and before them by Socinus against Weik, to whom not only they but Grotius is beholden. That citation of Acts x. 6 helps not the business at all. Orog is twice used, once immediately at the beginning of the verse, secondly being guided by the first; the latter is referred to the same person, nor can possibly signify any other. Here is no such thing, not any one circumstance to cause us to put any force upon the constructure of the words, the discourse being still of the same person, without any alteration; which in the other places is not.

Of the next testimony, which is from these words of Jude, "Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," verse 4 (not to increase words), this is the sum: There being but one article prefixed to all the words, it seems to carry the sense that it is wholly spoken of Christ. The catechists reckon some places where one article serves to sundry things, as Matt. xxi. 12; but it is evident that they are utterly things of another kind and another manner of speaking than what is here: but the judgment hereof is left to the reader, it being not indeed clear to me whether Christ be called Atoórns anywhere in the New Testament, though he be [called] Lord, and God, and the true God, full often.

The second [chapter] of Titus, verse 13, must be more fully insisted on : Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Q. What dost thou answer to this?

A. In this place they strive to evince by two reasons that the epithet of the "great God" is referred to Christ. The first is the rule forementioned, of one article prefixed to all the words; the other, that we do not expect that coming of the Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an answer already in the answer to the fourth testimony; to the other I answer, Paul doth not say, "Expecting the coming of the great God," but, "Expecting the appearance of the glory of the great God." But now the words of Christ show that the glory of God the Father may be said to be illustrated when Christ comes to judgment, when he saith that he shall come in glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Matt. xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38. Besides, what inconvenience is it if it shall be said that God the Father shall come (as they cite the words out of the Vulgar), when the Son comes to judge the world? Shall not Christ sustain the person of the Father, as of him from whom he hath received this office of judging?1

About the reading of the words we shall not contend with them.

1 "Ad quintum quid respondes ?-Quintum testimonium est, Expectantes beatam spem, etc. Quo in loco epitheton magni Dei ad Christum referri duabus rationibus evincere conantur. Prior est, superius de articulo uno præfixo regula; posterior, quod adventum non expectemus Patris, sed Filii. Verum ad primum argumentum responsum habes in responsione ad quartum testimonium. Ad alterum respondeo, Paulum non dicere, Expectantes adventum magni Dei, verum dicere, Expectantes apparitionem gloriæ magni Dei. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei Patris illustratam iri, cum Christus ad judicium venerit, verba Christi ostendunt, cum ait, quod venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum gloria Dei Patris sui, Matt. xvi. 27; Marc. viii. 38. Præterea, quod est inconveniens si dicatur, Deus Pater venturus (prout illi e Vulgata citant) cum Filius ad mundum judicandum venerit? An Christus Dei Patris personam, in judicio mundi, tanquam ejus a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sustinebit ?"

VOL. XII.

17

It is the original we are to be tried by, and there is in that no ambiguity. That 'Epávera rñs dígns, “The appearance of the glory," is a Hebraism for "The glorious appearance" cannot be questioned. A hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament may be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed hope looked for is the thing hoped for, the resurrection to life and immortality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the subject spoken of be Jesus Christ and his coming to judgment. The subject is one; his epithets here two:-1. That belonging to his essence in himself, he is "the great God;" 2. That of office unto us, he is "our Saviour." That it is Christ which is spoken of appears,— 1. From the single article that is assigned to all the words, Tou μsyάhou Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ· which no less signifies one person than that other expression, Ο Θεός καὶ Πατὴρ ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, — The God and Father of Jesus Christ." Should I say that one person is here intended, and not two (God and the Father of Jesus Christ being the same), our catechists may say, "No; for it is found in another place that there is but one article prefixed where sundry persons are after spoken of." But is it not evident in those places, from the subject-matter, that they are sundry persons, as also from the several conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Matt. xxi. 12, "He cast out the sellers and buyers?" The proper force, then, of the expression enforces this attribution to Jesus Christ. 2. Mention is made ris ipaveías,―of the glorious appearance of him of whom the apostle speaks. That Christ is the person spoken of, and his employment of coming to judgment, primarily and directly, is confessed. This word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and that, in particular, in respect of the things here spoken of; yea, it is properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first coming, under contempt, scorn, and reproach: 1 Tim. vi. 14, "Keep this commandment, μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.” 2 Tim. iv. 8, "Which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them that love τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ.” Neither, as was said, is it ever used of the Father, but is the word continually used to express the second coming of Jesus Christ. Sometimes apovcía hath the same signification; and is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what may be said to be done, whether the glory of the Father may be said to be illustrated by the coming of Christ, but what is said. "The glorious appearance of the great God" is not the manifestation of his glory, but his glory is manifested in his appearance. 4. It is true, it is said that Christ shall " come in the glory of his Father," Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38; but it is nowhere said that the glory of the Father shall come or appear. 5. Their whole interpretation of the words will scarce admit of any good sense; nor can it be properly said that two persons come

when only one comes, though that one have glory and authority from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own name, and by the laws which, as Lord, he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming and appearance of the great God and our Saviour: which if our Saviour come really and indeed, and the great God only because he sends him, the one comes and the other comes not; which is not, doubtless, they both come.

Grotius agrees with our catechists, but says not one word more for the proof of his interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, than they say, as they say no more than Socinus against Bellarmine, nor he much more than Erasmus before him, from whom Grotius also borrowed his comment of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himself having proved that comment under the name of Ambrose to be a paltry, corrupted, depraved, foisted piece: but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.

The next testimony mentioned is Rev. i. 8, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;" to which is added that of chap. iv. 8, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come."

Q. What sayest thou to this?

A. This place they say refers to Christ, because they suppose none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be noted, that that word which they have rendered "to come," may equally be rendered "is to be," as John xvi. 13, where the Lord says of the Spirit, which he promised to the apostles, that he should "show them things to come; " and Acts xviii. 21, we read that the feast day was "to be," in which place the Greek word is ipxóμsvos. Lastly, Who is there that knows not that seeing it is said before, "which was, and is," this last which is added may be rendered "to be," that the words in every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two former of existence, in the latter of coming? Neither is there any one who doth not observe that the eternity of God is here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this gross error is that which we read in Rev. i. 4, 5, "Grace be to you, and peace, from him which is, which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness; "-from which testimony it appears that Jesus Christ is quite another from him which is, and was, and is to be, or, as they think, is to come.'

1 "Quid ad sextum respondes ?-Eum vero locum propterea ad Christum referunt, quod arbitrentur neminem venturum, nisi Christum; is enim venturus est ad judicandum vivos et mortuos. Verum tenendum est, eam vocem quam illi reddidere venturus est, reddi æque posse futurus est, ut Johan. xvi. 13, ubi Dominus ait de Spiritu, quem apostolis promittebat, quod illis esset futura annunciaturus; et Act. xviii. 21, ubi legimus, diem festum futurum: in quibus locis duobus, vox Græca est ipxóμevos. Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prius dictum sit, qui erat, et qui est, et posterius hoc quod additum est per futurum esse reddi debere, et ubique de existentia ea oratio accipiatur, et non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in postremo de adventu? Nec est quisquam qui non animadvertat hic describi æternitatem Dei, quæ tempus

1. There is not one place which they have mentioned wherein the word here used, ipxóuevos, may not properly be translated "to come;" which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ. But, 2. These gentlemen make themselves and their disciples merry by persuading them that we have no other argument to prove these words to be spoken of Christ but only because he is said to be ỏ spóLEVOS: which yet, in conjunction with other things, is not without its weight, being as it were a name of the Messiah, Matt. xi. 3, from Gen. xlix. 10, though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no less triumphant, doubtless, in their following answer, that these words describe the eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ; when the argument is, that Christ is God, because, amongst other things, these words ascribe eternity to him. Is this an answer to us, who not only believe him, but prove him eternal? 4. And they are upon the same pin still in their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father, verse 4, when they know that the argument which they have undertaken to answer is, that the same names are ascribed to the Son as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal with him. Their answer is, "This name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is ascribed to the Father." Men must beg when they can make no earnings at work. 5. We confess Christ to be "alius," another," another person from the Father; not another God, as our catechists pretend.

Having stopped the mouths of our catechists, we may briefly consider the text itself. 1. That by this expression, "Who is, and who was, and who is to come," the apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh [7], Exod. iii. 14, which, as the rabbins say, is of all seasons, and expressive of all times, is evident. To which add that other name of God, "Almighty," and it cannot at all be questioned but that he who is intended in these words is " the only true God." 2. That the words are here used of Jesus Christ is so undeniable from the context that his adversaries thought good not once to mention it. Verse 7, his coming is described to be in glory: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him;" whereupon himself immediately adds the words of this testimony, "I am Alpha and Omega." For, (1.) They are words spoken to John by him who gave him the Revelation, which was Jesus Christ, verse 1. (2.) They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Jesus Christ, verse 18. (3.) Jesus Christ twice in this chapter afterward gives præteritum, præsens, et futurum comprehendit. Sed quod crassum errorem hunc detegit, est quod Apoc. i. 4, 5, legimus, Gratia vobis, et pax, ab eo qui est, et qui erat, et qui futurus est; et a septem spiritibus qui sunt ante faciem throni ejus; et a Jesu Christo, qui est testis fidelis. E quo testimonio apparet, Jesum Christum ab eo qui est, qui erat, et qui futurus est, vel, ut illi credunt, venturus, esse longe alium."

1 Εως ἐὰν ἔλθῃ ᾧ ἀπόκειται, Gen. xlix. 10. Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, Matt. xi. 8.

himself the same title, verse 11, "I am Alpha and Omega;" and verse 17," I am the first and the last." But who is he? "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I live for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death," verse 18. He gave the Revelation, he is described, he speaks all always, he gives himself the same title twice again in this chapter.

But our catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the words as they are placed, chap. i. 8, considering the same words in chap. iv. 8, where they want some of the circumstances which in this place give light to their application. They are not there spoken by any one that ascribes them to himself, but by others are ascribed "to him that sitteth upon the throne;" who cry (as the seraphims, Isa. vi. 3), 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But yet there wants not evidence to evince that these words belong immediately in this place also to Jesus Christ; for,1. They are the name, as we have seen, whereby not long before he revealed himself. 2. They are spoken of "him who sitteth upon the throne" in the midst of the Christian churches here represented. And if Christ be not intended in these words, there is no mention of his presence in his church, in that solemn representation of its assembly, although he promised to be in the "midst" of his " to the end of the world." 3. The honour that is here ascribed to him that is spoken of is because he is gros, "worthy," as the same is assigned to the Lamb by the same persons in the same words, chap. v. 12. So that in both these places it is Jesus Christ who is described: "He is, he was, he is to come" (or, as another place expresses it, "The same yesterday, to-day, and for ever"), " the Lord God Almighty."

I shall not need to add any thing to what Grotius hath observed on these places. He holds with our catechists, and ascribes these titles and expressions to God in contradistinction to Jesus Christ, and gives in some observations to explain them: but for the reason of his exposition, wherein he knew that he dissented from the most of Christians, we have oùdè ypu, so that I have nothing to do but to reject his authority; which, upon the experience I have of his design, I can most freely do.

Proceed we to the next testimony, which is Acts xx. 28, " Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." He who purchased the church with his blood is God; but it was Jesus Christ who purchased his church with his blood, Eph. v. 25-27, Tit. ii. 14, Heb. ix. 14: therefore he is God.

Q. What dost thou answer to this?

A. I answer, the name of "God" is not necessarily in this place referred to Christ, but it may be referred to God the Father, whose blood the apostles call that which Christ shed, in that kind of speaking, and for that cause, with which God, and