place is evident from these considerations:-(1.) These words, "By whom he made the worlds," are given as a reason why God made him "heir of all things,"-even because by him he made all things; which is no reason at all, if you understand only heavenly things by "the worlds" here: which also removes the last exception of our catechists, that Christ was appointed heir of all things antecedently to his making of the world; which is most false, this being given as a reason of that,—his making of the world of his being made heir of all things. Besides, this answer, that Christ made not the world until his resurrection, is directly opposite to that formerly given by them to Col. i. 16, where they would have him to be said to make all things because of the reconciliation he made by his death, verse 20. (2.) The same word or expression in the same epistle is used for the world in its creation, as was before observed, chap. xi. 3; which makes it evident that the apostle in both places intends the same. (3.) Alúv is nowhere used absolutely for "the world to come;" which being spoken of in this epistle, is once called oixouμévny μéλλovov, chap. ii. 5, and ¿‚ãva μéλλovra, chap. vi. 5, but nowhere absolutely ava or ȧivas. (4.) "The world to come" is nowhere αιώνα αιώνας. said to be made, nor is this expression used of it. It is said, chap. ii. 5, to be put into subjection to Christ, not to be made by him; and chap. vi. 5, the "powers" of it are mentioned, not its creation. (5.) That is said to be made by Christ which he upholds with the word of his power; but this is said simply to be all things: "He upholdeth all things by the word of his power," chap. i. 3. (6.) This plainly answers the former expressions insisted on, "He made the world," "He made all things," etc. So that this text also lies as a twoedged sword at the very heart of the Socinian cause.

Grotius seeing that this interpretation could not be made good, yet being no way willing to grant that making of the world is ascribed to Christ, relieves his friends with one evasion more than they were aware of. It is, that di ou, "by whom," is put for di öv, "for whom," or for whose sake; and Toínos is to be rendered by the preterpluperfect tense, "he had made." And so the sense is, "God made the world for Christ;" which answereth an old saying of the Hebrews, "That the world was made for the Messiah."

But what will not great wits give a colour to! 1. Grotius is not able to give me one instance in the whole New Testament where di o5 is taken for div: and if it should be so anywhere, himself would confess that it must have some cogent circumstance to enforce that construction, as all places must have where we go off from the propriety of the word. 2. If it be put for div, did must be put δι' διά for sis, as, in the opinion of Beza, it is once in the place quoted by Grotius, and so signify the final cause, as he makes or öv to do. Now, the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two in

this business of making the world, Rom. xi. 36, Ai' aŭroũ xai sis aurdy Tà závra: so that, doubtless, in the same matter, one of these is not put for the other. 3. Why must inoinos be "condiderat?" and what example can be given of so rendering that aoristus? If men may say what they please, without taking care to give the least probability to what they say, these things may pass. 4. If the apostle must be supposed to allude to any opinion or saying of the Jews, it is much more probable that he alluded, in the word aivas, which he uses, to the threefold world they mention, in their liturgy, the lower, middle, and higher world, or [residence of the] souls of the blessed, or the fourfold, mentioned by Rab. Alschech: "Messias prosperabitur, vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos complectitur; qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus angelorum, mundus sphærarum, et mundus supremus," etc.. But of this enough.

Though this last testimony be sufficient to confound all gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of men of common ingenuity, yet it is evident that our catechists are more perplexed with that which follows in the same chapter; which, therefore, they insist longer upon than on any one single testimony besides, with what success comes now to be considered.

The words are, Heb. i. 10-12, "Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." That these words of the psalmist are spoken concerning Christ we have the testimony of the apostle applying them to him; wherein we are to acquiesce. The thing also is clear in itself, for they are added in his discourse of the deliverance of the church; which work is peculiar to the Son of God, and where that is mentioned, it is he who eminently is intended. Now, very many of the arguments wherewith the deity of Christ is confirmed are wrapped up in these words:-1. His name, Jehovah, is asserted: "Thou, LORD;" for of him the psalmist speaks, though he repeats not that word. 2. His eternity and pre-existence to his incarnation: "Thou, LORD, in the beginning,"-that is, before the world was made. 3. His omnipotence and divine power in the creation of all things: "Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands." 4. His immutability: "Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail;" as Mal. iii. 6. 5. His sovereignty and dominion over all: "As a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed." Let us now see what darkness they are able to pour forth upon this sun shining in its strength. Q. What dost thou answer to this testimony?

A. To this testimony I answer, that it is not to be understood of Christ, but of VOL. XII.

18

God. But because this writer refers it to the Son of God, it is to be considered that the discourse in this testimony is expressly about not one, but two things chiefly. The one is the creation of heaven and earth; the other, the abolishing of created things. Now, that that author doth not refer the first unto Christ is hence evident, because in that chapter he proposeth to himself to demonstrate the excellency of Christ above the angels; not that which he hath of himself, but that which he had by inheritance, and whereby he is made better than the angels, as is plain to any one, verse 4; of which kind of excellence seeing that the creation of heaven and earth is not, nor can be, it appeareth manifestly that this testimony is not urged by this writer to prove that Christ created heaven and earth. Seeing, therefore, the first part cannot be referred to Christ, it appeareth that the latter only is to be referred to him, and that because by him God will abolish heaven and earth, when by him he shall execute the last judgment, whereby the excellency of Christ above angels shall be so conspicuous that the angels themselves shall in that very thing serve him. And seeing this last speech could not be understood without those former words, wherein mention is made of heaven and earth, being joined to them by this word "they," therefore the author had a necessity to make mention of them also; for if other holy writers do after that manner cite the testimonies of Scripture, compelled by no necessity, much more was this man to do it, being compelled thereunto.

Q. But where have the divine writers done this?

A. Amongst many other testimonies take Matt. xii. 18-21, where it is most manifest that only verse 19 belongeth to the purpose of the evangelist, when he would prove why Christ forbade that he should be made known. So Acts ii. 17-21, where also verses 17, 18, only do make to the apostle's purpose, which is to prove that the Holy Ghost was poured forth on the disciples; and there also, verses 25–28, where verse 27 only is to the purpose, the apostle proving only that it was impossible that Christ should be detained of death. Lastly, in this very chapter, verse 9, where these words, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity,” are used, it is evident that they belong not to the thing which the apostle proveth, which is that Christ was made more excellent than the angels.1

That in all this discourse there is not any thing considerable but the horrible boldness of these men, in corrupting and perverting the word of God, will easily to the plainest capacity be demonstrated; for which end I offer the ensuing animadversions:

1. To say these things are not spoken of Christ, because they are spoken of God, is a shameless begging of the thing in question. We prove Christ to be God because those things are spoken of him that are proper to God only.

"Ad quintum quid respondes?—Ad id testimonium id respondeo, quod non de Christo, verum de Deo accipiendum sit. Quia vero idem scriptor illud ad Filium Dei referat, expendendum est sermonem in testimonio, non de una re sed de duabus, potissimum haberi expresse. Una est coeli et terræ creatio; altera rerum creatarum abolitio. Quod vero is autor priorem ad Christum non referat, hinc perspicuum est, quod in eo capite præstantiam Christi demonstrare sibi proposuerit; non eam quam & seipso habeat, verum eam quam hæreditavit, et qua præstantior angelis effectus sit, ut e ver. 4, cuivis planum est; cujus generis præstantia, cum creatio cœli et terræ non sit, nec esse possit, apparet manifeste non in eum finem testimonium ab eo scriptore allatum, ut Christum creasse cœlum et terram probaret. Cum igitur prior ad Christum referri nequeat, apparet posteriorem tantum ad eum referendam esse, id vero propterea quod Deus coelum et terram per eum aboliturus sit, tum cum judicium extremum per ipsum est executurus, quo quidem tantopere præstantia Christi præ angelis conspicua futura est, ut ipsi angeli sint ei ea ipsa in re ministraturi. Quæ

2. It is one thing in general that is spoken of, namely, the deity of Christ; which is proved by one testimony, from Ps. cii., concerning one property of Christ, namely, his almighty power, manifested in the making of all things, and disposing them in his sovereign will, himself abiding unchangeable.

3. It is shameless impudence in these gentlemen, to take upon them to say that this part of the apostle's testimony which he produceth is to his purpose, that not; as if they were wiser than the Holy Ghost, and knew Paul's design better than himself.

4. The foundation of their whole evasion is most false,—namely, that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ above angels, insisted on by the apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to receive by inheritance. The design of the apostle is to prove the excellency of Christ in himself, and then in comparison of angels: and therefore, before the mention of what he received by inheritance, he affirms directly that by him "God made the worlds;" and to this end it is most evident that this testimony, that he created heaven and earth, is most directly subservient.

5. Christ also hath his divine nature by inheritance, that is, he was eternally begotten of the essence of his Father, and is thence by right of inheritance his Son, as the apostle proves from Ps. ii. 7.

6. Our catechists speak not according to their own principles when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself and what he had from inheritance, for they suppose he had nothing but by divine grant and voluntary concession, which they make the inheritance here spoken of; nor according to ours, who say not that the Son, as the Son, is a seipso, or hath any thing a seipso; and so know not what they say.

7. There is not, then, the least colour or pretence of denying this first part of the testimony to belong to Christ. The whole is spoken of to the same purpose, to the same person, and belongs to the same matter in general; and that first expression is, if not only, yet mainly and chiefly, effectual to confirm the intendment of the apostle, proving directly that Christ is better and more excellent posterior oratio, cum sine verbis superioribus, in quibus fit cœli terræque mentio, intelligi non potuerit, cum sit cum iis per vocem ipsi conjuncta, et eadem illa verba priora idem autor commemorare necesse habuit. Nam si alii scriptores sacri ad eum modum citant testimonia Scripturæ, nullâ adacti necessitate, multo magis huic, necessitate compulso, id faciendum fuit.

"Ubi vero scriptores sacri id fecerunt ?-Inter alia multa testimonia, habes Matt. xii. 18-21, ubi nimis apertum est versiculum 19, tantum ad propositum evangelistæ Matthæi pertinere, cum id voluerit probare cur Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret. Deinde, Act. ii. 17-21, ubi etiam tantum, ver. 17, 18, ad propositum Petri apostoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum supra discipulos doceat; et ibidem ver. 25-28, ubi palam est, versum tantum 27, ad propositum facere, quandoquidem id approbet apostolus, Christum a morte detinere fuisse impossibile. Denique, in hoc ipso capite, ver. 9, ubi verba hæc, Dilexisti justitiam, et odio habuisti iniquitatem, apparet nihil pertinere ad rem quam probat apostolus, quæ est, Christum præstantiorem factum angelis."

than the angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made heaven and earth, they are but his creatures,-as God often compares himself with others. In the psalm, the words respect chiefly the making of heaven and earth; and these words are applied to our Saviour. That the two works of making and abolishing the world should be assigned distinctly unto two persons there is no pretence to affirm. This boldness, indeed, is intolerable.

8. To abolish the world is no less a work of almighty power than to make it, nor can it be done by any but him that made it, and this confessedly is ascribed to Christ; and both alike belong to the asserting of the excellency of God above all creatures, which is here aimed to be done.

9. The reason given why the first words, which are nothing to the purpose, are cited with the latter, is a miserable begging of the thing in question; yea, the first words are chiefly and eminently to the apostle's purpose, as hath been showed. We dare not say only; for the Holy Ghost knew better than we what was to his purpose, though our catechists be wiser in their own conceits than he. Neither is there any reason imaginable why the apostle should rehearse more words here out of the psalm than were directly to the business he had in hand, seeing how many testimonies he cites, and some of them very briefly, leaving them to be supplied from the places whence they are taken.

10. That others of the holy writers do urge testimonies not to their purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in itself, and a bold imputation of weakness to the penmen of the Holy Ghost. The instances hereof given by our adversaries are not at all to the purpose which they are pursuing; for,

(1.) In no one of them is there a testimony cited whereof one part should concern one person, and another another, as is here pretended; and without farther process this is sufficient to evince this evasion of impertinency; for nothing will amount to the interpretation they enforce on this place but the producing of some place of the New Testament where a testimony is cited out of the Old, speaking throughout of the same person, whereof the one part belongs to him and the other not, although that which they say doth not belong to him be most proper for the confirmation of what is affirmed of him, and what the whole is brought in proof of.

(2.) There is not any of the places instanced in by them wherein the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose in hand, although some of them are more immediately suited to the occasion on which the whole testimony is produced, as it were easy to manifest by the consideration of the several places.

(3.) These words, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity," are not mentioned to prove immediately the excellency of