius, who complained uni sibi nec 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 {αβγδ}, whence saith the Apostle {αβγδ}. Having through the providence of God( whether on my part necessary or wisely I know not,( {αβγδ}) 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 he said of children,( things often compared) {αβγδ}. Anxiety, fear, and 
Menand:  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 came first acquainted with them; so I have from the beginning resolved, not to persist in any Controversy, as to the public debate 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 where of I shall give the Reader a brief Account. That as to the matter of the contest between M. B. and myself, M. 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 red my Treatise, which is now animadverted on. The famed person,& initium dedit,& modum abstulit. Some freedom 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 {αβγδ}. Expressions concerning them, had need be {αβγδ}; or like 
{αβγδ}.  the letters, that men print one of another, which are oftentimes answerable to that of Augustus to maecenas; vale mell gemmeum, medulliae ebur ex Hetruria, lasera-rietinum, adamas supernas, Tiberinum margaritum, cilniorum smaragde jaspis figulorum, berille Porsennae, carbunculum Italiae, {αβγδ}, &c. 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 farther 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, {αβγδ}: seeing 
Sophocles.  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 {αβγδ}. 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 M. B. was not to loose 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, {αβγδ}.  
But why must my Arguments be answered, and my self confuted? Two Reasons hereof are given. The first by very many Insinuations; namely, that I have delivered dangerous doctrines, such as subvert the foundation of the gospel, plain antinomianism; and these two positions are laid down to be confuted, viz: 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 conscientiae, or in our own feeling,& terminated in conscience,& not in foro dei: further then conscience may be so called:& my Arguments for them are answered, Chap. 8. pag: 189. But what should a man do in this case? I have already published to M. 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 M. B. prove any such thing, out of any thing I have written, and as Nonius says, out of Naevius, ei dum vivebo, fidelis ero. I am sure this minds me of that passage in the Jewish Liturgy, placeat tibi domine liberare me à light difficili,& ab adversario difficili, sieve is ad foeàus tuum pertineat, sieve non pertineat. The following Examination of the particulars excepted against by M. B. will make this evident, whence it will appear, that {αβγδ}: yea but.  
Secondly, two or three Reverend brethren  told him, that to that 
Menand.  part which he hath considered, it was necessary I should be confuted; Who these reverend brethren are I know not; I presume they may 
M. B. Preface.  be of those friends of M. B. that blame him for replying to M. black, 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 then not a little to pitty 
Preface to the Reader.  poor men under the stroke of an heavy hand. Nor do I know what are the Reasons of the brethren, why my name must be brought on this stage; nor perhaps is it meet they should be published. It 
{αβγδ}.  may be it is necessary that M. own be confuted among Antinomians, and that {αβγδ}. But what if it should appear in the issue, that M. own 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, {αβγδ}; but if it appear in the issue, that I was charged with that which I never delivered, nor wrote, and that my Arguments to one purpose, are answered in reference to another, and that this is the sum of M. B's. discourse against me, I shall only recommend to them some verses of old Ennius, as I find thē in Aus: Pop:  

Nam qui lepide postulat alterum frustrari  
Quem frustratur, frustra eum dicit frustra esse,  
Nam qui seize frustrari quem frustra sentit.  
Qui frustratur is frustra est, si non, ille est frustra.   
What then shall I do? I am imposed on to lay the foundation of all antinomianism,( as M. burgess is also) to maintain Justificaon 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 then my self that do, though I do not)& 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 M. B's. book, at least wherein we differ,& so acquit myself both from antinomianism& socinianism in the business in hand? out( 1) The things of this discourse are such, and the manner of handling them of that sort, that M. B. hearty in the close of his book, begs pardon for them, who have necessitated him to spend so much time to so little purpose; {αβγδ}. As I see not yet the necessity of his 
Pag. 462.  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 operous contest, in a matter of such importance and consequence, as the subject of that book is represented to be, that I would rather burn my pens and books also, then 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 judgement, and a more discerning head, then he; that he be a better proficient in these studies then he; that he be freer from prejudice then he; that he have more illumination and grace then he: that is! that he be a better, wiser, more holy, and learned man, then M. B. Now if we may take M. B's. character, by what he discourseth of his mortification, and sincerity, his freedom from prejudice, &c: 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 entertaining any such thoughts in reference to M. 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 before hand 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, confessions, and Apologies, have a lovely Aspect towards himself, as to Ability, Diligence, sincerity, on the one hand, with all those which are full of Reproach and contempt towards others, on the other, the view of them could not but a little startle a man of so great modesty,& of such eminency in the mortification of pride as M. B. is. B●t  

{αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.   
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 an humour of disputing and quarreling 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 {αβγδ}.  
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 sharpsightednesse, as was that of Caius Caligula; to whom, when he inquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not embracing the moon, 
Dio.  it was replyd, solis( domine) vobis diis licet invicem videre.  
What shall I then do? shall I put forth a Creed, or an apology to make it appear, that indeed I am not concerned in any of Mr. Baxtor's Contests; but.  
1 I dare not look upon myself of any such consideration to the world, as to writ books to give them an account of my self,( 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 red, 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, uprightness 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& odores,  
Et piper,& quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis; And I should plainly show myself {αβγδ}.  
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 further explicate and vindicate from Papists, Socinians, and Arminians; I 
Apollidorus.  cannot complain, that {αβγδ}. I have companions and councillors. And in truth it is very marvelous 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 antinomianism to others, an opinion which he esteems as bad, if not every way worse then that of the Papists about justification; but contenti 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 I 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 M. B.( pag. 12, 13,) which he calls the Worcester-shire 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:& in sundry particulars, gives to 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, &c: which being carried on toward the end, and joined to the profession of Consent, as it is called, in these words, I do hearty 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 Redeemer, as our Lord, from that one true God; which not only directly answers that Question of M. Biddles, how many Lords of Christians are there in distinction 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 expressions as to the doctrine of the Trinity, then all the Confessionists can readily apprehended. But yet here, that we may not have occasion to say {αβγδ}! 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  
3 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 judgement, although I could have the Advantage of giving what they positively deliver in Abundance as their main Thesis, and foundation, without cutting off discourses from their Connexion and coherence, to give them a new face and Appearance, which in their own proper place they had not, or to gather up their Concessions to the Adversaries to one purpose, and applying them to another: And therefore I shall wholly wave that way of procedure, although 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 impartiality, 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& 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 post intervallo. Only in this I shall desire to be excused, if, seeing the things of myself are very inconsiderable, and whatever I can writ on that Account being like the discourses of men returning è lacu furnoque, that 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 then he; being fully assured, that a man more unlearned then 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 then us both.  
2 To premise, that I do not deliver my thoughts and whole judgement in the business of the Justification of a sinner: which to do, I have designed another opportunity, {αβγδ}, and shall not now prevent myself.  
These things being premised, I shall  
1. Set down what I have delivered concerning the 3 heads, wherein it is pretended the difference lies between us.  
2. Pass through the Consideration of the Particular places, where M. B. is pleased to take notice of me and my judgement and Arguments, as to the things of the Contests, wherein he is engaged: And this course I am necessitated unto; because as M. 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 maintaining and giving countenance unto, are  

1. The justification of the Elect from Eternity.  
2. Their Justification at the Death of Christ, as dying and suffering with him.  
3. Their Absolution 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 judgement; though, as it may be explained, I know better, wiser, and more learned men then myself, that have been, and are. This I once before  told M. B. and desired him to believe me,( Of the Death of Christ pag. 33.) If he will not yet do it, I cannot help it.  
2. As to the second, I have also entreated M. B. to believe that it is not my judgement in that very book on which he animadverts; and hoped I might have obtained Credit with him, he having no evidence to the Contrary:( let the Reader see what I deliver to this Purpose pag. 34. 35) In what sense I maintain that the Elect dyed and rose with Christ, see pag. 82. 83. 84.  
3. The third, or Absolution in heaven before believing. What I mean hereby I explain pag. 77. and 79.( Let it be consulted.)  
It was, on I know not what grounds, before by M. B. imposed on me, that I maintained Justification upon the Death of Christ before believing: which I did with some earnestness reject,& proved by sundry Arguments, that we are not changed in our state and Condition before we do believe. Certainly never was man more violently prest to a warfare, then I to this contest.  
4. That Justification by Faith is nothing but a sense of it in conscience, I never said, I never wrote, I never endeavoured to prove. What may a man expect from others who is so dealt withall by a man whose writings so praise him, as M. B's. do.  
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 judgement in these things, this little at present may suffice. M. B's. Animadversions, in the Order wherein they lie, shall nextly be considered.  
The first express mention that I am honoured withall is towards the end of his Preface, occasioned only by a passage in my brief Proeme to M. Eyres his 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 &c. To which M. B. subjoins: But to be almost an error, is to be a truth. There is but a thre● 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 
Arist: Rhet: lib. 2. cap. 26.  proceed {αβγδ}, or whether it be {αβγδ} it 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 socinianism or almost Socinian: If M. B. takes error and socinianism to be terms convertible, I must crave liberty to dissent. That which is almost error, is true: but that which is almost socinianism may be quiter an error, though not an error quiter 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 performance 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 judgement is altogether an error. And so the heat of this first Conflict is allayed, Pulveris exigui jactu: Its foundation having been only {αβγδ}.  
But notwithstanding this seeming discharge, perhaps it may be said, that indeed 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 ingenious and candid way of proceeding, to seek to oppress truths, or at least opinions, that are managed with a faire 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 necessity and candour of my forementioned expressions. They say then, that  
1. Justifying faith, or that faith whereby we are levied, is our receiving of Christ, as our Lord& Saviour, trusting in him, and yielding obedience to him.  
Credere in Jesum Christum, nihil aliud est, quàm Jesu Christo confidere,& idcirco ex ejus praescripto vitam instituere. Socin: Justificat: Synop: 2. p. 17. fides est fiducia per deum in Christum, unde apparet, eam in Christo fidem dvo comprehendere: unum, ut non solùm deo, verùm& Christo confidamus: deinde ut deo obtemperemus, &c: Catech: Racov: Cap: 9. de fide: vide Volkel. de verâ religione, lib: 4. Cap: 3. p. 179, 180. Smalc: refut: Thes: Franz: disput: 4. p. 103.& disp: 6. p. 184. Credere in Christum nihil aliud est; quàm illi confidere, hoc est, ipsi, sub spe promissionum, ab eo nobis factarum, obedire &c. Smalc: Refut: Thes. Franz: disp: 7. p 209. sides in Christum, est, fiduciam in eum collocare,& credere illum esse omnibus obtemperantibus sibi aeternae salutis causam. Si propriè& strict sumatur ab obedientiâ differt. said per Metonymiam quandam synechdochicam, saepe tam latè sumitur, ut omnia pietatis& justitiae opera comprehendat: Schlicting: Comment: in Cap: 11. ad Heb: p. 519. Quid est Credere in nomen Christi? Res: eum excipere, ejus dictis fidem habere, ei confidere, ei denique obtemperare: Dialog: Anon: de justifi: p. 4. Ex his quae hactenus dicta sunt, satis intelligi potest, etiansi verissimum sit, quemadmodum scriptura apertissimè testatur, nos per mortem Christi, perque Sanguinis ejus fusionem servatos esle, nostraque peccata deleta fuisse, non tantùm hoc ipsum credere, esse eam fidem in Christum, quâ, ut Sacrae literae docent, justificamur, id quod multi& olim putarunt,& hody putant, adeóque similiter credunt: longè enim aliud est, istud credere,& sub spe vitae aeternae ab ipso consequendae, Christo obedire; quod necessario requiri ad justificationem nostram, antea à nobis demonstratum est. fragment: de justifi: Faust: Socin: Opusc: p. 115. That  
2. Faith in justifying is not to be considered as an hand whereby we lay hold on the righteousness of another, or as an instrument, as though Righteousness were provided for us,& tendered unto us, which would overthrow all necessity of being Righteous in ourselves.  
Patet quàm ineptè Meisnerus fidem vocet causam instrumentalem, quâ justificationem( seu justitiam) apprehendamus, seu recipiamus; patet denique quàm falsò( qui error ex priore Consequitur) fidem, quae virtus aut opus est, justificare neget Quid magis perversum,& Sacris literis adversum dici potuit? parum nobis fuerat, omnes reliquas virtutes,& pia opera, à comparandâ nobis salute excludere, nisi etiam ipsam in deo fidem, virtutum omnium matrem& reginam, de suo solio deturbatam, tam faedâ ignominiâ notasset fidem perverse prorsus intelligitis, non enim tanquam conditionem adipiscendae justificationis consideratis, said tanquam instrumentum vel manum &c: Jo: Schlicting: disput: pro Faust: Socin: ad Meisner: p. 129. 130, 131. de eo quod homo justitiam accipiat, nihil legitur in sacris literis,& si id explicetur ex mente adversariorum, ridicula est fabula; fides vero non est accuratè loquendo causa instrumentalis, said causa sine qua non( efficiens) justificationis nostrae: small: Refut: 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 body pleriq, faciunt, vitae fanctimoniam atque innocentiam, effectum justificationis nostrae coram deo esse dicamus; sic diligenter cavere debemus, ne ipsam vitae sanctitatem atque innocentiam, justificationem nostrá coram deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae justificationis coram deo causam efficientem, aut impulsivam esse affirmemus. said tantummodo &c: Socin: Justifi: Synop: 2. p. 14. fides justificationem non meretur, neque est ejus causa efficiens; non ignoramus fidei nostrae nequaquam esse ea merita, quibus justificatio quâ sempiterna continetur felicitas, tanquam merces debita, sit tribuenda. Hinc porrò consequitur, fidem istam, quamvis obedientiam& pietatem in se comprehendat, nequaquam tamen per se,& principaliter efficer, ut justificationis beneficium consequamur. Volkel. de verâ relic. lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 181. small. Refut. Thes. Franz. disput. 4, 5, 7: obedientia nostra quam Christo praestamus, nec efficiens, nec meritoria causa est nostrae justificationis. Socin Thes. de justif. p. 17. vide Anonym. Dialog. de justif. pag. 32.  
4 But the true use of our faith( and repentance) as to our justification before God, is, that they are the causa sine quâ non, or the condition whereby according to the appointment of God, we come to be justified: and so is imputed to us:  
Diligenter cavere debemus, ne vitae sanctitatem& innocentiam, justificationem nostram coram Deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae coram Deo justificationis causam efficientem, aut impulsivam esse affirmemus, said tantummodo causam sine quâ eam justificationem nobis non contingere decrevit Deus. Socin. Synop. justif. 2. p. 14. id à nobis revera exegit, ut in Christum credamus, vitam emendaremus( quam conditionem Salvâ sanctitate& majestate suâ non poterat non exigere) Crel. de Causis mort. Christi. pag. 5. Interim tamen sic habendum est, cum Deus non nisi illis, qui fidem virtutémque pro suâ virili parte colunt, vitam sempiternam designaverit, fiduciam istam ne quidem causam meritoriam, aut principaliter efficientem, said causam sine quâ non( ut loquuntur) justificationis nostrae esse. Volkel. de verâ relic. lib. 4. cap. 3 pag. 181. Quod vero ad nos pertinet, non aliter reipsa justi coram Deo habemur,& delictorum nostrorum veniam ab ipso consequimur, quàm si in Jes. Chris. credamus. Socin. Justif. Synop. 2. pag. 11.  
Itáque nemo justificatus est coram Deo, nisi prius Christo confidat, eique obediat. Quae obedientia sunt illa opera ex quibus nos justificari Jacobus Apostolus affirmat. Socin Thes. de justif. pag. 14. Sunt enim opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia, quam Christo praestamus, licèt nec efficiens nec meritoria, tamen causa( ut vocant) Sine quâ non justificationis coram Deo, atque aeternae salutis nostrae, id. ibid. imputatur nobis a Deo id quod revera in nobis est, non aliquid quod à nobis absit, vel in alio sit, nempe quod firmiter in animo decreverimus nihil dubitantes de Dei promissionibus, neque considerantes nostram infirmitatem nos propositum fidei certamen decurrere velle. Anonym. Dialog. de justifi. pag. 29.( haec vero corrigit Faustus Socin. Notae in Dial. pag. 64. beatitatem& remissionem peccatorum nobis imputari asserens.) Certum est ex Sacris literis requiri ad hoc, ut quis consequatur apud Deum Remissionem peccatorum,& ita coram Deo justificetur, ut de illo meritò dici posset, quod pactum Dei servet. Fragment de justif. Apparet Paulum absolutè intelligere opera quaecún● tandem illa sunt. Quod tamen non eam vim habet, ut à causâ justificationis nostrae omnium quaecunque opera,& quocunque modo considerata, excludere velit. said sensus ipsius est, nulla esse opera quae tanti sint, ut propter ipsorum meritum justificari possimus. Quando scilicet nemo est, qui perfectissimè& integerrimè per totam vitam, ea opera faciat, quae sub vetere sieve sub novo Testamento praescripta sunt, id quod tamen omnino requiritur, sieve requiretur ad hoc, ut pro ipsâ operâ tanquam ejus rei aliquo modo meritoria, justificatio contingeret. Diximus autem aliquo modo meri toria, ut ab ipsis operibus excludamus, non modò absolutum& maximè proprium meritum, quod oritur ex ipsâ operum praestantiâ per se consideratâ. said etiam illud, quod minùs propriè& respectivè meritum est, quod ex solo Dei promisso oritur ac proficiscitur, adeò ut nemo nec per illud, neque per hoc meritum, svorum operum justificationem,& absolutionem a peccatis suis, adipiscatur, &c. vid. Plu. fragm. de justificat. Faust. Socin. pag. 110. Cum Paulus negat nos ex operibus justificari, considerat opera tanquam meritoria,& sua ipsorum vi hominem justificantia,& consequenter ejusmodi, quibus si ad Dei praeceptum examinentur, nihil prorsus desit; at Jacobus operum nomine eam obedientiam intelligit; sine quâ Deus hominem sibi carum habere non vult; seu mavis opera ejusmodi sine quid bus dici nequeat, ullâ ratione hominem Deo obedire: ex hâc collatione ipsorum duorum Pauli& Jacobi locorum,& sententiarum, manifestum est, quemadmodum ad justificationem nostram non requiritur necessario perfecta obedientia mandatorum Dei, sic ad eandem justificationem omnino requiri, ut Dei mandata ita conservaremus, ut meritò dici posset nos Deo obedientes esse. Fragm. Faust. pag. 122.  
5 That our justification, is our Absolution from the guilt of sin, and freedom from abnoxiousness unto punishment for it, and nothing else. Our Regeneration is the ●nudition of our Absolution, and in them both, in several respects, is our Righteousness. Justificatio est cum nos Deus pro justis habet, quod eâ ratione facit, cum nobis& peccata remittit,& jus vitae donat. Catech. Racov. cap. 11. de Justificat: Justificatio nihil aliud est, quam peccatorum Remissio. Schlcting. contra Trinit. pag. 147. Justificatio nostra coram Deo, ut uno verbo dicam, nihil aliud est quam à Deo pro justis haberi: hoc vero fit per absolutionem peccatorum. Socin. Synop. Justif. 2. pag. 11. Justificatio nihil aliud est, quam pro justo habere, itemque peccata remittere& condonare. id. pag. 13. 14. Quaero primùm quid sit Justificatio? R. peccatorum absolutio Anon.( ni fallor O storod) dial: de Justifi: p. 2. Hic tacitè continetur ea sententia, quam nos supra ab initio attigimus,& non obscurè refutavimus, justificationonē vid: à justo faciendo dici,& à justitiâ ac sanctitate quâ quis sit praeditus; cum tamen certissimum sit, justificationem in Sacris literis aliud nihil significare, quàm justum pronuntiare, sieve ut justum tractare. Faust. Socin. notae in Dial. de justif. pag. 60. said manifestum est Paulum negare, non modò ex operibus legis, said simpliciter, ex operibus nos justificari; Itáque aliâ ratione omnino est hic nodus solvendus,& dicendum, Paulum, operum nomine non quae libet opera intelligere, nec quolibet modo accepto, said quae suâ vi hominem justum coram Deo reddere possunt, cum negat nos ex operibus justificari, qualis est absoluta& perpetua per totum vitae curriculum legis divinae observatio Faust. Socin. notae in Dial. de Justif. pag. 74.  
Formalis itáque( ut ita loquar) justificatio nostra coram Deo fuit,& semper erit, propter carnis nostrae infirmitatem, remissio peccatorum nostrorum, non autem impletio divinae legis, quod Paulus operari vocat. Veruntamen nulli re ipsâ conceditur ista remissio, nisi Deo confisus fuerit, seque ipsi regendum& gubernandum tradiderit. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Virum Clariss. de fide& 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 dyed, 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 an universal conditional application of all: actually justifying every individual upon the performance of the Condition.  
Ipsi Jesu, tantam in coelo& terrâ, tanquam obedientiae scilicet usque ad mortem crucis ensign praemium, potestatem dedit, ut eis, &c. Socin. Synop. Justific. 1. pag. 4. Interea tamen haudquaquam negamus, Christi mortem, conditionem quandam fuisse remissionis peccatorum nobis concedendae: quatenus conditio fuit Christo imposita, sine quâ potestatem obtinere ex Dei decreto non potuit, peccata nobis remittendi,& nos ab aeterno interitu vindicandi. Crel. de cause. mort. Christ. pag. 8.( Paulus ea à fide opera removet, quae perpetuam perfectissimámque, per omnem vitae cursum obedientiam continent. Jacobus ergo ea intelligit Volkel. de verâ relic. lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 180. ad 461.) vide plura.  
Quia nos Christus ab aeternâ morte liberavit,& ut nos liberare posset, mortuus est, jure dicitur eum pro nobis,& pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse,& sanguinem ipsius nos emundare à peccatis: neque enim nos dicimus, Christum ob hoc vel solum vel principal obedivisse, ut nos ad se imitandum extimularet, said constantissime affirmamus, illum ideò patri suo obedientem,& pro nobis mortuum fuisse, ut potestatem divinam, interveniente morte sua, consecutus, salutem nostram administrare,& tandem reipsâ perficere posset. small. Refut. Thes. Fran. disp. 4. pag. 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, &c. Socin. Thes. de justific. Thes. 3. vid. fragm. de justificat. pag. 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 leave 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, praesertim side plenâ& permanente justificatione loquamur, quatenus quibusvis bonis operibus opponitur. Hoc est particula exclusiva sola, non quaevis opera, said opera de quibus Apostolus loquitur, opera legis, opera plena, ob quae non secundum gratiam justificatio imputatur, said secundum debitum tribuitur, excludit. Non excludit autem ullo pacto opera ex fide provenientia, cum Jacobus expertissimè doceat, hominem justificari ex operibus, non ex fide tantùm: Schlichting disput. pro Socin. ad Meisner. pag. 290. 291. In iis locis, ubi Apostolus fidem operibus opponit, de operibus ejusmodi agit, quae& perfectam& perpetuam obedientiam continent, qualem sub lege Deus ab hominibus requirebat: Verùm non de iis operibus, quae obedientiam, quam Deus à nobis qui in Christum credidimus, requirat, comprehendunt. Racov. Catech. cap. 9. de fide. Hinc jam demum intelligo non bona opera, quae Deus ipse praeparavit, said legis opera à justificatione nostrâ excludi. Anonym. Dial. de Justif. pag. 47.  
8 That the denial of our faith and obedience to be the condition of our justification, 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 à Deo justitia. 1 Cor. 1. 3. id minimè eo sensu dici, quasi loco nostri legem impleverit, sic ut nobis deinceps ipsius justitia imputetur, &c. Schlicting ad Meisn. disput. pro Socin. pag. 277. Tertius error est, Deum imputare credentibus innocentiam& justitiam Christi: Non innocentiam, non justitiam Christi Deus imputat credentibus, said fidem illorum illis imputat pro justitiâ. small. refut. Thes. Franz disput. 4. p. 104. alterum est extremum, quod vulgò receptum est, non sine summâ animarum pernicie; Videlicet, ad justificationem nostram nihil prorsus bona opera pertinere, nisi quatenus sunt ipsius justificationis effecta. Ubi qui ita sentiuut &c. 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 consequent of it; but conditions antecedent to it. Socin. Thes. de justificat. p. 18. Fragmenta de justific. p. 113 and therefore in the first place we are to be solicitous about what is within us, about our sanctification, before our absolution, or justification. Socin. Epist ad Ch. M N. de fide& operibus. Sic tandem apparet vestigationem nostram circa ea esse debere, quae in nobis invenientur, cum justificati sumus-Quocirca diligenter primùm vestigare debemus an res istae, sieve utráque, five una tantùm,& utra( si modò res diversae sint) ad nos justificandos pertineat, ac deinde quid sint, aut quails esse debeant, ne erremus, nobisque videamur illas habere, cum tamen longè ab eis absimus. Quod enim ad misericordiam Dei attinet, Christique personam, una cum iis omnibus quae idem Christus pro nobis fecit,& facturus est, quamvis hae sunt verae,& praecipuae causae justificationis nostrae, tamen aut jam illarum sumus, erimúsve participes, antequam intra nos certum aliquid sit,& sic supervacaneum est de illis cogitare, quatenus per ea justificari velimus: aut illarum, nec jam sumus, nec futuri erimus participes, nisi prius intra nos certum aliquid sit,& sic de hoc accuratè quaerere debemus, id autem nihil est, praeter fidem& opera. 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 forgeivness.  
Causa impulsiva externa sunt peccata nostra, quod itidem apertè Sacrae literae docent, dum aiunt, Christum propter peccata nostra percussum, vulneratum,& traditum esse. Crel. de cause. mort. Chris. p. 2. What was the procuring cause of Christ's death?  
A: He was delivered for offences, Biddles Cat. Chap. 12. p. 69: Though some( not of them) say, that his death was rather occasioned, then merited by sin; as they speak sometimes. Finis ideo mortis Christi, ut sacrae literae sat apertè docent, est remissio peccatorum nostrorum,& vitae nostrae emendatio, ad quorum finem priorem vel solùm, vel potissimum, illi loquendi modi referendi sunt: Cum dicitur Christum mortuum esse pro peccatis nostris, seu pro nobis. Crel. de cause. mort. Christ. pag. 1.  
11 That absolution and pardon of sin are by no means, the immediate effects of the death of Christ.  
cum Sacrae Scripturae asserunt Christum aut pro peccatis nostris, aut pro nobis esse mortuum, aut sanguinem ejus esse effusum in remissionem peccatorum,& siqua sint his similia, eorum verborum ea vis non est, ut significent omnino effectum illum, qui morti Christi in his locutionibus tribuitur, proximè fuisse ex eâ consecutos. Crell. de cause. 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 dispatch.  
In the entrance of that Chapter, M. B. lays down two propositions that he rejects, 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 feeling 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!& that is, terminated in conscience. What it is I intend by that Expression, or what inconsistency it hath with that M. B. asserts in pretended opposition unto it, he doth not explain Now I say, that in the sense, wherein I affirm 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 a knowledge or feeling of Justification before given, nor a justification in, or by our own Consciences, but somewhat that goes before all such justification as this is, and is a justification before God; I am then utterly unconcerned in all M. B'. 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 mentioned; 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 troope of Antinomians.  

— {αβγδ}  
{αβγδ}.   
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 judgement, least I should bring them under the Suspicion of antinomianism;( though not of the ruder sort)( pag. 190.) or at least of laying the foundation of antinomianism, which M. Burg. after all his pains against them, is said to do:( Praef:)( but the best is, he does it superficially and without proof)( Praef:) ●nd although I cannot come up to the judgement of the man, whom I shall name; yet being he is deservedly of good esteem in the judgement of others, and particularly of M. 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 M. Rutherfurt, who in his learned Exercitations De gratiâ. Exercit: 1. Cap. 2. Tit Quomodo justificamur fide; having treated of the matter of Justification pag. 44. thus proceeds: Dicent ergò Arminiani, nos hic justificationem sumère pro sensu& notitiâ justificationis: ideóque Homines fide justificantur, idem valet, ac Homines tum demum justificantur, quando credunt, hoc est, sentiunt se justificari, cum anteà essent justificati. Nugae& tricae siculae! nan● justificari est plus quàm sentire se justificari: Nam( 1) est Actus dei absolventis terminatus in conscientiâ hoins, citati& tracti ad tribunale tremendi judicis; qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiâ &c. 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; M. Pemble, and D. Twisse,( quanta nomina) are in the next page. recounted as the asserters of the position here opposed by M. B.& indeed as to some part of it they are; by yet, if I durst say it, they were not Antinomians: but M. B. knows these things better then I.  
But what say I to the whole position? pag: 190. One learned man( so am I called, that the sacrifice may not fall without some flowers on it's head; which I professedly shake off, and dare not own my name amongst them who are, or ought to be so styled) saith, that Absolution solution in heaven, and justification differ as part and whole, and that justification is terminated in conscience, and so makes a longer work of justification then they, that say it is simul& semel, or then I, whom M. Cr. blames for it; and so that whole begun in eternal Absolution,( or 〈◇〉 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 hast) I shall not stay to make any further enquiry thereabout.  
What I mean by Absolution in heaven, the Reader if he please may see, chap: 12. pag: 75. 76, 77, 78. of that Treatise, whence M. B. urges these expressions: It is neither eternal Absolution, nor Absolution from Christ's death( if from denote a simulty of time, and not a connexion in respect of causality, in which sense M. B. will not deny that Absolution is from Christs 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, then those, who say it is simul& semet, is said; simul& semel, refer unto time, I expressly affirm as M. 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.  
That actual justification should contain permanent and transient Acts together, and that it is so by me described, is affirmed by a failure of M. B's memory. Having made this entrance and progress, adding the judgement 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 fals 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 M. B. ●●uld know me, and my mind, better then I do myself. I look upon him as my friend: and 
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}.   
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 M. 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 then the rest, p: 204.) and wo 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 pag. 205. speaking to some body,( 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 its self, 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 &c. 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 &c. is complete Justification by Faith, and is in its self totally distinct from, and in order of time before any act of God justifying terminated in our consciences, 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 judgement about this business, to be concerned in the discourse; and so passing through the pikes of 56 Arguments, I come to the ninth chapter where I am again called to an account; Three things doth M. B. propose 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 bare all before them. real, or reputed success gives great thoughts and pretexts for any thing, {αβγδ}( Demost: Olymp:) In the very Treatise which M. B. considers in these imputations, I have expressly denied,( and in particular to M. B.) that I maintain any one of these; if he should sand 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 M. B. is my unhappiness, not my Crime; I hope every one must not be sentenced to be of an opinion which he cannot confute 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 Representative, then are consistent with M. B's. principles, or then 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 &c. as at large chap. 12. p. 75. of that Treatise, which includes the last particular also.  
But we must proceed, non qua eundum est said qua itur; in the entrance of his ninth chapter M. 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. viz: 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 M. 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 is, and still was, that mans 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 defend the honour of Christs merits then, if they give no more to them, then I do to mans works? that is, not to be the meritorious cause so much as of an houres 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 red 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 writ that way: I am one that that by the doctrine of justification from eternity, overthrow justification by Faith,& 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 è capitolio  
Quod in culmine astat summo; si non id feceris.  
Atque id tamen mihi lubeat suspicarier,  
Qui tu id prohibere me potes ne suspicer? Plaut.   
2. Me thinks it had been equal, that M. B. who requires( {αβγδ}) that men judge not any thing in his aphorisms, but according as it is interpnted, in this his confession, should have interpnted 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 a new to an hope of, is by me every where ascribed to the death of Christ, and the merit thereof, as the sole causa {αβγδ} 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 across 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 if it be, 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, salvation 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 M. B. a little to reflect upon his dealings with other men, upon their pretended mistakes, in representing him and his judgement to the world. All the Advantage that is given to this Harangue 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 satsfaction herein, let him but red that very Treatise which M. 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 foregoing Treatise, for the same purpose.  
3. For what M. 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.  
{αβγδ}. Theog.  
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 hast allows them not oftentimes to speak congruously) shall press and drive the things themselves to their issue.  — Dabitur ignis tamenet si ab inimicis petam. 
M. 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. 4. 5. is taken notice of; but that relates to a business of a greater importance then to be now mentioned. Something M. B. discourses about the state and condition of the Elect in reference to the death of Christ: some texts to that purpose 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 concernment 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 Treatise are put together, he makes sundry inferences, and opposes to them all two conclusions of his own, pag. 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 100 or 1000 years distanced one from another; or else absolution at least hath, which we have hitherto taken for the same thing with justification: For he calls that inconscience complete justification: so saith he, absolution in heaven and justification differ as part and whole; so he  Egregie Cordatus homo Catus Eliu' Sextus! 
It seems M. B, knows not what my judgement is, by his repeating, that, it seems this is his judgement; 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 judgement, 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 M. 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 an 100 or 1000 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 no where said, but only in order of nature; and that M. B. hath not disproved.  
What M. 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, M. B. opposes two conclusions, pag. 229. whereof the first is.  
1. We did neither really, nor in God's account die with Christ when he dyed, nor in him satisfy God's justice, nor fulfil the Law. the second.  
2 Though Christ was given for the Elect more then for others, yet is he no more given to them then 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 writ as great a volume as this, &c.  
What it is that I intended by dying with Christ, M. Baxter 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, and Covenant between Father and Son, of his Absolution as a common Person, of the Sealing, Confirmation, and the 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 Assention, must precede the full and clear interpretation of that expression. 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 considered,) the principles of the satisfaction or obedience; nor that we so dyed in him, as to be justified, or absolved actually upon his death, before we are born; so that I shall not be concerned at all if M. Baxter's thoughts should incline him to writ 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 then others, I say not; because I say., that he was not given, as a mediator, Price, and ransom for any other at all. When the demonstrations that Christ dyed for all, which M. Baxter hath somewhile 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 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 is given them for his sake: which, when M. Baxter disproves, or pretends so to do, I shall further 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. M. Baxter lays down the conclusion as contrary to them before, which( as he informs me) are maintained by myself and others.  
No man now living, was justified, pardonned, 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 Argrments 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 animadverts upon, I use sundry of those very Arguments, which here he useth, to prove the same Assertion for the substance of it, as M. Baxter hath here laid down. And this I had assured him, as to a former mistake of his. My words are pag. 33. 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 disproved by many Arguments: to be now traduced as a Patron of that opinion, and my Reasons for it publicly answered, seems to me somewhat uncouth. Further now to acquit myself from that, which nothing but selfefulness, oscitancy, 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 outcrys of antinomianism, and I know not what, I shall direct the Reader to what I have affirmed in this case,& leave it with some brief Observations to his judgement, having somewhat else to do, then to engage myself in a long wordy contest with M. Baxter: who knowing not of any difference between himself and me, would very feign 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, pag. 69. lin. 23. unto pag. 72. lin 24.  
The sum of all is this; upon the death of Christ, that is, on the consideration of the death of Christ; upon his ●ndertaking,( for surely I suppose it will be granted, that his death was no less effectual upon his undertaking to them who dyed before his incarnation, then afterwards 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 dyed, in their several generations.  
What says M. Baxter to this? 1. 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 conclusions? do I dispute against M. Baxter's Position, or for justification 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 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 pled it; but it was as above: Yea but then this is no more but non injustum est, this is false as I have shewed. Many Divines think, that this was the estate between God& sinners antecedently to the consideration of the death of Christ, or might have been without it, viz. 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 in the Treatise M. Baxter opposeth: But then God doth not give those good things to us upon condition; I say he doth not; taking Condition in it's strict& proper sense in respect of God: Though he hath made one thing to be the Condition of another. All Graces are alike absolutely purchased for us; but not alike absolutely received by us: The economy of the Gospel requires another order; The first grace, M. Baxter confesseth is bestowed upon us absolutely,& without condition;& this grace is the condition of the following privileges, as to the order of communication:& all the difference between us is about the sense of the word condition in that place. Which when I have nothing else to do, I will writ a Volume as big as this is about.  
This is that I say; Christ hath purchased all good things for us: 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, &c. Faith whereby we believe is bestowed on us absolutely, always without condition, sometimes without outward means; This faith by the constitution of God is attended with the privileges contended about; which are no less purchased for us by Christ, then faith itself. Yea the purchase of our justification or Acceptation with God, is, in order of Nature, antecedent in Consideration to the Purchase of faith for us: if M. Baxter hath a mind to oppose any thing of this( which is all that as yet to this business I have declared,) Let him do it when he pleaseth,& if it be tantidem( as he speaketh) I shall give him a further 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 about 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 widenes of 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 in respect of manifestation, not constitution. Isaiah in that prophecy speaks of things to come, as past, v. 5. 6. and of things past, and present, as to come; it reveals, not constitutes a Covenant. But he saith, we use to distinguish between the undertaking and accomplishment: Divines use to say, that upon mans fall Christ undertook satisfaction, but it was in the fullness of time that he accomplished it; how therefore he accomplished it in the undertaking, I do not well see. 2. But that 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, Christs undertaking was attended with no less then his actual accomplishment of what he undertook; or we know not how to grant Salvation to the Saints under the Old-Testament: It was concerning their Efficacy as to merit, not their distinction between themselves that I spake.  
These things being premised, M. 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 justice of God, or in the equalling of these things by divine constitution,( as I fully declared in the place by M. B. opposed) upon the interposing of some expressions in the 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 delared, M. 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 pled; 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 M. B. will sand 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 mean time I shall have no itch to be scribbling to no purpose; ego me, tua causa, ne errs, 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, M. B. rely's on Grotius, and something also he mentions out of Sayrus, Grotius in the first chapter of his book de jure belly& pacis, in the sections transcribed( in part) by M. B. and some others, expresses( in his way) the distinction given at the beginning both of the Institutions& Digests about jus, and those also which they handle under the head, de statu. So do all men commonly that writ 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 this 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 {αβγδ}, id quod convenit, which respects only the order of things among themselves. And though out of Aristotle he calls it also {αβγδ}, yet that word( as he also afterwards expounds it out of Cicero) is of much a lower signification then many imagine. This {αβγδ}, is that which I assert; and Sayrus his definition of jus ad rem, may also be allowed.  
But for others; jus, artificially is, ars boni& aequi. Ponz: de lamiis num: 14 Tom: 11. jus Gregor: p: 2. and D. D. cap. 1. Celsus. though some dispute against this definition, as Conanus, Comment: Jur: Civil: lib: 1. cap: 1. That which is aequum is the subject of it. so the comedian, quid cum illis agate, qui neque jus, neque bonum, neque aequum sciunt. Terent: Heauton: all terms aequipollent. 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, tunc verum est, cum de ipsius jure quaeritur, alias non prodest, nisi natus sit. Paulus de verbor: significat: which one interpretation will overbeare with me an hundred modern 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 in him; so is it in the case proposed by Cicero, in secundo de inventione. Pater-familias cum liberorum nihil haberet, uxorem autem haberet, in Testamento ita scripsit. Si mihi filius genitus fuerit unus, pluresve, hic 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 cais facultas, and is jus propriè& strictè dictum. And this jus suum I did not intend, in that I said it was not actionable; And therefore whereas Conanus says, that nullum est jus, cvi non sit aut à natura, aut à lege data quaedam obligatio, tanquam comes& adjutrix: Comment: juris Civil: lib: 2. cap: 1. which obligation is the foundation of Action; It is evident, that he intends jus propriè& strictè dictum; for Gaius distinguisheth between jus utendi, fruendi, and jus obligationis, D. li: 1. 1. 8. which he could not do, i● all and every right had an Obligation attending it, And such is that Right whereof we speak; If any one thinks to pled it, he will be like him, whom the Lawyers call, agentem sine actione, of whom they dispute, an liceat eiexperiri, and whether his plea be to be admitted; concerning which the variety of cases and opinions are repeated by Menochites de Arbit: Judic: lib: 1. Qu: 16. 2.  
And such a jus as this, ariseth ex contractis innominatis; for as jus ex innominato contractu oritur, quum ex parte debentis, implere id quod convenerat, impletum est, Ludovic: Roman: Consul: 86. pag: 23. so ex contractu innominato, non transeunt actiones sine mandato, 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 fullfilling of the conditions 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,& ipsius sponsor constitutus, ac quoddam quoddle testamentum ejus nomine constituens, qua talis est, aliud praestat, quam ut jus alteri parti,& jus quidem plenum largiatur, ad foederis hujus, aut testamenti promissa consequenda; obstringit nimirùm atque obligat promissorem qui ipsum obligaverat ad servanda foederum promissa, eáque rata prorsus habenda. Crellius de causis mortis Christi, pag: 9. So in the common speech of the ancients Budaeus tells us, that bonum jus dicere, is as much as that which is now vulgarly expressed, requesta tua rationabilus 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 called his j●●: whence is his complaint in Plautus, finding himself every way unworthy: sine modo& modestiâ sum, sine bono jure, atque honore: Bachid: and Paulus, in lib. 3. ff. de servitut: urb: praed: Ne jus sit vicino invitis nobis altiùs aedificare. 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 whither 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. 11. ad, Edict: D D. de verb. signif: Tit: 16. Princeps bona concedendo, videtur etiam obligationem concedere; which adds a propriety to the jus as was shewed before. Yet that it should be presently actionable doth not follow: Actio est jus persequendi in judicio, quod sibi debetur; Institu: lib: 4. de action. Every jus ad rem, is not jus persequendi in judicio: whence is the gloss of Aldobrondinus on that place: nec facias magnam vim ibi: Quia cum multas habeat significationes haec dictio jus, ut ff. de inst: & jus l: p.&, si, hoc est unum de significatis ejus, ut dicatur jus agendi vel persequendi: besides it must be, quod sibi debetur, that is actionable; the obligation whence that debitum arises, being as the Lawyers speak, matter 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 verbor: signif. b. pecuniae§. 8. si. Yea and on the other side, sometimes a plea may lie, where there is no debitum; Quaendoque ago etiam ad id quo● mihi non debetur; R. de pact: l. si quo poenam; nam ibi non ago ad id quod est debitum, said ad id quod ex nudo pacto convenit: that M. 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 Analogy of faith, then to 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 considered.  
My first Argument is. It is justum, that they should have the fruits of the death of Christ bestowed on them: therefore they have jus unto them: for, jus est quod justum est.  
M. 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,& what is their jus,& where fixed.  
2. He Questions the Antecedent; for the confirmation whereof, and its vindication from his exceptions, I refer the Reader to what I had written of the Covonant, between the father and the son, some good while before I saw M. Bax. Animadversions, or that they were public.  
My 2d. 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 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 believe, or do not believe, M. B. is no competent judge, be it spoken without disparagment, for the Law is not his study. I, who( perhaps) have much less skill then himself, will be bound at any time to give him twenty cases, out of the Civill 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. Nay amongst our 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 disanul'd.  
But 2. he says! that the fruits of the death of Christ, are procured for us, finaliter not subjectivè.  
Ans. They are procured for us objectivè, are granted, ex ad aequatione 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.  
3. All the fruits of the death of Christ are obtained and procured by his merit for them for whom he dyed.  
M. B. 1. not all, not the same measure of sanctification for one as for another: not faith for all, for whom he dyed, as for his Elect.  
2. He procured it for us as the finis cvi, not subjects of the present Right.  
Ans. The substance of the fruits of the death of Christ, and the ultimate end, belongs to his purchase: the measure and degrees of them to the fathers sovereign disposal, ad ornatum universi.  
2. It is most false, that Christ did not purchase faith for all, for whom he dyed.  
3. What our Right is, hath been before delivered; the finis cvi,& subject of a present Right, are not very accurately opposed.  
4. The nature of merit infers an attendant Right: Rom: 4. 4. M. B. If this be your debt, you may say, Lord I have merited salvation in Christ, therefore it is mine of debt; Christ hath of debt the right to pardon you, you have no debt, &c.  
Ans. Very good! but I use no forms of prayer of other mens composing; who said, it was our debt? who says our right is actioble? 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 M. B. afterwards compose in a cleanness as he supposes to my principles; but what may he not do, or say?  
4. He for whom a ransom is paid, hath a right to his liberty by virtue of that payment.  
M. 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, then they had before. If a Prince pay a ransom for some traytors 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 then they had before.  
Ans. I suppose it is not yet determined, that this business is to be regulated absolutely according to what M. 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 M. B. believes not this, let him consult the Civill Lawyers, with whom he is so conversant: Tit: de pact:  
2. I say, that the Law of Redemption requir's, that the Redeemed be at the disposal of the Redeemer, where he hath no plea jure postliminii; and it is most certain, that Christ hath a dominion over his Elect;( for a propriety over them I understand not) yet, that that dominion is the proximate end of the Death of Christ, under the notion of a ransom, price, or purchase( which yet are of various considerations also,) is the {αβγδ} of this discourse.  
Having given this specimen of M. B's. answers to my instances, as an addition to the former Explication given of my judgement in this business, I shall not further 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 satisfactō& 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 controversies, that we have 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 in his disputation de merito Christi, An. 1650. are: Secunda controversia capitalis, quae Christianismo cum quibus●am heterodoxis( Remonstrantibus scilicet in Belgio, viris, si non Socinianae, saltem dubiae Theologiae) intercedit, est de merito Christi pro nobis, hoc est, 'vice,& loco nostro,& sic in bonum nostrum actualiter praestito, seu de satisfactione plenâ ac propriè dicta à Christo sponsore, loco nostro justitiae divinae praestita: illi satisfactionem& meritum sic accipiunt, quasi nihil aliud sit, quam parts offensae talis placatio qua offenso hactenùs satisfit, ut in gratiam redire velit cum eo qui offendit,& per quam Christus Deo Patri jus& voluntatem aquisiverit novum foedus 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 perperhaps will say, mira edepol sunt ni hic in ventrem, sumpsit confidentiam, to consider what he hath written already. But with this leave he fals 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 to the passage by the way 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 condecentiae, that in the appointed season, he should receive it. If M. Baxter, be otherwise minded I cannot help it; habeo aliquid magis ex memet,& majus, then that I should attend to the disputes thereabout; nor will I stand in his way if I can choose, for he seems to cry— ad terram dabo,& dentilegos omnes mortales faciam quemque offendero.  
After this I find not my self particularly smitten, until he comes to the close of the chapter to talk of idem and tantidem: Unless it be in his passage pag. 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 satisfied him as to that surmise, by showing that not only my sense, but my exrressions 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) M. Baxter fals 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 Antionmianisme. Seing 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 M. 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 M. Baxter this subvertes the substance of Religion: {αβγδ}. Now you shall have the proofs of it, the idem( saith he) 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, suplicium ipsius delinquentis.  
A. But: The idem that we would pay, or undergo, is perfect obedience to the Law, and proportionable punishment by the God's Constitution, for disobedience; This Christ payed, 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 suppliciam delinquenti debitum, by whoever it be undergone, not supplicium ipsius delinquentis only.  
He proceeds: the Law never threatened a surety, nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an act of God above the Law; therefore Christ did not undergo the idem. 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 morrally; but however I deny the consequence; the thing it self was paid by another for us, and the punishment itself was undergone by another, in our stead.  
That which follows, fals 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 his proposition, also, is 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, being no justice can demand any more then the idem quod debitur.( as M. Baxter'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 offenders 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 last) 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 according 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 in stead of that which is in the Obligation doth according 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 Section, quibus modis tollitur obligatio, lib. 3. Instit: will evince this sufficiently. The Title of the Section is, Si solvitur ID quod debetur, vel ALIUD loco illius, consentiente creditore, omnis solvitur Obligatio, tum rei principalis, quam fide-jussoris. The words of the Law itself are more full. Tollitur autem omnis obligatio solutione EJUS quod debetur; vel siquis consentiente creditore ALIUD pro ALIO solverit; nec interest quis solverit, utrum IPSE qui debet, an ALIUS pro eo: liberatur enim& alio solvente, sieve sciente, sieve ignorant debitore, vel invito, eo solutio siat: Si fide-jussor solverit, non enim ipse solus liberatur, said 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 Antimonian Doctrines. now so strenuously opposed by Mr. Baxter, and to deliver students from the unhappy model of theology, which the men of the preceding contests have entangled themselves, and others withal, M. B. seriously advices them to keep in their minds, and carefully to distinguish between the will of God's purpose, and his precepts or Law, his determining, and commanding will, in the first place; the ignorance whereof it seems, confounded the theology of doctor 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,& the covenant of Grace and mercy confirmed to the Elect in his blood.  
Now if these two Distinctions, as carefully headed, and as warily observed as we are able, will prove such an antidote against the infection, for my part( in all probability) I shall be secure, having owned them ever since I learned my catechism,  
{αβγδ}.  
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 hast 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 be possible, to prevail with them to speak closely, clearly, and distinctly to the matter of their contests,& 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. 8. 28, 29, 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 delivery myself unto.  
2 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 sins entering into the world, had an efficacy& effect of the very same nature with that, which it hath when he hath actually accomplished what was on his part required for the end proposed to him;& that therefore in the old Testament his death is spoken of sometimes as past, Isa. 53. 4, 5, 6:& that to make this Covenant in it's Constitution to be contemporary to it's 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.  
3 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, Joh. 3. 36. But yet what to the advantage of the Church is enwrapped in the discharge of their great representative, who dyed in their stead( for that I believe also, and not only for their good) I desire respite for my thoughts as formerly.  
4. I do believe that Christ underwent the very same punishment for us, for the nature and kind of it, which we were obnoxious unto,& should have undergone, had not he undertaken for us, and paid the idem that we should have done, 2 Cor. 5. 12. Gal. 3. 13.  
5. I believe that upon the death of Christ, considering what hath been said before concerning the compact, and 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 Concernements, that those for whom he dyed, should all be made partakers of all the good things, 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.  
6. I believe that all spiritual blessings, mercies, privileges whatever, are fruits of the death of Christ, and that notwithstanding the order wherein they stand one to another, they all depend immediately on it's causality; though respectu termini they have not a natural immediation.  
7. I profess that we are absolved, pardonned, and justified for Christ's sake,& 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, &c.  
For a close of all, I must profess, that I will not contend with any man, who discovers in himself such a resolution {αβγδ}, that if he be pressed, rather then let it go, he will go backward, and attempt {αβγδ}, 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 practise. Hence are the beginnings of men modest, but their Endings desperate: hence is arminianism ended in Episcopianisme; and arianism in socinianism,& in many, socinianism in Mahumedisme and atheism. If I find this resolution and spirit in any man, he shall rather enjoy his own present conceits, then by me be precipitated into worse Abominations. Nor shall I( the Lord assisting) be unmindful of that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. {αβγδ}, &c. as also that of the same Apostle, Tit. 3. 2. {αβγδ}. If I must contend with any, as I am resolved for the matter {αβγδ}, 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 Naevius, who cried out, primum quod dicebo recte, secumdum 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 it's 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 it's 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 then 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 intercept the Efficacy of the death and cross of Christ from it's work of perpetual and constant mortification in the hearts of Believers; or cut off any obligation unto obedience or holinesse, that by the discovery of the will of God, either in the Law, or Gospel, i● put upon the Redeemed ones of the Lord.  
{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}: 2 Tim. 2. 23.  
FINIS