Christ; which answereth an old saying of the Hebrews; 'That the world was made for the Messiah.'

But what will not great wits give a colour to? Grotius is not able to give me one instance in the whole New Testament, where di óu is taken for di ov; and if it should be so any where, 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 Si ou be put for di dv; dìa must be put for ɛiç, as in the opinion of Beza it is once in the place quoted by Grotius; and so signify the final cause, as he makes di öv to do. Now the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two, in this business of making the world: Rom. xi. 36. δι αυτοῦ, καὶ ἐις αυτὸν τὰ πάντα. So that doubtless in the same matter, one of these is not put for the other. 3. Why must έπroiŋσɛ 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 avas, which he uses, to the threefold world they mention in their liturgy; the lower, middle, and higher world, or souls of the blessed. Or the fourfold mentioned by Rab. Alschech; Messias prosperabitur vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos complectitur: qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus angelorum, mundus sphærarum, et mundus supremus,' &c. but of this enough.

Though this last testimony be sufficient to confound all gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of men of common 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 any one single testimony besides with what success comes now to be considered.

The words are, Heb. i. 10-12. And, Thou, Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a 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. And thou 'Lord,' for of him the psalmist speaks, though he repeat 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 thy hands.' 4. His immutability; 'thou art the same, and thy years fail not;' 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 God. But because this writer refers

e 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 cœli 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 a 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 referendem esse, id vero propterea, quod Deus cœlum 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 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, nulla 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 Evangelista Matthæi pertinere, cum id voluerit probare, cur Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret. Deinde, Acts ii. 17-21. Ubi etiam tantum ver. 17, 18. ad propositum Petri Apostoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum Sanctum esse effusum supra discipulos doceat: et ibidem ver. 25—28. Ubi palam est, versum tantum 27. ad propositum facere, quandoquidem id approbet apostolus, Christum a morte detineri fuisse impossibile. Denique in hoc ipso capite, ver. 9. ubi verba hæc, dilexisti justitiam et odio habuisti iniquitatem, apparet nihil pertinere ad rem quam probat apostolus, quæ est, Christum præstantiorem factum angelis.

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, ver. 4. of which kind of excellence seeing that the creation of heaven and earth is not, nor can be, it appeareth manifestly, that this testimony is not urged by this writer to prove that Christ created heaven and earth. Seeing therefore the first part cannot be referred to Christ, it appeareth, that the latter only is to be referred to him: and that because by him God will abolish heaven and earth, when by him he shall execute the last judgment: whereby the excellency of Christ above angels shall be so 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. 'But where have the divine writers done this?

'Amongst many other testimonies take, Matt. xii. 1821. where it is most manifest, that only ver. 19. belongeth to the purpose of the evangelist, when he would prove, why Christ forbid, that he should be made known, So Acts vii. 17-21. where also ver. 17, 18. only do make to the apostle's purpose, which is to prove, that the Holy Ghost was poured forth on the disciples. And there also, ver. 25-28. where ver. 27. only is to the purpose: the apostle proving only, that it was impossible that Christ should be detained of death. Lastly, in this very chapter, ver. 9. where these words, thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity,' are used; it is evident, that they belong not to the thing which the apostle proveth; which is, that Christ was made more excellent than the angels.

That in all this discourse there is not any thing 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 these things are spoken of him, that are proper to God only.

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

3. It is shameless impudence in these gentlemen to take upon them to say, that this part of the apostle's testimony, which he 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; viz. that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ above angels, insisted on by the apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to receive by inheritance. The design of the apo-, stle is to prove the excellency of Christ, in himself, and then in comparison of angels; and therefore, before the mention of what he received by inheritance, he affirms directly, that by him God made the world. And to this end it is most 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 Psal. ii. 5.

6. Our catechists speak not according to their own principles, when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself, and what he had from inheritance. For they suppose he had nothing but by divine grant, and 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, belongs to the same matter in general: and that first expression is, if not only, yet mainly, and chiefly effectual to confirm the intendment of the apostle; proving directly that Christ is better and more excellent than the angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made heaven and earth; they are but his creatures; as God often compares himself with others. In the psalmist the words respect chiefly the making of heaven and earth, and these words are applied to our Saviour. That the two works of making and abolishing the world, should be assigned distinctly unto two persons, there is no pretence to affirm. This boldness indeed is intolerable.

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