The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined

CHAP. XII.

All-ruling and disposing Providence assigned unto Christ, and his Eternal God-head thence farther confirmed, with other Testimonies thereof.

THat Christ is that God who made all things, hath been proved by the undeniable Testimonies, in the last Chapter insisted on. That as the great and wise Creator of all things, he doth also govern, rule, and dispose of the things by him created, is another evidence of his Eternal power and God-head; some Testimonies whereof, in that order of proceedure, which by our Catechists is allotted unto us, come now to be considered.

The first they propose is taken from Heb. 1. 3. where the words spoken of Christ are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upholding all things by the word of his power.

He who upholdeth all things by the word of his power, is God; This is ascribed to God as his property: and by none, but by him who is God by nature, can it be performed. Now this is said expressly of Jesus Christ: who being the brightness of his Fathers Glory, and express Image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himself purged our sins, &c.

This place, or the Testimony therein given to the divine Power of Jesus Christ, they seek thus to clude.

This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, if any things may be said so to be. For 1. why is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, the things of the Kingdom of Christ? It is the express description of the person of Christ, as the brightness of his Fathers Glory, and the express Image of his person, that the Apostle is treating of, and not at all of his Kingdom as Mediator. 2. It expressly answers the worlds that he is said to make, v. 2. which are not the things of the Kingdom of Christ; nor do our Catechists plead them directly so to be. This term all things, is never put absolutely, for all the things of the Kingdom of Christ. 3. The subject matter here treated of by the Apostle, is the Person of Jesus Christ, and the eminency thereof. The medium whereby he proves it to be so excellent, is his Almighty power in creating and sustaining of all things. Nor is there any subject matter intimated, that should restrain these words to the things of the Kingdom of Christ. 4. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , neither in its native signification, nor in the use of it in the Scripture, gives any countenance to the Interpretation of it, by governing or administering; nor can our Catechists give any one instance of that signification there. It is properly to bear, to carry, to sustain, to uphold. Out of nothing Christ, made all things, and preserves them by his power from returning into nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sense they have from that expression, by the word of his power, I know not. By the word of his power, is by his powerful word. And that that Word or command, is sometime taken for the effectual strength and efficacy of God's Dominion, put forth for the accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not much proving. Grotius would have the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to refer to the power of the Father: Christ upholdeth all things by the Word of his Fathers Power; without Reason or proof; nor will the Grammatical Account bear that rendition of the Relative mentioned.

About that which they urge out of Jude 15. I shall not contend. The Testimony from thence relies on the Authority of the vulgar latin translation; which, as to me, may plead for itself.

Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. 10. shall I insist on anything, but only the 9. verse, the words whereof are: Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of Serpents. The design of the Apostle is known. From the example of God's dealing with the Children of Israel in the Wilderness upon their sin and provocations, there being a parity of state and condition between them and Christians, as to their spiritual participation of Jesus Christ, ( v. 2, 3, 4.) he dehorts Believers from the ways & sins, whereby God was provoked against them. Particularly in this verse, he insists on the tempting of Christ, for which the Lord sent fiery Serpents among them, by which they were destroyed: Num. 21. 6. He whom the people tempted in the wilderness, & for which they were destroyed by Serpents, was the Lord Jehovah: Now this doth the Apostle apply to Christ; He therefore is the Lord Jehovah. But they say

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 Magistrate, as some of them were? Christ is the name of one singular individual Person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being proper only to him. Magistrate is a term of office, as it was to him that went before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him.

2. They need not to have puzzled their Catechumens with their 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 Apostles Argument been of any force, unless Christ had been God, equal to him, who was so tempted.

3. It is false, that the Israelites tempted Moses, or Aaron, or that it can be said they tempted them: it is God they are everywhere said to tempt, Psal. 78. 18, 24. Psal. 106. 14. Heb. 3. 9. It is said indeed, that they murmured against Moses, that they provoked him, that they chode with him; but to tempt him, which is to require a sign, and manifestation of his Divine Power, that they did not, nor could be said to do, Numb. 21. 3.

Grotius tries his last shift in this place, and tells us, from I know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, let us not tempt Christ, but let us not tempt God. Error commissus ex notis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That neither the Syriac, nor the Vulgar Latin translations, nor any copy, that either Stephanus, in his edition of the New Testament, or in his various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmus his, who would have been ready enough to have laid hold of the Advantage, should in the least give occasion of any such conjecture of an Alteration, doth wholly take off with me all the Authority, either of the manuscript, or of him that affirms it from thence.

As they please to proceed, the next place to be considered is, John 12. 41. these things said Isaiah, when he saw his Glory, and spake of him.

The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the Apostle, manifest, that it is the vision mentioned Isa. 6. that the Apostle relates unto: whence we thus argue: He whose Glory Isaiah saw, Chap. 6. was the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts v. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, v. 5. But this was Jesus Christ, whose Glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of Joh. 12. 41. What say our Catechists.

It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, nor what to stick to, in their interpretation of this place. This makes them heap up so many several suggestions, contradictory one to another, crying, that it may he thus, or it may be thus. But 1. That these words cannot be referred to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to Christ, is evident, because there is no occasion of mentioning him in this place, but an account is given of what was spoken v. 37. but though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him: to which answers this verse, when he saw HIS Glory, and spake of HIM. The other words of blinding and hardening, are evidently alleged, to give an account of the Reason of the Jews obstinacy in their unbelief, not relating immediately to the person spoken of. The subject matter treated of, is Christ. The occasion of mentioning this Testimony, is Christ. Of him here are the words spoken. 2. The Glory Isaiah saw was present; all the circumstances of the vision evince no less. He tells you the time, place, and circumstances of it, when he saw the Seraphims, when he heard their voice; when the door moved at the voice of him that cried, when the house was filled with Glory, and when he himself was so terrified, that he cried out, woe is me, for I am undone. If anything in the world be certain, it is certain, that he saw that Glory present. 3. He did not only see his Glory, but he saw him: or he so saw his Glory, as that he saw him, so as he may be seen; So the Prophet says expressly: I have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts: And what the Prophet says of seeing the Lord of Hosts, the Apostle expresses by seeing his Glory, because he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious representation of his presence. 4. He did indeed see the Glory of the Lord Christ, in seeing the Glory of the one God, He being the true God of Israel, and on no other account is his Glory seen, then by seeing the Glory of the one true God. 5. The Prophet doth not say, that the Earth was full of the glory of God, but it is the Proclamation, that the Seraphims made one to another, concerning that God, whose presence was then there manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared to the People of the Jews, there was no great manifestation of Glory. The Earth was always full of the Glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relation to the Glory of the Gospel, yet withal they prove, that He was then present, whose Glory in the Gospel was afterwards to fill the Earth.

Grotius hath not ought to add, to what was before insisted on by his Friends. A • epresentation he would have this be of God's dealing in the Gospel: (when it is, plainly, his proceeding in the rejection of the Jews for their incredulity) and tells you, dicitur Isaiah vidisse Gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus Diem ejus: Isaiah saw his Glory, as Abraham saw his day. Well aimed however: Abraham saw his day by Faith, Isaiah: saw his Glory in a vision; Abraham saw his day as Future, and rejoiced: Isaiah so saw his Glory, as God Present, that he trembled: Abraham saw the day of Christ, all the days of his believing, Isaiah saw his Glory only in the year that King Uzziah died: Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise of his coming, Isaiah saw his Glory with the circumstances before mentioned. Even such let all undertakings appear to be, that are against the Eternal Deity of Jesus Christ.

In his Annotations on the 6. of Isaiah, where the vision insisted on is expressed, He takes no notice at all of Jesus Christ, or the second Person of the Trinity. Nor (which is very strange) doth he so much as once intimate, that what is here spoken, is applied by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the Gospel; Nor once names the Chapter where it is done. With what mind, and intention the business is thus carried, God knows, I know not.

CHAP. XIII.

Of the Incarnation of Christ, and his preexistence thereunto.

THe Testimonies of Scripture, which affirm Christ to have been Incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably proves his Preexistence, in another nature, to his so doing, they labor in their next attempt to corrupt, and so to evade the force, and efficacy, which from them appeareth so destructive to their cause; and herein they thus proceed.

From what Testimonies of Scripture do they endeavor to demonstrate, that Christ was (as they speak ) incarnate.

From these, Joh. 1. 14. Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Heb. 2. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 2, 3. Heb. 10. 11.

Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the handling of the beginning of that Chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it from all their exceptions; so that we may proceed immediately to the second.

What doest thou answer to the second?

But from those words, which the Apostle afterwards adds, he was found in fashion as a man, doth it not appear, that He was as they say Incarnate?

How doest thou understand this place?

Thus they.

Now because it is most certain, and evident to everyone, that ever considered this text, that according to their old trade and craft, they have mangled it, and taken it in pieces, at least cut off the head and legs of this Witness, we must seek out the other parts of it, and lay it together, before we may proceed to remove this heap out of our way. Our Argument from this place, is not solely from hence, that he is said to be in the form of God; but also that he was so in the form of God, as to be equal to him, as is here expressed; nor merely that he took upon him the form of a servant, but that he took it upon him, when He was made in the likeness of man, or in the likeness of sinful flesh, as the Apostle expresses it Ro. 8. 3. Now these things our Catechists thought good to take no notice of, in this place, nor of one of them anymore in any other. But seeing the very head of our Argument lies in this, that in the form of God, he is said to be equal to God, and that expression is in another place taken notice of by them, I must needs gather it into its own contexture before I do proceed. Thus then they

How doest thou Answer to those places, where Christ is said to be equal to God, Joh. 5. 18. Phil. 2. 6.

This being the whole of what they tender, to extricate themselves from the Chaines, which this witness casts upon them, now lying before us, I shall propose our Argument from the words, and proceed to the vindication of it in order.

The intendment and design of the Apostle in this place, being evidently to exhort Believers to selfedenyall, mutual love, and condescension one to another, he proposes to them the example of Jesus Christ: and lets them know, that he being in the form of God, and equal to God therein; ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , existing in that form, having both the nature, and Glory of God,) did yet in his love to us, make himself of no reputation, or lay aside, and eclipse his Glory, in this, that he took upon him the form of a servant, being made man, that in that form, and nature, He might be obedient unto death, for us, and in our behalf: Hence we thus plead.

He that was in the form of God, and equal 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 Jesus Christ: Ergo.

1. To this they say, (that we may consider that first, which is first in the Text) that his being equal to God, doth not prove him to be God by nature: but the contrary, &c. as above. But 1. if none is, nor can, by the Testimony of God himself, be like God, or equal to him, who is not God by nature; then he that is equal to him, is so: but, to whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy one, lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, Isa. 40. 25. none, that hath not created all things of nothing, can be equal to him: And to whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like, Chap. 46. 5. (2.) Between that which is finite and that which is infinite, that which is eternal, and that which is temporal, the Creature and the Creator, God by nature, and him, who by nature is not God, It is utterly impossible there should be any Equality. 3. God having so often avouched his infinite distance from all Creatures, his refusal to give his glory to any of them, his inequality with them all, it must have been the highest Robbery, that ever any could be guilty of, for Christ to make himself equal to God, if he were not God. 4. The Apostles Argument arises from hence, that he was equal to God, before he took on him the form of a Servant, which was before his working of those mighty works, wherein these Gentlemen assert him to be equal to God.

2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousnesse of their begging the thing in question, when they would argue, that because He was equal to God, He was not God: He was the same God in nature, and Essence, and therein equal to him, to whom he was in subordination, as the Son; and in Office a Servant, as undertaking the work of Mediation.

3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being in the form of God; antecedently to the taking in hand of that form, wherein He wrought the works intimated.

3. To work great works, by the power of God, argues no Equality with him; or else all the Prophets, and Apostles, that wrought miracles, were also equal to God. The infinite inequality of nature between the Creator and the most Glorious Creature, will not allow, that it be said on any account to be equal to him. Nor is it said, that Christ was equal to God, in respect of the works He did, but Absolutely, He thought it no Robbery to be equal to God. And so is their last plea to the first part of our Argument accounted for: come we to what they begin withal.

1. We contend not (as hath been often said) about words and expressions. That the Divine nature assumed the Human, we thus far abide by, That the Word, the Son of God, took to himself, into Personal subsistence with him, an human nature, whence they are both one Person, one Christ: and this is here punctually affirmed, viz. He that was, and is God, took upon him the form of a man. 2. The Apostle doth not say, that Christ made that form of no Reputation, or Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that form, but Christ being in that form 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made himself of no reputation; not by any real change of his Divine nature, but taking to himself the Human, wherein he was of no reputation. It being he that was so, in the nature & by the dispensation, wherein he was so; and it being not possible, that the Divine nature of it self, in it self, 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 Catechists had no mind to take notice.

2. The form of a servant, is that which he took, when he was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as Adam begat a Son in his own likeness. Now this was not only in condition a servant, but in reality, a man. 2. The form of a servant was that wherein he underwent death, the death of the Cross; but he died as a man, and not only in the appearance of a Servant. 3. The very phrase of expression manifests the human nature of Christ to be denoted hereby: only as the Apostle had not before said directly that he was God, but in the form of God, expressing both his nature, and his Glory, so here he doth not say He was a man, but in the form of a Servant, expressing both his nature and his condition, wherein he was the servant of the Father. Of him it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : He was in the other, but this He took. 4. To be a servant denotes the state or condition of a man: but for one who was in the form of God and equal to him, to be made in the form of a servant, and to be found as a man, and to be in that form put to death, denotes in the first place, a taking of that nature, wherein alone he could be a servant. And this Answers also to other expressions, of the Word being made flesh, and God sending forth his own Son made of a woman. 5. This is manifest from the expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; He was found in fashion as a man: that is, He was truly so; which is exegetical of what was spoken before He took on him the form of a servant.

But they say this is of no importance; For the same is said of Sampson, Judge. 16. 7, 11. and of others Psal. 82. who yet we do not say were incarnate.

These Gentlemen are still like themselves. Of Christ it is said, that he humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a Servant, and was found in likeness as a man: of Sampson, that being stronger then an hundred men, if he were dealt so and so withal, he would become as other men, for so the words expressly are: no stronger then another man; and these places are parallel: much good may these paralells do your Catechumens. And so of those in the Psalm, that though in this world they are high in power for a season, yet they should dy as other men do. Hence, in a way of triumph and merriment, they ask, if these were incarnate, and answer themselves, that surely we will not say so. True, he who being as strong as many becomes by any means to be as one, and they who live in power, but die in weakness, as other men do, are not said to be incarnate: but He who being God, took on him the form of a Servant, and was in this world a very man, may (by our new Masters leave,) be said to be so.

For the sense which they give us of this place, (for they are bold to venture at it) it hath been in part spoken to already. Christ was in the world, as to outward appearance, no way instar Dei, but rather as he says of himself, instar vermis. That he did the works of God, and was worshiped 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 worshiped. 3. Christ was in the form of a Servant from his first coming into the world, & as one of the people; Therefore He was not made so by anything afterwards: his being bound, and beat, and killed, is not his being made a servant; for that by the Apostle is afterwards expressed, when he tells us why, or for what end, not how, or wherein He was made a Servant; viz. He became obedient to death, the death of the Cross.

And this may suffice for the taking out of our way, all that is excepted against this testimony by our Catechists: but because the Text is of great importance, and of it self sufficient to evince the Sacred truth we plead for, some farther observations, for the illustration of it, may be added.

The sense they intend to give us of these words is plainly this: that Christ by doing miracles in the world, appeared to be as God, or as a God: but he laid aside this form of God, and took upon him the form of a servant, when He suffered himself to be taken, bound, & 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 anything in this whole exposition, Answering the mind of the Holy Ghost, is evident as from what was said before; so also 1. Because it is said of Christ, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was in the form of God, before he took the form of a servant, and yet the taking of the form of a servant in this place, doth evidently answer his being made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. his being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom 8. 3. his coming or being sent into the world, Math. 10. 11. 20. 28. Joh. 3. 16, 17. &c. 2. Christ was still in the form of God, as taken essentially, even then, when he was a servant, though as to the dispensation He had submitted to, He emptied himself of the Glory of it, and was not known to be the Lord of Glory, 2 Cor. 8. 3. Even all the while that they say He was in the form of God, He was in the form of a servant, that is, He was really the servant of the Father, and was dealt 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, then when he had not where to lay his head. 4. The state and condition of a Servant consists in this, that he is not sui juris: no more was Christ in the whole course of his Obedience; he did not any private will of his own, but the will of him that sent him. Those who desire to see the vindication of this place to the utmost, in all the particulars of it, may consult the confutation of the interpretation of Erasmus, by Beza, Annot. in Phil, 2. 6, 7. Of Ochinus, and Laelius Socinus, by Zinchius in locum; & de Tribus Elohim, pag. 227. &c. Of Faustus Socinus, by Beckman: exercitat: pag. 168. & Johan. Jun. Examen Respon. Socin. pag. 201, 202. Of Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul. ad Philip. cap. 2. Of Ostorodus, by Jacobus a porta, Fidei Orthodox. Defens. pag. 89. 150. &c. That which I shall farther add, is in reference to Grotius, whose Annotations may be one day considered by some of more Time and leisure for so necessary a work.

Thus then he; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in nostris libris non significat internum & occultum aliquid, sed id quod in oculos incurrit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sanandi morbos omnes, ejiciendi Daemones, excitandi mortuos, mutandi rerum naturas: quae vere Divina sunt, ita ut Moses, qui tam magna non fecit, dictus ob id fuit Deus Pharaonis: vocem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quo dixi sensu habes Mar. 16. 12. Isa: 44. 13. ubi in Hebraeo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Dan. 4. 33. 6. 10. 6. 28. ubi in Chaldeo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Job. 4. 16. ubi in Hebraeo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

An. A Form is either substantial, or accidental: that which is indeed, or that which appears. That it is the substantial form of God, which is here intended, yet with respect to the glorious manifestation of it, (which may be also as the accidental form) hath been formerly declared, and proved. So far it signifies that which is internal and hidden, or not visibly discerned, in as much as the Essence of God is invisible. The proofs of this I shall not now repeat. 2. Christ's power of working miracles was not visible, though the miracles He wrought were visible; insomuch, that it was the great Question between him, and the Jews, by what power He wrought his Miracles; for they still pleaded, that he cast out Devils by Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils. So that if the power of doing the things mentioned, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that form was not visible, and exposed to the sight of men, for it was aliquid internum & occultum, a thing internal and hidden. 3. If to be in the form of God, and thereupon to be equal to him, be to have power, or Authority, of healing diseases, casting out 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 wought 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. 7. 1. I have made thee a God to Pharaoh; which is expounded c. 4. 16. where God tells him, that Aaron should be to him instead of a mouth, & he should be to him instead of God. That is, Aaron should speak & deliver to Pharaoh, & the people, what God revealed to Moses, Moses revealing it to Aaron; Aaron receiving his message from Moses, as other Prophets did from God, whence he is said to be to him instead of God: And this is given as the reason of that expression, c. 7. 1. of his being a God to Pharaoh; even as our Savior speaks, because the word of God came by him; because he should reveal the will of God to him. Thou shalt be a God to Praraoh, and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet; Thou shalt speak all that I command thee, and Aaron thy Brother shall speak to Pharaoh. He is not upon the account of his working miracles called God, or said to be in the form of God, or to be made equal to God; but revealing the will of God to Aaron, who spake it to Pharaoh, he is said to be a God to Pharaoh, or in the stead of God, as to that business. 5. It is true, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or form, is used Mar. 16. 12. for the outward appearance; and it is as true the verb of the same signification is used for the internal and invisible form of a thing, Gal. 4. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , until Christ be formed in you. So that the very first observation of our Annotatour, that in our books, that is, the Scriptures, (for in other Authors it is acknowledged, that this word signifies the internal form of a thing) this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not anything internal or hidden, is true only of that one place, Mar. 16. 12. in this it is otherwise, & the verb of the same signification is evidently otherwise used. And which may be added, other words, that bare the same Ambiguity of signifycation, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Col. 1. 15. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 1. 3. both of the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, save that the latter adds personality. 6. For the words mentioned out of the Old Testament, they are used in businesses quite of another nature, and are restrained in their significations by the matter they speak of. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and is translated imago, by Arias Mon: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gen. 29. 17. 1 Sam: 28. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used ten times in the Bible, and hath various significations, and is variously rendered: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Deut. 4. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 16. so most commonly. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Daniel is splendor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and what all this is to our purpose in hand, I know not. The form of God, wherein Christ was, is that, wherein He was equal to God: that, which as to the Divine Nature, is the same, as his being in the form of a Servant, wherein He was obedient to death, was to the human. And which is sufficiently destructive of this whole Exposition, Christ was then in the form of a Servant, when this Learned man would have him to be in the form of God, which two are opposed in this place; for he was the servant of the Father in the whole course of the work, which He wrought here below: Isa. 42. 1.

He proceeds on this foundation: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , est locutio Syriaca: in Liturgiâ Syriacâ, Johannes Baptista Christo Baptismum ab ipso expetenti, dieit, non assumam rapinam. Solent qui aliquid bellicâ virtute peperere, id omnibus ostentare, ut Romani in Triumpho sane solebant. Non multum aliter Plutarchus in Timoleon: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sensus est, non venditavit Christus, non jactavit istam potestatem: quia saepe etiam imperavit ne quod fecer at vulgaretur. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hic est adverbium; sic Odyss: O: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dixit Scriptor, 2 Macc. 9. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , est spectari tanquam Deum. The sum of all is; He thought it no Robbery, that is, He boasted not of his power, to be equal to God, so to be looked on as a God.

The words I confess are not without their difficulty: many Interpretations are given of them; and I may say, that of the very many which I have considered, this of all others, as being wrested to countenance a false hypothesis, is the worst. To insist particularly on the opening of the words, is not my present task. That Grotius is besides the sense of them, may be easily manifested; for 1. He brings nothing to enforce this interpretation; That the expression is Syriac, in the idiom of it, he abides not by: giving us an instance of the same phrase of expression out of Plutarch; who knew the propriety of the Greek tongue very well, and of the Syriac not at all. Others also give a parallel expression out of Thucydides, lib. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. I grant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be used adverbially; and be rendered aequaliter: but now the words are to be interpreted pro subjecta materia. He who was in the form of God, counted it no Robbery; (that is, did not esteem it to be any wrong, on that account of his being in the form of God,) to be equal to his Father, did yet so submit himself, as is described. This being equal to God, is spoken of Christ accidentally to his taking on him the form of a Servant, which He did in his Incarnation, and must relate to his being in the form of God; and if thereunto it be added, that the intendment reaches to the declaration he made of himself, when he declared himself to be equal to God the Father, and one with him, as to Nature and Essence, it may complete the sense of this place.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : He renders, libenter duxit vitam inopem; referring it to the poverty of Christ, whilst he conversed here in the world. But what ever be intended by this expression, it is not the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Grotius afterwards interprets to the same purpose with what he says here of these words. 2. It must be something antecedent to his taking the form of a servant, or rather something that he did, or became, exceptively to what he was before, in becoming a servant. He was in the form of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but He humbled, or bowed down himself, in taking the form of a servant: that is, He condescended thereunto, in his great love that He bare to us, The demonstration whereof the Apostle insists eepressly upon; and what greater demonstration of love, or condescension upon the account of love could possibly be given, then for him who was God, equal to his Father, in the same Deity, to lay aside the manifestation of his glory, & to take upon him our nature, therein to be a servant unto death.

He proceeds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , similis factus servi • , qui nihil proprium possident: He was made like unto servants, who possess nothing of their own. Our Catechists, with their great Master, refer this his being like servants, to the usage He submitted to at his death; this man to his poverty in his life. And to this sense of these words is that place of Math. 8. 20. better accommodated, then to the clause foregoing, for whose Exposition it is produced by our Annotatour.

But 1. It is most certain, that the exposition of Grotius will not, being laid together, be at any tolerable agreement with it self, if we allow any order of process to be in these words of the Apostle: His aim is acknowledged to be an Exhortation to Brotherly love, and mutual condescension in the same, from the Example of Jesus Christ; for he tells you, that He being in the form of God, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant. Now if this be not the graduation of the Apostle, that in being in the form of God, free from anything of that which follows, He then debased and humbled himself, & took upon him the form of a servant, there is not any form of plea left from this example, here proposed, to the end aimed at. But now says Grotius, His being in the form of God, was his working of miracles; his debasing himself; his being poor; his taking the form of a servant; possessing nothing of his own: But it is evident, that there was a coincidence of time as to these things, and so no gradation in the words at all: For then whe • Christ wrought miracles, He was so poor, and possessed nothing of his own; that there was no condescension nor relinquishment of one condition for another discernible therein. 2. The form of a servant that Christ took was that, wherein he was like man; as it is expounded in the words next following; he was made in the likeness of man; and what that is the same Apostle informs us, Heb. 2. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wherefore heought inall things to be made like his brethren: that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was made in the likeness of man: or as it is expressed Rom. 8. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the likeness of flesh; which also is expounded Gal. 4. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made of a woman; which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of that, Joh. 1. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word was made flesh. 3. The employment of Christ in that likeness of man, is confestly expressed in these words, Not his condition, that he had nothing, but his employment, that he was the servant of the Father, according as it was foretold that he should be, Isa. 42. 1, 19. and which He everywhere professed himself to be. He goes on.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : cum similis esset hominibus, illis nempe primis; id est, pecca • i expers; 2 Cor. 5. 21. whereas He was like men, namely those first, that is, without sin.

That Christ was without sin, that in his being made like to us, there is an exception as to sin, is readily granted. He was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 7. 26. But 1. That Christ is ever said to be made like Adam, on that account, or is compared with him therein, cannot be proved. He was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but that he was made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not said. 2. This expression was sufficiently cleared by the particular places formerly urged. It is not of his sinlesnesse in that condition, of which the Apostle hath no occasion here to speak, but of his Love in taking on him that condition, in being sent in the 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 innocence to the first, that the Apostle speaks of: a likeness, wherein there is a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as to the kind, a distinction in number: as Adam begat a Son in his own likeness, Gen. 5. 1.

All that follows in the Learned Annotater, is only an endeavor 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. 3. 16. And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, and revealed unto the Gentiles, believed on in the World, received up into Glory.

If it be here evinced, that by God is meant Christ, it being spoken absolutely, and in the place of the subject in the proposition, this business is at a perfect close, and our Adversaries following attempt, to ward themselves from the following blows of the sword of the Word, which cut them in pieces, is to no purpose, seeing their deaths wound lies evident in the efficacy of this place. Now here not only the common Apprehension of all Professors of the name of Christ in General, but also the common sense of mankind, to be tried in all that will but read the Books of the New Testament, might righteously be appealed unto; but because these are things of no importance with them, with whom we have to do, we must insist on other considerations.

1. Then, that by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God, some person is intended, is evident from hence, that the word is never used but to express some person; nor can in any place of the Scriptures be wrested possibly to denote anything, but some person, to whom that name doth belong, or is ascribed, truly, or falsely. And if this be not certain, and to be granted, there is nothing so, nor do we know anything in the World, or the intendment of any one word in the Book of God. Nor is there any Reason pretended, why it should have any other Acceptation, but only an impotent begging of the thing in Question. It is not so here, though it be so everywhere else, because it agrees not with our hypothesis; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ! 2. That Christ, who is the second Person, the Son of God, is here intended, and none else; is evident from hence, that what ever is here spoken of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of this God here, was true, and fulfilled in him, as to the matter, and the same expressions for the most of the particulars, as to their substance, are used concerning him, and no other. Neither are they possible to be accommodated to any Person but him. Let us a little accommodate the words to him. 1. He who as God, was in the beginning with God, in his own nature invisible, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was manifested in the flesh, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he was made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. and made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom: 8. 3. in the likeness of flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Rom: 1. 3. so made visible and conspicuous, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) dwelling amongst men, who also saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God, v. 14. Being thus manifest in the flesh, having taken our nature on him, He was reviled, persecuted, condemned, slain by the Jews as a Malefactor, a seditious Person, an Impostor; But 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was justified in the spirit, from all their false accusations and imputations: He was justified by his Eternal spirit, when he was raised from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power, thereby, Rom: 1. 4. for though He was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4. so He also sent out his spirit to convince the World of sin, because they believed not in him, and of Righteousness, because he went to his Father; Joh. 16. 9, 10. which he also did, justifying himself thereby, to the conviction and conversion of many thousands, who before condemned him, or consented to his condemnation, upon the account formerly mentioned, Act. 2 37. And this is He, who 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was seen of Angels, and so hath his witnesses in Heaven and Earth. For when he came first into the World, all the Angels receiving charge to worship him, by him who said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 1. 6. one came down at his Nativity to declare it, to whom He was seen, and instantly a multitude of the Heavenly Host saw him, Luk. 2. 9, 13. and afterwards went away into heaven; v. 15. In the beginning also of his Ministry, Angels were sent to him in the Wilderness to minister to him, Math. 4. 11. and when he was going to his death in the garden, an Angel was sent to comfort him, Luk. 22. 43. And he then knew, that He could at a words speaking, have more then twelve Legions of Angels to his assistance, Mat. 26. 53. And when he rose again, the Angels saw him again, and served him therein, Math. 28. 2. And as He shall come again with his holy Angels to judgment, Math. 25. 31. 2 Thess. 1. 7. so no doubt but in his Assention the Angels accompanied him: yea that they did so, is evident from Psal. 68. 17, 18. So that there was no eminent concernment of him, wherein it is not expressly affirmed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : at his Birth, Entrance on his Ministry, Death, Resurrection, Assention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was Preached unto the Gentiles, or among the people, or Gentiles: which besides the following Accomplishment of it to the full, in the Preaching the Gospel concerning him throughout the World, so it had a signal entrance in that Declaration of him to devout men dwelling at Jerusalem, out of every Nation under Heaven, Act. 7. 5. And hereupon; 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was believed on in the World; He that had been rejected as a vile person, condemned and slain, being thus justified in spirit, and Preached, was believed on, many thousands being daily converted to the Faith of him, to believe that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, whom before they received not, John. 1. 10, 11. And for his own part, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was taken up into Glory; the story whereof we have, Act. 1. 9, 10, 11. when He had spoken to his Disciples, He was taken up, and a cloud received him. Of which Luke says briefly, as Paul here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 1. 2. as Mark also doth, Chap. 16. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was taken up into Heaven, or to Glory; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He was taken up ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 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. What doest thou Answer to 1 Tim. 3. 16?

What then is the sense of this Testimony?

Thus they; merely rather then say nothing, or yield to the truth. Briefly to remove what they offer in way of Exception or Assertion.

1. Though the word God, be not in the vulgar latin, yet the unanimous constant consent of all the Original Copies, confessed to be so, both by Beza, and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince, that the loss of that word in that translation, is not of any import to weaken the sense of the place. Of other ancient copies whereof they boast, they cannot instance one; in the vulgar also, it is evident, that by the Mystery, Christ is understood.

2. That what is here spoken MAY be referred to the Father, is a very sorry shift, against the evidence of all those considerations, which show, that it OUGHT to be referred to the Son.

3. It may not, it canno • with any tolerable sense, be referred to the Father. It is not said, that in Christ and the Apostles he appeared, and was seen of Angels, &c. that is spoken of; but that God was manifested in the flesh, &c. nor is anything, that is here spoken of God, anywhere ascribed, no not once in the Scripture, to the Father. How was he manifested in the flesh, how was he justified in the Spirit, how was He taken up into glory?

4. Though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may be rendered gloriously, or with glory, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may not, receptus est, but rather assumptus est; and is applied to the Assension of Christ in other places, as hath been shown.

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 their own Hypothesis, exclusively to the Person of God. This is intolerable boldness, and argues something of searednesse. 2. The will of God for the salvation of men, is the Gospel: how are these things appliable to that? How was the Gospel justified in the spirit; how was it received into Gory, how was it seen of the Angels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? In what place is anything of all this spoken of the Gospel? Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In sum, the Will of God is nowhere said to be 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 anything 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, or evincing what he embraces, to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, to any one that is otherwise minded. What he says, because he says it, deserves to be considered.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : suspectam nobishanc lectionem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, & Ambrosius, qui omnes legunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Addi • Hinemaerus Opusculo 55. illud. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hic positum a Nestorianis. But this suspicion might well have been removed from this learned man, by the universal consent of all original Copies, wherein as it seems his own manuscript, that sometimes helps him at a need, doth not differ 2: One corruption in one translation makes many. 3. The Syriac reads the word God, and so Tremellius hath rendered it. Ambrose and Hin • marus followed the latin translation. And there is a thousand times more probability, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wa • filch'd out by the Arians, then that it was foisted in by the Nestorians. But if the Agreement of all Original Copies may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing certain left us. But saith he; sensum bonum facit illud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Evangelium illud caeleste innotuit primum non per Angelos, sed per homines moritales, & quantum extorna species ferebat infirmos, Christum, & Apostolos ejus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 been convenit mysterio, id est, rei latenti: Col. 1. 26, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hominem significat mortalem: 2 Cor: 2. 16. 1 John 4. 2.

1. Our Annotatour having only a suspicion that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not in the text, ought on all accounts to have interpreted the words according to the reading, whereof he had the better 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 frō being mentioned in them, which by joining in with his suspicion he thought himself able to do. 2. He s • not able to give us any one instance in the Scripture, of the like expression to this, of manifest in the flesh, being referred to the Gospel; when referred to Christ, nothing is more frequent; John 1. 14. John 6. 53. Acts, 2. 31. Rom. 1. 3. Rom: 8. 3. Rom: 9. 5, Ephes. 2. 14, 15. Col: 1. 22. Heb: 5. 7. Heb. 10. 19, 20. 1 Pet: 3. 18. 1 Pet: 4. 1. 1 John 4. 2. &c. Of the flesh of the Gospel, not one word. 3. There is not the least opposition intimated, between men and Angels, as to the means of preaching the Gospel; nor is this any mystery, that the Gospel was preached by men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well applied to a mystery or hidden thing; but the question is, what the mystery or hidden thing is; we say it was the great matter of the words being made flesh, as it is elsewhere expressed. In the place urged out of the Corinthians, whether it be the 2. or 11. Chapter that is intended, there is nothing to prove, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a mortal man. And this is the entrance of this exposition; Let us proceed.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; per plurima miracula approbata est • a veritas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sunt miracula divina, per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quae est 1 Cor. 11. 4. & alibi. Justifyed in the Spirit; that is, approved by many miracles; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is miracles by a metonymy. Then let everything be as the Learned man will have it. It is in vain to contend. For surely never was expression so wrested. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , simply, is miracles, is false; that to have a thing done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies miracles, is more evidently so; 1 Cor. 2. 4. The Apostle speaks not at all of miracles, but of the efficacy of the Spirit with him in his preaching the word, to convince the world of sin, Righteousness, and Judgment, according to the promise of Christ. The application of this expression to Jesus Christ see above. He adds; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (is here) approbare, ut Math. 11. 19. It is here to approve, and that because it was necessary that the Learned Annotatour should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In what sense the word is taken, and how applied to Christ, with the genuine meaning of the place, see above. See also, Joh. 1. 33, 34. nor is the Gospel anywhere said to be Justifyed in Spirit, nor is this a tolerable exposition, justified in spirit, that is, it was approved by miracles.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nempe cum admiratione, Angeli hoc arcanum per homines morrales didicere; Ephes. 3. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 12. How eminently this suits what is spoken of Jesus Christ, was shown before. It is true, the Angels as with admiration look into the things of the Gospel; but that it is said, the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not proved.

It is true, the Gospel was Preached to the Gentiles; but yet this word is most frequently applied to Christ, Act. 3. 20. Act. 8. 25. Chap. 9. 20. Chap. 19. 13. 1 Cor. 1. 23. 1 Cor. 15. 12. 2 Cor. 1. 19. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 2 Cor. 11. 4. Phil. 1. 15. are Testimonies hereof.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id est, in magna mundi parte, Rom. 1. 8. Col. 1. 6. But then I pray, what difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? The first is, it was approved by miraeles, the other, it was believed; now to approve the truth of the Gospel, taken actively, is to believe it. How much more naturally this is accommodated to Christ, see John. 3. 17, 18. & v. 35, 36. John. 6. 40. Act. 10. 43. and Chap. 16. 31. Rom. 3. 22. Rom. 10. 8, 9. Gal. 2. 16. 1 John. 5. 5. &c.

The last clause is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Gloriose admodum exaltatumest, nempe quia majorem attulit sanctitatem, quàm ulla ante haec dogmata. And this must be the sense of the place, without any color, much less evidence of proof. For the sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this business, see Luk. 9. 51. Mar. 16. 19. Act. 1. 2. v. 11. & v. 22. And in this sense we are indifferent, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto glory, which seems to be most properly intended, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with Glory, as our Adversaries would have it, or gloriously, as Grotius; for it was gloriously, with great Glory, and into that Glory, which He had with his Father before the World was. That the Gospel is Glorious in its Doctrine of Holiness is true, but not at all spoken of in this place.

Heb: 2. 16. is another Testimony insisted on, to prove the incarnation of Christ, and so consequently his subsistence in a divine nature antecedently thereunto. The words are: For verily, he took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. To this they Answer; that

What then is the sense of this place?

The sense of this place is evident; the Objections against it weak. That the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , assumit, not assumpsit, is an Enallage of Tense so usual, as that it can have no force of an Objection. And v. 14. it is twice used in a contrary sense; the time past, being put for the present, as here the present, for that which is past: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : see Joh: 3. 31. Joh: 21. 13. 2. That by the seed of Abraham, is here intended the human nature of the seed of Abraham, appears. 1. From the expression going before of the same import with this; He took part of Flesh and Blood, v: 14. 2. From the opposition here made to Angels, or the Angelical nature; the Holy Ghost showing, that the business of Christ being to save his Church by dying for them, was not therefore to take upon him an Angelical, spiritual substance, or nature, but the nature of man. 3. The same thing is elsewhere in like manner expressed: as where He is said to be made of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom: 1. 3. and to come of the Fathers as concerning the flesh, Rom: 9. 5. 4. Believers are called Abraham's seed sometimes spiritually, in relation to the Faith of Abraham, as Gal: 3. 29. where he is expressly spoken of, as Father of the Faithful, by inheriting the Promises: but take it absolutely, to be of the seed of Abraham, is no more, but to be a man of his posterity, Joh. 8. 37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed, Rom. 9. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children, v. 8. that is, they are the Children of the flesh: so Rom. 11. 1. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I, 2 Cor. 11. 22. 2. For the sense assgined; it is evident, that in these words the Apostle treats not of the help given, but of the way whereby Christ came to help his Church, and the means thereof; his actual helping and relieving of them is mentioned in the next verse. 2. Here is no mention in this verse of Believers being obnoxious to Afflictions and Death, so that these words of theirs may serve for an Exposition of some other place of Scripture, (as they say of 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 an human nature of the seed of Abraham, into Personal union with himself.

Grotius is still at a perfect agreement with our Catechists. Saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apud Platonem, & alios, est solenniter vindicare, his autem & superioribus intelligendum est, vindicare, seu asserere in libertatem manu injectâ.

Of the First, because he gives no instances, we shall need take no farther notice. The Second is denied; both the help afforded, and the means of it by Christ, is mentioned before. The help is Liberty: the means, partaking of Flesh and Blood to die. These words are not expressive of, nor do answer the latter, or the help afforded, but the means for the obtaining of it, as hath been declared. But he adds, the word signifies to lay hold of with the hand, as Mark. 8. 23. &c. Be it granted that it doth • o • to lay hold with the hand, and to take to ones self. This is not to assert into Liberty, but by the help of a Metaphor: and when the word is used Metaphorically, it is to be interpreted pro subjectâ materiâ, according to the subject matter: which here is Christ's taking a nature upon him, that was of Abraham, that was not Angelical. The other expression he is singular in the interpretation of.

He took the seed of Abraham. id est, id agit, ut vos Hebraeos liberet a peccatis & metu mortis; eventus enim nomen saepe datur operae, in id impensae. That is,

But 1. Here I confess, he takes another way from our Catechists; the seed of Abraham is with them, Believers; with him, only Jews; but the tails of their discourse are tied together with a firebrand between them, to devour the harvest of the Church. 2. This taking the seed of Abraham, is opposed to his not taking the seed of 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 endeavored to help the Jews. The whole discourse of the help afforded both before and after this verse, is extended to the whole Church, how comes it here to be restrained to the Jews only. 4. The discourse of the Apostle is about the undertaking of Christ by death, and his being fitted thereunto by partaking of flesh and blood; which is so far from being in any place restrained or accommodated only to the Jews, as that the contrary is everywhere asserted, as is known to all.

1 John 4. 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 susibstence before he so came. It is very probable, that the intendment of the Apostle was to discover the Abomination of them, who denied Christ to be a true man, but assigned him a fantastical body, which yet he so doth, as to express his coming in the flesh in such a manner, as evidences him to have another nature (as was said) besides that which is here Synecdothically called flesh. Our Catechists to this say,

I shall not contend with them about the translation of the words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , seems to be put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but the intendment is the same; for the word came is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, that came, or did come. 2. It is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who did come, that thence any color should be taken for the exposition given by them, of confessing that Christ, or him who is the Christ, the King of the people of God, or confessing him to be the Christ, the King of the people of God; but it is, that confesseth him who cam • in the flesh, that is, as to his whole Person and office, his coming, and what he came for. 3. They cannot give us any example, nor any one Reason, to evince, that that should be the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which here they pretend. The meaning of it hath above been abundantly declared. So that there is no need that we should insist longer on this place. Nor why we should trouble ourselves with Grotius his long discourse on this place. The whole foundation of it is, that to come in the flesh, signifies to come in a low, abject condition; a pretence without proof, without evidence. Flesh may sometimes be taken so; but that to come in the flesh, is to come in such a condition, we have not the least plea pretended.

The last place they mention to this purpose is, Heb. 10. 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. He who had a body prepared for him, when he came into the world, he subsisted in another nature, before that coming of his into the world. To this they say.

What is the sense of this place?

But doubtless, then this whole dream nothing can be more fond or absurd. How many times is it said, that Christ came into this world, where no other world but this can be understood? For this cause saith he, came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth? Joh▪ 18. Was it into Heaven that Christ came to bear witness to the truth? Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1. 15. was it into Heaven? 2. These words, a body hast thou prepared me, are a full expression of what is Synecdochically spoken of in the Psalms, in these words, mine ears hast thou opened, expressing the end also why Christ had a body prepared him, namely, that he might yield obedience to God therein, which he did signally in this world, when he was obedient to death, the death, of the cross. 3. as I have before▪ manifested the groundlessenesse of interpreting the word world, put absolutely, of the world to come, and so taken off all, that here they relate unto, so in that Demonstration, which God assisting I shall give, of Christ's being a Priest, and offering sacrifice in this world, before he entered into Heaven▪ I shall remove what farther here they pretend unto. In the mean time, such expressions as this, that have no light, nor color given them from the Text they pretend to unfold, had need of good strength of Analogy given them from elsewhere, which here is not pretended. When he comes into the world, that is, when He enters Heaven; he says, a body hast thou prepared me, that is, an immortal body thou hast given me, and that by this immortal body they intend indeed nobody, I shall afterward declare.

Grotius turns these words quite another way, not agreeing with our Catechists; yet doing still the same work▪ with them: which because he gives no proof of his exposition, it shall suffice so to have intimated: In sum, v. 4. he tells us, how the blood of Christ takes away sin, viz. because it begets faith in us, and gives right to Christ for the obtaining of all necessary helps for us, in pursuit of his former interpretation of chap. 9. where he wholly excludes the satisfaction of Christ. His coming into the world, is (he says) his showing himself to the world, after he had lead a private life therein for a while; contrary to the perpetual use of that expression in the New Testament; and so the whole design of the place is eluded; the exposition whereof I shall defer to the place of the satisfaction of Christ.

And these are the Texts of Scripture our Catechists thought good to endeavor a delivery of themselves from, as to that Head or Argument of our plea, for his subsistence in a divine nature, antecedently to his being borne of the Virgin, namely, because he is said to be incarnate, or made flesh.

CHAP. XIV.

Sundry other Testimonies, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated.

IN the next place they heap up a great many Testimony • confusedly, containing Scriptural▪ Attributions unto Christ, o • such things as manifest him to be God, which we shall consider in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they are placed of them.

Their first question here is.

In what Scriptures is Christ▪ called God?

What can be proved by these Testimonies?

That in all this Answer our Catechists do nothing but beg • the thing in Question, and fly to their own Hypothesis, not against assertions but Arguments, themselves so far know, as to be forced to Apologize for it in the close. That Christ is not God, because He is not the Person of the Father; that he is not God, because He is man, is the sum of their Answer. And yet these men knew, that we insisted on these Testimonies to prove him God, though He be man, and though He be not the same Person with the Father. 2. They do all along impose upon us their own most false hypothesis; That Christ is God, although He be not God by Nature. Those who are not God by Nature, and yet pretend to be God's, are Idols, and shall be destroyed. And they only are the men, who affirm there are two God's; one who is so by Nature, and another made so, one indeed God, and no man, the other a man▪ and no God: the Lord our God, is one God. 3. In particular, John 1. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above abundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another nature, that he had before He took flesh, and dwelt with men: v. 14. Herein is He said to be with the Father, in respect of his distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the Father, as to his nature and Essence. And this is that which we prove from this Testimony, which will not be warded with a bare denial. The word was with God, and the word was God. God by nature, and with God in his personal distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the 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; & therefore I shall not now farther insist upon it. He whom Thomas in the Confession of his faith, as a Believer, owned for his Lord and God, He is the true God, God by nature; of a made God, a God by Office, to be confessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is affirmed of Ro. 9. 5. The Apostle distinguishes of Christ, as to his flesh▪ and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or human nature, he says, he was of the Fathers; but in the other regard He is God over all blessed forever. And as this is a signal expression of the true God, God over all blessed forever, so there is no occasion of that expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as to the Fl • sh, but to assert something in Christ, which he afterwards affirms to be his everlasting Deity, in regard whereof he is not of the Fathers. He is then of the Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The words are most emphatically expressive of the Eternal Deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the Fathers: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 forever. It is evident, that the Apostle intends to ascribe to Christ here, two most solemn Attributes of God; the most High, and the Blessed one. Nor is this Testimony to be parted with for their begging, or with their importunity. 6. It is our Adversaries who say, there are two God's, as hath been shown, not we; and the prints of wounds are proper to him who is God by nature, though not in that regard, on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have said to oppose the distinction of two natures, in the one Person of Christ, hath already been considered, and manifested to be false and frivolous.

I could wish to these Testimonies they had added one or two more; as that of Isaiah 54. 5. Thy maker is thine Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy one of Israel, the God of the whole Earth shall He be called. That Jesus Christ is the Husband & Spouse of the Church, will not be denied, Eph: 5. 25. Revel: 21. 9. but he who is so, is the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole Earth. And Heb. 3. 4. the Apostle says, that▪ He that made all things is God; that is, his Church; for of that he treats: He that created all things, that is, the Church, as well as all other things, He is God; none could do it but God: but Christ built this house: v. 3. But this is not my present employment.

The Learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the two last places urged by our Catechists. Of his slight in dealing with that of John. 20. 28. I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christ's Resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom: 9. 5. but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling of him God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed Apostle plainly affirming, that He is God • ver all, blessed forever; and therefore forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon a worse, and more desperate evasion, affirming, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ought not to be in the Text: because Erasmus had observed, that Cyprian and Hi • ary, citing this Text, did not name the word: and this he rests upon; although he knew, that all Original copies whatever, constantly without any exception do read it; and that Beza had manifested against Erasmus, that Cyprian lib. ad Judae 2. cap▪ 5. and Hilary ad Psal. • 2. do both cite this place to prove, that Christ is called God, though they do not express the Text to the full. And it is known, how Athanasius used it against the Arians, without any hesitation, as to the corruption of the Text. This way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be pardoned. I am well contented with all, that from what he writes on John 1. 1. (the first place mentioned) do apprehend, that when he wrote his Annotations on that place, he was no opposer of the D • ity of Christ: but I must take leave to say, that for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words, that he doth at all assert the assuming of the human Nature into Personal Subsistence with the Son of God: I speak as to the thing it self, and not to the expressions which he disallowes. But we must proceed with our Catechists.

Where doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with the Father?

Joh. 10. 29, 30, 31. My Father which gave them me, is greater then all; and no man is able to pluck them out of his hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

How dost thou Answer this Testimony?

Of this place I have spoken before: That it is an Unity of Essence that is here intended by our Savior, 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 v. 33. because he being a man, did make himself God. 2. From the exposition He makes himself of his words, v. 36. I am the Son of God: that is it I intended; I am so one with him, as a Son is with the Father, that is▪ one in Nature and Essence. 3. He is so one with him, as that the Father is in him, and He in him, by a divine immanency of Persons. 2. Those words of our Savior, John. 17. 12, 22. do not argue a parity in the union of Believers among themselves, with that of him and his Father, but a similitude; (see Math. 17. 20.) that they may be one in Affection, as his Father and He are in Essence. We are to be holy, as God is Holy. 2. If Onenesse of Will and consent be the ground of this, that the Son and Father are one; then the Angels and God are one, for with their Wills they always do his. 3. Onenesse of Power with God, in any work, argues oneness of Essence. God's Power is Omnipotent, and none can be one with him in Power, but He who is Omnipotent; that is, who is God. And if it be Unity of Power here asserted, it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater then Christ, as is affirmed John. 14. 28. in respect of his • ffice of Mediation, of which there He treats; but they are One, and Equall in respect of Nature. Neither is God in this place said to be greater then all, in respect of Christ, who is said to be one with him, but in reference to all, that may be supposed to attempt the taking of his sheep out of his hands. 5. Christ took, or received his sheep, not simply as God, the Eternal Son of God, but as Mediator; and so his Father was greater then He. This Testimony then abides; He that is One with the Father, is God by Nature: Christ is thus one with the Father: ( One ) is the Unity of Nature; ( are ) their distinction of Persons. I and my Father are one.

Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our Catechists, only he goes one step farther in corrupting the Text. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus: si Patris potestati • ripi non poterunt, nec meae poterunt: nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, & quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me, aut a Patre custodiri: vid: Gen. 41. 25, 27. I suppose he means v. 44. being the words of Pharaoh, delegating Power and Authority immediately under him to Joseph; but, as it is known, p • testas is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Authority, & may belong to Office: but potentia is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , force, virtue, or power, & belongs to Essence. It is not potestas or Authority that Christ speaks of, but strength, might, and Power; which is so great in God, that none can take his sheep out of his hand. Now though unitas potestatis, do not prove Unity of Essence in men, yet unitas potentiae, which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth: yea none can have unitatem Potestatis with God, but he who hath unitatem Essentiae.

What they except in the next place against Christ's being equal with God, from Joh. 5. 18. & Phil. 2. 6. hath been already removed, and the places fully vindicated. They proceed.

But where is it that Christ is called the Son of the Living God, the proper and only beg • tten Son of God?

Mat. 16. 16. Rom. 8. 32. Joh. 3. 16, 18.

But how are these places answered?

I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore shall be very brief in the vindication of them in this place. On what account Christ is, and on what account alone He is called the Son of God, hath been sufficiently demonstrated: and his unity of nature with his Father thence evinced. It is true 1. That Peter calls Christ, who was the Son of man, the Son of the living God. Not in that, or on that account whereon he is the Son of man, but because he is peculiarly in respect of another nature, then that wherein he is the Son of man, the Son of the Living God. And if Peter had intended no more in this Assertion, but only that he was one among the many Sons of God, How doth he answer that Question, but whom say ye that I am? being exceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a Prophet, one come out from God, and favored of him. It is evident, that it is something much more noble and divine that is here affirmed by him, in this solemn confession of him, on whom the Church is built. It is true, Believers are called Children of the living God, Rom. 9. 26. in opposition to the Idols whom they served before their Conversion; neither do we argue from this expression barely, of the Living God, but in conjunction with those other that follow, and in the Emphaticalnesse of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a Rock, which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the proper and only begotten Son of God hath been already abundantly evinced; nor is it disproved by saying, that the proper and only Son of God was given to death; for so he was, and thereby God redeemed his Church with his own blood. He that is the proper and only begotten Son of God, was given to death, though not in that nature, and in respect of that wherein he is the proper and only begotten Son of God. 3. Christ is the Son of the Father, who is God, and therein the Son of God, without any danger of being the Son of himself, that is, of God as he is the Son. This is a begging the thing in question, without offering any plea for what they pretend to, but their own unbelief, and carnal apprehensions of the things of God. 4. Our Catechists have exceedingly forgotten themselves, and their Masters, in affirming, that Christ is called the proper and only begotten Son of God, because he is most dear to God of all his Sons; themselves and their Master having as was shown at large before, given us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation, which we have discussed & disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the only begotten Son of God, only on this account, because he is most dear among all the Sons of God, then He is the Son of God upon the same account with them; that is, by Regeneration and Adoption; which that it is most false hath been shown elsewhere. Christ is the proper, natural, only begotten Son of God, in contradistinction to all others, the Adopted Sons of God, as was wade manifest. Isaac is called the only begotten Son of Abraham, not absolutely, but in reference to the Promise: He was his only begotten Son to whom the Promise did belong: He that received the promise offered up his only begotten Son. Solomon is not said to be the only begotten of his Mother, Prov. 4. 3. but only before the face, or in the sight of his Mother; eminently expressing his preferment a • to her Affections. How little is this to what the Gospel says of Jesus Christ?

I have only to say concerning Grotius in this mater; that from none of th • se Expressions in any place, doth he take the least notice of what is necessarily concluded concerning the Deity of Christ, wherein he might use his own liberty. The opening, interpretation, & improvement of these Testimonies to the end aimed at, I desire the Reader to see C. 7. They proceed.

What Scripture calls Christ the first borne of every Creature?

Col. 1. 15.

What dost thou Answer thereunto?

That by the Creation, in this verse, and the things annumerated to be created in the verses following, is intended the Creation of the world, and all things therein visible, & invisible, was before abundantly evinced, in the consideration of the ensuing verses, & the exceptions of these Catechists wholly removed, from being any hindrance to the embracing of the first obvious sense of the words. All then that is here inferred from a supposition of the new Creation being here intended, (which is a most vain supposition ) falls to the ground of it self: So that I shall not need to take the least farther notice of it. 2. That Christ is so the first borne of the old Creation, as to be a Prince, Heir, and Lord of it, and the things thereof, which is the sense of the word as here used & yet not one▪ of them is evident from the Context: The very next words to these, He is the first borne of every Creature, are, and by him all things were created. He by whom all things, all Creatures were Created, is no Creature; for he else must create himself. And so we are neither Arians, nor Photinians: Though the former have more color of saving themselves from the sword of the word, then the latter, yet they both perish by it. 3. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first borne, in this place is Metaphoricall: and the expression is intended to set out the excellency of Christ above all other things. That that is the design of the Holy Ghost in the place, is confessed. Now whereas the word may import two things concerning him of whom it is spoken; First that he is one of them in reference to whom He is said to be the first borne: Or 2. that he hath Privilege, Preeminence, Rule, and inheritance of them and over them; I ask which of these significations suits the Apostles aim here, to set out the Excellency of Christ, above all Creatures; that which makes him one of them, or that which exalts him above them. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is, begotten before all creatures, or every creature. The Apostle doth not say, Christ was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first of them made, but he was borne or begotten before them all, that is, from eternity. His being begotten, is opposed to the creation of all other things. And though the word, where express mention is made of others, in the same kind, may denote one of them, yet where it is used concerning things so far distant, & which are not compared, but one preferred above the other, it requires no such signification. See Job. 18. 13. Ps. 89. 27. Jer. 31. 9. Grotius is perfectly agreed with our Catechists, and uses their very words in the exposition of this place; but that also hath been considered, and his expositions called to an account formerly.

The next Testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to this question.

What Scriptures affirm, that Christ hath all things that the Father hath?

Joh. 16. 15. Joh. 17. 10.

What sayest thou to these?

Of these texts the consideration will soon be dispatched. Joh. 16. 15. Christ saith; All things that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I he shall take of mine, and show it unto you. Now if all things that the Father hath, are his, then the Divine nature is his, for the Father hath a divine nature. But they say, this All things, is to be expounded according to the subject matter treated of, that is, only what the Holy Ghost was to reveal to the Apostles. Let thē the expression be expounded according to the subject matter. Christ renders a Reason why he said that the Spirit should take of his, even because what he had of the Father, He had also of him; all that the Father hath being his. Now it was the knowledge of all truth, and all things to come, and all things concerning the Kingdom of Christ, that he was thus to show to the Apostles. But look whence the Holy Ghost hath his knowledge, thence he hath his Essence: For those things do not really differ in a divine nature. The Spirit then having his knowledge of the Son, hath also his Essence of the Son, as he hath of the Father. And by this it is most evidently confirmed, that among the all things that the Father hath, which the Son hath, his Divine nature is also; or else that could be no reason why he should say that the Spirit should take of his, and show to them.

2. Joh. 17. 10. A Reason is rendered why those who are Christ's, are also God's, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) were the Fathers, and all the Fathers his. It is not then spoken of the Disciples, but a Reason given why the Disciples are so in the love of God, because of the unity of Essence which is between Father and Son, whence all the Sons things are the Fathers, and all the Fathers are the Sons.

3. Christ's having all things not from himself, but by gift from the Father, may be understood two ways. Either it refers to the nature of Christ, as he is God, or to the Person of Christ, as he is the Son of God. In the first sense it is false; for the nature of Christ being one with that of the Father, hath all things without Concession, gift, or grant made to it, as the nature: but as the Person of the Son, in which regard he receives all things, even his nature from the Father, so it is true: (those words being expounded as above) but this only proves him to be the Son of God, not at all that He is not God.

Grotius on the first place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : etiam praescientia & decreta de rebus futuris, quatenus ecclesiam spectant. Did he truly intend what the first words do import, we should judge ourselves not a little beholding to him. The Foreknowledge of God is not in any, who is not God: nor his decrees: The first is an Eternal property of his nature: The latter are Eternal Acts of his will. If Christ have these, He must have the nature of God; But the last words evidently take away what the first seem to grant, by restraining this participation of Christ, in the foreknowledge & Decrees of God, to things concerning the Church, in which sense Socinus grants the knowledge of Christ to be infinite, namely in respect of the Church. Dispute de Adorat. Christi cū Christiano Francken p. 15. But it being certain, that he whose the Prescience of God, & his purposes are properly, as to any one thing, his they are universally; it is too evident, that he intends these things to belong to Christ, no otherwise, but as God revealeth the things that are to come concerning his Church to him, which respects his Office as Mediator, not his nature, as he is one with God blessed forever. Of the Deity of Christ neither in this, nor the other place, is there the least intimation in that Author.

But what Scripture calleth Christ the Eternal Father?

Isaiah 9. 6.

What sayst thou thereunto?

It were well for our Adversaries if they could thus shift off this Testimony. Let the words be considered, and it will quickly appear, what need they have of other helps, if they intend to escape this Sword, that is furbished against them, and their cause. The words of the verse are: For unto us a Child is borne, unto us a Son is given, and the Goverment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Our Catechists confessing that this is spoken of Christ, and that he is here called the Everlasting Father, (they are more modest then Grotius, whose labor to corrupt this place, is to be bewailed; having ventured on the words, as far as any of the moderne Rabbin's, who yet make it their business to divert this Text from being applied to the Messiah, ) have saved me the labor of proving from the Text and Context, that he only can possibly be intended. This then being taken for granted: this is that which is here affirmed of him, that his name shall be called, or He shall be, & shall be known to be (for both these are contained in this expression) Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He who is the mighty God, & the Everlasting Father, is God by nature; but so is Jesus Christ. The expression here used of the Mighty God, is ascribed to God, Deut. 10. 17. Nehem. 9. 32. Jerem. 32. 18. and is a most eminent name of God; a name discriminating him from all that are not God by nature. And this may be added to the other names of God, that are attributed to Christ: as Adonai, Psal. 110. 1. Elohim, Psal. 46. 5. Heb. 1. 8. Jehovah, Jerem. 23. 6. Chap. 33. 16. Mal. 3. 1. Psal. 83. 18, God, Joh. 1. 1. The true God, 1 Joh. 5. 20. The great God, Tit. 2. 13. (of which places before) and here the Mighty God, the Eternal Father.

2. What say our Catechists to all this; they fix only on that expression, the Eternal Father; and say that we cannot intend the Son here, because we say, he is not the Father; and yet so do these Gentlemen themselves: they say Christ is the Son of God, and no way the same with the Father, and yet they say upon a peculiar account he is here called, the Eternal Father.

3. On what account then soever Christ is called the Eternal Father, yet he is called so; and is Eternal; whether it be, because in nature He is one with the Father, or because of his tender and Fatherly affections to his Church, because he is the Author of Eternal Life, because in him is Life, it is all one as to the Testimony to his Deity in the words produced. He who is the Mighty God, the Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, is God by nature, which was to be confirmed.

So much for them. But our other Friend, must not be forgotten. The place is of great importance. The Testimony in it, evident & clear: & we must not suffer ourselves on any pretence to be deprived of the suport thereof. Thus then he proceeds in the Exposition of this place.

For unto us a Child is borne, id est, nascetur, nam Hebraea praeterita sumuntur pro futuris: i. e. shall be borne &c. of this we shall have use in the very next words.

Unto us a Son is given.] dabitur. Hezekiah patri Achazo multum dissimilis. Sic tamen ut multo excellentius haec ad Messiam pertinere, non Christiani tantum agnoscunt, sed & Chaldaeus hoc loco. i. e. Shall he given: Hezekiah most unlike his Father Ahaz. Yet so that these things belong more excellently to the Messiah, not only as the Christians acknowledge; but the Chaldee in this place.

Here begins the exposition. Hezekiah is intended. So indeed say some of the Rabbins. But 1. This prophesy is evidently a continuance of that which is begun c. 7. & was given at the time of the invasion of Judah by Rezin, and Pekah; which was after Ahaz had reigned some years; as is evident, 2 King. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Now he reigned but 16. years in all; and when Hezekiah came to the Crown in succession to him he was 25. years of age: 2 Kin. 18. so that he must needs be borne before this Prophesy; there is then already an inconsistency in these Annotations; making the Prophet to speak of that which was past as future and to come.

2. It is true, that the Chaldee Paraphrast applies this Prophesy unto the Messiah, whose words are. Dicit propheta Domui David; Quoniam parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis, & suscepit legem super se, ut servaret eam; & vocabitur nomen ejus, a facie admirabilis consilii Deus, vir permanens in aeternum: Christus cujuus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus. He not only refers the whole to Christ, without any intimation of Hezekiah, but says also, that his name shall be, the God of Council.

3. Neither is he alone; but the ancient Rabbins generally are of the same Judgment, as Petrus Galatinus, and Raymundus Martinus abundantly manifest. To repeat what is, or may be collected from them to that purpose, is not much to mine.

4. The present difference between us and the learned Annotatour is, whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no: to what hath been spoken, we have that to add in opposition to him, which we chiefly insist upon, namely, that none of the things ascribed to the person here spoken of, can be attributed to Hezekiah, as expressing somewhat more Divine then can be ascribed to any mere man whatever. Indeed as Grotius wrests the words in his following interpretation, they may be ascribed to any other; for he leaves no name of God, nor any expression of anything Divine, to him that is spoken of.

Among the Rabbins that interpret this place of Hezekiah, one of the chief said he was the Messiah indeed; and that they were to look for no other: This is the judgment of Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud. Hence because Maimonides said somewhere, that the faith of the Messiah to come is the foundation of the Law; It is disputed by Rabbi Joseph Albo, Orat. 1. cap. 1. Whether Hillel were not to be reckoned among the Aposta • es, and such as should have no portion in the World to come: but he resolves the question on Hillel's side, and denies that the faith of the Messiah to come, is the foundation of the Law. Others who apply these words to Hezekiah, say he should have been the Messiah, but that God altered his purpose, upon the account which they assign: this they prove from v. 7. where in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 7. mem clausum is put in the middle of a word. This Grotius takes notice of v. 7. and says, eo stabilitatem significari volunt Hebraei, ut per mem apertum in fine rupturam: perhaps sometimes they do so; but here some of them turn it to another purpose; as they may use it to what purpose they please: the observation being ludicrous. The words of Rabbi Tanchum, in libro Sanhedrim to this purpose are; Dixit Rabbi Tanchum, quomodo omne mem, quod est in medio vocis, apertum est, & istud 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Esa. 9. 7. clausum est? Quaesivit Deus sanctus benedictus facere Hezekiam Messiam, & Senacheribum Gog & Magog. Dixit proprietas judicii coram eo, domine mundi, & quid Davidem, qui dixit faciei tuae tot cantica, & laudes, non fecisti Messiam, Ezechiamvero, cui fecisti omnia signa haec, & non dixit canticum faciei tuae, vis facere Messiam? Propterea clausum fuit statim, &c. Egressa est vox coelestis, secretum meum mihi.

(that is, the right measure of judgment)

And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a Song. And these are good Masters in the Interpretation of Prophesies concerning Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned Annotator about this business: Non incredibile est (says he) quod unus scriba properans commiserat, id alios superstitious imitatos.

The conjectures of some Christians from hence are with me of no more weight then those of the Jews: as that by this mem clausum is signified the birth of Christ of a Virgin; and whereas, in number it signifies 600▪ it denotes the space of time at the End whereof Christ was to be borne; which was so many years from the fourth of Ahaz, wherein this Prophesy as is supposed was given.

I have not insisted on these things, as though they were of any importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, where men are dealing seriously about the things of •• od; but only to show what little cause Grotius had to follow the modern Rabbins in their Exposition of this place; whose conceits upon it are so foolish and ridiculous.

Return we to the Annotations, the first passage he fixes on is; And the Government shall be on his shoulder; saith he, id est, erit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ab ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, ut inregnum natus; confer Ezech. 28. 13. He shall be borne to Purple: From his very cradle he shall bear the Kingly Purple, being borne to the Kingdom.

But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah; his son Menassah was all this as well as He. And how this being in it self a light and trivial thing, common to all other Kings sons with him, should be thus Prophesyed of as an eminent Honor and Glory, none can see any cause. 2. But is this indeed the meaning of these words? Hezekiah when he is a boy shall wear a purple C • at; which the Prophet when he gave forth this Prophesy, perhaps saw him playing in every day. Certainly it is a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to a man's own understanding, in the exposition of the Scripture. That the Goverment, the Principality here mentioned, which is said to be upon the shoulder of him, concerning whom the words are spoken, that is committed to him, as a weighty thing, is the whole Rule & Goverment of the Church of God, committed to the management of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ the Mediator, to the inconceivable benefit and consolation of his People, the Reader may find evinced in all expositors on the place; (unless some one or other of late; Persons of no note, who to appear somebodys have ventured to follow Grotius ) it is not my business to insist on particulars.

His next note is on these words: His name shall be called. In Haebraeo est vocabit. Supple quis{que}. Etiam Chaldaeus vocabitur transtulit. Notum autem Haebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui tales Tituli aut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convenient. I delight not to contend at all, nor shall do it, without great cause. For the sense of these words I am content, that we take up thus much: the Titles following are his names; & they agree to him; that is, He is, or shall be such an one, as answers the description in them given of him. But here our Great Doctors, whom this great man follows are divided. Some of them