The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined

CHAP. XIX.

Of the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, and of the Worship that is ascribed, and due to him.

OF the Nature of the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, his Investiture with it, his Administration of it, with the efficacy of that Power which therein he puts forth, both towards his Elect, and others, M. B. doth not administer any occasion to discourse. It is acknowledged by him, that he was, (or at least is ) a King, by the designation and Appointment of the Father, to whom, as he was Mediator, he was subject: that he abides in his Rule and Dominion as such, and shall do so to the end of the World, and I shall not make any farther enquiry, as to these things, unless farther occasion be administered▪ Upon the account of this Authority, they say, he is God. Now whereas it is certain, that this Authority of his shall cease at the end of the World, 1 Cor. 15. 28. it seems, that he shall then also cease to be God: such a God as they now allow him to be.

By some passages in his Second and Third Questions, he seems to intimate, that Christ was not invested in his Kingdom before his Ascension into Heaven. So Quest. the Second. Is Christ already invested in his Kingdom, and did he after his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, exercise Dominion, and Sovereignty • ver men and Angels? And Quest. third. For what cause, and to what end was Jesus Christ exalted to his Kingdom? To which he Answers from Phil▪ 2. 8, 9, 10. In both places intimating, that Christ was not invested with his Kingly power, until after his Exaltation. (As for the en • s of his Exaltation, these being some mentioned, though not all, no • the chief, I shall not farther insist on them.) But that this, a • it is contrary to the Testimony, that himself gave of his being a King, in a Kingdom, which was not of this World, it being a great part of that Office, whereunto he was of his Father a • oynted; so it is altogether inconsistent with M. B's principles, who maintains, that he was worshiped with Religious worship and Honor, whilst he was upon the Earth; which Honor and Worship (says he) is due to him, and to be performed merely upon the account of that Power and Authority, which is given him of God, as also say all his companions: and certainly his Power and Authority belong to him as King. The making of him a King, and the making of him a God, is with them all one. But that he was a God, whilst he was upon the Earth, they acknowledge from the words of Thomas to him, my Lord and my God.

And the Title of the twelfth chapter of Smalcius his Book, De ve • a Jesu Christi Divinitate, is, De nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus in terris m • rtalis degens habuit . Which in the Chapter it self he seeks to make good by sundry instances: and in the issue labors to prove, that the sole cause of the Attribution of that name to him, is from his Office; but what Office indeed he expreseth not. The name of God they say is a name of Office and Authority: The Authority of Christ on which account he is to be worshipped, is, that which he hath as King. And yet the same Author afterward contends, that Christ was not a King until after his Resurrection and Ascension. For my part I am not solicitous about reconciling him to himself; let them that are so, take pains if they please therein. Some pains I conceive it may cost them; considering, that ihe afterwards affirms expressly, that he was called Lord and God of Thomas, because of his Divine Rule, or Kingdom; which, as I remember, was before his Ascension.

As for his Exaltation at his Ascension, it was not by any investiture in any new Office, but by an Admission to the Execution of that part of his work of Mediatorship which did remain, in a full and glorious manner; the whole concernment of his humiliation being past; In the mean time doubtless he was a King, when the Lord of Glory was crucified.

But that which remains of this Chap. is more fully to be considered.

Question 4. is. How ought men to Honor the Son of God?

From hence to the end of the Chap. M. B. insists on the Religious Worship, and invocation of Jesus Christ: which with all his Companions, he places as the consequent of his Kingly Office, and that Authority, wherewith for the execution and discharge thereof from God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider what is tendered by M. B. to the purpose in hand, and then take liberty a little more largely to handle the whole business of the Worship of Jesus Christ, with the Grounds, Reasons, and Motives thereof.

His Fifth Question to this matter is, How ought men to Honor the Son of God, Christ Jesus.

And it is Answered Joh. 5. 23. Even as they honor the Father.

This then is consented unto on both sides; that Jesus Christ is to be Worshipped, and Honoured with the same Worship, and Honor wherewith the Father is Worshipped and Honoured; that is, with that Worship and Honor, which is Divine and Religious, with that subjection of Soul, and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone. How Socinus himself doubled in this business, and was entangled, shall be afterwards discovered. What use will be made of this, in the issue of this discourse, the Reader may easily conjecture.

His next Question discovering the danger of the non performance of this duty, of yielding Divine Honor and Worship to Christ, strengthens the former Assertion, and therefore I have nothing to except, or add thereunto.

In Question the Sixth M. B. labors to defend▪ the throat of his Cause, against the edge of that Weapon, which is sharpened against it by this concession, That Jesus Christ is to be Worshiped with Divine Worship, as the Father is, by a diversion of it; with a consideration of the grounds of the Assignation of this Worship to Christ. His words are; Ought men to Honor the Son, as they Honor the Father, because he hath the same Essence with the Father, or because he hath the same judiciary power, what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point?

Ans. Joh. 5. 22, 23▪

The sum is: The same Worship is to be given to the Father and the Son, but upon several grounds; To the Father, because He is God by Nature, because of his Divine Essence: to the Son, because of a Delegated judiciary Power committed to him by the Father. For the discovery of the vanity of this Assertion, in the close of our Consideration of this matter, I shall manifest.

1. That there neither is, nor can be, anymore then one formal cause of the Attribution of the same Divine Worship to any; so that to whomsoever it is ascribed, it is upon one and the same individual account, as to the formal, and fundamental cause thereof.

2. That no delegated Power of Judgment is, or can be a sufficient ground, or cause of yielding that Worship and Honor to him, to whom it is delegated, which is proper to God. For the present, to the Text pleaded, ( the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honor the Son, as they honor the Father. ) I say in brief, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not expressive of the formal cause of the honoring, and Adoration of Christ, but of an effectual motive to men to honor him, to whom upon the account of his divine Nature that honor is due. As in the First Commandment, I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage, thou shalt have no other God's but me. That Expression, That brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, is a motive to the Worship of God, but not the formal cause of it: that being due to him, as he is by Nature God, blessed forever, though he had never brought that People out of Egypt: but of this more afterwrd.

Quest. 7. A farther diversion from the matter in hand is attempted by this inquiry. Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he had in him the Divine Nature, personally united to the Human, or because he was the Son of Man: what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point also?

A. He hath given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man, John. 5. 27.

1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision inquired after, wherein there is no such difference at all. Nor do we say, that God gave Christ the judiciary Power, wherewith as Mediator he is invested, because he had in him the Divine Nature personally united to his Human. The Power that Christ hath upon the account of his Divine Nature, is not delegated, but essential to him: nor can M. B. name any, that have so stated the difference as he here proposes it.

2. We say not that Christ had in him the Divine Nature personally united to the Human; but that the Human Nature was Personally united to the Divine. His Personality belonging to him upon the account of his Divine nature, not his Human.

3. We grant, that the judiciary power, that was delegated to Christ, as Mediator, he being appointed of God to judge the World; was given him because he is the Son of Man, or was made Man to be our Mediator; and to accomplish the great work of the Salvation of Man-kind. But that Divine Worship, proper to God the Father, is due, and to be yielded, and ascribed to him on this ground and Reason, because he is the Son of Man, M. B. cannot prove, nor doth attempt it.

The 8, 9, 10. Quest▪ belong not to us: we grant it was, and is, the Will and Command of God, that Jesus Christ the Mediator should be worshiped of Angels and Men; and that he was so Worshiped even in this World; for when he brought his first begotten into the World, he said, let all the Angels of God worship him; and that he is also to be worshipped now, having finished his work, being exalted on the Right hand of God; but that the bottom, foundation, and sole formal cause of the Worship, which God so commands to be yielded to him, is anything but his being God blessed for evermore, or his being the only begotten Son of God, there is not in the places mentioned the least intimation.

The 11, 12. look again the same way with the former, but with the same success. Saith he, When men ascribe Glory and Dominion to Jesus Christ in the Scripture, and withal intimate the ground thereof, is it because they conceive him to be very God, and to have been eternally begotten out of the Divine Essence, or because he gave himself to death: let me hear how they explain themselves?

Ans. Rev. 5. 6.

Q. 12. Are the Angels of the same Opinion with the Saints▪ when they also ascribe Glory and Dominion to him, let me hear how they also explain themselves?

Ans: Rev. 5. 11, 12: Of both these places afterward.

At present 1. Christ as a Lamb, is Christ as Mediator, both God and Man, to whom all Honor and Glory is due.

2. Neither Saints, nor Angels, do give, or intend to give the Reason why Christ is to be worshiped, or what is the formal Reason why Divine worship is ascribed to him, but only what is in their thoughts and considerations a powerful, and effectual motive to Love, Fear, Worship, & to ascribe all glory to him. As David often cries, praise the Lord O my Soul (or assigns glory and Honor to him) because he hath done such or such things; intimating a motive to his Worship, and not the prime foundation and cause, why he is to be Worshiped.

Having spoken thus to the Adoration of Christ, his last Question is about his Invocation, which he proves from sundry places of Scripture, not inquiring into the Reasons of it; so that adding that to the former Concession of the Worship and Honor due to him, I shall close these considerations with this one Syllogism. He who is to be Worshiped by Angels and Men with that Divine worship, which is due to God the Father, & to be prayed unto, called on, believed in, is God by nature, blessed forever: but according to the confession of M ^r B. Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by Angels and Men with that Divine worship, which is due even to God the Father, and to be prayed unto: Therefore is he God by Nature over all, blessed forever. The inference of the major Proposition I shall farther confirm in the ensuing Considerations of the Worship, that is ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scripture.

In the endeavor of Faustus Socinus to set up a new Religion, there was not anything wherein he was more opposed, or wherewith he was more exercised, by the men of the same design with himself, then in this, about the Worship and Invocation of Jesus Christ. He and his Uncle Laelius, urging (amongst others) this Proposition, that Christ was not God, Franciscus David, Budnaeus, Christianus Franken, Paleologus, with others, made the conclusion, that he was not to be worshiped as God, nor called upon. With some of these he had sundry Disputes and conferences, and was miserably intricated by them, being unable to defend his opinion, upon his Hypothesis of the Person of Christ. That Christ is to be worshiped, and Invocated, indeed he proves well and Learnedly, as in many places, so especially in his third Epistle to Mathias Radecius: But coming to knit his Arguments to his other opinion concerning Christ, he was perpetually gravelled, as more especially it befell him in his dispute with Christianus Franken An. 1584. as is evident in what is extant of that Dispute, written by Socinus himself. Of the chief argument insisted on by Franken, I shall speak afterwards: see Dispute, cum Franken, p. 24, 25, 28, 35, &c. Against Franciscus David, he wrote a peculiar Tract; & to him an Epistle, to prove that the words of Thomas, my Lord and my God, were spoken of Christ, and therefore he was to be Worshiped; ( Epist. pag. 186.) wherein he positively affirms, that there was no other reading of the words (as David vainly pretended) but what is in common use, because Erasmus made mention of no such thing, who would not have omitted it, could he have made any discovery thereof, being justly supposed to be no good friend to the Trinity. That men may know what to judge of some of his Annotations, as well as those of Grotius, who walks in the same paths, is this remarked. Wherefore He and his Associates rejected this Franciscus David, afterward as a detestable Heretic, and utterly deserted him when he was cast into Prison by the Prince of Transylvania, where he died miserably raving and crying out, that the Devils expected, and waited for his company in his journey, which he had to go. (Florim: Raem. l. 4. c. 12.) the account whereof Smalcius also gives us, in his relation of Franzius, Theses de Hypocrite. dispute. 9. p. 298.

After these stirs, and disputations, it grew the common tenent of Socinus, and his followers (see his Epistle to Enjedinus ) that those who denied that Christ was to be worshiped, and invocated, were not to be accounted Christians: (which how well it agrees with other of his assertions shall instantly be seen.) So Socinus himself leads the way: Respon ad Nemojevium Ep. 1. who is followed by Volkelius. Unless (saith he) we dare to call on the name of Christ we should not be worthy of the name of Christians. And he is attended by the Racovian Catechism, de Praecept, Christi cap. 1. whose Author affirms plainly, that he esteemed them not Christians who worshiped him not; and accounted that indeed they had not Christ, however in word they durst not deny him.

And of the rest, the same is the Judgment: but yet with what consistency with what they also affirm concerning this Invocation of Christ, we shall now briefly consider.

Socinus in his third Epistle to Mathias Radecius, whom he everywhere speaks honourably of, and calls him excellent man, Friend, Brother, and much to be observed Lord (because he was a great man) who yet denied, and opposed this invocation of Christ, lays this down in the entrance of his Discourse, That there is nothing of greater moment in Christian Religion, then the demonstration of this, that invocation, and Adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ, although he be a created thing. And in the following words he gives you the Reason of the importance of the proof of this Assertion: namely, because the Trinitarians main strength and Argument lies in this; that Adoration and Invocation are due to Christ, which are proper only to the high God. Which makes me bold on the other side to affirm, that there is nothing in Christian Religion, more clear, nor more needful to be confirmed, then this, that divine worship neither is, can, nor ought by the will of God, to be ascribed to any who by nature is not God, to any that is a mere creature, of what dignity, power, and authority soever. But yet now when this zealous▪ Champion for the invocation of Christ comes to prove his Assertion, being utterly destitute of the use of that which is the sure bottom and foundation thereof, he dares go no farther but only says that we MAY call upon Christ if we will, but for any precept making it necessary so to do, that he says there is none.

And therefore he distinguisheth between the Adoration of Christ, and his Invocation. For the first, he affirms, that it is commanded, or at least that things are so ordered, that we ought to adore him, but of the latter, says he, there is no precept, only we may do so if we will. The same he had before affirmed in his answer to Franciscus David. Yea in the same discourse he affirms, that if we have so much faith, as that we can go with confidence to God without him, we need not invocate Christ. We may (saith he) invocate Christ, but we are not bound so to do. Whence Niemojevius falls upon him, & tells him, that he had utterly spoiled their cause by that concession. To deliver himself frō which charge, how pitifully he intricates himself, may be seen in his answer to that Epistle. Now whether this man hath sufficient cause to exclude any from being Christians, for the non-performance of that, which himself dares not affirm that they ought to do, and with what consistency of principles these things are affirmed, is easy to Judge.

Of the same judgment with him is Volk. de vera Rel. l. 4. c. 11. de Christi invocation. Schlincting. ad: Meisner. pag. 206, 207. and generally the rest of them. Which again how consistent it is, with what they affirm in the Racovian Catechism, namely, that this is an addition which Jesus Christ hath made to the first Commandment, that he himself is to be acknowledged a God, to whom we are bound to yield divine Honor, I see not. For if this be added to the first Commandment, that we should worship him as God, it is scarce doubtless at our liberty to call upon him or no. Of the same mind is Smalcius de Divinitate Jesu Christi: A Book that he offered to Sigismund the third King of Poland, by the means of Jacobus Sienienska Palatine of Podolia in the year 1608. who in his Epistle to the King calls him his Pastor. And yet the same Person doth in another place of the the same Treatise, most bitterly inveigh against them▪ who will not worship, nor invocate Christ, affirming, that they are worse then the Trinitarians themselves, then which it seems he could invent nothing more vile to compare them with. And yet again that there is no precept, that he should be invocated. Cat. Rac. (That is the same p • rson with the former) c. 5. de praecep: Christi quae legem prefecerunt. So also Ostorodus, Compendiolum Doctrinae Ecclesiae Christianae nunc in Polonia potissimum florentis. Cap. 1. Sect. 2.

It is then on all hands concluded, that Jesus Christ is to be worshiped with Divine and Religious worship, due to God only.

Fixing this as a common and indisputable principle, I shall subjoin and prove these two Assertions.

1. In general, divine worship is not to be ascribed to any, that is not God by nature, who is not partaker of the divine Essence and Being.

2. In particular, Jesus Christ is not to be ^t worshiped on the account of the Power and Authority, which he hath received from God, as Mediator, but solely on the account of his being God blessed forever: And this is all that is required in answer to this Tenth Chapter of M. B. what follows on the Heads mentioned, is for the further satisfaction of the Reader in these things upon the occasion administered, and for his Assistance to the obviating of some other Socinian Sophismes, that he may meet withal. I shall be brief in them both.

For the first: Divine Worship is not to be ascribed to them whom God will certainly destroy. He will not have us to Worship them, whom himself hateth. But now, all God's that have not made the Heavens and the earth, he will destroy from under these Heavens. Ier. 10. 10, 11. Thus shall ye say unto them, the God's that have not made the Heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the Earth, & from under these Heavens. It is a thing that God would have the Nations take notice of; and therefore is it written in the Chaldee Dialect in the Original, that they who were principally concerned in those days, might take the more notice of it. And it is an instruction that God put into the mouths of the meanest of his people, that they should say it to them; say ye to them. And the Assertion is universal, to all whatever, that have not made the Heavens and Earth, and so is applicable to the Socinians Christ; A God they say he is, as Elijah said of Baal, 1 Kings 18. 27. He is made so; but that he made the Heavens and Earth, they deny; and therefore he is so far from having any right to be worshiped, that God hath threatened he shall be destroyed.

Again, the Apostle reckons it among the sins of the Gentiles, that they worshiped them who by nature were not God's, Gal. 4. 8. from which we are delivered by the knowledge of God in the Gospel. And the weight of the Apostles Assertion of the sin of Gentiles, lies in this, that by nature they were not God, who were worshiped. So that this is a thing indispensable, that divine Worship should not be given to any who is not God by nature; And surely we are not called in the Gospel to the practice of that, which is the greatest sin of the Heathens, that knew not God. And to manifest that this is a thing which the Law of nature gives direction in, not depending on i • stitution; Rom. 1. it is reckoned among those sins, which are against the Light of nature; they worshiped the Creature (besides or) more then (or with) the Creator, v. 25. who is God blessed forever more. To worship a Creature, him who is not the Creator, God blessed forever, is that Idolatry, which is condemned in the Gentiles, as a sin against the Light of nature, which to commit, God cannot, (be it spoken with reverence) dispense with the Sons of men (for he cannot deny himself) much less institute and appoint them so to do. It being then on all hands confessed, that Christ is to be worshiped with divine or Religious worship, it will be easy to make the conclusion, that he is God by nature, blessed forever more.

That also is general and indispensable which you have Jerem. 17. 5, 6. Cursed be the man, that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord; for he shall be like the Heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh. That which we worship with divine worship, we trust in, and make it our arm and strength; And those words, and whose heart departeth from the Lord, are not so much an addition to what is before cursed, as a declaration of it. All Trust in man, that is no more but so, with that kind of Trust, wherewith we trust in Jehovah (as by the antithesis v. 7. is evident that it is intended,) is here cursed. If Christ be only a man by nature, however exalted and invested with Authority, yet to trust in him, as we trust in Jehovah, which we do if we worship him with divine worship, would by this Rule be denounced a Cursed thing.

Revel. 19. 20. and Chap. 22. 9. do add the command of God to the general Reason insisted on in the places before mentioned; I fell at his feet to worship him; and he said, see thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and thy brethren, that have the Testimony of Jesus, worship God, so again, Chap. 22. 9. There are evidently two Reasons assigned by the Angel, why John ought not to worship him. 1. Because he was a servant, He that is a servant of God, and is no more, is not to be worshiped; Now he that is not God, at his best estate, however exalted, is but a servant in respect of God, and a fellow servant of his Saints and no more. All his Creatures serve him, and for his will they were made. Such and no other is the Socinians Christ, and is clearly deprived of all worship by this prohibition, and Reason of it. 2. From the Command, and the natural, and Eternal Obligation of it, in those repeated words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is the word of the Law, that our Savior himself insists on, Mat. 4. 10. that is here repeated; and the force of the Angels Reason, for the strengthening his prohibition, is from hence, that no other but he who is God, that God intended by the Law, and by our Savior, Math. 4. is to be worshipped. For if the intendment of the words were only Positive, that God is to be worshipped, and did not also at the same time exclude everyone whatever from all divine worship, who is not that God, they would be of no force for the reproof of John, in his attempt to worship the Angels, nor have any influence into his prohibition. And thus that Angel, who Chap. 8. 9, 11. shows John all Creatures in Heaven and Earth, yielding divine worship, and Adoration to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ; in the close of all appropriates all that worship to God himself alone, and forever shuts out the most glorious Creature from our thoughts and intentions in the performance of any divine worship, or religious Adoration.

And it may hence appear, how vain is that plea of the Adversaries to avoid the force of this reproof, which is managed by Schlictingius against Meisnerus.

But

1. By this Rule nothing is appropriated unto God, nor anything excluded from a participation with him by that particle mentioned; and wherever anything is said of God only, we are to understand it of God and others, for of him, in all things, do all other things depend.

2. When it is said, • hat God only is wise &c. though it do not absolutely deny that any other may be wise with that Wisdom which is proper to them, yet it absolutely denies that any one partakes with God in his Wisdom; is wise as God is wise, with that kind of Wisdom wherewith God is wise. And so where it is said, that God only is to be worshiped, and honored; though it do not exclude all others from any kind of Worship and Honor, but that they may have that which is due to them by God's appointment, from their Excellency and preeminence, yet it doth Absolutely exclude any from being worshiped with divine worship, that is due and proper to God.

3. We shall show afterward, that whatever Dignity, Rule, and Dominion, they say is given to Christ, and whatever excellency in him doth thence arise, yet it is quite of another kind and stands upon another foot of account, then that • ssentiall Excellency that is in God; and so cannot, nor doth require the same kind of worship as is due to God.

4. Angels and men are depending on God in Authority and Power, and therefore if this Rule be true, they are not excluded from Divine and Religious Worship, in the Command of worshiping God only; and so they may be worshiped with divine and religious Adoration and Invocation, as well as Jesus Christ. Neither is it anything but a mere begging of the thing in question, to say, that it is divine power that is delegated to Christ, which that is not, that is delegated to Angels and men. That power which is properly divine, and the formal cause of divine worship is incommunicable; nor can be delegated, nor is in any who is not essentially God: So that the power of Christ and Angels being of the same kind, though his be more and greater then theirs, as to degrees, they are to be worshiped with the same kind of worship, though he may be worshiped more then they▪

5. This is the substance of Schlictingius his Rule; when anything is affirmed of God exclusively to others, indeed others are not excluded, but included.

6. We argue not only from the exclusive particle, but from the nature of the thing it self. So that this pretended Rule and Exception, notwithstanding, all, and everything whatever that is not God, is by God himself everlastingly excluded from the least share in divine or Religious Worship, with express condemnation of them, who assign it to them.

The same evasion with that insisted on by Schlictingius, Socinus himself had before used: and professes that this is the bottom & foundation of all his Arguments in his disputation with Franciscus David, about the invocation of Christ, that others as well as God may be worshiped and invocated: in his 3. Epist. to Volkelius, where he labors to answer the objection of Johns praying for Grace from the seven spirits that are before the throne of Christ, Revel. 1.

That is, as was observed before, they exclude none at all; for all Creatures whatever are subordinate to God. To say that they are subordinate as to this end, that under him they may be worshiped is purely to beg the Question. We deny that any is, or may be in such a subordination to God. And the Reasons the man adds of this his Assertion, contain the grand plea of all Idolaters, Heathenish, and Antichristian. whatever is given to them (saith he) who are in that subordination is given to God. So said the Pagans of old; so the Papists at this day, all redounds to the glory of God, when they woship stocks and stones, because he appoints them so to do. And so said the Israelites when they worshiped the Golden Calf: it is a feast to Jehovah. But if John might worship, and invocate (which is the highest Act of Worship ) the seven Spirits, Rev. 1. because of their subordination to God, supposing them to be so many Created Spirits, why might he not as well worship the Spirit, or Angel in the end of the Book, Chap. 20. 22. who was no less subordinate to God? was the matter so altered during his Visions, that whom he might invocate in the entrance, he might not so much as worship in the close?

The Racovian Catechism takes another course, and tells you, that the foundation of the Worship and Adoration of Christ, is, because Christ had added to the first Commandment, that we should acknowledge him for God. That is; he who hath divine Authority ov • r us, to whom we are bound to yield Divine Honor. But

1. That Jesus Christ, who is not God by Nature, did add to the command of God, that he himself should be acknowledged for God, is intolerable Blasphemy; asserted without the least color or pretence from the Scripture, and opens a door to downeright Atheism.

2. The Exposition of his being God, that is, one who hath Divine Authority over us, is false: God is a Name of Nature, not of Office and power, Gal: 4. 8. 3. Christ was worshiped and commanded to be worshiped, before his coming in the flesh, Ps. 2. 12. Gen. 48. 16. Exod. 23. 21.

But if this be added to the First Commandment, that Christ be Worshiped as God: Then is he to be worshiped with the worship required in the first Commandment: Now this Worship is that which is proper to the only true God, as the very words of it import: Thou shalt have no other God's▪ but me: how then will Smalcius reconcile himself with his Master, who plainly affirms, that Jesus Christ is not to be worshiped with that • ivine worship, which is due to God alone; and strives to answer that place of John 5. 23. to the contrary, that all men should honor the Son, as they honor the Father. That Christ should be commanded to be worshiped in the First Commandment, (or by an addition made thereto) which commands us to have only one God, and not be worshiped with the worship which is due to that one God, is one of the mysteries of these men's Religion: but to proceed.

Where the formal cause of Divine Worship is not, there Divine Worship ought not to be exhibited. But in no Creature there is, or can be the formal cause▪ of Divine Worship; therefore no creature, who is only such, can be worshiped without Idolatry. The formal Reason of anything is but one; the reason of all worship is Excellency or Preeminence; The reason of Divine or Religious worship is divine preeminence and excellency. Now divine Excellency and preeminence is peculiar unto • he Divine Nature. Wherein is it that God is so infinitely excellent above all creatures? Is it not from his infinitely good, and incomprehensible nature? Now look what difference there is between the Essence of the Creator and the Creature, the same is between their Excellency. Let a Creature be exalted to never so great an height of Dignity and Excellency, yet his dignity is not at all nigher to the dignity and excellency of God; because there is no proportion between that which is infinite, and that which is finite, and limited. If then Excellency and preeminence be the cause of worship, and the distance between the excellency of God, and that of the most excellent, and most highly advanced creature, be infinite, it is impossible that the respect and worship due to them, should be of the same kind. Now it is Religious, or Divine Adoration that is due to God, whereof the Excellency of his nature is the formal cause; this then cannot be ascribed to any other. And to whomsoever it is ascribed, thereby do we acknowledge to be in him all divine perfections; which if he be not God by Nature, is gross Idolatry. In sum▪ Adorability (if I may so say) is an absolute incommunicable property of God. Adoration thence arising, a respect that relates to him only.

I shall for a close of this Chapter proceed to manifest, that Christ himself is not by us worshiped, under any other formal Reason, but as he is God; which will add some light to what hath already been spoken. And here least there should be any mistake among the meanest, in a matter of so great consequence, I shall deliver my thoughts to the whole of the worship of Christ in the ensuing observations.

1. Jesus Christ, the Mediator, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God and Man, the Son of God, having assumed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (Luk. 1. 35.) that holy thing, that was borne of the Virgin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having no subsistence of its own, into personal subsistence with himself, is to be Worshipped with divine Religious worship, even as the Father. By worshipped with Divine Worship, I mean believed in, hoped in, trusted in, invocated as God, as an independent fountain of all good, and a sovereign disposer of all our present, and everlasting concernments; by doing whereof, we acknowledge in him, and ascribe to him all divine perfections; Omni potency, Omniscience, • nfinite goodness, Omnipresence, and the like.

This proposition was sufficiently confirmed before. In the Revelation you have the most solemn representation of the divine spiritual worship of the Church, both that militant in the Earth, and that triumphant in the Heavens, and by both is the Worship mentioned given to the Mediator; to him (to Jesus Christ) that washed us in his blood, be glory and dominion forever and ever, amen. Cap. 1. 6. so again the same Church represented by f • wer living Creatures, and 24 Elders, falls down before the Lamb. cap. 5. 8. and 12. worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and glory, and blessing: and v. 13, 14. joint worship is given to him upon the Throne, and to the Lamb▪ by the whole Creation. And every Creature, which is in Heaven and in Earth, and under the Earth, and such as are in the Sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, Honor, Glory, and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever, &c. And this also is particularly done by the Church triumphant, cap. 7. 9, 10. Now the Lamb is neither Christ in respect of the Divine Nature, nor Christ in respect of the Human Nature, but it is Christ the Mediator. That Christ was Mediator in respect of both Natures shall in due time be demonstrated. It is then the Person of the Mediator God and Man, who is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the World, to whom all this Honor and Worship is ascribed. This the Apostle perfectly confirms, Rom. 14. 8, 9, 10, 11.

To Christ exalted in his dominion and Sovereignty, we live, and die: to him do we bow the knee, and confess, that is, perform all Worship, and stand before him, as at his disposal; we swear by him, as▪ in the place from whence these words are taken.

2. That our Religious, Divine, and Spiritual worship, hath a double, or twofold respect unto Jesus Christ.

1. As he is the ultimate formal object of our worship, being God to be blessed for evermore, as was before declared. 2. As the way, means, & cause of all the good we receive from God in our religious approach to him. In the first sense, we call upon the name of Christ, 1 Cor. 1. 2. In the other, we ask the Father in his name, according to his command, John: 16. 23. In the first, we respect him as one with the Father, as one who thinks it no robbery to be equal with him, Phil. 2. 8. the fellow of the Lord of Hosts. In the other, as one that doth intercede yet with the Father, Heb. 7. 25. praying him yet to send the Comforter to us, being yet in that regard less then the Father; and in which respect, as he is our head, so God is his head, as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor: 11. 3. the Head of every man (that is every believer) is Christ, and the head of Christ is God; In this sense, is he the way whereby we go to the Father. And through him we have an access to the Father, Eph. 2▪ 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In our Worship with our Faith, Love, Hope, Trust, and prayers, we have an access to God. Thus in our approach to the Throne of Grace, we look upon Christ as the High Priest over the House of God, Heb. 4. 14, 15, 16. by whom we have admission; who offers up our Prayers and supplications for us, Revel. 8. 3. In this state as he is the head of Angels, and his whole Church, so is he in subordination to the Father, and therefore he is said at the same time to receive Revelations from the Father, and to send an Angel as his servant, on his work and employment; Rev. 1. 1. And thus is he our Advocate with the Father, 1 John 2. 1. In this respect then, seeing that in our access to God, even the Father, as the Father of Him, and His, with our Worship, Homage, Service, our Faith, Love, Hope, Confidence, and Supplications, eying Christ, as our Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, upon whose Account we are accepted, for whose sake we are pardoned, through whom we have Admission to God, and by whom we have Help and Assistance in all that we have to do with God▪ It is evident (I say) that in this respect he is not eyed, nor addressed to in our Worship, as the ultimate, adequate, formal object of it: But as the meritorious cause of our Approach and acceptance, and so of great consideration therein. And therefore whereas Rom. 3. 25. it is said, that God hath set him forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood: it is not intended, that Faith fixes on his blood, or blood-shedding, or on him as shedding his blood, as the prime object of it, but as the meritorious cause of our forgiveness of sin, through the Righteousness of God.

And these two distinct respects have we to Jesus Christ our Mediator, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God and Man, in our Religious Worship, and all Acts of Communion with him: * As one with the Father we Honor him, Believe in him, Worship him, as we do the Father: As Mediator depending on the Father, in subordination to him, so our Faith regards him, we Love him, and Hope in him, as the Way, Means, and Meritorious cause of our Acceptance with the Father. And in both these respects we have distinct communion with him.

3. That Jesus Christ our Mediator, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God and Man, who is to be worshiped with Divine or Religious worship, is to be so worshped, because he is our Mediator. That is, his mediation is the ratio quia, an unconquerable Reason, and Argument, why we ought to love him, fear him, believe in him, call upon him, and worship him in general. This is the Reason still urged by the Holy Ghost, why we ought to worship him, Revel. 1. 5, 6. To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God, and his Father, to him be Glory, and Dominion forever and ever. Who would not love him, who would not ascribe Honor to him, who hath so loved us, and washed us in his own blood? So Revel. 5. 12. there is an Acknowledgement of the power, riches, goodness, wisdom, strength, glory, and blessing, that belongs to him, because, as the Lamb, as Mediator, he hath done so great things for us. And I dare say, there is none of his redeemed ones, who finds not the power of this motive upon his heart. The Love of Christ in his Mediation, the work he has gone through in it, and that which he continueth in, the benefits we receive thereby, and our everlasting misery without it, are all chains upon our souls, to bind us to the Lord Christ in Faith, Love, and Obedience. But yet this Mediation of Christ is not the formal and fundamental cause of our worship, (as shall be shown) but only a motive thereunto. It is not the ratio formalis, & fundamentalis cultus; but only the ratio quia, or an Argument thereunto; Thus God dealing with his people, and exhorting them of old to worship and obedience, he says, I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage, thou shall have no other God's but me. He makes his benefit of bringing them out of the land of Egypt, the reason of that eternally indispensab • e moral Worship, which he requires in the First Commandment; Not that that was the formal cause of that worship, for God is to be worshiped▪ as the first▪ Sovereign Independant Good, as the absolute Lord of all, and fountain of all Good, whether he gives any such▪ benefits or no: But yet all his Mercies, all his Benefits, everything he doth for us, in his Providence, in his Grace, as to the things of this life, or of another, are all Arguments and M • tives to press us to the performance of all that Worship and Service, which we owe unto him, as our God and Creator. Praise the Lord O my soul, for all his Benefits, saith David: So is it in the case of our Mediator. For the work of his Mediation we are eternally obliged to render all Glory, Honor, and Thanksgiving to him. But yet his Mediation is not the formal cause thereof, but only an invincible motive thereunto. Let this therefore be our fourth and last Observation.

4. Though Jesus Christ, who is our Mediator, God and Man, be to be worshiped with Divine worship, as we honor the Father, yet this is not as he is Mediator, but as he is God blessed for evermore. He is not to be worshiped under this red • plication, as Mediator, though he who is Mediator is to be worshiped; and he is to be worshiped because he is Mediator. That is, his Mediatory Office is not the formal cause and Reason of yielding divine worship to him, nor under that consideration is that worship ultimately terminated in him. The formal Reason of anything strictly taken, is but one: and it is that, from the concession whereof, that thing or effect whereof it is the cause or Reason, without any other help doth arise, or result from it. Now the formal cause or Reason of all Divine Worship is the Deity, or Divine Nature: That being granted, Divine worship necessarily follows to be due: That being denied, that worship also is, and is to be forever denied. We may not worship them, who by nature are not God. If it could be supposed, that we might have had a Mediator, that should not have been God▪ (which was impossible) Religious worship would not have been yielded to him. And if the Son of God had never been our Mediator, yet he was to be worshiped.

It is the Deity of Christ then, which is the fundamental, formal cause and Reason, and the proper object of our worship; for that being granted, though we had no other Reason, or argument for it, yet we ought to worship him; and that being denied, all other Reasons and Motives whatever would not be a sufficient cause, or warrant for any such proceeding.

It is true, Christ hath a power given him of his Father, above all Angels, principalities, and powers: called all power in Heaven and Earth: a name above every name, giving him an excellency, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as he is the King and head of his Church, which is to be acknowledged, owned, ascribed to him; and the consideration whereof, with his ability and willingness therein to succor, relieve, and save us to the uttermost, in a way of Mediation, is a powerful, effectual motive▪ (as was said before) to his worship. But yet this is an Excellency which is distinct from that, which is purely, and properly divine; and so cannot be the formal reason of religious worship. Excellency is the cause of honor: every distinct Excellency & eminence is the cause of honor: every distinct Excellen • y & eminence, is the cause of distinct honor and worship. Now what excellency or dignity soever is communicated by a way of delegation, is distinct, and of another kind▪ from that which is original, infinite, and communicating: and therefore cannot be the formal cause of the same honor and worship.

I shall briefly give the reasons of the Assertion insisted on▪ and so pass on to what remains.

The first is taken from the nature of divine, or religious worship. It is that whereby we ascribe the Honor, and Glory of all infinite perfections, to him, whom we so worship; To be the first Cause, the fountain of all good, independent, infinitely wise, powerful, all-sufficient, almighty, alseeing, omnipotent, eternal, the only rewarder, as such we submit ourselves to him religiously, in Faith, Love, Obedience, Adoration, and Invocation. But now we cannot ascribe these divine Excellencys, & perfections unto Christ, as Mediator: for then his Mediation should be the reason why he is all this; which it is not: but it is from his divine nature alone, that so he is; and therefore thence alone is it that he is so worshiped.

2. Christ under this formal conception (as they speak,) as Mediator, is not God; but under this, as partaker of the nature of God. Christ as mediator is an expression, as they speak, in the concrete, whose form • is its abstract. Now that is his mediation or Mediatory Office; and therefore if Christ under this formal conception of a Mediator be God, his Mediatory office, and God, must be the same: which is false and absurd. Therefore as such, or on that fundamental account, he is not worshiped with divine worship.

3. Christ in respect of his mediation dependeth on God, and hath all his power committed to him from God, Math. 11. 27. All things (saith he) are given me of my Father. And Math. 28. 18. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth. Joh. 17. 2. Thou hast given unto him power over all flesh; and in innumerable other places is the same testified. God gives him as Mediator his Name, that is, his Authority. Now God is worshiped because he is independent, he is, and there is none besides him. He is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first and the last; And if the reason why we worship God with divine worship be, because he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and independent: certainly that wherein Christ is dependent, and in subordination to him, as receiving it from him, cannot be the formal cause of attributing divine worship to him.

4. Christ in respect of his divine nature is equal with God, that is, the Father: 2 Phil. 9, 10. but in respect of his Mediation, he is not equal to him, he is less then he: my Father (saith he) is greater then I. John 14. 28. now whatever is less then God, is not equal to him, is infinitely so; for between God, and that which is not God, there is no proportion neither in Being, nor Excellency. That Christ in respect of his Office is not equal to God is commonly received in that axiom, whereby the arguments thence taken against his Deity are answered; inaequalitas Officii non tollit aequalitatem naturae. Now certainly, that which is infinitely unequal to God, cannot be the formal cause of that worship which we yield to him, as God.

5. That which shall cease, and is not absolutely Eternal, cannot be the formal cause of our worship: for the formal reason of worship can no more cease, then God can cease to be God: for when that ceaseth, we cease to worship him; which whiles he is the Creator, and sovereign Lord of his Creatures, cannot be. Now that the Mediatory Office of Christ shall cease the Holy Ghost affirmeth, 1 Cor. 15. 24. he then gives up his Kingdom to God; and there is the same Reason of the other parts of his Mediatory office. It is true indeed, the Efficacy of his Office abideth to Eternity, whilst the Redeemed ones live with God, and praise him; but as to the administration of his Office, that ceaseth, when at the last day the whole work of it shall be perfectly consummated, & he hath saved to the uttermost all that come to God by him.

The sum of all is, Jesus Christ, God & man, our Mediator, who is to be worshiped in all things, & invocated as the Father, & whom we ought night and day to honor▪ praise, love, and adore, because of his mediation, and the office of it, which for our sakes he hath undertaken, is so to be honored and worshiped▪ Not as Mediator, exalted of God, and entrusted with all power and dignity from him, but as being equal with him, God to be bessed forever; his divine nature being the fundamental formal reason of that worship, and proper ultimate object of it. And to close up this digression, there is not anything that more sharply and severely cuts the throat of the whole sophistical plea of the Socinians, against the Deity of Christ, then this one observation. Themselves acknowedge, that Christ is to be worshiped with religious worship, and his name to be invocated, denying to account them Christians, whatever they are, who are otherwise minded, as Franciscus David, and those before mentioned were. Now if there be no possible reason to be assigned for the • ormall cause of this worship, but his Deity, they must either acknowledge him to be God, or deny themselves to be Christians.

Some directions (by the way) may be given from that which hath been spoken, as to Guidance of our Souls in the worship of God: Or in our addresses to the Throne of Grace by Jesus Christ. What God hath discovered of himself unto us, he would have us act faith upon, in all that we have to deal with him in. By this we are assured we worship the true God, and not an Idol, when we worship him, who has revealed himself in his word, and as he has revealed himself. Now God hath declared himself to be three in one, for, there are three that bear witness in Heaven, & these three are one, 1 Joh. 5. So then is he to be worshiped; And not only so, but the Order of the three Persons in that Deity, the eternal internal order among themselves is revealed to us. The Father is of none; is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Son begotten of the Father: having the glory of the only begotten Son of God, and so is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in respect of his Nature, Essence, and Being, not in respect of his Personality, which he hath of the Father. The Spirit is of the Father & the Son. He is often so called, the Spirit of God, & the spirit of the Son. For the Terme of proceeding, or going forth, I profess myself ignorant, whether it concern chiefly his eternal personality, or his dispensation in the work of the Gospel. The latter I rather like, of which this is no time to give my reasons. But be those expressions of what import soever, He is equally the Spirit of the Father and the Son: and is of them both, and from them both. God then, by us is to be worshiped, as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three Persons in this order, and so are we to deal with him in our approaches to him. Not that wear to frame any conception in our minds of distinct substances, which are not; but by Faith closing with this reve • ation of them, we give up our souls in contemplation and admiration of that we cannot comprehend.

2. There in an external economy and dispensation of the persons, in reference to the work of our Salvation, & what we draw nigh to them for: so the Father is considered as the foundation of all Mercy, Grace, Glory, everything that is dispensed in the Covenant, or revealed in the Gospel. The Son receiving all from him: and the Spirit sent by the Son, to effect and complete the whole good pleasure of God in us, & toward us; & in, & under the consideration of this economy, is God of us to be worshiped.

All things (saith Christ) are given me of the Father Math. 11. 27. that is, to me, as Mediator; therefore come to me: And in his prayer Joh. 17. 8. I have given to them the words thou gavest unto me, and they know that I came out from thee, and believe that thou hast sent me. So most fully Joh. 3. 34, 35. He is sent of God, and from the love of the Father to him as Mediator are all things given him, it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell Joh. 1. 16. Col. 23. Joh. 5. 26. He hath given him to have life: that is, as he is Mediator, appointed him to be the fountain of Spiritual life to his elect and Revel▪ 1. 1. the Revelation of the will of God is given unto Christ by the Father, as to this end of discovering it to the Church.

Hence ariseth the second way of faiths acting it self toward God in our worship of him. It eyes the Father as the fountain of this dispensation; and the Son as the Mediator, as the storehouse, & the Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers the Son under those two distinct notions. 1. As the Ordinance and servant of the Father, in the great work of Mediation: so it loves him, delights in him, and rejoiceth in the Wisdom of God, in finding out, and giving such a means of Life, Salvation, and union with himself; and so by Christ believes in God, even the Father. It considers him 2ly as the way of going to the Father, and there it rests, a • the ultimate object of all the Religious actings of the soul. So we are very often said, through, and by Christ, to believe in God, by him to have an access to God, and an entrance to the throne of grace. In this sense, I say, when we draw nigh to God, in any religious worship yea in all the first actings, and movings of our souls towards him in faith, and love, the Lord Christ is considered as Mediator, as clothed with his offices, as doing the will of the Father, as serving the design of his Love: and so the soul is immediately fixed on God, through Christ, being strengthened, supported, and sustained by the consideration of Christ, as the only procuring cause of all the good things we seek from God, and of our interest in those excellencyes, which are in him, which make him excellent to us.

And this is the general consideration that faith hath of Christ, in all our dealings with God; we ask in his name, for his sake, go to God on his account, through him, and the like; are strengthened and emboldened upon the interest of him as our High Priest, and intercessor, God the Father being yet always • mediately in our eye, as the primary object of our worship. But yet now again, this Christ, as Mediator, so sent & entrusted by the Father, as above, is also one with the Father, God to be blessed for evermore. Faith also takes in this consideration, & so he who before was the means of fixing our faith on God, is thereupon become the proper object of our faith himself: we believe in Him, invocate, call upon him, worship him, put our trust in him, and live unto him. Over & above then the distinction that the Eternal Persons have in the manner of in-being in the same Essence, which also is the object of our Faith: that distinction which they have in the External economy, is to be considered in our Religious worship of God: and herein is Christ partly eyed as the Fathers servant, the means, and cause of all our communion with God, and so is the medium of our worship, not the object; partly as God and man vested with that office, and so he is the object primary, and ultimate of it also: And this may give us (I say) some assistance to order our thoughts aright towards God, and some light into that variety of expressions, which we have in Scripture, about worshiping of God in Christ: and worshiping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the Spirit.

Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may be worth the while, a little to consider the condition of our Adversaries, in reference to this business, wherein of all other things (as I said before) they are most entangled. Of the contests and disputes of Socinus with Franciscus David, about this business, I have given the Reader an account formerly, and the little success he had therein. The man would fain have stood, when he had kicked away the ground from under his feet, but was not able. And never was he more shamefully gravel'd in any dispute, then in that which he had with Christianus Franken, about this business, whereof I shall give the Reader a brief account.

This Franken seems to have been a subtle fellow, who, denying with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently, that it was impossible to find out a foundation of yielding Religious worship or Adoration unto him. With him, about this matter, Socinus had a solemn dispute in the house of one Paulicovius. An. 1584. March 14. Franken in this Disputation was the opponent, and his first Argument is this.

This I say was his first Argument. To which Socinus Answers:

But by the favor of this Disputant, God cannot give that honor that is due unto him upon the account of his Excellency and eminency, as he is the first cause of all things, and the last end, which is the ground of divine worship, to any one, who hath not his nature; The honor due to God, cannot be given to him who is not God. His honor, the honor of him as God, is that which is due to him as God; now that he should give that honor, that is due to him as God, to him which is not God, is utterly impossible and contradictory to its self. 2. We confess that there be most weighty causes, why Christ should be worshiped, yet but one formal Reason of that worship we can acknowledge. And therefore when Franken had taken off this absurd answer, by sundry instances, & Reasons, Socinus is driven to miserable evasions: first he cries out, I can answer all these testimonies: to which when the other replied, And I can give a probable answer to all the texts you produce, arguing the adoration of Christ: being driven to hard shifts he adds, I am as certain of the truth of my opinion, as I am, that I hold this hat in my hand; Which is a way of arguing that is commonly used by men that have nothing else to say. Wherefore Franken laughs at him, and tells him, ▪ Your certainty cannot be a rule of truth to me, and others, seeing another man may be found that will say, he is most certain of the contrary opinion; so that prevailing nothing by this means, he is forced to turn the Tables, & instead of an answer, which he could not give to Frankens Argument, to become opponent, and urge an Argument against him: saith he, My certainty of this thing is as true, as it is true, that the Apostle saith of Christ, let all the Angels of God worship him But by the favor of this disputant, this is not his business. He was to answer Frankens Argument, whereby he proved, that he was not to be worshiped; and not to have brought a contrary Testimony, which is certainly to be interpreted according to the issue of the Reason insisted on; and this was the end of that first Argument between them.

The next Argument of Franken, whereby he brought his Adversarie to another absurdity, had its rise frō a distinction given by Socinus, about a twofold religious worship: one kind whereof without any medium was directed to God; the other is yielded him by Christ, as a means. The first he says is proper to God; the other belongs to Christ only: Now he is blind that doth not see, that for what he doth here to save himself, that he doth not beg the thing in question; who granted him that there wa a twofold Religious worship? One of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer for a man to repeat his own Hypothesis, to answer an Argument lying directly against it. 2. He grants indeed upon the matter all that Franken desired; namely, that Christ was not to be worshiped with that worship, wherewith God is worshiped, and consequently not with Divine. But Franken asks him, whether this twofold worship was of the same kind or no? To which he answered, that it was, because it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which after the interposition of another entangling Question, the man thus replys upō him. ^m This then will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshiped, because one & the sam • worship respects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Th. Aquinas tells us, frō whom you borrowed your figment: Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a Table, showing how it passed by some hands, where truly it was, but stayed not until it came to the end: For which gross Allusion he was sufficiently derided by his Adversary. I shall not insist on the other Arguments, wherewith on his own Hypothesis he was miserably gravel'd by this Franken: and after all his pretence of reason, forced to cry out, these are Philosophical Arguments; and contrary to the Gospel. The Disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication, which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.

CHAP. XX.

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

CHAP. XXI.

Of the Death of Christ, the Causes, Ends, and Fruits thereof, with an entrance into the Doctrine of his Satisfaction thereby.

MR Biddles 12 ^th Chapter is concerning the Death of Christ, the Causes, and Fruits, and Ends thereof: The Error and mistake whereabout, is the Second great head of the Socinian Religion; Next to his Person, there is not anything, they set themselves so Industriously to oppose, as his Death, in the sense wherein it hath constantly hitherto been embraced by all Christians, as the great foundation of their Faith and Considence.

That the Lord Jesus, our Mediator, did not by his Death and Sufferings undergo the penalty of the Law, as the punishment due to our sins, that he did not make Satisfaction to God, or make Reconciliation for Transgressours, that he did not thereby properly Redeem us by the payment of a Ransom, nor so suffer for us, as that our sins should in the Justice of God be a meritorious cause of his suffering, is the Second Great Article of the Creed, which they labor to assert and maintain.

There is not anything about which they have laid out so much of their strength, as about this, namely, that Jesus Christ is called our Savior in respect of the way of Salvation, which he hath revealed to us, and the power committed to Him to deliver us, and save us, in, and by Obedience required at our hands, not on the account of any Satisfaction he hath made for us, or Atonement by the Sacrifice of himself.

How Faustus Socinus first broached this opinion, with what difficulty he got it to be entertained, with the men of his own profession, as to the Doctrine of the Trinity, has been before declared. What weight he laid upon this opinion about the Death of Christ, and the opposition he had engaged in against his satisfaction, with the diligence he used, and the pains he took about the one and the other, is evident from his writings to this purpose which are yet extant. His Book De Jesu Christo Servatore is wholly taken up with this Argument; so is the greatest part of his Praelections; his Lectiones Sacrae are some of them of the same subject; & his Paraenesis against Volanus; many of his Epistles, especially those to Smalcius, and Volkelius, and Niemojevius, as also his treatises about Justification have the same design. Smalcius is no less industrious in the same cause, both in his Racovian Catechism, and his Answers and Replys with Franzius and Smiglecius. It is the main design of Schlictingius his Comment on the Hebrews; Crellius de Causis mortis Christi, and his defense of Socinus against Grotius dwells wholly on this Doctrine. Volkelius hath his share in the same Work, &c.

What those at large contend for, M. Biddle endeavors slily to insinuate into his Catechumens in this Chapter; Having threfore briefly spoken of Salvation by Christ, and of his Mediation in general, in consideration of his 6, and 7. Chapters; I shall now God assisting take up the whole matter, and after a brief discovery of his intendment in his Queries concerning the Death of Christ, give an account of our whole Doctrine of his Satisfaction, confirming it from the Scriptures, and vindicating it from the exceptions of his Masters.

For the order of proceedure, I shall first consider M. Biddles Questions; then state the point in difference, by expressing what is the judgment of our Adversaries concerning the Death of Christ, and what we ascribe thereto; and then demonstrate from the Scripture the Truth contended for.

M. Biddles first Question is,

Was it the will and purpose of God that Christ should suffer the Death of the Cross? What saith the Apostle Peter to the Jews concerning this? Ans. Acts 2. 22, 23. to which he subjoins, What say the Disciples in general concerning the same? Ans. Acts 4. 24, 27, 28.

It is not unknown what difference we have, both with the Socinians and Arminians about the purposes and efficacious decrees, and the Infallibility of the Prescience of God: something already hath been spoken to this purpose, in our Discourse concerning the Prescience of God, as formerly in that of Perseverance. How unable M. Biddles companions are to disentangle themselves from the Evidence of that Testimony, which is given to the Truth we contend for, by these Texts which here he with so much confidence recites, hath been abundantly by others Demonstrated. I shall not here enter into the merits of that cause, nor shall I impose on M. Biddle the opinion of any other men, which he doth not expressly own; only I shall desire him to reconcile what he here speaks in his Query, with what he before delivered concerning God's not foreseeing our free actions, that are for to come. What God purposes shall be, and come to pass, He certainly foresees, that that will come to pass. That Christ should dy the death of the Cross was to be brought about by the free actions of men, if anything in the world was ever so, and accomplished in the same manner; yet that this should be done, yea so done, God purposed; and therefore without doubt foresaw that it should be accomplished, and so foresaw all the free actions whereby it was accomplished. And if he foresee any one free action, why not all? There being the same Reason of one and all. But at the present let this pass. His second Question is.

Did Christ die to reconcile and bring God to us, or on the contrary, to bring us to God? Ans. Rom. 5. 10. Ephes. 2. 14. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 19. & 1 Pet. 3. • 8.

That I may (by the way) speak a little to this Question, reserving the full discussion of the matter int • nded to the ensuing discourse; The terms of it are first to be explained.

1. By Reconciling God, we intend the making of such an Atonement, whereby his w • ath or Anger, in all the • ffects of it, are turned away. Though we use not the expr • ssion of Reconciling God to us, but of Reconc ••• ng us to God, by the taking away, or removal of his wrath, and Anger, or the mak • ng reconciliation with God for sin; yet as to reconcile God, intends the appeasing of the Justice and Anger of God, so that whereas before we were obnoxious to his Displeasure, Enmity, Hatred, and Wrath thereby, and on that account we come to be accepted with him, we say Christ died to reconcile God to Us, which in the progress of the Discourse with plentiful demonstrations from the Scripture shall be evinced.

2. Of bringing God to us, we speak not; unless by bringing God to us, he intends the procurement of the Grace and Favor of God toward us, and his loving presence to be with us, and then we say, in that sense Christ by his death brought God to us.

3. Our Reconciliation to God, or the reconciliation as it stands on our part, is our Conversion unto God, our deliverance from all that Enmity and opposition unto God, which is in us by nature; and this also we say is the effect, and fruit of the Death of Christ.

4. Our bringing unto God, mentioned 1 Pet. 3. 18. is of a larger and more comprehensive signification, than that of our Reconciliation; containing the whole effect of the death of Christ, in the removal of every hindrance and the Collation of everything necessarily required to the perfect and complete accomplishment of the work of our Salvation, and so contains no less the Reconciliation of God to us, than ours to him; and is not proper to make up one member of the division there instituted, being a general expression of them both.

Now concerning these things M. Biddle enquires, Whether Christ by his death reconciled God to us, or on the contrary, us to God; So insinuating, that one of these Effects of the Death of Christ is inconsistent with the other; This seems to be the man's aim,

1. To intimate, that this is the state of the difference between him and us; that we say, Christ died to Reconcile God to us; and he, that he died to Reconcile us to God.

2. That these things are contrary; so that they who say the one, must deny the other; That we who say, that Christ died to Reconcile God to us, must of necessity deny that he died, to Reconcile us to God; and that he also, who saith, he died to Reconcile us to God, may, and must deny on that account the other effect by us ascribed to his death. But this Sophistry is so gross, as it is not worth the while to insist upon its discovery; We say, that Christ died to Reconcile God to us in the sense before explained, and us unto God; and these things are so far from being of any Repugnancy one to another, as to the making up of one entire end, and effect of the death of Christ, that without them both the work of Reconciliation is by no means complete.

Not to prevent the full proof and evidence hereof, which is intended, it may at present suffice, that we evince it by the light of this one consideration; If in the Scripture it is expressly and frequently affirmed, that Antecedently to the consideration of the Death of Christ, and the Effects thereof, there is not only a real Enmity on our parts against God, but also a Law Enmity on the part of God against us, and that both of these are removed by Virtue of the Death of Christ, then the Reconciliation of God to us, and our Reconciliation to God, are both of them one entire effect of the death of Christ. That there is in us by nature a real Enmity against God▪ before it be taken away by the virtue of the death of Christ, and so we Reconciled to him, is not denied; and if it were, it might be easily evinced from Rom. 8. 18. Tit. 3. 3. Ephes. 2. 12. and innumerable other places; And certainly the evidence on the other side, that there was a Law enmity on the part of God against us, Antecedent to the consideration of the Death of Christ, is no less clear. The great Sanction of the Law, Gen. 3. Deut. 27. 29. cons • dered in conjunction with the Justice of God, Rom. 1. 32. Hab. 1. 13. Psal. 5. 4, 5, 6. 2 Thess. 10. 5, 6. and the Testimonies given concerning the state and condition of man in reference to the Law and Justice of God, Joh. 3. 36. Rom. 5. 18. Ephes. 2. 3, 12. &c. with the express assignation of the Reconciliation pleaded for, to be made by the Death of Christ, Dan. 9. 24. Heb. 2. 18. do abundantly evince it; There being then a mutual Enmity between God and us, though not of the same kind, (it being Physical on our part, and Legal or Moral on the part of God,) Christ our Mediator making up peace and friendship between us, doth not only Reconcile us to God, by his Spirit, but God also to us, by his blood; but of this more afterward under the consideration of the death of Christ, as it was a Sacrifice.

For the Texts cited by M. Biddle, as making to his purpose, the most, if not all of them look, another way then he intends to use them. They will in the following Chapter come under full consideration. Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies we were Reconciled to God by the death of his Son; is the first mentioned. That our being Reconciled to God, in this place doth not intend our Conversion to him, and our deposition of the Real enmity, that is in us against him, but our Acceptance with him, upon the account of the Atonement made in the blood of Christ, whereby he is Reconciled to us, is evident from sundry circumstances of the place. For

1. That which is called being reconciled by his death, in 10. is being justified by his blood, verse. 9. The observation of the same Antithesis in both verses makes this evident. Now to be justified by the blood of Christ, is not to have our enmity with God slain and destroyed (which is our Sanctification) but our Acceptation with God upon the account of the shedding of the blood of Christ for us; which is his Reconciliation to us.

2. We are thus Reconciled, when we are enemies, as in the verse insisted on; when we were enemies we were Reconciled; Now we are not Reconciled in the sense of deposing our Enmity to God (that deposition being our Sanctification) whilst we are enemies, and therefore it is the Reconciliation of God to us, that i • intended▪

3. Verse 11. we are said to receive this Reconciliation; or as the word is rendered, the Atonement; the word is the same with that used v. 10. Now we cannot be said to receive our own conversion, but the Reconciliation of God by the blood of Christ, his favor upon the Atonement made, that by Faith we do receive; Thus M. Biddles first Witness speaks expressly against him, and the design for the carrying on whereof he was called forth; as afterward will more fully appear.

His second also of Ephes. 2. 14, 16. speaks the same language; He is our peace, who hath made both one, that we might reconcile both unto God in one body, by the death of his Cross, having slain the enmity thereby; Setting aside the joint design of the Apostle to manifest the Reconciliation made of Jews and Gentiles by the Cross of Christ, it is evident, the Reconciliation here meant consists in slaying the enmity mentioned, so making peace; Now what is the enmity intended? Not the Enmity that is in our hearts to God, but the Legal enmity that lay against us, on the part of God; as is evident from v. 15. and the whole design of the place, as afterwards will appear more fully.

There is indeed 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. mention made of Reconciliation in both the senses insisted on; of us to God, v. 20. where the Apostle saith, the end of the ministry is to reconcile us to God; to prevail with us to lay down our enmity against him, & opposition to him; of God to us, v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; which to be the import of the words is evinced from the exegetical expression immediately following; not imputing to them their sins & transgressions▪ God was so reconciling the world unto himself in Christ, as that upon the account of what was done in Christ, He will not impute their sins to th • m▪ The Legal enmity he had against them, on the account whereof alone men's sins are imputed to them, being taken away. And this is farther cleared by the sum of his former Discourse, which the Apostle gives us v. 21. declaring how God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; For (saith he) he made him sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him; Thus he was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, in that he made him to be sin, or a sacrifice for sin, so to make an Atonement for us, that we might be accepted before God, as Righteous on the account of Christ.

Much less doth that of the 1 Pet. 3. 18. In the last place mentioned, speak at all to M. B's purpose: Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; bringing to God, is a general expression of the Accomplishment of the whole work of our Salvation, both in the removal of all hindrances, and the collation of all things necessary to the fulfilling of the work: Of this the Apostle mentions the great fundamental, and procuring cause, which is the suffering of Christ in our stead; the just for the unjust: Christ in our stead suffered for our sins, that he might bring us to God; Now this suffering of Christ in our stead, for our Sins, is most eminently the cause of the Reconciliation of God to us; and by the intimation thereof, of our Reconciliation to God, and so of our Manuduction to him.

Thus, though it be most true, that Christ Dyed to Reconcile us to God, by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by M. Biddle to prove it, (so unhappy is he in his Quotation • ) speak to the defense of that Truth, which he doth oppose, and not of that which he would assert; and which by asserting in opposition to the Truth, with which it hath an eminent consistency, he doth corrupt.

The next Question I shall not insist upon; It is concerning the object of the death of Christ, and the Universality thereof; The words of it are, For whom did Christ die? The Answer is from 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. 1 Tim. 5. 6. Heb. 2. 9. Joh. 6. 8 where mention is made of all, and the World, in reference to the death of Christ. The Question concerning the object of the Death of Christ, or whom he died for, hath of late by very many been so fully discussed; and I have myself spoken elsewhere somewhat to that purpose; It shall not then here be in •• stead on; In a word, we confess that Christ died for all, and for the World; but whereas it is very seldom that these words are comprehensive of all and every man in the World, but most frequently are used for some of all Sorts, they for whom Christ died, being in some places expounded to be the Church, Believers, the Children, those given unto him out of the World, and nowhere described by any term expressive constantly of an absolute Universality, we say the Words insisted on are to be taken in the latter sense, and not the former; being ready, God assisting, to put it to the issue and trial with our Adversaries, when we are called thereunto.

He proceeds; What was the procuring cause of Christ's death?

Ans. Rom. 4. 25. Isa. 53. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 3. The Expressions are; That Christ was delivered for our offenses, that Christ died for our sins, and was bruised for our iniquities.

That in these, and the like places, that clause for our sins, offenses, and transgressions, is expressive of the procuring cause of the death of Christ, M. B. grants; Sin can be no otherwise the procuring cause of the death of Christ, but as it is morally meritorious thereof▪ To say our sins were the procuring cause of the death of Christ, is to say, that our sins merited the death of Christ; And whereas this can no otherwise be, but as our sins were imputed to him, and he was put to death for them, M. B. hath in this one Question granted the whole of what in this subject he contends against. If our sins were the procuring cause of the death of Christ, then the death of Christ was that punishment which was due to them; or in the Justice, or according to the tenor of the Law of God, was procured by them; and so consequently He in his death underwent the penalty of our Sins, suffering in our stead▪ and making thereby satisfaction for what we had done amiss: M. Biddles Masters say generally that the expression of dying for our sins denotes the final cause of the death of Christ; that is, Christ intended by his death to confirm the Truth, in obedience whereunto we shall receive forgiveness of sins; This grant of M. B's, that the procuring cause of the Death of Christ is hereby expressed, will perhaps appear more Prejudiciall to his whole cause, then he is yet aware of; especially being proposed in distinction from the final cause, or end of the Death of Christ, which in the next place he mentions, as afterward will more fully appear; although I confess he is not alone; Crellius making the same concession.

The last Question of this Chapter is, What are the ends of Christ's suffering and Death intimated by the Scripture? Whereunto by way of Answer, sundry Texts of Scripture are subjoined; everyone of them expressing someone end or other, some effect or fruit, something of the aim and intendment of Christ in his suffering and Death; whereunto exceeding many others might be annexed, but this business of the death of Christ, its Causes, Ends, and Influence into the work of our Salvation, the manifestation that therein he underwent the punishment due to our sins, making atonement, and giving satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by the price of his blood, &c. being of so great weight and importance as it is, lying at the very bottom, and foundation of all our hope and confidence, I shall, leaving M. Biddle, handle the whole matter at large in the ensuing Chapters.

For our more clear and distinct proceedure in this Important head of the Religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay down the most Eminent Considerations of the Death of Christ, as proposed in the Scripture, and then give an Account of the most Special Effects of it in particular, answering to those Considerations of it; in all manifesting wherein the expiation of our sins by his blood doth consist.

The Principal Considerations of the Death of Christ, are of it,

• 1. As a PRICE.
• 2. As a SACRIFICE.
• 3. As a PENALTY.

Of which in the order wherein they are mentioned.

CHAP. XXII.

The several considerations of the Death of Christ, as to the Expiation of our sins thereby, and the satisfaction made therein: First, of it as a Price. Secondly, as a Sacrifice.

1. THe Death of Christ in this business is a Price: and that properly so called: 1 Cor. 6. 20 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you were bought with a Price; and if we will know what that Price was, with which we are bought; the Holy Ghost informs us, 1 Pet. 1. 17, 18. ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. It is the blood of Christ, which in this business hath that use which silver and gold have in the Redeeming of Captives: And paid it is into the hand of him, by whose Power and Authority the Captive is detained, as shall be proved: And himself tells us what a kind of Price it is, that is so paid; it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Mat. 20. 28. He came to lay down his life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which for its more evidence and clearness, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Tim 2. 6. A Price of Redemption, for the delivery of another.

The first mention of a Ransom in the Scripture is in Exod. 21. 30. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the Ransom of his life, what ever is laid on him: the word in the Original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Septuagint there render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and it is used again in the same sense, Ps. 49. 9. and in both places intends a valuable price, to be paid for the deliverance of that, which upon guilt became obnoxious to death. It is true, the word is from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 redimere, vindicare, asserere in libertatem, by any ways and means, by Power, Strength, or otherwise. But where ever it is applied to such a kind of Redemption, as had a Price▪ going along with it, the Septuagint constantly render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , otherwise by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the like.

It is then confessed, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old Testament, is sometimes taken for redemit in a Metaphoricall sense, not strictly and literally, by the intervention of a Price; but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word whereby it is rendered, when a Price intervened, is ever so taken in the New Testament, is denied. Indeed Moses is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts 1. 35. in reference to the Metaphoricall Redemption of Israel out of Egypt: a deliverance by Power and Strong Arm; but shall we say because that word is used improperly in one place, where no price could be paid, where God plainly says, it was not done by a Price, but by Power, therefore it must be so used in those places, where there is express mention of a Price, both the Matter of it, and its formality as a Price, and speaketh not a word of doing it any other way, but by the payment of a Price. But of this afterward.

There is mention of a Ransom in ten places of the Old Testament; to ransom, and ransomed, in two or three more. In two of these places, Exod. 21. 30. and Lev. 49. 8. the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as before, and rendered by the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in all other place it is in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which properly signifies a propitiation, as Psal. 49. 7. which the LXX have variously rendered. Twice it is mentioned in Job. Ch. 33. 24. and Chap. 36. 18. In the first place, they have left it quite out, and in the latter so corrupted the sense, that they have rendered it altogether unintelligible, Prov. 6. 35. & 13. 8. they have properly rendered it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or a price of Redemption, it being in both places used in such business, as a Ransom useth to be accepted in: Chap. 21. 8. They have properly rendered it to the subject matter: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are things publicly devoted to destruction, as it were to turn away Anger from others, coming upon them for their sakes.

So is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Homo piacularis pro lustration • & expiatione patriae devotus; whence the word is often used as scelus in Latin, for a wicked man, a man fit to be destroyed and taken away. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , says he in the Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in the same sense by Herodotus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Athamas was made a piaculum, or a propitiation for the Country. Whence Budaeus renders that of the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : nos tanquam piacula mundi facti sumus, & succidaneae pro populo victimae. we are as the accursed things of the World, and Sacrifices for the people: reading the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : nos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Greek Scholiast, who read it as we commonly do, rendering it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as the vulgar Latin purgamenta, to the same purpose; such as have all manner of filth cast upon them.

And Isaiah 43. 3. They have rendered the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a commutation by price; so Mat. 16. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : a Price in exchange. Now in all these places and others, the Hebrews use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a propitiation, by way of Allusion; as is most especially evident from that of Isaiah, I will give Egypt a propitiation for thee; That is, as God is atoned by a propitiatory Sacrifice, wherein something is offered him in the room of the Offender, so will he do with them; put them into trouble, in room of the Church, as the Sacrificed Beast was in the room of him for whom it was Sacrificed; and hence does that word signify a Ransom, because what God appointed in his Worship to redeem anything, that by the Law was devoted, which was a compensation by his institution, (as a clean beast in the room of a first born was to be offered a Sacrifice to God) was so called. And the word satisfaction, which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice together, Num: 35. 31. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Original. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed is Originally Pitch or Bitumen: Hence what God says to Noah about making the Ark, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 6. 14. the Septuagint have rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bituminabis bitumine. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in P • hell, is Pla • avit, expiavit, expiationem fecit; because by Sacrifice sins are Covered, as if they had not been; to cover or hide, being the first use of the word.

And this is the rise and use of the word Ransom in the Scripture, both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are rendered by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : it denotes properly a price of Redemption, a valuable compensation made by one thing for another, either in the Native signification, as in the case of the first word; or by the first Translation of it from the Sacrifice of Atonement, as in the latter. Of this farther afterwards in the business of Redemption. For the present it sufficeth, that the death of Christ was a Price or Ransom, and these are the words whereby it is expressed.

2. It was a Sacrifice; & what sacrifice it was shall be declared.

1. That Christ offered a sacrifice, is abundantly evident from what was said before, in the consideration of the time and place, when, and wherein Christ was an high Priest. The necessity of this the Apostle confirms Heb. 8. 3. For every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. If he be a Priest, he must have a Sacrifice. The very nature of his employment requires it. The whole and entire office & employment of an High Priest, as a Priest, consists in offering Sacrifice, with the performance of those things, which did necessarily precede and follow that Action. It is of necessity then that he should also have somewhat to offer as a sacrifice to God.

For the other part of our inquiry, viz. What it was that he Sacrificed; I shall manifest in this order of process, (taking leave to enlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved before, as the manner of it.)

• 1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice, that any Priest had offered before, by God's appointment.
• 2. He did not actually offer any such Sacrifice.
• 3. I shall show positively what he did offer.

1. He was not to offer any Sacrifice that the Priests of old had appointed for them to offer. He came to do another manner of work, then could be brought about with the blood of Bulls and Goats. It cost more to redeem our souls. That which was of more Worth in it self, of nearer concernment to him that offered it, of a more manifold Alliance to them for whom it was offered, and of better acceptation with God to whom it was offered, was to be his Sacrifice. This is the aim of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For the Law &c.

This is the sum of the Apostles Discourse; The Sacrifices instituted by the Law, could not effect, nor work that which Christ our High Priest was to accomplish by his Sacrifice; and therefore he was no • to offer them; but they were to be abolished, and something else to be brought in that might supply their room and defect.

What was wanting in these Sacrifices, the Apostle ascribes to the Law, whereby they were instituted. The Law could not do it, that is, the Ceremonial Law could not do it. The Law which instituted and appointed these Sacrifices, could not accomplish that end of the instruction, by them▪ And with this expression of it he subjoins a reason of this weakness of the Law. It had a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things themselves. An obscure representation of those good things, which when they were instituted and in force, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to come, though now actually exhibited, and existent: that is, Jesus Christ himself, and the good things of the Gospel accompanying of him. It had but a shadow of these things, not the image; that is, the substance of them; for so I had rather understand Image here substantially; as that may be called the image of a picture, by which it it drawn; then to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to differ but gradually, as the first rude shape and proportion, and the perfect limning of anything do. The reason then why all the solemn, operous, burdensome service of old, could not (of it self) take away sin, is because it did not contain Christ in it, but only had a shadow of him.

2. The Apostle instances in particular, by what means the Law could not do this great work, of making the comers thereunto perfect. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, those who come to God by it, the worshippers; which is spoke in opposition to what is said of Christ, Chap. 7. 25. He is able to save to the uttermost 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those that come to God by him. The word expresseth any man under the consideration of one coming to God for Acceptation. As Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh unto God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; these it could not make perfect; that is, it could not perfectly atone God, and take away their sins, so that the conscience should no more be troubled, nor tormented with the guilt of sin, as v. 2, 4. By what could not the Law do this? By those Sacrifices which it offered year by year continually.

Not to speak of Sacrifices in general. The Sacrifices of the Jews may be referred to 4. heads.

1. The daily Sacrifice of morning and evening, which is instituted Exod. 29. 38, 39. which being omitted, was renewed by Nehemiah: 10. 33. And wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus according to the Prophesy of Daniel, Dan. 11▪ 31. this is the juge sacrificiū typifying Christ's constant presence with his Church, in the benefit of his death always.

2. Voluntary and occasional, which had no prefixed time, nor matter; So that they were of such Creatures as God had▪ allowed to be sacrificed, they were left to the will of the Offerer, according as Occasion and necessity was by providence administered. Now of these Sacrifices there was a peculiar Reason, that did not (as far as I can find) bellong unto any of the rest▪ The judicial government of that Nation being as their own Historian Josephus calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and immediately in the hand of God; He appointed these voluntary Sacrifices, which were a part of his Religious worship, to have a place also in the judicial government of the People. For whereas he had appointed death to be the punishment due to every sin; He allowed that for many sins, Sacrifice should be offered, for the expiating of the guilt contracted in that Commonwealth, of which himself was the Governor. Thus for many sins of ignorance, and weakness, and other Perversityes, Sacrifice was offered, and the guilty Person died not, according to the general tenor of the Law, cursed is everyone that continueth not in all these things. Hence David in his great sin of murder and Adultery flies to mere Mercy acknowledging, that God had appointed no Sacrifice for the Expiation of those sins, as to the guilt political, contracted in that commonwealth, though otherwise, no sins nor sinners were excluded from the benefit of Sacrifices. This was their political regard, which they had, or could have only on this account; that God was the supreme political Governor of that people, their Lord, and King.

3. Sacrifices extraordinary on solemn occasions: which seem some of them to be Mixed of the two former kinds: stated and voluntary. Such was Solomon's great Sacrifice at the Dedication of the Temple. These partly answered the Sacrifice, instituted at the dedication of the Altar and Tabernacle, partly the free will offerings, which God allowed the people, according to their occasions; and appointed them for them.

4. Appointed Sacrifices on solemn days: as on the Sabbath, new moons, passover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater Jubilee but especially the solemn Anniversary Sacrifice of expiation, when the High Priest entered into the Holy place, with the blood of the beast Sacrificed, on the tenth day of the month Tizri. The institution of this Sacrifice you have Levite. 16. throughout. The matter of it was one Bullock, and two Goats, or Kids of Goats, v. 2, 5, The manner was this, 1. In the entrance Aaron offered one▪ Bullock peculiarly for himself and his house, v. 6. 2. Lots were cast on the two goats, one to be a sin offering, the other to be Azarel, v. 8. 9. (3.) The Bullock and goat being slain, the blood was carried into the Holy place. (4.) Azarel having all the sins of the people confessed over him, was sent into the Wilderness to perish; v. 21. (5.) The end of this Sacrifice was Atonement and cleansing, v. 30. Of the whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this Sacrifice (as of others) elsewhere; at present, I attend only the Thesis proposed.

Now if perfect Atonement and Expiation might be expected from any of the Sacrifices so instituted by God, certainly it might be from this: therefore this doth the Apostle choose to instance in. This was the Sacrifice offered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but these saith he could not do it; the Law by them could not do it, and this he proves with two Arguments.

1. From the Event verse. 2, 3. For then would they not have ceased to be offered; because that the worshipper once purged, should have had no more conscience of sin? But in these Sacrifices, there was a remembrance made again of sins every year. The words of the second verse are to be read with an Interrogation, conclusive in the negative: would they not have ceased to have been offered? That is certainly they would; and because they did not do so, it is evident from the Event, that they could not take away sin. In most Copys the words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Those that add the negative particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , put it for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is frequently used.

2. From the nature of the thing it self, v. 4. For it was not possible, that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin; the Reason in these words is evident and plain, especially that of v. 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing.

1. In regard of Impetration; it was impossible they should really atone God, who was provoked. 1. The conjunction between the sinner and the Sacrificed Beast, was not such, or so near (being only that of possessor and possessed,) that really and beyond Representation, and Type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sin of the other. Much less secondly, was there an innate worth in the blood of any beast, though never so innocent, to atone the justice of God, that was offended at sin: Mich. 6. 6, 7. Nor thirdly, was there any will in them for such an undertaking, or commutation. The Sacrifice was bound with cords to the horns of the Altar; Christ went willingly to the sacrifice of himself.

2. In regard of application. The blood of Common Sacrifices being once shed, was a dead thing,