of the place in my late 'Vindicia Evangelicæ,' where he will find something tendered to him to that purpose. What the apologist intended by adding these two places of Isaiah, chap. xlv. 12. and the xlviii. 13. (when in his Annotations on those places, Grotius not once mentions the Deity of Christ, nor any thing of him, nor hath occasion so to do, nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or purpose, but only to shew that the Chaldee paraphrase doth sundry times, when things are said to be done by God, render it, that they were done by the word of God), as instances to the prejudice of my assertion, I cannot imagine.

On that of Peter, 2 Epistle iii. 5. tų toũ Deoũ Xóyw, he adds indeed, ́ vide quæ diximus ad initium Evangelii Johannis:' but neither doth that place intend the natural Son of God, nor is it so interpreted by Grotius.

To these he adds in the close; Col. i. 16. in the exposition whereof in his Annotations, he expressly prevaricates, and goes of to the interpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions, which the apologist well knew. Without farther search upon what hath been spoken, the apologist gives in his verdict concerning the falseness of my assertion before-mentioned, of the annotator's speaking clear and home to the Deity of Christ but in one, if in one place of his Annotations. But,

1. What one other place hath he produced, whereby the contrary, to what I assert, is evinced? Any man may make apologies at this rate as fast as he pleases.

2. As to his not speaking clearly in that one, notwithstanding the improvement made of his expressions by the apologist, I am still of the same mind as formerly. For although he ascribes an eternity, r λóyų, and affirms all things to be made thereby; yet considering how careful he is, of ascribing an ὑπόστασις, τῷ λόγῳ, how many Platonic interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his expositions, how he hath darkened the whole counsel of God in that place about the subsistence of the Word, its omnipotency and incarnation, so clearly asserted by the Holy Ghost therein, I see no reason to retract the assertion opposed. But yet as to the thing itself, about this place I will not contend: only it may not be amiss to observe, that not only the Arians, but even Photinus himself acknowledged that

the world was made τ Oɛou λwyy, that how little is obtained towards the confirmation of the Deity of Christ by that concession, may be discerned.

I shall offer also only at present, that ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, is threefold, λόγος ὑποστατικός, ἐνδιάθετος, and προφορικός. The λόγος υποστατικὸς or ουσιώδης is Christ, mentioned John i. 1. his personal or eternal subsistence, with his omnipotency, being there asserted. Whether Christ be so called any where else in the New Testament may be disputed: Luke i. 2. (compared with 1 John i. 1.) 2 Pet. i 16. Acts xx. 32. Heb. iv. 12. are the most likely to give us that use of the word. Why Christ is so termed, I have shewed elsewhere. That he is called 727 Psal. xxxiii. 6. is to me also evident. nm is better rendered ῥῆμα, or λέξις, than λόγος. Where that word is used, it denotes not Christ: though 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. where that word is, is urged by some to that purpose. He is also called 7 Hag. ii. 5. so perhaps in other places. Our present Quakers would have that expression of the word of God, used nowhere in any other sense: so that destroying that, as they do, in the issue they may freely despise the Scripture, as that which they say is not the word of God, nor any where so called. Aóyos ¿vdiáJETOS amongst men, is that which Aristotle calls, ròv čow λόγον λόγος ἐν νῷ λαμβανόμενος, says Hesychius. Λόγος ivdiaderos is that which we speak in our hearts, says Damascen. de Orthod. Fid. lib. 1. cap. 18. So Psal. xiv. 1.5x 15. This as spoken in respect of God, is that egress of his power, whereby according to the eternal conception of his mind, he worketh any thing. So Gen. i. 2. God said, Let there be light, and there was light.' Of this word of God the Psalmist treats, cxlvii. ver. 18. 'he sendeth out 17 and melteth the ice,' and Psal. cxlviii. 8. the same word is used. In both which places the Septuagint renders it by å λóyos. This is that which is called ῥῆμα τῆς δυνάμεως, Heb. i. 3. xi. 3. where the apostle says, the heavens were made pýμari Oɛoũ, which is directly parallel to that place of 2 Pet. iii. 5. where it is expressed T Toυ Oɛoũ Xóy: for though ῥῆμα more properly denotes λόγον προφορικὸν, yet in these places, it signifies plainly that egress of God's power for the production and preservation of things, being a pursuit of the eternal conception of his mind, which is λογος ενδιάθετος.

Now this infinite, wise, and eternal conception of the mind of God, exerting itself in power, wherein God s said to speak,' he said, Let there be light,' is that which the Platonics, and Philo with them, harped on, never once dreaming of a co-essential and hypostatical word of God, though the word andoraois occur amongst them. This they thought was unto God, as in us, λόγος ἐνδιάθετος oι ὁ ἔσω, πρὸς νοῦν and particularly it is termed by Philo, φωνὴ τῆς διανοίας ἐνpivoμévn de Agric. That this was his ó óyoç is most evident. Hence he tells us, οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον ειποι τὸν νοητὲν εἶναι κόςμον ἢ Θεοῦ λόγον ήδη κοσμοποιοῦνος. οὐδε γὰρ ἡ νόητη πόλις ἕτερον τι ἐστὶν, ἢ ὁ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος λογισμὸς, ἤδη τὴν νοητὴν πόλιν κτίζειν διανουμένου. Μωσέως γὰρ τὸ δόγμα τοῦτο, οὐκ ἐμὸν de Mund. Opific. and a little after, τὸν δὲ ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν θεῖον λόγον, εἰκὸνα λέγει Θεοῦ· καὶ ταύτης εἰκόνα τὸν νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο, ὅ θείου λόγου γέγονεν εἰκὼν τοῦ διερμηνεύ σαντος τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ· et ἐστιν ὑπερουράνιος ἀστὴρ. The whole tendency of his discourse is, that the word of God, in his mind, in the creation of the world, was the image of himself; and that the idea or image of the things to be made, but especially of light. And whereas (if I remember aright, for I cannot now find the place) I have said somewhere, that Christ was λóyos évdiáßeros, though therein I have the consent of very many learned divines, and used it merely in opposition τ poдpopuw; yet I desire to recall it: nor do I think there is any propriety in that expression of upuros used of Christ, but only in those of ὑποστάτικος and οὐσιωδης, which the Scripture (though not in the very terms) will make good. In this second acceptation, roũ λóyou, Photinus himself granted that the world was made by the word of God. Now if it be thought necessary, that I should give an account of my fear that nothing but ô λỏyoç in this sense, decked with many platonical encomiums, was intended in the Annotations on John i. (though I confess much, from some quotations there used, may be said against it) I shall readily undertake the task; but at present in this running course, I shall add

no more.

But now, as if all the matter in hand were fully despatched, we have this triumphant close attending the former discourse and observations.

'If one text acknowledged to assert Christ's eternal divi

nity' (which one was granted to do it, though not clearly), * will not suffice to conclude him no Socinian' (which I said not he was, yea, expressly waved the management of any such charge); if six verses in the Proverbs, two in Isaiah, one in St. Peter, one in St. Paul, added to many in the beginning of St. John' (in his Annotations, on all which he speaks not one word to the purpose), 'will not yet amount to above one text; or lastly, if that one may be doubted of also, which is by him interpreted to affirm Christ's eternal subsistence with God before the creation of the world' (which he doth not so interpret, as to a personal subsistence), and that the whole world was created by him; I shall despair of ever being a successful advocate for any man;' from which condition I hope some little time will recover the apologist.

This is the sum of what is pleaded in chief, for the defence of the Annotations: wherein what small cause he hath to acquiesce, who hath been put to the labour and trouble of vindicating near forty texts of Scripture, in the Old Testament and New, giving express testimony to the Deity of Christ from the annotator's perverse interpretations, let the reader judge. In the 13th section of the apologist's discourse, he adds some other considerations to confirm his former vindication of the Annotations.

1. He tells us, that he' professeth not to divine what places of the Old Testament, wherein the Deity of Christ is evidently testified unto, are corrupted by the learned man, nor will he upon the discouragement already received make any inquiry into my treatise.'

But what need of divination? The apologist cannot but remember at all times, some of the texts of the Old Testament that are pleaded to that purpose; and he hath at least as many encouragements to look into the Annotations, as discouragements from casting an eye upon that volume as he calls it, wherein they are called to an account. And if he suppose he can make a just defence for the several places so wrested and perverted, without once consulting of them, I know not how by me he might possibly be engaged into such an inquiry. And therefore I shall not name them again, having done somewhat more than name them already.

But he hath two suppletory considerations, that will

render any such inquiry or inspection needless. Of these the first is,

That the word of God being all and every part of it of equal truth, that doctrine which is founded on five places of divine writ, must by all Christians be acknowledged to be as irrefragably confirmed, as a hundred express places would be conceived to confirm it.'

Ans. It is confessed, that not only five, but any one express text of Scripture, is sufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth. But that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by the apologist for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about, is but pretended, indeed there is no such thing. The charge on Grotius was, that he had depraved all but one: if that be no crime, the defence was at hand; if it be, though that one should be acknowledged to be clear to that purpose, here is no defence against that which was charged, but a strife about that which was not. Let the places be consulted, if the assertion prove true, by an induction of instances, the crime is to be confessed, or else the charge denied to contain a crime. But,

Secondly, he says, "That this charge upon inquiry will be found in some degree, if not equally, chargeable on the learnedest and most valuable of the first reformers, particularly upon Mr. Calvin himself, who hath been as bitterly and unjustly accused and reviled upon this account (witness the book intitled Calvino Turcismus') as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine and Beza, or as probably Grotius may be.'

Though this at the best be but a diversion of the charge, and no defence, yet, not containing that truth which is needful to countenance it, for the end for which it is proposed; I could not pass it by. It is denied (which in this case until farther proof must suffice) that any of the learnedest of the first reformers, and particularly Mr. Calvin, are equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion with Grotius, as to the crime insisted on. Calvin being the man instanced in, I desire the apologist to prove that he hath in all his commentaries on the Scripture, corrupted the sense of any texts of the Old Testament or New, giving express testimony to the Deity of Christ, and commonly pleaded to that end and purpose. Although I deny not, but that he differs from