(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

Full text of "The works of John Owen"

miNCETON. N. J. A 














And sold by J. Parker, Oxford ; Deighton and Sons, Cambridge ; D. Brown, 
Waugb and Innes, and H. S. Baynes and Co,, Edinburgh ; Chalmers and 
Collins, and M. Ogle, Glasgow; M. Keenc, and R. M. Tims, Dublin. 







The Epistle Dedicatory • 4 

The Preface to the Reader - 15 

Mr. Biddle's Preface to his Catechism 83 

Mr. Biddle's Preface briefly examined 89 

Mr. B.'s first chapter examined. Of the Scriptures 131 

Of the nature of God 132 

Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God 148 


Of the attribution of passions, and aflfections, anger, fear, repentance unto God: 
in what sense it is done in the Scripture • • • 159 

Of God's prescience or foreknowledge • 168 

Of the creation and condition of man, before and after the fall 199 

Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God • • • • 236 


An entrance into the examination of the Racovian catechism, in the business 
of the Deity of Christ ; their arguments against it answered : and testimo- 
nies of the eternity of Christ vindicated = 281 




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


Of the names of God given unto Christ 336 


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


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

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

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

Of the Holy Ghost, his Deity, graces, and operations 442 

Of salvation by Christ 457 

Of the mediation of Christ 459 

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


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


















OF MR. R. E. 

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


















J. o. 

TO TfiE niciiT wonsiiirruL 





Of this second address unto you in this kind, where- 
unto I am encouraged by your fair and candid re- 
ception of my former, I desire you would be pleased 
to take the ensuing account. It is now, as I re- 
member, about a year ago, since one Mr. Biddle 
(formerly a master of arts of this university, by 
which title he still owns himself) published two little 
catechisms, as he calls them ; wherein, under sundry 
specious pleas and pretences (which you will find 
discussed in the ensuing treatise), he endeavours to 
insinuate subtilelyinto the minds of unstable and un- 
learned men, the whole substance of the Socinian 
religion. The man is a person, whom, to my know- 
ledge, 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 Fa- 
ther and Son also, is all that he is known to me by. 
It is not with his person that I have any contest ; he 
stands or falls to his own master. His arguments 
against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, were some- 
while since answered by Cloppenburgh, then profes- 
sor of divinity at Franeker, in Friesland, since at rest 
in the Lord ; and, as I have heard, by one in Eng- 
lish. His catechisms also are gone over the seas, 


whereof farther mention must afterward be made. 
At their first publishing, complaint being given in 
by some worthy persons to the honourable counsel 
against them, as abusive to the majesty and autho- 
rity of the word of God, and destructive to many 
important truths of the gospel (which was done 
without any knowledge of mine), they were pleased 
to send forme, and to require of me the performance 
of that work, which is here presented unto you. Be- 
ing surprised with their request, I laboured to ex- 
cuse myself to the utmost, on the account of my 
many employments in the university and elsewhere, 
with other reasons of the like nature, which to my 
thoughts did then occur. Not prevailing with them, 
they persisting in their command, I looked on it as 
a call from God to plead for his violated truth, which 
by his assistance, and according as I had opportu- 
nity, 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 (accord- 
ing as I could break off my daily pressing occasions 
to attend unto it) with much cheerfulness and alac- 
rity of mind. And this was the reason, why, find- 
ing Mr. B. came short of giving a fair occasion to 
the full vindication of many heads of religion by him 
oppugned, I have called in to his assistance and so- 
ciety 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 an- 
swers of most of the chief propiigners of Mr. B/s 
religion. Now, besides your interest in the truths 
pleaded for, there are other considerations also, in- 
ducing me to a persuasion, that this endeavour of 
mine will not be unacceptable unto you. Mr. B.'s 
catechism, I said, being carried over and dispersed in 
sundry places of the united provinces, the professors 
of their academies (who have all generally learned the 
Enolish tono-ue, to enable them for the understand- 
ino- of the treatises of divinity in all kinds written 
therein, which they begin to make use of to the 
purpose) cry out against them, and professedly un- 
dertake 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 con- 
futation of a book, written by one who stiles him- 
self a master of arts of this university (which they 
also take notice of), wherein they are so little con- 
cerned ; the poison of it being shut up from their 
people, under the safe custody of an unknown ton- 
gue. "Nicolaus Arnoldus, the professor of di\inity 

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

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


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

Maresius, professor atGroning, a man well known 
by his works published, goes farther ; and on the 
account of these catechisms, charges the whole na- 
tion, and the governors of it, with Socinianism; and, 
according to the manner of the man, raises a fear- 
ful outcry, affirming, that that heresy hath fixed its 
metropoliticalseat here in England, and is here openly 
professed, is the head sect in the nation, displaying 
openly the banners of its iniquity; all which he con- 
firms by instancing in this book of a master of arts 
of the university of Oxford. Of his rashness in cen- 
suring, 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 re- 
proaches 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 re- 
spects 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 con- 
futation of any one arising among ourselves, speak- 
ing perverse things to draw disciples after him), an 
answer from some in this place unto those cate- 
chisms, was sufficiently necessary. That it is by 
providence fallen upon the hand of one, more unmeet 
than many others in this place, for the performance 
of this work and duty, I doubt not but you will be 
contented withal ; and am bold to hope that neither 


the truth, nor your own esteem, will too much suf- 
fer, 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 con- 
troversies, may find that which they will not alto- 
gether despise, and younger students that whereby 
they may profit. To this end I have added the Ra- 
covian catechism, as I said before, to Mr. B.'s ; 
which, as I was urged to do by many worthy per- 
sons in this university, so I was no way discouraged 
in the publishing of my answer thereunto, by the 
view I took of Arnoldus's discourse to the same pur- 
pose, and that for such reasons as I shall not express, 
but leave the whole to the judgment of the reader. 

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

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


especially upon the account of Socinianism and Po- 
pery.' That is, not as though he would reconcile 
those extremes, but being in doctrinals a Socinian, 
he yet closed in many things with the Roman inter- 
est : as I no way doubt, but thousands of the same 
persuasion with the Socinians, as to the person and 
offices of Christ, do live in the outward communion 
of that church (as they call it) to this day ; of which 
supposal I am not without considerable grounds, and 
eminent instances for its confirmation. This, I say, 
is their charge upon him. For his being a Socinian, 
he tells us, ' Three things are made use of, to beget a 
jealousy in the minds of men of his inclinations that 
way. 1 . Some parcels of a letter of his to Crellius. 
2. Some relations of what passed from him at his 
death. 3. Some passages in his annotations.' It is 
this last alone wherein I am concerned. And what 
I have to speak to them, I desire may be measured 
and weighed by what I do premise. It is not that 
I do entertain in myself any hard thoughts, or that 
I would beget in others any evil surmises of the eter- 
nal condition of that man, that I speak what I do. 
What am I, that I should judge another man's ser- 
vant ? He is fallen to his own master. I am very 
slow to judge of men's acceptation with God, by the 
apprehension of their understandings. This only I 
know, that be men of what religion soever that is 
professed in the world, if they are drunkards, proud, 
boasters, &c. hypocrites, haters of good men, per- 
secutors and revilers of them, yea, if they be not re- 
generate 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 sub- 
stance of the doctor's plea is, that the ' passages in- 
timated are in his posthuma, that he intended not to 


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

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

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


that I marvel the learned doctor should fix upon one 
particular instance, as though that one place alone 
were corrupted by him, when there is not one (or but 
one) that is not wrested, perverted, and corrupted, 
to the same purpose. For the full conviction of the 
truth hereof, I refer the reader to the ensuing consi- 
derations of his interpretations of the places them- 
selves. 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 pub- 
lished to be considered and judged. Erasmus, I know, 
made way for him, in most of his expositions about 
the Deity of Christ ; but what repute he hath there- 
by obtained among all that honour the eternal God- 
head of the Son of God, let Beliarmine on the one 
hand, and Beza on the other evince. And, as I will 
by no means maintain or urge against Grotius any of 
the miscarriages in religion, which the answerer of my 
animadversions undertakes to vindicate him from; 
nor do I desire to fight with the dust and ashes of 
men ; yet what I have said, is, if not necessary to 
return to the apologist, yet of tendency, 1 hope, to 
the satisfaction of others, who may inquire after the 
reason of my calling the annotations of the learned 
man to an account in this discourse. Shall any one 
take liberty to pluck down the pillars of our faith, 
and weaken the grounds of our assurance, concern- 
ing 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 ac- 
ceptance with them, especially if it shall occasion 
any of greater leisure and abilities farther and pro- 
fessedly to remark more of the corruptions of those 
annotations, I have good ground of expectation. 
The truth is, notwithstanding their pompous shew 
and appearance (few of his quotations, which was 
the "^manner of the man, being at all to his purpose), 
it will be found no difficult matter to discuss his 
assertions, and dissipate his conjectures. 

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

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

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

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


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


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

Your unworthy fellow-labourer, 

Oxon. CL Ck. Coll. April. 1. 


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

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


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

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


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 di- 
rections, which, with all humbleness, I have to tender to you, 
to guide some, and strengthen others, and stir uj3 all, to be 
watchful against this great, and I hope the last considerable 
attempt of Satan (by way of seduction, and temptation), 
against the foundation of the gospel. 

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

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

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

* Epiphan. Hseres. 47. 

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

c 2 


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


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

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


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

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

A design he had in hand, that was like to do him more 
service than any of his former attempts. Having, therefore, 
tried bis utmost in open opposition to the person of Christ 
(the dregs of the poison thus shed abroad infecting in some 
measure a great part of the east to this day), by away never 
before heard of, and wliich Christians were not exercised 
with, nor in any measure aware of, he subtilely ruins and 
overthrows all his offices, and the whole benefit of his me- 
diation, 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 advance- 
ment of his kingdom and glory. And therefore, whilst the 
fatal apostacy of the western world, under the Roman anti- 
christ, was contriving, carrying on, and heightening, till it 
came to its discovery and ruin, he stirs not at all with his old 
engines, which had brought in a revenue of obedience to his 
kingdom, in no measure proportionable to this, which by 
this new device he found accruing to him. But when the 
appointed time of mercy was come, that God would visit his 
people with light from above, and begin to unravel the mys- 
tery 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 subtilty was like to fail him, and not to 
do him that service, which formerly it had done, he again 
sets on foot his first design of oppugning the eternal Deity 
of the Son of God ; still remembering that the ruin of his 
kingdom arose from the Godhead of his person, and the eJEfi- 


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

'" Act. S^nod. Morden. An. ibb3. " Bez. Ei)ist. 81. 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

of the one God, and the Trinity.' 

Whereupon one of the opposite party instantly cried 


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

the Trinity.' 

Whereunto the ministersv subjoined, ' we have no need of 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p 2 


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

" Vossii rcspon. ad judicium Ravensperger. 

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


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

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

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

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

'' Diatrib. de justit. Divin. Viud. 


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

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

This part of our faith being of so great weight and im- 
portance, the great basis and foundation of the church, you 
will find it at large insisted on and vindicated, in the en- 
suing treatise. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


expectation of his call hereunto, there comes two English- 
men into Poland ; men pretending discourse with angels and 
revelations from God ; one of them was the chief at revela- 
tions (their names 1 cannot learn), the other gave out what 
he received, in his daily converse with angels, and words 
he heard from God, about the destruction of all the present 
frame of the worship of God. To these men Puccius joined 
liimself, and followed them to Prague in Bohemia, though 
his friends dealt with him to the contrary, assuring him, 
that one of his companions was a mountebank, and the other 
a magician; but,_being full of his^former persuasions, of the 
ceasing of all ordinances and institutions, with the necessity 
of their restitution by immediate revelation from God, hav- 
ing got companions fit to harden him in his folly and pre- 
sumption, 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. Ac- 
cordingly he turns Papist, begs pardon publicly for his de- 
serting the Roman church, is reconciled by a priest; in 
whose society, after he had awhile continued and laboured 
to pervert others to the same superstition with himself, he 
died a desperate magician. Have none in our days been 
led in the like maze ? hath not Satan led some in the same 
circle, setting out from superstition to profaneness, pass- 
ing through some zeal and earnestness in religion, rising to 
a contemptof ministry and ordinances, with an expectation 
of revelations, and communion with angels ? And how 
many have again sunk down into popery, atheism, and hor- 
rible abominations, is known to all in this nation, who 
think it their duty to inquire into the things of God. I have 
given this instance, only to manifest that the old enemy of 
our salvation is not playing any new game of deceit and 
temptation, but such as he hath successfully acted in former 
generations. Let not us be ignorant of his deceits. 

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


the issue ; that being pressed with this, that there was no- 
thing needful to constitute a church of Christ, but that there 
were a company of men believing in Jesus Christ, receiving 
the word of God, and taking it for their rule ; they denied 
that indeed now there was, or could be any faith in Jesus 
Christ, the ministers that should beget it being utterly 
ceased ; and therefore, it was advisable for men to serve 
God, to live justly, and honestly, according to the dictates 
of the law of nature, and to omit all thoughts of Christ, be- 
yond an expectation of his sending persons hereafter, to 
acquaint the world again with his worship. 

• That this was the judgment of' Math. Radecius, his ho 
noured friend Socinus informs us ; though he mollifies his 
expression, p. 123. ascribing it to others ; whether many 
in our days are not insensibly fallen into the same abomina- 
tions a little time will discover. The main of the plea of 
the men of this persuasion in those days, was taken from 
the example of the Israelites under that idolatrous apostacy, 
wherein they were engaged by Jeroboam. In the days of 
Elijah there were, said they, seven thousand who joined 
not with the residue in their false worship and idolatry ; 
but yet they never went about to gather, constitute, and set 
up a new church, or churclies ; but remained in their scat- 
tered 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 in- 
stituted 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 impos- 
sible 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 constitu- 
tion was acceptable to God ; as being not of his appointment. 
Under the gospel it is not so ; neither as to the one or 
other. All places being now alike, and all persons who are 
enabled thereunto, having liberty to preach the word, in the 
order by Christ appointed, the erecting of churches, and the 

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


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

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

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

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

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


contended with all his might, professing that he would not 
account such as Christians, who would not allow that Christ 
might be invocated, and was to be worshipped ; which that 
he was to be, he proved by undeniable testimonies of Scrip- 
ture. 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 adora- 
tion, the man with all his craft and subtleties was entangled, 
utterly confounded, silenced, slain with his own weapons, 
and triumphed over, as I shall afterward manifest, in the 
account which I shall give of the disputation between him 
and Christianus Franken about this business. God in l}is 
righteous judgment so ordering things, that he who would 
not embrace the truth, which he ought to have received, 
should not be able to maintain and defend that truth which 
he did receive ; for having what in him laid digged up the 
only foundation of the religious worship and adoration of 
Christ, he was altogether unable to keep the building up- 
right ; 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 suc- 
cess they had against Socinus and his followers, with whom 
they conversed and disputed, some of the men before-men- 
tioned, stayed not with him at the affirming of him to be a 
mere man, nor yet were they began, building on that suppo- 
sition, that he was not to be worshipped, but proceeded yet 
farther, and affirmed, that he was indeed a good man, and 
sent of God, but yet he spake not by the spirit of prophesy ; 
but so, as that whatever was spoken by him, and written 
by his apostles, was to be examined by Moses and the pro- 
phets, whereto if it did not agree, it was to be rejected : 
which was the sum of the ''first and second theses of Fran- 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

What advantage is given to the like blasphemous ima- 
ginations 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 paral- 
leled, perhaps some may be contented to take it in his own 
words, which are as followeth : 

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

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


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

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

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

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

E 2 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

He joined himself to none of their societies ; because, 
being divided amongst themselves, he knew that by ad- 
hering 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 assem- 
bly 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 fel- 
lowship and communion. But he who made it his design 
to gather the scattered Antitrinitarians into a body, and a 
consistency in a religion among themselves, saw plainly, that 
the rigid insisting upon Anabaptism, which was the first 
principle of some of them, would certainly keep them at an 
unreconcilable distance. Wherefore he falls upon an opi- 
nion 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, there- 
fore, he refused to join himself with the Racovians, unless 
upon this principle, that they would desist for the time to 
come, from requiring any to be baptized that should join 
with them. In a short time he divided that meeting by this 
opinion, and at length utterly dissolved them, as to their old 
principles they first consented into, and built the remainder 
of them by the hand of Valentinus Smalcius into his own 
mould and frame. 

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


the then state of things, they may seem of another com- 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

But what numbers they are, in those parts of the v>^orld, 
how the poison is drunk in by thousands in the Papacy, by 
what advantages it hath, and continues to insinuate itself 
into multitudes living in the outward profession of the re- 
formed churches, what progress it makes, and what ground 
it gets in our native country every day, I had rather bewail, 
than relate. This I am compelled to say, that unless the 
Lord in his infinite mercy lay an awe upon the hearts of men, 
to keep them in some captivity to the simplicity and mys- 
tery 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-destroy- 
ing abomination, will one day break in as a flood upon us. 

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

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

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

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


writings of the schoolmen, and the practice of the devotion- 
ists among the Papists. With what desperate boldness, 
atheistical curiosity, wretched inquiries and babbling, the 
schoolmen have polluted the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
gone off from the simplicity of the gospel in this great mys- 
tery, 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 doc- 
trine concerning that God whom they were to worship ren- 
dered 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 reason- 
ings and imaginations, where they stumbled and fell. And 
yet of the forms and expressions of their schoolmen are the 
Papists so zealous, as that whoever departs from them in any 
kind is presently an Antitrinitarian heretic. The dealings of 
Bellarmine, Genebrard, Possevine, and others, with Calvin, 
are known : one instance may be taken of their ingenuity. 
Bellarmine, in his book *de Christo,' lays it to the charge of 
Bullinger, that in his book 'de Scripture etEcclesiae autho- 
ritate/ he wrote, that there were three persons in the Deity, 
*non statu, sed gradu, non subsistentia, sed forma, non po- 
testate, sed specie differentes ;' on which he exclaims, that 
the Arians themselves never spake more wickedly : and yet 
these are the very words of TertuUian against Praxeas, which 
I confess are warily to be interpreted. But by this their 
measuring of truth by the forms received by tradition from 
their fathers, neglecting and forsaking the simplicity of the 
gospel, that many stumbled and fell is most evident. 

SchlufFelburgius,' in his wonted respect and favour unto 

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


the Calvinists, tells us, that from them and their doctrine 
was the occasion administered unto this new abomination ; 
also, that never any turned Arian, but he was first a Calvi- 
nist, which he seems to make good by a letter of Adam 
Neuserius, who, as he saith, from a sacramentarian turned 
Arian ; and afterward a Mahometan, and was circumcised 
at Constantinople, ' This man,' says he, * in a letter from 
Constantinople to doctor Gerlachius, tells him, that none 
turned Arians but those that were Calvinists first ; and there- 
fore, 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 undenia- 
ble evidence enforce me, because it cannot be done without 
an imputation of the foulest crime ; I shall therefore but 
take leave to ask, 

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

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

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



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

3. But what occasion, I pray, does Calvinism give to 
Arianism, that the one should be taken heed of, if we in- 
tend 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 him- 
self with more than he can carry, and therefore, all such in- 
quiries Schlusselburgius took no notice of. 

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

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

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


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

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

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

O crux spes uuica Hoc passionis tempore 

Auge piis constantiam Reisque dona veniam. 

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

Hffireo lac inter meditans, interque cruorem 

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

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

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

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

Non possem antidoto nobiiiore frui. 
Vulnera restituant turpem ulceribus mendicum 

Testa cui saniem radere sola potest. 
Ubera reficient Isniaelem sitientem 

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

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

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

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

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

Lac peto, depcreo sanguineni, utruraque volo. 

F 2 


O sitio tamen ! o voccm sitis intercludit. 

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

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

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

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

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

Deliciisque fruar, mamma latusque tuis. 

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

Ubera me matris, nati me vulnera pascunt 

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

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

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

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

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

Sic me perpetuum vulnus et uber alit. 

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

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

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

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


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

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 consi- 
derable 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 walk- 
ings, were found indeed to have, upon abiding grounds, no 
principles of religion at all ; and therefore were earnest in 
the inquiry after something that they might fix upon. What 
to avoid they knew, but what to close withal, they knew 
not. And therefore, it is no wonder, if among so many (I 
may say) millions of persons, as in those days there were, 
that fell off from the Papacy, some thousands perhaps (much 
more scores) might in their inquirings, from an extreme of 
superstition, run into another almost of atheism. Such was 
the estate of things and men in those days, wherein Soci- 
nianism, or the opposition to Christ of this latter edition, 
set forth in the world. Among the many that were convinced 
of the abominations of popery, before they were well fixed 
in the truth, some were deceived by the cunning sleight of 
some few men, that lay in wait to deceive. What event and 
issue and alike state and condition of things and persons, 
have gone forth imto, in the places and days wherein we 
live, is known to all. And that the saints of God may be 
warned by these things, is this address to them. To what 
hath been spoken, I had thought for a close of this discourse, 
to have given an account of the learning that these men pro- 
fess, and the course of their studies, of their way of dis- 
puting, and the advantages they have therein ; to have in- 
stanced in some of their considerable sophisms, and subtle 
depravations of Scripture ; as also to have given a specimen 
of distinctions and answers, which may be improved to the 
discovering and sleighting of their fallacies, in the most im- 
portant heads of religion : but being diverted by new and 


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


and confessions, are only answers and exceptions to other 
men's writings. Beside the fragments of a catechism or two, 
Socinus himself wrote very little but of this kind; so do the 
rest. How heavy and dull they are in asserting, may be 
seen in Volkelius's institution ; and here, whilst they es- 
cape their adversaries, they are desperately bold in their in- 
terpretations of Scripture. Though for the most part it suf- 
fices, 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 men- 
tion what must necessarily be insisted on, in the ensuing 
discourse. Their answers are, * this may otherwise be ex- 
pounded ; it may otherwise be understood ; the word may 
have another signification in another place.' 

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


by singularity. It is good to strive to excel, and to go be- 
fore one another in knowledge and in light, as in holiness 
and obedience. To do this in the road is difficult. Ahi- 
maaz had not outrun Cushi, but that he took a by-path. 
Many finding it impossible to emerge unto any considera- 
tion, 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 im- 
provement requires great pains, study, and an insight into 
all kind of learning), and not yet able to conquer the itch 
of being accounted tiveq fxijaXoi, turn aside into by-ways, 
and turn the eyes of all men to them, by scrambling over 
hedge and ditch, when the sober traveller is not at all re- 

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

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

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



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

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


they urge any reason, or give any exception, wherein they 
conclude not ' a particulari ad universale,' or * ab indefiuito ad 
universale, exclusive,' or 'ab aliquo statu Christi ad omnem,' 
or 'ab oeconomia Trinitatis ad Theologiam Deitatis,' or *ab 
iisuvocisalicubi'to 'ubique.' As Christis a man, therefore not 
God ; he is the servant of the Father, therefore not of the 
same nature ; and the like instances may be given in abund- 
ance : 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 especial- 
ly) is given to students by Keslerus, ' in examine Logicas, Me- 
taphysicae, et PhysicaePhotinianae.' The pretended maxims 
also which they insist on from the civil law, in the business 
of the satisfaction of Christ, which are especially urged by 
Socinus, and Crellius in his defence against Grotius, will 
make him who shall engage with them, see it necessary in 
some measure to be acquainted with the principles of that 
faculty and learning also. 

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

VOL. vili. 



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 Chris- 
tian religion, as the same is delivered in the Holy Scripture ; 
all catechisms generally being so stuffed with the sup- 
posals and traditions of men, that the least part of them is 
derived from the word of God. For when councils, convo- 
cations, 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 rati- 
fied the same, all catechisms were afterward fitted to those 
articles and confessions, and the Scripture either wholly 
omitted, or brought in only for a shew, not one quotation 
amongst many being a whit to the purpose, as will soon ap- 
pear to any man of judgment, who taking into his hand the 
said catechisms, shall examine the texts alledged in them : 
for if he do this diligently and impartially, he will find the 
Scripture, and those catechisms to be at so wide a distance 
one from another, that he will begin to question whether the 
catechists gave any heed at all to what they wrote, and did 
not only themselves refuse to make use of their reason, but 
presume that their readers also would do the same. In how 
miserable a condition, then, as to spiritual things, must 
Christians generally needs be, when thus trained up, not, as 
the apostle adviseth, 'in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord,' but in the supposals and traditions of men, having 
little or no assurance touching the reality of their religion ! 
Which some observing, and not having the happiness to light 
upon the truth, have quite abandoned all piety whatsoever, 
thinking there is no firm ground whereon to build the same. 
To prevent which mischief in time to come, by bringing men 

G 2 

84 Mil. biddle's preface 

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


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

86 MR. biddle's preface 

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


up religion in such monstrous terms, as neither the people 
nor they themselves that invented them (or at least took 
them from the invention of others) did understand. Where- 
fore 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 sin- 
cerely endeavoured much less effected (in that men have by 
severe penalties been hindered to reform religion beyond 
such a stint as that of Luther, or at most that of Calvin), 
but by cashiering those many intricate terms and devised 
forms of speaking imposed on our religion, and by wholly 
betaking ourselves to the plainness of the Scripture. For 
I have long since observed (and find my observation to be 
true and certain), that when to express matters of religion, 
men make use of words and phrases unheard of in the 
Scripture, they slily under them couch false doctrines, and 
obtrude them on us : for without question the doctrines 
of the Scripture can be so aptly explained in no language 
as that of the Scripture itself. Examine therefore the ex- 
pressions of God's being infinite and incomprehensible, of his 
being a simple act, of his subsisting in three persons, or 
after a threefold manner, of a divine circumincession, of 
an eternal generation, of an eternal procession, of an in- 
carnation, of an hypostatical union, of a communication of 
properties, of the mother of God, of God dying, of God 
made man, of transubstantiation, of consubstantiation, of 
original sin, of Christ's taking our nature on him, of Christ's 
making satisfaction to God for our sins, both past, present 
and to come, of Christ's fulfilling the law for us, of Christ's 
being punished by God for us, of Christ's merits, or his 
meritorious obedience both active and passive, of Christ's 
purchasing the kingdom of heaven for us, of Christ's en- 
during the wrath of God, yea, the pains of a damned man, of 
Christ's rising from the dead by his own power, of the 
ubiquity of Christ's body, of apprehending and applying 
Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith, of Christ's being 
our surety, of Christ's paying our debts, of our sins imputed 
to Christ, of Christ's righteousness imputed to us, of 
Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God, and reconcile 
him to us, of infused grace, of free grace, of the world of the 
elect, of irresistible workings of the Spirit in bringing men 

68 Mil. biddle's preface 

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


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




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


might be learned, as it is delivered in Scripture ;' and there- 
fore, doubtless, all Christians have cause to rejoice at the 
happy product of Mr. B.'s pains, wherewith he now acquaints 
them (ushered in with this modest account), whereby at 
length they may know their own religion, wherein as yet 
they have not been instructed to any purpose. And the 
reason of this is, because * all other catechisms are stuffed 
with many supposals and traditions, the least part of them 
being derived from the word of God,' Mr. B. being judge. 
'And this is the common language of his companions, com- 
paring 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 con- 
siderations of what Mr. B. substitutes in the room of those 
catechisms which he here rejects, will evince and manifest. 
But to give countenance to this humble entrance into his 
work, he tells his reader, 'that councils, convocations, and 
assemblies of divines have justled out the Scripture, and 
framed confessions of faith according to their own fancies 
and interests, getting them confirmed by the civil magis- 
trate; according unto which confessions, all catechisms are 
and have been framed without any regard to the Scripture.' 
What * councils' Mr. Biddle intends, he informs us not, nor 
what it is that in them he chiefly complains of. If he intend 
some only, such as the apostatizing times of the church saw, 
he knows he is not opposed by them with whom he hath to 
do ; nor yet if he charge them all for some miscarriages in 
them, or about them. 

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


being no consistency in error or falsehood) is impossible. 
Mr. B. knows there is no one of the catechists he so decries, 
but directs them whom he so instructs, to the Scriptures, 
and settles their faith on the word of God alone ; though 
they labour to help their faith and understanding, by open- 
ing of it, whereunto also they are called. I fear Mr. B.'s 
certainty will at length appear to be scepticism ; and his 
settling of men, to be the unsettling; that his '^conversions 
are from the faith ; and that in this very book he aims more 
to acquaint men with his questions, than the Scripture an- 
swers. 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 fol- 
lowers (or rather masters) the Socinians, I am sorry to hear 
that §any are so greedy of its acquaintance. Happily this 
is but a pretence ; such as his predecessors in this work 
have commonly used. For understanding the truth of it, 
they will find in the issue what an endless work they have 
undertaken. Who can make that strait, which is crooked ; 
or number that which is wanting? If by our religion he 
means the Christian religion, it may well be inquired who 
they are with their just and pious desires, who yet under- 
stand not the truth of Christian religion ? that is, that it is 
the only true religion. When we know these Turks, Jews, 
Pagans, which Mr. Biddle hath to deal withal, we shall be 
able to judge of what reason he had to labour to satisfy their 
just and pious desires, I would also willingly be informed 
how they came to so high an advancement in our religion, 
as to desire to be brought up in it, and to be able to instruct 
others, when as yet they do not understand the truth of it, 
or are not satisfied therein. And, 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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



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


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

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


ing and confuting heresies, but indeed to put a baffle upon 
the simplicity of the Scripture,' he gives us an account of 
p. 19. where we shall consider it and them. In general, words 
are but the figures of things. It is'' not words and terms, 
nor expressions, but doctrines and ihinos we inquire after. 
Mr. B. I suppose, allows expositions of Scriptures, or else 1 
am sure he condemns himself in what he practices. His 
book is in his own thoughts, an exposition of Scripture. 
That this cannot be done without varying the words and li- 
teral 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 expres- 
sions, not to be found in any of the prophets, will not be 
proved. But there is a twofold evil in these expressions. 
That they are invented to detect and unfold heresies as is 
pretended. If heretics begin first to wrest Scripture ex- 
pressions 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 there- 
unto.' 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 em- 
bracing and receiving of those words, &c. by others, without 
examining either the truth of what by those words, phrases, 
&c. they intend to signify and express ; or the propriety of 
those expressions themselves, as to their accommodation for 
the signifying of those things, I plead not for them. It is 
not in the power of man, to make any word or expression 

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

His first is, of God's being infinite and incomprehensi- 
ble. This he condemns, name and thing, that is, he says, 
' He is finite, limited,' of us to be comprehended. For 
those who say he is infinite and incomprehensible, do say- 
only, that he is not finite, nor of us to be comprehended. 
What° advance is made towards the farther reformation of 
the church, by this new notion of Mr. B.'s is fully discover- 
ed in the consideration of the second chapter of his cate- 
chism ;P and in this, as sundry other things, Mr. B. ex- 
cels 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 in- 
comprehensible); that he is eternal, which we cannot com- 
prehend. The like expressions are used of him in great 
abundance. Besides, if God be not incomprehensible, we 
may search out his power, wisdom, and understanding to 
the utmost. For if we cannot, if it be not possible so to do, 
he is incomprehensible. But, * Canst thou by searching 
find out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfec- 
tion ? There is no searching of his understanding.' If by- 
cur lines we suppose, we can fathom the depth of the es- 
sence, omnipotency, wisdom, and understanding, of God, I 
doubt not but we shall find ourselves mistaken. Were ever 
any since the world began before, quarrelled withal, for as- 
serting the essence and being of God to be incomprehensi- 
ble? The "iheathen who affirmed, that the more he inquired, 
the more he admired, and the less he understood, had a more 
noble reverence of the eternal "^Being, which in his mind he 

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

And this may suffice to this exception of Mr. Biddle, by 
the way, against the simplicity of the being of God: yet, 
because he doth not directly oppose it afterward, and the 
asserting of it, doth clearly evert all his following fond ima- 
ginations of the shape, corporeity, and limitedness of the 
essence of God (to which end also, I shall in the considera- 
tion 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 

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

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


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

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

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

4. Yea, that God is, and must needs be a simple act 
(which expression Mr. B. fixes on for the rejection of it), is 
evident from- this one consideration, which was mentioned 
before : if he be not so, there must be some potentiality in 
God. Whatever is, and is not a simple act, hath a possibi- 
lity to be perfected by act ; if this be in God he is not per- 
fect, 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 Mr. Biddle removes and answers, he may have more of 
them, which at present there is no necessity to produce. 

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


be God, to be one with the Father, or that the Holy Ghost 
is so ? No text saying, ' there are three that bear witness in 
heaven, and these three are one ?' None ascribing divine per- 
fections, divine worship, distinctly to either Son, or Spirit, 
and yet jointly to one God ? Are none of these things found 
in the Scripture, that Mr. B. thinks with one blast to de- 
molish all these ancient foundations, and by his bare autho- 
rity 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 considera- 
tion of these things, will farther manifest the abomination 
of this bold attempt, against the Son of God, and the eternal 

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

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

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


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

In brief. If Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr. B. will 
not deny him to have had an eternal generation ; if he be 
not, a generation must be found out for him, suitable to the 
Sonship which he hath ; of which 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, com- 
pounded : 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 pro- 
cession of the Holy Ghost, is nextly rejected. The Holy 
Ghost being constantly termed the Spirit of God, the Spirit 
of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son (being also God, as 
shall afterward be evinced), and so partakes of the same na- 
ture with Father and Son (the apostle granting that God 
hath a nature, in his rejecting of them, who by nature, are 
not God's), is yet distinguished from them, and that eter- 
nally (as nothing is in the Deity that is not eternal), and be- 
ing moreover said tKiropivta^ai, or to ' proceed,' and* go forth' 
from the Father and Son, this expression of his eternal pro- 

VOL. Vlll. I 


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I 3 


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

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

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

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

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

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

« Vid. loh.Hen. Hotting. Histor. Oriental, lib. 1. cap. 3, ex Alko. sura. 30. 


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

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

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

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

d Rom. V. 12. 15, 16. 19. Eph. ii. 1. 12. Psal. li. 3. John i. 5. Eph. iv. 18. 1 Cor. 
ii. 14. John iii. 5, 6. Eph. ii. 12. Col. i. 21. Rom. viii. 6—8. 
e John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4, 5. Heb. ii. 14. 16. ii. 18. Phil. 7, 8. 



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

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

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


in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in 
the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled 
in us;' and so we are ' saved by his life, being justified by 
his blood,' he being ' made unto us of God righteousness,' and 
we are by faith ' found in him, having on not our own righte- 
ousness, which is by the law, but that which is by Jesus 
Christ, the righteousness of God by faith;' we do afiirm, that 
Christ fulfilled the law for us, not only undergoing the pe- 
nalty 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 ap- 
pear before God. And this is that, which is intended by the 
active and passive righteousness of Christ, after-mentioned; 
all which is rejected, name and thing. 

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

The false doctrine of the merit of Christ, and his pur- 
chasing for us the kingdom of heaven, is the next stone, 
which this master builder disallows and rejects: "That 
Christ hath 'bought us with a price,' that he hath 'redeem- 
ed 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 eter- 
nal redemption, procuring the Spirit for us, to make us meet 
for the inheritance of the saints in light; God blessing us 
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in him, upon 

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


and sins/ making us light, who were darkness, filling us 
with the fruits of the Spirit in joy, meekness, faith, which 
are not of ourselves, but the gifts of God. Mr. Biddle hav- 
ing 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 repara- 
tion of it by grace; and all this under the name of a mere 
Christian, not knowing that he discovereth a frame of spirit 
utterly unacquainted with the main things of Christianity. 

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

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

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

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


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

* Spiritual desertions' arenextly decried. Some poor souls 

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


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

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

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


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

To prevent the entertainment of such doctrines as these 
Mr. B. commends the advice of Paul; 2 Tim. i. 13. * Hold 
fast the form of sound words,' &,c. than which we know none 
more wholesome, nor more useful, for the safeguarding and 
defence of those holy and heavenly principles of our reli- 
gion, which Mr. B. rejects and tramples on ; nor are we at 
all concerned in his following discourse, of leaving Scrip- 
ture 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 vindi- 
cation of it from the heretics, which in sundry ages bestirred 
themselves (as Mr. B. now doth) in opposition thereunto, 
be found consonant to Scripture, and to signify nothing 
but what is written therein with the beams of the sun, per- 
haps we see more cause to retain them, from the opposition 
here made to them by Mr. B. than formerly we did ; con- 
sidering, that his opposition to words and phrases is not 
for their own sake, but of the things intended by them. 

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


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

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

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

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

'■ Sophoc. in Ajace. (jiaa-Tfyo<p, 


know not. The error of the Deity of Christ was detected in 
the apostles' days by Ebion/ Cerinthus and others ; not 
long after by Paulus Samosatenus,'' by Photinus by Arius, 
and others ; the error of the purity, simplicity, and spiritu- 
ality of the essence of God, by Audseus, and the Anthro- 
pomorphites. The error of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, 
was long since detected by Macedonius, and his companions 5 
the error of original sin, or the corruption of our nature, by 
Pelagius ; the error of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, 
by Abailardus ; all of them by Socinus, Sraalcius, Crellius, 
&.C. What new discoveries Mr. B. hath made, I know not; 
nor is there any thing that he presents us with, in his whole 
body of religion, as stated in his questions, but what he hath 
found prepared, digested, and modelled to his hand, by 
his masters the Socinians ; unless it be some few gross no- 
tions 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 sup- 
pose that Mr. B. was led into these glorious discoveries, by 
reading of the Scriptures, much less impartial reading of 
them ; but that they are all the fruits of a deluded heart, 
given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect 
of his word, and contempt of reliance upon his Spirit and 
grace for a right understanding thereof, by the cunning 
sleights of the forementioned persons, in some of whose 
writings Satan lies in wait to deceive. And for the body 
of religion which he hath collected, which lies not in the 
answers which are set down in the words of the Scripture, 
but in the interpretations and conclusions couched in his 
questions, I may safely say, it is one of the most corrupt 
and abominable, that ever issued from the endeavours of one 
who called himself a Christian; for a proof of which asser- 
tion I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of it. 
So that whatever promises of success Mr. B. is pleased to 
make unto him who shall ruminate and digest in his mind, 
this body of his composure (it being indeed stark poison, 
that will never be digested, but fill and swell the heart with 

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

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


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


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

latet unguis in herba. 

And in this kiss of the Scripture with hail unto it, there is 
vile treachery intended, and the betraying of them to the 
hands of men, to be dealt withal at their pleasure. I desire 
not to entertain evil surmises of any (what just occasion 
soever be given on any other account), concerning things 
that have not their evidence and conviction in themselves. 
The bleating of that expression, * the Scriptures are the ex- 
actest rule of a holy life,' evidently allowing other rules of 
a holy life, though they be the exactest, and admitting other 
things, or books, into a compartnership with them, in that 
their use and service, though the pre-eminence be given to 
them, sounds as much to their dishonour, as any thing- 
spoken of them by any, who ever owned them to have pro- 
ceeded 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 


130 MR. biddle's preface examined. 

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



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

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

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

a Socin. de Authorit. Sa. Scrip, cap. 1. Racov. An. 1611. p. 13. Socin. Lect. Sacr. 
p. 18. Episcop. disput.de Author. Script, thes. 3. Volkel. de vera Relig. lib. v. cap. 
V. p. 37 r>. Socinus autem videtur rectius de SS. opinari, Epist. ad Radec. 3. p. 1 10. 
Ego quidem sentio, nihil in Scriptis, quae comiiiuuiter ab iis, qui Christian^ sunt 
■dicti, recepta, et pro divinis habita sunt, constanter legi, quod non sit verissinium : 
hocque ad divinam providentiam pertinere prorsus arbitror, ut ejusmodi scripta, nun- 
quam depraventur aut corrunipantur, neque ex toto, neque ex parte. 

K 2 


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


Of the nature of God. 

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

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

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

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

That the intendment of the connexion of these queries, 
and the suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate 
some thoughts against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not 
questionable; especially being the work of him, that makes 
it his business to oppose it, and laugh it to scorn. With 
what success this attempt is managed, a little considera- 
tion of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul says to 
us, ' there is one God :' treating of the vanity and nothing- 
ness of the idols of the heathen, whom God hath threatened 
to deprive of all worship, and to starve out of the world. 
The question as here proposed, 'How many Gods of Chris- 
tians are there,' having no such occasion administered unto 
it as that expression of Paul, being no parcel of such a dis- 


course as he insists upon, sounds pleasantly towards the al- 
lowance of many gods, though Christians have but one. 
Neither is Mr. B. so averse to polytheism, as not to give oc- 
casion (on other accounts) to this supposal. Jesus Christ he 
allows to be a God. All his companions, in the undertak- 
ing against his truly eternal divine nature, still affirm him to 
be'' * Homo Deificatus,' and ' Deus Factus,' and plead ' pro vera 
Deitate Jesu Christi,' denying yet with him that by nature 
he is God, of the same essence with the Father: so indeed 
grossly and palpably falling into, and closing with that abo- 
mination, 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 oc- 
casion they have introduced, of making a man to be an eter- 
nal God, of worshipping a mere creature, with the worship 
due only to the infinitely blessed God, we shall speak after- 

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

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

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

« Jer. X. 11. '^1 John v. 7, 


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


and what conceptions of God he labours to ensnare the 
minds of unlearned and unstable souls withal, in this ques- 
tion 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 pro- 
cedure. 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 Scrip- 
ture expressions, that as they lie, may seem fitted to the 
fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any at- 
tempt of direct proof of what he would have confirmed, the 
man of reason is utterly silent. 

2. None of those texts of Scripture, where mention is 
made of God's being in heaven, are in the coherence and 
dependance of speech, wherein they lie, suited or intended 
at all, to give answer to this question or any like it, con- 
cerning 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 in- 
tention of the Holy Ghost, in any of them, to declare the 
manner of God's essential presence and existence, in re- 
ference to all or any places; but only by the way of emi- 
nency, in respect of manifestions of himself, and operations 
from his glorious presence, doth he so speak of him. And 
indeed in those expressions, heaven doth not so much sig- 
nify a place, as a thing; or at least a place, in reference to the 
things there done, or the peculiar manifestations of the glory 
of God there ; so that if these places should be made use of, 
as to the proof of the figment insinuated, the argument from 
them would be, a non causa pro causa. The reason why God 
is said to be in heaven, is not because his essence is in- 
cluded 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 out- 
wardly are of him. 

3. God is said to be in heaven in an especial manner, be- 
cause he hath assigned that as the place of the saints' expec- 
tation of that enjoyment and eternal fruition of himself, which 
he hath promised to bless them withal. But for the limit- 
ing of his essence to a certain place in heaven, the Scrip- 
tures, as we shall see, know nothing ; yea, expressly and po- 
sitively afiirm the contrary. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Place has been commonly defined to be, 'superficies cor- 
poris ambientis.' Because of sundry inextricable difficulties 
and impossibility, of suiting it to every place, this definition 
is now generally decried. That now commonly received is 
more natural, suited to the natures of things, and obvious to 
the understanding. A place, is, ' spatium corporis suscep- 
tivum ;' any space wherein a body may be received, and con- 
tained. 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 ima- 
gine innumerable spaces in heaven, which are apt and able 
to receive the bodies of the saints ; and which actually shall 
be filled with them, when they shall be translated thereunto, 
by the power of God. 

Presence in a place, is the actual existence of a person in 
its place; or as logicians speak, in its ubi ; that is, answering 
the inquiry after him, where he is. Though all bodies are in 
certain places, yet persons only, are said to be present in 
them ; other things have not properly a presence to be as- 
cribed 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 as- 
cribed to God in any sense, it would deprive him of all his 
infinite perfections. 

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


and dimensions, such is their length, breadth, and depth; so 
doth one part of them fit one part of the place wherein they 
are, and the whole the whole, so are all solid bodies in a 
place : so is a man, his whole body in his whole place, his 
head in one part of it, his arms in another: some are so con- 
ceived 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 angels and spi- 
rits, to the places wherein they are, being not infinite or im- 
mense. 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, im- 
material 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, ab- 
sent 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, reveal- 
ing and manifesting his glory, more or less, as it seemeth 
good to him. 

Of this omnipresence of God, two things are usually in- 
quired after, 1. The thing itself, or the demonstration, that 
he is so omnipresent. 2. The manner of it, or the manifesta- 
tion and declaring how he is so present. Of this latter per- 
haps sundry things have been over curiously and nicely, by 
some disputed : though upon a thorough search, their dis- 
putes may not appear altogether useless. The schoolmen's 
distinctions of God's being in a place, replelive, immen- 
sive, imp/etive, superexcedenter, conservative, attinctive, maiii- 
festative, &cc. have, some of them at least, foundation in 
the Scriptures and right reason. That which seems most 
obnoxious to exception, is their assertion of God to be every 
where present, instar puncti: but the sense of that and its 
intendment, is to express how God is not in a place, rather 
than how he is. He is not in a place as quantitive bodies, 
that have the dimensions attending them. Neither could his 
presence in heaven, by those who shut him up there, be any 
otherwise conceived, until they were relieved by the rare no- 
tions of Mr. 13. concerning the distinct places of his right 


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

The testimony which God gives to this his perfection in 
Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. is not to be avoided ; more than what is 
here spoken by God himself, as to his omnipresence, we 
cannot, we desire not, to speak ; ' can any one lie hid from 
me? do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.' Still 
where mention is made of the presence of God, thus heaven 
and earth (which two are comprehensive of, and usually put 
for, the whole creation) are mentioned; and herein he is nei- 
ther to be thought afar off, or near, being equally present 
every where, in the hidden places, as in heaven ; that is, he 
is not distant from any thing or place ; though he take up 
no place, but is nigh all things, by the infiniteness and ex- 
istence of his being. 

From what is also known of the nature of God, his attri- 
butes, 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 ab- 
solutely self-sufficient, all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in 
himself. He is absolutely perfect, inasmuch as no perfec- 
tion is wanting to him ; and comparatively above all that we 
can conceive, or apprehend of perfection. If then ubiquity 
or omnipresence be a perfection, it no less necessarily be- 
longs to God, than it does to be perfectly good and blessed. 
That this is a perfection, is evident from its contrary. To be 
limited, to be circumscribed, is an imperfection and argues 
weakness. We commonly say, we would do such a thing in 
such a place, could we be present unto it ; and are grieved 
and troubled that we cannot be so ; that it should be so, is 
an imperfection attending the limitedness of our natures. Un- 
less we will ascribe the like to God, his omnipresence is to 
be acknowledged. If every perfection then be in God (and 
if every perfection be not in any, he is not God) this is not 
to be denied by him. 

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


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

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


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

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



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

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

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

Est coelum.et versus superos, quid quaerimus ultra: 

Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque raoveris. 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

P Vide Beza, Epist. ad Philip, Mamix. 

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

L 2 



Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God. 

Mr. Biddle's question. 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Now this attribute of infinity, doth immediately and de- 
monstratively overthrow that gross conception of a human 
shape we are in the consideration of, and so it doth by con- 
sequence overthrow the conceit of any other, though a sphe- 
rical shape. Again, 

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

All the question is of the minor proposition. Let us 
therefore suppose an infinite body, or line, and let it be bi- 
sected ; 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 contra- 

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

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

If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeal, and con- 
sequently without shape. 

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

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


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

As this madness of brain-sickmen, was always rejected by 
all'' persons of sobriety, professing the religion of Jesus 
Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jews, or the wiser 
sort of heathens, who retained any impression of those com- 
mon 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 corpo- 
real propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with 
him. So one of the most learned of them of old. "Ours yap 
av^p(i>Tr6fxop(j)og 6 ^wg, ovte ^eoeicig av^pwTrivov awfxa, Phil, 
de opificio mundi. ' Neither hath God a human form, nor 
does a human body resemble him.' And in Sacrifi. Abel. 
ovSt TO. oaa av^pwiroig, IttI S'fou KvpioXoyeiTaL, KaT(i\pr]aig St 
6vofiaT(i)vlaTl7rapr]yopov(TaTriv rjfieTipav acr^ivdav. ' Neitherare 
those things which are in us spoken properly of God, but 
there is an abuse of names therein relieving our weakness.' 
Likewise the heathens, who termed God vovv, and -{pv- 

• OvTOjq vfAaq u^ov a;; QboZ •nrgo<riW7rov. Zozom. Hist. Ec. lib. 8. cap. 11. 
'' Minut. Fffilix. in Octav. Lactan. de vera sap. Mutius pansa Pianensis de osculo 
ethnicse et Christianse Tlieol. c. 25. Origen. in Gen. Horn. 3. August. 1. 83. Qurest. 22. 


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

Of the like import is that distich of Xenophones in Cle- 
mens Alexan. Strom. 5. 

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

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

There is one great God, among gods and men, 

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

Whereunto answers that in Cato, 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

» Jer. iliv. 15, 16. ''2 Tim. ii. 26. 


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

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

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

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


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

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

1. Affections considered in themselves, have always an 
incomplete, imperfect act of the will, or volition joined with 
them. They are 'souiething that lies between tiie firm pur- 
pose 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 ob- 
noxious to such volitions and incomplete actings of the will, 
besides the general consideration of his perfections and 
blessedness premised, is evident from that manner of pro- 
cedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his 
works comprise all his actings. As the Lord s hath purposed 
so hath he done. * He worketh all things according to the 
counsel of his will. Who hath known his mind, and who hath 
been his counsellor? Of him, and from him, are all things.' 
2. They have their dependance on that, wherewith he, 
in whom they are, is affected; that is, they owe their rise 
and continuance to something without him, in whom they 
are. A man's fear ariseth from that or them, of whom he is 
afraid ; by them it is occasioned, on them it depends ; what- 
ever affects any man (that is the stirring of a suitable 
affection), in all that frame of mind and soul, in all the vo- 
litions and commotions of will, which so arise from thence, 

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


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

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

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

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

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

^ Exod. iii. 14. • Job. xxiii. 13. 

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

> Mai. iii. 6. 


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

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

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

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

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

M 2 


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

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

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

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


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

5. Of all the places where mention is made of God's re- 
pentings or his repentance, there is the same reason. Exod. 
xxxii. 14. Gen. vi. 6, 7. Judg. x. 16. Deut. xxx. 9. are pro- 
duced by Mr. B. That one place of the 1 Sam. xv. 29. where 
God affirms, that he 'knoweth no repentance,' casts all the 
rest under a necessity of an interpretation suitable unto it. 
Of all the affections or passions which we are ol)noxious to, 
there is none that more eminently proclaims imperfection, 
weakness, and want in sundry kinds, than this of repentance. 
If not sins, mistakes, and miscarriages (as for the most part 
they are), yet disappointment, grief, and trouble, are always 
included in it. So is it in that expression, Gen. vi. 6. ' ^It re- 
pented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it 
grieved him at the heart.' What but his mistake and great 
disappointment, by a failing of wisdom, foresight, and power, 
can give propriety to these attributions unto God ? The 
change God was going then to work in his providence on 
the earth, was such, or like that, which men do, when they 
repent of a thing, being ' grieved at the heart' for what t';ey 
had formerly done. So are these things spoken of God, to 
denote the kind of the things which he doth, not the na- 
ture of God himself; otherwise such expressions as these 
would suit him, whose frame of spirit and heart is so de- 
scribed : • 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 busi- 
ness. What have I now got by my rashness? nothing but 
sorrow and grief of heart redounds to me.' And do these 
become the infinitely blessed God? 

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

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


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

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

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


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

1. Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions 
can have place, or be admitted, there no affections are to be 
admitted. For to what end should we suppose that, whereof 
there can be no use to eternity. If it be impossible any af- 
fection in God should be stirred up, or acted, is it not impos- 
sible 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, an- 
ger, 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 concern- 
ments, whence should he have fear, sorrow, or repentance? 
*Our goodness extends not to him ; he hath no need of us 
or our sacrifices. ' Can a man be profitable to God, as he 
that is wise may be profitable to himself? Is it any pleasure 
to the Almighty that thou art righteous, or is it gain to him 
that thou makest thy ways perfect V 

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

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

168 OF god's prescience 

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


Of God's prescience or foreknowledge. 

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

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

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

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

'Psal. 1. 21. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

170 OF god's prescience 

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

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

For the first. 

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

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

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


here, being not able to make any work in his method pro- 
posed and boasted in, as signal and uncontrollable ; no apex 
or tittle in the Scripture being pointed towards the denial of 
God's knowing any thing, or all things, past, present, and to 
come ; he moulds his question into a peculiar fashion, and 
asks, whence or from what place of Scripture may such a 
thing as he there avers, be gathered ? At once plainly de- 
clining the trial he had put himself upon, of insisting upon 
express texts of Scripture only ; not one of the many quoted 
by him, speaking one word expressly to the business in hand, 
and laying himself naked to all consequences, rightly de- 
duced from the Scripture, and expositions given to the latter 
of some places suitable to the ''proportion of faith. That 
then which he would have, he tells you, is gathered from the 
places of Scripture subjoined ; but how, by whom, by what 
consequence, with what evidence of reason, it is so gathered, 
he tells you not. An understanding, indeed, informed with 
such gross conceptions of the nature of the Deity, as Mr. B. 
hath laboured to insinuate into the minds of men, might ga- 
ther from his collection of places of Scripture for his purpose 
in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved, that he re- 
penteth, altereth, and changeth his mind to and fro ; but of 
his knowledge, or foreknowledge of things, whether he have 
any such thing or not, there is not the least intimation, un- 
less 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 pro- 
vidence of God, punishing the wantonness of the minds and 
lives of men, by '^^ giving them up to strong delusions' and 
vain imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish hearts, so 
far ^as to change ' the glory of the incorruptible God,' into 
the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinful man) are 
we now to deal. 

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

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

172 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

174 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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


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

Neither is this the only place insisted on by Mr. B. where 
the inquiries ascribed unto God, and the trial that he makes, 
is not in reference to things to come, but punctually to what 
is present. Deut. viii. 2.xiii.3. ' The Lord your God proveth 
you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all 
your heart, and with all your soul.' 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. 'God 
left him to try him, that he might know what was in his 
heart;' and Phil. iv. 6. ' In every thing let your request be 
made known to God.' Let Mr. Biddle tell us now plainly, 
whether he suppose all these things to be spoken properly 
of God, and that indeed God knows not our hearts, the 
frame of them, nor what in them we desire and aim at, with- 
out some eminent trial and inquiry, or until we ourselves do 

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

176 OF god's prescience 

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

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


by this gentleman, that unless * we make known our requests 
to God,' he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask no- 
thing but what is in our thoughts ; and in the last query he 
instructs us, that God knows our thoughts, and doubtless 
knows Mr. Biddle's to be but folly. Farther yet, if God must 
be concluded ignorant of our desires, because we are bid to 
make our requests known to him, he may be as well con- 
cluded 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 pro- 
duced by Mr. Biddle, towards the business in hand. If they 
are properly spoken of God, in the same sense as they are 
of man, they conclude him not to know things present, the 
frame of the heart of any man in the world towards himself 
and his fear, nay the outward, open, notorious actions of 
men. So it is in that place of Gen. xviii. 21. insisted on by 
' Crellius, one of Mr. B.'s great masters. ' I will go down 
and see (or know) whether they have done altogether ac- 
cording to the cry that is come up unto me.' Yea, the places 
which in their letter and outward appearance seem to as- 
cribe that ignorance of things present unto God, are far more 
express and numerous, than those that in the least look for- 
ward to what is yet for to come, or was so, at their delivery. 
This progress then have we made under our catechist, if we 
may believe him, as he insinuates his notions concerning 
God ; God sits in heaven (glistening on a throne), whereunto 
he is limited ; yea, to a certain place therein, so as not to be 
elsewhere; being grieved, troubled, and perplexed, at the 
affairs done below which he doth not know, making inquiry 
afterwhathe doth not know, and many things (things future), 
he knoweth not at all. 

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

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

VOL. Vlll. N 

178 OF god's prescience 

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

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


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

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

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

"Hpuv Ja wpocTEEtwe 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kai f oXo<f u{o/(*£Vof. 

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

N 2 

180 OF god's prescience 

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

4. The proposure of a question to succeed in the room 
of that removed, with a scriptural resolution thereof, in or- 
der to a discovery of what God himself hath revealed, con- 
cerning 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, pre- 
sent, or to come, all the ways and actions of men, even be- 
fore their accomplishment, or is any thing hid from him? 
What says the Scripture properly and directly hereunto ? 

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

Of the undeniable evidence and conviction of God's pre- 
science or foreknowledge of future contingents, from his 
predictions of their coming to pass, with other demonstra- 
tions of the truth under consideration, attended with their 
several testimonies from Scrripture, the close of this dis- 
course will give a farther account. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

182 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

184 OF god's prescience 

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

1. Such as are only so. 

2. Such as are also free. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

186 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

188 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

190 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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

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

* Nullum Nuraen habes, si sit prudentia : sed te 

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


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 pre- 

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

For the first : 

1. There need no great search or inquiry after witnesses 
to confirm the truth of it, the Scripture is full of such pre- 
dictions from one end to the other. Some few instances 
shall suffice : Gen. xviii. 18, 19. ' Seeing that Abraham shall 
surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the na- 
tions of the earth shall be blessed in him ; for I know him, 
that he will command his children and his household after 
him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice 
and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham, 
that which he hath spoken of him.' Scarce a word but is 
expressive of some future contingent thing, if the free ac- 
tions of men be so, before they are wrought. That Abra- 
ham 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 pre- 

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

192 OF god's prescience 

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

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

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

1 Kings xxii. 28. The prophet Micaiah in the name of 
the Lord, having foretold a thing that was contingent, and 
which was accompli bhed 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 cer- 
tainty of the issue foretold. ' And Micaiah said. If thou re- 
turn 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 prophe- 
cies of Cyrus in Isaiah ; of the issue of the Babylonish war 
and kingdom, in Jeremiah ; of the several great alterations 
and changes in the empires of the world, in Daniel ; of the 
kingdom of Christ in them all, are too long to be insisted 
on. The reader may also consult Matt. xxiv. 5. Mark 
xiii. 6. xiv. 30. Acts xx. 29. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, &c. 1 Tim. iv. 1. 
2 Tim. iii. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 1. and the Revelation almost 
throughout. Our first proposition then is undeniably evi- 
dent, that God by himself, and by his prophets, hath fore- 
told things future, even the free actions of men. 

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

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


194 OF god's prescience 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

o 2 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

That future contingents have not in themselves a deter- 
minate truth, and therefore cannot be determinately known, 
is the great plea of those, who oppose God's certain fore- 
knowledge of them; and therefore, say they, doth the 'phi- 
losopher affirm, that propositions concerning them, are nei- 
ther true nor false. But, 

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

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

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

198 OF god's prescience. 

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

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

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

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

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

"\"ui Rod. de Arriaga. clis|)ut. Lot;. 14. sect. 5. subscct. 3. p. 205. Suarez. in 
Opus. I. 1. de Pr;rscientia Dei cap. 2. Vasquez. 1. Part. disp. 66. cap. 2. Pet. IJur- 
tado de JMcud. disp, 9. de Aniiua. sect. 6. 


ture, and properties, of God. Of his goodness, wisdom, 
power, truth, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, independ- 
ency, sovereignty, infiniteness, men had before been inform- 
ed, by books, tracts, and catechisms, composed according 
to the fancies and interests of men, the Scripture being ut- 
terly justled out of the way. Alas! of these things the Scrip- 
tures speaks not at all; but the description wherein that 
abounds of God, and which is necessary that men should 
know (whatever become of those other inconsiderable 
things, wherewith other poor catechisms are stuffed) is, that 
he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to passions, &c. 'Thou 
that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacriledge?' 


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


*Q. Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or cre- 
ated at a certain time ? And by whom ? 

*A. Gen.i. 1. 

' Q. How long was God a making them ? 

*A. Exod. XX. 11. 

*Q. How did God create man? 

'A. Gen. ii. 7. 

' Q. How did he create woman ? 

'A. Gen. ii. 21,22. 

* Q. Why was she called woman ? 
'A. Gen. ii. 23. 

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

' A. Gen. ii. 24. 

* Q. Where did God put man, after he was created ? 
*A. Gen. ii. 8. 

'Q. What commandment gave he to the man^ when he 
put him into the garden ? 
*A. Gen. ii. 16, 17. 

' Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit? 
'A. 1 Tim. ii. 14. 

* Q. By whom was the woman deceived ? 
'A. 2 Cor. xi. 3. 


* Q. How was the w^oman induced to eat of the forbid- 
den fruit? And how the man? 

'A. Gen. iii. 6. 

* Q. What effect followed upon their eating ? 

* A. Gen. iii. 7. 

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

'A. Gen. iii. 16—19.' 


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

a Quibus cniiii oculis iiilueri polueiit vcstcr Plato fabricani illaiu Janti opuiis, qua 
construi a Deo ct a;dificari mimduni facit? Qnx ruolitio? Quai fenanieiila ? Qui vec- 


His first question then is, 

*Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created 
at a certain time ? And by whom ?' 

To which he answers with Gen. i. 1. *In the beginning 
God created the heaven and the earth.' 

Right. Only in the exposition of this verse, as it dis- 
covers the principal efficient cause of the creation of all 
things, or the author of this great work, Mr. B. afterward ex- 
pounds 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 con- 
currence in the indivisible Deity mito this great work; 
though by way of eminency, this work be attributed to the 
Father, as that of redemption is to the Son, and that of re- 
generation to the Holy Ghost ; from neither of which not- 
withstandinp- is the Father excluded. 


Perhaps'' the using of the name of God in the plural 
number, where mention is made of the creation, in conjunc- 
tion with a verb singular. Gen. i. 1. and the express calling 
of God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. xii. 1. Psal. cxlix. 
2. Job xxxv. 10. wants not a significancy to this thing. 
And, indeed, he that shall consider the miserable evasions 
that the*= adversaries have invented to escape the argument 
thence commonly insisted on, must needs be confirmed in the 
persuasion of the force of it. Mr. Biddle may happily close 
with Plato in this business ; who in his 'Timseus' brings in his 
SrjjutoupYoc, speaking to his Genii about the making of man; 
tellino- them that they were mortal, but incouraging them to 
obey him, in the making of other creatures upon the promise 
of immortality. ' Turn*^ you,' saith he, ' according to the law 
of nature to the making of living creatures, and imitate my 

tes? QuiE machinffi ? Qui ministri tanti munerisfuerunt? Quemadinodnm autera obe- 
diendo parere voluntati arcliitecti aer, ignis, aqua, terra, potuerunt? Yelleius apud 
Ciceron. de Nat.Deor. lib. 1. statim a principio. 

b Poterat et illud de angelis intelligi, faciamus iioraitiem &c. sed quia sequitur, ad 
imaginem nostraiii, nefas est credere, ad imagines angelorum honiineni esse factum, 
aut eandem esse imaginem angcloruin et Dei. Et ideo recte intelligitur pluralitas 
Trinitatis. Qua3 lamen Trinitas, quia unus estDeus, etiam cum dixisset, faciamus, 
et fecit, inquit, Deus liominem ad imaginem Dei : iion vero dixit, fecerunt Dii ad 
imaginem Deorum. August, de Civit. Dei. lib. 1 6. cap. 6. 

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

<1 TeEWEs-^E xara <pv-i\i i/xEij E7ri tJ]V rHvl^tiaiv Sfj^uioi/pyiav, (xtfAOvi^im ti;v e/xnv Suva,«iv 
«ipi Tw vfjioiy yivsffiv. Plato, in Tiniffio. 


power, which I used in your generation or birth.' A speech 
fit enough for Mr. B.'s god, 'who is shut up in heaven,' and 
not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what 
a sad success this Demiurgus had, by his want of prescience, 
or foresight of what his demons would do (wherein also 
Mr. Biddle likens God unto him) is farther declared : for 
they imprudently causing a conflux of too much matter and 
humour, no small tumult followed thereon in heaven, as at 
large you may see in the same author. However, it is said 
expressly the Son or Word created all things, John i. 3. 'and 
by him are all things,' 1 Cor. viii. 6. Rev. iv. 11. Of the 
Holy Ghost the same is affirmed. Gen. i. 2. Job xxvi. 13. 
Psal. xxxiii. 6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded 
from the place of principal efficient cause in this work, to a 
condition of instrumentality only which is urged (especially 
in reference to the Spirit), unless we shall suppose them to 
have been created before any creation, and to have been in- 
strumental of their own production. But of these things in 
their proper place. 

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

The rule formerly I prescribed to myself of dealing with 
Mr. B. causes me to pass this question also, without farther 
inquiry; although, having already considered what his no- 
tions are concerning the nature and properties of God, I 
can scarce avoid conjecturing, that by this crude proposal 
of the time wherein the work of God's creation was finished, 
there is an intendment to insinuate such a gross conception 
of the working of God, as will by no means be suited to his 
omnipotent production of all things. But speaking of things 
no farther than enforced, I shall not insist on this query. 

His third is, ' How did God create man ?' And the answer 
is, Gen. ii. 7. To which he adds a fourth, * How did he create 
woman?' which he resolves from Gen. ii. 21, 22. 

Mr. Biddle, undertaking to give all the grounds of re- 
ligion in his catechisms, teacheth as well by his silence as 
his expressions. What he mentions not in the known doc- 
trine he opposeth, he may well be interpreted to reject. As 
to the mutter whereof man and woman were made, Mr. Bid- 


die's answers do express it ; but as to the condition and 
state wherein they were made, of that he is silent ; though 
he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in deliver- 
ing the one than the other. Neither can his silence in this 
thing be imputed to oversight or forgetfulness, considering 
how subservient it is to his intendment in his two last ques- 
tions, for the subverting of the doctrine of original sin, and 
the denial of all those effects and consequences of the first 
breach of covenant whereof he speaks. He can upon another 
account take notice, that man was made in the image of 
God. But whereas hitherto Christians have supposed that 
that denoted some spiritual perfection bestowed on man, 
wherein he resembles God, Mr. B. hath discovered that it is 
only an expression of some imperfection of God, wherein he 
resembles man ; which yet he will as hardly persuade us 
of, as that a man hath seven eyes, or two wings, which are 
ascribed unto God also. That man was created in a resem- 
blance and likeness unto God, in that immortal substance 
breathed into his nostrils. Gen. ii. 7. in the excellent ra- 
tional faculties thereof; the dominion he was intrusted 
withal over a great part of God's creation, but especially in 
the integrity and uprightness of his person; Eccles. vii. 
29. wherein he stood before God, in reference to the obie- 
dience required at his hands ; which condition, by the im- 
planting of new qualities in our soul, we are through Christ 
in some measure renewed unto; Col. iii. 10. 12. Eph. iv. 24. 
the Scripture is clear, evident, and full in the discovery of; 
but hereof Mr. B. conceives not himself bound to take 
notice. But what is farther needful to be spoken as to the 
state of man before the fall, will fall under the consideration 
of the last question of this chapter. 

Mr. B.'s process in the following questions, is to ex- 
press the story of man's outward condition, unto the eighth, 
where he inquires after the commandment given of God to 
man, when he put him into the garden, in these words : 

Q. ' What commandment gave he to the man, when he 
put him into the garden?' This he resolves from Gen. ii. 16, 
17. That God gave our first parents the command ex- 
pressed is undeniable. That the matter chiefly expressed in 
that command, was all, or the principal part of what he 
required of them, Mr. B. doth not go about to prove. 1 


shall only desire to know of him, whether God did not in 
that estate require of them, that they should love him, fear 
him, believe him, acknowledge their dependance on him, in 
universal obedience to his will ? And whether a suitableness 
unto all this duty, were not wrought within them by God? 
If he shall say no, and that God required no more of them, 
but only not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and 
evil ; I desire to know whether they might have hated God, 
abhorred him, believed Satan, and yet been free from the 
threatening here mentioned, if they had only forbore the 
outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted, 1 hope 
I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred? 
Nor to shew how impossible this is, *God continuing God, 
and man a rational creature ? If he shall say that certainly 
God did require that they should own him for God ; that is, 
believe him, love hjm, fear him, and worship him, according 
to all thathe should reveal to them, and require of them, I desire 
to know whether this particular command could be any other 
than sacramental and symbolical, as to the matter of it, 
being a thing of so small importance in its own nature, in 
comparison of those moral acknowledgments of God before- 
mentioned. And to that question Ishall not need to add more. 

Although it may justly be supposed, that Mr. B. is not 
•without some thoughts of deviation from the truth, in the 
folio wino- 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 pro- 
posed : 

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

To this he answers from Gen. iii. IG — 19. 

What the sin of our first parents was, may easily be dis- 
covered from what was said before concerning the command- 
ment given to them. If universal obedience was required 

« Vid. Uialiib. de .luslit. Vindicaf. 


of them unto God, according to the tenor of the law of their 
creation, their sin was an universal rebellion against, and 
apostacy from him ; which though it expressed itself in the 
peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet it is 
far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whose whole 
nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of 
this sin commonly assigned, Mr. B. annumeratesand rejects 
six; sundry whereof are coincident, and all but one, re- 
ducible to that general head of loss of the image of God. 
But for the exclusion of them all at once from being any 
effects of the first sin, Mr. Biddle thus argues : If there 
were no effects nor consequences of the first sin but what 
are expressly mentioned, Gen. iii. 16, 17, &.c. then those 
now mentioned, are no effects of it ; but there are no effects 
or consequences of that first sin, but what are mentioned in 
that place ; therefore those recounted in his query, and com- 
monly esteemed such, are to be cashiered from any such place 
in the thoughts of men. 

Ans. The words insisted on by Mr. Biddle being ex- 
pressive of the curse of God for sin on man, and the whole 
creation here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him to 
evince, that none of the things he rejects, are noteminently 
enwrapped in them. Would God have denounced, and ac- 
tually inflicted such a curse on the whole creation, which 
he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man him- 
self, and actually have inflicted it with so much dread and 
severity as he hath done, if the transgression upon the ac- 
count whereof he did it, had not been as universal a rebel- 
lion against him as could be fallen into ? Man fell in his 
whole dependance from God,and"is cursed universally in all 
his concernments, spiritual and temporal. 

But is this indeed the only place of Scripture where the 
effects of our apostacy from God, in the sin of our first 
parents, are described ? Mr. Biddle may as well tell us, that 
Gen. iii. 15. is the only place where mention is made of 
Jesus Christ; for there he is mentioned. But a little to 
clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath 
been spoken may suffice to make naked Mr. B.'s sophistry. 
1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every 
thing of evil, that either within or without, in respect of a 
present or future condition ; in reference to God, and the 


fruition of him whereto man was created, or the enjoyment 
of any goodness from God which is come upon mankind, 
by the just ordination and appointment of God, whereunto 
man was not obnoxious in his primitive state and condition. 
I am not at present at all engaged to speak c^e modo, of what 
is privative, what positive, in original sin, of the way of the 
traduction, or propagation of it, of the imputation of the 
guilt of the first sin, and adhesion of the pollution of our 
nature, defiled thereby, or any other questions thatare coin- 
cident with these, in the usual inquest made into, and after 
the sin of Adam, and the fruits of it, but only as to the 
things themselves, which are here wholly denied. Now, 

2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he 
is obnoxious and liable unto that is hurtful and destructive 
to him and all men in common, in reference to the end 
whereto they were created, or any title wherewith they were 
at first intrusted, is all wholly the effect of the first sin, 
and is in solidnm to be ascribed thereunto, is easily demon- 
strated. For, 

1. That which is common to all things in any kind, and 
is proper to them only of that kind, must needs have some 
common cause equally respecting the whole kind : but now 
of the evils that are common to all mankind, and peculiar 
or proper to them, and every one of them, there can be no 
cause, but that which equally concerns them all, which by 
the testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam; Rom. 
V, 15. 18. 

2. The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their 
natural condition (which what they are, shall be afterward 
considered), were either incumbent on them at their first cre- 
ation, before the sin and fall of our first parents, or they 
are come upon them since, through some interposing cause 
or occasion. That they were not in them, on them, that they 
were not liable, nor obnoxious to those evils, which are now 
incumbent on them, in their first creation, as they came 
forth from the hand of God (besides what was said before, 
of the state and condition wherein man was created, even 
upright in the sight of God, in his favour and acceptation, 
no way obnoxious to his anger and wratli), is evident by the 
light of this one consideration ; viz. That there was nothing 
in man nor })elonging to him, no respect, no regard, or re- 


lation, but what was purely, and immediately of the Holy 
God's creation and institution. Now it is contrary to all 
that he hath revealed or made known to us of himself, that 
he should be the immediate author of so much evil, as is 
now by his own testimony in man by nature, and without 
any occasion, of so much vanity and misery as he is subject 
unto : and besides, directly thwarting the testimony which 
he gave of all the works of his hands, that they were ex- 
ceedino- gfood; it beina: evident, that man in the condition 
whereof we speak, is exceeding evil. 

3. If all the evil mentioned hath since befallen mankind, 
then it hath done so by some chance and accident, whereof 
God was not aware, or by his righteous judgment and ap- 
pointment, in reference to some procuring, and justly de- 
serving cause of such a punishment. To affirm the first, is 
upon the matter to deny him to be God. And I doubt not, 
but that men, at as easy and cheap a rate of sin, may deny 
that there is a God, as confessing his divine essence, to turn 
it into an idol 5 and by making thick clouds, as Job speaks, 
to interpose between him and the affairs of the world, to ex- 
clude his energetical providence in the disposal of all the 
works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask, as be- 
fore, what other common cause, wherein all and every one of 
mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils 
mentioned, as the procurement of the %rath and vengeance 
of God, from whence they are, but only the fall of Adam, 
the sin of our first parents ; especially considering, that the 
Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain, and 
source of the evils insisted on ; Rom. v. 

4. These things then being premised, it will quickly ap- 
pear, that every one of the particulars rejected by Mr. B. 
from being fruits or effects of the first sin, are indeed the 
proper issues of it : and though Mr. B. cut the roll of the 
abominations and corruptions of the nature of man by sin, 
and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it again, and 
add many more words of the like importance. 

1. The first effect or fruit of the first sin, rejected by Mr. 
B. is, * its rendering men guilty of hell fire ;' but the Scripture 
seems to be of another mind, Rom. v. 12. ' Wherefore, as by 
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and 

( Rom. i. 18. 


SO deatli passed on all men, for that all have sinned.' That 
all men sinned in Adam, that they contracted the guilt of 
the same death with him, that death entered by sin, the 
Holy Ghost is express in. The death here mentioned is 
that which God threatened to Adam if he did transgress. 
Gen. ii. which, that it was not death temporal only, yea not 
at all, Mr. B. contends, by denying mortality to be a fruit 
of this sin; as also excluding in this very query all room for 
death spiritual, which consists in the defacing of the image 
of God in us, which he with this rejects. And what death 
remains, but that which hath hell following after it, we shall 
afterward consider. 

Besides, that deatli which Christ died to deliver us from, 
was that which we were obnoxious to, upon the account of 
the first sin : for he came to 'save that which was lost; and 
tasted death to deliver us from death ; dying to deliver them, 
who for fear of death were in bondage all their lives ;' Heb. 
ii. 13. But that this was such a death, as hath hell-fire at- 
tending it, he manifests by affirming, that he 'delivers us from 
the wrath to come.' By hell-fire we understand nothing but 
the wrath of God for sin, into whose hand it is a fearful 
thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the 
guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, tliat hath 
both curse and wrath attending it, and that it is the proper 
wages of sin, the testimony of God is evident.^ What other 
death men are obnoxious to, on the account of the first sin, 
that hath not these concomitants, Mr. B, hath not as yet re- 
vealed. By nature also we are *■' children of wrath ;' and on 
what foot of account our obnoxiousness now by nature unto 
wrath is to be stated, is sufficiently evident by the light of 
the preceding considerations. 

'The defacing of the image of God in us,' by this sin, as 
it is usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man 
was created in the image of God, and wherein that image of 
God doth consist, was before declared. That we are now 
born with that character upon us, as it was at first enstamped 
upon us, must be affirmed, or some common cause of the 
defect that is in us, wherein all and every one of the poste- 
rity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of the first 
sin, is to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done hath 

K Rom. vi. 23. »> Epli. ii. 3. 


been already declared. He that shall undertake to make 
good the former, must engage in a more difficult work, than 
Mr. B. in the midst of his other employments, is willing to 
undertake. To insist on all particulars relating to the image 
of God in man, how far it is defaced, whether any thing pro- 
perly and directly thereunto belonging, be yet left remaining 
in us ; to declare how far our souls, in respect of their im- 
mortal substance, faculties, and consciences ; our persons, in 
respect of that dominion over the creatures, which yet by 
God's gracious and merciful providence we retain, may be 
said to bear the image of God, is a work of another nature 
than what I am now engaged in. For the asserting of what 
is here denied by Mr. B. concerning the defacing of the 
image of God in us by sin, no more is required, but only the 
tender of some demonstrations to the main of our intend- 
ment in the assertion, touching the loss by the first sin, and 
our present want in the state of nature, of that righteousness 
and holiness, wherein man at his first creation stood before 
God (in reference unto the end whereunto he was created), 
in uprightness, and ability of walking unto all well-pleasing. 
And as this will be fully manifested in the consideration of 
the ensuing particulars instanced in by Mr. B. so it is suf- 
ficiently clear and evident, from the renovation of thatimao-e 
which we have by Jesus Christ, and that expressed both in 
general, and in all the particulars wherein we affirm that 
image to be defaced. * The new man, which we put on in 
Jesus Christ, which is renewed in knowledge, after the imao-e 
of him that created him ;' Col. iii. 10. it is that which we want, 
by sins defacing (suo more) of that image of God in us, which 
we had in knowledge ; so Eph. iv. 23, 24. that new man is 
said to consist in the 'renewing of our mind, whereby after 
God we are created in righteousness and holiness.' So that 
whereas we were created in the image of God, in righteous- 
ness and holiness, and are to be renewed again by Christ, 
unto the same condition of his image in righteousness and 
holiness, we doubt not to affirm, that by the first sin (the 
only interposition of general concernment to all the sons of 
men), the image of God in us was exceedingly defaced. In 
sum, that which made us sinners, brought sin and death 
upon us ; that which made us liable to condemnation, that 
defaced the image of God in us ; that all this was done by 



the first sin, the apostle plainly asserts ; Rom. v. 12. 15. 
17, 18, &:c. 

To the next particular effect of sin, by Mr. B. rejected, 
'the darkening of our understandings/ I shall only inquire 
of him, whether God made us at first with our understand- 
ings dark, and ignorant, as to those things which are of ab- 
solute necessity that we should be acquainted withal, for the 
attainment of the end whereunto he made us? For once, I 
will suppose, he will not affirm it; and shall therefore pro- 
ceed one step farther, and ask him, whether there be not such 
a darkness now upon us by nature, opposed unto that light, 
that spiritual and saving knowledge, which is of absolute 
necessity for every one to have, and be furnished withal, that 
will again attain that glory of God, which we are born short 
of. Now because this is that which will most probably be 
denied, I shall by the way only desire him, 

1. To cast aside all the places of Scripture, where it is 
positively and punctually asserted that we are so dark and 
blind, and darkness itself in the things of God; and then, 

2. All those where it is no less punctually and positively 
asserted, that Christ gives us light, knowledge, understand- 
ing, which of ourselves we have not. And if he be not able 
to do so, then, 

^. To tell me, whether the darkness mentioned in the 
former places and innumerable others, and as to the manner 
and cause of its removal and taking away in the latter, be 
part of that death which passed on all men, by the offence 
of one, or by what other chance it is come upon us? 

Of the * enslaving of our wills, and the depriving us of 
power to do good,' there is the same reason, as of that next 
before. It is not my purpose to handle the common-place 
of the corruption of" nature by sin ; nor can I say that it is 
well for Mr. Biddle, that he finds none of those efiects of 
sin in himself ; nothing of darkness, bondage, or disability ; 
or if he do, that he knows where to charge it, and not on him- 
self and the depravedness of his own nature ; and that be- 
cause I know none who are more desperately sick, than 
those who by a fever of pride, have lost the sense of their 
own miserable condition. Only to stop him in his haste 
from rejecting the evils mentioned, from being effects or 
consequences of the first sins, I desire him to peruse a little 


the ensuing Scriptures, and take them as they come to 
mind ; Eph. ii. 1—3. 5. John v. 25. Matt. viii. 22. Eph. v. 8. 
Luke iv. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26. John viii. 34. Rom. vi. 16. 
Gen. vi. 5. Rom. vii. 5. John iii. 6. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Rom. iii. 12. 
Acts viii. 31. John v. 41. Rom. viii. 7. Jer. xiii. 23, &c. 

The last thing denied is, its 'causing mortality.' God 
threatening man with death if he sinned, Gen. ii. 17. seems 
to instruct us, that if he had not sinned, he should not have 
died. And upon his sin, affirming that on that account he 
should be dissolved and return to his dust, Gen. iii. 18, 19. 
no less evidently convinces us, that his sin caused mortality 
actually and in the event. The apostle also affirming, that 
' death entered by sin, and passed upon all, inasmuch as all 
have sinned,' seems to be of our mind. Neither can any 
other sufficient cause be assigned, on the account whereof 
innocent man should have been actually mortal or eventually 
have died. Mr. Biddle, it seems, is of another persuasion; 
and, for the confirmation of his judgment, gives you the 
words of the curse of God to man upon his sinning ; 'dust 
thou art, and imto dust thou shalt return.' The strength of 
his reason therein lying in this, that if God denounced the 
sentence of mortality on man after sinning, and for his sin, 
then mortality was not an efl^ect of sin, but man was mortal 
before in the state of innocency. Who doubts but that at this 
rate he maybe able to prove what he pleases? 

A brief declaration of our sense in ascribing immortality 
to the first man in the state of innocency, that none be mis- 
taken in the expressions used, may put a close to our con- 
siderations of this chapter. In respect of his own essence and 
'being, as also of all outward and extrinsical causes, God alone 
is eminently and perfectly immortal ; he only in that sense 
hath life and immortality. Angels and souls of men, imma- 
terial substances, are immortal as to their intrinsical essence, 
free from principles of corruption and mortality ; but yet are 

' Illud corpus ante peccatum, et mortale secundum aliani, et immortale secun- 
dum aliam caasam dici poterat, id est, raortale, quia poterat mori, immortale, quia 
poterat noii mori. Aliud est enira non posse mori.sicut quasdara naturas immortales 
creavit Deus, aliud est autem posse non mori ; secundum quemmodum primus crea- 
tus est liomo iramortalis, quod ei praestabatur de ligno vitje, non de constitutione na- 
turfe : a quo ligno separatus est, cum peccasset, ut posset mori, qui nisi peccasset 
posset non mori. Mortalis ergo erat conditione coporis animalis, immortalis autem 
beneficio conditoris. Si enim corpus animale, utique et mortale, quia et mori pote- 
rat, quamvis et immortale dico, quia et mori non poterat. August. Tom. Tertio. de 
Genefi ad literam. lib. 6. cap. 24. 

p 2 


obnoxious to it, in respect of that outward cause (or the 
power of God), which can at any time reduce them into no- 
thing. 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 per- 
son, and the principles thereunto concurring. So that though 
from his own nature, he had a possibility of dying, and in 
that sense was mortal, yet ""God's institution, assigning him 
life in the way of obedience, he had a possibility of not 
dying, and was in that sense immortal, as hath been de- 
clared. If any desire farther satisfaction herein, let him 
consult Johannes Junius's answer to Socinus's prelections, 
in the first chapter whereof he pretends to answer in proof 
the assertion in title, * Primus homo ante lapsum natura 
mortalis fuit :' wherein he partly mistakes the thing in ques- 
tion, which respects not the constitution of man's nature, 
but the event of the condition wherein he was created.' And 
himself in another place states it™ better. 

The sum of the whole may be reduced to what follows. 
Simply immortal and absolutely is God only: ' He only hath 
immortality;' 1 Tim. vi. 16. Immortal in respect of its 
whole substance or essence, is that which is separated from 
all matter, which is the principle of corruption, as angels; or 
is not educed from the power of it, whither of its own accord 
it should a^ain resolve, as the souls of men. The bodies 
also of the saints in heaven, yea, and of the wicked in hell, 
shall be immortal, though in their own nature's corruptible, 
being changed and preserved by the power of God. Adam 
was mortal, as to the constitution of his body, which was 
apt to die ; immortal in respect of his soul, in its own sub- 
stance ; immortal in their union by God's appointment, and 
from his preservation, upon his continuance in obedience. 
By the composition of his body, before his fall, he had a 
fosse mori; by the appointment of God, a posse non mori; by 
his fall, a 7i07i posse iion mori, 

^ Quincunque elicit Adam priinum honrmem mortaleii) factum, ita ut sive pecca- 
ret, sive non peccaret, nioreielur in corpore, hoc est de corpore exiret non peccali 
nierito scd necessitate iiaturtE, Anathema sit. Concil. Rlilevitan. cap. 1. 

' Qurestio est de immortalitate hominis liiijus concreti ex animaet corpore conflali. 
Quando locjuor de morte, de dissolulione hiijus concreti loqiior. Socin. contra Puc- 
ciuni, p. 2!i!i5. 

™ Vid. Rivet. Exercitat. in Gen. cap. 1. Exerc. 9. 


la this estate, on his disobedience, he was threatened 
with death ; and therefore was obedience the tenure whereby 
he held his grant of immortality, which on his neglect, he 
was penally to be deprived of. In that estate he had, (1 .) The 
immortality mentioned, or a power of not dying from the 
appointment of God. (2.) An uprightness and integrity of 
his person before God, with an ability to walk with him in 
all the obedience he required, being made in the image of 
God and upright. (3.) A right, upon his abode in that con- 
dition, to an eternally blessed life, which he should (4.) ac- 
tually have enjoyed. For he had a pledge of it in the ' tree 
of life.' He lost it for himself and us, which if he never had 
it, he could not do. The death wherewith he was threatened, 
stood in opposition to all these ; it being most ridiculous 
to suppose, that any thing penal in the Scripture comes un- 
der the name of death, that was not here threatened to Adam. 
Death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortality 
spoken of; of the soul, spiritually in sin, by the loss of his 
righteousness and integrity; of both in their obnoxiousness 
to death eternal, actually to be undergone, without deliver- 
ance 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 considera- 
tion, and see what answer the Scripture will positively give 
in to our inquiries. 

First, then. 

1. Q. In what state and condition was man at first 
created ? 

A. 'God created man in his own image, in the image of 
God created he him, male and female created he them ;' Gen. 
i. 27. 

' And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold 
it was very good;* ver. 31. 

* In the image of God made he man ;' Gen. ix. 6. 

' Lo ! this only have I found, that God hath made man 
upright ;' Eccles. vii. 29. 

' Put on the new man which after God is created in 
righteousness and holiness;' Ephes. iv. 24. 


' Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, 
after the image of him that created him j' Col. iii. 10. 

Q. 2. Should our first parents have died, had they not 
sinned, or were they obnoxious to death in the state of in- 
nocency ? 

A. ' And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of 
every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : 

' But of the tree of tlie knowledge of good and evil, thou 
shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die ;' Gen. ii. IG, 17. 

* By one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have 
sinned ;' Horn. v. 12. 

' For the wages of sin is death;' Rom. vi. 23. 

Q. 3. Are we now since the fall, born wilh the image 
of God so instamped on us, as at our first creation in Adam ? 

A. ' All have sinned and come short of the glory of God;' 
Rom. iii. 23. 

* Lo ! this only have I found, that God hath made man 
upright, but he hath found out many inventions ;' Eccles. 

* So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God ;' 
Rom. viii. 8. 

' And you who were dead in trespasses and sins ;' Eph. 
ii. 1. 

* For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobe- 
dient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in 
malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another;' Titus 
iii. 3. 

' The old man is corrupt according to deceitful lusts ;' 
Eph. iv. 22. 

Q. 4. Are we now born approved of God and accepted 
with him, as when we were first created, or what is our 
condition now by nature, what say the Scriptures here- 

• A. * We were by nature the children of wrath as well as 
others;' Eph. ii. 3. 

* Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom 
of God ;' John iii. 3. 

* lie that believeth not the Son, the wrath of God abi- 
deth on him ;' ver. 36. 


'That which is born of the flesh is flesh ;' John iv. 6. 

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

A. * The natural man receiveth not the things that are of 
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, nei- 
ther can he know them, because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned ;' 1 Cor. ii. 14. 

' The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness com- 
prehended it not ;' John i. 5. 

' — To preach deliverance to the captives, and recover- 
ing of sight to the blind.' Luke iv. 18. 

' Having their understandings darkened, being alienated 
from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, 
because of the blindness of their heart ;' Eph. iv. 18. 

' Ye were sometixnes darkness, but now are ye light in 
the Lord;' Eph. v. 8. 

* For God who commanded the light to shine out of 
darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the 
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ;' 
2 Cor. iv. 6. 

' And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath 
given us an understanding, that we may know him that is 
true ;' 1 John v. 20. 

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

A. ' The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is 
not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;' Rom. 
viii. 7. 

'You were dead in trespasses and sins ;' Eph. ii. 1. 

* The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ;' 
Gen. viii. 21. 

' Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his 
spots ? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do 
evil ;' Jer. xiii. 23. 

* For without me ye can do nothing ;' John xv. 5. 
'Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything 

as of ourselves ; our sufficiency is of God;' 2 Cor. iii. 5. 

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

Q. 6. How came we into this miserable state and con- 
dition ? 


A. ' Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my 
mother conceive me ;' Psal. li. 5. 

' Who can brino- a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not 
one;' Job. xiv. 4. 

' That which is born of the flesh is flesh ;' Johniii. 6. 

' Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin ; so death passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned ;' Rom. v. 12. 

Q. 7. Is then the guilt of the first sin of our first parents 
reckoned unto us ? 

A. * But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if 
through the offence of one many be dead;' ver. 15. 

' And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift : for 
the judgment was by one to condemnation ;' ver. 16. 

• For by one man's offence death reigned ;' ver. 17. 

* Therefore by the offence of one, judgment came upon 
all men to condemnation ;' ver. 18. 

' By one man's disobedience many were made sinners ;' 
ver. 20. 

Thus, and much more fully, doth the Scripture set out, 
and declare the condition of man, both before and after the 
fall ; concerning which, although the most evident demon- 
stration of the latter, lies in the revelation made of the ex- 
ceeding efficacy of that power and grace, which God in 
Christ puts forth for our conversion and delivery from that 
state and condition before described, yet so much is spoken 
of this dark side of it, as will render vain the attempts of any, 
who shall endeavour to plead the cause of corrupted nature, 
or alleviate the guilt of the first sin. 

It may not be amiss in the winding up of the whole, to 
give the reader a brief account, of what slight thoughts this 
gentleman and his companions have concerning this whole 
matter, of the state and condition of the first man, his fall or 
sin, and the interest of all his posterity therein, which con- 
fessedly lie at the bottom of that whole dispensation of grace 
in Jesus Christ, which is revealed in the gospel. 

First, For Adam himself, they are so remote from assign- 
ing to him any eminency of knowledge, righteousness, or 
holiness, in the state wherein he was created ; that, 

1. For his knowledge, they say, ' he "was a mere great 

" Adarmis iiistar iiir<intis vel jnicri sc iiiuluni esse ignoravit. Siiialc. de vcr. Uei 
fil. cap. 7. !>. i'. 


baby, that knew not that he was naked.' So also, taking 
away the difference between the simple knowledge of naked- 
ness in innocency, and the knowledge joined with shame, 
that followed sin. '°0f his wife he knew no more but what 
occurred to his senses.' Though the expression which he 
used at first view and sight of her, do plainly argue another 
manner of apprehension ; Gen. ii. 23, 24. For? ' the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew not the virtue of 
it.' Which yet I know not how well it agrees with another 
place of the ''same author, where he concludes, that in the 
state of innocency, there was in Adam a real predominancy 
of the natural appetite, which conquered or prevailed to the 
eating of the fruit of that tree ; also that "^being mortal, he 
knew not himself to be so. The sum is, he was even a very 
beast, that knew neither himself, his duty, nor the will of 
God concerning him. 

2. For his righteousness and holiness, which, as was said 
before, because he was made upright, in the image of God, 
we ascribe unto him, ^Socinus contends in one whole chapter 
in his prelections, ' That he was neither just nor holy, nor 
ought to be so esteemed or called.' 

And ' Smalcius, in his confutation of Franzius's ' Theses 
de peccato Originali,' all along derides and laughs to scorn 
the apprehension or persuasion, that Adam was created in 
righteousness and holiness, or that ever he lost any thing of 
the image of God, or that ever he had any thing of the 

° De conjuge propria, nou nisi sensibus obvia cognovit. Soci. de stat. prim. 
Horn. cap. 4. p. 119. 

P Vim arboris scientiae boni ct mali perspectam non habuerit. Idem ibid. p. 197. 

'1 Socin. pr»lect. cap. 3. p. 8. 

"■ Cum ipse mortalis esset, se tamen mortalera esse nesciverit. Socln. de stat. 
prim. Horn. cap. 4. p. 118. 

s Utrum prinins homo ante peccatum justitiam aliquam originalem habuerit? Pleri- 
que omnes eum illam habuisse affirmant. Sed ego scire veiira — concludamus igitur, 
Adannira, etiara antequara mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, revera justum non 
fuisse. Cum nee irapeccabilis esset, nee ullum peccandi occasionem habuisset; vel 
certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constat, eum ulia ratione 
a peccando abstinuisse. Socin. Praelect. cap. 3. p. 8. vid. cap. 4. p. 11. 

' Fit mentio desiitutionis vel carenti® divina glori£e,ergo privationis iraaginis Dei 
et justitiae et sanctitatis, ejusque originalis; fit mentio carentiae divina gloria;, ergo 
in creatione cum hoiiiine fuit communicata : oineptias ! Sraal. Refut. Tlies. de pec- 
cat. Origi. Disput. 2. p. 42. Porro ait Franzius, Paulura mox e vestigio imaginera 
Dei,seu novum hominem ita explicare, quod fuerit conditus primus homo ad justi- 
tiam et sanctimoniam veram. Hie cum erroribus fallaciae, etiam et fortassis voiun- 

tariaj, sunt commixtse ; — Videat lector benevolus quanti sit facienda illatio. 

Franzii, dum ait : ergo imago Dei in homine ante lapsum consistebat in concreata 
justitiaet vera sanctinionia primorum parentum. Si htec non sunt scops dissolute, 
equidoin nescio quid eas tandem nomiuabinmr. Smalcius. ubi sup. pp. 50, ,51. 


image of God, beyond or besides that dominion over the 
creatures which God aave him. 

"Most of the residue of the herd, describing the estate 
and condition of man in his creation, do wholly omit any 
mention of any moral uprightness in him. 

And this is the account these gentlemen give us, con- 
cerning the condition and state wherein the first man was 
of God created. A heavy burden of the earth, it seems 
he was, that had neither righteousness, nor holiness, whereby 
he might be enabled to walk before God, in reference to 
that great end, wheieunto he was created ; nor any know- 
ledge of God, himself, or his duly. 

Secondly, For his sin, the great''' master of their family dis- 
putes, that it was a bare transgression of that precept, of 'not 
eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;' 
and that^ his nature was not vitialed or corrupted thereby. 
Wherein he is punctually followed by the Racovian cate- 
chism ; which also giveth this reason, why his nature was 
not depraved by it, namely, because it was but one act ; so 
light are their thoughts and expressions of that great trans- 

Thirdly, For his state and condition,^ they all, with open 
mouth, cry out, that he was mortal and obnoxious to death, 
which should in a natural way have come upon him, though 
he had not sinned. But of this before. 

Fourthly, Farther, that the* posterity of Adam were no 

u Volkel. de Vera. Rclig. lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 9. edit, cum lib. Crell. de Deo. 

K Sociii. Prailect. cap. 3. p. 8. 

y Etenim uiium illud peccatum per so, non modo universes posteros, sed ne 
ipsum quidem Adamuni, corrumpendi vim habere potuit. Dei vero consilio, in pec- 
cati illius paenam id factum fuisse, uec usquam legltur, et plane incredibile est, imo 
impiuni idcogitare. Socin. Praelect. cap. 4. sect. 4. p. 13. Lapsus Adami, cum unus 
actus fuerit, vim earn, quie depravare ipsam naturam Adami, raulto minus postero- 
rum ipsius posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero in pasnam irrogatura fuisse, nee 
Scriplura docet, nt superius exposuimus, ct Deum ilium, qui oimiis wquitatis fons 
est, incredibile jjrorsus est id facere voluisse : Catecli. Racov. de Cogiiiti. Christ, 
cap. 10. quest. 'J. 

"^ De Adarao eum immortalem crcatum non fuisse, res apertissiraa est. Nam ex 
teiTa creatus, cibis usus, liberis gignendis destinatus, et aniraalis ante lapsum fuit. 
Smalcius de Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. 7. de Prouiisso Vitze yEterna;. 

* Concludimus igitur, nullum, improprie etiam locjuendo, peccatum originale 
esse; id est, ex peccato illo primi parentis nullaui labem aut pravitatem universe 
humano gencri necossario ingenitam esse, sivc inilictam quodaunnodo fuisse. Socin. 
Prelect, cap. 4, sect. 4. pp. 13, 14. Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est, quare 
nee liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit. Nee enini e Scriplura id peccatum originis 

doceri potest. Catech. Uacov. de Cognit. Christ, cap. 10. de lib. Arbit. 

qusedani ex falsissimis principiis de ducuntur. In illo generc illud potissiinum est. 


way concerned, as to their spiritual prejudice, in that sin of 
his, as though they should either partake of the guilt of it, 
or have their nature vitiated, or corrupted thereby : but that 
the whole doctrine of original sin, is a figment of Austin, 
and the schoolmen that followed him, is the constant cla- 
mour of them all. And indeed this is the great foundation 
of all, or the greatest part of their religion. Hence are the 
necessity of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, the efl&cacy 
of grace, and the pov/er of the Spirit in coiiveision, decried. 
On this account is salvation granted by them, without 
Christ; a power of keei)ing all the Commandments asserted ; 
and justification upon our obedience ; of which, in the pro- 
cess of our discourse. 

Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions of 
Mr. B.'s masters, concerning this whole matter. '•Such was 
Adam, in their esteem ; such was his fall ; and such our con- 
cernment therein. He had no righteousness, no holiness 
(yea, cSocinus at length confesses, that he did not believe 
his soul' was immortal) ; we contracted no guilt in him, 
derive no pollution from him : whether these men are in any 
measure acquainted with the plague of their own hearts, the 
severity and spirituality of the law of God, with that ' re- 
demption which is in the blood of Jesus,' the Lord will one 
day manifest : but into their secret let not my soul de- 

Lest the weakest, or meanest reader should be startled 
with the mention of these things, not finding himself ready 
furnished with arguments from Scripture to disprove the 

quod ex peccato (ut vocant) origlnali depromitur : de quo ita disputant, ut crimen a 
primo pareiite conceptual, in sobolem derivatuui esse defendant, ejusque contagione, 
turn onines humanas vires corruptas et depravalaa, turn potissimum voluntatis liber- 

talem dcstructam esse asserant. qua omnia iios periiegainus, utpote et sanae 

mentis rationi, et divinaj Scripturaj contraria. Volkel. de Vera Religi. lib. 3. cap. 18. 
p. 547, 348. Prior pars Thesis Franzii falsa est. Nam nullum idividuum unquam 
peccato originisfuit infectum. Quia peccatum illud mera est fabula, quara tanquam 
foetum alienum fovent Lutherani, at alii. Smalcius Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 2. 
p. 46, 47. Vid. compend. Socinis. c. 3. Smalc. de vera Divin. Jes. Christ, c. 7. Putas 
Adami peccatum et inobedientiani ejus ])ostcrilati imputari. At hoc aequo tibi ne- 
gamus, quam Christ! obedientiam credentibus imputari. Jonas Schlichtingius, disput. 
pro Socino adversus Meisnerum p. 2.)1. vide etiam p. 100. Quibus ita expiicatis, 

facile COS qui onmeui Adarai posteritatem, in ipso Adanio parente suo pec- 

casse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. Idem, Comment, in Epist, ad 
Hebra-os ad caj). 7. p. 296. 

'' Ista sapicnlia rerum divinarum, et sanctimonia, quam Adanio ante lapsum 
tribuit Franzius, una emu aliis, idea qusedam est, in cerebro ipsorum nata. Smalcius 
ubi sup. 

•= Socin. Epist. 5. ad Johan. Vokel p. 489. 


boldness and folly of these men in their assertions, I shall 
add some few arguments, whereby the severals by them de- 
nied and opposed, are confirmed from Scriptures ; the places 
before-mentioned, being in them cast into that form and 
method, wherein they are readily subservient to the purpose 
in hand. 

First, That man was created in the image of God, in know- 
ledge, righteousness, and holiness, is evident on the ensuing 

1. He who was made very good and upright, in a moral 
consideration, had the original righteousness pleaded for : 
for moral goodness, integrity, and uprightness, is equivalent 
unto righteousness ; so are the words used in the descrip- 
tion of Job i. 1. And * righteous' and ' upright' are terms 
equivalent; Psal. xxxiii. 1. Now that man was made thus 
good and upright was manifested in the Scriptures cited 
in answer to the question before proposed, concerning the 
condition wherein our first parents were created. And in- 
deed this uprightness of man, this moral rectitude, was his 
formal aptitude and fitness, for and unto that obedience, 
which God required of him, and which was necessary for 
the end whereunto he was created. 

2. He who was created perfect in his kind, was created 
with the original righteousness pleaded for. This is evident 
from hence, because righteousness and holiness is a per- 
fection of a rational being, made for the service of God. 
This in angels is called the truth, or that original holiness 
and rectitude, which the devils ' abode not in ;' John viii. 44. 
Now, as before, man was created ' very good and upright,' 
therefore perfect, as to his state and condition : and what- 
ever is in him of imperfection, flows from the corruption and 
depravation of nature. 

3. He that was created in the image of God, was created 
in a state of righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. That 
Adam was created in the * image of God,' is plainly affirmed 
in Scripture, and is not denied. That by the image of God 
is especially intended the qualities mentioned, is manifest 
from that farther description of the image of God, which 
we have given us in the Scriptures before produced, in an- 
swer to our first question. And what is recorded of the first 
man in his primitive condition, will not suffer us to esteem 


him such a baby in knowledge as the Socinians would 
make him. His imposing of names on all creatures, his 
knowing of his wife on first view, &c. exempt him from that 
imputation. Yea the very ** heathens could conclude, that 
he was very wise indeed, who first gave names to things. 

Secondly, For the disproving of that mortality, which 
they ascribe to man in innocency, the ensuing arguments 
may suffice ; 

1. He that was created in the image of God, in righte- 
ousness and holiness, whilst he continued in that state and 
condition, was immortal. That man was so created, lies 
under the demonstration of the foregoing arguments and 
testimonies. The assertion thereupon, or the inference of 
immortality from the image of God, appears on this double 
consideration. (1.) In our renovation by Christ unto the 
image of God, we are renewed to a blessed immortality : 
and our likeness to God consisted no less in that, than in 
any other communicable property of his nature. (2.) Where- 
ever is naturally perfect righteousness, there is naturally 
perfect life, that is, immortality : this is included in the very 
tenor of the promise of the lavf. ' If a man keep my sta- 
tutes he shall live in them;' Levit. xviii. 5. 

2. That which the first man contracted, and drew upon 
himself by sin, was not natural to him before he sinned. 
But that man contracted and drew death upon himself, or 
' de himself liable and obnoxious unto it by sin, is proved 
b;y 1 the texts of Scripture that were produced above, in 
answer to our second question; as Gen. ii. 17. 19. Rom. 

^ 14. vi. 23. &c. 

6. That which is besides and contrary to nature, was 
r c natural to the first man : but death is besides, and con- 
trary to the nature, as the voice of nature abundantly testi- 
fieth ; therefore, to man in his primitive condition it was not 

Unto these may sundry other arguments be added, from 
the promise of the law, the end of man's obedience, his con- 
stitution and state, denying all proximate causes of death, 
&c. But these may suffice. 

J OlfxcLi /xh iyii Tov aXnSlo-TaTov Xoyov WEfi tcuraiv eTtsi ai ZoJxjaTEf, ^Ei'^a) tiik 
^vvayXt fiTcu -n aV4>pa)7r£iav, -rh 'SstfA.ivm ta Tt^ana lT/iy.Ar3. to~? ■TrfayfAttcrjV. Plato in 


Thirdly, That the sin of Adam is not to be confined to the 
mere eating of the fruit of 'the tree of knowledge of good 
and evil/ but liad its rise in infidelity, and comprised uni- 
versal apostacy from God, in disobedience to the law of his 
creation, and dependance on God, I have elsewhere*^ demon- 
strated, and shall not need here again to insist upon it. That 
it began in infidelity, is evident from the beginning of the 
temptation wherewith he was overcome. It was to doubt of 
the truth and veracity of God, to which the woman was at 
first solicited by Satan ; Gen. iii. 4. 'Hath God said so?' 
pressing that it should be otherwise, than they seemed to 
have cause to apprehend from what God said: and their ac- 
quiescence in that reply of Satan, without revolving to the 
truth and faithfulness of God was plain unbelief. Now as 
faith is the root of all righteousness and obedience, so is 
infidehty of all disobedience. Being overtaken, conquered, 
deceived into infidelity, man gave up himself to act contrary 
to God and his will, shook off his sovereignty, rose up against 
his law, and manifested the frame of his heart, in the pledge 
of his disobedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally 
forbidden him. 

Fourthly, That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sin 
is imputed to all his posterity is by them denied, but is easily 
evinced. For, 

1. By whom sin entered into the world, so that all sinned 
in him, and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sin is 
called the 'sin of the world/ in him all mankind sinned, and 
his sin is imputed to them. But that this was the condi- 
tion, and state of the first sin of Adam, the Scriptures be- 
fore-mentioned, in answer to our seventh question, do abun- 
dantly manifest ; and thence also is his sin called 'the sin of 
the world / John i. 29. 

2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have con- 
tracted the guilt of death and condemnation, in him they 
have all sinned, and have his sin imputed to them. But in 
' Adam all are dead / 1 Cor. xv. 22. as also Rom. v. 12. 
14 — 18. and death is the wages of sin only; Rom. vi. 23. 

3. As by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous, so 
by the disobedience of Adam we are made sinners. So the 
apostle expressly, Rom. v. but we are made righteous by the 

« Diatrib. de Jusfit. Divin. Vin. 


obedience of Christ, by the imputation of it to us, as if we 
had performed it; 1 Cor. i. 30. Phil. iii. 9. therefore we are 
sinners, by the imputation of the sin of Adam to us, as though 
we had committed it; which the apostle also affirms. To 
what hath been spoken, from the consideration of that state 
and condition, wherein by God's appointment, in reference 
to all mankind, Adam was placed, namely, of a natural and 
political or federal head, (of which the apostle treats, 1 Cor. 
XV.) from the loss of that image wherein he was created, 
whereunto by Christ we are renewed, many more words like 
these might be added. 

To what hath been spoken, there is no need that much 
should be added, for the removal of any thing insisted on, 
to the same puipose with Mr. B.'s intimations in the Raco- 
vian catechism. But yet seeing that that task also is under- 
taken, that which may seem necessary for the discharging 
of what may thence be expected, shall briefly be submitted 
to the reader. To this head they speak in the first chapter, 
of the way to salvation ; the first question whereof is of the 
import ensuing. 

* Q. Seeing^ thou saidst in the beginning, that this life 
which leadeth to immortality is divinely revealed, I would 
know of thee, why thou saidst so V 

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

Both question and answer being sophistical and ambi- 
guous, the sense and intendment of them, as to their appli- 
cation to Ihe matter in hand, and by them aimed at, is first 
to be rectified by some few distinctions, and then the whole 
will cost us very little farther trouble. 

1 . There is or hath been, a twofold way to a blessed im- 
mortality; 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 

2. Man by nature may be considered two ways, 1. As 

fCum dixeris initio, banc viara quae ad immortalitatem ducat esse divinitus pate- 
factam, scire velira, cur id abs te dictum Sf? — Propterea, quia ut homo natura nihil 
habet comniime cum imniortalitate, ita cam ipse viara, quae nos ad immortalitatem 
duceret, nulla ratione per se cognoscere potuit. Catech. Racov. de via Salut. cap. 1. 


he was in his created condition not tainted, corrupted, weak- 
ened, nor lost by sin. 2. As fallen, dead, polluted, and 

3. Immortality is taken either, 1. Nakedly, and purely 
in itself, for an eternal abiding of that which is said to be 
immortal : 2. For a blessed condition and state, in that 
abidino- and continuance. 

4. That expression 'by nature' referring to man in his 
created condition, not fallen by sin, may be taken two ways. 
1. Strictly, for the consequences of the natural principles 
whereof man was constituted ; or 2. More largely it com- 
prises God's constitution and appointment, concerning man 
in that estate. 

On these considerations, it will be easy to take off this 
head of our catechist's discourse, whereby also the remain- 
ing trunk will fall to the ground. 

I say, then, man by nature, in his primitive condition, 
was by the^ appointment and constitution of God immortal, 
as to the continuance of his life, and knew the way of per- 
fect 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 con- 
dition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death temporal 
and eternal, doth by no means know himself, nor can know 
the way of faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immor- 
tality and glory. 

It is not then our want of interest in immortality, upon 
the account whereof we know not of ourselves the way to 
immortality by the blood of Christ; but there are two other 
reasons that enforce the truth of it. 

1. Because'' it is a way of mere grace and mercy, hidden 
from all eternity in the treasures of God's infinite wisdom, 
and sovereign will, which he neither prepared for men in his 
created condition, nor had man any need of; nor is it in the 
least discovered by any of the works of God, or the law writ- 
ten in the heart ; but is solely revealed from the bosom of 
the Father, by the only begotten Son ; neither angels nor 
men being able to discover the least glimpse of that ma- 
jesty, without that revelation. 

B Rom. ii.7— 9. 
b John i. 18. 1 Cor. ii. 7.Eph.iii. 8—11. Col. ii. 2,3. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 


2. Because man in his fallen condition, though there be 
retained in his heart some weak and faint expressions of 
g'ood and evil, reward and punishment, Rom. ii. 14, 15. yet 
is spiritually' dead, blind, alienated from God, ignorant, 
dark, stubborn, so far from being able of himself to find out 
the way of grace unto a blessed immortality, that he is not 
able upon the revelation of it savingly, and to the great end 
of his proposal to receive, apprehend, believe, and walk in 
it, without a new spiritual creation, resurrection from the 
dead or new birth, wrought by the exceeding greatness of 
the power of God. And on these two doth depend our dis- 
ability 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 dis- 
course so discovered, as that I shall speedily take it, with 
its offence out of the way. They proceed : 

' Q. But'' why hath man nothing to do with (or no in- 
terest in) immortality V 

'A. Therefore, because from the beginning he was formed 
of the ground, and so was created mortal ; and then, be- 
cause he transgressed the command given him of God, and 
so by the decree of God, expressed in his command, was 
necessarily subject to eternal death.' 

1. It is true man was created of the dust of the earth, 
as to his bodily substance ; yet it is as true, that moreover 
God breathed into him the breath of life, whereby he be- 
came a living soul ; and in that immediate constitution and 
framing from the hand of God, was free from all nextly dis- 
posing causes unto dissolution ; but his immortality we 
place on another account, as hath been declared, which is 
no way prejudiced by his being made of the ground. 

2. The second reason belongs unto man only as having 
sinned, and being fallen out of that condition and covenant 
wherein he was created. So that I shall need only to let 
the reader know, that the eternal death, in the judgment of 
our catechists, whereunto man was subject by sin, was only 
an eternal dissolution or annihilation (or rather an abode 

'Eph. ii. 1. John i. 5. Rom. iii. 17, 18. viii. 7, 8. 2 Cor. ii. 14. Tit. iii. 3. Epli. ii. 
8. iv. 18. Col. i. 13. ii. 13. &c. 

I' Cur vero nihil coruniuiie habet homo cum immortalitate ? — Idcirco, quod ab 
initio de humo formatus, propteieaque mortalis creatus fuerit ; deinde vero, quod 
mandatum Dei, ipsi propositura, transgressus sit ; ideoque decreto Dei ipsius in 
mandato expresso, aeternse morti necessario subjectus fuerit. 



under dissolution, dissolution itself being not penal), and 
not any abiding punishment, as will afterward be farther 
manifest. They go on, 

* Q. But' how doth this agree with those places of Scrip- 
ture, wherein it is written that man was created in the 
image of God, and created unto immortality, and that death 
entered into the world by sin?' Gen. i. 26. Wisd. ii. 23. 
Rom. V. 12. 

* A. As™ to the testimony which declareth that man was 
created in the image of God, it is to be known, that the 
image of God doth not signify immortality ; (which is evi- 
dent from hence, because at that time, when man was sub- 
ject to eternal death, the Scripture acknowledgeth in him 
that image; Gen. ix, 6. James iii. 9.) but it denoteth the 
power and dominion over all things made of God on the 
earth; as the same place where this image is treated of 
clearly sheweth ;' Gen. i. 26. 

The argument for that state and condition wherein we 
affirm man to have been created, from the consideration of 
the image of Cod wherein he was made, and whereunto in 
part we are renewed, was formerly insisted on. Let the 
reader look back unto it, and he will quickly discern, how 
little is here offered to enervate it in the least. For, 

1. They cannot prove that man in the condition and state 
of sin, doth retain any thing of the image of God ; the 
places mentioned, as Gen. ix. 6. and James iii. 9. testify 
only, that he was made in the image of God at first, but 
that he doth still retain the image they intimate not; nor 
is the inference used in the places, taken from what man is, 
but what he was created. 

2. That the image of God did not consist in any one 
excellency hath been above declared ; so that the argu- 
ment to prove that it did not consist in immortality, because 
it did consist in the dominion over the creatures, is no bet- 

' Qui vero id convenjet iis Scripturae locis, in quibus Scriptum cxtat, hominem 
ad imaginem Dei creaUiin esse, et creatum ad immortalitatern, et quod mors per 
jieccatum in munduin iiitroieret? — Gen. i. 26, 'J7. Sap. ii. 23. Rom. v. 12. 

•» Quod ad testimonium attinet, quod liominem creatum ad imagiiu'iu Dei pro- 
nunciat, sciendun) est, imaginem Dei non significare immortalilera ; (quod hinc pa- 
tet, quod Scriptura eo tempore, quo homo aeterna; niorti subjectus erat, agnoscat in 
homine istam imaginem. Gen. ix. 6. Jacob, iii. 9.) sed potcstatein hominis.et do- 
minium in omnes res a Deo conditas, supra terram, designare: ut idem locus, iu 
quo de hac eadem imagine agitur, Gen. i 26. aperte indicat. 


ter than that would be, which should conclude that the sun 
did not give light because it gives heat. So that, 

3. Though the image of God, as to the main of it, in re- 
ference to the end of everlasting communion with GocJ 
(whereunto we were created) was utterly lost by sin, or else 
we could not be renewed unto it again by Jesus Christ, yet 
as to some footsteps of it, in reference to our fellow-crea- 
tures, so much might be, and was retained, as to be a reason 
one towards another, for our preservation from wrong and 

4. That place of Gen. i. 26. ' Let us make man in our 
imao-e, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea,' 
&c. is so far from proving that the image of God wherein 
man was created, did consist only in the dominion men- 
tioned, that it doth not prove that dominion to have been 
any part of, or to belong unto, that image. It is rather a 
grant made to them who were made in the image of God, 
than a description of that image wherein they were made. 

It is evident then, notwithstanding any thing here ex- 
cepted to the contrary, that the immortality pleaded for 
belonged to the image of God, and from man's being cre- 
ated therein, is rightly inferred, as above was made more 

Upon the testimony of the book of Wisdom, it being 
confessedly apocryphal, I shall not insist. Neither do I 
think, that in the original any new argument to that before 
mentioned of the image of God, is added ; but that is evi- 
dently pressed, and the nature of the image of God some- 
what explained. The words are ; "Otl 6 S'eoc eKTiae rbv 
av^pwirov lirX cKJiOapaia, koX hkovu rrig Idiag IdiorijTog iironqcrtv 
avTov. ^06v(j^ Be StajSoXou ^avarog eiariX^ev elg tov Kocrfiov' 
Tretjoa^oixri 8f avTov oi rrig iKtivov fxepi^og ovreg. The opposi- 
tion 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 rea- 
son 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 : 



' Q. What," moreover, wilt thou answer to the third tes- 
timony V 

' A. The apostle in that place treateth not of immortality, 
{mortality] but of death itself. But mortality differeth much 
from death; for a man may be mortal and yet never die.' But, 

1. The apostle eminently treats of man's becoming ob- 
noxious to death, which until he was, he was immortal. For 
he says that death entered the world by sin, and passed on 
all men, not actually, but in the guilt of it, and obnoxious- 
ness to it. By what means death entered into the world, or 
had a right so to do, by that means man lost the immorta- 
lity which before he had. 

2. It is true, a man may be mortal as to state and con- 
dition, and yet by Almighty power be preserved and deli- 
vered from actual dying, as it was with Enoch and Elijah ; 
but in an ordinary course he that is mortal must die, and is 
directly obnoxious to death; but that which we plead for 
from those words of the apostle is, that man by God's con- 
stitution and appointment was so immortal, as not to be 
liable nor obnoxious to death until he sinned. But they 
will prove their assertion in their progress. 

* Q. What" therefore is the sense of these words, that 
death entered into the world by sin ?' 

' This ; that Adam for sin by the decree and sentence of 
God, was subject to eternal death; and therefore, all men, 
because, or inasmuch as they are born of him, are subject 
to the same eternal death. And that this is so, the com- 
parison of Christ with Adam which the apostle instituteth 
from ver. 12. to the end of the chapter, doth declare.' 

Be it so, that this is the meaning of those words ; yet 
hence it inevitably follows, that man was no way liable or 
obnoxious to death, but upon the account of the commina- 
tion of God annexed to the law he gave him. And this is 
the whole of what we affirm ; namely, that by God's ap- 

" Quid porro ad tertium respondcbis ? — Apostolus eo in loco non agit de iminor- 
talitalf, [niortaiitate] veruiu de luorte ipsa ; mortalitas vero a niorte nuiltuin dissidct ; 
siquidem polt'st essequis niortalis, ncc tamcn iinqnani inori. 

o Qtiai igitur est horuni verborniii senteiitia; quod mors per peccatutii introierit 
in munduni ? — Max, quod Adanius oh peccatuni, dccrcto et senleiiiia Dei sfcrnas 
TOorti subjeclus est ; proinde, oinncs Iioniines, co quod ex co nati sunt, cidem a!ter- 
ns niorti subjaceant : rem ita esse, collatio Christi cum Adamo, quam Apostolus 
eodem capite, a ver. 12. ad finein, iiistituit, indicio est. 


pointment man was immortal, and the tenure of his immor- 
tality was his obedience; and thereupon, his right thereunto 
he lost by his transgression. 

2. This is farther evident from the comparison between 
Christ and Adam, instituted by the apostle. For as we are 
all dead without Christ and his righteousness, and have 
not the least right to life, or a blessed immortality ; so an- 
tecedently to the consideration of Adam and his disobedi- 
ence, we were not in the least obnoxious unto death, or any 
way liable to it, in our primitive conditions. 

And this is all that our catechists have to plead for 
themselves, or to except against our arguments and testi- 
monies to the cause in hand. Which how weak it is in 
itself, and how short it comes of reaching to the strength 
we insist on, as little comparison of it, with what went 
before, will satisfy the pious reader. 

What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depra- 
vation of two or three texts of Scripture, to another purpose 
than that in hand, I shall not divert to the consideration of; 
seeing it will more orderly fall under debate in another 

What our catechists add elsewhere about original sin or 
their attempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a 
close to this discourse. 

Their tenth chapter is, ' de libero arbitrio,' where after, 
in answer to the first question proposed, they have asserted, 
that it is in our power to yield obedience unto God, as 
having free will in our creation so to do, and having by no 
way or means lost that liberty or power ; their second 
question is, 

' Is*" not this free will corrupted by original sin ? 

' A. There is no such thing as original sin ; wherefore 
that cannot vitiate free will; nor can that original sin be 
proved out of the Scripture : and the fall of Adam being 
but one act, could not have that force as to corrupt his own 

P Noiine peccato originis hoc liberum arbitrium vitiatiim est? — Peccatum originis 
nullum piorsusest: quare nee liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit; nee enim e Serip- 
tura id peccatum originis doceri potest, et lapsus Ada; cum unus actus fuerit vim 
eani, quse depravare ipsam naturain Adami, multo minus vero posterorum ipsius pos- 
set, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero in poenam irrogatum fuisse, nee Scriptura docet, 
uti superius exposuimus ; et Deum ilium, qui omnis ajquitatis fons est, incredibile 
prorsus est, id facere voluisse. Cap. 10. de lib. Arbit. q. 2. 


natufe, much less that of his posterity. And that it was 
inflicted on him as a punishment, neither doth the Scripture 
teach, and it is incredible that God, who is the fountain of 
all goodness, would so do.' 

1. This is yet plain dealing. And it is well that men who 
know neither God nor themselves, have yet so much honesty 
left, as to speak downright what they intend. Quickly 
despatched ; there is no such thing as original sin. To us 
the denying of it, is one argument to prove it. Were not 
men blind, and dead in sin, they could not but be sensible 
of it. But men swimming with the waters feel not the 
strength of the stream. 

2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing ? Doth it 
nowhere teach, that we who were ' created upright, in the 
image of God,' are now 'dead in trespasses and sins, by nature 
children of wrath, having the v/rath of God upon us, being 
blind in our understandings, and alienated from the life of 
God, not able to receive the things that are of God, which 
are spiritually discerned, our carnal minds being enmiiy to 
God, not subject to his law, nor can be?' That our hearts 
are stony, our affections sensual, that we are wholly ' come 
short of the glory of God?' That every figment of our heart 
is evil, so that we can neither think, nor speak, nor do, that 
which is spiritually good, or acceptable to God ; that being 
born of the flesh, we are flesh ; and unless we are born again, 
can by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven ? That 
all this is come upon us by the sin of one man, whence also 
judgment passed on all men to condemnation ? Can 
nothing of all this be proved from the Scripture ? These 
gentlemen know that we contend not about words or ex- 
pressions ; let them grant this hereditary corruption of our 
natures, alienation from God, impotency to good, deadness 
and obstinacy in sin, want of the spirit, image, and grace 
of God, with obnoxiousness thereon to eternal condemnation, 
and give us a fitter expression to declare this state and 
condition by, in respect of every one's personal interest 
therein, and we will, so it may please them, call it ' original 
sin' no more. 

3. It is not impossible, that one act should be so high 
and intense in its kind, as to induce a habit into the sub- 
ject, and so Adam's nature be vitiated by it ; and he begot 


a son in his own likeness. The devils upon one sin, became 
obstinate in all the wickedness that their nature is capable 
of. 2. This one act was a breach of covenant with God, 
upon the tenor and observation whereof, depended the en- 
joyment of all that strength and rectitude with God, 
wherewith, by the law of his creation, man was endued 
withal. 3. All man's covenant good for that eternal end to 
which he was created, depended upon his conformity to 
God, his subjection to him and dependance on him, all 
which by that one sin he wilfully cast away, for himself and 
posterity (whose common, natural, and federal head he 
was), and righteously fell into that condition which we 
described. 4. The apostle is much of a different mind from 
our catechists, Rom. v. 15, 16, &c. as hath been declared. 

4. What is credible concerning God and his goodness 
with these gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only 
in itself credible which he hath revealed concerning himself, 
but of necessity to be believed. That he gave man a law, 
threatening him and all his posterity in him and with him, 
with eternal death upon the breach of it, that upon that sin, 
he cast all man'kind judicially out of covenant, imputing 
that sin unto them all, unto the guilt of condemnation, 
seeing it is his judgment that they who commit sin are 
worthy of death, and that he is of purer eyes than to behold 
iniquity, is to us credible, yea, as was said, of necessity to 
be believed. But they will answer the proofs that are pro- 
duced from Scripture, in the asserting of this original sin. 

'Q. But^ that there is original sin, those testimonies seem 
to prove. Gen. vi. 5. ' Every cogitation of the heart of man is 
only evil every day ;' and Gen. viii. 21. * The cogitation of 
man's heart is evil from his youth.' 

' A. These testimonies deal concerning voluntary sin : 
from them therefore original sin cannot be proved. As for 
the first, Moses sheweth it to be such a sin for whose sake 

T Vcruntamen esse peccatum originis ilia testimonia docere videntur, Gen. vK 
5, &c. viii. 21. — HsBC testimonia agunt de peccato voluntario: ex iis itaque effici 
nequit peccatum originis quod auteni ad primum attinet, Moses id peccatum ejus- 
niodi fuisse docet cujus causa poenituisse Deum quod hominem cre^sset, et euni di- 
luvio punire decrevisset : quod ceite de peccato quod homini natura inesset, quale 
peccatum originis censeat, affirmari nullo pacto potest. In altera vero testimonio 
docet, peccatum liominis earn vim habiturum non esse, ul Deus mundum diluvio 
propter illud puniret : quod etiani peccato originis nullo modo convenit 


God repented him that he had made man and decreed to 
destroy him with a flood : which certainly can by no means 
be affirmed concerning a sin which should be in no man by 
nature, such as they think original sin to be. In the other 
he sheweth, that the sin of man shall not have that efficacy, 
that God should punish the world for it with a flood : which 
by no means agreeth to original sin.' 

That this attempt of our cathechists is most vain and 
frivolous will quickly appear; for, 1. Suppose original sin be 
not asserted in those places, doth it follow there is no original 
sin? Do they not know that we affirm it to be revealed in 
the way of salvation, and proved by a hundred places be- 
sides ? And do they think to overthrow it by their exception 
against two or three of them? when if it be taught in any one 
of them it suffices. 2. The words as by them rendered, lose 
much of the efficacy for the confirmation of what they oppose, 
which in the original they have. In the first place, it is not 
every thought of man's heart, but every imagination or fig- 
ment of the thoughts of his heart. The ' motus primo primi,' 
the very natural frame andtemperof theheartof man, astoits 
first motions towards good or evil, are doubtless expressed 
in these words : so also is it in the latter place. 

We say then, that original sin is taught and proved in 
these places : not singly or exclusively to actual sins, not a 
parte ante, or from the causes of it, but from its effects. 
That such a frame of heart is universally by nature in all 
mankind, and every individual of them, as that it is ever, 
always, or continually casting, coining, and devising evil, 
and that only, without the intermixture of any thing of 
another kind that is truly and spiritually good, is taught in 
these places ; and this is original sin. Nor is this disproved 
by our catechists. 


1. Because the sin spoken of is voluntary, therefore it is 
not original, will not be granted. Original sin, as it is taken 
peccatum originans, was voluntary in Adam ; and as it is 
originatum in us, is in our will habitually, and not against 
them, in any actings of it, or them. 2. The effects of it in 
the coining of sin and in the thoughts of men's hearts, are 
all voluntary; which are here mentioned to demonstrate 


and manifest that root from whence they spring, that pre- 
vailing principle and predominant habit, from whence they 
so uniformly proceed. 

2. Why it doth not agree to original sin, that the account 
mentioned, ver. 6. of God's repenting that he had made man, 
and his resolution to destroy him, these gentlemen offer not 
one word of reason to manifest. We say, (1 .) that it can agree 
to no other but this original sin, with its infallible effects, 
wherein all mankind are equally concerned, and so became 
equally liable to the last judgment of God; though some, 
from the same principle had acted much more boldly against 
his holy Majesty than others. (2.) Its being in men by nature 
doth not at all lessen its guilt. It is not in their nature as 
created, nor in them so by nature : but is by the fall of Adam 
come upon the nature of all men, dwelling in the person of 
every one ; which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its 
advantage for provocation. 

3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to original 
sin, they inform us not. The words joined with ii, ire an 
expression of that patience and forbearance which God re- 
solved and promised to exercise towards the world, with a 
non obstante, for sin. Now what sin should this be, but that 
which is the sin of the world ? That actual sins are excluded 
we say not; but that original sin is expressed and aggra- 
vated 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 admi- 
nistering no occasion to such a discourse. But they take 
some other texts into consideration. 

*Q. Whaf thinkest thou of that which David speaks, 
Psal. li. 7. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did 
my mother conceive me V 

' A. It is to be observed, that David doth not here speak of 
any men, but himself alone, nor that simply but with respect 
to his fall : and uses that form of speaking, which you have 

' Quid vero ea de re sentis quod David ait, Psal. li. 7. — Aniniadvertendum est, 
hie Davideai noh agere de quibusvis hominibus, sed de se tantum ; nee siiupliciter, sed 
habita ratione lapsus sui: et eo loquendi modo usum esse, cujus excraphira apud 
eundem Davidem habes Psal. Iviii. 4. Quamobrem nee eo testiraonio effici prorsus 
potest peccatem origiiiis. 


in him again, Psal. Iviii. 4. Wherefore original sin cannot 
be evinced by this testimony.' But, 

1. Though David speak of himself, yet he speaks of 
himself in respect of that Avhich was common to himself 
with all mankind, being a child of wrath as well as others. 
Nor can these gentlemen intimate any thing of sin and ini- 
quity, in the conception and birth of David, that was not 
common to all others with him. Any man's confession for 
himself of a particular gailt in a common sin, doth not free 
others from it. Yea, it proves all others to be partakers in 
it, who share in that condition wherein he contracted the 

2. Though David mention this by occasion of his fall, 
as having his conscience made tender, and awakened to 
search into the root of his sin and transgression thereby ; 
yet it was no part of his fall, nor was he ever the more or 
less conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity, for that 
fall, which were ridiculous to imagine. He here acknow- 
ledges it, upon the occasion of his fall, which was a fruit of 
the sin, wherewith he was born; James i. 14, 15. but was 
equally guilty of it before his fall and after. 

3. The expression here used, and that of Psal. Iviii. 3. 
' The wicked are enstranged from the womb, they go astray 
as soon as they be born speaking lies;' exceedingly differ. 
Here David expresses what was his infection in the womb, 
there what is wicked men's constant practice from the womb. 
In himself he mentions the root of all actual sin ; in them 
the constant fruit that springs from that root in unregenerate 
men. So that by the favour of these catechists, I yet say, 
that David doth here acknowledge a sin of nature, a sin 
wherewith he was defiled from his conception, and polluted 
when he was warmed, and so fomented in his mother's womb, 
and therefore this place doth prove original sin. 

One place more tliey call to an account, in these words. 
'Q. But ^Paulsaith, that in Adam all sinned;' Rom. v. 12. 
'A. Itis not in that place, * in Adam all sinned.' But in the 
Greek the words are t^' (^ which interpreters do frequently 

• At riiulusaitTlom. v. 12. in Adamo, &c. — Nonhabetureo loco, in Adamonincs 
pecciisse; veruni in Graeco verba sunt i<f>' eJ qure passim intorprefes reddiint laline, in 
'quo, c|iia! taincn rc'd<li possunt per particular quoiiiani aut quatenns, ut c locis simili- 
biis, Kom. viii. S. Phil. iii. 1'2. Heb. ii. 18. 2 Cor. v. 4. vidcre est. Appnret igitur 
iicquecx hoc loco cxtrui posse poccatum originis. 


render in Latin in quo, ' in whom/ which yet may be rendered 
by the particles quoniam or quatenus, ' because,' or ' inasmuch/ 
as in hke places, Rom. viii. 3. Phil. iii. 12. Heb. ii. 18. 2 Cor. 
V. 4. It appeareth, therefore, that neither can original sin be 
built up out of this place. 

1. Stop these men trom this shifting hole, and you may 
with much ease entangle and catch them twenty times a day. 
This word may be rendered otherwise, for it is so in another 
place. A course of procedure that leaves nothing certain in 
the book of God. 2. In two of the places cited, the words 
are not t^' w, but Iv i^, Rom. viii. 3. Heb. ii. 18. 3. The places 
are none of them parallel to this ; for here the apostle speaks 
of persons, or a person in an immediate precedency, in them 
of things. But, 4. Render e^' w by quoniam, ' because/ or ' for 
that,' as our English translation doth ; the argument is no 
less evident for original sin, than if they were rendered by, 
' in whom.' In the beginning of the verse the apostle tells us 
that death entered the world by the sin of one man, that one 
man of whom he is speaking, namely, Adam, and passed upon 
all men : of which dispensation, that death passed on all 
men, he gives you the reason in these words, 'for that all have 
sinned/ that is, in that sin of that one man, whereby death 
entered on the world, and passed on them all. I wonder how 
our catechists could once imagine, that this exception 
against the translation of those words should enervate the 
argument from the text, for the proof of all men's guilt of 
the first sin ; seeing the conviction of it is no less evident 
from the words, if rendered according to their desire. 

And this is the sum of what they have to offer, for the 
acquitment of themselves from the guilt and stain of original 
sin, and for answer to the three testimonies on its behalf, 
which themselves chose to call forth, upon the strength 
whereof they so confidently reject it at the entrance of their 
discourse, and in the following question triumph upon it, as 
a thing utterly discarded from the thoughts of their cate- 
chumens : what reason or ground they have for their confi- 
dence, the reader will judge. In the meantime it is suffi- 
ciently 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 bu- 
siness we rely. And for themselves who write and teach 


these things, I should much admire their happiness, did I 
not so much as I do pity them in their pride and distemper, 
keeping them from an acquaintance with their own miserable 


Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God. 

' Q. How many Lords of Christians are there, by way of 
distinction from that one God ? 
'A. Eph. iv. 5. 
' Q, Who is that one Lord ? 

* A. 1 Cor. viii. 6. 

' Q. How was Jesus Christ born? 
'A. Matt. i. 18. Luke i. 30—35. 

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

* A. Rom. xiv. 9. 

' Q. What saith the apostle Peter also, concerning the 
time and manner of his being made Lord? 

'A. Acts ii. 32, 33. 36. 

' Q. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by 
his miracles ? And did he not those miracles by a divine na- 
ture of his own, and because he was God himself? What is 
the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf? 

'A. Acts ii. 22. x. 38. 

' Q. Could not Christ do all things of himself? And was 
it not an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, and 
to whom the human nature of Christ was personally united, 
that wrought all his works? Answer me to these things in 
the words of the Son himself. 

'A. Johnv. 19,20.30. xiv. 10. 

'Q. What reason doth the Son render, why the Father 
did not forsake him, and cast him out of favour? Was it be- 
cause he was of the same essence with him, so that it was 
impossible for the Father to forsake him, or cease to love 


'A. John viii. 28, 29. xv. 9, 10. 

' Q. Doth the Scripture avouch Christ to be the Son of 
God, because he was eternally begotten out of the divine es- 
sence, or for Other reasons agreeing to him only as a man ? 
Rehearse the passages to this purpose. 

* A. Luke i. 30—32. 34, 35. John x. 36. Acts xiii. 32,33. 
Rev. i. 5. Col. i. 18. Heb. i. 4, 5. v. 5. Rom. viii. 29. 

* Q. What saith the Son himself concerning the preroga- 
tive of God the Father above him? 

* A. John xiv. 28. Mark. xiii. 32. Matt. xxiv. 36. 
' Q. What saith the apostle Paul? 

' A. 1 Cor. XV. 24. 28. xi. 3. iii. 22, 23. 
' Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified as with the title 
of Lord, so also with that of God, in the Scripture? 
' A. John XX. 28. 

* Q. Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himself 
in the meantime did not acknowledge another to be his 

' A. John XX. 17. Rev. iii. 12. 

* Q. Have you any passage of the Scripture where Christ, 
at the same time that he hath the appellation of God given 
to him, is said to have a God ? 

'A. Heb. i. 8,9.' 


The aim and design of our Catechist in this chapter being to 
despoil our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his eternal Deity, and 
to substitute an imaginary Godhead, made and feigned in 
the vain hearts of himself and his masters, into the room 
thereof; I hope the discovery of the wickedness and vanity 
of his attempt, will not be unacceptable to them who love 
him in sincerity. I must still desire the reader not to ex- 
pect the handling of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ at 
large, with the confirmation of it, and vindication from the 
vain sophisms, wherewith by others, as well as by Mr. B. 
it hath Ijeen opposed. This is done abundantly by other 
hands. In the next chapters that also will have its proper 
place, in the vindication of many texts of Scripture from 
the exceptions of the Racovians. The removal of Mr. B.'s 
sophistry and the disentangling of weaker souls, who may 


in any thing be intricated by his queries, is my present 
intendment. To make our way clear and plain, that every 
one that runs may read the vanity of Mr. B.'s undertaking 
against the Lord Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks 
therein, I desire to premise these few observations. 

1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance), 
doth no way prove difference of essence between the Father 
and the Son. Where Christ as Mediator is said to be another 
from the Father or God spoken personally of the Father, 
it argues not in the least, that he is not partaker of the same 
nature with him. That in one essence there can be but one 
person, may be true where the substance is finite and li- 
mited, but hath no place in that which is infinite. 

2. Distinction-' and inequality in respect of office ia 
Christ, doth not in the least take away equality and same- 
ness 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 Media- 
tor to any dignity whatever, upon, or in reference to, the 
work of our redemption and salvation, is notatall inconsistent 
with that essential a^la honour, dignity, and worth, which he 
hath in himself, as ' God blessed for ever.' Though he 
humbled himself and was exalted, yet in nature he was one 
and the same, he changed not. 

4. The Scriptures asserting the humanity of Christ with 
the concernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth 
no more thereby deny his Deity, than by asserting his Deity, 
with the essential properties thereof, eternity, omniscience, 
and the like, it denies his humanity. 

5. God's working any thing in and by Christ as he was 
Mediator, denotes the Father's sovereign appointment of the 
things mentioned to be done, not his immediate efficiency 
in the doino; of the thing-s themselves. 

The consideration of these few thing-s beino; added to 
what I have said before in general about the way of dealing 
with our adversaries in these great and weighty things of 
the knowledge of God, will easily deliver us from any great 
trouble in the examination of Mr. B.'s arguments and insi- 

* T>:v vmoTayhv Tni SsuXix.?; ^oj<(>nc aVEiXii^aij, iirsp hfxZv vTrorctoo^irai r£ iavTou 
WttTfi, oi (j)uff-Ei StitiTOf, aXX ivwei ^i!f<}))if JauXix^f nv IXaSt. Alhanas. dial. I. conlra 


nuations against the Deity of Ciirist, which is the business 
of the present chapter. 

His first question is, 

' How many Lords of Christians are there by way of dis- 
tinction from that one God?' And he answers, Eph. iv. 5. 
' One Lord.' 

That of these two words there is not one that looks to- 
wards the confirmation of what Mr. Biddle chiefly aims at, 
in the question proposed, is I presume sufficiently clear in 
the light of the thing itself inquired after. Christ, it is true, 
is the one Lord of Christians ; and therefore God equal with 
the Father. He is also one Lord in distinction from his Fa- 
ther, as his Father, in respect of his personality ; in which 
regard, there are three that bear witness in heaven, of which 
he is one ; but in respect of essence and nature, ' He and his 
Father are one.' Farther, unless he were one God with his 
Father, it is utterly impossible he should be the one Lord of 
Christians. That he cannot be our Lord in the sense in- 
tended, whom we ought to invocate and worship, unless 
also he were our God, shall be afterward declared. And 
although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he 
is also our Mediator, yet he is the same God with him, 
'which workethall in all ;' 1 Cor. xii. 6. His being Lord then 
distinctly, in respect of his mediation, hinders not his being 
God, in respect of his participation in the same nature with 
his Father. And though here he be not spoken of in respect 
of his absolute sovereign Lordship, but of his Lordship over 
the church, to whom the whole church is spiritually subject, 
(as he is elsewhere also so called on the same account ; as John 
xiii. 13. Acts vii.59. Rev. xxii. 20.) yet, were he not Lord in that 
sense also, he could not be so in this. The Lord our God 
only is to be worshipped. 'My Lord and my God,' says 
Thomas. And the mention of one God is here, as in other 
places, partly to deprive all false Gods of their pretended 
Deity, partly to witness against the impossibility of poly- 
theism, and partly to manifest the oneness of them who are 
worshipped as God the Father, Word, and Spirit ; all which 
things are also severally testified unto. 

His second question is an inquiry after this Lord, who he 
is, in these words; 'Who is this Lord ?' And the answer is 
from 1 Cor. viii. 6. ' Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.' 


The close of this second answer might have caused Mr. B. a 
little to recoil upon his insinuation in the first, concerning 
the distinction of this ' one Lord' from that 'one God,'in the 
sense by him insisted on. Who is he by whom are all things 
(in the same sense as they are said to be of the Father); wl)o 
is that but God? ' He that made all things is God ;' Heb. iii. 
4. And it is manifest that he himself was not made, by whom 
all things were made. For he made not himself ; nor could 
so do, unless he were both before and after himself; nor was 
he made without his own concurrence by another, for by him- 
self are all things. Thus Mr. B. hath no sooner opened his 
mouth to speak against the Lord Jesus Christ, but by the 
just judgment of God he stops it himself with a testimony of 
God against himself, which he shall never be able to rise up 
against unto eternity. 

And it is a manifest perverting and corrupting of the 
text which we have in tGrotius's gloss upon the place, 
who interprets the to. iravra, referred to the Father, of all 
things simply, but the to. rravra, referred to Christ, of the 
things only of the new creation ; there being not the least 
colour for any such variation, the frame and structure of the 
words requiring them to be expounded uniformly through- 
out : ' But to us there is one God the Father, of whom are 
all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things, and we by him.' The last expression, 
' and we by him,' relates to the new creation ; ' all things' to 
the first. But Grotius follows 'Enjedinus, in this as well as 
other things. 

His inquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus 
Christ, in answer whereunto the story is reported from Mat- 
thew and Luke ; which, relating to his human nature, and no 
otherwise to the person of the Son of God, but as he was 
therein made flesh or assumed the ''holy thing so born of 
the Virgin, into personal subsistence with himself, I shall let 
pass with annexing unto it the observation before-mentioned; 
viz. That what is affirmed of the human nature of Christ, doth 
not at all prejudice that nature of his, in respect whereof he 
is said to be ' in the beginning with God, and to be God,' and 
with reference whereunto himself said, ' before Abraham 

^ Groti. Annof. in 1 Cor. viii. 6. 

* Enjedin. explicat. loc. vet. et nov. Testam, in locum. 

<> Luke i. 35. <^ John i. 1, 2. viii. 57. Prov. viii. 'Ji,'. &c. 


was I am.' God possessed him in the beginning of his ways, 
being then his only begotten Son, full of grace and truth. 
Mr. B. indeed, hath small hopes of despoiling Christ of his 
eternal glory by his queries, if they spend themselves in 
such fruitless sophistry as this. 

* Qu. 4, 5. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord according 
to the opinion of the apostle Paul ?' The answer is, Rom. 
xiv. 19. . 

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

Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ as Mediator, and in respect of 
the work of redemption and salvation of the church to him 
committed, was made Lord by the appointment, authority, 
and designation of his Father, we do not say was the opinion 
of Paul, but is such a divine truth, as we have the plentiful 
testimony of the Holy Ghost unto. He was no less made a 
Lord, than a Priest, and Prophet of his Father ; but that the 
eternal Lordship of Christ, as he is one with his Father, ^ ' God 
blessed for evermore,' is any way denied by the asserting of 
this Lordship given him of his Father as Mediator, Mr. B, 
wholly begs of men to apprehend and grant, but doth not 
once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The 
sum of what Mr. Biddle intends to argue hence is, Christ's 
submitting himself to the form and work of a servant unto 
the Father, was exalted by him, and had ' a name given him 
above every name,' therefore he was not the Son of God and 
equal to him. That his condescension into office is incon- 
sistent with his divine essence, is yet to be proved. But 
may we not beg of our catechist at his leisure to look 
a little farther into the chapter from whence he takes his 
first testimony concerning the exaltation of Christ to be 
Lord ; perhaps it may be worth his while. As another ar- 
gument to that of the dominion and Lordship of Christ, to 
persuade believers to a mutual forbearance as to judging of 
one another, he adds ver. 10. 'We shall all stand before the 
judgment-seat of Christ.' And this, ver. 11. the apostle 
proves from that testimony of the prophet, Isa. xlv. 23. as he 
renders the sense of the Holy Ghost; ' As I live, saith the 
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall 
confess to God.' So that Jesus Christ our Lord is that Je- 

''Rora. ix. 5. 


hovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due, and in par- 
ticular, that of standing before his judgment-seat ; but this 
is overlooked by Grotius, and not answered to any purpose 
by Enjedinus, and why should Mr. B. trouble himself with 

2. For the time assigned by him of his being made Lord, 
specified by the apostle, it doth not denote his first inves- 
titure with that office and power, but the solemn admission, 
into the glorious execution of that lordly power, which was 
given him as Mediator. At his incarnation and birth, God 
affirms by the angel, that he was then ' Christ the Lord ;* 
Luke ii. 11. and when ' he brought his first begotten into 
the world, the angels were commanded to worship him ;' 
which, if he were not a Lord, I suppose Mr. B. will not say 
they could have done. Yea, and as he was both believed 
in, and worshipped before his death and resurrection; John 
ix. 38. xiv. 1. which is to be performed only to the Lord 
our God; Math. iv. 10. so he actually in some measure ex- 
ercised his lordship towards, and over angels, men, devils, 
and the residue of the creation, as is known from the very 
story of the gospel ; not denying himself to be a king, yea, 
witnessing thereunto when he was to be put to death; Luke 
xxiii. 3. John xviii. 37. as he was from his first shewing 
unto men; John i. 49. 

' Q. 6. Did not Jesus approve himself to be God by his 
miracles? And did he not these miracles by a divine nature 
of his own, and because he was of God himself? What is the 
determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?' 

' A. Acts ii. 22. X. 38.' 

The intendment of Mr. Biddle in this question, as is 
evident by his inserting of these words in a different cha- 
racter, ' 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, with- 
out the influence of such other considerations, as this argu- 
ment is attended withal, in relation to Jesus Christ, will not 
alone of itself assert a divine nature in him who is the in- 
strument of their working or production. Though they are 
from divine power, or they are not miracles, yet it is not 
necessary that he by whom they are wrought should be 


possessor of that divine power, as * by whom' may denote the 
instrumental, and not the principal cause of them. But for 
the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do 
them ' by him,' because he appointed him to do them, as he 
designed him to his offices, and thereby gave testimony to 
the truth of the doctrine he preached from his bosom, as 
also because he was with him, not in respect of power and 
virtue, but as the Father in the Son ; John x. 38. so he 
working these miracles by his own power, and at his own 
will, even as his Father doth; John v, 21. and himself giving 
power and authority fo others to work miracles by his 
strength, and in his name; Matt. x. 8. Mark xvi. 17, 18. 
Luke X. 19. there is that eminent evidence of his Deity in 
his working of miracles, as Mr. B. can by no means darken 
or obscure, by pointing to that which is of a clear consist- 
ency therewithal : as is his Father's appointment of him to 
do them, whereby he is said to do them in his name, &.c. as 
in the place cited; of which afterward. Acts ii. 22. The 
intendment of Peter is to prove that he was the Messias of 
whom he spake ; and therefore he calls him ' Jesus of Naza- 
reth,' as pointing out the man whom they knew by that 
name, and whom seven or eight weeks before they had cru- 
cified and rejected. That this man was * ' approved of God,' 
he convinces them from the miracles which God wrought 
by him ; which was enough for his present purpose. Of 
the other place there is another reason ; for though Gro- 
tius expound those words on 6 ^tbg r)v juet' avrov, ' For God 
was with him ;' God always loved him, and always heard 
him, according to Matt. iii. 17. (where yet there is a pecu- 
liar testimony given to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ) 
and John xi. 42. yet the words of our Saviour himself, 
about the same business, give us another interpretation and 
sense of them. This I say he does, John, x. 37, 38. ' If I 
do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may 
know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.' 
In the doing of these works, the Father was so with him, as 
that he was in him, and he in the Father. Not only evspyi]- 

uv Inoiria-i JI avroZ i &co;, oTt aisro Seou »v. Graec. Schol. 

R 2 


TiKwg, but by that divine indwelling, which oneness of nature 
gives to Father and Son. * 

His seventh question is exceeding implicate and in- 
volved : a great deal is expressed that Mr. B. would deny, 
but by what inference from the Scriptures he produceth, 
doth not at all appear; the words of it are, ' Could not Christ 
do all things of himself, and was it not an eternal Son of 
God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the human 
nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all 
these works? Answer me to these things in the words of the 
Son himself. 

' A. John V. 19, 20. 30. xiv. 10.' 

The inference which alone appears from hence, is of the 
same nature with them that are gone before. That Christ 
could not do all things of himself, that he was not the eter- 
nal Son of God, that he took not flesh, is that which is 
asserted ; but the proof of all this doth disappear. Christ 
being accused by the Jews, and persecuted for healing a man 
on the sabbath day, and their rage being increased by his 
asserting his equality with the Father (of which afterward) ; 
ver. 17, 18. he lets them know, that in the discharge of the 
office committed to him, he did nothing but according to the 
will, commandment, and appointment of his Father, with 
whom he is equal, and doth of his own will also the things 
that he doth ; so that they had no more to plead against 
him for doing what he did, than they had against him whom 
they acknowledged to be God. Wherein he is so far from 
declining the assertion of his own Deity (which that he 
maintained the Jews apprehended, affirming that he made 
himself equal with God, which none but God is, or can be, 
for between God and that which is not God, there is no 
proportion, much less equality) as that he farther confirms 
it, by affirming, that he ' doeth whatever the Father doeth, 
and that as the Father quickeneth whom he will, so he 
quickeneth whom he will.' That redoubled assertion then 
of Christ, that he can do nothing of himself, is to be applied 
to the matter under consideration. He had not done, nor 
could not do any work, than such as his Father did also : 
it was impossible he should ; not only because he would 
not, in which sense to ajSouAijrov is one kind of those things 


which are impossible ; but also because of the oneness in 
will, nature, and power of himself, and his Father, which he 
asserts in many particulars. Nor doth he temper his speech 
as one that would ascribe all the honour to the Father, and 
so remove the charge that he made a man equal to the 
Father, as '^Grotius vainly imagines : for although as man 
he acknowledges his subjection to the Father, yea as Medi- 
ator in the work he had in hand, and his subordination to 
him as the Son, receiving all things from him by divine and 
eternal communication ; yet the action or work that gave 
occasion to that discourse, being an action of his person, 
wherein he was God, he all along asserts his own equality 
therein with the Father, as shall afterward be more fully 

So that though in regard of his divine personality, as 
the Son, he hath all things from the Father, being begotten 
by him, and as Mediator doth all things by his appoint- 
ment and in his name ; yet he in himself is still one with 
the Father, as to nature and essence, * God to be blessed 
for evermore,' And that it was an eternal Son of God 
that took flesh upon him, &:c. hath Mr. B. never read, that 
in the * beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, 
and the Word was made flesh ;' that ' God was manifested in 
the flesh ;' and that ' God sent forth his Son, made of a 
woman, made under the law?' Of which places afterward, 
in their vindication from the exception of his masters. 

His eighth question is of the very same import with that 
going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the 
unity of essence with his Father, by his obedience to him, 
and his Father's acceptation of him in the work of media- 
tion ; which being a most ridiculous begging of the thino- 
in question, as to what he pretends in the query to be argu- 
mentative, I shall not farther insist upon it. 

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse and 
of Mr. B.'s design in this chapter; and indeed of the great- 
est design that he drives in religion, viz. The denial of the 
eternal Deity of the Son of God, which not only in this 
place directly, but in sundry others covertly he doth invade 

f Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur, Christus ita temperat, ut oraneni ho- 
noreni referat ad patrem, et removeat illud crimen, quasi hominera patri a?qualnm 
facial. Grotius Annot. in Joh. cap. 5. v. 30. 


and oppose. His question is, ' Doth the Scripture account 
Christ to be the Son of God, because he was eternally be- 
gotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agree- 
ing to him only as a man ? Rehearse the passages to this 

His answer is from Luke i. 31 — 35. John x. 36. Acts 
xiii. 32, 33. Rev. i. 5. Col. i. 18. Heb. i. 4, 5. v. 5. Rom. 
viii, 29. most of which places are expressly contrary to him 
in his design, as the progress of our discourse will discover. 

This, I say, being the head of the difference between us 
in this chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr. B.'s 
question, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate far- 
ther labour and trouble, about sundry other ensuing queries. 
For Mr. B.'s question then, we say not that the Son is be- 
gotten eternally out of the divine essence, but in it, not by 
an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of the person of the 
Father; which being premised I shall proceed. 

The question that lies before us is, 

* Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of 
God, because he was eternally begotten out of the divine 
essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man? 
Rehearse the passages to this purpose.' 

The reasons as far as I can gather which Mr. B. lays at 
the bottom of this appellation, are 1. His birth of the Virgin, 
from Luke i. 30 34. 2. His mission, or sending into the 
world by the Father ; John x. 36. 3. His resurrection with 
power; Acts xiii. 32, 33. Rev. i. 5. Col. i. 18. 4. His ex- 
altation; Heb. V. 5. Rom. viii. 29. 

For the removal of all this, from prejudicing the eternal 
Sonship of Jesus Christ, there is an abundant sufficiency 
arising from the consideration of this one argument. If 
Jesus Christ be called the Son of God antecedently to his 
incarnation, mission, resurrection, and exaltation, then there 
is a reason and cause of that appellation, before, and above 
all these considerations ; and it cannot be on any of these 
accounts that he is called the Son of God ; but that he is 
so called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abun- 
dantly manifest. Yet a little farther process in this busi- 
ness, as to the particulars intimated, may not be unseason- 

1. Then, I shall propose the causes, on the account 


whereof alone these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called 
the Son of God. Of these the first and chiefest they insist 
upon is, his birth of the Virgin ; viz. that he was called the 
Son of God, because he was conceived of the Holy Ghost; 
this our catechist in the first place proposes, and before 
him his masters. So the Racovians, in answer to that 

' Iss therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man V 
' A. By no means ; for he was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the Virgin, and therefore, from his birth 
and conception was the Son of God, as we read in Luke 
i. 35.' The place insisted on by the gentleman we are dealing 

Of the same mind are the residue of their companions. 
So do Ostorodus and Voidovius give an account of their 
faith, in their ' Compendium,' as they call it, of the doctrine 
of the Christian church, flourishing now chiefly in Poland. 
* They'' teach,' say they, ' Jesus Christ to be that man that 
was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin, besides 
and before whom they acknowledge no only begotten Son 
of God truly existing. Moreover, they teach him to be God, 
and the only begotten Son of God, by reason of his concep- 
tion of the Holy Ghost,' &c. Smalcius hath written a whole 
book of the true divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein he hath 
gathered together whatever excellencies they will allow to 
be ascribed unto him, making his Deity to be the exurgency 
of them all. Therefore is he God, and the Son of God, be- 
cause the things he there treats of, are ascribed unto him. 
Among these in his third chapter, which is of the conception 
and nativity of Jesus Christ, he gives this principal account 
why he is called the Son of God, even from his conception 
and nativity. 'He' was,' saith he, 'conceived of the Holy 

% Ergo dorninus Jesus est purus homo ? — Ans. NuUo pacto; etenim est conceptus 
a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius 
Dei est, ut de ea re Luke i. 35. legimus. Catech. Racov. de Persona Ciiristi cap. 1. 

h Jesuin Christum decent esse homrnem ilium, a spiritu Sancto conceptum, et 
natum ex beata Virgine, extra vel ante quem, nullum agnoscunt esse (aut) fuisse 
re ipsa existentemunigenituniDei Filium. Porro hunc, Deum etFilium Dei unigeni- 
tum esse docent turn ratione coiiceptionis, a Spiritu Sancto, &c. Compendiolum 
Doctrinffi Eccles. Christianas, &c. cap. 1. 

' Conceptus enim est de Spiritu Sancto, et natus ex Virgine Maria. Ob id genus 
conceptionis et nativitatis niodum Filius etiam Dei ab ipso angelo vocatus fuit, et 
ita naturalis Dei Filius (quia scilicet talis natus fuit)dici vere potest. Solus Jesus 
Christus a Deo patre suo absque opera viri in lumen productus est. Smal. de vera 
divinit. Jes. Christ, cap. 3. 


Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, because of which man- 
ner of conception and nativity, he was by the angel called 
the Son of God ; and may so really be called the natural Son 
of God, because he was born such ; only Jesus Christ was 
brought forth to light by God his Father, without the help 
of man.' 

The great master of the herd himself, from whom indeed 
the rest do glean, and gather almost all that they take so 
much pains to scatter about the world, gives continually 
this reason of Christ's being called the Son of God, and his 
natural Son. ' I say,"" saith he, ' that Christ is deservedly 
called the natural Son of God, because he was born the Son 
of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of 
God. And that he was born the Son of God another way, 
and not by generation of the substance of God, the words 
of the angel prove ; Luke i. 35. Therefore, because that man 
Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not 
by the help of any man, but by the operation of the Holy 
Spirit in the womb of his mother, he is, therefore, or for that 
cause, called the Son of God.' So he against Weick the 
Jesuit. He is followed by Volkelius, lib. 5. cap. 11. p. 468. 
whose book indeed is a mere casting into a kind of a me- 
thod, what was written by Socinus and others, scattered in 
sundry particulars, and whose method is pursued and im- 
proved by Episcopius. Jonas Schlichtingius amongst them 
all seems to do most of himself ; I shall therefore add his 
testimony, to shew their consent in the assignation of this- 
cause of the appellation of the ' Son of God,' ascribed to our 
blessed Saviour. 'There are,' saith he, *many sayings of 
Scripture, which shew that Christ is in a peculiar manner, 
and on an account not common to any other, the Son of God ; 
but yet we may not hence conclude that he is a Son on a 

^ Dico igitur, Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalcm, quia natus est 
Dei Filius ; tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem ilium 
sub alia ratione, quam per geiieratiouem ex ipsius Dei substantia probant angeli 
verba, Mariae matri ejus dicta, Luke i. 35. Quia igitur homo ille Jesus Nazare- 
iius, qui dictus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti opcratione 
generatus est in niatris utoro ; propterea Filius Dei est vocatus. Faust. Socin. Re- 
ponsio. ad Weick. cap. 4. p. 202. 

' Sunt quideiu plurima dicta qua; ostendunt Christum, peculiar! prorsus nee ulli 
alio communi ratione esse Dei Filium ; non tamen bine concludere licet eum esse 
naturali ratione filium ; cum praeter banc, et illam coramunem, alia dari possit, et 
in Cbristo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singular! jirorsus ratione, nee ulli communi, 
Dei ?"ilius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi et efficacia Spiritus Sancii, in utero vir- 
ginis conceptus fuit ct fijenitus? Schlichting. ad 3Icisner. Artie, de Trinit. p. 160. 


natural account, when besides this, and that more common, 
another reason may be given, which hath place in Christ. Is 
he not the Son of God on a singular account, and that which 
is common to no other, if of God himself, by the virtue and 
efficacy of the Holy Spirit, he was conceived and begotten 
in the womb of his mother? 

And this is the only buckler which they have to keep 
off the sword of that argument for the Deity of Christ, from 
his being the proper Son of God, from the throat and heart 
of that cause which they have undertaken. And yet how 
faintly they hold it, is evident from the expressions of this 
most cunning and skilful of all their champions. There may 
another reason be given ; which is the general evasion of 
them all, from any express testimony of Scripture. * The 
words may have another sense,' therefore, nothing from them 
can be concluded ; whereby they have left nothing stable, 
or unshaken in Christian religion; and yet wipe their 
mouths, and say they have done no evil. 

But now lest any one should say, that they can see no 
reason why Christ should be called the ' Son of God,' because 
he was so conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God 
should therefore in a peculiar manner, and more eminently, 
than in respect of any other, be called the ' Father of Christ;' 
to prevent any objection that on this hand might arise, Smal- 
cius gives an account whence this is, and why God is called 
the ' Father of Christ,' and what he did in his conception ; 
which, for the abomination of it, I had rather you should 
hear in his words than in mine. In his answer to the second 
part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. 17, 18. 
he contends to manifest and make good that Christ was 
the 'Son of God according to the flesh,' in direct opposition 
to that of the apostle, ' He was of the seed of David accord- 
ing to the flesh, declared to be the Son of God,' &c. Rom. i. 
3, 4. He says then, cap. 18. p. 156. 'Socinus affirmat Deum 

in generatione Christi vices patris supplevisse.- But how 

I pray? why, 'Satis est ad ostendendum, Deum in gene- 
ratione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si ostendatur, Deum 
id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in generatione 
hominis ex parte viri, ad hominem producendum adjeci 
solet.' But what is that, or how is that done ? ' Nos Dei 
virtutem in Virginis uterum aliquam substantiam creatam 


vel immisisse, aut ibi creasse affirraamus, ex qua juncto eo, 
quod ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo ge- 
neratus fuit. Alias enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione 
et nativitate proprie nonfuisset;' cap. 17. p. 150. Very good, 
unless this abominable figment may pass current, Christ was 
not the Son of God. Let the reader observe by the way, 
that they cannot but acknowledge Christ to have been, and 
to have been called the ' Son of God' in a most peculiar man- 
ner : to avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that 
therefore he is God, of the same substance with his Father, 
they only have this shift, to say he is called the ' Son of God,' 
upon the account of that, whereof there is not the least tittle, 
nor word in the whole book of God ; yea, which is expressly 
contrary to the testimony thereof; and unless this be granted, 
theyaffirmthatChrist cannot be called the 'Son of God.' But 
let us hear this great Rabbi of Mr. B.'s religion a little far- 
ther clearing up this mystery : * Necessitas magna fuit, ut 
Christus ab initio vitse suae esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus 
non fuisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuisset, quod ad 
constituendum Christi coi'pus, una cum Marige sanguine 
concurrit. Mansit autem nihilominus sanguis Mariae Vir- 
ginis purissimus, etiamsi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus 
fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo purius semen, a Deo 
creari, et proculdubio creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis Marise. 
Communis denique sensus, et fides Christianorum omnium, 
quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit ; primum, 
communis error censendus est, si sacris literis repugnet : 
Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt, facile cum ipsa veritate con- 
ciliari potest, ut scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, 
et cum semine Marias conjunctum fuit, dicatur non virile, 
quia non a viro profectum sit, vel ex viro in uterum Virgi- 
nis translatum, ut quidam opinantur, qui semen Joseplii tran- 
slatum in Virginis uterum credunt ; cap. 18. p. 158. And 
thus far are men arrived. Unless this horrible figment may 
be admitted, Christ is not the Son of God. He who is the 
'true God and eternal life,' will one day plead the cause of his 
own glory against these men. 

I insist somewhat the more on these things, that men 
may judge the better, whether in all probability Mr. Biddle 
in his impartial search into the Scripture, did not use the 
help of some of them that went before him, in the discovery 


of the same things, which he boasts himself to have found 

And this is the first reason which our catechist hath 
taken from his masters, to communicate to his scholars, why 
Jesus Christ is called the Son of God. This he and they 
insist on, exclusively to his eternal Sonship, or being the 
Son of God in respect of his eternal generation of the sub- 
stance of his Father. 

The other causes which they assign, why he is called the 
Son of God, I shall very briefly point unto. By the way 
that hath been spoken of they say he was the Son of God ; 
the natural Son of God. But they say he was the Son of 
God, before he was God. He grew afterward to be a God 
by degrees as he had those graces and excellencies, and that 
power given him, wherein his Godhead doth consist. So 
that he was the Son of God, but not God (in their own sense) 
until awhile after; and then, when he was so made a God, 
he came thereby to be more the Son of God. But by this 
addition to his Sonship he became the adopted Son of God; 
as by being begotten, as was before revealed, he was the na- 
tural Son of God. Let us hear Smalcius a little opening 
these mysteries ; ' Neither,'"" saith he, ' was Christ God, all the 
while he was the Son of God. To be the Son of God, is re- 
ferred 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 qua- 
lities which were in him, he was most rightly so far the Son 
of God, as he was God, and so far God, as he was the Son 
of God. But before he had obtained that likeness to God, 
properly he could not be said to be God.' 

And these are some of those monstrous figments which 
under pretence of bare abhorrence to the Scripture, our ca- 
techist would obtrude upon us. First, Christ is the Son of 
God. Then growing like God in divine qualities, he is made 
a God, and so becomes the Son of God. And this, if the 

"Necenim orani tempore quo Christus Filius Dei fuit, Deus etiam fuit. Filiuni 
enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem etiam referri, et ob ortum ipsura aliqucm Dei Filium 
appellari posse nemo non intelligit. AtDeum (prseter unura ilium Deum) nemo esse 
potest, nisi propter similitudinem cum Deo. Itaquetunc cum Christus Deo similisfac- 
tus esset per divinas quaj in ipso erantquaiitates, suramo jure eatenus Dei Filius, qua 
deus, et vicissim eatenus Deus, qua Dei Filius : at ante obtentam illani cum deo simi- 
litudinem Deus proprie dici non potuit. Smal. Respon. ad Smiglec. cap. 17. p. 1,54. 


man may be believed, is the pure doctrine of the Scripture. 
And if Christ be a God because he is like God, by the same 
reason we are all gods in ISIr. B.'s conceit, being all made 
in the image and likeness of God, which, says he, by sin we 
have not lost. 

But what kind of Sonship is added to Christ by all these 
excellencies, whereby he is made like to God ? The same 
author tells us, that it is a Sonship by adoption, and that 
Christ on these accounts was the adopted Son of God. ' If,'" 
saith he, * what is the signification of this word adoptivus 
may be considered from the Scripture, we deny not but that 
Christ in this manner may be called the adopted Son of God ; 
seeing that such is the property and condition of an adopted 
son that he is not born such as he is afterward made by adop- 
tion ; certainly seeing that Christ was not such by nature, 
or in his conception and nativity as he was afterward in his 
succeeding age, he may justly on that account be called the 
adopted Son of God.' Such miserable plunges doth Satan 
drive men into, whose ' eyes he hath once blinded, that the 
glorious light of the gospel should not shine into them.' And 
by this we may understand whatever they add farther con- 
cerning the Sonship of Christ ; that all belongs to this adop- 
tive Sonship, whereof there is not one tittle in the whole 
book of God. 

The reasons they commonly add, why in this sense Christ 
is called the Son of God, are the same which they give, why 
he is called God. 'Heo is the only begotten Son of God 
(say the authors of the Compendium of the religion before- 
mentioned), because God sanctified him, and sent him into 
the world, and because of his exaltation at the right hand of 
God, whereby he was made our Lord and God.' 

If the reader" desire to hear them speak in their own words, 
let him consult Smalcius, *de vera Divinit. Jes. Christ.' cap. 
7. &c. 'Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum qua- 

" Si qu£C sitvocabuli adoptivus significatio ex mente sacrarum literarurn conside- 
rcUir, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivuin Dei Filium. Quia enini 
adoptivi Filii ea est conditio et proprietas, ut talis non sit natus qualis factus est post 
adoplionem ; certe quia Ciiristus talis natura, vcl in ipsa conceptione et nativitate 
non fuit, qualis postea fuit, Ktate accedente, sine injuria adoptivus Dei FiJiuseo mode 
dici potest. Snialci. ad Smiglec. cap. 20. j). 17;"). 

" Filium Dei unigenituin esse decent, tuui propter sanctificationem, ac missioneni 
in nmiuiuui, turn cxaltationein ad dei dextrani ; adeo ut factum Dtnuinum et Deuiu 
nostrum aflirniant. Conipendi. Rclig. cap. 1. p. 2. 


tuor antecedent. Refut. Disput. de Christinatura;' pp. 14, 15. 
Adversus Weickum pp. 224. 245. et passim. Volkel. de vera 
Religi. lib. 5. cap. 10 — 12. Jonas Schlicht. ad Meisner. pp. 
192, 193. &c. Especially the same person, fully and dis- 
tinctly opening and declaring the minds of his companions, 
and the several accounts on which they affirm Christ to be, 
and to have been called the Son of God, in his Comment on 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 16 — 20. as also his Notes upon 
Vechnerus's Sermon on John i. p. 14. &c. 'Anonym. Res- 
pon. ad centum argumenta Cichorii Jesuita?' pp. 8 — 10. ' Con- 
fessio Fidei Christianee, edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polo- 
nia. pp. 24, 25. 

Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes 
of Christ's filiatiori under four heads. 

' The Pfirst way,' saith he, 'whereby Christ is in the Scrip- 
tures (car l^oyjiv called the Son of God, is in that as man he 
was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin. And 
I doubt not,' saith he, 'but that God is on this ground called 
eminently the Father of our Lord Christ. 

' 2. Jesus Christ by reason of that duty or office which 
was imposed on him by his Father, that he should be the 
King of Israel promised by the prophet, is called the Son 
of God. 

' 3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an immor- 
tal 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 com- 
plete heir of his Father's house, and Lord of all his heavenly 
goods, saints, and angels.' The like he had written before in 
his Apology for the Remonstrants; cap. 2. sect. 2. 

Thus he, evidently and plainly from the persons before- 
named. But yet after all this, he asks another question, 
whether all this being granted, there do not yet moreover z'e- 
main a more eminent and peculiar reason, why Christ is 

P Primus modus est, quia quatcnus homo ex SpiriUi Dei Sancto conceptus est, et 
ex Virgine natus est : nee dubium mihi est, quin ob hunc modum, Deus etiam xar' 
l^o^r,v vocetur Pater domini nostri Jesu Christ). Secundus modus est, quia Jesus 
Christus ratione muneris illius, quod a Patre special! mandato impositum ei fuit, ut 
Rex Israelis esset, promissus ille per prophetas, et prjevisus ante secula Filius Dei 
vocatur. Tertius modus est, quia a Patre ex raortuis in vitam immortalem suscitalus, 
et veluti ex utero terrae, nullo mediante raatre, denuo geiiitus est. Quartus modus 
est, quia Jesus Cliristus ex raorte suscitatus, hteres extasse constitutus est in domo 
Patris sui, ac proinde bonorum omnium Cfelestium, et Patris sui ministrorum omnium 
sive angelorum Domiiius. Episcop. Institu. Theolog. lib. 4. cap. 33. sect. 2. p. 195. 


called the Son of God. He ''answers himself: There is; 
namely, his eternal generation of the Father ; his being God 
of God, from all eternity, which he pursues with sundry ar- 
guments ; and yet in the close disputes, that the acknow- 
ledgment of this truth is not fundamental, or the denial of 
it exclusive of salvation. So this great reconciler of the Ar- 
minian and Socinian religions, whose composition and unity 
into an opposition to them whom he calls Calvinists, is the 
great design of his theological institutions, and such at this 
day is the aim of Curcellaeus, and some others. By the way 
I shall desire (before I answer what he offers to confirm his 
assignation of this fourfold manner of filiation to Jesus Christ), 
to ask this learned gentleman (or those of his mind who do 
survive him) this one question; Seeing that Jesus Christ was 
from eternity the Son of God, and is called so after his in- 
carnation, and was on that account in his whole person the 
Son of God, by their own confessions, what title he or they 
can find in the Scripture of a manifold filiation of Jesus 
Christ, in respect of God his Father ? or whether it be not a 
diminution of his glory, to be called the Son of God upon 
any lower account, as by a new addition to him, who was 
eternally his only begotten Son, by virtue of his eternal ge- 
neration of his own substance ? 

Having thus discovered the mind of them with whom we 
have to do, and from whom our catechist hath borrowed his 
discoveries, I shall briefly do these two things : 

1. Shew that the filiation of Christ consists in his gene- 
ration of the substance of his Father from eternity ; or that 
he is the Son of God upon the account of his divine nature 
and subsistence therein, antecedent to his incarnation. 

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

3. To which I shall add testimonies and arguments for 
the Deity of Christ, whose opposition is the main business 
of that new religion, which Mr. Biddle would catechise poor 
unstable souls into, in the vindication of those excepted 
against by the Racovians. 

For the demonstration of the first assertion, I shall insist 

1 Insti. Tlieol. lib. 4. sect, 2. c. 33. p. 335. 


on some few of the testimonies and arguments, that might 
be produced for the same purpose. 

1. He who is the true, proper, only begotten Son of God, 
of the livino- God, he is beootten of the essence of God 
his Father, and is his Son by virtue of that generation. But 
Jesus Christ was thus the only, true, proper, only begotten 
Son of God ; and, therefore, is the Son of God upon the ac- 
count before-mentioned. That Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly tes- 
tifieth : ' Lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well pleased ;' Matt. iii. 17. ' Thou art 
Christ the Son of the living God ;' Matt. xvi. 16. John 
vi. 69. 

Which place in Matthew is the rather remarkable, be- 
cause it is the confession of the faith of the apostles, given in 
answer to that question, * Whom say ye that I the Son of 
man am?' They answer, 'the Son of the living God.' And 
this in opposition to them who said he was a prophet, or as 
one of the prophets, as Mark expresses it, chap. vi. 15. that 
is, only so. And the whole confession manifests, that they 
did in it acknowledge both his office of being the Mediator, 
and his divine nature, or person also. 'Thou art the Christ;' 
those words comprise all the causes of filiation, insisted on 
by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of 
the mediation of Christ ; but yet hereunto they add, ' the Son 
of the living God :' expressing his divine nature and Sonship 
on that account. 

And we know that the ' Son of God is come, and hath 
given us an understanding, that we may know him that is 
true ; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus 
Christ, this is the true God, and eternal life ;' 1 John v. 20. 
* He spared not his own Son ;' Rom. viii. 32. ' And the Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, 
the glory as of the only begotten Son of God ;' John i. 14. 
' No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, 
who is in the bosom of the Father he hath revealed him ; ver. 
18. Said also, ' That God was his Father making himself 
equal with God ;' 1 John v. 18. ' So God loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son ;' John iii. 16. ' In this 
was manifest the love of God, that he sent his only beo-otten 
Son into the world ;' 1 John iv. 9. ' Thou art my Son this 


day have I begotten thee ;' Psal. ii. 7. &,c. All which places 
will be afterward vindicated at large. 

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

1. He who is 'Idiogvlbg, the 'proper Son' of any, is begotten 
of the substance of his Father: Christ is the proper Son of 
God, and God he called often 'iSiov Traripa his ' proper Father.' 
He is properly a Father who begets another of his substance, 
and he is properly a Son, who is so begotten. 

Grotius"^ confesseth there is an emphasis in the word I'Stoc, 
whereby Christ is distinguished from that kind of Sonship, 
which the Jews laid claim unto. Now the sonship they laid 
claim unto, and enjoyed so many of them, as were truly so, 
was by adoption. For' to them pertained the adoption ;' Rom. 
ix. 4. wherein this emphasis then, and specially of Christ's 
Sonship should consist, but in what we assert of his natural 
Sonship, cannot be made to appear. Grotius says it is, be- 
cause the ' Son of God was a name of the Messiah.' True, but 
on what account ? Not that common of adoption, but this 
of nature, as shall afterward appear. 

Again, He who is properly a Son, is distinguished from 
him who is metaphorically so only. For any thing whatever 
is metaphorically said to be, what it is said to be, by a trans- 
lation, and likeness to that which is true. Now if Christ be 
not begotten of the essence of his Father, he is only a me- 
taphorical 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 contradic- 
tion, that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet 
not be begotten of his Father's essence. Besides, in that 
eighth of the Romans, the apostle had before mentioned other 
sons of God, who became so by adoption; ver. 1.5, 16. but 
when he comes to speak of Christ, in opposition to them, he 
calls him God's own, or proper Son; that is, his natural Son, 
they being so only by adoption. And in the very words 
themselves, the distance that is given him by way of emi- 
nence above all other things, doth sufficiently evince in what 
sense he is called the proper Son of God. ' He that spared 
not his own Son, how shall he not with him give us all 
things V 

<■ Grot. Annot. Job. v. 18. 


2. The only begotten Son of God, is his natural Son, be- 
gotten of his essence, and there is no other reason of this 
appellation. And this is farther clear from the antithesis, of 
this only begotten, to adopted. They are adopted sons who 
are received to be such by grace and favour. He is only be- 
gotten, 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 im- 
properly. That Christ is the proper, only begotten Son of 
God improperly and metaphorically, is that which is as- 
serted to evade these testimonies of Scripture. Add here- 
unto, the emphatical discriminating significancy of that voice 
from heaven, " this is he, that well-beloved Son of mine ;* 
and that testimony which in the same manner Peter gave to 
this Sonship of Christ in his confession, ' thou art the Son 
of the living God ;' and the ground of Christ's filiation will 
be yet more evident. Why the Son of the living God, un- 
less 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 sub- 
stance and essence. 

The same truth may have farther evidence given unto 
it, from the consideration of what kind of Son of God Jesus 
Christ is. He who is such a Son as is equal to his Father in 
essence and properties ; he is a Son begotten of the essence 
of his Father. Nothing can give such an equality, but a 
communication of essence ; then, with God equality of 
essence, can alone give equality of dignity and honour. 
For between that dignity, power, and honour, which belongs 
to God, as God, and that dignity or honour, that is, or may 
be, given to any other, there is no proportion, much less 
equality, as shall be evidenced at large afterward. And 
this is the sole reason why a son is equal to his father in 
essence and properties, because he hath from him a commu- 
nication 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 
himselfequal withGod;' John V.17. 18. ver. 17. having called 
God his Father, in the particular manner before-mentioned, 
and afhrmed to himself an equal nature and power for ope- 
ration with his Father; the Jews thence infer that he testi- 
fied of himself, that he was such a Son of God, as that he 
was equal with God. 

The full opening of this place at large is not my present 
business. The learned readers know where to find that done 
to their hand. The intendment of those words is plain and 
evident. Grotius* expounds lo-ov tavrbv n^ ^em ; by, ' it was 
lawful for him to do what was so to God, and that he was no 
more bound to the sabbath than he; which,' saith he, 'was 
a gross calumny.' So ver. 19.* those words of our Saviour ; 
*The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the 
Father do' (wherein the emphasis lies evidently in the words 
a(p' kavTov, for the Son can do nothing of himself, but what 
the Father doth, seeing he hath his essence, and so conse- 
quently will and power communicated to him by the 
Father) he renders to be an allusion to, and comparison 
between, a master and scholar : as the scholar looks dili- 
gently to what his master doth, and strives to imitate him; 
so was it with Christ and God ; which exposition was the 
very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place 
as Maldonat upon the place makes appear. That it is not 
an equal licence with the Father, to work on the sabbath, 
but an equality of essence, nature, and power, between 
Father and Son, that the Jews concluded from the saying of 
Christ, is evident from this consideration ; that there was no 
strength in tliat plea of our Saviour, of working on the 
sabbath day, because his Father did so, without the violation 
of the sabbath, unless there had been an equality between 
the persons working. That the Jews did herein calumniate 
Christ, or accused him falsely, the Tritheits said, indeed, as 
"Zanchius testifies ; and Socinus is of the same mind, whose 

' Sibi licere prsedicans quicquid Deo licot; ncque magis sabbato adstringi. 
crassa calumiiia. Grot. Annot. John, v. 18. 

' Comparatio est sumpla a discipulo sibi qui magistruiu pra'eiinlem diligenter 
intuetuT, ut iniitari posset. 

" Zanchius dc Tribus Eloliiiu. lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 1.51. 


interests Grotius chiefly serves in his annotations. But the 
whole context and carriage of the business, with the whole 
reply of our Saviour, do abundantly manifest, that the Jews, 
as to their collection, were in the right, that he made him- 
self such a Son of God as was equal to him. 

For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken, and so 
had calumniated Christ ; there be two grand causes, why 
he should have delivered them from that mistake, by ex- 
pounding to them what manner of Son of- God he was. 
First,'' because of the just scandal they might take at what 
he had spoken, apprehending that to be the sense of his 
words, which they professed. Secondly, because on that 
account they sought to slay him, which if they had done, 
he should by his death have borne witness to that which 
was not true. They sought to kill him, because he made 
himself such a Son of God, as by that Sonship he was equal 
to God ; which if it were not so, there was a necessity in- 
cumbent on him, to have cleared himself of that aspersion : 
which yet he is so far from, as that in the following verses, 
he farther confirms the same thing. 

So he * thought it not robbery to be equal with God ;' 
Phil. ii. 6. It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as 
the Father ; as it appears in the winding up of that discourse, 
ver. 11. 'That every tongue shall confess, that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' And to him 
is Christ equal, and therefore begotten of his own essence. 

Yea he is such a Son as is one with his Father: * 1 and 
my Father are one;' John x. 30. which the Jews again 
instantly interpret without the least reproof from him, that 
he being man, did yet aver himself to be God; ver. 33. 

This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands 
by^ Grotius, though with no better success than the former. 
'E-yw Koi 6 Trarrip ev laiilv. ' He joineth what he had spoken, 
with what went before :' saith he, * If they cannot be taken 
from my Father's power, they cannot be taken from mine ; 

^ Notemus igilur Christum Judseos tauquara in werboruni suorum intelligentia 
hallucinatos niinime reprehendeuteni se naturalem Dei Filiara clare professum esse. 
Deinde, quod isto niodo colligunt Christum se Deo squalem facere recte fecerunt; 
nee ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re tanta nos 
errare non fuit passus. Cartwrightus Har. Evan, in Loc. 

y Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus. Si Patris potcstati eripi non 
poterunt, nee meai poterunt. Nam potestas meaa Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut 
tantundem vaieat a me aut a patre custodiri. vid. Gen. xli. 25. 27. 



for I have my power of my Father, so that it is all one to be 
kept of me, as of my Father :' which he intends, as I suppose, 
to illustrate by the example of the power that Joseph had 
under Pharoah, Gen xli. though the verse he intend be false 
printed. But that it is an unity of essence and nature, as 
well as an alike prevalency of power that our Saviour in- 
tends, not only for that apprehension which the Jews had 
concerning the sense of those words, who immediately took 
up stones to kill him for blasphemy, from which apprehen- 
sion he doth not at all labour to free them ; but also from the 
exposition of his mind in these words, which is given us in 
our Saviour's following discourse. For ver. 16. he tells us, 
this is as much as if he had said, * I am the Son of God.' 
Now the unity between Father and Son, is in essence and 
nature principally ; and then that he * doeth the works of the 
Father,' the same works that his Father doeth ; ver. 37, 38. 
which, were he not of the same nature with him he could not 
do : which he closes with this, * that the Father is in him, 
and he in the Father,' ver. 38. of which words before and 

He then (that we may proceed) who is so the Son of God, 
as that he is one with God, and therefore God, is the natural 
and eternal Son of God ; but that such a Son is Jesus Christ, 
is thus plentifully testified unto in the Scripture. But 
because I shall insist on sundry other places to prove the 
Deity of Christ, which also all confirm the truth under de- 
monstration, I shall here pass them by. The evidences of 
this truth from Scripture do so abound, that I shall but 
only mention some other heads of arguments, that may be, 
and are commonly insisted on to this purpose. Then, 

3. He who is the Son of God, begotten of his Father, by 
an eternal communication of his divine essence, he is the 
Son begotten of the essence of the Father. For these terms 
are the same, and of the same importance. But this is the 
description of Christ as to his Sonship, which the Holy 
Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the Father according 
to his own testimony; 'Thou art my Son, this day have I be- 
gotten thee ;' Psal. ii. 7. And he is * the only begotten Son of 
God;' John i. 14. And that he is so begotten by a commu- 
nication of essence, we have his own testimony ; * When 
there were no hiUs I was brought forth;' Prov. viii. 28. He 


was begotten and brought forth from eternity. And how 
he tells you farther, John v. 26. ' The Father hath given 
unto the Son to have life in himself.' It was by the Father's 
communication of life unto him, and his living essence or 
substance ; for the life that is in God, differs not from his 
being : and all this from eternity. ' The Lord possessed 
me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever 
the earth was. When there were no depths, 1 was brought 
forth : when there were no fountains abounding with water : 
before the mountains were settled ; before the hills was 
I brought forth, &c. Prov. viii. 22, &c. to the end of ver. 32. 
' And thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah, — out of thee shall come 
forth unto me, he that is to be ruler in Israel : whose goings 
forth have been from of old, from everlasting;' Mich. v. 2. 

* In the beginning was the Word ;' John i. 1. * And now, O 
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory 
which I had with thee before the world was ;' John xvii. 5. 

* And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the 
world, he saith,' &c. Heb. i. 5, &c. 

4. The farther description which we have given us of 
this Son, makes it yet more evident. * He is the brightness 
of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person ;' 
Heb. i. 3. ' The image of the invisible God ;' Col. i 15. 
That Christ is the essential image of his Father, and not 
an accidental image ; an image so as no creature is, or can 
be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be 
on another occasion in this treatise fully demonstrated. 
And thither the vindication of those texts from the gloss of 
Grotius is also remitted. 

And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more 
mifht be added) for the demonstration of the first assertion; 
that Christ's filiation ariseth from his eternal generation; or 
he is the Son of God, upon the account of his being begot- 
ten of the essence of his Father from eternity. 

2. That he is, and is termed the Son of God, solely on 
this account, and not upon the reasons mentioned by Mr. B. 
and explained from his companions, is with equal clearness 
evinced : nay, I see not how any thing may seem necessary 
for this purpose to be added to what hath been spoken; but 
for the farther satisfaction of them who oppose themselves. 


the ensuing considerations, through the grace and patience 
of God, may be of use. 

1. If for the reasons and causes above insisted on from 
the Socinians, Christ be the Son of God, then Christ is the 
Son of God * according to the flesh,' or according to bis hu- 
man nature. So he must needs be, if God be called his 
Father, because he supplied the room of a Father in his con- 
ception. But this is directly contrary to the Scripture : 
calling him the Son of God in respect of his divine nature, in 
opposition to the flesh, or his human nature, * Concerning 
his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of 
David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of 
God with power ;' Rom. i. 2, 3. ' Of whom, as concernhig 
the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever;' 
Kom. ix. 5. The same distinction and opposition is ob- 
served, 2 Cor. xiii. 4. 1 Pet. iii. 18. If Jesus Christ accord- 
ing to the flesh be the Son of David, in contradistinction to 
the Son of God, then doubtless he is not called the Son of 
God according to the flesh : but this is the plain assertion 
of the Scripture in the places before-named. Besides, on 
the same reason that Christ is the Son of man, on the same 
he is not the Son of God. But Christ was, and was called 
the Son of man, upon the account of his conception of the 
substance of his mother, and particularly the Son of David; 
and so is not on that account the Son of God. 

Farther, that place of Rom. i. 3, 4. passing not without 
some exceptions, as to the sense insisted on, may be farther 
cleared and vindicated. Jesus Christ is called the Son of 
God, ver. 1.3.' The gospel of God, concerning his Son 
Jesus Christ.' This Son is farther described, 1. By his ' human 
nature, he was made of the seed of David according to the 
flesh.' 2. In respect of his person or divine nature, wherein 
he was the Son of God ; and that Iv dvvufxei, in powe ror ' ex- 
isting in the power of God ;' for so dvvafiig put absolutely 
doth often signify; as Rom. i. 20. Matt. vi. 13. xxvi. 64. 
Luke iv. 36. He had, or was, in the omnipotency of God; 
and was this declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in 
which he was made of a woman, but, Kara irvtvfia uyiwavvng 
(which is opposed to Kara aaQKu), 'according to,' or 'in respect 
of his divine Holy Spirit ;' as is also the intendment of that 
word the * Spirit,' in the places above-mentioned. Neither is 


it new, that the Deity of Christ should be called Trvwfxa ayi- 
tjj(Tvin]g. Himself is called, CD'li>lp ti'lp ; Dan. ix. 24. sancti- 
tas sanctitatum ; as here spiritus sanctitatis. And all this, saith 
the apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to 
be thus the Son of God, in respect of his divine, holy, spi- 
ritual being, which is opposed to the flesh, €^ avaaracTewg 
vnKpiov, ' by the (or his) resurrection from the dead,' whereby 
an eminent testimony was given unto his Deity: 'He was 
declared to be the Son of God' thereby, according to the 
sense insisted on. 

To weaken this interpretation, Grotius moves, as they 
say, every stone, and heaves at every word; but in vain. (1.) 
'OjOt(r^£VToc, he tells is as much as irpoopia^ivrog-^ as by the 
Vulgar Latin it is translated, pradestinatus. So he pleads it 
was interpreted by many of the ancients. The places he quotes 
were most of them collected by Beza, in his annotations on 
the place, who yet rejects their judgment therein, and cites 
others to the contrary. Luke xxii. 22. Acts x. 42. xvii. 31. 
are also urged by him to evince this sense of the word : in 
each of which places it may be rendered ' declared,' or ' to de- 
clare;' and in neither of them ought to be by ''predestinated.' 
Though the word may sometimes signify so (which is not 
proved), yet that it here doth so will not follow : oqoq, a 
definition (from whence that word comes) declares what a 
thing is, makes it known. And opiZoi, may best be rendered 
to * declare ;' Heb. iv. 7. So in this place: ti ovv Icttiv bpia- 
^ivTOQ Tov 3'EOu ; ^si-)(6ivTog, airo(pav^ivTog ' says Chrysostom 
on the place. And so doth the subject matter require. The 
apostle treating of the way whereby Christ was manifested 
eminently to be the Son of God. 

But the most learned man's exposition of this place is 
idmirable. 'Jesus,' ^saith he, 'is many ways said to be the 
Son of God.' (This is begged in the beginning, because it 

y Jesus Filius Dei multis modis dicitur. Maxinie populariter, ideo quod in reg- 
nuni a Deo evectus est ; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad 
regnuni pervenit, Christo aptantur. Acts xiii. 33. et ad HfEbreos i. 5. Hac autera 
Filii, sive regnia dignitas Jesu pra^destiriabatur et prtefigurabatur tuiu cum niortaleni 
agens vitam magna ilia sigua et prodigia ederet, qua Suvifjunv voce denotantur, sspe 
etsingulariter iuvafxeni;, ut Mark vi.5. ix. 39. Luke iv. 36, v. 17. vi. 19. viii. 46. ix. 1. 
Acts xiii. 12. HiEC signa edebat Jesus, per spiritum ilium sanctitatis, id est, vim di- 
vinam, per quam ab initio conceptioiiis sanctificatus fuerat ; Luke i. 3.5. Mark ii. 8. 
John ix. 36. Ostenditur ergo Jesus nobilis ex materna parte, utpote ex rege ter- 
reno ortus ; sed nobilior ex paterna parte, quippe a Deo factus Rex ceelestis post re- 
surrectionem. Grot. Anuot, in Rom. i. 3, 4. 


will not be proved in the end. If this be granted it matters 
not much ^vhat follows.) ' But, most commonly, or most in 
a popular way, because he was raised unto a kingdom by 
God.' (Not once in the whole book of God. Let him, or 
any one for him, prove this by any one clear testimony from 
Scripture, and take his whole interpretation. The Son of 
God, as Mediator, was exalted to a kingdom, and made a 
Prince and Saviour. But that, by that exaltation, he was 
made the Son of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be 
proved : yea, it is most false.) He goes on : * In that sense 
the words of the second Psalm were spoken of David, be- 
cause he was exalted to a kingdom, which are applied to 
Christ ;' Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5. (But it is not proved that 
these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the 
type ; nor any of the words from ver. 7. to the end of the 
Psalm. If they are so to be accommodated, they belong 
to the manifestation, not constitution of him : and so they 
are applied to our Saviour when they relate to his re- 
surrection, as one who was thereby manifested to be the 
Son of God, according as God had spoken of him.) But 
now how was Christ predestinated to this Sonship ? * This 
kingly dignity or the dignity of a Son, of Jesus, was pre- 
destinated and prefigured, when leading a mortal life, he 
wrought signs and wonders, which is the sense of the words/ 
Iv dvvafxei' The first sense of the word bpia^ivrog, is here 
insensibly slipped from. Predestinated and prefigured are 
ill conjoined, as words of a neighbouring significancy. To 
predestinate is constantly ascribed to Qod, as an act of his 
fore-appointing things to their end : neither can this learned 
man give one instance from the Scripture of any other sig- 
nification of the word. And how comes now opia^ivrog to 
be prefigured? Is there the least colour for such a sense? 
' Predestinated to be the Son of God with power :' that is, 

* The sign he wrought prefigured that he should be exalted 
to a kingdom.' He was by them in a good towardliness for 
it. It is true, ^vvafiug and sometimes ^vvaf^lg, being in con- 
struction with some transitive verb, do signify great or mar- 
vellous works : but that Iv dwcLfjiEi, spoken of one declared 
to be so, hath the same signification, is not proved. He adds, 

* These signs Jesus did by the Spirit of holiness'; that is, that 
divine efficacy wherewith he was sanctified from the begin- 


iiing of his conception ;' Luke i. 35. Mark ii. 8. John ix. 36. 
In the two latter places there is not one word to the pur- 
pose in hand; perhaps he intended some other, and these are 
false printed. The first shall be afterward considered. How 
it belongs to what is here asserted, I understand not. That 
Christ wrought miracles by the ' efficacy of the grace of the 
Spirit/ with which he was sanctified is ridiculous. If by the 
Spirit is understood his 'spiritual divine nature;' this whole 
interpretation falls to the ground. To make out the sense 
of the words he proceeds ; 'Jesus therefore is shewed to be 
noble on the mother's side, as coming of an earthly King, 
but more noble on his Father's part; being made a heavenly 
King of God after his resurrection ;' Heb. v. 9. Acts ii. 30. 
xxvi. 23. And thus is this most evident testimony of the 
Deity of Christ eluded, or endeavoured to be so. Christ on 
the mother's side was the Son of David ; that is, according to 
the flesh, of the same nature with her and him. On the Fa- 
ther's side, he was the Son of God, of the same nature with 
him. That God was his Father, and he the Son of God, be- 
cause after his resurrection he was made a heavenly King, is 
a hellish figment ; neither is there any one word or tittle in the 
texts cited to prove it: that it is a marvel to what end they 
are mentioned, one of them expressly affirming that he was 
the Son of God before his resurrection ; Heb. v. 8, 9. 

2. He who was actually the Son of God, before his con- 
ception, 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 ar- 
guments and testimonies before recited, as also of all those 
that shall be produced for the proof and evincing of the eter- 
nal 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 far- 
ther confirmation at present. It is then testified to, Prov. 
XXX. 4. ' What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if 
thou canst tell?' He was therefore the Son of God, and he 
was ^incomprehensible, even then before his incarnation. 
Psal. ii. 7. ' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' 
Isa. ix. 6. 'Unto us a Son is born, unto us a child is 2:iven, 
and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his 
name shall be called Wonderful, the mighty God, the ever- 


lasting Father, the Prince of peace.' He is a Son, as he is 
the everlasting Father. And to this head of testimonies 
belongs what we urged before from Prov. viii. 24. 8vc. 
' He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every 
creature ;' Col. i. 15. which surely as to his incarnation he was 
not. ' Before Abraham was, I am;' John viii. 58. Butof these 
places in the following chapter I shall speak at large. 

3. Christ was so the Son of God, tliathe that was made 
like him was to be without father, mother, or genealogy; 
Heb. vii. 3. 'Without father, without mother, without de- 
scent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but 
made like the Son of God.' But now Christ in respect of 
his conception and nativity, had a mother, and one, they 
say, that supplied the room of father, had a genealogy that 
is upon record, and beginning of life. Sec. So that upon 
these accounts he was not the Son of God, but on that 
wherein he had none of all these things, in the want whereof, 
Melchisedec was made like to him. I shall only add, 

4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ, is 
not the cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which 
gives it its being. The manifestation of it is only that which 
declares it to be so. That all things insisted on, as the 
causes of Christ's filiation, by them with whom we have to 
do, did only declare and manifest him so to be who was the 
Son of God, the Scripture witnesseth. 'The Holy Ghost 
shall come upon thee, and the power of ihe Highest shall 
overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall 
be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God;' Luke i. 35. 
He shall be called so, thereby declared to be so. * And great 
was the mystery of godliness, God was manifested in the 
flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto 
theGentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory;' 
1 Tim. iii. 16. All the causes of Christ's filiation assigned 
by our adversaries, are evidently placed as manifestations 
of God in him ; or his being the Son of God. ' Declared to 
be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of 
holiness, by the resurrection from the dead ;' Rom. i. 3. The 
absurdity of assigning distinct, and so far different causes 
of the same effect of filiation, whether you make them total 
or partial, need not be insisted on. 

Farther (to add one consideration more), says Sociuus, 


Christ was the Son of God, upon the account of his holiness 
and righteousness, and therein his likeness to God. Now 
this he had not according to his principles in his infancy. 
He proves Adam not to have been righteous in the state of 
innocency, because he had yielded actual obedience to no 
law. No more had Christ done in his infancy. Therefore, 
(1.) He was not the Son of God upon the account of his na- 
tivity. Nor (2.) did he become the Son of God any other- 
wise than we do; viz. by hearing the word, learning the 
mind, and doing the will of God. (3.) God did not give his 
only begotten Son for us, but gave the son of Mary, that he 
might (by all that which we supposed he had done for us) 
be made the Son of God. And so (4.) this sending of 
Christ doth not so much commend the love of God to us, 
as to him, that he sent him to die and rise, that he might be 
made God and the Son of God. Neither (5.) can any ex- 
imious love to us of Christ be seen in what he did and suf- 
fered ; for had he not done and suffered what he did, he had 
not been the Son of God. And also (6.) if Christ be on the 
account of his excellencies, graces, and gifts, the Son of 
God, which is one way of his filiation insisted on ; and to be 
God, and the Son of God, is as they say all one ; and as it is, 
indeed ; then all who are renewed to the image of God, 
and are thereby the sons of God (as are all believers) are 
gods also. 

And this that hath been spoken may suffice for the con- 
firmation of the second assertion, laid down at the entrance 
of this discourse. 

To the farther confirmation of this assertion, two things 
are to be annexed. First, The eversion of that fancy of 
Episcopius, before-mentioned, and the rest of the Socinian- 
izing Arminians, that Christ is called the Son of God, 
both on the account of his eternal Sonship, and also of those 
other particulars mentioned from him above. Secondly, To 
consider the texts of Scripture produced by Mr. B. for the 
confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the 
Son of God because of his eternal generation of the essence 
of his Father. The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing 

1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may 
be renewed ; for if Christ be the Son of God, partly upon 


the account of his eternal generation, and so he is God's 
proper and natural Son ; and partly upon the other accounts 
mentioned ; then, 

1. He is partly God's natural Son, and partly his adopted 
Son ; partly his eternal Son, partly a temporary Son ; partly 
a begotten Son, partly a made Son. Of which distinction 
in reference to Christ, there is not one iota in the whole book 
of God. 

2. He is made the Son of God by that which only ma- 
nifests him to be the Son of God, as the things mentioned 

3. Christ is equivocally only, and not univocally called 
the Son of God ; for that which hath various and diverse 
causes of its being so, is so equivocally. If the filiation of 
Christ hath such equivocal causes, as eternal generation, 
actual incarnation, and exaltation, he hath an equivocal fi- 
liation ; which, whether it be consistent with the Scripture, 
which calls him the proper Son of God, needs no great pains 
to determine. 

2. The Scripture never conjoins these causes of Christ's 
filiation, as causes in, and of the same kind ; but expressly 
makes the one the sole cause constituting, and the rest, causes 
manifesting only ; as hath been declared. And to shut up 
this discourse, if Christ be the Son of man only, because 
he was conceived of the substance of his mother, he is the 
Son of God only, upon the account of his being begotten of 
the substance of his Father. 

Secondly, There remaineth only the consideration of those 
texts of Scripture, which Mr. Biddle produceth to insinuate 
the filiation of Christ to depend on other causes, and not his 
eternal generation of the essence of his Father, which on 
the principles laid down and proved, will receive a quick 
and speedy despatch. 

l.The first place named by him, and universally insisted 
on by the whole tribe, is Luke i. 30 — 35. It is the last verse 
only that I suppose weight is laid upon. Though Mr. B. name 
the others, his masters never do so. That of ver. 33. [31,32.] 
seems to deserve our notice in Mr. Biddle's judgment, who 
changes the character of the words of it, for their signifi- 
cancy to his purpose. The words are, ' Thou shalt con- 
ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his 


name Jesus ; he shall be great, and shall be called the Son 
of the Highest.' What Mr. B. supposes may be proved from 
hence, at least how he would prove what he aims at, I know 
not. That Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was 
the Son of the Highest, we contend. On what account he 
was so, the place mentioneth not ; but the reason of it is 
plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been de- 

The words of ver. 35. are more generally managed by 
them. 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also 
that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called 
the Son of God.' But neither do these particles, ^lo Kctl, 
render a reason of Christ's filiation, nor are a note of the 
consequent, but only of an inference or consequence, that 
ensues from what he spake before. It being so as I have 
spoken, * even that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall 
be called the Son of God.' There is weight also in that 
expression ; ayiov to ysvvoiinsvov : that ' holy thing that shall 
be born of thee,'a'y{ov is not spoken in the concrete, or as 
an adjective, but substantively, and points out the natural 
essence of Christ, whence he was that holy thing. Besides, 
if this be the cause of Christ's filiation which is assigned, it 
mustbe demonstrated that Christ was on that account called 
the Son of God ; for so hath it been said, that he should 
be : but there is not any thing in the New Testament to 
give light, that ever Christ was on this account called 
the Son of God, nor can the adversaries produce any such 

2. It is evident that the angel in these words acquaints 
the blessed Virgin, that in, and by her conception, the pro- 
phecy of Isaiah should be accomplished, which you have 
chap. vii. 14. ' Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a 
son, and shall call his name Immanuel,' as the express 
words of ver. 31. in Luke declare; being the same with 
these of the prophecy, ' Behold thou shalt conceive in thy 
womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call, &.c. ver. 31, 32. 
And Matt. i. 21. this very thing being related, it is said ex- 
pressly to be done according to what was foretold by the 
prophet, ver. 33. repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost 
by Isaiah, which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah fore- 


telleth two things. 1. That a Virgin should conceive. 2. 
That he that was so conceived should be Immanuel, God 
with us : or the Son of God, as Luke here expresses it. And 
this is that which the angel here acquaints the blessed Vir- 
gin withal upon her inquiry, ver. 34. even that according to 
the prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive and bear a son, 
thouo-h a virgin, and that that Son of her's should be called 
the Son of God. 

By the way, Grotius's dealing with this text, both in 
his annotations on Isa. vii. as also his large discourse on 
Matt. i. 21 — 23. is intolerable, and full of offence, to all that 
seriously weigh it. It is too large here to be insisted on. 
His main design is to prove, that this is not spoken directly 
of Christ, but only applied to him by a certain general 
accommodation. God may give time and leisure farther to 
lay open the heap of abominations, which are couched in 
those learned annotations throughout. Which also ap- 

3. From the emphaticalness of the expression Sto koX 
' even also,' that * holy thing' which is born of thee, even that 
shall be called the Son of God ; and not only that eternal 
Word that is incarnate. That iiyiov to jevvu>i.ievov, being in 
itself avwTroararoi', shall be called the Son of God : shall be 
called so, that is, appear to be so, and be declared to be so 
with power. It is evident then, that the cause of Christ's 
filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the 
Virgin's conception declared ; that which was * born of her 
should be called the Son of God.' 

And this Socinus is so sensible of, that he dares not say 
that Christ was completely the Son of God, upon his con- 
ception and nativity; which, if the cause of his filiation were 
here expressed, he must be. ' It == is manifest (saith he) that 
Christ before his resurrection was not fully and completely 
the Son of God : being not like God before in immortality 
and absolute rule.' 

Mr. Biddle's next place, whereby the Sonship of Christ 
is placed on another account, as he supposes, is John x. 36. 
' Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent 

^ Constat igitur (ut ad propositum revertainur), CLristuin ante resurrectioncni 
Di'i Filiuin plenc et perfecte non fuisse : cum ilii et inimortalitatis ct absoluti do- 
niinii cum deo siniilitndo dcesset. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekiira. p. 225. 


into the world. Thou blasphemest; because I said, 1 am the 
Son of God?' 

That this Scripture is called to remembrance not at all 
to Mr. B's advantage will speedily appear. For, 

1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, 
or for what cause it is, that Christ is the Son of God, but 
only that he is so ; he being expressed and spoken of, under 
that description which is used of him twenty times in that 
Gospel, 'he who is sent of the Father.' This is all that is in 
this place asserted, that he whom the Father ' sanctified 
and sent into the world,' counted it no robbery to be equal 
with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himself his Son. 

2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts him- 
self to be such a Son of God, as the Jews charged him with 
blasphemy for affirming of himself that he was. For he 
justifies himself against their accusation ; not denying in 
the least, that they rightly apprehended and understood him, 
but maintaining what he had spoken to be most true. Now 
this was that which the Jews charged him withal, ver. 33. 
that he being * man, blasphemed in making himself God.' 
For so they understood him, that in asserting his Sonship, 
he asserted also his Deity. This Christ makes good, namely, 
that he is such a Son of God, as is God also. Yea, he makes 
good what he had said, ver. 30, Avhich was the foundation of 
all the following discourse about his blasphemy : ' I and my 
Father are one.' So that 

3. An invincible argument for the Sonship of Christ, to 
be placed only upon the account of his eternal generation, 
ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose 
it. He who is the Son of God, because he is * one with the 
Father,' and God equal to him, is the Son of God upon 
the account of his eternal relation to the Father : but that 
such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears 
witness to the Jews, although they are ready to stone him 
for it. And of his not blaspheming in this assertion, he 
convinces his adversaries by an argument a rriinoriy ver. 
34, 35. 

A brief analysis of this place will give evidence to this 
interpretation of the words. Our Saviour Christ havino- 
given the reason, why the Jews believed not on him, namely, 
because they ' were not of his sheep,' ver. 26. describes 


thereupon both the nature of those sheep of his, ver. 27. 
and their condition of safety, ver. 28. This he farther con- 
firms from the consideration of his Father's greatness and 
power, which is amplified by the comparison of it with 
others, who are all less than he ; ver. 29. as also from his 
own power and will, which appears to be sufficient for that 
end and purpose from his essential unity with his Father ; 
ver. 30. The effect of this discourse of Christ by accident, 
is the ' Jews taking up of stones,' which is amplified by this, 
that it was the second time they did so, and that to this 
purpose, that they might stone him ; ver. 31. Their folly 
and madness herein Christ disproves with an argument ah 
absurdo; telling them, that it must be for some good work 
that they stoned him, for evil had he done none ; ver. 32. 
This the Jews attempt to disprove, by a new argument a 
disparatis, telling him that it was not for a good work, but 
for blasphemy, that he ' made himself to be God,' whom 
they would prove to be but a man ; ver. 33. This pretence 
of blasphemy Christ disproves, as I said before, by an argu- 
ment a minori ; ver. 35, 36. and with another from the 
efiects, or the works which lie did, which sufficiently proved 
him to be God; ver. 27. 38. still maintaining what he said 
and what they thought to be blasphemy, so that they at- 
tempt again to kill him ; ver. 39. It is evident then, that 
he still maintained what they charged him with. 

4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent 
in the Scripture, of ' God's sending his Son into the world,' 
and that he came ' down from heaven, and came into the 
world ;' John, iii. 13. Gal. iv. 4. All evincing his being the 
Son of God, antecedently to that mission or sanctification, 
whereby in the world he was declared so to be. Otherwise 
not the Son of God was sent, but one to be his Son. 

Acts xiii. 32, 33. is also insisted on : * We declare unto 
you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made 
unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their 
children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also 
written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have 
I begotten thee.' 

He that can see in this text, a cause assigned of the 
filiation of Christ that should relate to the resurrection, I 
confess is sharper sighted than I. This I know, that if 


Christ were made the Son of God by his resurrection from 
the dead, he was not the Son of God who died, for that pre- 
ceded this his making to be the Son of God. But that God 
* gave his only begotten Son to die,' that he spared not his 
only Son, but gave him up to death ; I think is clear in 
Scripture, if any thing be so. 

2. Paul seems to interpret this place to me, when he 
informs us, that ' Christ was declared to be the Son of God 
with power by the resurrection from the dead ;' Rom. i. 3. 
Not that he was made so, but he was declared, or made 
known to be so. When being ' crucified through weakness, 
he lived by the power of God ;' 2 Cor. xiii. 4. which power 
also was his own ; John, x. 18, 

According as was before intimated, ^Grotius interprets 
these words, * Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee : I have made thee a king ; which (he says) was ful- 
filled in that, when all power was given him in heaven and 
earth ;' Matt, xxviii. 18. as Justin in his colloquy with Try- 
pho ; t6t£ yiviCTiv avrov Xiyiov yevicF^ai, I^otov t) yvUxng avTOv 
s/jLiXXe jEvia^ai. 1. But then he was not the Son of God before 
his resurrection : for he was the Son of God by his being 
begotten of him : which as it is false, so contrary to his own 
gloss on Luke, i. 35. 2. Christ was a king before his re- 
surrection, and owned himself so to be, as hath been 
shewed. 3. Justin's words are suited to our exposition of 
this place : he was said to be then begotten, because then 
he was made known to be so the Son of God. 4. That these 
words are not applied to Christ in their first sense, in re- 
spect of resurrection, from the preeminence assigned unto 
him above angels by virtue of this expression, Heb. i. 5. 
which he had before his death ; Heb. i. 6. Nor, 5. Are the 
words here used to prove the resurrection, which is done in 
the verses following out of Isaiah, and another Psalm ; ' and 
as concerning that he raised him up from the dead,' &c. 
ver. 34. But then, 

3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that 
passage in the Psalm, which Paul, Acts xiii. insists on ; 
but the proving that Christ was the Son of God, as in that 
Psalm he was called, by his resurrection from the dead ; 

* Ego fill hodie te genui, id est regem te feci : hoc in Chrisfo impletum, cum ei 
data oiunis potestas in cceIo et in terra. Matt, xxviii. 18, &c. Grot, in locum. 



which was the great manifesting cause of his Deity in the 

What Mr. B. intends by the next place mentioned by 
him, I know not. It is. Rev. i. 5. ' And from Jesus Christ 
who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the 
dead.' That Christ was the first who was raised from the 
dead to a blessed and glorious immortality, and is thence 
called the first begotten of them, or from the dead, and that 
all that rise to such an immortality, rise after him, and by 
virtue of his resurrection, is most certain and granted ; but 
that from thence he is that only begotten Son of God, 
though thereby he was only declared so to be, there is not 
the least tittle in the text giving occasion to such an appre- 

And the same also is affirmed of the following place of 
Col. i. 18. where the same words are used again. He is the 
head of the church, who is the beginning, rrpioTOTOKog Ik tC)v 
viKpwv, 'the first-born of the dead.' Only I shall desire our 
catechist to look at his leisure, a little higher into the chap- 
ter, where he will find him called also Trpwroroicoe Traarjg 
KTiaeiog, the first-born of all the creation ; so that he must 
surely be iTjOWToroKoc before his resurrection : nay he is so 
the first-born of every creature, as to be ''none of them : for 
by him they were all created, ver. 16. He who is so before 
all creatures, as to be none of them, but that they are all 
created by him, is God blessed for ever : which when our ca- 
techist disproves, he shall have me for one of his disciples. 

Of the same kind is that which Mr. Biddle next urgeth 
from Heb. i. 4, 5. only it hath this farther disadvantage, that 
both the verses going immediately before, and that imme- 
diately following after, do inevitably evince, that the con- 
stitutive cause of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, a priori, is in 
his participation of the divine nature, and that it is only ma- 
nifested by any ensuing consideration, ver. 2, 3. The Holy 
Ghost tells us, that ' by him God made the world, who is the 
brightness of his glory and the express image of his person;' 

•" So that •oTpaJTOTeJtoj wno-nj XTiVEouf is, o rt^BiTi; w^o naffng XTiVsajf qui genitus est 
prior omni croatura, vel ante onineni creaturani, for so -ar^JTOf sonietinies signifies 
comparatively. Arist. Avibus. w^Ztov i^apitcu, id est TrpoTE^ov. .Tolm i. 1.5. 'm^SncQ fjtov 
nv (i. e.) TTfOTipoj, and 1 Jolin iv. 19. isrpSTo; hyaTrttcnv (i.e.) wpoTtpoj. His generation 
was before the creation, indeed eternal. Tertuilian saith so too. Lib. de Trinitate. 
Quomodo priinogenitus esse po(uit, nisi quia secundum divinitatcm ante omneni 
creaturam ex Deo Patre Sermo processit. 


and this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as 
Mediator: and ver. 6. 'He brings in the first begotten into 
the world, and says, let all the angels of God worship him.' 
He is the first begotten before his bringing into the world ; 
and that this is proved by the latter clause of the verse, 
shall be afterward demonstrated. Between both these, 
much is not like to be spoken against the eternal Sonship 
of Christ. Nor is the apostle only declaring his pre-emi- 
nence above the angels, upon the account of that name of 
his, the Son of God, which he is called upon record, in the 
Old Testament ; but the causes also of that appellation he 
had before declared. 

The last place urged to this purpose is of the same im- 
port. It is Heb. V. 5. ' So Christ also glorified not himself, 
to be made a high-priest ; but he that said unto him, thou 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' When Mr. B. 
proves any thing more towards his purpose from this place, 
but only that Christ did not of his own accord undertake 
the oflice of a mediator, but was designed to it of God his 
Father, who said unto him, ' Thou art my Son this day have 
I begotten thee,' declaring of him so to be, with power 
after his resurrection, I shall acknowledge him to have bet- 
ter skill in disputing, than as yet I am convinced he is pos- 
sessed of. 

And thus have I cleared the eternal Sonship of Jesus 
Christ, and evinced the vanity of attempting to fix his pre- 
rogative therein upon any other account : not doubting, but 
that all who love him in sincerity, will be zealous of his glory 
herein. For his growing up to be the Son of God by de- 
grees, to be made a God in process of time, to be the adopted 
Son of God ; to be the Son of God upon various accounts 
of diverse kinds, inconsistent with one another, to have had 
such a conception and generation, as modesty forbids to 
think, or express ; not to have been the Son of God, until 
after his death, and the like monstrous figments, I hope he 
will himself keep his own in an everlasting abhorring of. 

The farther confirmation of the Deity of Christ, whereby 
Mr. Biddle's whole design will be obviated, and the vindi- 
cation of the testimonies wherewith it is so confirmed from 
his masters, is the work designed for the next chapter. 

There are yet remaining of this chapter two or three 

T 2 


questions, looking the same way with those ah'ead)^ consi- 
dered, and will upon the principles already laid down, and 
insisted on, easily and in very few words be turned aside 
from prejudicing the eternal Deity of the Son of God. His 
tenth then is, 

' What saith the Son concerning the prerogative of the 
Father above him?' And answer is oiven, John xiv. 28. Mark. 
xiii. 22. Matt. xxiv. 36. Whereunto is subjoined another of 
the same ; ' What saith the apostle Paul ? Ans. 1 Cor. xv. 24. 
28. xi.3.' 

The intendment of these questions being the application 
of what is spoken of Christ, either as mediator or as man, 
unto his person, to the exclusion of any other consideration, 
viz. that of a divine nature therein, the whole of Mr. Biddle's 
aim in them is sufficiently already disappointed. It is true, 
there is an order, yea a subordination in the persons of the 
trinity themselves ; whereby the Son, as to his personality, 
may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him ; 
but that is not the subordination here aimed at by Mr. B, 
but that which he underwent by dispensation as mediator, 
or which attends him in respect of his human nature. All 
the difficulty that may arise from these kinds of attribution 
to Christ, the apostle abundantly salves in the discovery of 
the rise and occasion of them; Phil. ii. 7 — 9. he who was 
in the form of God, and equal to him, was, in the form of a 
servant, whereunto he humbled himself, his servant, and less 
than he. And there is no more difficulty in the questions 
wherewith Mr. B. amuses himself and his disciples, than 
there was in that, wherewith our Saviour stopped the mouth 
of the Pharisees, viz. how Christ could be the Son of David, 
and yet his Lord, whom he worshipped? For the places of 
Scripture in particular urged by Mr. Biddle, John xiv. 28. 
says our Saviour, 'my Father is greater than I,' {mittens misso, 
says Grotius himself, referring the words to office not nature) 
which he was, and is in respect of that work of mediation, 
which he had undertaken ; '^but ' ina^qualitas officii non tolljt 
ffiqualitatem naturae.' A king's son is of the same nature 
with his father, though he may be employed by him in an 

^ Ideo autom nusquam Scripturu est, quod Deus pater major sit Spiritu Sancto, vol 
Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo Patrc : quia non sic assunipta est creatura in qua appa- 
reret S. S. sicut assumptus est filius liominis, in qua forma ipsius Verbi Dei persona 
prjesentarelur. August, lib. 1. di 'Iriuii. eap. 6. 


inferior office. He that was less than his Father, as to the 
work of mediation, being the Father's servant therein, is 
equal to him as his Son, as God to be blessed for ever. Mark. 
xiii. 32. Matt. xxiv. 36. affirm, that the Father only ' knows 
the times and seasons mentioned, not the angels, nor the Son.' 
And yet notwithstanding it was very truly said of Peter to 
Christ, 'Lord thou knovvest all things ;' John xxii, 17. He 
that in, and of the knowledge and wisdom, which as man he 
had, and wherein he grew from his infancy, knew not that 
day, yet as he knew all things knew it : it was not hidden 
from him, being the day by him appointed. Let Mr. Bid- 
die acknowledge, that his knowing all things proves him to 
be God, and we will not deny, but his not knowing the day 
of judgment, proves him to have another capacity, and to be 
truly man. 

As ''man he took on him those affections, which we call 
^ufftfca KOI adial5\nTa Tra^r)' amongst which, or consequently 
unto which, he might be ignorant of some things. In the 
meantime he who made all times, as Christ did, Heb. i. 2. 
knew their end, as well as their beginning. He knew the 
Father, and the day by hira appointed ; yea all things that 
the Father hatli were his : and in him were all the 'treasures 
of wisdom and knowledge hid ;' Col. ii. 3. 

Paul speaks to the same purpose, I Cor. xv. 24, 28. The 
kingdom that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise, is his 
economical mediatory kingdom, which shall have an end put 
to it, when the whole of his intendment in that work shall be 
fulfilled, and accomplished. But that he is not also sharer 
with his Father, in that universal monarchy, which, as God 
by nature, he hath over all, this doth not at all prove. All 
the argument from this place is but this ; Christ shall cease 
to be mediator, therefore he is not God. And that no more 
is here intended, is evident from the expression of it; 'Then 
shall the Son himself be subject;' which if it intend any 
thino- but the ceasins; from the administration of the me- 
diatory kingdom, wherein the human nature is a sharer, it 
would prove, that as Jesus Christ is mediator, he is not in 
subjection to his Father, which himself abundantly hath ma- 

"l 'AutojeVtiv c 61? Kaiyxovo; ulo<; o wjiv n Aff^paafx yinj'^ai, ciiv xal Im XTyjifnv, tupo- 
xovf/ttj (TOvfitt .ttti 'nki,v^a, ncira, aa^Ka' ej^ei j/aj aii &eoth; avTOv to teAeiov. I'ruclus. Episcop. 
Constan. Epist. ad Armenios. 


nifested to be otherwise. Of 1 Cor. xi. 3. and iii. 22, 23. 
there is the same reason ; both speaking of Christ as me- 
diator ; whence that no testimony can be produced against 
his Deity, hath been declared. 

He adds twelfth, ' Q. Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as 
with the title of Lord, so with the title of God in the Scrip- 
ture ? ^//s. Thomas saith, " my Lord, and my God.'' Verily, 
if Thomas said, that Christ was his God, and said true, Mr. 
B. is to blame, who denies liim to be God at all. With this 
one blast of the Spirit of the Lord is his fine fabric of reli- 
gion blown to the ground. And it may be supposed, that 
Mr. B. made mention of this portion of Scripture, that he 
might have the honour of cutting his own throat, and de- 
stroying his own cause ; or rather, that God in his righte- 
ous judgment hath forced him to open his mouth to his own 
shame. Whatever be the cause of it, Mr. B. is very far 
from escaping this sword of the Lord, either by his insinu- 
ation in the present query, or diversion in the following ; 
for the present ; it was not the intent of Thomas to dignify 
Christ with titles, but to make a plain confession of his 
faith, being called upon by Christ to believe. In this state 
he professes, that he believes him to be his Lord and his 
God. Thomas doubtless was a Christian ; and Mr. B. tells 
us that Christians have but one God, chap. I. Qu. 1. Eph. 
iv. 6. Jesus Christ then being the God of Thomas, he is the 
Christian's one God ; if Mr. B. may be believed. It is not 
then the dignifying of Christ with titles, which it is not for 
men to do, but the naked confession of a believer's faith, 
that in these words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and 
God of a believer ; ergo, the only true God ; as 1 John v. 19. 
Mr. B. perhaps will tell you, he was made a God; so one 
abomination begets another, infidelity idolatry ; of this af- 
terward. But yet he was not according to his companions 
made a God before his ascension ; which was not yet, when 
Thomas made his solemn confession. 

Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. 
Kol 6 ^£oc fiov. ' Here first,' saith he, ' in the story of the 
gospel is this word found ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus 
Christ (which Maldonat before him observed for another 
purpose) to wit, after he had by liis resurrection proved him- 
self to be him, from whom life and that eternal, ought to be 


expected. And this custom abode in their church, as ap- 
pears not only in the apostolical writings; E,ora. ix. 5. and 
of the ancient Christians, as may be seen in Justin Martyr 
against Trypho, but in the epistle also of Pliny unto Trajan, 
where he says, that the Christians sang verses to Christ, as 
to God :'« or as the words are in the author. Carmen Christo, 
quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem.' What the intendment of 
this discourse is, is evident to all those, who are a little ex- 
ercised in the writings of them, whom our author all along 
in his annotations takes care of. That Christ was now made 
a God at his resurrection, and is so called from the power 
wherewith he was entrusted at his ascension, is the aim of 
this discourse. Hence he tells us, it became a custom to 
call him God among the Christians, which also abode 
amongst them. And to prove this custom, wrests that of the 
apostle, Rom. ix. 5. where the Deity of Christ is spoken of, 
in opposition to his human nature, or his flesh, that he had 
of the Jews, plainly asserting a divine nature in him, call- 
ing him God subjectively, and not only byway of attribu- 
tion. But this is it seems a custom taken up after Christ's 
resurrection to call him God, and so continued ; though 
John testifies expressly, that he was God in the beginning. 
It is true indeed, much is not to be urged from the expres- 
sion of the apostles, before the pouring out of the Spirit 
upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance with spiritual 
things ; yet they had before made this solemn confession, 
that Christ was the ' Son of the living God ;' Matt. xvi. 16 
— 18. which is to the full as much as what is here by Thomas 
expressed. That the primitive Christians worshipped Christ 
and invocated him, not only as a God, but professing him 
to be the true God and eternal life, we have better testimo- 
nies than that of a blind Pagan, who knew nothing of them 
nor their ways, but by the report of apostates, as himself 
confesseth. But learned men must have leave to make 
known their readino;s and observations, whatever become 
of the simplicity of the Scripture. 

* Hie primuraea vox in narratione Evangelica reperitur ab apostolis Jesu tributa, 
postquani scilicet sua resurrectioiie probaverat se esse, a quo vita et quidem aeter- 
na, expectari deberet. Mansit deinde ille mos in ecciesia, ut apparet non tantuin 
in Scriptis Apostolicis ut, Rom. ix. 5. et veteruru Christianorum ut videre est apud 
Justinuni INIarlyrem contra Tryphoneni, sed et in Plinii ad Trajanum Epistola, ubi 
ait Cliiisti;inos Cliristo, ut Deo, Carolina cecinisse. Grot, in locum. 


To escape the dint of this sword, Mr. Biddle nextiy 

'Q. Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himself in 
the meantime, did not acknowledge another to be his God? 

* A. John XX. 17. Rev. iii. 12.' 

True, He who being partaker of the divine essence, in 
the form of God, was Thomas's God ; as he was mediator, 
the head of his church, interceding for them, acknowledged 
his Father to be his God. Yea God may be said to be his 
God, upon the account of his Sonship, and personality, in 
which regard he hath his deity of his Father, and is God of 
God. Not that he is a secondary, lesser, made God, a hero, 
semideus, as Mr. B. fancies him ; but ' God blessed for ever,' 
in order of subsistence depending on the Father. 

Of the same nature is the last question, viz. * Have you 
any passage in the Scripture, where Christ at the same time 
hath the appellation of God given to him, and is said to 
have a God? 

' A. Heb. i. 8, 9.' 

By Mr. B.'s favour, Christ is not said to have a God, though 
God be said to be his God, 2. ver. 8. Christ by Mr. Biddies 
confession is expressly called God. He is then the one true 
God with the Father, or another ; if the first, what doth he 
contend about ? If the second, he is a God, that is not God 
by nature, that is, not the one God of Christians, and con- 
sequently an idol, and indeed such is the Christ that Mr, B, 
worshippeth. Whether this will be waved by the help of 
that expression, ver. 9. ' God thy God ;'-^vhere it is expressly 
spoken of him, in respect of his undertaking the office of 
mediation, wherein he was ' anointed of God with the oil of 
o-ladness above his fellows,' God and his saints will iudsfe. 

Thus the close of this chapter, through the good wise 
hand of the providence of God, leaving himself and his truth 
not without witness, hath produced instances, and evidences 
of the truth op])osed, abundantly sufficient, without farther 
inquiry and labour, to discover the sophistry and vanity of 
all Mr. Biddle's former queries, and insinuations ; for which 
let him have the praise. 



An entrance into the examination of the Racovian catechism, in the business 
of the Deity of Christ ; their arguments against it answered: and testi- 
monies of the eternity of Christ vindicated. 

Although the testimonies and arguments for the Deity of 
Christ might be urged and handled to a better advantage, 
if liberty might be used to insist upon them, in the method 
that seems most natural for the clearing and confirmation 
of this important truth, yet that I may do two works at once, 
I shall insist chiefly, if not only, on those texts of Scripture, 
which are proposed to be handled, and answered by the au- 
thor or authors of the Racovian catechism, which work 
takes up near one fourth part of their book, and (as it is 
well known) there is no part of it, wherein so much dili- 
gence, pains, sophistry, and cunning are employed, as in 
that chapter, of the person of Christ, which by God's assist- 
ance we are entering upon the consideration of. 

Those who have considered their writings know, that 
the very substance of all they have to say, for the evading 
of the force of our testimonies, for the eternal Deity of 
Christ, is comprized in that chapter, there being not any 
thing material, that any of them have elsewhere written, 
there omitted. And those who are acquainted with them, 
their persons, and abilities, do also know, that their great 
strength and ability for disputation, lies in giving plausible 
answers, and making exceptions against testimonies, cavil- 
ing at every word and letter, being in proof and argument 
for the most part weak and contemptible. And therefore, 
in this long chapter of near a hundred pages, all that them- 
selves propose by way of argument against the Deity of 
Christ is contained in two or three at the most ; the residue 
being wholly taken up with exceptions to so many of the 
texts of Scripture wherein the Deity of Christ is asserted, 
as they have been pleased to take notice of. A course 
which themselves are forced to» apologize for, as unbecom- 
ing catechists. 

I shall then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole 
chapter of tlieiis, in both parts of it : as to what they have 

» Interpres lect. Prcfat. ad Catecli. Raco. 


to say for themselves, or to plead against the Deity of 
Christ ; as also what they bring forth for their defence 
against the evidence of the light that shineth from the 
texts, whose consideration they propose to themselves, to 
which many of like sort, may be added. 

I shall only inform the reader, that this is a business 
quite beyond my first intention in this treatise, to whose 
undertaking I have been prevailed on, by the desires and 
entreaties of some, who knew that I had this other work 
imposed on me. 

Their first question and answer are, 

* Q. 1. Declare'' now to me, what I ought to know con- 
cerning Jesus Christ ? 

' A. Thou must know, that of the things which thou 
oughtest to know, some belong to the essence of Christ, and 
some to his office. 

'Q. 2. What are they which relate to his person? 

' A. That only, that by nature he is a true man, even as 
the Scriptures do often witness : amongst others, 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
1 Cor. XV. 21. Such a one as God of old promised by the 
prophets, and such as the creed, commonly called the apos- 
tles, witnesseth him to be, which with us all Christians 

Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature 
like unto us, sin only excepted, we believe ; and do ab- 
hor the abominations of Paracelsus, Wigelius, &c. and the 
Familists amongst ourselves, who destroy the verity of liis 
human nature. But that the Socinians believe the same, 
that he is a man in heaven, whatever he was upon earth, I 
presume the reader will judge, that it may be justly ques- 
tioned, from what I have to offer (and shall do it in its 
place) on that account. But that this is all that we ought 
to know concerning the person of Christ, is a thing of 
whose folly and vanity our catechists will be one day con- 
vinced. The present trial of it between us depends in part, 

•• Rogatum tc velini, ut milii ea de Jesu Cliristo exponas, qiiic me scire oporteat? 
— Sciendum tibi est, qujedatn ad essentiam Jesu Christi, quffidam ad illius muuus re- 
ferri, quajte scire oportet. 

Quaenam ca sunt, qu;w ad personam i|)sins rcferuntur? — Id solum, quod natura 
sit lionio verus, quemadmodura ea de re crebro Scripfura' sacra; testaiitnr : inter 
alias, 1 Tim. ii. b. ct 1 Cor. xv. 21. qualem olim Dous per prophctas proriiiM'raf, 
ct qualem eliam esse testatur fidei symbolum, (piod vulgo apostolicum vocant.quud 
nubibcuni universl Cliristiani amplectuntur. 


on the consideration of the Scriptures, which shall afterward 
be produced to evince the contrary : our plea from whence 
shall not here be anticipated. The places of Scripture they 
mention prove him to be a true man : that as man he died 
and rose : but that he who was man, was not also in one 
person God (the name of man there expressing the person, 
not the nature of man only), they prove not. The prophets 
foretold that Christ should be such a man, as should also 
be the Son of God, begotten of him; Psal.ii. 7. 'the mighty 
God;' Isa. ix 6, 7. 'Jehovah?' Jerem. xxiii. 6. * The Lord 
of hosts ;' Zech. ii. 8, 9. And the Apostles' Creed also (as 
it is unjustly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of 
God, our Lord, and requires us to believe in him, as we do 
in God the Father : which if he were not God, were an ac- 
cursed thing ; Jerem. xvii. 5. 

' Q. 3. Is "^ therefore' the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) 
man ? 

* A. By no means ; for he was conceived of the Holy 
Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, and therefore from his very 
conception and birth was the Son of God : as we read 
Luke i. 35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou 
wilt afterward find in the person of Christ, which most evi- 
dently declare, that the Lord Jesus can by no means be 
esteemed a pure (or mere) man.' 

Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated, that 
Christ neither was, nor was called the Son of God, upon 
the account here mentioned, nor any other intimated in the 
close of the answer, whatever ; but merely and solely, on 
that of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father. 

2. The enquiry is after the essence of Christ, which 
receives not any alteration by any kind of eminency, or 
dignity that belongs to his person. If Christ be by essence 
only man, let him have what dignity or honour he can have 
possibly conferred upon him, let him be born by what means 
soever, as to his essence and nature, he is a man still, but 
a man, and not more than a man ; that is, purus homo, a 

<^ Ergo Doniinus Jesus est pnrus homo ? — Nullo pacto ; etenini est conceptus e 
Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, coque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei 
est, ut ea de re Luke, i. 35. legimus, iibi angelus ]Mariam ita alloquitur: Spiritus 
Sanctus supervenict m to, &c. Ut alias causas non afferatn, quas postmodum in 
Jesu Christi persona deprehendes, quae evidentissime ostendunt, Dominum Jesuni 
pro puro honiine nullo raodo accipi posse. 


'mere man/ and not (f}vctei^eoc, ' God by nature ;' but such a 
God as the Gentiles worshij)ped ; Gal. iv. 8. His being 
made God, and the Son of God, afterward, which our cate- 
chists pretend, relating to office and dignity, not to his 
nature, exempts him not at al! from being a mere man. 
This then is but a flourish to delude poor simple souls into 
a belief of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet 
they think no otherwise of, than the Turks do of Mahomet ; 
nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, than 
as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols 
of the heathen, that they were not gods by nature, may ac- 
cording 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 appre- 
hensions of these gentlemen concerning Christ, and his 
deity, are the same upon the matter \»ith those of the heathen, 
concerning their worthies and heroes, who by an a7ro3"£wo-tc 
were translated into the number of their gods ; as Jupiter, 
Hercules, and others. They called them gods indeed ; but 
put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there 
was but one God, but that these men were honoured, as 
being upon their great worth, and noble achievements, 
taken up to blessedness and power. Such an hero, an Hermes 
or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ : who for his 
faithful declaring the will of God was deified ; but, in 
respect of essence and nature, which here is enquired after, 
if he be any thing according to their principles, (of making 
which supposal I shall give the reader a fair account) he 
was, he is, and will be a mere man to all eternity, and no 
more. They allow him no more, as to his essence, than that, 
wherein he was like * us in all things, sin only excepted,' 
Heb. ii. 17. 

*Q. You'' said a little above, that the Lord Jesus is by 
nature man, hath he also a divine nature ? 

* A. No: for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, 
but also to the Scriptures.' 

But this is that which is now to be put to the trial ; 
whether the asserting of the Deity of Christ be repugnant to 

*• Dixeras paulo superiiis Duiiiiiiuiii Jcsuin natuia esse lioniiiiciii ; ati ick'ni liabct 
naturajii diviaain ?- -Ncfjiiaquam : nam id iion solum rationi saiiac, vituih ctiain 
Divinis Uteris repiigiiat. 


the Scriptures or no? and as we shall see in the issue, that 
as these catechists have not been able to answer, or evade 
the evidence of any one testimony of Scripture, of more than 
an hundred, that are produced for the confirmation of the 
truth of his eternal Deity, so notwithstanding the pretended 
flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able to pro- 
duce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, 
rising up against it. For that right reason, which in this 
matter of mere divine revelation they boast of, and give it 
the pre-eminence in their disputes against the person of 
Christ, above the Scripture, unless they discover the conso- 
nancy of it to the word, to the \q.\v and testimonies, 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 whatever God hath revealed, and 
to receive it as truth, than which duty there is not any 
more eminent dictate of right reason indeed ; we for ever 
deny the first part of this assertion, and shall now attend to 
the proof of it ; nor do we here plead, that reason is blind 
and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot discern the 
things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves 
regenerate, before we admit them to judge of the truth of 
the propositions under debate, which though necessary for 
them, who would know the gospel for their own good, so as 
to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the grammatical and 
literal sense of propositions, as laid down in the word of the 
Scripture, thatwe are to judge of in this case, we require no 
more of men to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this 
proposition (which if they will not give, we can by unde- 
niable demonstration compel them to). Whatever God, who is 
prima Veritas, hath revealed is true, whether we can compre- 
hend the things revealed or no : which being granted, we 
proceed with our catechists in their attempt. 

' Q. Declare* how it is contrary to right reason. 

' A. First in this regard, that two substances having 
contrary properties cannot meet in one person ; such as are. 

f Ccdo qui ration! sanse repugnat ?^ — Primo, ad eum raoduro, quod dure sub- 
stantias, proprietatibus adveisae, coire in unara personam nequeant, ut sunt niorta- 
lem et immortalem esse, principium habere, et principle jcarere ; inutabileiu et ini- 
niutabilem existere. Deinde, quod dure naturae, personam singulae constituentes, in 


to be mortal and immortal ; to have a beginning ; and to want 
a beginning ; to be changeable and unchangeable. 

* 2. Because *tvvo natures, each of them constituting a 
person, cannot likewise agree, or meet in one person : for 
instead of one, there must (then) be two. persons, and so also 
two Christs would exist : whom all without controversy ac- 
knowledge 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 unit- 
ing of two substances with such diverse properties, so as 
by that union to make an exequation, or an equalling of 
those diverse properties ; but that there may not be such a 
concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in 
one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves 
their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is no- 
thing 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 

2. In calling these properties of the several natures in 
Christ adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a consi- 
deration of them as of qualities in a subject, whose mutual 
contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both ; 
or by a mixture cause an exurgency of qualities of another 
temperature. But neither are these properties such qualities, 
nor are they inherent in any common subject, but insepara- 
ble 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 per- 
son, wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead 
of pleading reason, which they pretended they would, they 
do nothing in this first part of their answer, but beg the 
thing in question; which being of so much importance, and 

unam personam coiivcnire itideni nequcant ; nam loco unius duas personas esse 
oporteret, atque ita duos Christos existere, qucm untiin esse, et unaiii ipsiiis personam 
omnes citraonuiem controversiam agnoscunt. 


concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted them 
on any such terms. Will Christ on their entreaties, cease to 
be God ? 

Neither is their second pretended argument of any other 
kind. 1, We deny, that the human nature of Christ had any 
such subsistence of its own, as to give it a proper per- 
sonality, being from the time of its conception, assumed into 
subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express 
texts of Scripture ; Isa. vii. 14. ix. 6. John i. 14. Rom. i. 3. 
ix. 5. Heb. ii. 15. Luke i. 35. Heb. ix. 14. Acts iii. 15. xx. 
28. Phil. ii. 7. 1 Cor. ii. 8, &c. And by arguments taken 
from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them men- 
tioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of 
Christ, &c. That we would take it for granted, that this 
cannot be, is the modest request of these gentlemen with 
whom we have to do. 

2. If by natures constituting persons, they mean those, 
who antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we 
grant they cannot meet in one person ; so that upon this 
union they should cease to be two persons. The personality 
of either of them being destroyed, their different beings 
could not be preserved. But if by constituting, they un- 
derstand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possi- 
bility of constituting a person ; then, as before, they only 
beg of us, that we would not believe, that the person of the 
Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that * holy 
thing, that was born of the Virgin,' into subsistence with 
itself 5 which for the reasons before-mentioned, and others 
like to them, we cannot grant. 

And this is the substance of all that these men plead, 
and make a noise with in the world, in an opposition to the 
eternal Deity of the Son of God. This pretence of reason 
(which evidently comes short of being any thing else), is 
their shield and buckler in the cause they have unhappily 
undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being hungry 
and dying, we say, it was in the human nature, wherein he 
was obnoxious to such things no less than we, being therein 
* made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted.' When 
of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them 
it is in respect of the office of Mediator, which he willingly 
undertook; and that his inequality unto him, as to that office. 


doth no way prejudice his equality with him, in respect of his 
nature and being. But when with Scriptures and arguments 
from thence, as clear and convincing, as if they were written 
with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord Jesus in 
respect of a divine nature whereof he was partaker from eter- 
nity, to be God blessed for ever : they tell us it cannot be, that 
two such diverse natures, as those of God and man, should be 
united in one person : and it cannot be so, because it cannot 
be so, there is no such union among other things. And these 
things must be, that those who are approved may be tried: 
but let us hear them out. 

* Q. But ^vhereas they shew, that Christ consisteth of a di- 
vine and human nature, as a man consisteth of soul and body, 
what is to be answered them? 

' A. That here is a very great difference. For ^they say, 
that the two natures in Christ are so united, that Christ is 
both God and man. But the soul and body are in that man- 
ner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body, 
nor neither soul nor body do singly of themselves constitute 
a person. But as the divine nature by itself constitutes a 
person, so it is necessary that the human nature should do.' 

j4ns. 1. In what senseit may be said, that Christ, that 
is, the person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human 
nature, was before declared. The person of the Son of God 
assumed the human nature into subsistence with itself, and 
both, in that one person are Christ. 

2. If our catechists have no more to say to the illustra- 
tion given to the union of the two natures in the person of 
Christ by that of the soul and body in one human person, 
but that there is a great difference in something between 
them, they do but filch away the grains that are allowed to 
every similitude ; and shew wherein the comparats differ, 
but answer not to that wherein they do agree. 

3. All that is intended by this similitude, is to shew, that 
besides the change of things, one into another, either by the 
loss of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides 

f Cum vcro illi ostcndunt, Christum sic ex iiatura divina et humana coiistare, qucm- 
adinoduni homo exaniiiioft corpore constet, quid illisrespoiulenduiri'! — Permagnum 
hie esse discrinicn : illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Chrislo ita uuitas esse, ut Cliristus 
sit Deus et homo; animo vcro et corpus ad eum niodum iu homine conjuncta sunt, 
ut nee aniuia nee corpus ipse lionio sit, nee enim anima, nee corpus sigillatim 
personam constituunt. Atut natura divina per sc constituit personam, ita humana 
constituat per se, necesse est. 


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 si- 
militude (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 ' with- 
out controversy to be a great mystery'), only to manifest the 
folly of that assertion of their master on John i. that if the 
' Word be made flesh' in our sense, it must be turned into 
flesh; for, saith he, 'one thing cannot be made another, but 
by change, conversion, and mutation into it.' The ab- 
surdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced, by the sub- 
stantial 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 

4. It is confessed that the soul is not said to be made the 
body, nor the body said to be made the soul, as the Word is 
said to be made flesh ; for the union of soul and body is not 
a union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common 
subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, whereof 
the one is the form of the other. And herein is the dissimili- 
tude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be jus- 
tified in Christ; 'the Word was made flesh,' without any 
change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunLo 
the flesh, or human nature of Christ was assumed, which is 
common to them both. And so it is in accidental predica- 
tions. 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 be- 
come 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 ante- 
cedent to this union : nor is the union of his person, the union 
of several parts of the same nature, but the concurrence of 
several natures in one subsistence. 

6. That it is of necessity that Christ's * human nature 
should of itself constitute a person,' is urged upon the old 



account of begging the thing in question. This is that which 
in the case of Christ we deny; and produce all the proofs 
before-mentioned to make evident the reason of our denial. 
But our great masters here say the contrary ; and our un- 
der cathechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a 
true man, because he had the true essense of a man, soul 
and bodj', with all their essential properties. A peculiar 
personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, but to his 
existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny Christ to 
have a person, as a man, but a human person. For the 
human nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which though it 
be in itself divine, yet as to that act of sustentation which 
it gives the human nature, it is the subsistence of a man. 
On which account the subsistence of the human nature of 
Christ is made more noble and excellent, than that of any 
other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our ca- 
techists from reason, that whereto they so much pretend, 
and which they give the pre-eminence unto, in their attempts 
against the Deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only, en- 
gine 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 mean- 
est pretence and shew that ever any of the sons of men had, 
who were necessitated to make a plea from them, in a matter 
of so great concernment as that now under consideration, 
will quickly disappear. Thus then they proceed : • 

' Q. Declares also how it is repugnant to Scripture, diat 
Christ hath a divine nature. 

* A. First, because that the Scripture proposeth to us, 
one only God by nature, whom we have above declared to 
be the Father of Christ. Secondly, the same Scripture tes- 
tifieth, that Jesus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it 
taketh from him any divine nature. Thirdly, because whatever 
divine thing Christ hath, the Scripture plainly teacheth that 

8 Doce etiara, qui id repugnet Scriplurae, Cliristum liabere divinara naturam. — 
Priiuum, ea ratione, quod Scriptura nobis uiiuin tantum natura Dcuni ))roponat, 
quem superius dcmonstravinius esse Christi patreni. Secundo, cadeiii Scriptura tes- 
tatur, Jesura Cliristum natura esse hoiuinera, ut su])erius, ostensum est; quo ipso, 
illi naturam adirait divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Cliristus liabeat, Scrip- 
tura eum patris dono habere apcrte doceat, Alatt. xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 
27. John. V. 19. x. 25. Dcnique cum uadera Scriptura apertissime ostendat, Jesum 
Christum omnia sua facta divina non sibi, nee alicui naturffi divinaj sua;; scd patri 
sue vindicare solitum fuisse, planum facit, earn divinam in Christo naturam prorsus 
otiosam, ac sine onini causa futuram fuisse. 


he had it by a gift of the Father; Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 
9. 1 Cor. XV. 27. John v. 19. x. 25. Lastly, because the same 
Scripture most evidently shewing, that Jesus Christ did not 
vindicate and ascribe all his divine works to himself, or to 
any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes it 
plain, that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vain, 
and would have been without any cause.' 

And this is that which our catechists have to pretend 
from Scripture against the Deity of Christ; concluding that 
any such divine nature in him would be superfluous and 
needless, themselves being judges. In the strength of what 
here they have urged, they set themselves to evade the evi- 
dence of near fifty express texts of Scripture, by themselves 
produced and insisted on, giving undeniable testimony to 
the truth they oppose. Let then what they have brought 
forth be briefly considered. 

. 1. The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us 'one only 
God by nature,' and we confess that that only true God is 
the ' Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ;' but we say, that the 
Son is partaker of the Father's nature, of the same nature 
with him, as being his proper Son, and by his ov/n testimony 
one with him. He is such a Son (as hath been declared) 
as is begotten of the essence of his Father, and is therefore 
God blessed for ever. If the Father be God by nature, so 
is the Son, for he is of the same nature with the Father. 

2. To conclude that Christ is not God, because he is man, 
is plainly and evidently to beg the thing in question. We 
evidently demonstrate in the person of Christ, properties that 
are inseparable adjuncts of a divine nature, and such also 
as no less properly belong to a human nature : from the 
asserting of the one of these, to conclude to a denial of the 
other, is to beg that which they are not able to dig for. 

3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to 
the Son; 1. By eternal generation; so the Son receives his 
personality, and therein his divine nature, from him who 
said unto him, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee :' and this is so far from disproving the Deity of Christ, 
that it abundantly confirms it : and this is mentioned, John 
V. 19—22. This Christ hath by nature. 2. By collation of 
gifts, honour and dignity, exaltation, and glory upon him as 

u 2 


Mediator, or in respect of that office, which he humbled him- 
self to undergo, and for the full execution whereof, and in- 
vestiture with glory, honour, and power, was needful, which 
is mentioned. Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 27. 
which is by no means derogatory to the Deity of the Son ; 
for inequality in respect of office is well consistent with 
equality in respect of nature. This Christ hath by grace. 
Matt, xxviii. 18. Christ speaks of himself as throughly fur- 
nished with authority for the accomplishing of the work of 
mediation, which he had undertaken. It is of his office, not 
of his nature, or essence that he speaks. Phil. ii. 9. Christ 
is said to be exalted, which he was in respect of the real ex- 
altation given to his human nature, and the manifestation 
of the glory of his divine, which he had with his Father be- 
fore the world was, but had eclipsed for a season. 1 Cor. 
XV. 27. relates to the same exaltation of Christ as before. 

4. It is false, that Christ doth not ascribe the divine works 
which he wrought to himself and his own divine power, al- 
though that he often also make mention of the Father, as by 
whose appointment he wrought those works as Mediator; 
John v. 27. * My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ;' ver. 
19, 'For whatsoever things the Father doeth, these alsodoeth 
the Son ;' ver. 21. ' For as the Father raiseth up the dead and 
quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.' 
Himself wrought the works that he did, though as to the 
end of his working them, which belonged to his office of 
mediation, he still relates to his Father's designation and 
appointment. And this is the whole of our catechists plea 
from reason and Scripture against the Deity of Christ. For 
the conclusion of the superfluousness, and needlesness of 
such a divine nature in the Mediator, as it argues them to be 
ignorant of the Scripture, and of the righteousness of God, 
and the nature of sin, so it might administer occasion to 
insist upon the demonstration of the necessity which there 
was, that he who was to be Mediator between God and man, 
should be both God and man, but that I aim at brevity, and 
the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another ac- 
count; so that here I shall not insist thereon. 

Nextly, then, they address themselves to that which is 
their proper work (wherein they are exceedingly delighted). 


viz. in giving in exceptions against the testimonies produced 
for the confirmation of the truth under consideration, which 
they thus enter upon. 

'Q. But'' they endeavour to assert the divine nature of 
Christ from the Scriptures. 

*A. They endeavour it, indeed, divers ways; and that 
whilst they study either to evince out of certain Scriptures 
what is not in them, or whilst they argue perversely from 
these things which are in the Scriptures, and so evilly bring 
their business to pass.' 

These it seems are the general heads of our arguments 
for the Deity of Christ : but before we part we shall bring 
our catechists to another reckoning, and manifest both that 
what we assert is expressly contained in the Scriptures, and 
what we conclude by ratiocination from them, hath an evi- 
dence in it, which they are not able to resist. But they say, 

' Q. What' are those things which they labour to evince, 
concerning Christ out of the Scriptures, which are not con- 
tained in them? 

' A. Of this sort is (as they speak) his pre-eternity, which 
they endeavour to confirm with two sorts of Scriptures. 

1 . Such as wherein they suppose this pre-eternity is expressed 

2. Such as wherein though it be not expressed, yet they 
think that it may be gathered from them.' 

That we do not only suppose, but have also as great an 
assurance as the plain, evident, and redoubled testimony of 
the Holy Ghost can give us, of the eternity of Jesus Christ, 
shall be made evident in the ensuing testimonies, both of the 
one sort and the other ; especially such as are express there- 
unto ; for in this matter we shall very little trouble the rea- 
der with collections and arguings, the matter inquired after 
being express and evident in the words and terms of the 
Holy Ghost himself. They say then : 

' Q. Which'' are those testimonies of Scripture which 
seem to them to express his pre-eternity ? 

h Atqui illi e Scripturis illam divinara in Cliristo naturaiu asserere conantur ? — Co- 
nantur quideni variis modis : idque dum student, aut e Scripturis quibusdam cvin- 
cere, qua in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis, quae in Scripturis habentur, perperam 
ratiocinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt. 

' Quje vero sunt ilia, qua; illi de Christo e Scripturis evincere laborant quas illic 
non habentur? — Est illius, ut loquunlur, prajsternitas, quam duplici Scripturarum 
genere approbare nituntur. Prinium ejusmodi est, in quo preeasternitatera banc ex- 
pressam jiutant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, earn tamen colligi arbitrantur. 

^ Quaenani sent testiraonia Scripturse, quje videntur ipsis earn praeaBternitatera ex- 


'A. They are these, in which the Scripture witnesseth 
of Christ that he was in the beginning, that he was in hea- 
ven, that he was before Abraham; John i. 1. vi. 62- viii. 58.' 

Before 1 come to the consideration of the particular 
places proposed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to 
premise one or two things. As, 

1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their hypo- 
thesis concerning Christ, if we prove him to have been ex- 
istent before his incarnation, whether the testimonies where- 
by 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 can- 
not deny but that it must be on the account of a divine na- 
ture ; for as to the incarnation of any pre-existing creature, 
(which was the Arians madness) they disavow, and oppose it. 

2. That these three places mentioned, are very far from 
being all, wherein there is express confirmation of the eter- 
nity of Christ : and, therefore, v/hen I have gone through the 
consideration of them, I shall add some others also, which 
are of no less evidence and perspicuity than these, whose 
vindication we are by them called unto. 

To the first place mentioned they thus proceed : 

' Q. What' dost thou answer to the first? 

'A. In the place cited, there is nothing about that pre-eter- 
nity, seeing here is mention of the beginning, Avhich is op- 
posed to eternity. But the word beginning is almost always 
in the Scripture referred to the subject matter, as maybe seen, 
Dan. viii. 1. John xv. 27. 16.4. Acts xi. 15. and, therefore, 
seeing the subject matter here is the gospel, whose descrip- 
tion John undertakes, without doubt, by this word beginning, 
John vmderstood the beginning of the gospel.' 

This place being express to our purpose, and the matter 
of great importance, I shall first confirm the truth contended 
for from thence, and then remove the miserable subterfuge 

priraere? — Sunt ea, in quibus Scriptura teslatur de Christo, ipsuin fuisse in princi- 
pio, fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante vVbralianium, John i. 1. vi. 62. viii. 58. 

' Quid vero ad jjiimum respondcs ? — in loco citato iiiliil habetur, de ista pra3- 
tcternitate, cum liic principii nieiitio fiat, quod pra-'ajternitati cpponitur. Priucipii 
vero vox in Scripturis fere semper ad subjectam refertur matoriam, ut videre est, 
Dan. viii. 1. Joli. xv.'27.xvi. 4. Acts xi. 13. cum igitur liic subjecta sit materia Evan- 
gelium.ciijusdescriptioncmsusccpit Johannes, sine dubio per vocem banc princijiii, 
principium Evangolii Johannes intellexit. 


which our catechists have received from their great apostles, 
uncle and nephew. 

1. That John thus expressly insisting on the Deity of 
Christ in the beginning of his gospel, intended to disprove 
and condemn sundry that were risen up in those days, deny- 
ing it, or asserting the creation, or making of the world to 
another Demiurgus, we have the unquestionable testimony 
of the"' first professors of the religion of Jesus Christ, with 
as much evidence and clearness of truth as any thing can 
be tendered on uncontrolled tradition : which at least will 
give some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in 
the words. 

2. That by 6 Xoyog, howsoever rendered, verbum or senno, 
or on what account soever he be so called, either of being 
the eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, or as the great 
revealer of his will unto us, (which yet of itself is not a suffi- 
cient cause of that appellation, for others also reveal the will 
of God unto us ; Acts xx.27. Heb. i. 1.) Jesus Christ is in- 
tended is on all hands confessed, and may be undeniably 
evinced from the context. This 6 Xoyog, came into the world 
and was rejected by his own, ver, 11. yea, expressly he was 
made flesh, and was the only begotten of God, ver. 14. 

3. That the whole of our argument from this place, is 
very far from consisting in that expression, ' in the beginning,' 
though that, relating to the matter whereof the apostle treats, 
doth evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our 
catechists' trade, so to divide the words of Scripture, that 
their main import and tendence, may not be perceived. In 
one place they answer to the first words, * in the beginning;' 
in another to, ' he was with God,' and ' he was God ;' in a third 
to that, ' all things were made by him ;' in a fourth (all at a 
great distance one from another) to, ' the Word was made 
flesh.' Which desperate course of proceeding, argues that 
their cause is also desperate, and that they durst not meet 
this one testimony as by the Holy Ghost placed and ordered 
for the confirmation of our faitli, without such a bold man- 
gling of the text, as that instanced in. 

"» Irenseus ae hseresjib. 3. c. IJ. Epipban. lib. 1. Tom. 2. hseres. 27, 28. 30. &c. 
lib. 2. Tom. 2. Ha;res. 69. Theodoret. Epitom. Hferet. lib. 2. Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. 
c. 27. Causam post alios banc scribendi prcecipuam tradunt omiies(veteres) ut veneno 
in ecclesiam jam turn sparso, authoritate sua?, quae apud oranes Christianura nomen 
profitentes, non poterat non esse maxima, medicinam faceiet. Grot. Prsefat. ad An- 
notat. in Evang. Jolian. 


4. I shall then insist upon the whole of this testimony 
as the words are placed in the contexture by the Holy Ghost, 
and vindicate them from what in several places they have 
excepted against several parcels of them. Thus then from 
these words (these divine words, whose very reading re- 
claimed as eminent a scholar" as the world enjoyed any in 
his days, from atheism) we proceed. 

1. He that was in the beginning, before the creation of 
the world, before any thing, of all things that are made, was 
made, who was then with God, and was God, who made 
all things, and without whom nothing was made, in whom 
was life, he is God by nature blessed for ever ; nor is there in 
the whole Scripture a more glorious and eminent description 
of God, by his attributes, name, and works, than here is 
given of him concerning whom all these things are spoken ; 
but now all this is expressly affirmed of the ' Word that was 
made flesh,' that is confessedly of Jesus Christ; therefore, he 
is God by nature blessed for ever. Unto the several parts 
of this plain and evident testimony, in several places they ex- 
cept 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 ex- 
cept in the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify 
preeternity, which hath no beginning. But, 

1. This impedes not at all the existence of Jesus Christ 
before the creation, although it denies, that his eternity is 
expressly asserted. Now to affirm that Christ did exist be- 
fore the whole creation, and made all things, doth no less 
prove him to be no more a creature, but the eternal God, 
than the most express testimony of his eternity doth, or 
can do. 

2. Though eternity have no beginning, and the sense of 
these words cannot be, 'in the beginning of eternity,' yet eter- 
nity is before all things, and ' in the beginning' may be the de- 

" Novum Testamentiim divinilns oblatum apcrio. Aliud agenfi exhibet sc mihias- 
spectu primo augustissiinum illud caput .loliannis Evangelist;r et Apostoli. In priii- 
cipio erat verbuni. Lego parlciii capitis, et ita coninioveor legens, ut repeiitc diviiii- 
tatcm argunicnti, ct script! majestateni, auctoritateniquc ; scnscrini, longo infcrvallo 
oumiljuseloquentiaj humana; viribus pra;euntcin. Ilorrebat corpus : stupcliat animus, 
ct totiini ilium dicni sic aflicicbar, ut qui esseni, ipse milii incertus viderer esse. 
Francisc. Junius. 


scription of eternity, as it is plainly; Prov. viii. 23. ' From 
everlasting,' and * in the beginning before the earth was,' are 
of the same import. And the Scripture saying, that * in the 
beginning the Word was,' not, 'was made,' doth as evidently 
express eternity, as it doth in those other phrases of, "'be- 
fore the world was,' or 'before the foundation of the world,' 
which more than once it insists on. 

3. By ' in the beginning,' is intended before the creation 
of all things. What will it avail our catechists, if it doth 
not expressly denote eternity ? Why, the word ' beginning' is 
to be interpreted variously, according to the subject matter 
spoken of, as Gen. i. 1. wliich being here the gospel, it is the 
beginning of the gospel that is intended. But, 

1. Be it agreed that the word ' beginning' is to be under- 
stood according to the subject matter, whereunto it is ap- 
plied ; that the apostle doth firstly and nextly treat of the 
gospel, as to the season of its preaching is most absurd. He 
treats evidently and professedly of the person of the author 
of the gospel, of the Word that was God, and was made flesh. 
And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended, is 
clear ; for 1. The apostle evidently alludes to the first words 
of Genesis : ' In the begiiming God created heaven and 
earth :' and the Syriac translation from the Hebrew, here 
places n'tz;"in : so here, in the ' beginning the Word made all 
things.' 2. The following words, ' the Word was with God,' 
manifests the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare 
what, and where the Word was before the creation of the 
world, even with God. 3. The testimony that he was God in 
the beginning, will no way agree with this gloss : take his 
being God in their sense, yet they deny, that he was God in 
the beginning of the gospel, or before his suffering, as hath 
been shewed. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this 
place is indeed senseless. ' In the beginning (say they), that 
is, when the gospel began to be preached by John Baptist 
(which is plainly said to be, before the world was made), the 
Word, or the man Jesus Christ (the Word being afterward 
said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him, as 
the Word) was with God, so hidden as that he was known 
only to God (which is false, for he was known to his mother, 
to Joseph, to John Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to others), 

" Jolin xvii. 5. 


and the Word was God, that is, God appointed, that he 
should be so afterward, or made God (though it be said, he 
was God then, when he was with God) and all things were 
made by him ; tb.e new creature was made by him, or the 
world by his preaching, and teaching, and working miracles 
was made, or reformed' (that is, something was mended by 
him) ; such interpretations we may at any time be supplied 
withal at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther. ' In 
the beginning;' that is, ' when John preached Jesus, and said, 
Behold the Lamb of God ; was the word ;' or Jesus was, that 
is, he was, when John preached that ho was : ' egregiam vero 
laudem!' He was, when he was. ' The word was in the be- 
ginning ;' that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then was 
afterward made flesh, and dwelt among us, when he had dwelt 
amongst us. And this is that interpretation which Faustus 
Socinus receiving from his uncle Lselius first set up upon ; in 
the strength whereof he went forth unto all the abominations 
which afterward he so studiously vented. 

Passing by those two weighty and most material passages 
of this testimony, 'the Word was God, and the Word was 
with God,' the one evidencing his oneness of nature with, 
and the other his distinctness of personality from, his Father; 
our catechists, after an interposition of near twenty pages, fix 
upon ver. 3. and attempt to pervert the express words and 
intendment of it, having cut it off from its dependance on 
what went before, that evidently gives light into the aim of 
the Holy Ghost therein : their words concerning this verse 

*Q. Declare ''to me with what testimonies they contend to 
prove that Christ created the heaven and the earth ? 

P Exponc igitur niilii, quibus testiinoniis approbarc contciuhint, Cbristum cceluin 
et terrain crcassc ? — lis, ubi scriptum cxtat, quod per cum omnia facta sint, ot sine 
CO factum sit nihil, quod factum sit; Jobn i. 3. ct iterum, liuiudus per ij)5um fac- 
tus est, ver. 10. ct rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita, &:c. Col. J. 16. Et quod 
Deus per eum sajculafecerit, Heb. i. 2. denique ; et ex eo, tu in principle, &c. ver. 

Qui vero ad prinium testimonium rcspondes.'— Primum, non liabctur in primo 
tcstinionio crcata sunt, vcrum facta sunt. Deindc, ait Johannes, facta esse per eum ; 
qui modus loquendi, non eum, qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam se- 
cundam aut mediani cxprimit. 1)( iiiquc, vox omnia non pro OTunibus prorsus re- 
bus hie suniitur, scd ad subjectani materiam rcstriiigitur omnino, quod frcqucntissi- 
mum est in libris divinis, jji-.tsertini ]\'ovi 'I'estanienii, cujus rei cxemphnii singulare 
extat; 2 Cor. v. 17. in <]uo liabetur scrmo dc re, liuic, de qua Johannes tractat, 
admoduni simili, ubi dicitur, omnia nova facta esse; cum ccrtuui sit multa extare, 
qux nova facta non sunt. Cum vero subjccla apud Joannem materia sit Evange- 


' A. With those, where it is written, that by him all things, 
and without him was nothing made that was made, and the 
world was made by him ;' John i. 3. 10. as also Col. i. 16. 
Heb. i. 2. 10—12. 

*Q. But how dost thou answer to the first testimony? 

'1. It is not in the first testimony, they were created, 
but they were made. 2. John says 'they were made by him;' 
which manner of speaking doth not express him who is the 
first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause. 
Lastly, the word ' all things,' is not taken for all things 
universally, but is altogether related to the subject matter, 
which is most frequent in the Scriptures, especially of the 
New Testament, whereof there is a signal example, 2 Cor. 
V. 17. wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to 
this, whereof John treats, where it is said, * all things are 
made new;' when as it is certain, that there are many things 
which are not made new. Now whereas the subject matter 
in John is the gospel, it appeareth that this word ' all things,' 
is to be received only of all those things which belong to 
the gospel. 

' But why doth John add, that without him nothing was 
made that was made? 

' John added these words, that he might the better illus- 
trate 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 him- 
self, but by his apostles ; but yet not without him. For the 
apostles administered all things in his name and authority, 

liuin, apparet vocera omnia, de iis omnibus, qua3 quoque mode ad Evaiigelium per- 
tinent, accipi debere. 

Cur vero addidit Johannes, quod sine eo factum est nihil, quod factum est? — ■ 
Addidit hjee Johannes, ut eo melius illustraret ilia superiora, omnia per ipsum 
facta sunt, qure earn vim habere videntur, per solum Verbum vel Filiuni Dei omnia 
ilia facta esse, licet ejus generis quffdam, et quidem magni monienti, non per ipsuni, 
verum per apostolos facta fuerint : ut est vocatio Gentium, et legalium ceremoniarura 
abolitio; licet enim ha2C originem ab ipsis sermonibus etoperibus Domini Jesu trax- 
erint, ad eifectum tamen non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, sed per ipsius apos- 
tolos, non tamen sine ipso. Apostoli enim omnia nomine, ct authoritate ipsius ad- 
rainistrarunt, ut etiam ipse Dominus ait, sine me nihil facere potestis. Job. xv. 3. 


as the Lord himself said. Without me ye can do nothing. 
John XV. 5.' 

Thus to the third verse, of which afterward. We shall 
quickly see how these men are put to their shifts to escape 
the sword of this witness, which stands in the way to cut 
them off in their journeyin'Z" to curse the church and people 
of God, by denying the Deity of their blessed Saviour. 

1. The connexion of the words is wholly omitted, ' He 
was God, and he was in the beginning: with God, and all 
things were made by him.' The words are an illustration 
of his divine nature, by divine power and works. He was 
God, and he made all things. * He that made all things is 
God;' Heb. iii. 4. 'The Word made all things;' John i. 3. 
therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered. 

1. It is not said they were created by him, but made. 
But the word here used by John is the same that in sundry 
places the Septuagint (whom the writers of the New Testa- 
ment followed) used about the creation. As Gen. i. 3. Kai 
fiTTfv 6 3"£oe FfvrjS'/jrw 0wc> ^ai lyevsro (j)C)g. and ver. 6. iyivaTO 
arspiiofjia: and if, as it is affirmed, he was in the beginning 
(before all things) and made them all, he made them out of 
nothing; that is, he created them. To create is but to pro- 
duce something out of nothing, nothing supplying the term 
from whence of their production. But, 

'2. They are said to be made by him : its St avrov, which 
denotes not the principal, but mediate, or instrumental 

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

1. This might help the Arians, who fancied Christ to be 
created or made before all things; and to have been the in- 
strumental cause, whereby God created all other things ; 
but how this concerns them to insist on, who deny that 
Christ had any existence at all before the world was some 
thousands of years old, is not easy to be apprehended. 

2. In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but ex- 
pressly contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by 
way of answer to the latter part of the third verse. Here 
they say he is not the principal efficient cause but the second 
and mediate ; there, that all things were either done by him. 


or in his name and authority ; which certainly denotes the 
principal cause of the thing done. But, 

3. This very expression is sundry times used concerning 
God the Father himself, whom our catechists will not there- 
fore deny to have been the principal efficient cause of the 
things ascribed to him : Rom. xi. 36. from him, and gi avTov 
'by him are all things ;' 1 Cor. i. 9. ' God is faithful dl ov, by 
whom you are called :' Gal. i. 1. ' Paul an apostle, not of 
men, nor by man, but dia 'Irjt70u Xptorou, kcu Qeov Trarpbg, by 
Jesus Christ, and God the Father;' Ephes. i. 1. dta ^eXijixaTog 
Qeov, 'by the will of God.' So that this also is frivolous : 
thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But, 

'4. All things, are to be referred to the gospel ; all things 
of the gospel whereof John treats; so are the words to be 
restrained by the subject matter :' but, 

1. This is merely begged. John speaks not one word 
of the gospel as such ; gives no description of it, its nature, 
or effects ; but evidently, plainly, and directly speaks of the 
Word that was God, and that made all things, describing 
him in his eternity, his works, his incarnation, his employ- 
ment, his coming into the world, and his business ; and treats 
of the gospel, or the declaration of the will of God by Jesus 
Christ, distinctly afterward, from ver. 14. and forwards. 

2. For the expression, 2 Cor. v. 17. 'all things are be- 
come new ;' it is expressly restrained to the new creature, to 
them that are in Jesus Christ, but as to this general expres- 
sion here, there is no colour why it should be so restrained: 
the expression itself every where signifying the creation of 
all things; see Gen. ii. 1, 2. Psal. xxxiii. 6. cxxi. 2. Isa. 
xxxvii. 16. xliv. l9. Ixii. 2. Jer. xxxii. 17. Actsxiv. IS.xvii. 
24. And this is it which they plead to the first part of the 
verse, ' by him all things were made.' 

2. The other expression, they say is added to manifest, 
* that what was done after by the apostles, was not done with- 
out him ; and that is the meaning of these words. And with- 
out him was nothing made, that was made.' But, 

1. Their irpwrov xptvdog, of referring the whole passage to 
the description of the gospel, whereof there is not the least 
tittle nor intimation in the text, being removed out of the way, 
this following figment falls of itself. 

2. This gloss is expressly contrary to the text. The 'all 


things' here mentioned, are the ' all things' that were made 
in the beginning of the world ; but this gloss refers it to 
the things made in the end of the world. 

3. It is contradictory to itself; for by. 'the beginning,' 
they understand the beginning of the gospel, at the first 
preaching of it ; but the things, that they say here were 
made by Christ, are things that were done after his ascension. 

4. It is true, the apostles wrought not any miracles, ef- 
fected no mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with 
them (though the text cited to prove it ; John xv. 5. be 
quite of another importance, as speaking of gospel obedience, 
not works of miracles or conversions) ; but that those works 
of theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offered to 
proof by our catechists. And this is the sense of the words 
they give ; ' Christ, in the beginning of the gospel, made all 
things; or all things were made by him; even those which 
he made by others, after his ascension into heaven :' or thus 
'AH things,' that is, some things 'were made/ that is, 
mended, ' by him,' that is, the apostles, in the beginning of 
the gospel, that is, after his ascension.' 

5. Our sense of the words is plain and obvious, says the 
apostle ; ' He who was in the beginning, and was God, made 
all things ;' which he first expresseth positively ; and then 
by an universal negative confirms and explains what was be- 
fore asserted in an universal affirmative, 'without him was 
nothing made, that was made.' And this is the sum of what 
they have to except against this part of our testimony, than 
which nothing can be more vain and frivolous. 

2. The tenth verse is by them taken under consideration, 
and these words therein : ' The world was made by him :' 
against which this is their procedure. 

' Q. Whaf dost thou answer to the second ? 

1 Quid vero respondes ad secundum? — Primum, quod liic non scribat Johannes, 
mundum esse creatuni, sed factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui niediam 
causam dcsignat, ait enim, mundum per cum factum. Doniquc, iia^c vox raundus, 
quemaduiodum ct alia,', quaj prorsus idem in Scripturis valcnt, non solum caelum et 
terram dcnotat, verum prater alias significationcs, vol genus liunianuni designat, ut 
locus praiscns ostendit, ubi ait, in mundo crat, et mundus eurn non agnovit, 1 John 
i. 10. et mundus eurn secutus est, John xii. 19. aut etiam futuram immorlalitatem, ut 
apparet, Heb. i. 6. ubi ait, et eurn itcrum introducit primogeiiitiim in mundum, ait, 
ctadorent cum omncs angeli Dei ; quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet c cap. 'J. 
ejusdem Epistola;, ubi ait, etcnim non angelis subjecit nmndum fulurum, de quo lo- 
quinnir. At nusquam deco locutus fut^rat, nisi vcr. (i. cap. 1. prceterea, habes locum cap. 
X. ver. 5. ubi de Cliristo loquens, ait, propterea ingrcdiens in mundum, ait ; Imstiam et 
oblationem noluisti, vcruni corpus adaptasti milii ; ubi cum palani sit eurn loqui de mun- 


' A. 1. That John doth not write here, that the world was 
created, but made. 2. He uses the same manner of speech, 
which signifieth the mediate cause, for he saith, the world 
was made by him. Lastly, this word munclus, the world, as 
others of the same import, do not only denote heaven and 
earth, but besides other significations, it either signifieth 
human kind, as the present place manifesteth. He was in the 
world, and the world knew him not: and John xii. 19. or 
also future immortality, as Heb. i. 6. which is to be under- 
stood of the world to come, as it appears from chap.ii. where 
he saith, he hath not put the world to come into subjection 
to the angels, of which we speak: but he had nowhere 
spoken of it, but chap. i. 6. Furthermore, you have a place, 
chap. X. 5. where, speaking of Christ he saith; Wherefore 
coming into the world, he saith. Sacrifice and offering thou 
wouldest not have, but a body, &c. Where, seeing it is evi- 
dent that he speaks of that world into which Jesus being 
entered, was made our priest, as all the circumstances de- 
monstrate, it appears, that he speaks not of the present, but 
of the world to come ; seeing, chap. viii. 4. he had said of 
Christ, if he were on earth he should not be a priest.' 

The two first exceptions have been already cashiered : 
those which follow are of as little weight or consideration. 

1. It is confessed, that the word 'world' hath in Scripture 
various acceptations, and is sometimes taken for men in the 
world : but that it can be so taken, when the world is said to 
be made or created, when it is equivalent to all things, when 
it is proposed as a place whereunto any comes, and where 
he is, as is the state of the expression here, there can nothing 
more absurd, or foolish be imaoined. 

2. Heb. i. 6. speaks not of the world to come; nor is 
there any place in the Scripture,where the word 'world'doth 
signify immortality, or the world to come, nor any thing 
looking that way. Heb. ii. 5. mention is made not simply of 
the world, but of the world to come ; nor doth that expres- 
sion of the apostle relate unto that of chap. i. 6. where the 
word 'world' is used, but to what goes before and after in the 

do, in queni ingressus Jesus, sacerdos noster faclus est (ut circumstantije omnes de- 
monstrant), apparet, non de preesenti, sed de future mundo agi, quandoquidem cap. 
3. ver. 4. de Christo dixerat, si in terris esset, ne sacerdos quideiu esset. 



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 ex- 
pressed before it came ; as also, chap, vi. 5. Nor is the world 
to come, life eternal, or blessed immortality ; life is to be had 
in it ; but immortality, and the world to come, are not the 
same : nor is that world ever said to be made ; nor is it any 
where described as made already, but as to come ; as Matt, 
xii, 32. Luke xviii. 30. xx. 35. Eph. i. 21. nor can it be said 
of the world to come, that it knew not Christ, as it is of this 
that he made. Nor can Christ be said to come into that 
world in the beginning, which he did not until after his re- 
surrection ; nor is the world to come, that whereof it is said 
in the next verse, which expounds this, he came dg ra 'iSia, 
' to his own,' for then, ' his own ui 'idioi, knew him not :' so that 
there is not the least colour, or pretence of this foppery, that 
here they would evade the testimony of the Holy Ghost 

3. Those words, Heb. xi. 5. 'coming into the world he 
said,' 8cc. do not in the least intimate any thing of the world 
to come, but express the present world, into which Christ 
came, w hen God prepared a body for him, at his incarnation, 
and birth, which was in order to the sacrifice, which he af- 
terward offered in this world, as shall be evidently mani- 
fested, when we come to the consideration of the priesthood 
of Christ. 

It remains only that we hear their sense of these words, 
which they give as followetli. 

'Q. But"^ what dost thou understand by these words. The 
world was made by him ? 

' A. A twofold sense may be given of them ; 1. That human 

■■ Quid vero per hjec, raundus per cum factus est, intelligis? — Duplex eoruin scnsus 
dari potest: prior, quod genus humanuin j)cr Cliristum rcforinatuni, et quasi dcnuo 
factum sit, coquod ille generi liuraano, quod pcrierat, etaiternEe mortisubjectunierat, 
vitam attulit, eainque semi)iternam (quod etiaiii mundo Joliannes exprobrat, qui per 
Christum ab interitu vindicatus, euni non agiiovcrit, sed spreverit, et rcjecerit). Is cnim 
mos Hebraici sermonis, quod in cjusmodi loqueridi modis, verba faceru, crearc, idem 
valeant, quod denuo facere, et denuo crearc, idque propterca, quod verbis, quajcom- 
posita vocant, ea lingua careat. Posterior vero seiisus est, quod ilia immortalitas, 
quam expectanius per Christum, quantum ad nos, facta sit: quemadmodum eadem 
futurum saecuium, liabita ratione nostri, vocatur, licet jam Cbristo et angelis sit 


kind was reformed by Christ, and as it were made again, 
because he brought life, and that eternal to human kind, 
which was lost, and was subject to eternal death ; (which 
also John upbraideth the world withal, which being vindi- 
cated by Christ from destruction, acknowledged him not, 
but contemned and rejected him), for that is the manner of 
the Hebrew speech, that in such terms of speaking, the 
words, to make, and create, are as much as to make again, 
or to create again, because that tongue wants those words, 
that are called compounds. The latter sense is, that that 
immortality which we expect, is as to us, made by Christ ; 
as the same is called the world to come, in respectof us, al- 
though it be present to Christ, and the angels.' 

1. That these expositions are destructive to one another' 
is evident : and yet which of them to adhere unto our cate- 
chists know not : such good builders are they, for to esta- 
blish men in the faith. Pull down they will, though they 
have nothing to offer in the room of what they endeavour to 

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. 

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 re- 
newed or reformed, unless it be joined with other expressions, 
restraining its significancy to such renovation. 

3. The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was 
in it : nor can it be said to be renewed by him, only on the 
account of laying the foundation of its renovation in his 
doctrine. By him the world was made, that is, he preached 
that doctrine, whereby some in the world were to be reformed. 
The world that Christ made knew him not : but the renewed 
world know him. 

VOL. vni. X 


4. The Hebraism of making, for reforming, is commonly 
pretended ; without any instance for its confirmation. John 
wrote in Greek, which language aljounds with compositions 
above any other in the world, and such as on all occasions 
he makes use of. 

There is one passage more, that gives strength to the tes- 
timony insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his 
divine nature, antecedently to his incarnation, and that is, 
ver. 14. ' The Word was made flesh.' Who the Word is, and 
what, we have heard. He who w'as in the beginning, who 
was God, and was with God, who made all things, who made 
the world, in whom was light and life, he was made flesh. 
Flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelt amongst men, and con- 
versed with them. How he was, and how he was said to be 
made flesh, I have declared in the consideration of his eter- 
nal Sonship, and shall not again insist thereon. This, after 
the interposition of sundry questions, our catechists take thus 
into consideration. 

* Q. How' do they prove Christ to have been incarnate? 

' A. From those testimonies, where according to their 
translation it is read, the Word was made flesh; John i. 41, See. 
' Q. How dost thou answer it ? 

* A. On this account, because in that testimony, it is not 
said (as they speak), God was incarnate, or the divine nature 
assumed the human. The Word Avas made flesh, is one thing, 
and God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the 
human, another. Besides, these words, the Word was made 
flesh, or rather, the Speech was made flesh, may, and ought 
to be rendered, the Word was flesh. That it may be so ren- 

' E qiiibus vero tcstlnioiiiis Scripturas dcmonstrare conantur, Christum (ut loquun- 
tur) iiicarnaluiii esy ? — Ex Vu, ubi secitnduiii eoruni versioncm legilur, A'erbuni caro 
factum (.ssc ; John i. 14. ct Phil. ii. 6, 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16, &c. — Qiiomodo ad pri- 
iiium respoiides? — Ea ratioiie, quod in co testiuionio non habeatur Dcum (ut lo- 
quuntur) iiicarnatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpscrit Imnianam. Aliudeiiiiu 
est, A'eibum caro facluni est, aliud, Deus incartiatus est (ut loquuntur) vel natura 
divina assumjiserit liuniaiiani. Pra?tcrea, li?ec verba, Verbuni caro factum est, vel 
polius, Sermo caro factus est, possunt, et dibent ila reddi, Sernio caro fuit. Posse 
ita reddi, e testimoniis, in quibus vox iyeuro (qiuu liic per factum est traiislala est) 
verbo fuit reddita iiivenitur, apparet; ut in cudem, cap. v. 6. et Luca; xxiv. 19. 
Fuit homo missus a Deo, &c. Et, Qui fuit vir, propheta, 6cc. Debere vero reddi 
j)er verbuni fuit, ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter ioquutus 
fuisset, sermoiiem carneni factum esse, id est, ut adversarii interprctantur, naturain 
divinam assumpsisse humanam, postquam ea jam de iiio sermone cxposuisset, qua; 
iiativitatem hominis Jesu Christ! subsccuta sunt; ut sunt h;iic ; Johainiem Baptistam 
de iilo testatum esse; ilhiin in mundo fuisse ; a suis non fuissc reccptum; quod lis, 
a quibus leceptus fuisset, potestatcni dedcrit, ut filii Dei liercut. 


dered, appears from the testimonies, in which the word 
lyiv£To (which is here translated) was made, is found ren- 
dered by the word, was ; as in this chap. ver. 6. and Luke 
xxiv. 19, &c. Also that it ought to be so rendered, the order 
of John's words teacheth, who should have spoken very in- 
conveniently, the Word was made flesh, that is, as our adver- 
saries interpret it, the divine nature assumed the human, 
after he had spoken those things of the Word, which fol- 
lowed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus, such as are these : 
John bare witness of him ; he came into the world ; he was 
not received of his own; that to them that received him, he 
gave power to become the sons of God.' 

This is the last plea they use in this case ; the dying 
groans of their perishing cause are in it; which will provide 
them neither with succour, or relief. For, 

1. It is not words, or expressions, that we contend about. 
Grant the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with 
any living about the expressions, wherein it is by any man 
delivered. By the incarnation of the Son of God, and by the 
Divine nature assuming the human, we intend no more than 
what is here asserted, the Word, who was God, was made 

2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on, is, that 
the word lyivero, may, yea ought to be translated, ' fuit,* 
*was,' and not ' factus est,' * was made. But, 

1. Suppose it should be translated was, what would it 
avail them ? He that was a man, was made a man. In that 
sense it expresses what he was, but withal denotes how he 
came so to be. He who was the Word before, was also a 
man ; let them shew us any other way, how he became so, 
but only by being made so, and upon a supposition of this 
new translation, they may obtain something. But, 

2. How will they prove, that so much as it may be ren- 
dered 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 com- 
mon usage of it is, 'was made;' and because it is once or 
twice used in a peculiar sense, may it be so rendered here, 
where nothing requires that it be turned aside from its most 
usual acceptation ; yea much enforcing it thereunto. 

3. That it ought to be rendered by * fuit,' 'was,' they plead 

X 2 


the mentioning before of things done after Christ's incar- 
nation (as we call it), so that it cannot be, he was made 
flesh ; but, 

1. Will tliey say, that this order is observed by the apo- 
stle, 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 be- 
fore it? Or will they say, in him was the life of man, before 
he was made flesh? When the life of man, according to 
them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after 
he ceased to be flesh in their sense. Or what conscience 
have these men, that in their disputes will object that to 
the interpretation of others, which they must receive, and 
embrace for the establishing of their own? 

2. The order of the words is most proper; John having 
asserted the Deity of Christ, with some general concomi- 
tants and consequences of the dispensation, wherein he un- 
dertakes to be a Mediator ; in his fourteenth verse enters 
particularly upoa a description of his entrance upon his 
employment, and his carrying it on by the revelation of 
the will of God ; so that without either difficulty or strain- 
ing, the sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in 
clearly in the words. 

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

1. It being so often said before, that the Word was, the 
Word is still j/v, and not lytvtTo ; in the beginning the Word 
tvas, and the Word ivas God, and the W^ord ivas with God. 
The same was; he u'as in the world, he ifcs the light; still 
the same word ; so that if no more were intended, but what 
was before expressed, the terms would not be changed with- 
out exceedingly obscuring the sense ; and therefore, lyivero 
must signify somewhat more than j/i^. 

2. The word iyivsro applied to other things in this very 
place, denotes their making, or their original, which our 
catechists did not question in the consideration of the places 
where it is so used ; as ver. 3. 'all things were t7iade by him, 
and without him was nothing made, that was made, and 
ver. 10. the world was rnadf; by him.' 


3. This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places, 
as Rom. i. 3. tov yevofiivov Ik GiripfiaTog Aaj3(8 Kara aapKa, 
' made of the seed of David according to the flesh ;' and 
Gal. iv. 4. ytvojuevov tic yvvaiKoq, ' made of a woman ;' but 
they think to salve all by the ensuing exposition of these 

' Q. How* is that to be understood, the Word was flesh ? 
' A. That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, 
who is therefore , called ' Sermo' by John, was a man, subject 
to all miseries, and afllictions, and lastly to death itself. 
For the Scripture useth the word flesh in that sense, as is 
clear from those places, where God speaks, My Spirit shall 
not always contend with man, seeing he is flesh ; Gen. vi. 3. 
and Peter, All flesh is grass ; 1 Pet. i. 24.' 

This is the upshot of our catechists exposition of this 
first chapter of John, as to the person of Christ. Which is, 
1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions ; for the testimo- 
nies produced affirm every man to be flesh : so that to say 
he is a man, is to say he is flesh ; and to say that man was 
flesh, is to say that a man was a man, inasmuch as every 
man is flesh. 

2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the 
Holy Ghost ; for he was made flesh antecedently to his 
dwelling amongst us ; which immediately follows in the 
text; nor is his being made flesh suited to any thing in his 
place, but his conversation with men, which answers his in- 
carnation, not his mediation ; neither is this exposition con- 
firmed by any instance from the Scriptures, of the like ex- 
pression used concerning Jesus Christ ; as that we urge is, 
Rom. i. 3. Gal. iv. 4. and other places. The place evidently 
affirms, the Word to be made something that it was not be- 
fore, when he was the Word only; and cannot be affirmed 
of him, as he was man; in which sense he was always ob- 
noxious to miseries and death. 

And this is all which our catechists in several places 
have thought meet to insist on, by way of exception or op- 
position to our undeniable and manifest testimonies from 

' Qua ratioiie illud intelligendum est, Sermonem carnem fiiisse ? — Quod is, per 
quein Deus vuluntatein suuin ouiuem perfecte exposuissel, et |)ropterea a Joliaiine 
Sernio appellatus fuisset, homo fuerit, omnibus niiseriis, et alHictionibus, ac uiorti 
denique subjectus. Eteiiiui vocem caro eo sensuScriptura usurpat, ut ex lis locis per- 
epicuum est, ubi Deus loquitur. Non conteiidet spiiitus nicus cum homine in aater- 
sium, quia caro est, Gen. vi. 3. Et Pctrus, omnis caro ut ra-iiuni ; 1 Pet. i. ",'4. 


this first chapter of John, unto the great and sacred truth 
contended for ; which I have at large insisted on, that the 
reader from this one instance, may take a taste of their deal- 
ing in the rest ; and of the desperateness of the cause which 
they have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts, 
for the maintenance and protection of it ; in the residue I 
shall be more brief. 

John vi. 62. is in the next place taken into consideration. 
The words are, * What and if ye shall see the Son of man 
ascend up where he was before r' What we intend from hence, 
and the force of the argument from this testimony insisted 
on, will the better appear, if we add unto it those other 
places of Scripture, wherein the same thing is more ex- 
pressly and emphatically affirmed, which our catechists 
cast (or some of them) quite into another place, on pretence 
of the method wherein they proceed, indeed to take off 
from the evidence of the testimony, as they deal with what 
we plead from John the first; the places I intend are; 

John iii. 13. ' And no man hath ascended up to heaven, 
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, 
who is in heaven.' 

Ver. 31. ' He that cometh from above, is above all. He 
that cometh from heaven, is above all.' 

John viii. 23. ' Ye are from beneath, I am from above.' 

John xvi. 28. * I am come forth from the Father, and am 
come into the world ; and again I leave the world, and go to 
the Father.* 

Hence we thus argue. He that was in heaven before he 
was on the earth, and who was also in heaven, whilst he was 
on the earth, is the eternal God. But this doth Jesus Christ 
abundantly confirm concerning himself; therefore he is the 
eternal God blessed for ever. 

In answer to the first place our catechists thus proceed. 

' Q. What" answerest thon to the second testimony: John 
vi. 62. 

' A. Neither is here any mention made expressly of pre-eter- 
nity ; for in this place the Scripture witnesseth, that the Son 

" Ad secundum autcm quid respoudes? — Neque liic uUam praj-aBtcrnitatis men- 
lionrm factani cxpressc ; nam hoc in loco firniin hoiiiiiiis, id est, liominem in cociis 
fuisse testatur Scriptura, qucni citra uilaiu conlrovcrsiam prE-a-teriiuiu non cxlitissc 
certain c&t. 


of man, that is, a man, was in heaven, who without all con- 
troversy was not eternally pre-existent.' So they. 

1. It is expressly affirmed, that Christ was in heaven, be- 
fore his coming into the world. And if we evince his pre- 
existence to his incarnation, against the Socinians, the task 
will not be difficult to prove that pre-existence to be in an 
eternal Divine nature against the Arians. It is sufficient as 
to our intendment in producing this testimony, that it is af- 
firmed, that Christ ^v Trportpov in heaven, before his coming 
forth into the world ; in what nature we elsewhere prove. 

2. It is said indeed that the Son of man was in heaven, 
which makes it evident, that he who is the Son of man, hath 
another nature, besides that wherein he is the Son of man. 
wherein he is the Son of God. And by affirming that the 
Son of man was in heaven before, it doth no more assert that 
he was eternal, and in heaven in that nature, wherein he is 
the Son of man, than the affirmation that God redeemed his 
church with his own blood, doth prove, that the blood shed 
was the blood of the Divine nature. Both the affirmations 
are concerning the person of Christ. As he who was God, 
shed his blood as he was man ; so he who was man, was eter- 
nal, and in heaven, as he was God. So that the answer doth 
merely beg the thing in question ; viz. * that Christ is not 
God and man in one person. 

3. The insinuation here of Christ's being in heaven as 
man, before his ascension, mentioned in the Scripture, shall 
be considered, when we come to the proposal made of that 
figment by Mr. Biddle in his chapter of the prophetical office 
of Christ. In answer to the other testimonies recited, they 
thus proceed towards the latter end of their chapter, concern- 
ing the person of Christ. 

' Q. What '^ answerest thou to John iii. 13. x. 36. xvi. 28. 
xvii. 18. 

* Ubivero Scriptura de Christo ait, quod de cceIo descendit, a pafreexivit, et in 
mundum venit. Job. iii. 13. x. 36. xvi. 28. xvii. 18. quid ad bcec respondes i 

Ex lis non probari divinam naturam liinc apparere, quod primi testimonii verba, 
descendit de coelo, possint figiirate accipi, quemadmodum, Jac. i. 17. Onine datum 
bunuin et donura perfectuiii desursuin est, descendens a Patre iuininum : et Apoc. xxi. 
2. 10. Vidi civitateui saiictani, Hierusalem novaiii, descendenteni de coelo a Deo, 
&c. Quod si proprie accipi debeant, quod nos perlibenter adniittiiiius, apparet non de 
alio ilia dicta, quam de filio honiinis, qui cum personam humanam necessario habeat, 
Deus nafura esse non potest. Porro, quod Scriptura testatur de Christo, quod Pater 
eiim miserit in mundum, idem de Apostolis Cliristi legimus in iisdem verbis citatis 
jupcrius. Quemadmodum me misisti in mundum, et ego misi cos in mundum j Job. 


'ThataDivine nature is nothere proved, appeareth, because 
the words of the first testimony, he came down from heaven, 
may be received figuratively, as James i. 17. Every good and 
every perfect gift is from above, and comes down f/om the 
Father of lights : and Rev. xxi. 2. 10. I saw the holy city 
Jerusalem coming down from God. But if the words be 
taken properly, which we willingly admit, it appears, that 
they are not spoken of any other than the Son of man, who 
seeing he hath necessarily an human person, he cannot by 
nature be God. Moreover, for what the Scripture witnesseth 
of Christ, that the Father sent him into the world, the same 
we read of the apostles of Christ in the same words above 
alledged : as John xvii. 18. As thou hast sent me into the 
world, I have sent them into the world. And these words, 
Christ came forth from the Father, are of the same import 
with he descended from heaven. To come into the world is 
of that sort, as the Scripture manifests to have been after the 
nativity of Christ ; John xviii. 37. where the Lord himself 
says : For this I am born, and come into the world, that I 
inight bear witness to the truth: and 1 John iv. 1. It is 
written, many false prophets are gone forth into the world. 
Wherefore, from this kind of speaking, a divine nature in 
Christ cannot be proved ; but in all these speeches only 
what was the divine original of the office of Christ, is de- 

1. That these expressions are merely figuratively to be 
expounded, they dare not assert; nor is there any colour 
given that they may be so received from the instances pro- 
duced from James i. 17. and Rev. xxi. 2. for there is only 
mention made of descending, or coming down, which word 
we insist not on by itself, but as it is conjoined with the tes- 
timony of his being in heaven before his descending; which 
takes off all pretence of a parity of reason in the places 

2. Ail that follows is a perfect begging of the thing in 

xvii. 18. Ea vpro verba, quod Cliristus a Patre cxicrit, idem valciit, (luod de coelo 
descfiidit. Venire vero in nuinduni, id cjnsiiiodi est, (luod Scriptiira post nativitatera 
Ctirist: extitisse oslendit; Julm xviii. 37. ubi ipse Doiiiiniis ait, ICj^o in lioc natiis 
sum, etin mmidMn) veni, ut testimonium jjerliiheam verilati. Kt 1 .loTi. iv. 1. Scrip- 
turn est, nuiitos falsos Pro|)lietas oxiisse in niiinduiii. Qiiaie ex ejiisiiiodi loqiiendi 
niodis natiira diviiia in Cliristo pruhari non potest. In onjiiilxis vero his locutioni- 
bus, quam divinum muneris Cliristi jirinuipium fuerit, dunlaxaf dcscribitur. 


question ; because Christ is the Son of man, it follows that 
he is a true man ; but not, that he hath the personality of a 
man, or a human personality. Personality belongs not to the 
essence, but the existence of a man. So that here they do but 
repeat theirown hypothesis, in answer to an express testimony 
of Scripture against it. Their confession of the proper use 
of the word, is but to give colour to the figment formerly 
intimated, which shall be in due place (God assisting) dis- 

3. They utterly omit, and take no notice of that place, 
where Christ says, he so came from heaven, as that he was 
still in heaven ; nor do they mention any thing of that, which 
we lay greatest weight on, of his affirming that he was in 
heaven before ; but merely insist on the word descending, 
or coming down, and yet they can no other way deal with 
that neither, but by begging the thing in question. 

4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christ's 
being sent into the world, but in this conjunct considera- 
tion, that he was so sent into the world, as that he was in 
heaven before, and so came forth from the Father, and was 
with him in heaven before his coming forth, and this our 
catechists thought good to oversee. 

5. The difference of Christ's being sent into the world, 
and the apostles by him, which they parallel, as to the pur- 
pose in hand, lies in this, that Christ was so sent of the Fa- 
ther, that he came forth from the Father, and was with him 
in heaven before his sending, which proves him to have an- 
other nature, than that wherein he was sent : the similitude 
alledged consists quite in other things. Neither, 

6. Doth the Scripture in John xviii. 37. testify, that 
Christ's sending into the world was after his nativity, but 
only that the end of them both, was to bear witness to the 
truth. And indeed, I was born, and came into the world, 
are but the same, the one being exegetical of the other. But 
his being born, and his coming into the world, is in the tes- 
timonies 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 ques- 
tioned, 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 

And this is the whole of what they have to except against 
this evident testimony of the Divine nature of Christ. He 
was in heaven, with the Father, before he came forth from 
the Father, or was sent into the world ; and Kara aX\o koi 
a'XAo, was in heaven, when he was in the earth, and at his 
ascension returned thither where he was before. And so 
much for the vindication of this second testimony. 

John vi. 62. is the second place I can meet with in all the 
annotations of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union 
of the human nature of Christ with the eternal Word : if he 
do so. It is not with the man that I have any differ- 
ence, nor do I impose any thing on him for his judgment; I 
only take liberty, having so great cause given, to discuss his 

There remains one more of the first rank, as they are 
sorted by our catechists, for the proof of the eternity of 
Christ, which is also from John viii. 58, ' Before Abraham 
was I am,' that they insist on. 

* In y this place the pre-eternity of Christ is not only not 
expressed, being it is one thing to be before Abraham, and 
another to be eternal, but also it is not so much as express- 
ed, that he was before the virgin IVIary. For these words 
may otherwise be read ; namely. Verily, verily I say unto 
you, before Abraham was made I am; as it appears from 
those places in the same Evangelist, where the like Greek 
phrase is used, chap. xiii. 19. xiv. 29. 

y In lidc loco non solum non expriniitur pias-feternifas Cliristi.cum aliiid sit, ante 
Abraliamuni fuisse, aliud, prse-aeteriiiiiu ; verum iie hoc quicJem exprcssuni est, ipsiim 
ante IMariain vir(;ineni fuisse. Eteniniea verba aliter legi posse (niiiiiruni hac rationc. 
Amen, Amen, dice vobis, priusquara Abraham fiat, ego siun) apparet ex iis locis 
apud eiinciem evangeiistani, ubi siuiilis et eadeni lociitio graeca habefiir, cap. xiii. 19. 
etuiodo (lico vobis, priiis(]uam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis. Et cap. xiv. 29. 
et nunc dixi vobis ])riusquam fiat, &c. — Qua; vero ejus senlentia foret lectionis? — 
Adnioduin egregia : etenim aduioiiet Christus Judwos, qui cum in seriuone capere 
volcbant, ut duni tempus iiaberent, credercnt ipsum esse numdi juceni, antequam 
diviiia gratia, quaru Christus iis offercbat, ab iis toilerclur, et ad Gentes transfer- 
retur. Quod vero ea verba, ego sum, sint ad eum modum supph'nda, ac si ipse 
subjerissct iis, ego sun> lux nuimli, superius e principio ejus oralionis, ver. 12. con- 
stat et hinc, (juod Christus bis seipsuni iisdem verbis, ego sum, lucem mundi vo- 
caverit, ver. V4. 28. ea vero verba, prius(]uam Abraham fiat, id significare quod 
diximus, e ncjtatioue nomiuis Abrahaui deprolicmii potest; constat inter omnes 
Abralianuim notare patrem M)ullaruin gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factus 
j)rius Abraham, (juani Dei gratia, in Christo manifestata, in multas gentes redundaref, 
(piippe (juod Abrabaiuus uuius taiitum pentis aniea pater fuerit, apparet scutcnliani 
horuui vcrboruni, ([u-im attuliiuus, esse ipsissiniam. 


* Q. What then would be the sense of this reading ? 

* A. Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jews, who 
would have ensnared him in his speech, that whilst they had 
time, they should believe in him the light of the world, before 
the divine grace which Christ offered to them, should be taken 
from them, and be carried to the Gentiles. But that these 
words, * I am,' are to be supplied in that manner, as if himself 
had added to them, I am the light of the world, appears, be- 
cause that in the beginning of his speech, ver. 12. he had 
twice in these words, * I am,' called himself the light of the 
world ; ver. 24, 25. and that these words, before Abraham 
be, do signify that which we have said, may be perceived 
from the notation of that word Abraham ; for it is evident, 
that Abraham notes the father of many nations : seeing then 
that Abram was made Abraham, before the grace of God, 
manifested in Christ, redounded to many nations, for Abra- 
ham 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 evi- 
dence, I believe they will have no small hopes of escaping 
in the whole trial. And if they meet with judges so parti- 
ally 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, see- 
ing how they exalt and triumph in this invention ; as may 
be seen in the words of Socinus himself, in his answer to 
Erasmus Johannes, p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says, ' * I 
confess in my whole life, I never met with any interpreta- 
tion of Scripture more wrested, or violently perverting the 
sense of it.' The other replies. * I hoped rather that thou 
wouldst confess, that in thy whole life thou hadst never 
heard an interpretation more acute, and true than this, nor 
which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced 

'■ Fateor me per omnem vitam meam non magis contortam scripturae interpretati- 
onem autlivisse ; ideoque earn penitus improbo. Eras. Johan. Cum primuni fatendi 
verbum in tuis verbis animadvert), sperabam te potius nullam in tiia vita scripture 
iiiterpretationem audivisse, qufe hac sit acutior aut veriorj quaeque magis divinuni 
quid sapiat, et a Deo ipso patefactam fuisse prae se ferat. Ego quideni certe noii 
leves conjecturas liabeo, ilium, qui primus Klate nostra earn in luceni pertulit (hie 
autem is fuit,qui primus quoque sententiam de Christi origine, quani ego constanter 
defendo renovavit) precibus muitis ab ipso Cliristo impetrasse. Hoc profecto affir- 
niare ausim, cum Deus illi viro permuita, aliis prorsus tunc teuiporis incognita, patefe- 
cerit, vix quidquani inter ilia omnia esse quod iiiterpretatione hac divinius vider 
queat. Socin. disput. cum Eras. Jolian. arg. 4. p. 67. 


more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light 
conjectures, that he who brought it first to light in our age 
(now this was he, who in this age renewed the opinion of 
the original of Christ, which I constantly defend) (that is, 
his uncle Loelius) obtained it of Christ by many prayers. 
This truly I dare affirm, that whereas God revealed many 
things to that man, at that time altogether unknown to 
others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them all, that 
may seem more divine, than this interpretation,' 

Of this esteem is this interpretation of these words with 
them. They profess it to be one of the best, and most di- 
vine discoveries, that ever was made by them ; whereto for 
my part I freely assent; though withal, I believe it to be as 
violent a perverting of the Scripture, and corrupting of the 
word of God, as the world can bear witness to. 

1. Let the Christian reader, without the least prejudicial 
thoughts from the interpretation of this, or that man, con- 
sult the text, and context. The head of the discourse, which 
gives occasion to these words of Christ concerning himself, 
lies evidently and undeniably in ver. 51. * Verily, verily, I 
say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see 
death :' upon this the Jews rise up against him, as one that 
boasted of himself above measure, and preferred himself be- 
fore his betters : ver- 52. ' Then said the Jews unto him, now 
we know that thou hast a devil; Abraham is dead, and the 
prophets, and thou sayest, if a man keep my sayings he shall 
never taste of death ;' and ver. 53. ' Art thou greater than our 
father Abraham, who is dead, and the prophets are dead, 
whom makest thou thyself to be.' Two things are here 
charged on him by the Jews. First in general, that he pre- 
ferred, exalted, and honoured himself. 2. In particular, 
that he made himself better then Abraham their father. To 
both which charges, Christ answers in order in the following 
words : to the first, or general charge of honouring himself; 
ver. 54, 55. 'Jesus answered, if I honour myself, my honour 
is nothing; it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye 
say, that he is your God. Ye have not known him, but I 
know him, and if 1 should say I know him not, 1 shall be a 
liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.' 
His honour he had from God, whom they professed, but knew 
not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, ver. 56. 'Your fu- 


ther Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and 
was glad.' Though Abraham was so truly great, and the 
friend of God, yet his great joy was from his belief in me ; 
whereby he saw my day. To this the Jews reply, labouring 
to convince him of a falsehood, from the impossibility of 
the things that he had asserted, ver. 57. 'Thou art not yet 
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' Abraham was 
dead so many hundred years before thou wast born ; how 
couldst thou see him, or he thee ? To this in the last place 
our Saviour replies, ver. 58. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
before Abraham was, I am.' The Jews knowing that by 
these words he asserted his Deity, and that it was impossible 
on any other account to make good, that he who in their es- 
teem was not fifty years old (indeed but a little above thirty), 
should be before Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they 
take up stones to stone him, ver. 59. as was their perpetual 
manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, 
when he asserted his Deity, as John V. 18. ' Therefore thought 

the Jews the more to kill him, because he said, that God 

was his Father, making himself equal with God.' 

This naked and unprejudicate view of the text, is suffi- 
cient to obviate all the operous and sophistical exceptions 
of our catechists, so that 1 shall not need long to insist upon 
them. That which we have asserted maybe thus proposed. 
He who in respect of his human nature, was many hundred 
years after Abraham, yet was in another respect existing be- 
fore him ; he had an existence before his birth, as to his di- 
vine nature. Now this doth Christ expressly affirm con- 
cerning himself. And nothing else is pretended but only 
his Divine nature, wherein he should so exist. They say 

1. That these words do not signify pre-eternity, but only 
something before Abraham. It is enough, that his exist- 
ence so many hundred years before his nativity is evidently 
asserted ; his eternity from thence will evidently be con- 
cluded, and they will not deny, that he may as well be eter- 
nal, as be before Abraham. But, 

2. The words may be rendered,' priusquam Abraham fiat, 
ego sum ;' ' before Abraham be made.' But 1. They may be 
so rendered, is no proof at all that they ought to be so : and, 
as was before observed, if this be sufficient to evade the sense 


of a place, that any word in it may otherwise be rendered, 
because it is, or maybe so in some other place, nothing cer- 
tain can be concluded from any testimony of the Scriptures 
whatever. But that ihey may not be so rendered is evident. 
1. From the context, as before declared. 2. From the op- 
position between lyu) ft/xt, * 1 am,' and ' Abraham was,' which 
evidently denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison 
withwhat Christ says of himself. And 3. The words in such 
a construction as this, require an interpretation as to the 
time past. And 4. because this interpretation of the words 
corrupts the whole sense of the place, and wrests it contrary 
to the design and intendment of our Saviour. But then 
they say, 

' 3. The sense is excellent ; for before Abraham be made, 
isasmuch as before he be Abraham, or the father of many 
nations, which he was when the Gospel w^as preached to the 
conversion of the Gentiles. I am, that is, I am the light of 
the world, which you should do well to walk in, and attend 

1. That this interpretation in general is altogether alien, 
and strange from the scope of the place, the Christian reader, 
upon the bare view of it, will be able to judge. 2. It is 
false. 1. Because Abraham was the father of many nations, 
Jews, and proselytes, before the preaching of the Gospel, as 
Gen. XV. 5. 2. It is false, that Abraham was not Abraham, 
until alter the ascension of Christ, and preaching of the 
Gospel to the Gentiles. He was made Abraham, from his 
first enjoyment of his name, and seed in Isaac, and is con- 
stantly so called. 3. It is frivolous ; for if Christ was, 
before Abram was made Abraham, we obtain what we plead 
for, for he was made so, when God gave him that name. 
But, it should be, before Abram be made Abraham, or there 
is no sense in the words ; nor then neither, unless Abraham 
be taken as a common appellative, for the father of many 
nations, and not a proper name, whereof in Scripture there 
is not any example. 4. It is horribly wrested, 1. In making 
the words, 'I am,' eliptical ; whereas there-js neither need of, 
nor colour for such a pretence. 2. In supplying the feigned 
elipsis with a word at such a distance, as from ver. 12, to 
ver. 58. 3. In making Christ to say, he is the liglit of the 
world, before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, 


when the * world' is every where in the Gospel taken quite 
in another sense, for the Jews and Gentiles, and not for the 
Jews only, which according to this interpretation it must 
be. 4. It leaves no reason of the following attempt of the 
Jews to stone him, upon the particular provocation of this 
assertion, he having before affirmed himself to be the light 
of the world, which they were not moved at. There is indeed 
no end of the falsities, follies, and corruptions of this per- 
verting, and corrupting of the word of God. 

For the grammatical vindication of the words, and the 
translation of the word yivta'^ai, in a sense of that which is 
past, there is no occasion administered by our catechists, 
and therefore I shall not trouble the reader therewith. 

And of the first sort of testimonies, which they except 
against, and their exceptions, thus far. 

A little animadversion upon the catechists good friend 
Grotius, shuts up this discourse and chapter. In the end 
he agrees with them, but fixes on a new medium for the 
accomplishment of it, not daring to espouse an interpre- 
tation so absurd in itself, and so abhorrent from the common 
sense of all men, that ever professed the name of Christ. 
He takes then another course, yet no less aiming than they, 
to disappoint this evidence of the pre-existence of Christ 
before his nativity: * Trptv A|3paa/x yevecr^'at, antequam esset,^ 
saith he, * before he was :' and gives many instances to prove 
the propriety of so translating that expression. ''Eyw elfxi : 
praesens pro imperfecto : eram: Syrus. lyil) ireXev Nonnus: 
sic in Grseco ;' Psal. xc. 2. Trplv to. 6pr} yevri^iivai av a.' very 
good, before Abraham was, or was born, Christ was, as in 
that of the psalm, ' before the mountains were made, thou 
art.* And a little to help a friend at so good a work ; it is 
no new thing for this evangelist to use the present for the 
preterimperfect tense : as chap. xiv. 9. toctovtov xpovov fit^ 
v}.iCjv lifxi, KOL ovK tyvojKaQ /tie" 'I am so long,' for ' I was,' 
or ' I have been so long with you :' Sec. And chap. xv. 27. 
tin aV dpxng jxtr Ifiov lart' ' because ye have been with me 
from the beginning ;' Thus far then we are agreed : but how 
should this be, that Christ thus was, before Abraham was, 
* Fuerat,' saith he, 'autem ante Abrahamum Jesus, divina 
constitutione.' In God's appointment Jesus was before 
Abraham was born : yea and so was Grotius, and Socinus, 


and every man in the world, 'for known unto God are all his 
■works from the foundation of the world.' And this is that 
great privilege it seems, that our Saviour vindicates to 
himself, without any occasion, to no purpose, insisting on 
that which is common to him with all the elect of God in 
the best sense of the words. Of that other text of Scripture, 
John xvii. 5, which together with this he labours to corrupt, 
I shall speak afterward. I shall only add, that our great 
doctors do not in this business agree. Grotius here makes 
no mention of Socinus's gloss : and Socinus before-hand 
rejects this of Grotius, as absurd and fond : and as such let 
it pass; as having no occasion given from the words fore- 
going, nor colour from the matter, nor phrase of words, no 
significancy to the business in hand. 


The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture 

In the consideration of the ensuing testimonies I shall con- 
tent myself with more brief observations upon, and disco- 
veries of the corruption of our adversaries, having given a 
large testimony thereof in the chapter foregoing. Thus then 
they proceed. 

' Q. What* are the testimonies of Scripture wherein they 
think, that this pre-eternity of Christ is not indeed ex- 
pressed, but yet may thence be proved ? 

' A. These which seem to attribute to the Lord Jesus some 
things from eternity, and some things in a certain and de- 
terminate time.' 

Let the gentlemen take their own way and method ; we 
shall meet with them at the first stile, or rather brazen-wall, 
which they endeavour to climb over. 

' Q. What'' are the testimonies which seem to attribute 
some things to the Lord Jesus from eternity ? 

=> Qua; vero sunt tcstimonia Scriptunv, in quibiis putant, non cxprinii quiilcin 
pr<x'-n;teriiilatciu Chrisli, ex iis lamen cfTici posse ? — Ea tjua; videntur Dotiiino Jcsu 
ciuasdani res aUribuere, ab wtcriio; quasdam vero tempore certo ot definito. 

'' Qua:naiii sunt tesliiuonia, (pia; Douiiuo Jesu ab a>terno res quasdam attribucre 
videntur? — Sunt ea, ex qulbus coiiantur exstruere Christum ab ajtcrno ex essentia 
patris geuitum. 


* A. They are those, from which they endeavour to confirm 
that Christ was begotten from eternity of the essence of his 

These are some of the places wherein this property of 
the Godhead, eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour ; it is 

' Q. Buf^ from what places do they endeavour to prove 
that Christ v/as from eternity, begotten of the essence of his 
Father ? 

' A. From these chiefly, Mich. v. 2. Psal. ii. 7. and ex. 10. 
Prov. viii. 23.' 

These are only some of the testimonies that are used to 
this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ eternal, if we 
prove him begotten of his Father, for no such thing can be 
new in God. 3. That he is the only begotten Son of the 
Father, which is of the same import with that here opposed 
by our catechists, hath been before declared and proved, 
chap. 6. 

* Q. Buf^ how must we answer these testimonies? 
' A. Before I answer to each testimony, it is to be known, 
that this generation of the essence of the Father is impos- 
sible. 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 in- 

And this is the fruit of measuring spiritual things by 
carnal ; infinite by finite ; God by ourselves ; the object of 
faith, by corrupted rules of corrupted reason. But 1. that 
which God hath ^ revealed to be so, is not impossible to be 
so ; let God be true and all men liars : that this is revealed 
hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in 
finite, limited essences, may be possible and convenient to 
that which is infinite and unlimited ; as is that whereof we 

« Ex quil)us vero locis exstruere conantur, Christum ab fetemo ex essentia Patris 
genitum? — Ex his potlssimum. Mich. v. 2. Psal. ii. 7. ex. 10. Prov. viii. 23. 

'^ Qui vero ad hajc testifSonia respondendum est ? — Antequam ad singula testi- 
roonia respondeam, sciendum est, earn ex essentia Patris gencrationem esseimpos- 
sibilem. Nam si Christus ex essentia Patris genitus fuisset, aut partem essentise 
sumpsissct, aut totam. Essentise partem sumere non potuit, eo quod sit impartibilis 
divina essentia; neque totam, cum sit una numero, ac proinde inconimunicabiUs. 

« Nisi Scriptura dixisset, non licuisset dicere, sed ex quo scriptum estdici potest 
Kabb. Ruben, apud Gaiat. lib. 3. 



speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the sense wherein that 
word must here be used, if any thing be signified by it. It is 
not, it cannot be so, in limited things, therefore not in things 
infinite; we cannot comprehend it, therefore it cannot be so; 
but the nature of the thing, about which it is, is inconsistent 
with it; this is denied, for God hath revealed the contrary. 
4. For the parting of the divine essence, or receiving a part 
of the divine essence, our catechists might have left out, as 
having none to push at with it, none standing in the way 
of that horn of their dilemma. 5. We say then, that in the 
eternal generation of the Son, the whole essence of the Father 
is communicated to the Son, as to a personal existence in 
the same essence, without multiplication or division of it; 
the same essence continuing still one in number ; and this 
without the least shew of impossibility in an infinite essence. 
All the arguments that lie ao;ainst it beino; taken from the 
properties and attendencies of that which is finite. 

Come we to the particular testimonies : The first is 
Mich. v. 2. * But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be 
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall 
come forth unto me that is to be a ruler in Israel ; whose goings 
forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or the days of 

* Q. How *^ must this first testimony of the Scripture be 
answered ? 

' A. This testimony hath nothing at all of his generation 
of the essence of his Fatlier : and a pre-eternal generation it 
no way proves. For here is mention of beginning, anddays, 
which in eternity have no place. And these words which in 
the vulgar are from the days of eternity, in the Hebrew are 
from the days of seculi the days of an age. And 'dies seculi' 
are the same with ' diesantiqui,'as Isa. Ixiii. 9, 11. INIal. iii.4. 
The sense of this place is, that Christ should have the ori- 
ginal of his nativity from *\;he beginning, and from the an- 

f Qui tainenad priiiiuin ScripturaR testimonium respondendum est? — Id testimo- 
nium de generationc ex essentia Patris niliil prorsus liabet ; generationcm vcro prse- 
aetcrnam nulla probat ratione ; liic enim nientio fit initirct dicrum, qure in seternitate 
locum noil habent, ct verba hxc, quai in Vulgata leguntiir, a diebus rcternitatis, in 
Hjebraeo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vcro seculi idem quoil dies antiqui notant, ut 
Es. Ixiii. 9. 11. ]\Ial. iii. 4. Scntcntia vero loci hujus est, Ciiristuni originem nativitatis 
suae ab ipso principio et annis antii";uis ducturum,id est, ab eo tempore, quo Dcus in 
populo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui et BethlelieiDila 
fuit, et autor stirpis, et familiai Christi. 


cient years, that is, from that time wherein God established 
a king among his people ; which was done really in David, 
who was a Bethlehemite, and the author of the stock, and 
family of Christ.' 

Ans. 1. Who necessitated our catechists to urge this 
place to prove the generation of Christ, when it is used only 
to prove his generation to be eternal : the thing itself being 
proved by other testimonies in abundance. That he was 
begotten of the Father is confessed : that he was begotten 
of the essence of his Father was before proved. Yea that 
which is here called ^ his going forth, is his generation of his 
Father, or somewhat else that our adversaries can assign • 
that it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced. 

2. Here is no mention of the'' beginning ; and those who 
in the latter words reject the Vulgar edition, cannot honestly 
insist on the former from thence, because it serves their 
turn. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what 
sense it may be so, where eternity is intended, hath been 
declared in the last chapter. 

3. That days are not used with, and to express eternity, 
in Scripture, though strictly there be no days, nor time in 
eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirm. 
Job X. 5. ' Are thy days as the days of man ? Are thy 
years as man's days ?' Hence God is called ' the ancient of 
days ;' Dan. vii. 9. ' Thou art the same, and thy years shall 
not fail;' Heb. i. 12. 

4. For the word Gnolam, translated ' seculi :' it hath in the 
Scripture various significations. It comes from a' word sig- 
nifying to hide ; and denotes an unknown hidden duration. 
Principally ' perpetuum, eternum, sempiternum :' that which 
is pre-eternal and eternal. Sometimes a very long time. 
Gen. ix. 12, and ver. 16. that is perpetual : so Gen. xvii. 13. 
and in other places, with a reference to the sovereignty of 
God ; Gen. xxi. 33. It is ascribed to God as a property of 
his, and signifies eternal : Jehova Gnolam : so Psal. Ixxxix. 2. 
as also Isa, xlv. 17. Let all places where the word in Scrip- 
ture, in this sense is used, be reckoned up (which are above 
300), and it will appear, that in far the greatest number of 

' &>V latere, abscondere, occultare. 2 Chron. Ix. 2. Levit. iv. xiii. in Niphal la- 
tuit, absconditus, occultatus fuit : iiiHiphil abscoiidit, celavit, occultavit. inde na"?l^ 
Virgo, quia viro occulta. Gen. xxiv. 4^i. 

Y 2 


them, it signifies absolutely eternity. In the places of Isa. 
Ixiii. 9, 11. and Mai. iii. 4. a long time indeed is signified : 
but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing, or 
matter treated of. And upon the same rule where it is put 
absolutely it signifies eternity. So doth diojv in the New 
Testament ; by which the Septuagint often render Gnolam, 
whence ttjoo xpovwv aiMviwv, may be ' from eternity/ 2 Tim. 
i. 9. Tit. i. 2. Wherein also with a like expression to that 
under consideration, the times of eternity are mentioned, 
though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at the 
beginning of the world. This then is here expressed. He 
that was in the fulness of time born at Bethlehem, had his 
goings forth from the Father from eternity. 

5. The pretended sense of our adversaries is a bold cor- 
ruption of the text. For 1. it applies that to David, and 
his being born at Bethlehem, which the Holy Ghost ex- 
pressly applies to Jesus Christ ; Matt. ii. 6. and John i. 46. 
2. The goings forth of Christ in this sense, are no more from 
everlasting, than every other man's, who is from Adam : 
w^hen yet this is peculiarly spoken of him, by way of incom- 
parable eminency. 3. They cannot give any one instance 
of the like expression ; that his goings forth are from eternity, 
should signify, he had his original from an ancient stock. 
4. If only Christ's original of the tribe of Judah, and of the 
house of David were intended, why was not that expressed 
in plain terms, as it is in other places, and as the place of 
his birth, viz. Bethlehem, is in this ? So that we have 
already met our catechists, and stopt them at this wall, their 
attempt at it being very faint and absurd : and yet this is the 
sum of what is pleaded by Socinus against Wieck, cap. 7. 
p. 424. Smalcius against Smiglecius, chap. 26. Osterod insti- 
tut. chap. 7. with the rest of them. He then, who was born at 
Bethlehem in the fulness of time, of the house of David as*" 
concerning the flesh, had also his goings forth, his birth or 
generation of the Father, of old, from the days of eternity ; 
which is that which this testimony confirms. 

Grotius on this place (according to his wont) outgoes his 
companions one step at least (as he was a bold man at con- 
jectures), and applies this prophecy to Zerubbabel. ' Natus 
ex Bethlehemo Zorababel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis 

^ Rom. i. 3. 


femilia esset, quae orta Bethlehemo.' ' Zerubbabel is rightly- 
said to be born at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, 
which had its original from Bethlehem.' 

That Zerubbabel is here at all intended, he doth not at- 
tempt 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 inter- 
preter to assure us than Grotius, or any of his rabbins. 
Matt. ii. 5. I know that in his annotations on that place he 
allows the accomodation of the words to Christ : but we. 
cannot allow them to be spoken of any other, the Holy 
Ghost expressly fitting them to him. And if Zerubbabel, who 
was born at Babylon, may be said to be born at Bethlehem, 
because David, from whom he descended, was born there ; 
what need all that labour and trouble, that our Saviour 
might be born at Bethlehem ? If it could not be said of 
Christ, that he was born at Bethlehem, though he were of 
the lineage of David unless he had actually been born there 
indeed: certainly Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, 
could not be said on the account of his progenitor five hun- 
dred years before, to be born there. 

For the second part of this text, or the words we insist 
on for the proof of our intention, he useth the same shift in 
the same words with our catechists : ' origo ipsi ab olim, a 
temporibus longis : id est originem trahit a domo illustri an- 
tiquitus, et per quingentos annos regnatrice. His original 
is from of old, from a long time : that is, he hath his original 
from an ancient illustrious house, that had reigned 500 

Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall 
only add, that the use of this note is to confute the other. 
For if his being born at Bethlehem signify his being of the 
family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed born 
there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signi- 
fy no more but what was spoken before ? Yea and herein 
the learned man forsaketh his masters, all generally con- 
cluding, 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 

32G uEiTv or ciikist proved, and 

interpret hedem of the mind of God, from whence the Word, 
or Wisdom of God is brought forth. Because, as they say, 
the word denotes the first numeration of the crown, or of 
that name of God which signifies his essence. 

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

' Q. To ' this second what is to be answered ? 

* A. Neither in that is there any thing of generation of the 
essence of the Father, nor of a pre-eternal generation. For 
the word 'to day' signifying a certain time, cannot denote 
pre-eternity. But that God begot him, doth not evince that 
he was begotten of his essence ; which appears from hence, 
that the same words. This day have I begotten thee, are in 
the first sense used of David ; who was begotten neither 
from eternity, nor of the essence of the Father. 2. Because 
the apostle Paul brings these words to prove the resurrection 
of Christ ; Acts xiii. 33. And the author to the Hebrews 
cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. i. 5. 
and V. 5. And lastly from hence, that it is manifest that 
God otherwise begets than by his essence, seeing the 
Scripture declares believers to be begotten of God, as is to 
be seen, John i. 13. 1 John iii. 9. James i. 18.' 

1. There is mention in these words of Christ's genera- 
tion of his Father ; of being begotten of him before his in- 
carnation, this being spoken of him under the Old Testa- 
ment; and to deny that there is any such thing in the text, 
as that which upon this consideration we urge it to prove, is 
only to beg the thing in question, 

2. ' To day,' being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, 
to whom all time is so present, as that nothing is properly 
yesterday, nor to-day, does not denote necessarily such a 
proportion of time, as is intimated. But is expressive of an 
act eternally present, nor past, nor future. 

3. It cannot be proved that the words are spoken at all 

' Ad secundum vero quid ? — Neque jn ca de gencratione ex essentia Patris, nee 
de generatione pree-seterna prorsus quicquani haberi; etcnim vox hodie, cum certum 
tempus designet, prK-aeternitatem denotare nun potest : quod vero Deus cum genu- 
erit, non evincit eum ex essentia ejus genitum : id quod patet ex eo, quod li:ec cadem 
verba, ego hodie genui te, primo sensu de Davide dieantur, quern constat ncque ab 
seterno, ncc ex essentia Dei genitum. Deinde, quod Pauius Apostolus eadcni verba 
ad approbandam Ciiristi resurrcclionem aftVrat. Act. xiii. 3.3. et Autor ad Hebrsos 
ad giorilicationem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. i. 5. v. 5. Denique, ex ea re, quod constet 
Deuni alitor quani e.\ essentia generare, duui a Deo genitos crcdentes Scripturapro- 
nunciat, ut videre est. Johan, i. 13. iii. 9. Jac. i. 18. 


of David, so much as typically : nor any thing else in that 
psalm, from ver. 7. to the end. Yea, the contrary is evi- 
dent from every verse following; especially the 12th, where 
' kings and rulers are called to worship him,' of whom he 
speaks, and threatened with destruction if they do not; and 
they are pronounced blessed who ' put their trust' in him : 
which cannot be spoken of David ; God declaring them to 
be cursed who put their trust in man ; Jer. xvii. 5 — 7. 

4. It is granted that the apostle makes use of these words, 
when he mentions the resurrection and exaltation of Christ : 
not that Christ was then begotten, but that he was then de- 
clared to be the only begotten Son of God : his resurrection 
and exaltation being manifestations of his Sonship, not 
causes of his filiation, as hath been at large declared. So 
the sun is said to arise when it doth first to us appear. 

5. True, ' God hath other sons, and believers are said to 
be begotten of God,' but how ? By regeneration, and turn- 
ing from sin ; as in the places quoted is evident. That Christ 
is so begotten of God, is blasphemous once to imagine. Be- 
sides, he is the only begotten Son of the Father, so that no 
other is begotten with a generation of the same kind with 
him. It is evident then by this testimony, and from these 
words, that Christ is so the Son of God as no angels are his 
sons in the same kind; for that the apostle produceth these 
words to prove, Heb. i. 5. *For unto which of the angels 
said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I be- 
gotten thee ;' and again, * I will be to him a Father, and he 
shall be to me a Son.' Now the angels are the sons of God 
by creation; Job i. 6. xxxviii. 7. He is also such a Son, 
and so begotten, as believers are not. For they are begot- 
ten by regeneration from sin, and adoption into the family 
of God. Therefore, Christ who is the Son of God in another 
kind than angels and men, who are so by creation, regene- 
ration, and adoption, is the natural Son of God by eternal 
generation ; which is also proved from this place. 

In this whole psalm™ Grotius takes no notice of Jesus 
Christ : indeed in the entrance he tells us, that a mystical 
and abstruse sense of it may belong to Christ, and so the 
rabbins acknowledge, and so the apostle took it. But 

■^ Sensus primus e.t apertus ad Davidera pertinet ; mjsticus et abstrusior ad Mes- 
siam : quo modo sumpsere A post. Annot. in ver. 1. 


throughout the wh.ole doth he not make the least application 
of it to Christ, but merely to David, although so many pas- 
sages of it are urged in the New Testament to have their ac- 
complishment in Christ, and the things which concerned 
him. These words, * Thou art my Son, this day have I be- 
gotten thee,' he says may be thus rendered, * O fili mi, hodie 
(id est hoc tempore), ego te genui ; novam vitam, scilicet 
regalem tibi contuli :' but that the words may not aptly be 
so translated, that they are not so rendered by the apostle 
(Heb. i. 5.) he knew well enough. >3K nriK >3D, is jUius mens 
tu, not fdi mi; nor doth the rendering of it by the vocative, 
any way answer the words going before. * I will declare the 
decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son :' that 
is the thing I will declare. 2. That 'hodie' should be 'hoc -tem- 
pore, 'relating to any certain time of David's reign, cannot be 
reconciled to the apostle's application of that expression on 
sundry occasions, as hath been manifest. 3. I have given 
thee a 'new or a regal life,' is somewhat an uncouth exposi- 
tion of ' genui te ;' without warrant, without reason or argu- 
ment; and it is inconsistent with the time of the psahn's 
writing, according to Grotius himself. He refers it to 
2 Sam. viii. when David had been king over Israel many 

To serve his hypothesis, the two last verses are misera- 
bly wrested. The command of worshipping Christ; ver. 
12. is a command of doing homage to David. And the last 
verse is thus glossed, ' beati omnes qui confidunt in eo, i. e. 
qui fidei ejus regis (id est, mea?) se permittunt.' ' They are 
blessed,' says David, ' who commit themselves to my faith 
and care :' doubtless the thought of any such thino- was as 
remote from the heart of the holy man, as this gloss is from 
the sense of the place. That they are blessed who trust in 
the Lord, that is, 'commit themselves to his care,' he every 
Avhere declareth ; yea, this he makes always the property of 
a blessed man : but that they are so who trust in him, 
not the least word to that purpose did the holy person ever 
utter : he knew they were cursed of God, who put their trust 
in man. The word here is >Din from nDil ' to repair to any 
one for protection ;' and it is used to express our trusting in 
God. Psal. xviii. 30. as also Psal. xxxi. 19, on which men 
are frequently pronounced blessed ; but that it should be 


applied to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were 
to learn. 

The third testimony of Psal. ex. 10. we pass over with 
our adversaries, as not to the purpose in hand ; being a mis- 
take of the vulgar Latin. 

The 4th is Prov. viii. 23. ' I was set up from everlasting, 
from the beoinnino; or ever the earth was.' 

• Q. What" dost thou answer to this testimony? 
' A. That thou mayest understand the matter the better, 
know, that from this place they thus dispute. The Wisdom 
of God is begotten from eternity ; Christ is the Wisdom of 
God ; therefore he is begotten from eternity ; 1 Cor. i. 24. 
That this argument is not firm appears from hence, that 1. 
Solomon treats of wisdom, simply and absolutely considered, 
without the addition of the word, God; Paul not simply and 
absolutely, but with the addition of the word, God. 2. So- 
lomon treats of wisdom, which neither is a person, nor can 
be, as appears from the diverse effects ascribed to this wis- 
dom, chap. 7, 8, 9. amongst which are these words : By me 
kings rule; and princes decree righteousness ;' and in the be- 
ginning of the chapter, he brings in wisdom sending her 
maidens, and inviting all to her. But Paul treateth of that 
wisdom which is a person. 3. The words which are rendered 
from everlasting, in the Hebrew are ' a seculo;' but that from 
everlasting, and * a seculo,' are diverse ; Isa. Ixiv. 4- Jer. ii.20. 
Luke i. 70. with many like places do declare.' 

1. Our argument hence is. Christ the second person of 
the Trinity is spoken of, Prov. viii. 22. under the name of 
Wisdom. Now it is said expressly there of Wisdom, that it 
was * begotten from everlasting,' and therefore the eternal 
generation of Christ is hence confirmed. Our reasons are, 
1. Because the things here spoken of can be applied to no 

" Ad quartum vero quid ? — Ut rem melius accipias, sclto eos ex hoc loco ad eura 
moduni argunientari : Sapientia Dei ab aeterno est genita : Christus est Dei sapien- 
tia : ergo ab ceterno est genitus ; 1 Cor. i. 2-1. Id argumentum firnium non esse 
liinc patet ; primura, quod Soloraon agat de sapientia siiiipliciter, et absolute consi- 
derata, sine additione vocis Dei: Paulus vero non siiiipy.,.ter et absolute ; sed cum 
additione, nerape.Dei. Deinde, Solomon agit de sapientia, qu» neque est persona, 
nee esse potest, ut e variis eflfectis, quae huic sapientice attribuit, apparet, et hoc 7, 
8, 9. cap. ex quibus sunt ca, Per me reges regnant, et principes justa decemiint: et 
initio, cap. 9. introducit sapientiam omnes ad se invitantera, et mittentem virgines 
suas. Paulus vero agit de sapientia, quaj persona est. Tertio, verba haec, quEB sunt 
reddita ab setcrno, in Ilebrffio extant, a seculo: aliud vero esse ab ffiterno, aliud a 
seculo, indicant loci, Isa. kiv. 4. Jer. ii. 20. Luke i. 70. et alii permulti similes. 


other. 2. Because the very same things are affirmed of 
Christ; John i. 1. 3. Because Christ is the Wisdom of God, 
and so called in the Scripture ; not only in the expression 
of 6 Xoyog, but fii)TU)Q, 1 Cor. i. 30. 2. That by Wisdom, So- 
lomon intended the Wisdom of God, and that that word may 
be supplied, is most evident from what is spoken of it. Let 
the place be read. 3. Christ is called not only ' the wisdom 
of God,' but also wisdom absolutely and simply; and that 
not only Prov. i. 20. but Matt. xi. 19. 4. The wisdom that 
Solomon treats of, is evidently a person, and such things 
are ascribed thereunto, as can be proper to none but a per- 
son : such are those ver. 30, 31. * I was by him, one brought 
up with him, I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before 
him, rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth,' 8cc. That 
it is the same wisdom spoken of chap. vii. and here, is not 
evident. Yet is there not any thing in that attributed to it, 
but what suits well unto a person. Much less in the be- 
ginning of the 9th chapter, the invitation there being such 
as may be made by a person only. It is a person who sends 
out messengers to invite to a banquet, as Christ doth in the 
gospel. 'Kings rule, and princes decree judgment' by the 
authority of a person ; and without him they can do nothing. 

3. The word translated, * from everlasting,' is the same 
with that considered before, Mich. v. 2. 2. The words fol- 
lowing 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 pos- 
sessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of 
old ; that is, before the creation, as is at large expounded, 
ver. 23—29. 

And this is all, the whole sum of what any of our adver- 
saries, or rather the adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to ob- 
ject in their cause against these testimonies ; whence we thus 

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 

To clear what hath been spoken, I shall close my con- 
siderations 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, Mat. xi. 
19. 1 Cor. i. 24. Col. ii. 3. 2. 'Wisdom was set up from 
everlasting/ ver. 23. 'Grace is given in Christ, rrpo xpovojv 
m(Dvi(i)v, from everlasting.' 2 Tim. i. 9. ' He is the beginning,' 
Col. i. 5. ' the first and last.' Rev. i. 17. 3. ' The Lord pos- 
sessed me in the beginning of his way,' says Wisdom, ver. 23. 
' In the beo'inning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God;' John i. 1, 2. 4. * Before the mountains w^ere settled, 
before the hills were brought forth ;' ver. 25. ' He is the 
first born of every creature ;' Col. i. 15. * He is before all ;' 
ver. 17. 5. ' I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before 
him ;' ver. 30. ' This is my beloved Son, in whom 1 am well 
pleased ;' Matt. iii. 17. ' The only begotten Son is in the 
bosom of the Father;' John i. 18. 6. 'Byrne kings reign, 
and princes,' &.c. ver. 15, 16. * He is the Prince of the 
kings of the earth;' Rev. i. 5. 'The King of kings, and 
Lord of lords;' Rev. xix. 16. 7. 'Rejoicing in the habitable 
part of the earth, and my delights were with the sons of 
men;' ver. 31. ' For the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
amongst us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only 
begotten Son of God.' 8. Compare also ver. 34. with John 
xiii. 17. Luke xi. 28. John x. 9. And ver. 35, and 36. with 
John vi. 44. 47. and many the like instances might be given. 

Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea he 
seems evidently to exclude him from being here intended ; 
his first note on ver. 1. is, * Haecde ea sapientia, quseinlege 
apparet, exponunt Hoebrsei ; et sane ei, si non soli, at prae- 
cipue haec attributa convenium.' ' The Hebrews expound 
these things of that wisdom which appears in the law ; and 
truly these attributes agree thereunto, if not only, yet chiefly.' 
Of this assertion he gives no reason. The contrary is evident 
from what is above said and proved. The authority of the 
modern rabbins in the exposition of those places of Scrip- 
ture, which concern the Messiah, is of no value. They do 
not only as their forefathers, err, not knowing the Scrip- 
tures ; but maliciously corrupt them, out of hatred to Jesus 
Christ. In the meantime" one no less versed in the Hebrew 
authors, than our annotator, expounding this place, from 

" Mercer in loc. v. 22. 


*nec dubito, hinc Johannem auo;ustum illud et mag-nificum 
Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse, In principio eratverbura : 
nam verbum et sapientia idem sunt, et secundam Trinitatis 
personam indicant.' ' I doubt not but that John took that 
reverend and lofty entrance of his gospel. In the beginning 
WRS, the Word from hence : for the Word and Wisdom are the 
same, and denote the second person of the Trinity.' 

Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall add some 
of them which are produced, and insisted on usually, for the 
same end and purpose with those mentioned before, and 
which in other places are excepted against by the catechists, 
•with whom we have to do ; but properly belong to this 

Of those is John xvii. 5. ' And now O Father glorify me 
with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, 
before the world was.' To this they put in their excep- 
tions towards the end of the chapter under consideration; 

*Q. What " answerest thou to this? 

'A. Neither is here a divine nature proved. For that one 
may have glory with the Father before the world was made, 
and yet not be God, appeareth from that of 2 Tim. i. 9. 
where the apostle says of believers, that grace was given 
unto them before the world began. Besides it is here 
written, that Jesus asked this glory, which is repugnant to 
the divine nature. But the sense of the place is, that Christ 
asked God, that he would really give him that glory which 
he had with God in his decree before the world was.' 

A divine glory proves a divine nature. This Christ had 
from eternity, for he had it before the world began ; there- 
fore he had a divine nature also. It is the manifestation of 
his glory, which he had eclipsed and laid aside for a season, 
that here he desires of God. Phil. ii. 9 — 12. He glorified 
his Father by manifesting the glory of his Deity, hisname, 
to others ; and he prays the Fatlier to glorify him, as he had 
glorified him on the earth. 2. There is not the same reason 

P Quid ad lioc respondes? — Nequeliinc naturam divinam probari. Posse enirn 
aliqucm gloriam Iiabere antctjuam iiuiiidiis ficrct, npiid l^atrcni, ncc tamen liinc effici 
eum esse Dci:mi, apparot, i! Tim. i. '1. uhi ait A|iO!-toliis de credentibus, illis datatn 
fuissc, gratiam, ante tempora secularia. Prii'tcri'a, liic scripluni est, Jesuiii rogare 
Iianc gioriain, (jiuui natur.v Divinx ]>rorsus rcpugiiat. l^oci vero senteiilia est : 
Christum rogare Dcuiii, ut ei gioriain rcipsa del, (]uani liabuerit ajjud Deuui in ip- 
sius dccreto ante(iuain in\indus ficret. 


of what is here asserted of Christ, and what is said of the 
elect, 2 Tim. i. 9. Christ here positively says, he had (^xov) 
' glory with his Father before the world was ;' nor is this 
any where, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded, to 
be any otherwise, but in a real having of that glory. The 
grace that is given to believers, is not said to be before the 
world was, but Trpo X9^^^^ aicjviwv, which rnay denote the 
first promise. Gen. iii. 15. as it doth Tit. i. 2. and if it be in- 
tended of the purpose of God, which was from eternity (as 
the words will bearj it is so expounded in twenty places. 

3. Though the divine nature pray not, yet he who was in the 
form of God, and humbled himself to take upon him the 
form and employment of a servant, might, and did pray : 
the Godhead prayed not, but he who was God prayed. 

4. For the sense assigned, let them once shew us in the 
whole book of God, where this expression, ' 1 had'(££;^ov) may 
be possibly interpreted, ' I had it in purpose,' or ' I was pre- 
destinated to it ;' and not ' I had it really,' and * indeed,' and 
they say something to the purpose. In the meantime they 
do but corrupt the word of God (as many do) by this pre- 
tended interpretation of it. 5. If predestination only be in- 
tended, here is nothing singular spoken of Christ, but what 
is common to him with all believers ; when evidently Christ 
speaks of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The 
very express tenor of the words will not admit of this gloss, 
(let what violence can be used) : Kal vvv So^acroy jU£, av Trarep, 
irapa asavrt^, ry So^y y ^'X*'^^ "^9^ "^^^ '''^^ Koafiov uvai, irapa aoi. 
The glory that I had vv'ith thee, let me have it manifested 
with thee, now ray work is done. 

Grotius falls in with our catechists ; ' ry So^p y £<x^v, des- 
tinatione tua; ut 1 Pet. i. 20. Kev. xiii. 8. sicut Ephes. i. 3, 
4. et infra, ver. 24. Simile legendi genus ; sic legem fuisse 
ante mundum dicunt Hiebrsei.' Again, ' irapa o-ot, refer ad 
illud ax*^^' ^^ intellige ut diximus in decreto tuo.' 

But what intends the learned man by those places of 
1 Pet. i. 20. Rev. xiii. 8. ? Is it to expound the thing that 
he supposes to be expressed ? Or to intimate that the phrase 
here used is expounded by the use of it in those other places. 
If the first, he begs that to be the sense of this place, which 
is the sense of them, though neither the scope of the places, 
nor the sense of the words themselves will bear it. If the 


latter, it is most false ; there is not one word, phrase, nor 
expression, in any one of the places pointed unto, at all co- 
incident with them here used. Besides, the two places 
mentioned are of very different senses ; the one speaking of 
God's purpose, appointing Christ to be a Mediator ; the 
other of the promise given presently after the fall. 2. We 
grant, that Christ in respect of his human nature was pre- 
destinated unto glory; but that he calls God's purpose * his 
glory,' 'the glory which he had,' ' which he had with God,' 
wherewith he desires to be glorified with him again,' is to be 
proved from the text or context, or phrase of speech, or 
parallel place, or analogy of faith or somewhat, and not 
nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. viii. 22. 30. Phil, 
ii. 6 — 10. be consulted, as parallel to this place ; Eph. i. 3, 
4. speaks indeed of our predestination in Christ, that we 
should be holy, and so come to glory ; but of the glory, that 
Christ had before the world was, it speaks not. Yea, ver. 3. 
we are said to be actually blessed, or to have the heavenly 
blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, 
ver. 4. What the Jews say of the law, and the like, we must 
allow learned men to tell us, that they may be known to be 
so, although the sense of the Scripture be insesnibly dark- 
ened thereby. 

To the same purpose is that of Peter, 1st epistle i. 10, 11. 
' Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched 
diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come 
unto you; searching what or what manner of time the 
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it tes- 
tified before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory 
that should follow.' To which add that more clear place, 
1 Pet. iii. 18 — 20. 'quickened by the Spirit, by which also 
he went and preached unto the spirits that were in pri- 
son, which sometime were disobedient in the days of 

Noah.' He who was in the days of the prophets of old, and 
in the days of Noah, so long before his being born accord- 
ing to the flesh, he was from everlasting; or had an exist- 
ence antecedent to his incarnation ; but this is expressly af- 
firmed of our Saviour. It was his Spirit that spake in the 
prophets; which if he were not, it could not be; for of him 
who is not, nothing can be afllrmed. He preached by his 
Spirit in the days of Noah to the spirits that are in prison. 


Of this latter place our catechists take no notice ; about 
the first they inquire. 

* Q. What '^ answerest thou to this ? 

' A. Neither is a divine nature proved from hence. For 
the Spirit which was in the prophets, may be said to be the 
Spirit of Christ, not that he was given of Christ, but because 
he fore-declared the things of Christ, as Peter there speaks ; 
he testified before hand of the sufferings of Christ, and the 
glory that should follow. Which manner of speaking we 
have, 1 John iv. 6. Hence know we the spirit of truth, and 
the spirit of error. Where it is not called the spirit of truth 
and error, because truth and error as persons do bestow the 
spirit, but because the spirit of truth speaks the things of 
truth, and the spirit of error the things of error.' 

1. It is confessed, that if the Spirit that was in the pro- 
phets, was the Spirit of Christ, then he hath a divine nature : 
for the only evasion used is, that it is not, or may not (pos- 
sibly) be so meant in this place, not denying, but that if it 
be so, then the conclusion intended follows. 2. That this 
place is to be interpreted by 1 John iv. 6. there is no colour 
nor pretence. Christ is a person ; he was so, when Peter 
wrote. Truth and error are not; and the spirit of them is 
to be interpreted according to the subject matter. 3. The 
Spirit in other places is called the Spirit of Christ, in the 
same sense as he is called the Spirit of God ; Rom. viii. 9. 
Gal. iv. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ is said directly, to take 
of him, and shew it to his apostles, John. xvi. 15. and so he 
did to the prophets. They may as well on the pretence of 
1 John iv. 6. deny him to be the Spirit of God the Father, as 
the Spirit of Christ, as being of him, and sent by him. 

And thus far of the testimonies proving the pre-existence 
of Christ unto his incarnation, and so consequently his eter- 
nity; whence it follows, that he is God over all blessed for 
ever, having this evidence of his eternal power and Godhead. 
Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under conside- 
ration in our progress. 

q Quid ad hoc respondes ? — Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici. Nam 
hie Spiritus, qui in Prophetis erat, Christi dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fue- 
rit, sed quod ea qupe Christi fuerunt, prasnunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, prsenun- 
cians illas in Christum passiones, et post hffic glorias. Quem loquendi raodum etiam, 
1 Job. iv. 6. habes ; Hinc cognoscimus Spirituni veritatis, et Spirituni erroris : ubi 
non propterea Spiritus veritatis et erroris Spiritus dicitur, quod Veritas et error, tan- 
quam personse, eum Spirituni conferant; verum eo, quod Spiritus veritatis loquatur 
quae veritatis sunt, et Spiritus erroris quae sunt erroris. 



Of the names of God giveii tmto Christ. 

In the next place, as a third head, our catechists consider the 
scriptural attributions of the names of God, unto our Saviour 
Jesus Christ. Whence this is our argument. 

He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, he is God 
properly by nature. But Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true 
God, &.C. Therefore he is God properly by nature. 

The proposition is clear in itself; of the innumerable 
testimonies which are, or may be produced to confirm the 
assumption, our catechists fix upon a very few, namely, those 
which are answered by Socinus against Wieck the Jesuit, 
whence most of their exceptions to these witnesses are tran- 
scribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed. 

' Q. What"" are those places of Scripture, which seem to 
attribute something to Christin acertain and definite time? 

* A. They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the 
names, others the works which they suppose in the Scriptures 
to be attributed to Christ. 

'Q. Which are they that respect the names of Christ? 
' A. Those where they suppose in the Scripture that Christ 
is called Jehovah, &c. Jer. xxiii.6. Zach. ii.8. 1 John v. 20. 
Jude 4. Tit. ii. 13. Rev. i. 18. iv. 8. Acts xx. 28. 1 John 
iii. 16.' 

The first testimony is Jer. xxiii. G.^in these words : 'In his 
days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and 
this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our 
righteousness.' To which add the next, Zech. ii. 8, 

Before I come to consider their exceptions to these texts 
in particular, some things in general may be premised, for the 
better understanding of what we are about; and what from 
these places we intend to prove and confirm. 

^ Quteuam ea loca Scriptiira3 quaj videiitiir Christo qusedam tempore certo et defi- 
nito attribuere? — Ea sunt duplicia; quorum alia noniina, alia facia rcspiciunt, qua; 
Cbristo a Scriptura atlribui opiiiantur.— Qu;i;n;uii sunt (]u:v Cluisti nomina rcspici- 
unt? — Ea, ubi arbilrantur Jesum a Scriptura \ocari Jeliovam ; Domiiium exercituuni; 
Dfiuui veruni; solum verum; Deum niagnuui; ])oniiiiuui Deuiu ()ninipoteiitem,qui fuit, 
qui est, ct qui venturusest; Dcuni qui acquisivit proprio sanguine Ecclesiam; Dcuni 
qui animeui posuit pro nobis. Jer. xxiii. 6. Zacb. ii. 8. 1 Job. v. 20. Jude 4. Tit, 
ii. 13. Apoc. i.8. iv. 8. Act. xx, 28. 1 Job. iii. \6. 


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

2. It is granted, that Jehovah is the proper and peculiar 
name of the one only true God of Israel : a name as far sig- 
nificant 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 him- 
self in an eminent manner; Exod. vi. 2. 9. so that this is 
taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is Jeho- 
vah, is the only true God, the God of Israel ; whenever that 
name is used properly, without a trope or figure, it is used of 
him only. What the adversaries of Christ except against 
this, shall be vindicated in its proper place, 

3. Our catechists have very faintly brought forth the tes- 
timonies, that are usually insisted on in this cause ; naming 
but two of them ; wherefore I shall take liberty to add a few 
more to them, out of the many that are ready at hand. Isa. 
xl. 3. 'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare 
ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a high- 
way for our God.' That it is Christ who is here called Je- 
hovah, is clear from that farther expression in Mai. iii. 1. 
and the execution of the thing itself; John i. 23. Matt. iii. 3. 
Mark. i. 2, 3. Isa. xlv. 22 — 25. ' Look unto me, and be ye 
saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is 
none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of 
my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto 
me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, 
shall one say, in the Lord Jehovah have I righteousness and 
strength : even to him shall men come, and all that are in- 
censed against him, shall be ashamed. In Jehovah shall all 
the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.' The apostle 
expressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ; Rom. xiv. 
11, 12, &c. Hos. xiii. 14. is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 
64, 55. He that would at once consider all the texts of the 
Old Testament, chiefly ascribing this name to Christ, let him 
read Zanchius ' de tribus Elohim,' who hath made a large 
collection of them. 



Let us now see what our catechists except against the 
first testimony. 

' Q. What'' dost thou answer to the first testimony? 

' A. First, that hence it cannot be necessarily evinced, 
that the name of Jehovah is attributed to Christ. For these 
words. And this is his name whereby they shall call him, the 
Lord our righteousness, may be referred to Israel, of whom 
he spake a little before ; In his days shall Judah be saved, 
and Israel shall dwell safely, Sec. as from a like place may 
be seen in the same prophet, chap, xxxiii. 15, 16. where he 
saith, In those days, and at that time, will I cause the branch 
of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall exe- 
cute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days 
shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely ; and 
this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our 
righteousness ; for in the Hebrew it is expressly read, they 
shall call her ; which last words are referred of necessity to 
Jerusalem ; and in this place answereth to Israel, which is 
put in the first place : it seems therefore likely, that also in 
the first place, these words, they shall call him, are re- 
ferred 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 fol- 
low, that Christ is really Jehovah. Whether therefore these 
last words in this testimony of Jeremiah be understood of 
Christ, or of Israel, their sense is, thou Jehovah our one God 
wilt justify us; for at that time when Christ was to appear, 
God would do that in Israel.' 

^ Quid verotu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad priinurn? — Prinium,quod 
ex eo confici non possit necessario nomeu Jehovae Chrisfo attribui. Ea eniin verba ; 
Et hoc est nonien ejus, quo vocabunt euni, Jehovali justitia nostra, referri possuntad 
Israelem, de quo paulo superius eodera versu loquitur: In diebus ejus servabitur 
Juda, ct Israel habitabit secure, et hoc est noiiien ejus, &;c. ut e loco siniili conspici 
potest apud cundem Prophetam, cap. xxxiii. 1.5, 16. ubi ait, in diehus illis, ct in illo 
tempore, faciam utexistat Davidi surculus justitia?, ct faciei judicium ct justitiam in 
terra. In diebas illis servabitur Juda et Jerusalem habitabit secure, et hoc (supple 
nomen) quo vocabunt cam, Jehovah justitia; nostra. Etenira in Ha;br<eo expresscle- 
gitur, vocabunt cam, quam voceni posteriorem ad Hierusalem referri prorsus est ne- 
cesse; el hoc quidem loco Israeli, qui in priori loco positus est, respondet. A'idetur 
igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in priori etiaui loco, hoBC verba, vocabunt eum, ad Is- 
raelem referantur. At licet conccdamus, nomen Jehovre ad Christum posse referri, 
ex altero tanien testinionio apparct asseri non posse, Jehovani simpliciter Christum 
vocari : neque ex eo sequi, Christum reipsa esse Jehovam : si ve igitur de Christo, sive 
de Israelc postrema verba in testinionio Hiereraiae accipiantur, sententia ipsprum 
est, turn Jehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum. Etenim illo tempore, 
cum Christus appariturus esset, Deus id in Israele facturus erat. 


The sum of this answer is ; 1. It may be these words are 
not spoken of Christ, but of Israel. 2. The same words are 
used of that which is not God. 3. If they be referred to 
Christ, they prove him not to be God. 4. Their sense is, that 
God will justify us in the days of Christ. Of each briefly. 

1. The subject spoken of all along is Christ; he is the 
subject matter of whatever here is affirmed. ' I will rise up 
a righteous branch to David, he shall be a king, and he 
shall reign, and his name shall be called the Lord our righ- 
teousness.' 2. Why are these words to be referred to Israel 
only, and not also to Judah, (if to any but Christ) they being 
both named together, and upon the same account, (yea and 
Judah hath the pre-eminence, being named in the first place) 
and if they belong to both, the words should be, ' this is their 
name, whereby they shall be called.' 3. Israel was never 
called our righteousness, but Christ is called so upon the 
matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so ; 1 Cor. 
i. 30. so that without departing from the propriety of the 
words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of 
the thing itself, these words cannot be so perverted. The 
violence used to them is notoriously manifest. 

2. The expression is not the same in both places. Nei- 
ther is Jerusalem there called the ' Lord our righteousness ;' 
but he who calls her, is the ' Lord our righteousness ;' and 
so are the words rendered by Arias Montanus, and others. 
And if what Jerusalem shall be called be intimated, and not 
what his name is that calls her, it is merely by a metonymy, 
upon the account of the presence of Christ in her ; as the 
church is called Christ improperly, 1 Cor. xii. 12. Christ 
properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be ren- 
dered, '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 righteous- 
ness shall call her to peace and safety, which are there 
treated on. Christ is our righteousness, Jerusalem is not. 

3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah 
in this, as well as in the other places before mentioned, and 
many more. And it thence evidently follows, that he is Je- 
hovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by 
that name. Where God simply says, his name is Jehovah, 
we believe him : and where he says, the name of the branch 

z 2 


of the house of David is Jehovah, we believe him also. And 
we say hence that Christ is Jehovah, or the words have not 
a tolerable sense : of this again afterward. 

4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse, 
and opposite to the ntieaning of them. The prophet says 
not, that ' Jehovah the one God shall be our righteousness,' 
but the • branch of David shall be the Lord our righteousness.' 
The subject is the branch of David, not Jehovah. The 
branch of David shall be called ' the Lord our righteous- 
ness ;' that is, 'the Lord shall justify us, when the branch of 
David shall be brought forth :' who could have discovered 
this sense but our catechists and their masters, whose words 
these are. It remaineth then, that the branch of David, who 
ruleth in righteousness, is Jehovah our righteousness : our 
righteousness, as being made so to us ; Jehovah, as being 
so in himself. 

Grotius expounds this place, as that of Micah v. 2. of 
Zerubbabel, helping on his friends with a new diversion, 
which they knew not of. Socinus,*^ as he professes, being not 
acquainted with the Jewish doctors, though some believe 
him not. And yet the learned annotator cannot hold out 
as he begins, but is forced to put out the name Zerubbabel, 
and to put in that of the people, when he comes to the name 
insisted on : so leaving no certain design in the whole words, 
from the beginning to the ending. 

Two things doth he here oppose himself in, to the re- 
ceived interpretation of Christians. 1. That it is Zerubba- 
bel who is here intended. 2. That it is the people who is 
called the ' Lord our righteousness.' 

For the first, thus he on ver. 5. * Germen justum, a righ- 
teous branch : Zorubbabelem qui nnif ut hie appellatur, ita 
et Zechariae, vi. 12. nimirum quod velutsurculus renatus esset 
ex arbore Davidis quasi prcecisa. Justitiae nomine commen- 
datur Zerubbabel etiam apud Zechariam, ix. 9. Zerubbabel 
who is here called the branch, as also Zech. vi. 12. because 
as a branch he arose from the tree of David which was as cut 
off. Also Zerubbabel is commended for justice or righte- 
ousness, Zech. ix. 9.' 

That this is a prophecy of Christ, the circumstances of 

f Sociii. dc Servat. p. ,■>. cap. I. Franz, do Sacrif. p. 786. 


the place evince. The rabbins were also of the same mind, 
as plentiful collections from them are made to demonstrate 
it, by Joseph de Voysin,pug. fid. par. 3. dist. 1. cap. 4. And 
the matter spoken of, can be accommodated to no other, as 
hath been declared. Grotius's proofs that Zerubbabel is 
intended, are worse than the opinion itself. That he is called 
the branch, Zech. vi. 12. is most false : he who is called the 
branch there, is a king and a priest. ' He shall rule upon 
his throne, and he shall be a priest/ which Zerubbabel, was 
not ; nor had any thing to do with the priestly office, which 
in his days was administered by Joshua. More evidently 
false is it, that he is spoken of Zech. ix. 9. which place is 
precisely interpreted of Christ, and the accomplishment, in 
the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded Matt. xxi. 5. 
The words are, 'rejoice greatly O daughter of Sion, shout O 
daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy king cometh to thee, he 
is just, and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, 
and upon a colt the foal of an ass.' That a man professing 
Christian religion, should affirm any one but Jesus Christ to 
be here intended, is somewhat strange. 

Upon the accommodation of the next words to Zerubba- 
bel, 'a king shall reign and prosper,' &c. I shall not insist; 
they contain not the matter of our present contest, though 
they are pitifully wrested by the annotator, and do no ways 
serve his design. 

For the particular words about which our contest is, this 
is his comment. And this is the name whereby they shall 
call him : ' nempe populum :' * namely the people :' they shall 
call the people.' How this change comes, ' in his days Judah 
shall be saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be 
called,' that is, the people shall be called, he shews not. 
That there is no colour of reason for it, hath been shewed; 
what hath been said need not to be repeated. He proceeds. 
'Dominus justitia nostra,' i. e. ' Deus nobis benefecit, God 
hath done well for us, or dealt kindly with us.' But it is 
not about the intimation of goodness, that is in the words; 
but of the signification of the name given to Jesus Christ, 
that here we plead. In what sense Christ is the Lord our 
righteousness appears, Isa. xlv. 22 — 25. 1 Cor. i. 30. 

The second testimony is Zech. ii. 8. in these words: 
' For thus saith the Lord of hosts ; After the glory hath he 


sent me unto the nations which spoiled you : for he that 
toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye : for, behold, I 
will shake mine hand upon them,' &c. ver. 9 — 12. 

Briefly to declare what this witness speaks to, before we 
permit him to the examination of our adversaries : the per- 
son 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 na- 
tions, as in the words following ; and who sent him ? ' ye shall 
know, that the Lord of hosts hath sent me ;' the people of 
Israel shall know, that the Lord of hosts hath sent me the 
Lord of hosts to the nations : but how shall they know that 
he is so sent? He tells them ver. 11. it shall be known by 
the conversion of the nations: 'many nations shall be join- 
ed 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 circum- 
stances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by 
our catechists. 

' Q. What*^ dost thou answer to this second testimony? 

* A. The place of Zachary they thus cite. This saith the 
Lord of hosts ; after the glory hath he sent me to the na- 
tions which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you, toucheth 
the apple of mine eye ; which they wrest unto Christ ; be- 
cause here as they suppose, it is said, that the Lord of hosts 
is sent from the Lord of hosts. But these things are not so ; 
for it is evident that these words, After the glory he hath 

J Ad secundum vcro quid respondcs? — Locum Zecharias ad Imnc niodum citant: 
hoc dicit Dominus exercituum ; Post gloriam niisit me ad gentes, quae vos spoliaruut : 
qui enim vos tarigit, tangit pupillam oculimei,&c. Qu<e ad Christum torqueiit, quod 
liic, ut arbitraiitur, dicatur, Dominum exercituum luissuiii esse a Domino exercituum. 
Verum ea hie non liabentur; quod hinc perspieuum est, quod ea verba, post gloriam 
misil me &c. sunt ab alio prolata, nempe ab aiigelo, qui cum Zecharia ct alio angelo 
colloqucbatur.ut idemeodemcapile pauloante planum est, a versu quarto initio facto, 
ubi is angehis loqucns introducitur. Quod idem ea ex re videro est, quod ca qnaj 
citant verba, hoc dicit Dominus exercituum, in lla-breeo legantur, sic dicit Dominus 
exercituum ; item ilia, tangit pupillam ocnii mei, legantur pupillam oculi ejus, qua; 
noil ad Dominum exercituum, sed ad legatum referri nccesse est. 


sent me, are spoken of another, namely, of the angel, who 
spake with Zechariah, and the other angel ; the same is evi- 
dent in the same chapter a little before, beginning at the 
fourth verse, where the angel is brought in speaking; which 
also is to be seen from hence, that those words which they cite. 
This saith the Lord of hosts, in the Hebrew may be read. Thus 
saith the Lord of hosts; and those, Toucheth the apple of mine 
eye, may be read. The apple of his eye; which of necessity 
are referred to his messenger, and not to the Lord of hosts/ 
These gentlemen being excellent at cavils and excep- 
tions, and thereunto undertaking to answer anything in the 
world, do not lightly acquit themselves more weakly, and 
jejunely in any place than in this. For, 

1. We contend not with them about the translation of 
the words, their exceptions being to the vulgar Latin only; 
we take them as they have rendered them. To omit that 

2. That these words are spoken by him, who is called 
the angel, we grant ; but the only question is, who is this 
angel that speaks them ; it is evident from the former chap- 
ter and this, that it is ' the man, who was upon the red horse ;' 
chap. i. 8. who is called Angelus Jehovse, ver. 11. and 
makes intercession for the church, ver. 12. which is the pro- 
per office of Jesus Christ ; and that he is no created angel, 
but Jehovah himself, the second person of the Trinity, we 
prove, because he calls himself the Lord of Hosts; says he 
'will destroy his enemies with the shaking of his hand ;' that 
he will convert a people, and make them his people, and 
that he will dwell in his church, and yet unto all this he 
adds three times, that he is ' sent of the Lord of Hosts.' We 
confess then all these things to be spoken of him, who was 
sent, but upon all these testimonies conclude, that he who 
was sent was the Lord of Hosts. 

Grotius interprets all this place of an angel, and names 
him to boot. Michael it is; but who that Michael is, and 
whether he be no more than an angel, that is, a messenger, 
he inquires not. That the ancient* Jewish doctors inter- 
preted this place of the Messiah, is evident. Of that no 
notice here is taken, it is not to the purpose in hand. To 
the reasons already offered, to prove that it is no mere crea- 

'' Bereschith Rab. ad Gen. xxv. 28. 


ture that is here intended, but the Lord of Hosts, who is 
sent by the Lord of Hosts, I shall only add my desire, that 
the friends and apologizers for this learned annotator, would 
reconcile this exposition of this place to itself, in those 
things which at first view present themselves to every ordi- 
nary 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 

The third testimony is 1 John v. 20. 'And we know that 
the Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding, 
that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that 
is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ ; this is the true God 
and eternal life.' 

' Q. What^dost thou answer to this? 

' A. These words, This is the true God, I deny tobe refer- 
red to the Son of God. Not thatldenyChristtobe true God; 
but that that place will not admit those words to be understood 
of Christ; for here he treats not only of the true God, but 
of the only true God, as the article added in the Greek doth 
declare. But Christ, although he be true God, he is not 
yet of himself that one God, who by himself, and upon the 
most excellent account is God, seeing that is only God the 
Father. Nor doth it avail the adversaries, who would have 
those words referred to Christ, because the mention of 
Christ doth immediately go before those words, this is the 
true'God. For pronoun relatives as this and the like, are 
not always referred to the next antecedent, but often to that 

f Quid respondes ad tcitium? — Tu hoc testimonio, scirausfilium Dei vcnisse, &c. 
Haec verba, hie est verus Deus, nego refcrri ad Dei Filiutn ; won quod negeni Chris- 
tum esse veruni deum ; sed quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat. Ete- 
nim liic agitur non solum de vero Deo ; sed de illo uno vero Deo, ut articulus in 
Grscco additus iiidicat. Cliristus vero etsi verus Deus sit, non est tamen ilie ex se 
iinus Deus, qui per se et perfectissima ratione Deus est, cum is Deus tantum sit Pater. 
Nee vero quiccjuani juvat adversarios, qui proplerea ha;c ad Christum refcrri volunt, 
quod verba. Hie est verus Deus, et Cliristi mentio proxime anteccsserit. Etenim 
pronomina relativa, ut hie et siuiilia, non semper ad proxime antecedentia, verum 
sajpenumero ad id, de quo potissimum sermo est, referuiitur, ut patet ex liic locis ; 
Act. vii. 19, 20. et X. 6. ii. Joh. 7. e quibus locis apparct pronomen relativum 
hie non ad proxime antecedentes personas, sed ad remotiores referri. 


which is chiefly spoken of; as Acts vii. 19, 20. John ii. 7. 
from which places it appears, that the pronoun relative, 
this, is referred not to the next, but to the most remote 

1. It is well, it is acknowledged, that the only true God 
is here intended ; and that this is proved by the prefixed 
article ; this may be of use afterward. 

2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be a true 
God, we know; a made God, a God by office, not nature ; a 
man deified with authority ; so making two true Gods, con- 
trary to innumerable express texts of Scripture, and the na- 
ture of the Deity. 

3. That those words are not meant of Christ, they prove, 
because he is not the only true God, but only the Father ; 
but friends ! these words are produced to prove the con- 
trary ; as expressly affirming it ; and is it a sufficient reason 
to deny it, by saying, 'He is not the only true God, there- 
fore, these words are not spoken of him ;' when the argu- 
ment is, these words are spoken of him, therefore he is the 
only true God. 

4. Their instances prove, that in some cases a relative 
may relate to the more remote antecedent, but that in this 
place, that mentioned ought to do so, they pretend not once 
to urge; yea the reason they give is against themselves ; 
namely, that it refers to him chiefly spoken of, which here 
is eminently, and indisputably Jesus Christ. In the places 
by them produced, it is impossible from the subject matter 
in hand, that the relative should be referred to any but the 
remoter antecedent, but that therefore here we must offer 
violence to the words, and strain them into an incoherence 
and transgress all rules of construction, (nothing enforcing 
to such a procedure) is not proved. 

5. In the beginning of the twentieth verse it is said, ' the 
Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding ;' 
and we are said to be ' in him,' even ' in Jesus Christ,' on 
which it immediately follows, ovtoq, ' this, this Jesus Christ 
is the true God and eternal life.' 

6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called 'life,' 
and 'life eternal,' is evident both from his gospel, and this 
epistle ; and without doubt, by the same term, in his usual 
manner. He expresses here the same person; chap. i. 2. 


'The Son of God is life, eternal life, he that hath the Son, 
hath life; we are in him, the Son Jesus Christ, this is the 
true God, and eternal life ;' so he began, and so he ends his 

And this is all our adversaries have to say against this 
most express testimony of the divine nature of Jesus Christ; 
in their entrance whereunto they cry, hail master, as one be- 
fore them did (he is a true God), but in the close betray 
him (as far as lies in them) by denying his divine nature. 

Even at the light of this most evident testimony the 
eyes of Grotius dazzled, that he could not see the truth ; 
his note is/- ovrog lariv 6 d\i]divog ^tog ' is nempe quem 
lesus monstravit, colendumque docuit, non alius.' ovrog 
ssepe refertur ad aliquid prsecedens non ufxi(jioq. Acts viii. 
19. X. 6.* The very same plea with the former; only Acts 
viii. 19. is mistaken for Acts vii. 19. the place urged by our 
catechists, and before them by Socinus against Wicke, to 
whom not only they, but Grotius is beholden. That cita- 
tion of Acts X. 6. helps not the business at all; ovTog is 
twice used, once immediately at the beginning of the verse, 
secondly being guided by the first, the latter is referred to 
the same person, nor can possibly signify any other. Here 
is no such thing. Not any one circumstance to cause us, 
to put any force upon the constructure of the words; the 
discourse being still of the same person without any altera- 
tion ; which in the other places is not. 

Of the next testimony, which is from those words of 
Jude, ' denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ,' ver. 4. (not to increase words) this is the sum. There 
being but one article prefixed to all the words, it seems to 
carry the sense, that it is wholly spoken of Christ. The 
catechists reckon some places, where one article serves to 
sundry things, as Matt. xxi. 12. but it is evident, that they 
are utterly things of another kind, and another manner of 
speakin-y, than what is here; but the judgment hereof, is 
left to the reader ; it being not indeed clear to me, whether 
Christ be called SfffTrorr/c any where in the New Testament, 
though he be Lord and God, and the true God, full often. 

The second of Titus 13. must be more fully insisted on ; 
' Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearance 
of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.' 


' Q. What*" dost thou answer to this ? 

'A. In this place they strive to evince by tv^^o reasons, that 
the epithet of the great God is referred to Christ. The first 
is the rule forementioned, of one article prefixed to all the 
words: the other, that we do not expect that coming of the 
Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an answer 
already, in the answer to the fourth testimony ; to the other 
I answer, Paul doth not say, expecting the coming of the 
great God, but expecting the appearance of the glory of the 
great God. But now the words of Christ shew, that the 
glory of God the Father may be said to be illustrated, when 
Christ comes to judgment; whereas he saith, that he shall 
come in glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, 
Matt, xvi, 27. Mark viii. 38. Besides, what inconvenience 
is it, if it shall be said, that God the Father shall come (as 
they cite the words out of the vulgar), when the Son comes 
to judge the world .'' Shall not Christ sustain the person of 
the Father, as of him from whom he hath received this office 
of judging ?' 

About the reading of the words, with them we shall not 
contend ; it is the original we are to be tried by, and there 
is in that no ambiguity. That iTrt^aveta rijc So^rjc the 'ap- 
pearance of the glory,' is an Hebraism, for the ' glorious ap- 
pearance,' cannot be questioned. A hundred expressions of 
that nature in the New Testament, may be produced to 
give countenance to this. That the blessed hope looked for, 
is the thing hoped for, the resurrection to life and immor- 
tality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the 
subject spoken of be Jesus Christ, and his coming to judg- 
ment. The subject is one ; his epithets here two. 1. That 
belonging to his essence in himself, he is ' the great God.' 

B Ad quintum quid respondes ? — Quintum testimonium est: Expectantes bea- 
m spem, &c. Quo in loco epitlieton Magni Dei ad Cliristum referri duabiis rati- 
nibus evincere conantur : prior est, superiusde articulo uiio prfefixa regula. Poste- 
"^ior, quod adventum non expectemus Patris, sed Fili. Verum ad primum argumen- 
*ura responsum habes in responsione ad quartum festiraoniimi. Ad alterura respon- 
deo, Paulum non dicere, Expectantes adventum Magni Dei, verum dicere, Expec- 
tantes apparitionem glorijE Magni Dei. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei patris illustra- 
tam iri, cum Christus ad judicium venerit, verba Cliristi ostendunt, eum ait, quod 
venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum gloria; Dei Patris sui. Matt. xxvi. 27. JMark viii. 38. 
Praeterea, quod est inconveniens si dicatur, Deus pater venturus (prout illi e vulgata 
citant) cum Filius ad mundum judicandum venerit 1 An Christus Dei patris per- 
sonam, in judicio mundi, tanquani ejus, a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sus- 
tinebit ? 



2. That of office unto us : 'he is our Saviour.' That it is 
Christ which is spoken of, appears, 1. from the single article 
that is assigned to all the words : tov imtydXov Qeov kuX Swt)!- 
pog r]fiu)v 'IricFov Xpiarov, which no less signifies one person, 
than that other expression, 6 0f6c kol TdTr]p 'h]<rov Xpierrov, 
' The God and Father of Jesus Christ :' should I say, that 
one person is here intended, and not two (God, and the 
Father of Jesus Christ being the same), our catechists may 
say, no ; for it is found in another place, that there is but one 
article prefixed, where sundry persons are after spoken of. 
But is it not evident in those places, from the subject matter, 
that they are sundry persons, as also from the several con- 
ditions of them mentioned, as in that of Matt. xxi. 12. ' He 
cast out the sellers and buyers.' The proper force then of 
the expression enforces this attribution to Jesus Christ. 
3. Mention is made t7)q eirKpaveiag, of the glorious appearance 
of him, of whom the apostle speaks. That Christ is the 
person spoken of, and his employment of coming to judg- 
ment, 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 oppo- 
sition to his first coming, under contempt, scorn, and re- 
proach, 1 Tim. vi. 14. 'Keep this commandment', ^e\p£ Trig 
iTTKpavdag tov XpicTTov : 2 Tim. iv. 8. * Which the Lord the 
righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me 
only, but to them that love t?jv liri(j)dvuav avrov. Neither 
(as was said) is it ever used of the Father, but is the word 
continually used to express the second coming of Jesus 
Christ; sometimes Trapoutria hath the same signification, and 
is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what 
mat/ be said to be done, whether the glory of the Father 
may be said to be illustrated by the coming of Christ, but 
what is said. * The glorious appearance of the great God,' is 
not the manifestation of his glory, but his glory is mani- 
fested in his appearance. 4. It is true, it is said, that Christ 
shall come ' in the glory of his Father,' Matt. xvi. 21. Mark 
viii. 38, but it is no where said, that the glory of the Father 
shall come or appear. 5. Their whole interpretation of the 
words will scarce admit of any good sense; nor can it be 
properly said, that two persons come, when only one comes. 


though that one have glory and authority from the other. 
6. Christ shall also judge in his own name, and by the laws, 
which as Lord he hath given. 7. There is but the same 
way of coming, and appearance of the great God and our 
Saviour, which if our Saviour come really and indeed, and 
the great God only because he sends him ; the one comes, 
and the other comes not ; which is not doubtless they both 

Grotius agrees with our catechists : but says not one 
word more for the proof of his interpretation, nor in way of 
exception to ours, than they say : as they say no more than 
Socinus against Bellarmine, nor he much more than Erasmus 
before him : from whom Grotius also borrowed his consent 
of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place ; 
which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I 
would say were not honestly done, himself having proved 
that comment under the name of Ambrose, to be a paltry, 
corrupted, depraved, foisted piece ; but Grotius hath not a 
word but what hath been spoken to. 

The next testimony mentioned is Rev. i. 8. 'I am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, 
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.' 
To which is added that of chap. iv. 8. ' Holy, Holy, Holy, 
Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.' 

' Q. What" sayest thou to this ? 

* A. This place, they say, refers to Christ, because they 
suppose none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to 
come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be noted, that 
that word, which they have rendered 'to come,' may equally 
be rendered, 'is to be ;' as John xvi. 13. Where the Lord 

'' Quid ad sextum respondes ? — Euin vero locum propterea ad Christum refe- 
' unt, quod arbitrentur neralnem venturum, nisi Christum. Is enim venturus est ad 
jvi dicandum vivos et mortuos. Veruni tenendum est, earn vocem quam illi reddidere, 
vc nturus est, reddi ffique posse, futurus est, ut Johan. xvi. 13. ubi Dominus ait de SpL- 
f'tu, quern Apostolis proraittebat, quod illis esset futura annunciaturus, et Act. xviii. 
21. ubi legimus, diem festum futurura : in quibus locis duobus, vox Grjeca est l^'xp- 
fjiivos- Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prius dictum sit, qui erat, et qui est, et 
poste"rius hoc, quod additum est, per futurum esse reddi debere, et ubique de exis- 
tentia ea oratio accipiatur ; et non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in 
postre mo de adventu. Nee est quisquam qui non animadvcrfat hie describi seter- 
nitatem Dei, quse tempus prceteritum, praesens, et futurura comprehendit. Bed quod 
crassum errorem hunc detegit, est quod Apoc. i. 4, 5. legimus : Gratia vobis, et 
pax ab eo, qui est, et qui erat, et qui futurus est, et a septem spiritibus, qui sunt 
ante faciem throni ejus, et a Jesu Christo, qui est testis fidelis. E quo testimonio 
apparet, Jesu m Christum ab eo, qui est, qui erat, et qui futurus est, vel, ut illi cre- 
dunf, venturus, esse longe allum. 


says of the Spirit, which he promised to the apostles, that 
he should shew them thinos to come : and Acts xviii. 21. 
we read, that the feast day was ' to be,' in which place the 
Greek word is l^yon^voq. Lastly, who is there that knows 
not, that seeing it is said before, which was and is, this last 
which is added, may be rendered 'to be,' that the words in 
every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two 
former mention of existence, in the latter of coming. 
Neither is there any one who doth not observe, that the 
eternity of God is here described, which comprehendeth time 
past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this 
gross error, is that, Rev. i.4, 5. where we read, Grace be 
to you, and peace from him which is, which was, and which 
is to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his 
throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. 
From which testimony it appears, that Jesus Christ is quite 
another from him, which is, and was, and is to be, or as they 
think, is to come.' 

1. There is not one place which they have mentioned, 
wherein the word here used, ip)(ofi£vog, may not properly be 
translated ' to come,' which they seem to acknowledge at first 
to be peculiar to Christ : but 2. these gentlemen make them- 
selves and their disciples merry by persuading them, that 
we have no other argument to prove these words to be spoken 
of Christ, but only because he is said to be 6 Ipy^ofuvot;, 
which yet, in conjunction with other things, is not without 
its weight, being as it were a 'name of the Messiah, Matt, 
xi. 3. from Gen. xlix. 10. though it may be otherwise applied. 
3. They are no less triumphant doubtless in their following 
answer, that these words describe the eternity of God, and 
therefore belong not to Christ ; when the argument is, that 
Christ is God, because amongst other things these words 
ascribe eternity to him : is this an answer to us, who not 
only believe him, but prove him eternal ? 4. And they are 
upon the same pin still, in their last expression, that these 
words are ascribed to the Father, ver. 4. when they know 
that the argument which they have undertaken to answer, is, 
that the same names are ascribed to the Son, as to the 
Father, and therefore he is God equal with him. Their 

' "£a»{, lav iX&)) Z avjoKiirai. Gen. xlix. x. c-h it i i^y^ofxivct. Matt. xi. 3. 


answer is, this name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is 
ascribed to the Father. Men must beg, when they can make 
no earnings at work. 5. We confess Christ to be ' alius,' 
* another/ another person from the Father ; not another 
God, as our catechists pretend. 

Having stopped the mouths of our catechists, we may 
briefly consider the text itself. That by this expression, 
*who is, and who was, and who is to come,' the apostle ex- 
presses that name of God, Ehejeh, Exod. iii. 14. which as 
the rabbins say, is of all seasons, and expressive of all times, 
is evident. To which add that other name of God, Al- 
mighty, and it cannot at all be questioned, but that he, who 
is intended in these words, is the ' only true God.' 2. That 
the words are here used of Jesus Christ, is so undeniable 
from the context, that his adversaries thought good not once 
to mention it; ver. 7. His coming is described in glory: 
' Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, 
and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the 
earth shall wail because of him :' whereupon himself imme- 
diately adds the words of this testimony, ' I am Alpha and 
Omega ;' for, 1. They are words spoken to John by him who 
gave him the revelation, which was Jesus Christ; ver. 1. 
2. They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which 
was Jesus Christ; ver, 18. 3. Jesus Christ twice in this 
chapter afterward gives himself the same title; ver. 11. ' I 
am Alpha and Omega;' and ver. 17. * I am the first and the 
last ;' but who is he ? 'I am he that liveth, and was dead ; 
and behold I live for evermore, Amen : and have the keys 
of hell and death;' ver. 18. He gave the revelation ; he is 
described ; he speaks all always ; he gives himself the same 
titles twice again in this chapter. 

But our catechists think they have taken a course to 
prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration 
of the words, as they are placed, chap. i. 8. considei'ing the 
same words in chap. iv. 8. where they want some of the cir- 
cumstances, which in this place give light to their applica- 
tion. They are not there spoken by any that ascribes them 
to himself, but by others are ascribed, ' to him that sits on 
the throne/ who cry (as the * seraphims,' Isa. vi. 3.) ' Holy, 
Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, which was, and 
which is to come.' But yet there wants not evidence to 


evince, that these words belong immediately in this place 
also to Jesus Christ. For, L They are the name (as we have 
seen) whereby not long before he reveals himself. 2. They 
are spoken of him, who ' sits on the throne,' in the midst of 
the Christian churches here represented. And if Christ be 
not intended in these words, there is no mention of his pre- 
sence in his church, in that solemn representation of its as- 
sembly, although he promised to be in the ' midst' of his, * to 
the end of the world.' 3. The honour that is here ascribed 
to him that is spoken of, is because he is a^iog, ' worthy,' as 
the same is assigned to the lamb, by the same persons, in 
the same words ; chap. v. 12. So that in both these places 
it is Jesus Christ who is described ; ' He is, he was, he is to 
come (or as another place expresses it, * the same yesterday, 
to day, and for ever,') the Lord God Almighty.' 

I shall not need to add any thing to what Grotius hath 
observed on these places. He holds with our catechists, 
and ascribes these titles and expressions to God, in contra- 
distinction to Jesus Christ, and gives in some observations 
to explain them : but for the reason of his exposition, where- 
in he knew that he dissented from the most of Christians, 
we have ouSt yp*^' so that I have nothing to do, but to reject 
his authority ; which upon the experience I have of his de- 
sign, I can most freely do. 

Proceed we to the next testimony, which is Acts xx. 28. 
' Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his 
own blood.' He who purchased the church with his blood, 
is God : but it was Jesus Christ, who purchased his church 
with his blood ; Eph. v. 25—27. Tit. ii. 14. Heb. 9. 14. 
therefore he is God. 

' Q. What'' dost thou answer to this ? 

'A. I answer, the name of God is not necessarily in tliis 
place referred to Christ, but it may be referred to God the 
Father : whose blood the apostles call that which Christ 

'' Quid ad septimuin rcspondes ? — Respondeo, nomen Dei hoc loco non referri ad 
Christum necessario, sed ad ipsuin Deuni Patrein referri posse, cujus apostohis.cuni 
sanguinem, quern Christus fudit, sanguiiiem vocat, eo genere loquendi, ct cam ob 
causara, quo genere ioqucndi, ft quam ob causani propheta ait, cum qui tangit popu- 
lum Dei, tangcre pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Eteiiiiii suniuja, qure est inter Deum 
Patrcm et Christum conjunctio, eisi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, cur 
Cliristi sanguis, sanguis ipsius Dei Patris dicatur: prajsertim si quis expendat quate- 
nus is est pro nobis fusus. Etenim Christus est agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata niundi. 
Unde sanguis in eum finera fusus, ipsius Dei sanguis jure vocari potest. Nee vero 
priKtcrcundum est siicntio, quod iu editionc Syriaca loco Dei Icgatur Christi. 


shed, in that kind of speaking, and for that cause, with 
which God, and for which cause the prophet says, he who 
toucheth you, toucheth the apple of the eye of God himself. 
For the great conjunction that is between Father and Son, 
although in essence they are altogether diverse, is the rea- 
son, why the blood of Christ is called the blood of God the 
Father himself, especially if it be considered as shed for us. 
For Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of 
the world. Whence the blood shed to that purpose may be 
called the blood of God himself. Nor is it to be passed by 
in silence, that in the Syriac edition, in the place of God, 
Christ is read.' 

There is scarce any place, in returning an answer where- 
unto, the adversaries of the Deity of Christ do less agree 
among themselves, than about this. Some say the name of 
God is not here taken absolutely, but with relation to office, 
and so Christ is spoken of, and called 'God by office :' so 
Socin. ad Bellar. et Wieck. p. 200. &:c. Some, that the 
words are thus to be read : ' Feed the church of God, which 
Christ hath purchased by his own blood :' so Ochinus and 
Lailius Socinus, whom Zanchius answers : ' De tribus Elohim.' 
lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 456. 

Some fly to the Syriac translation, contrary to the con- 
stant consenting testimony of all famous copies of the ori- 
ginal, all agreeing in the word ^tov, some adding tov Kvpiov: 
so Grotius would have it; affirming that the manuscript he 
used had tov Kvpiov ; not telling them that it added ^eou, 
which is the same with what we affirm. And, therefore, he 
ventures at asserting the text to be corrupted, and in short 
writing, ^ov to be crept in for xpoO, contrary to the faith, 
and consent of all ancient copies ; which is all he hath to 
plead. 2. Our catechists know not what to say ; ' necessa- 
rily this word God is not to be referred to Christ: it may 
be referred to God the Father.' Give an instance of the like 
phrase of speech, and take the interpretation. Can it be 
said that one's blood was shed, when it was not shed, but 
another's, and no mention that that others blood was shed? 
3. If the Father's blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, 
because Christ's blood was shed; then you may say, that 
God the Father died, and was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate, and God the Father rose from the dead ; that he was 
VOL. viii. 2 A 


dead, and is alive. That that blood that was shed, was not 
Christ's, but some body's else, that he loved, and was neav 
unto him. 4. There is no analogy between that of the pro- 
phet, of the 'apple of God's eye,' and this here spoken of. 
Uncontrollably a metaphor must there be allowed ; here is 
no metaphor insisted on 5 but that which is the blood of 
Christ, is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that 
God, is their interpretation. There diverse persons are 
spoken of, God and believers : here one only, that did that 
which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies 
in this, there is a figurative expression in one place, the 
matter spoken of requiring it, therefore here must be a figure 
admitted also, where there is not the same reason : what is 
this but to make the Scripture a nose of wax? This work of 
' redeeming the church with his blood,' is ever ascribed to 
Christ, as peculiar to him, constantly without exception ; 
and never to God the Father : neither would our adversaries 
allow it to be so here, but that they know not how to stand 
before the testimony wherewith they are pressed. 

5. If because of the conjunction that is between God the 
Father and Christ, the blood of Christ may be called the 
' blood of God the Father ;' then the hunger and thirst of 
Christ, his dying and being buried, his rising again, may- 
be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweat- 
ing, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and 
proper Son, who hath a quite different nature and essence 
from his own proper Father, as is here aflirmed. 

6. Christ is called the Lamb of God, as answering and 
fulfilling all the sacrifices, that were made to God of old : 
and if the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God 
the Father, because he appointed it to be shed for us ; then 
the blood of any sacrifice was also the blood of a man, that 
appointed it to be shed, yea, of God, who ordained it. The 
words are, tKKXitaiav ^eov, i]v mpuTroiiiaaTo S/ti tou iSiov aifia- 
Tog- if any words in the world can properly express, that it 
is one and the same person intended, that it is his own blood 
properly, that bought the church with it, surely these words 
do it to the full. Christ then is God. 

The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to 
this head of testimonies, about the name of God, is 1 John 
iii. IG. 'Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he 


laid down his life for us.' He who laid down his life for us, 
was God : that is, he was so when he laid down his life for 
us, and not made a God since. 

* Q. To' the eighth what sayest thou ? 

* A. First take this account, that neither in any Greek edi- 
tion, but only the Complutensis, nor in the Syriac, the word 
God is found ; but suppose that this word were found in all 
copies, were therefore this word He to be referred to God ? 
Not doubtless; not only for that reason which we gave a 
little before, in answer to the third testimony, that such 
words are not always referred to the next person ; but more- 
over, because John doth often in this epistle refer the Greek 
word kKeivog to him who was named long before, as in the 3rd, 
5th, and 7th verses of this chapter.' 

1. Our catechists do very faintly adhere to the first ex- 
ception about the word ^wv in the original, granting that it 
is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used 
elsewhere, and that the sense in this place necessarily re- 
quires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they 
do, we deny, that this is a very just exception which they 
insist upon, that a relative may sometimes, and in some cases, 
where the sense is evident, be referred to the remote antece- 
dent, therefore it may, or ought to do so in any place, con- 
trary to the propriety of grammar, where there are no cir- 
cumstances, enforcing such a construction, but all things 
requiring the proper sense of it. It is allowed of only where 
several persons are spoken of immediately before, which 
here are not; one only being intimated, or expressed. 4. 
They can give no example of the word God, going before, 
and iKHvog following after, where iKtXvog is referred to any 
thing or person more remote : much less here where the 
apostle having treated of God, and the love of God, draws 
an argument from the love of God, to enforce our love of 
one another. 5. In the places they point unto, l/citi/oc in 
every one of them is referred to the next and immediate 

' Ad octavum vero quid ? — Primum igitur sic habeto ; neque in Greeca editione ulla 
(excepta Complutensi), nee in editione Sjriaca, vocem Deus haberi. Veruni etiamsi 
hjEC vox haberetur in oranibiis exeniplaribus, num idcirco ea vox iile, ad Deuni erit 
referenda? Non certe; non solum ob eani causam, quara pauIo superius attulinius, in 
lesponsione ad testimonium tertium ; quod verba ejusraodi non semper ad propin- 
quiores personas referantur : verum etiam quod lueXw; vocem GiEecuni Johannes in hac 
epistoia saepe ad eum refert, qui longe antea nominatus fuerat, ut et 3i 5. et 7, veisii 
ejusdem capitis in Graeco apparet. 

2 a2 


antecedent, as will be evident to our reader upon the first 

Give them their great associate, and we have done. 
''Ekhvoq hie est Christus ut supra ver. 5. subintelligendum 
hie autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nos- 
tri causa quod expressum est, Rom. iv. 8/ That tKiivog is 
Christ is confessed ; but the word being a relative, and ex- 
pressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates 
unto ^£ov, the word going immediately before it. No, says 
Grotius, but * the sense is. Herein appeared the love of God, 
that by his appointment Christ died for us.' That Christ 
laid down his life for us by the appointment of the Father, 
is most true ; but that that is the intendment of this place, 
or that the grammatical construction of the words will bear 
any such sense, we deny. 

And this is what they have to except to the testimonies, 
which themselves choose to insist on, to give in their ex- 
ceptions to, as to the names of Jehovah, and God, being as- 
cribed 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 pro- 
duced, and have been so, by those who have pleaded the 
Deity of Christ, against its opposers, both of old and of late, 
is known to all that enquire after such things. I content 
myself, to vindicate what they have put in exceptions unto. 


Of the work of creation assigjied to Jesus Christ, ^c. The confii-mation 
of his eternal Deity from thence. 

The Scriptures which assign the creating of all things to 
Jesus Christ, they propose as the next testimony of his 
Deity, whereunto they desire to give in their exceptions. 
To these they annex them, wherein it is affirmed, that * he 


brought the people of Israel out of Egypt/ and that he was 
' with them in the wilderness,' with one particular out of Isaiah, 
compared with the account given of it in the gospel, about 
the prophets seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which 
are of the first sort, they instance in John i. 3. 10. Col. i. 
16. Heb. i. 2. 10— 12. verses. 

The first and second of these, I have already vindicated 
in the consideration of them, as they lay in their conjunc- 
ture with them going before in ver. 1. proceed we there 
fore to the third, which is Col. i. 16. ' For by him were all 
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, vi- 
sible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, 
or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, 
and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all 
things consist.' 

1. That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ, is acknow- 
ledged. The verses foregoing prevent all question thereof. 
* He hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in 
whom we have redemption though his blood, even the for- 
giveness of sins : who is the image of the invisible God, the 
firstborn of every creature : for by him were all things;' &c. 

2. In what sense Christ is the ' image of the invisible God,' 
even the 'express image of his Father's person,' shall be af- 
terward declared. The other part of the description of him 
belongs to that which we have in hand. He is irpwroTOKog 
TTao-rjc KTLaeijjg, ' the firstborn of every creature :' that is, be- 
fore them all ; above them all ; heir of them all ; and so 
none of them. It is not said, he is irpioTOKTiaTog, first created, 
but irpwTOTOKog, the firstborn ; now the term ' first,' in the Scrip- 
ture, represents either what follows, and so denotes an order 
in the things spoken of, he that is the first being one of them, 
as Adam was the first man : or it respects things going be- 
fore, in which sense it denies all order or series of things in 
the same kind. So God is said to be the first, Isa. xli. 4. 
because before him there is none, Isa. xliii. 11. And in this 
sense is Christ the firstborn ; so the firstborn, as to be the 
'only begotten Son of God,' John i. 14. This the apostle 
proves, and gives an account of, in the following verses; for 
the clearing of his intendment wherein, a few things may be 

1. Though he speaks of him who is Mediator, and de- 


scribes him, yet he speaks not of him as Mediator; for that 
he enters upon ver. 18. ' And he is the head of the body the 
church;' &c. 

2. That the things, whose creation are here assigned unto 
Jesus Christ, are evidently contradistinguished to the things 
of the church, or new creation, which are mentioned ver. 18. 
Here he is said to be the 'firstbjDrn of every creature;' there 
the ' firstborn from the dead.' Here to make all things ; there 
there to be the 'head of the body the church.' 

3. The creation of all things, simply, and absolutely, is 
most emphatically expressed. 1. In general; 'by him all 
things were created.' 2. A distribution is made of those all 
things, into all things that are in heaven, and that are in 
earth; which is the common expression of all things that 
were made at the beginning; Exod. xx. 11. Acts iv. 24. 
3. A description is given of the things so created, according 
to two adjuncts, which divide all creatures whatever, whe- 
ther they are visible, or invisible. 4. An enumeration is in 
particular made of one sort, of things invisible, which being 
of greatest eminency and dignity, might seem, if any, to be 
exempted from the state and condition of being created by 
Jesus Christ ; ' whether they be thrones,' &c. 5. This distri- 
bution and enumeration being closed, the general assump- 
tion is again repeated, as having received confirmation from 
what was said before : ' all things were created by him :' of 
what sort soever, whether expressed in the enumeration fore- 
going or no ; all things were created by him : they were 
created for him, dg avrov : as it is said of the Father, Rom. 
xi. 36. which Rev. iv. 11. is said to be, 'for his will and 
pleasure.' 6. For a farther description of him, v. 17. his pre- 
existence before all things, and his providence in supporting 
them, and continuing that being to them, which he gave them 
by creation, is asserted. And 'he is before all things, and by 
him all things exist.' 

Let us consider then what is excepted hereunto, by them 
with whom we have to do. Thus they, 

* Q. Whaf" dost thou answer to this place ? 

* Quid ad tcrtiiim ? — Practcr id, qiiod ct lioc testimonium loquaturde Chrisfo, lan- 
quam media et secunda causa, vcrbuiu crcata sunt, non solum dc vetcrc, veruni 
ctiaui de nova creationc in Scriptura usurpari constat : cujus rei cxciupia iiabcs 
Ephes. ii. 10. 1.5. Jacob, i. 18. Pra;tfrea, ca verba, omnia ia cociis, ct in terra, non 


' A. Besides this, that this testimony speaks of Christ, as of 
the mediate and second cause, it is manifest, the words ' were 
created' are used in Scripture, not only concerning the old, 
but also the new creation ; of which you have example, Eph. 
ii. 10.15. James i. 18. Moreover, that these words. All things 
in heaven and in earth, are not used for all things altogether, 
appearethnot only from the words subjoined a little after, ver. 
20. where the apostle saith, that by him are all things recon- 
ciled in heaven and in earth, but also from those words them- 
selves, wherein the apostle said not, that the heavens and 
earth were created, but all things that were in heaven and in 

* Q. But how dost thou understand that testimony ? 

* A. On that manner, wherein all things that are in heaven 
and in earth were reformed by Christ, after God raised him 
from the dead; and by him translated into another state and 
condition, and this whereas God gave Christ to be head to 
angels and men, who before acknowledged God only for 
their Lord.' 

What there is either in their exceptions, or exposition, of 
weight to take off this evident testimony, shall briefly be 

The first exception of the kind of causality, which is here 
ascribed to Christ, hath already been considered and re- 
moved, by manifesting the very same kind of expression, 
about the same things, to be used concerning God the Fa- 
ther. 2. Though the word creation, be used concerning the 
new creation, yet it is in places where it is evidently and dis- 
tinctly 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 dis- 
tinction from the new, which the apostle describes and ex- 
presses in other terms, ver. 20. If that may be called the new 
creation, which lays a foundation of it, as the death of 
Christ doth of regeneration. And unless it be in that cause 

usurpari pro omnibus prorsus, apparet non solum es verbis paulo inferius subjectis, 
V. 20. ubi Apostolus ait, quod per eum reconciliata sint omnia in coelis et in terra, 
verura etiara ex iis ipsis verbis, in quibus Apostolus non ait, coelum et terram creata 
esse, verum ea omnia qute in corIIs et in terra sunt. — Qui vero istud testimonium in- 
telligisl — -Ad eum modum, quo per Christum omnia, quae sunt in coelis et in terra 
postquam eum Deus a mortuis excitavit, reforniata sunt, et in alium statum et con- 
ditionem translata ; id vero cum Deus et angelis et hominibus Christum caput de- 
derit, qui antea tantum Deuni solum pro domino agnoverunt. 


the work of the new creation is not spoken of at all in this 
place. 3. Where Christ is said ' to reconcile all things to 
himself that are in heaven and earth,' he speaks plainly and 
evidently of another work, distinct from that which he had 
described in these verses ; and whereas reconciliation sup- 
poses a past enmity, the all things mentioned in the 20th verse, 
can be none, but those which were sometime at enmity with 
God. Now none but men, that ever had any enmity against 
God, or were at enmity with him, were ever reconciled to 
God. It is then men in heaven and earth, to whose recon- 
ciliation in their several generations, the efficacy of the blood 
of Christ did extend, that is there intended. 4. Not heaven 
and earth are named, but all things, in them, as being most 
immediately expressive of the apostle's purpose, who naming 
all things in general, chose to instance in angels and men: 
as also insisting on the expression, which is used concern- 
ing the creation of all things in sundry places, as hath been 
shewed ; though he mentions not all the words in them used. 
For the exposition they give of these words, it is most 
ridiculous; for 1. The apostle doth not speak of Christ, as 
he is exalted after his resurrection, but describes him in his 
divine nature and being. 2. To translate out of one condition 
into another, is not to create the thing so translated, though 
another new thing it may. When a man is made a magis- 
trate, we do not say he is made a man, but he is made a ma- 
gistrate. 3. The new creation which they here affirm to be 
spoken of, is by no means to be accommodated unto angels. 
In both the places mentioned by themselves, and in all places 
where it is spoken of, it is expressive of a change from bad 
to good, from evil actions to grace, and is the same with re- 
generation or conversion, which cannot be ascribed to an- 
gels, who never sinned, norlost their first habitation. 4. The** 
dominion of Christ over angels and men is no where called 
a new creation ; nor is there any colour or pretence why it 
should be so expressed. 5. The new creation is in Jesus 
Christ, 2 Cor. v. 17. but to be in Christ, is to be implanted 
into him by the Holy Spirit by believing, which by no means 
can be accommodated to angels. 6. If only the dominion 

'' Ea qua in ctrlis sunt personpe (qujE subjectas sunt Chrislo), sunt angeli, iique tarn 
boni quara niali : quae in coelis sunt, et persona- non sunt, omnia ilia continent qune- 
cunque extra angelos vel sunt, vel etiam esse possunt. Smal. dc Divin. Chrisli cap. 
16. (ic Regno Christi super Angelos. 


of Christ be intended, then whereas Christ's dominion is ac- 
cording to our adversaries, (Smal. de Divin. Christi. cap. 
16.) extended over all creatures, men, angels, devils, and all 
other things in the world, then men, angels, devils, and all 
things are new creatures. 7. Socinus says, that by princi- 
palities, and powers, devils are intended: and what advance- 
ment may they be supposed to have obtained by the new 
creation? The devils were created, that is, delivered. There 
is no end of the folly and absurdities of this interpretation : I 
shall spend no more words about it. Our argument from 
this place stands firm and unshaken. 

Grotius abides by his friends in the interpretation of this 
place, wresting it to the new creature, and the dominion of 
Christ over all ; against all the reasons formerly insisted on, 
and with no other argument than what he was from the Soci- 
nians supplied withal. His words on the place are. "^It is 
certain, that all things were created by the Word, But those 
things that go before shew that Christ is here treated of, 
which is the name of a man. As Chrysostom also under- 
stood this place : but he would have it, that the world was 
made for Christ, in a sense not corrupt: but on the account 
of that which went before, tKTia^n is better interpreted, were 
ordained, or obtained a certain new state.' So he, in almost 
the very words of Socinus. But, 

1 . In what sense all things were created by the Word, and 
what Grotius intends by the Word, I shall speak elsewhere. 
2. Is Christ the name of a man only? Or of him who is only 
a man ? Or is he a man only as he is Christ? If he would 
have spoken out to this, we might have had some light into 
his meaning, in many other places of his annotations. The 
apostle tells us that Christ ' is over all, God blessed for 
ever;' Rom. ix. 5. And that Jesus Christ was ' declared to 
be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead ;' Rom. 
i. 3. If Christ denote the person of our Mediator, Christ is 
God, and what is spoken of Christ, is spoken of him who is 
God. But this is that which is aimed at ; the Word, or Wis- 
dom of God, bears eminent favour towards that man Jesus 
Christ : but that he was any more than a man, (that is, the 

<^ Certum est, per Verbum creata omnia. Sed qua; praecedunt, ostendunt hie de 
Christo agi, quod liominis iiomeii est, quomodo etiam Chrj'sostomus hunc accepit 
locum. Sed ille infelligitmundura creatura propter Christum, sensu non maio: sed 
propter id quod pr?ecessit, rectius est ixTkV&n hie inteppretari, ordinata sunt, novum 
quendam statum sunt consccuta. 


union of the natures of God and man in one person) is de- 
nied. 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 in- 
sist on (by God's assistance) to prove the Deity of Christ, 
with all the texts of Scripture wherein it is plainly affirmed, 
do evince the vanity of this exception, ' Christ is the name 
of a man, therefore the things spoken of him are not proper 
and peculiar to God.' 5. Into Chrysostom's exposition of 
this place I shall not at present enquire, though I am not 
without reason to think he is wronged : but that the word 
here, ' created,' may not, cannot be rendered ordained, or 
placed in a new state and condition, I have before suffi- 
ciently evinced ; neither doth Grotius add any thing to 
evince his interpretation of the place, or to remove what is 
objected against it. 

1. He tells us, that of that sense of the word ktiZ^iv, he 
hath spoken in his prolegomena. And urges, Eph. ii. 10. 13. 
iii. 9. iv. 24. to prove the sense proposed. 1. It is confessed, 
that God doth sometimes express the exceeding greatness of 
his power, and efficacy of his grace, in the regeneration of a 
sinner, and enabling him to live to God, by the word create ; 
whence such a person is sometimes called the new creature, 
according to the many promises of the Old Testament, of 
creating a new heart in the elect, whom he would take into 
covenant with himself. A truth which wraps that in its 
bowels, whereunto Grotius was no friend. But that this new 
creation can be accommodated to the things here spoken of, 
is such a figment, as so learned a man might have been 
ashamed of. The constant use of the word in the New Tes- 
tament, is that which is proper, and that which in this place 
we insist on; as Rom. i. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 3. Rev. iv. 11. 2. 
Eph. ii. 10. speaks of the new creature in the sense declared, 
which is not illustrated by ver. 13. which is quite of an- 
other import. Chaj). iv. 24. is to the same purpose. Chap. iii. 
9. the creation of all things, simply, and absolutely, is as- 
cribed to God ; which to wrest to a new creation there is no 
reason, but what arises from opposition to Jesus Christ, be- 
cause it is ascribed also to him. 


2. The latter part of the verse he thus illustrates, or rather 
obscures ; 'to. Travra 8t avrov : intellige omnia quae ad novam 
creationem pertinent/ How causelesly, how without ground, 
how contrary to the words, and scope of the place, hath been 
shewed ; ' koL hq avTov iKTiarai : propter ipsum, ut ipse om- 
nibus prseesset ;' Rev. v. 13. Heb. ii. 8. This is to go for- 
ward in an ill way. 1. What one instance can he give of this 
sense of the expression opened ? The words, as hath been 
shewed, are used of God the Father, Rom. xi. 36. and are 
expressive of absolute sovereignty, as Rev. iv. 11. 2. The 
texts cited by him to exemplify the sense of this place, (for 
they are not instanced in to explain the phrase, which is not 
used in them) do quit evert his whole gloss : in both places 
the dominion of Christ is asserted over the whole creation ; 
and particularly in Rev. v. 13. ' things in heaven, earth, 
under the earth, and in the sea,' are recounted. I desire to 
know whether all these are made new creatures, or no? If 
not ; it is not the dominion of Christ over them, that is here 
spoken of; for he speaks only of them that he created. 

Of the 17th verse he gives the same exposition; * koI av- 
ToglcTTt irpb Travrwv : id est, A et Q, ut ait Apocal. i.-8. Trpo 
irdvTwv, intellige ut jam diximus.' Not contented to per- 
vert this place, he draws another into society with it ; where- 
in he is more highly engaged than our catechists, who con- 
fess that place to be spoken of the eternity of God ; * koL ra 
Travra Iv avrCo o-uviOTjjKE" et htec vox de veteri creatione ad 
novam traducitur ; vid. 2 Pet. iii. 5.' Prove it by any one 
instance ; or if that may not be done, beg no more in a mat- 
ter of this importance. In Peter it is used of the existence 
of all things by the power of God, in and upon their crea- 
tion ; and so also here, but spoken with reference to Jesus 
Christ, who is ' God over all blessed for ever.' And so much 
for the vindication of this testimony. 

Heb. i. 2. is nextly mentioned. ' By whom also he made 
the worlds.' 

That these words are spoken of Christ, is not denied. 
They are too express to bear any exception on that account. 
That God is said to make the world by Christ, doth not at all 
prejudice what we intend from this place. God could no 
way make the world by Christ, but as he was his own eternal 
Wisdom, which exempts him from the condition of a crea- 


ture. Besides, as it is said, that God made the world by 
him, denoting the subordination of the Son to the Father, 
and his being his Wisdom, as he is described, Prov. viii. So 
also the Word is said to make the world, as a principal effi- 
cient cause himself; John i. 3. and Heb. i. 10. The word 
here used is aliovag. That aUov is of various acceptations in 
the New Testament, is known. A duration of time, an age, 
eternity, are sometimes expressed thereby. The world, the 
beginning of it, or its creation, as John ix. 32. In this place 
it signifies not time simply and solely, but the things created 
in the beginning of time, and in all times; and so expressly 
the word is used, Heb. xi. 2. the framing ahovuyv, is the 
creation of the world, which by faith we come to know. ' The 
worlds,' that is, the world, and all in it, was made by Christ. 
Let us now hear our catechists. 

* Q. How*^ dost thou answer to this testimony ? 

* A. On this manner, that it is here openly written, not 
that Christ made, but that God by Christ made the worlds. 
It is also confessed, that the word ' secula,' may signify not 
only the ages past and present, but also to come. But 
that here it signifies things future is demonstrated from 
hence, that the same author affirmeth, that by him whom 
God appointed heir of all things, he made the worlds. For 
Jesus of Nazareth was not made heir of all things before he 
raised him from the dead ; which appears from hence, be- 
cause then all power in heaven and in earth was given him 
of God the Father, in which grant of power, and not in any 
other thing, that inheritance of all things is contained.' 

1 . For the first exception, it hath been sufficiently spoken 
to already ; and if nothing else but the pre-existence of Christ 
unto the whole creation be hence proved, yet the cause of 
our adversaries is by it destroyed for ever. This exception 
might do some service to the Arians, to Socinians it will do 
none at all. 2. The word * secula' signifies not things future 
any where. This is gratis dictum, and cannot be proved by 

'• Qui respondes ad quartuni tcstimoniiiiii ? — Eo |)acto, quod hie palam scriptiiiii 
sit, non, Christum fecisse, scd, Deuni per Clirisluni fecisse secula. Vocem vero se- 
cula noil solum prajsentia et pr.Tctcrita, veruui ctiain futura significare posse, in con- 
fesso est. Hie vero dc futnris agi id deiiionstrat, quod idem autor afliriiiet, per 
cum, quern hajredein universorum constitucrit Deus, ctiam secula esse coiulita. Nam 
Jesus Nazarenus non prius eonstitutus hares universorum fuit, quain eum Deus a 
mortuis cxcitavit. Quod hinc patct, quod turn demum omnis potcstas in corIo et 
in terra cidem data a Deo Patre fucrit, cujus potestatis donatione, ct non alia ic, ista 
universorum liajrcdiiascontinelur. 


any instance. ' The world to come' may do so, but the ' world' 
simply doth not. That it doth not so signify in this place 
is evident from these considerations. 1. These words, *by 
whom he made the world,' are given as a reason why God 
made him heir of all things ; even because by him he made 
all things ; which is no reason at all, if you understand only 
heavenly things by the worlds here ; which also removes 
the last exception of our catechists, that Christ was ap- 
pointed 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 for- 
merly given by them to Col. i. 16. where they would have 
him to be said to make all things, because of the reconci- 
liation he made by his death ; ver. 20. 2. The same word or 
expression in the same epistle is used for the world in its 
creation, as was before observed chap. xi. 2. which makes it 
evident, that the apostle in both places intends the same. 
3. 'Aiojv is no where used absolutely for the world to come ; 
which being spoken of in this epistle is once called oikov- 
fi£vr}v Trjv julXXoucrav, chap. ii. 5. and dih)va fxiWovra, chap, 
vi. 5. but no where absolutely diojva, or diCJvac. 4. The 
* world to come' is no where said to be made ; nor is this ex- 
pression used of it. It is said chap. ii. to be put into sub- 
jection to Christ, not to be made by him; and chap. vi. the 
powers of it are mentioned, not its creation. 5. That is said 
to be made by Christ, which he upholds with the word of 
his power ; but this is said simply to be all things ; * he up- 
holdeth all things by the word of his power,' ver. 3. 6. This 
plainly answers the former expressions insisted on. * He 
made the world,' ' he made all things,' &c. So that this 
text also lies as a two edged-sword, at the very heart of the 
Socinian cause. 

Grotius seeing that this interpretation could not be 
made good, yet being no way willing to grant, that making 
of the world is ascribed to Christ, relieves his friends with 
one evasion more than they were aware of. It is that Bl 6v, 
by whom, is put for 8i ov, for whom, or for whose sake. 
And £7rotr}(T£ is to be rendered by the preterpluperfect tense, 
'he had made :' and so the sense is, God made the world for 


Christ ; which answereth an old saying of the Hebrews ; 'That 
the world was made for the Messiah.' 

But what will not great wits give a colour to? Grotius is 
not able to give me one instance in the Avhole New Testa- 
ment, where Si ov is taken for Si ov; and if it should be so 
any where, himself would confess that it must have some co- 
gent circumstance to enforce that construction, as all places 
must have where we go off from the propriety of the word. 
2. If Si ov be put for Si ov; Sla must be put for elc, as in 
the ojDinion of Beza it is once in the place quoted by Gro- 
tius ; and so signify the final cause, as he makes Si ov to do. 
Now the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between 
these two, in this business of making the world : Rom. xi. 
36. Si avTov, Koi liQ avTov to. Travra. So that doubtless in the 
same matter, one of these is not put for the other. 3. Why 
must £7roirj(T£ be ' condiderat,' and what example can be given 
of so rendering that aoristus? If men may say what they 
please, without taking care to give the least probability to 
what they say, these things may pass. 4. If the apostle 
must be supposed to allude to any opinion or saying of the 
Jews, it is much more probable that he alluded in the 
word aiiovaQ, which he uses, to the threefold world they 
mention in their liturgy ; the lower, middle, and higher 
world, or souls of the blessed. Or the fourfold mentioned 
by Rab. Alschech ; ' Messias prosperabitur vocabulum est 
quod quatuor mundos complectitur : qui sunt mundus in- 
ferior, mundus angelorum, mundus sphaerarum, et mundus 
supremus,' &c. but of this enough. 

Though this last testimony be sufficient to confound all 
gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of men of common inge- 
nuity, yet it is evident, that ourcatechists are more perplexed 
witli that which follows in the same chapter, which there- 
fore they insist longer upon, than any one single testimony 
besides : with what success comes now to be considered. 

The words are,Heb. i. 10—12. 'And, Thou, Lord in the 
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the 
heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish, but 
thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as doth a gar- 
ment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they 
shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years 
shall not fail.' That these words of the psalmist are spoken 


concerning Christ, we have the testimony of the apostle, af)- 
plying them to him, wherein we are to acquiesce. The thing 
also is clear in itself, for they are added in his discourse of 
the deliverance of the church, which work is peculiar to the 
Son of God ; and where that is mentioned, it is he who emi- 
nently is intended. Now very many of the arguments, 
wherewith the Deity of Christ is confirmed,are wrapped up in 
these words. 1. His name Jehovah is asserted. And thou 
' Lord,' for of him the psalmist speaks, though he repeat not 
that word. 2. His eternity and pre-existence to his incar- 
nation. ' Thou Lord in the beginning ;' that is, before the 
world was made. 3. His omnipotence, and divine power, 
in the creation of all thino;s ; ' thou hast laid the foundation 
of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.' 
4. His immutability ; ' thou art the same, and thy years 
fail not;' as Mai. iii. 6. 5, His sovereignty and dominion 
over all ; ' as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they 
shall be changed.' Let us now see what darkness they are 
able to pour forth upon this sun, shining in its strength. 

*Q.^ What dost thou answer to this testimony? 

' A. To this testimony I answer, that it is not to be under- 
stood of Christ but of God. But because this writer refers 

^ Ad quintum quid respondes? — Ad id testimonium id respondeo, quod non de 
Christo, verum de Deo accipiendum sit. Quia vero idem scriptor illud ad Filium 
Dei referat, expendendum est sermonera in testimonio, non de una re sed de duabus 
potissimura haberi expresse : una est ccKli et terrie creatio ; altera rerum creatarum 
abolitio. Quod vero is autor priorem ad Christum non referat hinc perspicuum est, 
quod in eo capite praestantiam Christi demonstrare sibi proposuerit ; non earn, quani 
a seipso habeat, verum eam quam haereditavit, et qua prsestantior angelis ettectus sit, 
ut e ver. 4. cuivis planum est : cujus generis pra?stantia cum creatio cceli et terras non 
sit, nee esse possit, apparet manifeste.non in eum finem testimonium ah eo scriptore 
allatum, ut Christum creasse ccthim et terram probaret. Cum igitur prior ad Chris- 
tum referri nequeat, ap])aret posteriorem tantum ad eum rcferendem esse, id vero 
propterea, quod Deus coelum et terram per eum aboliturus sit, tum cum judicium 
extremum per ipsumest exccutiirus. Quo quidem tantopere prffistantia Christi prne 
angelis conspicua futura est, ut ipsi angeli sint ei ea ipsa in re ministraturi. Quae 
posterior oratio, cum sine verbis superioribus, in quibus fit cceli terraeque meiitio, in- 
telligi non potuerit, cum sit cum iis per vocem ipsi copjuncta, et eadem ilia verba 
priora idem autor commemorare necesse habuit. Nam si alii scriptores sacri ad eum 
moduni citant testimonia Scriptura;, nulla adacti necessitate, niulto raagis huic ne- 
cessitate conipulso, id faciendum fuit. — Ubi vero Scriptores Sacri id fecerunt? — Inter 
alia niulta testimonia, habes Matt. xii. 18 — 21, ubi nimis apertum est versiculum 19. 
tantum ad propositum Evangelista; Matthsei pertinere, cum id voluerit probare, cur 
Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret. Deinde, 7\.cts ii. 17 — 21^. Ubi etiam tantum 
ver. 17, 18. ad propositum Petri Apostoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum 
Sanctum esse efFusum supra discipulos doceat: et ibidem ver. 25 — 28. Ubi palam 
est, versum tantum 27. ad propositum facere, quandoquidem id approbet apostolus, 
Christum a morte detineri fuisse impossibile. Denique in hoc ipso capite, ver. 9. ubi 
verba haec, dilexisti justitiara et odio habuisti iniquitatem, apparet nihil pertinere ad 
rem quam probat apostolus, qufe est, Christum praestantiorem factum angelis. 


it to the Son of God, it is to be considered, that the dis- 
course in this testimony is expressly about, not one, but two 
things chiefly : the one is the creation of heaven and earth ; 
the other the abolishino- of created thing's. Now that that 
author doth not refer the first unto Christ, is hence evident, 
because in that chapter he proposeth to himself to demon- 
strate the excellency of Christ above the angels, not that 
which he hath of himself, but that which he had by inherit- 
ance, and whereby he is made better than the angels, as is 
plain to any one, ver. 4. of which kind of excellence seeing 
that the creation of heaven and earth is not, nor can be, it 
appeareth manifestly, that this testimony is not urged by 
this writer to prove that Christ created heaven and earth. 
Seeing therefore the first part cannot be referred to Christ, 
it appeareth, that the latter only is to be referred to him : 
and that because by him God will abolish heaven and earth, 
when by him he shall execute the last judgment: whereby 
the excellency of Christ above angels shall be so conspicu- 
ous, that the angels themselves shall in that very thing serve 
him. And seeing this last speech could not be understood 
without those former words, wherein mention is made of 
heaven and earth, being joined to them by this word ' they,' 
therefore the author had a necessity to make mention of 
them also. For if other holy writers do after that manner 
cite the testimonies of Scripture, compelled by no necessity, 
much more was this man to do it being com])elled tliereunto. 

* But where have the divine writers done this ? 

* Amongst many other testimonies take. Matt, xii. 18 — 
21. where it is most manifest, that only ver. 19. belongeth 
to the purpose of the evangelist, when he would prove, why 
Christ forbid, that he should be made known. So Acts vii. 
17 — 21. where also ver. 17, 18. only do make to the apostle's 
purpose, which is to prove, that the Holy Ghost was poured 
forth on the disciples. And there also, ver. 25 — 28. where 
ver. 27. only is to the purpose : the apostle proving only, 
that it was impossible that Christ should be detained of 
death. Lastly, in this very chapter, ver. 9. where these 
words, ' thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity,' 
are used; it is evident, that they belong not to the thing 
which the apostle proveth ; which is, that Christ was made 
more excellent than the angels.' 


That in all this discourse there is not any thing consi- 
derable, but the horrible boldness of these men in corruj3ting 
and perverting the word of God, will easily to the plainest 
capacity be demonstrated ; for which end, I otFer the ensuing 

1. To say these things are not spoken of Christ, because 
they are spoken of God, is a shameless begging of the thing 
in question ; we prove Christ to be God, because these things 
are spoken of him, that are proper to God only. 

2. It is one thing in general that is spoken of, namely, 
the Deity of Christ, which is proved by one testimony from 
Psal. cii. concerning one property of Christ, viz. his almighty 
power, manifested in the making all things, and disposing 
of them in his sovereign will, himself abiding unchangeable. 

3. It is shameless impudence in these gentlemen to take 
upon them to say, that this part of the apostle's testimony, 
which he producfth is to his purpose, that not; as if they 
were wiser than the Holy Ghost, and knew Paul's design 
better than himself. 

4. The foundation of their whole evasion is most false ; 
viz. that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ above 
angels, insisted on by the apostle, belong peculiarly to what 
he is said to receive by inheritance. The design of the apo- 
stle is to prove the excellency of Christ, in himself, and then 
in comparison of angels ; and therefore, before the mention of 
what he received by inheritance, he affirms directly, that by 
him God made the world. And to this end it is most evi- 
dent, that this testimony, that he created heaven and earth, 
is most directly subservient. 

5. Christ also hath his divine nature by inheritance; that 
is, he was eternally begotten of the essence of his Father, 
and is thence by right of inheritance his Son, as the apostle 
proves from PsaL ii. 5. 

6. Our catechists speak not according to their own 
principles, when they make a difference between what Christ 
had from himself, and what he had from inheritance. For 
they suppose he had nothing but by divine grant, and volun- 
tary 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 tlie least colour or pretence of de- 
nying this first part of the testimony to belong to Christ. 
The whole is spoken of to the same purpose, to the same 
person, belongs to the same matter in general : and that first 
expression is, if not only, yet mainly, and chiefly effectual to 
confirm the intendment of the apostle; proving directly that 
Christ is better and more excellent than the angels, in that 
he is Jehovah, that made heaven and earth ; they are but his 
creatures; as God often compares himself with others. In 
the psalmist the words respect chiefly the making of heaven 
and earth, and these words are applied to our Saviour. That 
the two works of making and abolishing the world, should be 
assigned distinctly unto two persons, there is no pretence to 
affirm. This boldness indeed is intolerable. 

8. To abolish the world is no less a work of almighty 
power, than to make it : nor can it be done by any but him 
that made it ; and this confessedly is ascribed to Christ. And 
both alike belong to the asserting of the excellency of God 
above all creatures, v/hich is here aimed to be done. 

9. The reason given why the first words, which are no- 
thing to the purpose, are cited with the latter, is a miserable 
begging of the thing in question. Yea tl.e first words are 
chiefly and eminently to the apostle's purpose, as hath been 
shewed. We dare not say only, for the Holy Ghost knew 
better than we, what was to his purpose, though our cate- 
chists be wiser in their own conceits than be. Neither is 
there any reason imaginable, why the apostle should re- 
hearse more words here out of the psalm, than were di- 
rectly to the business he had in hand ; seeing how many 
testimonies he cites, and some of them very briefly, leaving 
them to be supplied fiom the places whence they are taken. 

10. That others of the holy writers do urge testimonies 
not to their purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in 
itself, and a bold imputation of weakness to the penmen of 
the Holy Ghost. The instances hereof given by our adver- 
saries, are not at all to the purpose which they are pursuing. 

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 suffi- 
cient 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 through- 
out of the same person, whereof the one part belongs to 
him, and the other not : although that, which they say doth 
not belong to him, be most proper for the confirmation of 
what is affirmed of him, and what the whole is brought in 
proof of. 

2. There is not any of the places instanced in by them, 
w^herein the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose 
in hand, although some of them are more immediately suited 
to the occasion on which the whole testimony is produced ; 
as it were easy to manifest by tlie consideration of the se- 
veral places. 

3. These words, 'thou hast loved righteousness, and hated 
iniquity,' are not mentioned to prove immediately the excel- 
lency of Christ above angels, but his administration of his 
kingdom, on which account he is so excellent, among others ; 
and thereunto they are m.ost proper. 

And this is the issue of their attempt against this testi- 
mony, which being thus briefly vindicated, is sufficient alone 
of itself to consume with its brightness all the opposition, 
which from the darkness of hell or men, is made against the 
Deity of Christ. 

And yet we have one more to consider, before this text 
be dismissed. Grotius is nibbling at this testimony also. 
His words are ; 'Again,*" that which is spoken of God he 
applies to the Messiah; because it was confessed among 
the Hebrews, that this world was created for the Messiah's 
sake (whence I should think that l^sf.iaXiM<Tag is rightly to 
be understood, thou wast the cause why it was founded ; 
and the works of thy hands, that is, it was made for thee), 
and that a new and better world should be made by him.' 
So he. 

This is not the first time we have met with this conceit. 
And I wish that it had sufficed this learned man to have 
framed his Old Testament annotations, to rabbinical tradi- 

f Rursuni, quod de Deo dictum fuerat Messiaj aptat; quia constabat inter Hp- 
brffios, et muiulum hunc Messife causa coudiluin (unde l&E^uiXi'ojj-a? recle jiitelli»i 
putem, causa fuisti cur fundaretur ; ct opus mainmni tuaruu), id est propter te f;ic- 
tnm: n- bj? Hehrajis et Clialda^is ctiam projjter significat), et fore, ut nevus raundus 
lueliorque condatur per ipsuin. 

■ 2 B 2 


tions, that the new might have escaped. 'Butjacta est aha. 
I say tlieii, that tlie apostle doth not apply that to one per- 
son, 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 busi- 
ness he hath in hand. It is not to adorn Christ with titles, 
which were not due to him (which to do were robbery), but 
to prove by testimonies that were given of him, that he is 
no less than he affirmed him to be, even ' God blessed for 
ever.' 2. Let any man in his right wits consider this inter- 
pretation, and try whether he can persuade himself to re- 
ceive it ; fB'E/.ttXfwo-oc <yv Kvpi£, ' for thee O Lord were the 
foundations of the earth laid ; and the heavens are the works 
of thy hands;' that is, ' they were made for thee.' Any man 
may thus make quidlibet ex quolihet ; but whether with due 
reverence to the word of God, I question. 3. It is not about 
the sense of the Hebrew particles that we treat (and yet the 
learned man cannot give one clear instance of what he af- 
firms), but of the design of the Holy Ghost in the psalm, 
and in this place of the Hebrews, applying these words to 
Christ. 4. I marvel he saw not that this interpretation 
doth most desperately cut its own throat, the parts of it be- 
ing at an irreconcilable difference among themselves. For 
in the first place he says, the words are spoken of God, and 
applied to the Messiah, and then proves the sense of them 
to be such, as they cannot be spoken of God at all, but 
merely of the Messiah, for to that sense doth he labour to 
wrest both the Hebrew and Greek text. Methinks the 
words being spoken of God, and not of the Messiah, but 
only fitted to him by the apostle, there is no need to say 
that, 'thou hast laid the foundations of the earth,' is, that it 
was ' laid for thy sake ;' * and the heavens are the works of thy 
hands;' that is, they were * made for thee ;' seeing they are 
properly spoken of God. This one rabbinical figment, of 
the world's being made for the Messiah, is the engine 
whereby the learned man turns about, and perverts the 
sense of this whole chapter. In brief, if either the plain 
sense of the words, or the intenthnent of the Holy Ghost in 
this place, be of any account; yea, if the apostle deals ho- 
nestly and sincerely, and speaks to what lie doth i)ropose, 
and urges that which is to his purpose, and doth nut falsely 


apply that to Christ which was never spoken of him, this 
learned gloss is directly contrary to the text. 

And these are the testimonies given to the creation of 
all things by Christ, which our catechists thought good to 
produce to examination. 


All-ruling and disjwsinff Providence assigned nnto Christ, and his eternal 
Godhead thence farther confirmed, tcith other testimonies thereof. 

That Christ is that God who made all things, hath been 
proved by the undeniable testimonies, in the last chapter 
insisted on. That as the greatand wise Creator of all things, 
he doth also govern, rule, and dispose of the things by him 
created, is another evidence of his eternal power and God- 
head ; some testimonies whereof, in that order of procedure, 
which by our catechists is allotted unto us, come now to be 

The first they propose is taken from Heb. i. 3. where 
the words spoken of Christ are ^spwv re to. iravTu tco pnfjLan 
Ti]Q ^vvdinecog avrov, 'upholding all things by the word of 
his power,' 

He who * upholdeth all things by the word of his power,' 
is God. This is ascribed to God as his property ; and by 
none, but by him who is God by nature, can it be performed. 
Now this is said expressly of Jesus Christ : 'who being the 
brightness of his Father's glory, and express image of his 
person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when 
he had himself purged our sins,' &c. 

This place, or the testimony therein given to the divine 
power of Jesus Christ, they seek thus to elude. 

'The^* word here 'all things,' doth not*, no more than in 
many other places, signify all things universally without 

^ Hie verbum, omnia, non raiims quam in pliiribus aliis locis, non omnia in uni- 
vetsum sine uUa exceptione designare ; verum ad ea tantum, quffi ad Christi reg- 
iium pertineant, referri ; de quibus vere dici potest, Dominum Jesura omnia verbo 
virtutis sua; portare.id est, conservaie. Quod vero vox, omnia, hoc loco ad eadun- 
taxat referatur, ex ipsa materia sirbjccta satis apparet. Piffiterea, verbum, quo hie 
utitur scriptor, portare, magis gubernaiuli vel administrandi rationem quam conser- 
vandi significat, qucmadmodum ilia, quaj anncxa sunt, verbo virtutis suae, innuere 


exception, but is referred to those things only, which be- 
long to the kingdom of Christ ; of which it may truly be 
said, that the Lord Jesus beareth, that is, conserveth * all 
things,' by the word of his power. But that the word ' all 
things,' is in this place referred unto those things only, ap- 
peareth sufficiently from the subject matter itself of it. 
Moreover, the word which this writer useth, to ' bear,' doth 
rather signify governing and administration, than preser- 
vation, as these words annexed ' by the word of his power^' 
seem to intimate.' 

This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, 
if any things may be said so to be. For 1. why is ra Travra 
here, the 'things of the kingdom of Christ?' It is the express 
description of the person of Christ, as the 'brightness of his 
Father's glory, and the express image of his person,' that the 
apostle is treating of, and not at all of his kingdom as Me- 
diator. 2. It expressly answers the worlds that he is said 
to make, ver. 2. which are not the things of the kingdom of 
Christ ; nor do our catecliists plead them directly so to be. 
This term 'all things,' is never put absolutely, for all the 
things of the kingdom of Christ. 3. The subject matter 
here treated of by the apostle, is the person of Jesus Christ, 
and the eminency thereof. The medium whereby he proves 
it to be so excellent, is his almighty power in creating and 
sustaining of all things. Nor is there any subject matter inti- 
mated, that should restrain these words to the thinos of the 
kingdom of Christ. 4. The word cpipwv, neither in its native 
signification, nor in the use of it in the Scripture, gives any 
countenance to the interpretation of it, by governing or ad- 
ministering; nor can our catechists give any one instance 
of that signification there. It is properly to ' bear, to carry, 
to sustain, to uphold.' Out of nothing Christ made all 
things, and preserves them by his power from returning into 
nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sense they have from 
that expression, 'by the word of his power,' I know not. By 
the ' word of his power,' is by ' his powerful word.' And that 
that word or command is sometimes taken for the efiectual 
strength and efficacy of God's dominion, put forth for the 
accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not 
much proving. Grotius would have the words, Siivafiig 
avToi), to refer to the power of the Father; Christ upholdeth 


all things by the word of his Father's power ; without rea- 
son or proof; nor will the grammatical account bear that 
rendition of the relative mentioned. 

About that which they tirge out of Jude 15. I shall not 
contend. The testimony from thence relies on the autho- 
rity of the Vulgar Latin translation, which as to me, may 
plead for itself. 

Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. x. shall I in- 
sist on any thing, but only the 9th verse, the words 
whereof are : * Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them 
also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.' The design 
of the apostle is known. From the example of God's deal- 
ing with the children of Israel in the wilderness upon their 
sin and provocations, there being a parity of state and con- 
dition between them and Christians, as to their spiritual par- 
ticipation of Jesus Christ, ver. 2 — 4. he dehorts believers 
from the ways and sins whereby God was provoked against 
them. Particularly in this verse, he insists on the tempting 
of Christ, for which the Lord sent fiery serpents among 
them, by which they were destroyed; Num. xxi. 6. He 
whom the people tempted in the wilderness, and for which 
they were destroyed by serpents, was the Lord Jehovah. 
Now this doth the apostle apply to Christ ; he therefore is 
the Lord Jehovah. But they say, 

'From*^ those words it cannot be proved that Christ was 
really tempted in the wilderness ; as from the like speech if 
any one should so speak, may be apprehended. Be not re- 
fractory to the magistrates, as some of our ancestors were ; 
you would not thence conclude straightway, that the same 
singular magistrates were in both places intended. And 
if the like phrases of speech are found in Scripture, in 
which the like expression is referred to him, whose name 
was expressed a little before, without any repetition of the 

b Ex lis verbis doceri non potest, apostolum affirinarc, Christum in deserfo re- 
vera tentatiim fuisse; iit e simili oratione, siquis ita diccret, deprchcndi potest. Ne 
sitis refractaiii inagistratiii, qiicniadmodum (juidain niajoruni nostroriim fiieruiit ; non 
illico concluderes eundein iiiuncro niagistratum utrobique designari. Quod si re- 
periuntur in Scripluris ejusmodi ioquendi modi, in quibiis siiiiilis oratio ad eiim, 
cujus nomen paulo ante exprcssum est, sine ulla illius ejiisdcin rcpetitione referalur, 
turn I)oc ibi sit, nbi ullus alius pra;ter cum, ciijiis expressum est nomeii, subinlciligi 
possit : ut exeniplum ejus rei habes in iilo testimonio, Deut. vi. 16. Non tentabis Do- 
minum Deum tuum, qucniadmodniii tentasti in loco tenlatioiiis. Veruni in ea ora- 
tione apostoli, dc qua aginuis, potest subintejiigi alius praiter Christum, ut Moses, 
Aaron, &c. de quo vide, Num. xxi. 5. 


same name, it is there done where another besides him who 
is exjoressed, cannot be understood : as you have an ex- 
ample here of Deut. vi. 16. you shall not tempt the Lord 
your God as you tem])ted him in Massah. But in this 
speech of the apostle of which we treat, another besides 
Christ may be understood, as Moses or Aaron; of which 
see Numb. xxi. 5.' 

1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, 
*do not tempt Christ as some of them tempted/ and 'be not 
refractory against the magistrates, as some of them were?* 
Christ is the name of one singular individual person, wherein 
none shareth at any time, it being proper only to him. 
Magistrate is a term of office, as it was to him that went 
before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him. 

2. They need not to have puzzled their catechumens 
with their long rule, which I shall as little need to examine : 
for none can be understood here but Christ. That the 
word, * God/ should be here understood, they do not plead ; 
nor if they had a mind thereunto, is there any place for that 
plea. For if the apostle had intended God, in distinction 
from Christ, it was of absolute necessity that he should 
have expressed it. Nor if it had been expressed, would the 
apostle's argument been of any force, unless Christ had been 
God equal to him, who was so tempted. 

3. It is false that the Israelites tempted Moses, or Aaron, 
or that it can be said they tempted them ; it is God they 
are everywhere said to tempt; Psal. Ixxvii. 18. 24. cvi. 
14. Heb. iii. 9. It is said indeed that they murmured against 
Moses, that they provoked him, that they chode with him; 
but to tempt him, which is to require a sign, and manifesta- 
tion of his divine power, that they did not, nor could be said 
to do ; Numb. xxi. 3. 

Grotius tries his last shift in this place, and tells us 
from I know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, 'let 
us not tempt Christ,' but * let us not tempt God.* ' Error 
comraissus ex notis Qv et Xr.' That neither the Syriac, nor 
the Vulgar Latin translations, nor any copy, that either Ste- 
phanas, in his edition of the New Testament, or in his 
various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmtis's 
who would have been ready enough to have laid hold of 
the advantage, should in tie least give occasion of any 


such conjecture of an alteration, doth wholly take off with 
me all the authority, either of the manuscript, or of him that 
affirms it from thence. 

As they please toproceed, the next place to be considered 
is, John xii. 41. ' These things said Isaias, when he saw his 
glory, and spake of him.'*^ 

The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the apo- 
stle, manifest, that it is the vision mentioned Isa. vi. that 
the apostle relates unto. Whence we thus argue; 'He 
whose glory Isaiah saw, chap. vi. was the Holy, Holy, Holy 
Lord of Hosts, ver. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, ver. 5. 
But this was Jesus Christ, whose glory Isaiah then saw, as 
the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of John xii. 41. 
What say our catechists ? 

* First, '^ it appears that these words are not necessarily 
referred to Christ, because they may be understood of God 
the Father. For the words a little before are spoken of 
him : ' he hath blinded, hardened, healed.' Then the glory 
that Isaiah saw might be, nay was, not present, but future : 
for it is proper to prophets to see things future, whence 
they are called Seers; 1 Sam. ix. 9. Lastly, although these 
words should be understood of that glory which was then 
present and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the glory of one and 
to see himself are far different things. And in the glory of 
that one God, Isaiah saw also the glory of the Lord Christ. 
For the prophet says there. The whole earth is full of the 
glory of God; ver. 3. But then was this accomplished in re- 
ality, when Jesus appeared to that people, and was after- 
ward preached to the whole world.' 

It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, 
nor what to stick to, in their interpretation of this place. 
This makes them heap up so many several suggestions con- 
tradictory one to another, crying, that * it may be thus,' or * it 
may be thus.' But 1. That these words cannot be referred 

<: Priniuni, ea verba ad Christum non nccessarlo referri hinc apparct, quod de 
Deo Patre accipi possint; cteniin verba paulo suporiora de eodcni dicuntur: ex- 
tiEcavit, induravit, sanavit. Deifide, glurJain, quani Esaias vidit, poterat esse, imo 
erat, non prajsens, std fiifura. Etenim [jropriuiu est vatibus futura videre, unde 
e.tiaui, videides appellati fuere, 1 Sam. ix. 9. Dcnique, etiamsi de gloria ea, quas 
turn [)ra;stiis erat, Esaiai visa, lisc verba accipias, loti^e tamen aliudest, gloriam ali- 
cujus videre, et aliud ipsumniet videre. Et in gloria illius unius Dei vidit etiam 
Esaias gloriam Cbribti Domini. Ait enim ibidem vatcs, |ilena est terra gloria Dei, 
Esa. vi. 3. Turn autein hoc reipsa factum est, tuiii Jesus Christus illi |iopulo ])rj- 
iiium apparuii, ct post toti luuiide anuLiuciatus est. 


to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to 

Christ is evident, because there is no occasion of mentionino- 

1 • • • • 

him m this ])lace, but an account is given of what was 

spoken ver. 37. ' but though he liad done so many miracles 
before them yet they believed not on him;' to which answers 
this verse, * when he saw his glory, and spake of him.' The 
other word of' blinding,' and 'hardening,' are evidently al- 
ledged to give an account of the reason of the Jews' obsti- 
nacy in their unbelief, not relating immediately to the per- 
son spoken of. The subject matter treated of, is Christ. The 
occasion of mentioning this testimony, is Christ. Of him 
here are the words spoken. 2. The glory Isaiah saw w^as 
present; all the circumstances of the vision evince no less. 
He tells you the time, place, and circumstances of it, when 
he saw the Seraphims, when he heard their voice ; when the 
door moved at the voice of him that cried, when the house 
was filled with glory, and when he himself was so terrified, 
that he cried out, 'Wo is me, for I am undone.' If any 
thing in the world be certain, it is certain that he saw that 
glory present. 3. He did not only see his glory, but he saw 
him : or he so saw his glory, as that he saw him, so as he 
may be seen. So the prophet says expressly; ' I have seen 
seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.' And what the prophet 
says of seeing the Lord of Hosts, the apostle expresses by 
seeing his glory, because he saw him in that glorious vision, 
or saw that glorious representation of his presence. 4. He 
did indeed see the glory of the Lord Christ, in seeing the 
glory of the one God, he being the true God of Israel, and 
on no other account is his glory seen, than by seeing the 
glory of tlie one true God. 5. The prophet doth not say, 
that ' the earth was full of the glory of God,' but it is the 
proclamation that the Seraphims made one to another con- 
cerning that God, whose presence was then there manifested. 
6. When Christ first appeared to the people of the Jews, 
there was no great manifestation of glory. The earth was 
always full of the glory of God. And if those words have 
any peculiar relation to the glory of the gospel, yet withal 
they prove that he was then present, whose glory in the gos- 
pel was afterward to fill the earth. 

Grotius hath not aught to add to what was before in- 
sisted on by his friends. A representation he would iiave 


this be of God's dealing in the gospel (when it is plainly 
his proceeding in the rejection of the Jews for their incre- 
dulity); 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 ; Abra- 
ham saw his day as future and rejoiced ; Isaiah so saw his 
glory, as God present, that he trembled ; Abraham saw the 
day of Christ all the days of his believing ; Isaiah saw his 
glory only in the year that king Uzziah died. Abraham saw 
the day of Christ in the promise of his coming ; Isaiah saw 
his glory with the circumstances before-mentioned. Even 
such let all undertakings appear to be, that are against the 
eternal Deity of Jesus Christ. 

In his annotations on the 6th of Isaiah, where the vision 
insisted on is expressed, he takes no notice at all of Jesus 
Christ, or the second person of the Trinity. Nor (which is 
very strange) doth he so much as once intimate, that what is 
here spoken, is applied by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in 
the gospel ; nor once names the chapter where it is done. 
With what mind and intention the business is thus carried, 
God knows, I know not. 


Of the Incarnation of Christy and his pre-existence thereunto. 

The testimonies of Scripture, which affirm Christ to have 
been incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably 
proves his pre-existence, in another nature, to his so doing, 
they labour in their next attempt to corrupt, and so to evade 
the force and efficacy, which from them appeareth so de- 
structive to their cause ; and herein they thus proceed. 

*Q. From" what testimonies of Scripture do they endeavour 
to demonstrate, that Christ was, as they speak, incarnate? 

' A. From these, John i. 14. Phil. ii. 6, 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
1 Johniv. 2, 3. Heb. ii. 16. x. 11. 

* E quibus testimoniis Scripturtc dtmonstrare conantur, Christum (ut loqmintiir) 
iiicarnatiini esse ? — Ex iis, ubi sccunduni eoruni versioiK'ni Icgilur, Vcrbum caro 
factum est. Joan. i. Ii. Et qui (Cbrisfus) cum esset in forma Dei,6cc. Pliii. ii. 6, 7. 
1 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. ii. 16. Johaii. iv. 2, 3. H(.b. x. 11. 


Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the hand- 
ling of the beginning of that chapter, and sufficiently vindi- 
cated it from all their exceptions ; so that we may proceed 
immediately to the second. 

' Q. What'' dost thou answer to the second? 

'A.Neitlier is that here contained, which the adverse party 
would prove ; for it is one thing which the apostle saith. 
Being in the form of God he took the form of a servant ; an- 
other, that the divine nature assumed the human. For the 
form of God cannot here denote the divine nature, seeing 
the apostle writes, that Christ exinanivit, made that form of 
no reputation. But God can no way make his nature of no 
reputation. Neither doth the form of a servant denote human 
nature, seeing to be a servant is referred to the fortune and 
condition of a man. Neither is that also to be forgotten, that 
the writings of the New Testament do once only, it may be, 
nse that word * form' elsewhere ; viz. Mark xvi. 12. and that 
in that sense, wherein it signifies, not nature, but the outward 
appearance, saying, Jesus appeared in another form, unto 
two of his disciples. 

• Q. But from those words, which the apostle afterward 
adds, He was found in fashion as a man ; doth it not appear, 
that he was, as they say, incarnate ? 

*A. By no means. For that expression contains nothing 
of Christ's nature : for of Sampson we read that he should 
be as a man ; Judges xvi. 7. 11. and Psal. 82. Asaph de- 
nounced 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) in- 

*> Afi secundum quid rcspondes P^Nequc Lie cxtarc, quod advcrsa pars confeclum 
vclit. Aliud cnim est, qund hie Apostolus ait, cum in forma Dei esset, formamscrvi 
assumpsit; aliud vero, natura divina assumpsit humaiiam. Etenim hie forma Dei 
designare non potest Dc-i iiatu'am, cum Apostolus scribat eauj formam ('liristuni 
exiiianivisse. Dcus vero natiiram suani nullo modo cxinanire potest. Ni'c voro 
fi)ru)aservi dt'uotat naturam luimanaiu, cum servum esse ad fortunam et conditionem 
liomiuis refcralur. At ne id quoque dissimulandum est, seripta Novi 'I'estanicnuti 
hanc vocem, forma, scmel fortassis tautum alibi usurpare, Mark xvi. 12. idquc co 
sensu, quo noii naturam, sed exteriorcm sj)eciem signilicaf, cum ait, Jesum duobis 
discipulis suis apparuisse in alia forma. 

Ex lis vero verbis, qua* Apostolus paulopost suhjccit, liabitn inventus est utlionio, 
noune apparet eum (iii loquunlui) inearnatum esse .'—Nullo luodo. Etenim ea oratio 
nihil in se habet ejusmodi. De Sampsone euim in Uteris saeris legiuius, quod idem 
f iturus crat,ut homo; .ludic. xvi. 7. 11. et Psal. lx\xii. Asapli iis hominibus, quos 
Deos et filios allissiiiii vocaveret, deiuiriciat, cpiod esseiil nioriluri ut liomines ; dc 
cjuibus cerium est, non iiossc diti, cos (ut adversaiii dituut), intariiatos fuisse. 


* Q. How*' dost thou understand this place ? 

* A. On this manner; that Christ, who in the world did 
the works of God, to whom all yielded obedience, as to God, 
and to whom divine adoration was given, God so willing, 
and the salvation of men requiring it, was made as a servant, 
and a vassal, and as one of the vulgar, when he had of his 
own accord permitted himself to be taken, bound, beaten, 
and slain.' Thus they. 

Now because it is most certain, and evident to every one 
that ever considered this text, and according to their old 
trade and craft, they have mangled it, and taken it in pieces, 
at least cut off the head and legs of this witness, we must 
seek out the other parts of it, and lay it together, before we 
may proceed to remove this heap out of our way. Our ar- 
gument from this place, is not solely from hence, that he is 
said to be 'in the form of God ;' but also that he was so in 
the form of God, as to be equal to him, as is here expressed ; 
nor merely that he took upon him the form of a servant, but 
that he took it upon him, when he was made in the likeness of 
man, or * in the likeness of sinful flesh,' as the apostle expresses 
it; Rom. viii. 3. Now these things our catechists thought 
good to take no notice of, in this place, nor of one of them 
any more in any other. But seeing the very head of our ar- 
gument 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 con- 
texture before I do proceed. Thus then they, 

' Q. How '^ dost thou answer to those places, where Christ 
is said to be equal to God? John v. 18. Phil. ii. 6. 

' A. That Christ is equal to God, doth no way prove that 
there is in him a divine nature. Yea, the contrary is gathered 
from hence. For if Christ be equal to God, who is God by 
nature, it follows, that he cannot be the same God. But the 

<= Qua ratione lociiin luinc totum intelligis ? — Ad eiim modum, quod Christus, qui 
inniundo instar Dei, oprra Deiefficiebat, et cui, sicnt Deo, omnia parebat, et cui di- 
vina adoratio exhibebatur, ita volente Deo, et houiinuni salute exigente, factus est 
tanquam servus, et niancipiuni, et tanqiiani unus ex aliis vnlgaribus liouiiiiibus cum 
ultio se capi, viiiciri, ca?di, et occidi permiserat. 

'' Qui porro ad ea loca respondes ] — Quod Christus sit a?qualis Deo, id diviiiani 
in eo iiatuiani nullo niodo probat, inio hinc res advera coHigitur. Nam si Clnistus 
Deo, C|ui natura deus est, ajquaiis est, efficitur, quod is idem Deus esse iion possit. 
^quaiitas vero Ciiristi turn Deo in eo est, (juod ea virtute, quam in eum contuiit 
Deus, ea omnia elHcerct, et efficiat, quai ipsius Dei sunt, tanquam Deus ipse. 


equality of Christ with God lies herein, that by that virtue 
that God bestowed on him, he did, and doth all these things, 
which are God's, as God himself.' 

This being the whole of what they tender, to extricate 
themselves from the chains which this v/itness casts upon 
them, now lying before us, I shall propose our argument 
from the words, and proceed to the vindication of it in 

The intendment and design of the apostle in this place 
being evidently to exhort believers to self-denial, mutual 
love, and condescension one to another, he proposes to theiQ 
the example of Jesus Christ, and lets them know, that he 
being in the * form of God,' and * equal to God' therein 
(wTTop^^wi;, existing in that form, having both the nature and 
glory of God), did yet in his love to us, ' make himself of no 
reputation,' or lay aside, and eclipse bis glory, in this, that 
he took upon him the 'form of a servant,' being made man,, 
that in that form and nature, he might be obedient unto 
death, for us, and in our behalf: hence we thus plead. 

1. He that was in the ' form of God,' and * equal to God,* 
existing therein, and took on him the nature and form of a 
servant, he is God by nature, and was incarnate, or made 
flesh, in the sense before spoken of. Now all this is affirmed 
of Jejus Christ : ergo. 

1. To this they say, that we may consider that first, which 
is first in the text, that his being equal to God, doth not prove 
him to be God by nature : but the contrary, &c. as above. 
But 1, If none is, nor can, by the testimony of God himself, 
be like God, or equal to him, who is not God by nature; then 
he that is equal to him, is so : but, ' to whom will ye liken me, 
or shall I be equal? saith the Holy. One. Lift up your eyes 
on high, and behold who hath created these things;' Isa. xl. 
25, 2G. None that hath not created all things of nothing, can 
be equal to him. ' Aiul to whom will ye liken me, and make 
me equal, and compare me, that we may be like;' chap, 
xlvi. 5. 2. Between that vvhich is finite and that which is in- 
finite, that which is eternal, and that which is temporal, the 
creature and the Creator, God by nature, and him, who by 
nature is not God, it is utterly impossible there should be 
any equality. 3. God having so oi'ten avouched his infinite 


distance from all creatures, his refusal to give his glory to 
any of them, his inequality with them all, it must have been 
the highest robbery, that ever any could be guilty of, for 
Christ to make himself equal to God, if he were not God. 
4. The apostle's argument arises from hence, that he was 
equal to God, before he took on him the form of a servant, 
which was before his working of those mighty works, where- 
in these gentlemen assert him to be equal to God. 

2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousness of 
their begging the thing in question, when they would argue, 
that because he was equal to God, he was not God : he was 
the same God in nature and essence, and therein equal to 
him, to whom he was in subordination, as the Son; and in 
oflEice a servant, as undertaking the work of mediation. 

3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality 
between Christ and God, in the works he wrought. For, 1. 
God doth the works in his own name and authority, Christ 
in God's. 2. God doth them by his own power, Christ by 
God's. 3. God doth them himself, Christ not, but God in 
him, as another from him. 4. He doth not do them as God, 
however that expression be taken; for according to these 
men, he wrought them neither in his own name, nor by his 
own power, nor for his own glory, all which he must do, who 
doth things as God. 

2. He is said to be ' equal to God,' not as he did such and 
such works, but as iv jJ-opcpij Sieou vrrctp^^cov, being in the form 
of God antecedently to the taking in hand of that form, 
wherein he wrought the works intimated. 

3. To work great works, by the power of God, argues no 
equality with him; or else all the prophets and apostles that 
wrought miracles, were also equal to God. The infinite in- 
equality of nature, between the Creator and the most glorious 
creature, will not allow that it be said on any account to be 
equal to him. Nor is it said, that Christ was equal to God 
in respect of the works he did, but absolutely, 'he thought it 
no robbery to be equal to God.' And so is their last plea to 
the first part of our argument accounted for : come we to 
what they begin withal. 

1. We contend not (as hath been often said) about words 
and expressions. That the divine nature assumed the hu- 
man, we thus far abide by, that the .Word, the Son of God, 


took to himself, into personal subsistence with him, a hu- 
man nature, whence they are both one person, one Christ: 
and this is here punctually affirmed, viz. he that was, and is 
God, took upon him the form of a man. 2. The apostle doth 
not say, that Christ made that form of no reputation, or 
Christ tKivwcre that form, but Clirist being in that form 
tKEvwae tavTov, ' n)ade himself of no reputation ;' nor by any 
real change of his divine nature, but taking to himself the 
human, wherein he was of- no reputation. It being he that 
was so, in the nature and by the dispensation wherein he was 
so ; and it being not possible, that the divine nature of itself, 
.in itself, should be humbled, yet he was humbled, who was 
in the form of God, though the form of God was not. 

3. It is from his being * equal with God,' in the * form of 
God,' whereby we prove, that his being in the form of God 
doth denote his divine nature : but of this our catechisls 
had no mind to take notice. 

2. The ' form of a servant,' is that which he took, when he 
was made tv o^wiwfxari av^pwirtw ; as Adam begat a son in 
his own likeness. Now this was not only in condition a 
servant, but in reality a man. 2. The form of a servant was 
that wherein he underwent death, the death of the cross ; but 
he died as a man, and not only in the appearance of a servant. 
3. The very phrase of expression manifests the human nature 
of Christ to be denoted hereby : only as the apostle had not 
before said directly that he was God, but in the 'form of God,' 
expressing both his nature, and his glory, so here he doth 
not say he was a man, but in the form of a servant, express- 
ing both his nature and his condition, wherein he was the 
servantof the Father. Of him itis said Iv fxopcpy ^tov virupyjov, 
but fjioprpriv SouAou \a(5wv: he was in the other, but this lie 
took. 4. To be a servant denotes the state or condition of 
a man : but for one who was in the ' form of God' and ' equal 
to him,' to be made in the ' form of a servant,' and to be ' found 
as a man,' and to be in that form put to death, denotes in the 
first place, a taking of that nature, wherein alone he could be 
a servant. And this answers also to other expressions, of the 
' Word being made flesh,' and ' God sending forth his own Son 
made of a woman.' 5. This is manifest from the expression, 
£1' (Tx^'ifxaTi tvpr)^iic wg av^pumoi'' 'He was found in fashion as 
a man :' that is, he was truly so ; which is exegetical of 


what was spoken before ' he took on him the form of a 

But they say this is of no importance ; ' for the same is 
said of Sampson, Judg. xvi. 7. 11. and of others; Psal. Ixxxii. 
who yet we do not say were incarnate.' 

These gentlemen are still like themselves. Of Christ it 
is said, that he humbled himself, and took upon him the form 
of a servant, and was found in likeness as a man : of Samp- 
son, that being stronger than a hundred men, if he were dealt 
so and so withal, he would become as other men; for so the 
words expressly are : no stronger than another man ; and 
these places are parallel : much good may these parallels do 
your catechumens. And so of those in the Psalm, that 
though in this world they are high in power for a season, 
yet they should die as other men do. Hence, in a way of 
triumph and merriment, they ask, if these were incarnate, 
and answer themselves, that surely we will not say so. 
True, he who being as strong as many becomes by any 
means to be as one, and they who live in power, but die in 
weakness, as other men do, are not said to be incarnate : 
but he who * being God, took on him the form of a servant, 
and was in this world a very man,' may (by our new masters' 
leave), be said to be so. 

For the sense which they give us of this place (for they 
are bold to venture at it), it hath been in part spoken to al- 
ready. Christ was in the world, as to outward appearance, 
no way instar Dei, but rather as he says of himself, iiistaj- 
vermis. That he did the works of God, and was worshipped 
as God, was because he was God ; nor could any but God, 
either do the one, as he did them, or admit of the other. 
2. This is the exposition given us ; ' Christ was in the form of 
God, counting it no robbery to be equal to him, that is, whilst 
he was here in the world in the form of a servant, he did the 
works of God and was worshipped.' 3. Christ was in the 
form of a servant from his first coming into the world, and as 
one of the people. Therefore he was not made so by any 
thing afterward : his being bound, and beat, and killed, is 
not his being made a servant; for that by the apostle is af- 
terward expressed, when he tells us why, or for what end, 
not how, or wherein he was made a servant ; viz. ' He be- 
came obedient to death, the death of the cross.' 
VOL. viii. 2 c 


And this may suffice for the taking out of our way all that 
is excepted against this testimony by our catechists : but be- 
cause the text is of great importance, and of itself sufficient 
to evince the sacred truth we plead for, some farther obser- 
vations for the illustration of it, may be added. 

The sense they intend to give us of these words is plainly 
this : that * Christ by doing miracles in the world, appeared 
to be as God, or as a God : but he laid aside this form of 
God, and took upon him the form of a servant, when he suf- 
fered himself to be taken, bound, and crucified. He began 
to be,' they say, * in the form'of God, when after his baptism, 
he undertook the work of his public ministry, and wrought 
mighty works in the world : which form he ceased to be in, 
when he was taken in the garden, and exposed as a servant 
to all manner of reproach.' 

That there is not any thing in this whole exposition an- 
swering the mind of the Holy Ghost, is evident as from what 
was said before ; so also, 1. Because it is said of Christ, that 
Iv fjiopcj)!] ^eov V7rap-)(wi>, ' he was in the form of God,' before he 
took the ' form of a servant ;' and yet the taking of the form of 
a servant in this place, doth evidently answer his 'being made 
flesh ;' Johni. xiv. His being made in the 'likeness of sinful 
flesh;' Rom. viii. 3. His coming or being sent into the world; 
Matt. X. 11. 20. 28. John iii. 16, 17. Sec. 2. Christ was still 
in the form of God, as taken essentially, even then, when he 
was a servant, though as to the dispensation he had sub- 
mitted to, he emptied himself of the glory of it, and was not 
known to be the Lord of glory ; 2 Cor. viii. 3. Even all the 
while that they say he was in the form of God, he was in the 
form of a servant, that is, he was really the servant of the 
Father, and was dealt withal in the world as a servant, under 
all manner of reproach, revilings, and persecutions. He was 
no more in the form of a servant when he was bound, than 
when 'he had not where to lay his head.' 4. The state and 
condition of a servant consists in this, that he is notsui juris: 
no more was Christ in the whole course of his obedience; 
he did not any private will of his own, but the will of him 
that sent him. Those who desire to see the vindication of 
this place to the utmost, in all the particulars of it, may con- 
sult the confutation of the interpretation of Erasmus, by 
Beza, Annot. in Phil. ii. 6, 7. Of Ochinus, and Lailius So- 


cinus, by Zanchius in locum; et deTribuf5 Elohim, p. 227, 
&c. Of Faustus Socinus, by Beckinan : exercitat. p. 168- 
€t Johan. Jan. Exameii Respon. Socin. pp. 201, 202. Of 
Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul, ad Philip, cap. 2. 
Of Ostorodus, by Jacobus a Porta, Fidei Orthodox. Defens. 
pp. 89. 150, &c. That which 1 shall farther add, is in re- 
ference to Grotius, whose annotations may be one day con- 
sidered by some of more time and leisure for so necessary a 

Thus then he; og Iv fxop^ij Geou v-Kag')(ti)v] Mop^r) in nostris 
libris nonsignificat internum et occultum aliquid, sed id quod 
in oculos incurrit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sa- 
nandimorbos omnes, ejiciendi dsemones, excitandi mortuos : 
mutandi rerum naturas : quae vero Divina sunt, ita ut Moses, 
qui tarn magna non fecit, dictus ob id fuit Deus Pharaoids : 
vocem fxop<priQ quo dixi sensu habes. Mar. xvi. 12. Isa. xliv.13. 
ubiinHebrseo D'jnn; Dan. iv. 33. v. 6. 10. vii. 28. ubi in Chal- 
daeo vr : Job iv. 16, ubi in Hebrseo nJIDH ' Mop^r) in our books 
doth not signify an internal or hidden thing, but that which is 
visibly discerned : such as was that eminent power in Christ 
of healing all diseases, casting out devils, raising the dead, 
changing the nature of things, which are truly divine ; so 
that Moses, who did not so great things, vvas therefore called 
the God of Pharaoh : the word /iop0?j, in the sense spoken 
of, you have, Mark xvi. 12. Isa. xliv. 13. where in the Hebrew 
it is noun Dan. iv. 33, &c. wherein the Chaldee it is rf : Job. 
iv. 16. where in the Hebrew it is rtilDn. 

Ans. 1. A form is either substantial, or accidental : that 
which is indeed, or that which appears. That it is the sub- 
stantial form of God, which is here intended, yet with respect 
to the glorious manifestation of it (which may be also as the 
accidental form), hath been formerly declared and proved. 
So far it signifies that which is internal and hidden, or not 
visibly discerned, inasmuch ?i^ the essence of God is invisi- 
ble. The proofs of this I shall not now repeat. 2. Christ's 
power of working miracles was not visible, though the mi- 
racles he wrought were visible ; insomuch, that it was the 
great question between him and the Jews, by what power he 
wrought his miracles ; for they still pleaded, that he cast 
out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. So that 
if the power of doing the things mentioned, were fioptpri S-foS, 



that form was not visible, and exposed to the sight of men ; 
for it was 'aliquid internum et occultum/ a thing internal 
and hidden. 3. If to be in the ' form of God/ and thereupon 
to be ' equal to him,' be to have power or authority of heal- 
ing diseases, casting out devils, raising the dead, and the 
like; then the apostles were in the form of God, and equal 
to God, having power and authority given them for all these 
things, which they wrought accordingly ; casting out devils, 
healing the diseased, raising the dead, &c. which, whether 
it be not blasphemy to affirm, the reader may judge. 4. It 
is true, God says of Moses, Exod. vii. 1 . ' I have made thee 
a god to Pharaoh;' which is expounded, iv. 16. where God 
tells him that Aaron should 'be to him instead of a mouth, 
and he should be to him instead of God.' That is, Aaron 
should speak and deliver to Pharaoh and the people, what 
God revealed to Moses, Moses revealing it to Aaron ; Aaron 
receiving his message from Moses, as other prophets did 
from God, whence he is said to be to him instead of God: 
And this is given as the reason of that expression, vii. 1. of 
his being a god to Pharaoh ; even as our Saviour speaks, 
because the word of God came by him; because he should 
reveal tin; will of God to him. 'Thou shalt be a god to 
Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet; Thou 
shalt speak all that I command thee, and Aaron thy brother 
shall speak to Pharaoh.' He is not upon the account of his 
working miracles called God, or said to be in the form of 
God, or to be made equal to God ; but revealing the will of 
God to Aaron, who spake it to Pharaoh, he is said to be a 
god to Pharaoh, or in the stead of God, as to that business. 
5. It is truth, the word juop^jj, or form, is used Mark xvi. 12. 
for the outward appearance ; and it is as true the verb of the 
same signification is used for the internal and invisible form 
of a thing. Gal. iv. 19. «X)OtC ov jUop^wS'y Xfjtcrroc Iv vfuv, 'until 
Christbe formed in'you.' So that tlie very first observation of 
our annotator, that in our books, thnt is, the Scriptures, (for 
in other authors it is acknowledged, that this word signifies 
the internal form of a thing), this word^top^T? signifies not any 
thing internal or hidden, is true only of that one place, Mark 
xvi. 12. In this it is otherwise, and the verb of the same sio-- 
nification is evidently otherwise used. And which may be 
added, other words that bear the same ambiguity of signifi- 


cation, as to things substantial or accidental, being applied 
to Christ, do still signify the former, not the latter ; yea, where 
they expressly answer what is here spoken; as eiKwv, Col. 
i. 15. and vTroaramg Heb. i. 3. both of the same import with 
fxopcpri here, save that the latter adds personality. 6. For 
the words mentioned out of the Old Testament, they are used 
in businesses quite of another nature, and are restrained in 
their significations by the'matter they speakof ; n'3:2n, is 
not ixopcpi) properly, but ukmv, find is translated imago, by 
Arias Mon : nND, is rather /iopi^rj. Gen. xxix. 17. 1 Sam. xxviii. 
14. TOlon is used ten times in the Bible, and hath various sig- 
nifications, and is variously rendered : ojuofdijua, Deut.iv. 15. 
yXvTTTov bfxoLuyfxa, ver. 16. so most commonly, v? in Daniel is 
' splendor,' So^a, not^op^j) : and what all this is to our purpose 
in hand, I know not. The ' form of God,' wherein Christ was, 
is that wherein he was ' equal to God :' that which as to the 
divine nature is the same, as his being in the form of a ser- 
vant, wherein he was obedient to death, was to the human. 
And which is sufiiciently destructive of this whole exposi- 
tion, Christ was then 'in the form of a servant,' when this 
learned man would have him to be in the ' form of God,' 
which two are opposed in this place; for he was the servant 
of the Father in the whole course of the work, which he 
wrought here below : Isa. xlii. 1. 

He proceeds on this foundation : ov^ apiray/xbv riyricraTo 
TO EvraiTaa S'tw.] 'ApTrayjuov rijiia^ai, ' estlocutio Syriaca : in 
Liturgia Syriaca, Johannes Baptista Christo Baptismum 
ab ipso expetenti, dicit, non assumam rapinam. Solent qui 
aliquid bellica virtute peperere, id omnibus ostentare, ut 
Romani in Triumpho sane solebant. Non muitum aliter 
Plutarchus in Timoleon : ov^apixayrivi^ji^aaTo. Sensusest, 
non venditavit Christus, non jactavitistampotestatem: quia 
saepe etiam imperavit ne quod fecerat vulgaretur. "^lo-a hie 
est adverbium ; sic Odyss. O : Tov vvv 'iaa 3-£w, &c. ^lao^ia 
0povai/, dixit scriptor, 2 Mace. ix. 12. dvai laa S^fw, est spec- 
tari tanquam Deum.' The sum of all is ; 'he thought it no 
robbery,' that is, ' he boasted not of his power, to be equal 
to God, so to be looked on as a God.' 

The words I confess are not without their difficulty : 
many interpretations are given of them ; and I may say. that 


of the very many which I have considered, this of all others, 
as being wrested to countenance a false hypothesis, is the 
worst. To insist particularly on the opening of the words^, 
is not my present task. That Grotius is beside the sense 
of them, may be easily manifested ; for 1. He brings no- 
thing to enforce this interpretation ; that the expression is 
Syriac, in the idiom of it, he abides not by : giving us an 
instance of the same phrase of expression out of Plutarch, 
who knew the propriety of the Greek tongue very well, and 
of the Syriac not at all. Others also give a parallel expres- 
sion out of Thucydides, lib. viii. aKevr} apiTayi)v iroii](jaf.avoc. 
2. I grant tcra may be used adverbially ; and be rendered 
sequaliter : but now the words are to be interpreted 'pro sub- 
jecta materia.' He who was in the form of God, counted it 
no robbery (that is, did not esteem it to be any wrong, on 
that account of his being in the form of God) to be equal to 
his Father, did yet so submit himself, as is described. This 
being * equal to God,' is spoken of Christ accidentally to his 
taking on him the 'form of a servant,' which he did in his in- 
carnation, and must relate to his beina" in the form of God : 
and if thereunto it be added, that the intendment reaches 
to the declaration he made of himself, when he declared 
himself to be equal to God the Father, and one with him, 
as to nature and essence, it may complete the sense of this 

'AXX' lauTov tKivioas' he renders, ' libenter duxit vitam 
inopem ;' referring it to the poverty of Christ, whilst he con- 
versed here in the world. But whatever be intended by this 
expression, it is not the same with/uop^>)vSouXou \a[iwv, which 
Grotius afterward interprets to the same purpose with what 
he says here of these words. 2. It must be something an- 
tecedent to his ' taking the form of a servant,' or rather some- 
thing that he did, or became exceptively to what he was be- 
fore, in becoming a servant. He was in the form of God, aXX' 
mvTov £(C£i/w(T£, 'but hc humbled,' or 'bowed down himself,' 
in taking the form of a servant : that is, he condescended 
thereunto, in his great love that he bare to us, the demon- 
stration whereof the apostle insists expressly upon ; and 
what greater demonstration of love, or condescension upon 
the account of love could possibly be given, than for him 


who waf? God, equal to his Father, in the same Deity, to lay 
aside the manifestation of his glory, and to take upon him 
our nature, therein to be a servant unto death. 

He proceeds, fiog(^i]v ^ovXov Xa/3wv, *similis factusservis, 
qui nihil proprium possident :' 'he was made like unto ser- 
vants, who possess nothing of their own.' Our catechists, 
with their oreat master, refer this his beino; like servants, to 
the usage he submitted to at his death ; this man to his po- 
verty in his life. And to this sense of these words is that 
place of Matt. viii. 20. better accommodated than to the 
clause foregoing, tor whose exposition it is produced by our 

But 1. It is most certain, that the exposition of Grotius 
will not, being laid together, be at any tolerable agreement 
with itself, if we allow any order of process to be in these 
words of the apostle. His aim is acknowledged to be an ex- 
hortation to brotherly love, and mutual condescension in 
the same, from the example of Jesus Christ ; for he tells 
you, ' that, he being in the form of God made himself of no 
reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.' Now 
if this be not the gradation of the apostle, that in being in 
the form of God, free from any thing of that which follows, 
he then debased and humbled himself, and took upon him 
the form of a servant, there is not any form of plea left from 
this example, here proposed, to the end aimed at. But 
now, says Grotius, * his being in the form of God, was his 
working of miracles ; his debasing himself; his being poor ; 
his taking the form of a servant ; possessing nothing of his 
own.' But it is evident, that there was a coincidence of time 
as to these things, and so no gradation in the words at all ; 
for then when Christ wrought miracles, he was so poor and 
possessed nothing of his own ; that there was no condescen- 
sion nor relinquishment of one condition for another dis- 
cernable therein. 2. The form of a servant that Christ took 
was that, wherein he was like man ; as it is expounded in 
the words next following ; he was made in the likeness of 
man ; and what that is the same apostle informs us, Heb. 
ii. 17. o3'£v iotpuXe Kara irdvTaToXg ad£X(poTQ ofxoioj^rjvai, 'where- 
fore he ought in all things to be made like his brethren ;' 
that is, iv ofxoMfxaTL avcpwTrwv ytvofxivoQ, ' he was made in 
the likeness of man ;' or as it is expressed Rom. viii. 3. Iv 


ofioitSfiaTi aapKog, ' in the likeness of flesh ;' which also is ex- 
pounded Gal. iv. 4. jEvufiavoQ sk yvvaiKOQ, ' made of a woman ;' 
which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of that, 
John i. 14. bXoyog (ra^^^ IjivcTo, ' the Word was made flesh.' 
3. The employment of Christ in that likeness of man, is con- 
fessedly expressed in these words ; not his condition, that 
he had nothing, but his employment, that he was the ser- 
vant of the Father, according as it was foretold that he 
should be, Isa. xlii. 1. 19. and which he every where pro- 
fessed himself to be. He goes on, 

'Ev ofxouoixaTL av^Q(.oTT(x)v yevofiavog' ' cum similis esset 
hominibus illis nempe primis ; id est, peccati expers;' 
2 Cor. V. 21. 'whereas he was like men, namely, those first, 
that is, without sin.' 

That Christ was without sin, that in his being made like 
to us, there is an exception as to sin, is readily granted. He 
was ocTLOg, aKUKOQ, (ifiiavTOQ, Ki\(t)pi(Tfxivog airo tCjv afxapToXwv, 
Heb. vii. 26. But 1. that Christ is ever said to be made like 
Adam, on that account, or is compared with him therein, 
cannot be proved. He was Stvrepog av^p(i)7rog, and acrxaTog 
ASaju ; but that he was made iv opoiwfiaTi tov A^dp. is not 
said. 2. This expression was sufliciently cleared by the 
particular places formerly urged. It is not of his sinless- 
ness in that condition, of which the apostle hath no occa- 
sion here to speak, but of his love in taking on him that 
condition, in being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet 
without sin, that these words are used. It is a likeness of 
nature to all men, and not a likeness of innocency to the 
first, that the apostle speaks of; a likeness, wherein there 
isa TiwTuTtjg, as to the kind, a distinction in number; as 
' Adam be<^at a son in his own likeness,' Gen. v. 1. 

All that follows in the learned annotator, is only an en- 
deavour to make the following words speak in some harmony, 
and conformity to what he hath before delivered ; which 
being discerned not to be suited to the mind of the Holy 
Ghost in the place, I have no such delight to contend about 
words, phrases, and expressions, as to insist any farther upon 
them. Return we to our catechists. 

The place they next propose to themselves to deal withal, 
is 1 Tim.iii. 16. 'And without controversy great is the mys- 
tery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, ji\slified in 


the Spirit, seen of angels, and revealed unto the Gentiles, 
believed on in the world, received up into glory.' 

If it be here evinced that by God is meant Christ, it be- 
ing spoken absolutely, and in the place of the subject in 
the proposition, this business is at a present close, and our 
adversaries following attempt to ward themselves from the 
following blows of the sword of the word, which cut them 
in pieces, is to no purpose, seeing their death's wound lies 
evident in the efficacy of this place. Now here, not only the 
common apprehension of all professors of the name of Christ 
in general, but also the common sense of mankind, to be 
tried in all that will but read the books of the New Testa- 
ment, might righteously be appealed unto ; but because 
these are things of no importance with them with whom we 
have to do, we must insist on other considerations. 

1. Then, that by the word ^sog, God, some person is in- 
tended, is evident from hence, that the word is never used 
but to express some person ; nor can in any place of the 
Scriptures be wrested possibly to denote any thing, but 
some person to whom that name doth belong, oris ascribed, 
truly or falsely. And if this be not certain, and to be 
granted, there is nothing so, nor do we know any thing in 
the world, or the intendment of any one word in the book 
of God. Nor is there any reason pretended, why it should 
have any other acceptation, but only an impotent begging 
of the thing in question. It is not so here, though it be so 
every where else, because it agrees not with our hypothesis; 
Xtjjooc ! 2. That Christ, who is the second person, the Son 
of God, is here intended, and none else, is evident from 
hence, that whatever is here spoken of ^eog, of this God 
here, was true, and fulfilled in him, as to the matter, and 
the same expressions for the most of the particulars, as to 
their substance, are used concerning him, and no other. 
Neither are they possible to be accommodated to any per- 
son but him. Let us a little accommodate the words to 
him. 1. He who as God, was ' in the beginning with God,' 
in his own nature invisible, l^avtpw^ri Iv crapKi, ' vfas mani- 
fested in the flesh,' when (rap^ lyivero, ' when he was made 
flesh ;' John i. 14. and made Iv bfionoixan aapKoq, Rom. 
viii. 3. ' in the- likeness of flesh,' -ysvojitEvoc Ik (mipfiarog 
Aa/3t8 Kctra aapKu ; Rom. i. 3. so made ' visible and conspi- 


cuous (or E^avEowS-rj, when laKuvwatv Iv r]}xlv\ dwelling 
amongst men, who also saw his glory, as the glory of the 
only begotten Son of God ;' ver. 14. Being thus 'manifest 
in the flesh,' having taken our nature on him, he was reviled, 
persecuted, condemned, slain by the Jews as a malefactor, 
a seditious person, an impostor: but 2. i^iKaiii^Ti] Iv ttvev- 
fxari, 'he was justified in the Spirit,' from all their false ac- 
cusations and imputations ; he was justified by his eternal 
Spirit, when he was raised from the dead, and ' declared to 
be the Son of God with power,' thereby, Rom. i. 4. for 
though he was 'crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by 
the power of God ;' 2 Cor. xiii. 4. so he also sent out his 
Spirit ' to convince the world of sin ; because they believed 
not in him, and of righteousness, because he went to his 
Father;' John xvi. 9, 10. which he also did, justifying him- 
self thereby, to the conviction and conversion of many thou- 
sands, who before condemned him, or consented to his con- 
demnation, upon the account formerly mentioned ; Acts 
ii. 37. And this is he, who 3. w^^jj ayyiXoig, 'was seen of 
angels,' and so hath his witnesses in heaven and earth. For 
wdien he came first into the world, all the angels receiving 
charge to worship him, by him who said TrpoaKuvwuTwcrav 
avT<^ 7TavT£Q ayyeXoi avTov ; Heb. i. 6. one came down at his 
nativity to declare it, to whom he was seen, and instantly a 
' multitude of the heavenly host saw him ;' Luke ii. 9. 13. 
and afterward went away into heaven ; ver. 15. In the be- 
ginning also of his ministry, angelswere sent to him in 'the 
wilderness to minister to him;' Matt. iv. 11. and when he 
was going to his death in the garden, 'an angel was sent to 
comfort him ;' Luke xxii. 43. And he then knew, that he 
could at a word's speaking, have more than twelve legions of 
angels to his assistance ; Matt. xxvi. 53. And when he rose 
again, the angels saw him again, and served him therein; 
Matt, xxviii. 2. And as he shall 'come again with his holy 
angels to judgment;' Matt. xxv. 31. 2 Thess. i. 7. so no 
doubt but in his ascension the angels accompanied him ; 
yea, that "they did so, is evident from Psal. Ixviii. 17, 18. So 
that there was no eminent concernment of him, wherein it 
is not expressly affirmed, that w^S-rj ayyiXoig- at his birth, 
entrance on his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, 
w^^Tj dyyiXoii;. 4. tK£(>t'\^»/ tv Wvtaiv, ' He was preached 


unto the Gentiles,' or among the people or Gentiles ; which 
besides the following accomplishment of it to the full, in the 
preaching the gospel concerning him throughout the world, 
so it had a signal entrance in that declaration of him to de- 
vout men dwelling at Jerusalem, * out of every nation under 
heaven ;' Acts vii. 5. And hereupon ; 5. eirKTrav^n Iv Koafito, 

* he was believed on in the world ;' he that had been rejected 
as a vile person, condemned and slain, being thus justifiedin 
Spirit, and preached, was believed on, many thousands being- 
daily converted to the faith of him, to believe that he was the 
Messiah, the Son of God, whom before they received not; 
John i. 10, 11. And for his own part, aviX{]<p^i] Iv Sosy, 'He 
was taken up into glory;' the story whereof we have. Acts 
i. 9 — 11. 'when he had sjDoken to his disciples, he was taken 
up, and a cloud received him.' Of which Luke says briefly, 
as Paul here, aveXi]^^r), Acts i. 2. as Mark also doth, chap, 
xvi. 19. ave\{](p^r) ilg tov ovpavbv, that is, tiyeXv'j^S'r), Iv So^j), 

* he was taken up into heaven,' or to glory ; dvcXjj^S^rj, is as 
much as uvm iXiirp^r^, ' he was taken up (iv for dg) into glory.* 

This harmony of the description of Christ here, both as 
to his person and office, with what is elsewhere spoken of 
him (this being evidently a summary collection of what is 
more largely in the gospel spoken of), makes it evident, that 
he is God, here intended : which is all that is needful to be 
evinced from this place. 

Let us now hear our catechists pleading for themselves. 

'Q. What* dost thou answer to 1 Tim. iii. 16.' 

' A. 1 . That in many ancient copies, and in the Vulgar Latin 
itself, the word God is not read ; wherefore from that place 
nothing certain can be concluded. 2. Although that word 
should be read, yet there is no cause why it should not be re- 
ferred to the Father, seeing these things may be affirmed of 

^ Ad tertium vero quid respondes^ — Primum quideni, quod in multis exemplaribus 
vetustis et in ipsa Vulgata, non legatur vox Deus. Quare ex eo loco certuiu nihil 
concludi potest. Deinde, etiamsi ea vox legeretur, nullam esse causam cur ad Pa- 
trem referri non possit, cum hajc de Patre affirmari possint, cum apparuisse in Christo, 
et apostolis qui caro fuerunt. Quod autera inferius legitur, secundum usitatam ver- 
sionera, receptus est in gloriam, id in Graeco habetur, receptus est in gloria, id est, 
cum gloria, aut gloriose. — Quae vero futura est hujus testiraonii sententia? — Religio- 
nem Cliristi plenam esse mysteriis. Nam Deus, id est, voluntas ipsius de servandis 
hominibus, per homines infirmos et mortales perfecte patefacta est: et nibilominus 
tamen propter niiracula, et virtutes varias, quae per hominps illns in6rmos et mortales 
edita fuerant, pro vera est agnita : eadem ab ipsis augeiis fii:t demum perspecta ; 
non solum Judaeis, verum etiani gentibus fuit praedicata: omnes ei crediderunt, et 
iiisiguem in modura, et summa cum gloria recepta fuit. 


the Father : that he appeared in Christ, and the apostles, who 
were flesh : and for what is afterward read, according to the 
usual translation. He was received into glory, in the Greek it 
is^ He was received in glory, that is, with glory, or gloriously. 

' Q, What then is the sense of this testimony ? 

* A. That the religion of Christ is full of mysteries : for 
God, that is, his will, for the saving of men,was perfectly made 
known by infirm and mortal men ; and yet because of the 
miracles and various powerful works, which were performed 
by such weak mortal men, it was acknowledged for true, 
and it was at length perceived by the angels themselves, and 
was preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles : 
all believed thereon, and it was received with great glory 
after an eminent manner.' 

Thus they; merely rather than say nothing, or yield to 
the truth. Briefly to remove what they oflfer in way of ex- 
ception or assertion. 

1. Though the word God, be not in the Vulgar Latin, yet 
the unanimous constant consent of all the original copies, 
confessed to be so, both by Beza and Erasmus, is sufficient 
to evince, that the loss of that translation, is not of any im- 
port to weaken the sense of the place. Of other ancient 
copies whereof they boast, they cannot instance one; in 
the Vulgar also, it is evident, that by the ' mystery,' Clirist is 

2. That what is here spoken 'maybe referred to the Fa- 
ther,' is a very sorry shift, against the evidence of all those 
considerations, which shew, that it ought to be referred to 
the Son. 

3. It may not, it cannot with any tolerable sense, be re- 
ferred to the Father. It is not said, ' that in Christ and the 
apostles he appeared,' and was * seen of angels,' &c. that is 
spoken of; but that ' God was manifested in the flesh,' &c. 
nor is any thing, that is here spoken of God, any where as- 
cribed, no not once in tlie Scripture, to the Father. How 
was he 'manifested in the flesh?' how was he 'justified in 
the Spirit?' how was he ' taken up into glory ?' 

4. Though h> Sosy, may be rendered ' gloriously, or with 
glory,' yet avfX}';^Srr), may, not, ' receptus est,' but rather ' as- 
umptus est ;'and is applied to the ascension of Christin other 
places, as hatli been shewed. 


2. For the sense they tender of these words. Let them 
1. Give any one instance, where ' God/ is put for the ' will of 
God,' and that exclusively to any person of the Deity, or to 
speak to tlieir own hypothesis, exclusively to the person of 
God. This is intolerable boldness, and aroues something: 
of searedness. 2. The ' will of God' for the salvation of men, 
is the gospel: how are these things applicable to that? 
How was the gospel justified in the spirit? how was it re- 
ceived into glory? how was it seen of the angels, tocp^ij ayji- 
Aote? In what place is any thing of all this spoken of the 
gospel? Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In 
sum, the will of God is no where said to be ' manifest in the 
flesh ;' Christ was so. That the will of God should be 
preached by weak mortal men' was no * great mystery ;' 
that God * should assume human nature, is so. The will of 
God cannot be said to ' appear to the angels ;' Christ did so. 
Of the last expression there can be no doubt raised. 

Grotius insists upon the same interpretation with our 
catechists in the whole, and in every part of it: nor doth he 
add any thing to what they plead, but only some quotations of 
Scripture not at all to the purpose ; or at best suited to his 
own apprehensions of the sense of the place, not opening it 
in the least, nor evincing what he embraces, to be the mind 
of the Holy Ghost, to any one that is otherwise minded. 
What he says, because he says it, deserves to be con- 

Qebg t^aptpwS'rj Iv aaoKl : ' suspectam nobis hanc lectio- 
nem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et 
Ambrosius,qui omnes legunt,' 6 Ifpavepio^r}. Addit Hincmarus 
Opusculo, 55. illud ^£og, ' hie positum a Nestorianis.' 1. But 
this suspicion might well have been removed from^ {his 
learned man, by the universal consent of all original copies, 
wlierein as it seems his own manuscript, that sometimes 
helps him at a need, doth not diHer. 2. One corruption in 
one translation makes many. 3. The Syriac reads the word 
' God,' and so Tremelius hath rendered it. Ambrose and 
Hincmarus followed the Latin translation. And there is a 
thousand times more probability, that the word ^ebg was 
filched out by the Arians, than that it was foisted in by 
the Nestorians. But if the agreement of all original copies 
may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing certain left us. 


But saith he, * sensum bonum facit illad, 6 t^ave/owB'jj. Evan- 
gelium illud cseleste innotuit pvimura non per angelos, sed 
per homines mortales, et quantum externa species ferebat 
infirmos, Christum, et apostolos ejus, ttpavspw^ij, bene con- 
venit mysterio, id est, rei latenti;' Col. i. 26. (rdp^ hominem 
significat raortalem ;' 2 Cor. ii. 16. 1 John iv. 2. 

1. Our annotator having only a suspicion that the word 
^iog was not in the text, ought on all accounts to have in- 
terpreted the words according to the reading whereof he 
had the better persuasion, and not according unto that, 
whereof he had only a suspicion. But then it was by no 
means easy to accommodate them according to his intention, 
nor to exclude the person of Christ from being mentioned 
in them, which by joining in with his suspicion he thought 
himself able to do. 2. He is not able to give us any one in- 
stance in the Scripture, of the like expression to this, of 
* manifest in the flesh,' being referred to the gospel ; when 
referred to Christ, nothing is more frequent; John i. 14. vi. 
53. Acts ii. 31. Rom. i. 3. viii. 3. ix. 5. Eph. ii. 14, 15. Col. 
i. 22. Heb. v. 7.x. 19,20. 1 Pet. iii. 18. iv. 1. 1 John iv. 2, &c. 
of the 'flesh of the gospel,' not one word. 3. There is not the 
least opposition intimated between men and angels, as to 
the means of preaching the gospel ; nor is this any mystery, 
that the gospel was preached by men ; Icpavcpoj^i} is well ap- 
plied to a ' mystery' or ' hidden thing ;' but the question is, 
what the ' mystery' or ' hidden thing' is ; we say it was the 
great matter of the ' Word's being made flesh,' as it is else- 
where expressed. In the place urged out of the Corinthians, 
whether it be the 2nd or 11th chapter, that is intended, 
there is nothing to prove, that adp^ signifies a mortal man. 
And this is the entrance of this exposition. Let us proceed. 
'EStKotw^rj £v TTvevjuart ; ' per plurima miracula approbata 
est ea Veritas,' Hvevfia ' sunt miracula divina per /itrwvu/iiav 
quae est,' 1 Cor. xi. 4. ' et alibi. Justified in the Spirit;' 
that is, ' approved by many miracles ;' for -rtu/xo, is ' miracles 
by a metonymy.' Then let every thing be as the learned 
man will have it. It is in vain to contend. For surely never 
was expression so wrested. That irvtvfxa, simply, is ' mira- 
cles,' is false; that to have a thing done Iv irvivfian, signifies 
' miracles,' is more evidently so ; 1 Cor. ii. 4. The apostle 
speaks not at all of miracles, but of the eflicacy of the Spi- 


rit with liim in his preaching the word, to ' convince the 
world of sin, righteousness and judgment,' according to the 
promise of Christ. The application of this expression to 
Jesus Christ see above. He adds, diKaiova^ai is here * ap- 
probare,' ut Matt. xi. 19, It is here to ' approve,' and that 
because it was necessary that the learned annotator should 
SovXevtiv vTTo^eaai. In what sense the word is taken, and 
how applied to Christ, with the genuine meaning of the 
place, see above. See also, John i. 33, 34. Nor is the gospel 
any where said to be 'justified in Spirit,' nor is this a to- 
lerable exposition, 'justified in Spirit,' that is, it was 'ap- 
proved by miracles.' 

"Qiiji^r] dyyiXoig ' nempe cum admiratione, angeli hoc ar ' 
canum per homines mortales didicere ;' Eph. iii. 10. 1 Pet. 
i. 12. How eminently this suits what is spoken of Jesus 
Christ, was shewed before. It is true, the angels as with 
admiration look into the things of the gospel ; but that it 
is said, the gospel w^^jj dyyaXoig, is not proved. 

It is true, the gospel was preached to the Gentiles ; but 
yet this word is most frequently applied to Christ ; Acts 
iii. 23. viii. 25. ix, 20. xix. 23. 1. Cor. i. 23. xv. 12. 2. Cor. 
1. 19. iv. 5. xi. 4. Phil. i. 15. are testimonies hereof. 

'ETTitTTtvOr} Iv KO(7/x(i), ' id cst, in magna mundi parte,' Rom. 
i. 8. Col. i. 6. But then, I pray, what difference between 
iSiKaiwdr] iv TTvevuaTi, and tTTtorev^r) ev Koa/nto ? The first is, it 
was ' approved by miracles,' the other, it was believed ;' now 
to approve the truth of the gospel, taken actively, is to 
believe it. How much more naturally this is accommodated 
to Christ, see John iii. 17. 18. and ver. 35, 36. vi. 40. Acts 
x. 43. and xvi. 31. Rom. iii. 22. x. 8, 9. Gal. ii. 16. 1 John 
V. 5. &c. 

The last clause is, avfX/j^S'r) i v Sosij* 'gloriose admodum 
exaltatum est, nempe qui a majorem attulit sanctitatem, 
quam uUa ante hsec dogmata.' And this must be the sense 
of the word dva\aiui(5a.vofxai in this business. See Luke ix. 51. 
Mark xvi. 19. Acts i. 2. 11. 22. And in this sense we are 
indifferent, whether £v So^i) be Hg^6t,av/ unto glory,' which 
seems to be most properly intended, or avv Sosy, ' with glory,' 
as our adversaries would have it, or * gloriously,' as Crotius ; 
for it vf-as gloriously, with great glory, and into that glory, 
which he had with his Father before the world was. That 


the gospel is glorious in its doctrine of holiness is true, but 
not at all spoken of in this place. 

Heb. ii. 16. is another testimony insisted on, to prove 
the incarnation of Christ, and so consequently his subsistence 
in a divine nature antecedently thereunto. The words are : 
'For verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he 
took on him the seed of Abraham.' To this they answer ; 

* Herein*^ not so much as any likeness of the incarnation, 
as they call it, doth appear. For this writer doth not say, 
that Christ took (as some read it, and commonly they take 
it in that sense) but he takes. Nor doth he say, human 
nature, but the seed of Abraham : which in the holy 
Scriptures denotes them who believe in Christ, as Gal. iii. 29. 

' Q. What then is the sense of this place? 

' A. This is that which this writer intends, that Christ is 
not the Saviour of angels, but of men believing, who because 
they are subject to afflictions and death (which he before 
expressed by the participation of flesh and blood), therefore 
did Christ willingly submit himself unto them, that he might 
deliver his faithful ones from the fear of death, and might 
help them in all their afflictions. 

The sense of this place is evident ; the objections against 
it weak. That the word is iTrtXaju/Savtrat, not tirikufteTO, 
' assumit,' not 'assumpsit,' is an enallage of tense so usual, as 
that it can have no force of an objection. And, ver. 14. it is 
twice used in a contrary sense ; the time past, being put for 
the present, as here the present for that which is past : 
KtKoivMvnK£, for KOtvwva, and fUTta^s for furiKW see John 
iii. 31. xxi. 13., 2. That by the 'seed of Abraham,' is here 
intended the human nature of the seed of Abraham, appears 
1. From the expression going before of the same import with 
this; 'He took part of flesh and blood;' ver. 14. 2. From 
the opposition here made to angels, or the angelical nature ; 

•^ In eo, ne siniililudineni quidem incarimtionis (ut vocaiit) apparere, cuin is 
scriptor non dicat, Cliristiiii) assunipsi.sse (ut quldam reddunt, et vulgo eo sensu ac- 
cipiunt) sed assiiraere : ncc dicit, naturani Iminaiiam, sed semen Abraliae : quod in 
Uteris sacris notat eos, qui in Cliristun) ticdiderunt, ut Gal. iii. 29. videre est. 
Quid vero sensus hujus erit loci? Id sibi vult is scriptor, Christuui non esse Serva- 
toreni angeioruni, sed honiinuni credentiuiu, cjui (juoiiiani ct ailliclionibus et morti 
subject! sunt (quain rem superius expressitpcr participatinneni carnis et s^guinis) 
pro[)terea CMirislus ultroillis sc snbinisit, ut fideles suos a mortis uielu liberaret, el in 
onini aillictionc iisdcra openi aft'erret. 


the Holy Ghost shewing, that the business of Christ being 
to save his church by dying for them, was not therefore to 
take upon him an angelical, spiritual substance or nature, 
but the nature of man. 3. The same thing is elsewhere in 
like manner expressed : as where he is said to be made of 
the 'seed of David according to the flesh,' Rom. i. 3. and 
to ' come of the fathers as concerning the flesh ;' Rom. ix. 5. 
4. Believers are called Abraham's seed sometimes spiritually, 
in relation to the faith of Abraham, as Gal. iii. 29, where he 
is expressly spoken of, ' as father of the faithful,' by in- 
heriting the promises : but take it absolutely, to be of the 
*seed of Abraham,' is no more, but to be a man of his poste- 
rity ; John viii. 37. ' 1 know that ye are Abraham's seed ;' 
Rom. ix. 7. ' Neither because they are the seed of Abraham 
are they all children,' ver. 8. that is, ' they are the children 
oftheflesh:' soRom. xi.l. ' Are they the seed of Abraham? 
so am 1 ;' 2 Cor. xi. 22. 2. For the sense assigned ; it is 
evident, that in these words the apostle treats not of the 
help given, but of the way whereby Christ came to help 
his Church, and the means thereof; his actual helping and 
relieving of them is mentioned in the next verse. 2. Here 
is no mention in this verse of believers being obnoxious to 
afflictions and death, so that these words of theirs may serve 
for an exposition of some other place of Scripture (as they 
say of Gregory's comment on Job), but not of this. 3. By 
* partaking of flesh and blood,' is not meant primarily, being 
obnoxious to death and afflictions ; nor doth that expression 
in any place signify any such thing ; though such a nature, 
as is so obnoxious, be intended. The argument then from 
hence stands still in its force : that Christ subsisting in his 
divine nature, did assume a human nature of the seed of 
Abraham, into personal union with himself. 

Grotius is still at a perfect agreement with our cate- 
chists. Saith he, ' liriKa^^aviadaL apud Platonem, et alios, 
est solenniter vindicare, his autem et superioribus intelli- 
gendum est, vindicare, seu asserere in libertatem manu in- 
jecta.' ' This word in Plato and others, is to vindicate into 
liberty; here, as is to be understood from what went before, 
it is to assert into liberty by laying hold with the hand.' Of 
the first, because he gives no instances, we shall need take 
no farther notice. The second is denied ; both the help 



afforded, and the means of it by Christ, is mentioned before. 
The help is liberty ; the means, partaking of flesh and blood 
to die. These words are not expressive of, nor do answer 
the latter, or the help afforded, but the means of the obtaining 
of it, as hath been declared. But he adds, 'the word signi- 
fies to lay hold of with the hand, as Mark viii. 23,' See. Be 
it granted that it doth so, ' to lay hold with the hand, and 
to take to one's self.' This is not to assert into liberty, but 
by the help of a metaphor : and when the word is used meta- 
phorically, it is to be interpreted ' pro subjecta materia,' 
according to the subject matter : which here is Chnst's 
taking a nature upon him, that was of Abraham, that was 
not angelical. The other expression hs is singular in the 
interpretation of. 

'He took the seed of Abraham,' 'id est, id agit, ut vos 
Hebrseos liberet a peccatis et metu mortis ; eventus enim 
nomen saepe datur operse, in id impensce.' ' That is. He doth 
that, that he may deliver you Hebrews from sin, and fear of 
death : the name of the event, is often given to the work 
employed to that purpose.' Butl. Here I confess, he takes 
another way from our catechists ; the 'seed of Abraham' is 
with them, believers ; with him, only Jews ; but the tails of 
their discourse are tied together with a firebrand between 
them, to devour the harvest of the church. 2. This taking 
the seed of Abraham, is opposed to his not taking the seed 
of angels; now the Jews are not universally opposed to 
angels in this thing, but human kind. 3. He ' took the seed 
of Abraham,' is it seems, he endeavoured to help the Jews. 
The whole discourse of the help afforded both before and 
after this verse, is extended to the whole church ; how comes 
it here to be restrained to the Jews only? 4. The discourse 
of the apostle is about the undertaking of Christ by death, 
and his being fitted thereunto by partaking of flesh and 
blood ; which is so far from being in anyplace restrained or 
accomodated only to the Jews, as that the contrary is every 
where asserted, as is known to all. 

1 John iv. 3. 'Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh, is of God ;' he who comes into 
the world, or comes into flesh, or in the flesh, had a sub- 
sistence before he so came. It is very probable, that the 
intendment of the apostle was to discover tlie abomination 


of them, who denied Christ to be a true man, but assigned 
him a fantastical body, which yet he so doth, as to express 
his coming in the flesh in such a manner, as evidences him 
to have another nature (as was said) besides that which is 
here synecdochically called flesh. Our catechists to this 

' Thats this is not to the purpose in hand : for that which 
some read. He came into the flesh, is not in the Greek, but 
He came in the flesh. Moreover, John doth not write, that 
spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ, which came in the 
flesh, is of God ; but that that spirit which confesseth'Jesus 
Christ, who is come in the flesh, is of God. The sense of 
which words is, that the spirit is of God, which confesseth 
that Jesus Christ, who performed his oHice in the earth, 
without any pomp or worldly ostentation, with great humi- 
lity as to outward appearance, and great contempt; and 
lastly underwent a contumelious death, is Christ, and King 
of the people of God.* 

I shall not contend with them about the translation of 
the words : ty aagKi, seems to be put for tig aapm' but the 
intendment is the same ; for the word came is iXrjXv^ora, that 
is, that 'came,' or ' did come.' 2. It is not tov iXnXv^oTa, 
Svho did come,' that thence any colour should betaken for the 
exposition given by them, of confessing that Christ, or him 
who is the Christ, the King of the people of God, or con- 
fessing him to be the Christ, the King of the people of God; 
but it is, that confesseth him ' who came in the flesh,' that is, 
as to his whole person and oflice, his coming, and what he 
came for. 3. They cannot give us any example, nor any 
one reason, to evince, that that should be the meaning of 
iv aapKi, which here they pretend. The meaning of it hath 
above been abundantly declared. So that there is no need 
tliat we should insist longer on this place; nor why we 
should trouble ourselves with Grotius's long discourse on 

e Etiam in eo nihil prorsiis de incarnatione (quam vocant) habcri. Etenim quod 
apud quosdam iegitur, venit in carnem, ia Grsco habetur, in came venit. Prop- 
tereanon scribit Johannes, quod spiritus, qui confitetur Jesum Christum, qui in carne 
venit, ex Deo est; veruin quod iile spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne 
venisse ex Deo est. Quorum verbormn sensus est, eum spiritum ex Deo esse, qui 
confitetur Jesum ilium, qui munus suum in terris sine ulla pompa et ostentatione 
mundana, summa cum huiuilitate (quoad exteriorem speciem) suramoque cum con- 
teraptu obiverit, mortem denique ignominiosam oppetierit, esse Christum, et populi 
Dei regem. 

2 D 2 


this place. The whole foundation of it is, that to ' come in 
the flesh/ signifies to come in a low, abject condition ; a pre- 
tence without proof, without evidence. ' Flesh' may some- 
times be taken so : but that to ' come in the flesh,' is to come 
in such a condition, we have not the least plea pretended. 

The last place they mention to this purpose is, Heb. x. 
5. ' Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith. Sa- 
crifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou 
prepared me.' He who had a body prepared for him, when 
he came into the world, he subsisted in another nature, be- 
fore that coming of his into the world. To this they say, 

'Neither^ is there here any mention made of the incarna- 
tion (as they call it), seeing that world, into which the 
author says Christ entered, is the world to come, as was 
above demonstrated. Whence to come into the world, doth 
not signify to be born into the world, but to enter into hea- 
ven. Lastly, in these words, a body hast thou prepared me, 
that word, a body (as appeared from what was said, where 
his entering this world was treated of), may be taken for an 
immortal body. 

* Q. What' is the sense of this place ? 

' A. That God fitted for Jesus such a body, after he en- 
tered heaven, as is fit and accommodate for the discharging 
of the duty of a high-priest.' 

But doubtless, than this whole dream nothing can be 
more fond or absurd. 1. How many times is it said that Christ 
came into this world, where no other world but this can be 
understood? 'For this cause saith he, came I into the world, 
that I might bear witness of the truth;' John xviii. Was it 
into heaven that Christ came to bear witness to the truth ? 
* Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners;' 1 Tim. i. 
15. was it into heaven ? 2. These words, ' a body hast thou 
prepared me,' are a full expression of what is synecdochically 
spoken of in the Psalms in these words, ' mine ears hast thou 

^ Ne hie quidem de incarnatione (ut vocant) ullara nientioBem factara, cum is 
mundus, in quem ingressum Jesum is autor ait, sit ille raundus fiiturus, ut superius 
deiuonstratum est. Unde etiam ingredi in ilium iiiunduui, non nasci in munduin, sed 
in caelum ingredi significat. Deinde, illis verbis. Corpus aptasti milii, corporis vox 
(ut ex eo apparuit, ubi de ingressu hoc in mundum actum est) pro corporc imraortaii 
accipi potest. 

' Quae sententia ejus estl — Deum Jcsu tale corpus aptasse, postquara in coeluni 
est ingressus, quod ad obeundum rauuus Pontifici.s sumini aptuni et accommodatum 


opened;' expressing the end also why Christ had a body pre- 
pared him, namely, that he might yield obedience to God 
therein, which he did signally in this world, when he was 
' obedient to death, the death of the cross.' 3. As I have 
before manifested the groundlessness of interpreting the 
word ' world/ put absolutely, of the world to come, and so 
taken off all, that here they relate unto, so in that demon- 
stration, which God assisting; I shall Q-ive, of Christ's beino; 
a priest, and offering sacrifice in this world, before he en- 
tered into heaven, I shall remove what farther here they pre- 
tend unto. In the meantime, such expressions as this, that 
have no light nor colour given them from the text they pre- 
tend to unfold, had need of good strength of analogy given 
them from elsewhere, which here is not pretended. 'When 
he comes into the world,' that is, when he enters heaven ; he 
says, 'a body hast thou prepared me,' that is, an immortal 
body, thou hast given me, and that by this immortal body 
they intend indeed no body, I shall afterward declare. 

Grotius turns these words quite another way, not agree- 
ing with our catechists ; yet doing still the same work with 
them : which, because he gives no proof of his exposition, 
it shall suffice so to have intimated: in sum, ver. 4. he tells 
us, how the blood of Christ takes away sin ; viz. 'because it 
begets faith in us, and gives right to Christ for the obtain- 
ing of all necessary helps for us,' in pursuit of his former in- 
terpretation of chap. 9. where he wholly excludes the satis- 
faction of Christ. His coming into the world, is, he says, 
'his shewing himself to the world, after he had led a private 
life therein for awhile ;' contrary to the perpetual use of 
that expression of the New Testament; and so the whole 
design of the place is eluded; the exposition whereof I shall 
defer to the place of the satisfaction of Christ. 

And these are the texts of Scripture our catechists 
thought good to endeavour a delivery of themselves from, 
as to thathead or argument of our plea, for his subsistence in 
a divine natuie, antecedently to his being born of the Virgin, 
namely, because he is said to be incarnate, or made flesh. 



Sundry other testimonies, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated. 

In the next place they heap up a great many testimonies 
confusedly, containing spiritual attributions unto Christ, of 
such things as manifest him to be God, which we shall con- 
sider in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they are placed 
of them. 

Their first question here is. 

' Q. In^ what Scriptures is Christ called God? 

' A. Johni. 1, The Word was God. John xx. 28. Thomas 
saith unto Christ, My Lord, and my God. Rom. ix. 5. The 
apostle saith, that Christ is God over all blessed for ever.' 

' Q. What can be proved by these testimonies V 

' A. That a divine nature cannot be demonstrated from 
them, besides the things that are before produced, is hence 
manifest, that in the first testimony the Word is spoken of, 
and John saith that he was with God : in the second, Thomas 
calleth him God, in whose feet and hands he found the print 
of the nails, and of the spear in his side : and Paul calleth 
him, who according to the flesh was of the fathers, God 
over all blessed forever : all which cannot be spoken of him, 
who by nature is God ; for thence it would follow, that there 
are two gods of whom one was with the other : and these 
things, to have the prints of wounds, and to be of the fa- 
thers belong wholly to a man ; which were absurd to as- 
cribe to him, who is God by nature. And if any one shall 
pretend that veil of the distinction of natures, we have above 
removed that, and have shewed, that this distinction cannot 
be maintained.' 

* In quibus Scripturis Cliristtis vocatar Deus? — Johan. 1. 1. et Verbum fuit Deus. 
ct cap. 20. V. '28. Tlionias ad Christum ait, Doniinus nieus, et Deus mens ; et Rora. 
ix. V. .5. Apostolus scribit Christum ileum (esse) supra oinnes beiicdictum in sccula. — 
Quid liis testimoniis effici potest. — Naturau) diviuaiii in Chrislo ex iis demonstrari 
iioii posse, pra;ter ea qua; supcrius alluta sunt, hinc nianifestum est, (juod in prima 
testimonio agatur dc Verbo, quod Joliannes testaturapud ilium Dcuui fuisse. In se- 
tundo, 'J'homas euni appellat Deum.in cujus pedibus el nianibus clavorum.in latere 
lanceitt vestigia deprehendit ; et Paulus euni, qui secundum carnem a patribus erat, 
Deum supra omnia benedictuni vocat. Qu;u onuiia dici de eo, qui natura Deus sit 
nullo modo posse, planum est. Etenim ex illo ^cqueretur duos esse Deo'^, (juoruni 
alter apud alterum fuerit. Ilasc vcro, vestigia vulnerum liabere, ex jiatribus esse, 
hoiuiiiis sum prorsus; qua; ei,(]ui natura dens sit, ascribi nimis abaonum esset. Qtiod 
si illud disliuctionis naturaruiu velum quis practcndat, jam superius illud anioviinusct 
Uucuimus, lianc distinctioncm nullo modo posse sustincri. 


That in all this answer our catechists do nothing- but beo- 
the thing in question, and fly to their own hypothesis, not 
against assertions but arguments, themselves so far know, 
as to be forced to apologize for it in the close. 1 . That Christ 
is not God, because *he is not the person of the Father;' 
that he is not God, because *he is man,' is the sum of their 
answer. And yet these men knew, that we insisted on these 
testimonies to prove him God, though he be man, and though 
he be not the same person veith the Father. 2. They do all 
along impose upon us their own most false hypothesis ; that 
Christ is God, although he be not God by nature. Those 
who are not God by nature, and yet pretend to be gods, are 
idols, and shall be destroyed. And they only are the men 
who affirm there are two gods ; one who is so by nature 
and another made so, one indeed God and no man, the other 
a man and no God : the Lord our God, is one God. 3. In 
particular, John i. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above 
abundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another na- 
ture, that he had before 'he took flesh, and dwelt with men :' 
ver. 14. Herein is he said to be with the Father, in respect 
of his distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the 
Father, as to his nature and essence. And this is that which 
we prove from his testimony, which will not be warded with 
a bare denial. * The Word was with God, and the Word was 
God.' God by nature, and with God in his personal distinc- 
tion. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in 
whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nails ; as God 
is said to redeem the church with his own blood. He was 
the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his human nature shed 
his blood, and had the print of the nails in his hands and 
feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before, 
and therefore I shall not now farther insist upon it. He 
whom Thomas in the confession of his faith as a believer, 
owned for his Lord and God, he is the true God, God by 
nature ; of a made God, a God by office, to be confessed and 
believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is 
affirmed of Rom. ix. 5. The apostle distinguishes of Christ, 
as to his flesh, and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or human 
nature, he says, he was of the fathers : but in the other re- 
gard he is 'God over all blessed for ever.' And as this 
is a signal expression of the true God, ' God over all blessed 


for ever,' so there is no occasion of that expression, to Kara 
aapKa, ' as to the flesh,' but to assert something in Christ, 
which he afterward affirms to be his everlasting Deity, in re- 
gard whereof he is not of the fathers. He is then of the 
fathers to kuto. aapKa, b wv etti ttuvtiov 3'eoc fwXo^rjroc £tC 
Toiig aiCjvaq, d{xi)v. The words are most emphatically ex- 
pressive of the eternal Deity of Christ, in contradistinction 
to what he received of the fathers : 6 wv, even then when 
he took flesh of the fathers, then was he, and now he is, 
and ever will be God over all ; that is, the Most High God 
blessed for ever. It is evident, that the apostle intends to 
ascribe to Christ here, two most solemn attributes of God ; 
the Most High, and the Blessed One. Nor is this testimony 
to be parted with for their begging, or with their importu- 
nity. 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 re- 
gard, on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have 
said to oppose the distinction of two natures, in the one per- 
son of Christ, hath already been considered, and manifested 
to be false and frivolous. 

I could wish to these testimonies they had added one or 
two more; as that of Isa. liv. 5. 'Thy Maker is thine hus- 
band, the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the 
Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be 
called.' That Jesus Christ is the husband and spouse of the 
church, will not be denied ; Eph. v.25.Rev.xxi.9. but he who 
is so, is ' the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of 
the whole earth.' And Heb. iii. 4. the apostle says, that 'he 
that made all things is God ;' that is, his church ; for of that 
he treats : he that created all things, that is, * the church as 
well as all other things,' he is God ; none could do it but 
God : ' but Christ built this house:' ver. 3. But this is not 
my present employment. 

The learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the two 
last places urged by ourcatechists. Of his sleight in dealino- 
with that of John xx. 28. I have spoken of before, and dis- 
covered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, 
tliat after Christ's resurrection, it grew common with the 
Christians to call him God, and urges Rom. ix. 5. but 
coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not 


serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling of him 
God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed apostle plainly 
affirming, that he is ' God over all, blessed for ever ;' and 
therefore forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon 
a worse and more desperate evasion, affirming, that the word 
Qiog, ought not to be in the text : because Erasmus had ob- 
served, that Cyprian and Hilary, citing this text, did not 
name the word : and this he rests upon ; although he knew, 
that all original copies whatever, constantly without any ex- 
ception do read it ; and that Beza had manifested against 
Erasmus, that Cyprian lib. ad Judae 2. cap. 5. and Hilary ad 
Psal. 12. do both cite this place to prove, that Christ is 
called God, though they do not express the text to the full. 
And it is known, how iVthanasius used it against the Arians, 
without any hesitation, as to the corruption of the text. 
This way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be 
pardoned. I am well contented with all, that, from what he 
writes on John i. 1 . (the first place mentioned) do apprehend, 
that when he wrote his annotations on that place, he was no 
opposer of the Deity of Christ : but I must take leave to say, 
that for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all 
there spoken in his own words, that he doth at all assert the 
assuming of the human nature into personal subsistence with 
the Son of God : I speak as to the thing itself, and not to 
the expressions which he disallows. But we must proceed 
with our catechists. 

' Q. Where^ doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one 
with the Father ? 

' A. John X. 29 — 31. My Father which gave them me, is 
greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them out of 
his hand. I' and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up 
stones again to stone him. 

' Q. How'^ dost thou answer this testimony ? 

'' Ubi vero Scripturatestatur Christnni cum Patre esse unum ? — Jolian. x. 29, 30. 
Ubi Dominus ait ; Pater qui mihi (oves) dedit, major omnibus est, et nemo eas rapere 
potest e nianibus Patris mei. Ego et Pater unum suraus. 

« Qua ratione respondes ad id testimonium ? — Ex eo, quod dicatur Christus esse 
cum patre unum, effici non posse, esse unum cum eo natura, verba Cliristi, quje ad 
Patrem de discipulis habuit, demonstrant. Jolian. xvii. 11. Pater sancte, serva illos 
in nomine tuo, ut sint unum, queniadmodum etnos uni'm sumus. Et panio inferius, 
V. 22. Eco gloriam, quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis, ut sint unum, queniadmodum luis 
unum sunuis. Quod vero Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de volunlato, autde 
potentia in salutis nostra; ratione accipi debet : unde naturam divinam non probari 


' A. That from hence that Clirist is said to be one with 
the Father, that it cannot be proved that he is one with him in 
nature, the words of Christ to his Father of the disciples do 
shew ; John xvii. 11. that they may be one as we are ; and 
a little after, ver. 22. that they may be one even as we are 
one. That Christ is one with the Father, this ought to be 
understood either of will, or power, in the business of our 
salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved, 
is manifest from those places where Christ saith his Father 
is greater than all, and consequently than Christ himself, 
as he expressly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep ; 
John xiv. 28.' 

Of this place I have spoken before. That it is an unity 
of essence that is here intended by our Saviour, appears ; 1. 
From the apprehension the Jews had of his meaning in those 
words, who immediately upon them took up stones to stone 
him for blasphemy, rendering an account of their so doing, 
ver. 33. * because he being a man, did make himself God.' 
2. From the exposition he makes himself of his words, ver, 
36. ' I am the Son of God :' that is it I intended ; I am so 
one with him, as a Son is with the Father, that is, one in na- 
ture and essence. 3. He is so one with him, as that the 
Father is in him, and he in him, by a divine immanency of 
persons. 2. Those words of our Saviour, John xvii. 12. 22. 
do not argue a parity in the union of believers among them- 
selves, with that of him and his Father, but a similitude : 
see Matt. xvii. 20. that they may be one in affection, as his 
Father and he are in essence. We are to be holy, as God is 
holy. 2. If oneness of will and consent be the ground of 
this, that the Son and Father are one ; then the angels and 
God are one, for with their wills they always do his. 3. One- 
ness of power with God, in any work, argues oneness of es- 
sence. God's power is omnipotent, and none can be one 
with him in power, but he who is omnipotent ; that is, who 
is God. And if it be unity of power here asserted, it is 
spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of 
thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater than Christ, 
as is affirmed John xiv. 28. in respect of his office of medi- 

ex codcni loco constat, ubi Clirislus ait, Patrcin omnibus esse niajorciu, ac ]»ioiiKlc 
etiaiu ipso Domino, (jucmadiuociuai idem Doiuiiius expressc fatctur, ct quod cas 
oves ci dedcrit, Joan. xiv. 2ii. 


ation, of which there he treats ; but they are one, and equal 
in respect of nature. Neither is God in this place said to be 
greater than all, in respect of Christ who is said to be one 
with him, but in reference to all that may be supposed to 
attempt the taking of his sheep out of his hands. 5. Christ 
took, or received his sheep, not simply as God, the eternal 
Son of God, but as Mediator ; and so his Father was greater 
than he. This testimony then abides. He that is one with 
the Father, is God by Hature. Christ is thus one with the 
Father: 'one' is the unity of nature; 'are' their distinction 
of persons. ' I and my Father are one.' 

Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our cate- 
chists, only he goes one step farther in corrupting the text. 
His words are, ' lyu) koX Trarrip h> lafiiv : connectit quod dix- 
erat cum superioribus : si Patris potestati eripi non poterunt, 
nee meaB poterunt : nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, et 
quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me, aut a Patre custodiri : 
vid. Gen. xli. 25. 27.' I suppose he means ver. 44. being the 
words of Pharaoh, delegating power and authority immedi- 
ately under him to Joseph ; but, as it is known, potestas is 
i^ovma, 'authority,' and may belong to office: hutpotentia is 
dyvajuig, ' force,' ' virtue,' or ' power,' and belongs to essence. It 
is not potestas or authority that Christ speaks of, but strength, 
might, and power: which is so great in God, that none can 
take his sheep out of his hand. Now though unitas potes- 
tatis, do not prove unity of essence in men> yet unitas potentia, 
which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth : yea, none 
can have iinitatem potestath M'ith God, but he who hath uni- 
tatcm essentia. 

What they except in the next place against Christ's being 
equal with God, from John v. 18. Phil. ii. 6. hath been al- 
ready removed, and the places fully vindicated. They pro- 

'Q. But^ where is it that Christ is called the Son of the 
living God, the proper and only begotten Son of God ? 

■1 Filium autem Dei viventis, filium Dei proprium et unigenitum esse Christum, 
ubi habetur ? — De hoc Matt. xvi. 16. legimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Chrislus filius 
Dei viventes. Et Rom. viii, 32. ubi Apostolus ait ; Qui (Deus) proprio iilio non 
pepercit, veruni eum propter nos tradidit. Et Johan. iii. 16. Sic Deus dilexit raun- 
dum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Et ver. 18. uomen unigeniti iilii Dei. — Quo- 
modo vero ad b.ajc locse respondetur ? — -Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo modo 
probari posse iiaturara ejus divinam. Nam quod ad primura attinet, notissiraum est 
Petrura fateri, quod filius hominis sit Christus, et filius Dei viventis, quem constat 


'A. Matt. xvi. 16. Rom. viii. 32. John iii. 16. 18. 

' Q. But how are these places answered ? 

•A. From all these attributes ofChrist a divine nature can 
by no means be proved. For as to the first, it is notorious 
that Peter confessed that the Son of man was Christ, and 
the Son of the living God, who, as it is evident, had not such 
a divine nature as they feign. Besides, the Scripture tes- 
tifieth of other men, that they are the sons of the living 
God ; as the apostle out of Hosea, Rom. ix. 26. and as to 
what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we 
read that the proper and only begotten Son of God was de- 
livered to death, which cannot be said of him who is God 
by nature. Yea from hence that Christ is the Son of God, 
it appears that he is not God ; for otherwise he should be 
Son to himself. But the cause why these attributes belong 
to Christ is this, that he is the chiefest, and most dear to 
God among all the sons of God ; as Isaac, because he was 
most dear to Abraham and was his heir, is called his only 
begotten son ; Heb.xi. 17. although he had his brother Ish- 
mael ; and Solomon the only begotten of his mother, al- 
though he had many brethren by the same mother; 1 Chron. 
iii. 1 — 6. Prov. iv. 3.' 

I have spoken before fully to all these places, and there- 
fore, 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 de- 
monstrated ; and his unity of nature w^ith his Father thence 
evinced. It is true 1. that Peter calls Christ, who was the 
Son of man, the Son of the living God. Not in that, or on 
that account whereon he is the Son of man, but because he 
is peculiarly in respect of another nature, than that wherein 
he is the son of man, the Son of the living God. And if 

divinam iiatiiram, qualcm illi comniiniscuntur, non habuisse. Prajterea, tcstatur 
Scriplnra de aliis hoiiiinibiis quod siiit filii Dei viventis, lit ex, Hosca, Eoiu. ix. 26. 
Et erit loco tyus, ubi eis dictum est : non populus mens (eslis) vos; illic vocabuntur 
filii Dei viventis. Quod vero secundum et tertium locum attinet, in liis legimuspro- 
prium et unigenituni Dei filiuni in mortem traditum, quod de co, qui natura Deus sit, 
dici non potest. Inio vero ex eo, quod Cbristus Dei Filius sit, apparet Deuni ilium 
non esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius esset. Causa vero cur Cliristo ista attributa com- 
petant, lia;c est, quod inter onines Dei filios et praecipuus sit, et Deo charissimus, 
queniadmodum Isaac, quia Abralianio cliarissinuis et limres exslitit, ungenitus voca- 
tus est, Heb. xi, 17. licet fratreni Ismaclem habuerit; et Solouion unigenitus coram 
matrc sua, licet plures ex cadcni matrc fratrcs fucrint. 1 Paral. iii. t— 6, &c. Pror. 
iv. 3. 


Peter had intended no more in this assertion, but only that 
he was one among the many sons of God, how doth he an- 
swer that question, * but whom say ye that I am V being- ex- 
ceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a 
prophet, one come out from God, and favoured of him. It 
is evident, that it is something much more noble and divine 
that is here affirmed by him, in this solemn confession of 
him, on whom the church is built. It is true, believers are 
called children of the living God, Rom. ix. 26. in opposi- 
tion to the idols whom they served before their conversion ; 
neither do we argue from this expression barely, of the living 
God, but in conjunction with those other that follow, and 
in the emphaticalness of it, in this confession of Peter, 
Christ instantly affirming that this was a rock, which should 
not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the proper 
and only begotten Son of God hath been already abundantly 
evinced ; nor is it disproved by saying, that the proper and 
only Son of God was given to death; for so he was, and 
thereby God redeemed his church with his own blood. He 
that is the proper and only begotten Son of God, was given 
to death, though not in that nature, and in respect of that 
wherein he is the proper and only begotten Son of God. 3. 
Christ is the Son of the Father, who is God, and therein the 
Son of God, without any danger of being the Son of himself, 
that is, of God as he is the Son. This is a begging the thing 
in question, without offering any plea for what theypre- 
tend to, but their own unbelief and carnal apprehensions of 
the things of God. 4. Our catechists have exceedingly 
forgotten themselves and their masters, in affirming, that 
Christ is called the proper and only begotten Son of God, 
because he is most dear to God of all his sons ; themselves 
and their master having, as was shewed at large before, given 
us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation, 
which we have discussed and disproved elsewhere. 5. If 
Christ be the only begotten Son of God, only on this ac- 
count, 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 contradistinc- 
tion to all others, the adopted sons of God, as was made 


manifest. Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abra- 
ham, not absolutely, but in reference to the promise ; he 
was his only begotten son to whom the promise did belong; 
*he that received the promise offered up his only begotten 
son.' Solomon is not said to be the only begotten of his 
mother, Prov. iv. 3. but only before the face, or in the sight 
of his mother ; eminently expressing his preferment as to 
her affections. How little is this to what the gospel says of 
Jesus Christ ? 

I have only to say concerning Grotius in this matter, 
that from none of these expressions in any place, doth he 
take the least notice of what is necessarily concluded con- 
cerning the Deity of Christ, wherein he might use his own 
liberty. The opening, interpretation, and improvement of 
these testimonies to the end aimed at, I desire the reader 
to see, c. 7. They proceed. 

'Q. What^ Scripture calls Christ the first born of every 
creature ? 

'A. Col. i. 15. 

' Q. What dost thou answer thereunto ? 

* A. Ts^eithercan it hence be gathered that Christ hath a di- 
vine nature ; for seeing Christ is the first born of every crea- 
ture, it is necessary that he be one of the number of the 
creatures. For that is the force of the word firstborn in 
the Scriptures, that it is of necessity, that he who is first 
born, be one of the number of them of whom he is the first 
born ; Col. i. 18. Rom. viii. 29. Apo