world, 1 Cor. xv. 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 question the second, "Is Christ already invested in his kingdom, and did he, after his ascension and sitting down at the right hand of God, exercise dominion and sovereignty over men and angels?" and question third, " For what cause and to what end was Jesus Christ exalted to his kingdom?"-to which he answers from Phil. ii. 8-10 in both places; intimating that Christ was not invested with his kingly power until after his exaltation. (As for the ends of his exaltation, these being some mentioned, though not all, nor the chief, I shall not farther insist on them.) But this, as 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 anointed, so it is altogether inconsistent with Mr B.'s principles, who maintains that he was worshipped with religious worship and honour whilst he was upon the earth; which honour and worship, says he, are 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 12th chapter of Smalcius' book, "De Vera Jesu Christi Divinitate," is, "De nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus in terris mortalis degens habuit;" which in the chapter itself he seeks to make good by sundry instances, and in the issue labours to prove that the sole cause of the attribution of that name to him is from his office; but what office, indeed, he expresseth 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 he afterward affirms "Divinitas autem Jesu Christi qualis sit, discimus ex sacris literis, nempe talis, quæ propter munus ipsius divinum tota ei tribuitur."-Smalc. de Divin. Jesu. Chris. cap. xii.

1

2 "Nec enim prius D. Jesus Rex reipsa factus est, quam cum consedit ad dextram Dei Patris, et regnare reipsa in cœlo, et in terra cœpit."-Idem, cap. xiii. sect 3. "Dominus et Deus proculdubio a Thoma appellatur, quia sit talis Dominus, qui divino modo in homines imperium habeat, et divino etiam illud modo exercere possit, et exerceat."— Idem, cap. xxiv. de Fid. in Christum, etc.

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 meantime, doubtless, he was a king when the Lord of glory was crucified, 1 Cor. ii. 8.

But that which remains of this chapter is more fully to be considered. Question 4 is, "How ought men to honour the Son of God?" From hence to the end of the chapter, Mr 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 of that authority wherewith, for the execution and discharge thereof, from God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider what is tendered by Mr 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 fourth question to this matter is, "How ought men to honour the Son of God, Christ Jesus?" and it is answered, “John v. 23, 'Even as they honour the Father.""

This, then, is consented unto on both sides, that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped and honoured with the same worship and honour wherewith the Father is worshipped and honoured; that is, with that worship and honour which is divine and religious,—with that subjection of soul, and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone.1 How Socinus himself doubled in this business and was entangled shall be afterward 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 honour and worship to Christ, strengthens the former assertion, and therefore I have nothing to except or add thereunto.

In question the sixth, Mr B. labours 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 worshipped with divine worship as the Father is, by a diversion of it, with a consideration of the grounds of the assignation of this worship to Christ. His words are:

Q. Ought men to honour the Son as they honour the Father because he hath the same essence with the Father, or because he hath the same judiciary power? what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point?

A. John v. 22, 23.

1 Οὐ κτιστὸς τοίνυν ὁ λόγος, ὅτι προσκύνητος.-Epiphan. in Ancorat.

The sum is: The same worship is to be given to the Father and the Son, but upon several grounds;-to the Father, because he is God by nature, because of his divine essence; to the Son, because of a delegated judiciary power committed to him by the Father. For the discovery of the vanity of this assertion, in the close of our consideration of this matter, I shall manifest,

1. That there neither is nor can be any more than one formal cause of the attribution of the same divine worship to any one; 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 honour to him to whom it is delegated which is proper to God.

For the present, to the text pleaded, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father," I say in brief, that Iva máνres siμão is not expressive of the formal cause of the honouring and adoration of Christ, but of an effectual motive to men to honour him, to whom, upon the account of his divine nature, that honour is due;-as in the first 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 gods before me," that expression, "That brought thee out of the land of Egypt," is a motive to the worship of God, but not the formal cause of it, that being due to him as he is by nature God, blessed for ever, though he had never brought that people out of Egypt. But of this more afterward. Question 7, a farther diversion from the matter in hand is attempted by this inquiry:

Q. 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 v. 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 the human. The power that Christ hath upon the account of his divine nature is not delegated, but essential to him. Nor can Mr 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 mankind; 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," Mr B. cannot prove, nor doth attempt it.

1

The 8th, 9th, and 10th questions belong not to us. We grant it was and is the will and command of God that Jesus Christ, the mediator, should be worshipped of angels and men, and that he was so worshipped even in this world, for "when he brought the first-begotten into the world, he said, Let all the angels of God worship him," Heb. i. 6; 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 any thing but his being "God, blessed for evermore," or his being the "only-begotten Son of God,' there is not in the places mentioned the least intimation.

The 11th and 12th look again the same way with the former, and with the same success. Saith he,

Q. 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?

A. Rev. v. 9.

Q. Are the angels of the same opinion with the saints, when they also ascribe the glory and dominion to him? let me hear how they also explain themselves? A. Rev. v. 11, 12.

Of both these places afterward.

At present,-1. Christ as a lamb is Christ as mediator, both God and man, to whom all honour and glory is due.

2. Neither saints nor angels do give, nor pretend to give, the reason why Christ is to be worshipped, or what is the formal reason why divine worship is ascribed to him, but only what is in their thoughts and considerations a powerful and effectual motive to love, fear, worship, and ascribe all glory to him; as David often cries, "Bless the LORD, O my soul!" (or assigns glory and honour to him), because he had done such or such things, intimating a motive to his worship, and not the prime foundation and cause why he is to be worshipped.

Having spoken thus to the adoration of Christ, his last question 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 honour due to him, I shall close these considerations with this one syllogism: "He who is to be worshipped by angels and men with that divine worship which is

due to God the Father, and to be prayed unto, called on, believed in, is God by nature, blessed for ever; but, according to the confession of Mr B., Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by 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 for ever." 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 endeavour of Faustus Socinus to set up a new religion, there was not any thing wherein he was more opposed, or wherewith he was more exercised by the men of the same design with himself, than in this, about the worship and invocation of Jesus Christ. He and his uncle Lælius urging amongst others this proposition, “That Christ was not God," Franciscus David, Budæus, Christianus Franken, Palæologus, with others, made the conclusion that he was not to be worshipped as God, nor called upon. With some of these he had sundry disputes and conferences, and was miserably intricated by them, being unable to defend his opinion upon his hypothesis of the person of Christ. That Christ is to be worshipped and invocated, indeed, he proves well and learnedly, as in many places, so especially in his third epistle to Matthias 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, anno 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 afterward: see "Disput. cum Franken," pp. 24, 25, 28, 35, etc. Against Franciscus David he wrote a peculiar tract, and to him an epistle, to prove that the words of Thomas, "My Lord and my God," were spoken of Christ, and therefore he was to be worshipped (Epist. p. 186); wherein he positively; affirms that there was no other reading of the words (as David vainly pretended) but what is the 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

1 "Primum igitur quod attinet ad priorem rationem dico, diversam illam lectionem non extare, ut arbitror, neque in ullo probato codice, neque apud ullum probatum scriptorem, quod vel ex eo constare potest, quod Erasmus in suis Annotationibus quamvis de hoc ipso loco agat, ejus rei nullam prorsus mentionem facit. Qui Erasmus, cum hoc in genere nusquam non diligentissime versatur; tum in omnibus locis in quibus Christus Deus appellari videtur, adeo diligenter omnia verba expendit, atque examinat, ut non immerito et Trinitariis Arianismi suspectus fuerit, et ab Antitrinitariis inter eos relatus, qui subobscure Trinitati reclamaverint."-Faust. Socin. Ep. ad Franc. David. pp. 186, 187.