the manner of men, are to be understood in him, and of them, in that which they denote of perfection, and not in respect of that which is imperfect and weak. For instance, when God says, 'his eyes run to and fro to behold the sons of men,' we do not say, that he speaks one thing and understands another, but only because we have our knowledge and acquaintance with things by our eyes, looking up and down, therefore doth he, who hath not eyes of flesh as we have, nor hath any need, to look up and down, to acquaint himself with them, all whose ways are in his own hand, nor can without blasphemy be supposed to look from one thing to another, chose to express his knowledge of, and intimate acquaintance with, all things here below, in and by his own infinite understanding, in the way so suited to our apprehension. Neither are these kind of expressions in the least an occasion of idolatry, or do give advantage to any, of creating any shape of God in their imaginations; God having plainly and clearly in the same word of his, wherein these expressions are used, discovered that of himself, his nature, being, and properties, which will necessarily determine, in what sense those expressions are to be understood; as in the consideration of the several particulars in the ensuing discourse, the reader will find evinced. And we are yet of the mind, that to conceive of God, as a great man, with mouth, eyes, hands, legs, &c. in a proper sense, sitting in heaven, shut up there, troubled, vexed, moved up and down with sundry passions, perplexed about the things that are to come to pass, which he knows not, which is the notion of God, that Mr. B. labours to deliver the world from their darkness withal, is gross idolatry. Whereunto the scriptural attributions unto God mentioned, give not the least countenance, as will in the progress of our discourse more fully appear. And if it be true, which Mr. B. intimates, that ' things implying imperfection (speaking of sleep, and being weary) are not properly attributed to God,' I doubt not but I shall easily evince, that the same line of refusal, is to pass over the visible shape, and turbulent affections, which are by him ascribed to him; but of these more particularly in their respective places.

But he adds, That this consideration is so pressing, 1 Quæ dicuntur de Deo 'Ανθρωποπαπῶς, intelligenda sunt θεοπρεπῶς.

(pp. 13, 14.) that a certain learned author, in his book entitled Conjectura Cabalistica' affirms, that for Moses, by occasion of his writing to let the Jews entertain a conceit of God as in human shape, was not any more a way to bring them unto idolatry, than by acknowledging man to be God, as our religion doth in part;' which plea of his Mr. B. exagitates in the pages following. That learned gentleman, is of age and ability to speak for himself; for mine own part, I am not so clear in what he affirms, as to undertake it for him; though otherwise very ready to serve him, upon the account which I have of his worth and abilities; though I may freely say, I suppose they might be better exercised than in such cabalistical conjectures, as the book of his, pointed unto, is full of. But who am I that judge another? we must every one give an account of himself and his labours to God; and the fire shall try our works of what sort they are; I shall not desire to make too much work for the fire. For the present I deny that Moses in his writings, doth give any occasion to entertain a conceit of God, as one of a human shape; neither did the Jews ever stumble into idolatry, on that account. They sometimes indeed, changed their glory, for that which was not God. But whilst they worshipped that God that revealed himself by Moses, Jehovah, Ehejeh, it doth not appear, that ever they entertained in their thoughts any thing but purum numen, a most simple, spiritual, eternal being, as I shall give a farther account afterward. Though they intended to worship Jehovah both in the calf in the wilderness and in those at Bethel, yet that they ever entertained any thoughts, that God had such a shape, as that which they framed to worship him by, is madness to imagine. For though Moses sometimes speaks of God in the condescensionbefore-mentioned, expressing his power by his arm, and bow, and sword; his knowledge and understanding, by his eye, yet he doth in so many places caution them with whom he had to do, of entertaining any thoughts of any bodily similitude of God, that by any thing delivered by him, there is not the least occasion administered, for the entertaining of such a conceit, as is intimated. Neither am I clear in the theological predication, which that learned person hath chosen to parallel with the Mosaical expressions of God's shape and similitude, concerning man

being God; though we acknowledge him who is man, to be God, yet we do not acknowledge man to be God. Christ under this reduplication, as man, is not a person, and so not God. To say that man is God, is to say, that the humanity and Deity are the same; whatever he is as man he is upon the account of his being man; now that he who is man, is also God, though he be not God upon the account of his being man, can give no more occasion to idolatry, than to say that God is infinite, omnipotent. For the expression itself, it being in the concrete, it may be salved by the communication of properties; but as it lies, it may possibly be taken in the abstract, and so is simply false. Neither do I judge it safe to use such expressions, unless it be when the grounds and reasons of them are assigned. But that Mr. B. should be offended with this assertion, I see no reason. Both he and his associates affirm, that Jesus Christ, as man (being in essence and nature nothing but man), is made a God, and is the object of divine worship, or religious adoration on that account. I may therefore, let pass Mr. B.'s following harangue against men's philosophical speculations, deserting the Scripture in their contemplations of the nature of God; as though they could speak more worthily of God than he hath done of himself.' For though it may easily be made appear, that never any of the Platonical philosophers spoke so unworthily of God, or vented such gross carnal conceptions of him as Mr. B. hath done, and the gentleman of whom he speaks be well able to judge of what he reads, and to free himself from being entangled in any of their notions, discrepant from the revelation that God hath made of himself in his word, yet we being resolved to try out the whole matter, and to put all the differences we have with Mr. B. to the trial and issue, upon the express testimony of God himself, in his word, are not concerned in this discourse..

Neither have I any necessity to divert to the consideration of his complaint, concerning the bringing in of new expressions into religion; if he intends such as whose substance or matter, which they do express, is not evidently and expressly found in the Scripture; what is the 'Babylonish language,' what are the horrid and intricate expressions, which he affirms to be introduced, under a colour of detect

ing and confuting heresies, but indeed to put a baffle upon the simplicity of the Scripture,' he gives us an account of p. 19. where we shall consider it and them. In general, words are but the figures of things. It is not words and terms, nor expressions, but doctrines and things we inquire after. Mr. B. I suppose, allows expositions of Scriptures, or else I am sure he condemns himself in what he practices. His book is in his own thoughts, an exposition of Scripture. That this cannot be done without varying the words and literal expressions thereof, I suppose will not be questioned. To express the same thing that is contained in any place of Scripture, with such other words as may give light unto it, in our understandings is to expound it. This are we called to; and the course of it is to continue, whilst Christ continues a church upon the earth. Paul spake nothing for the substance of the things he delivered, but what was written in the prophets. That he did not use new expressions, not to be found in any of the prophets, will not be proved. But there is a twofold evil in these expressions. That they are invented to detect and unfold heresies as is pretended. If heretics begin first to wrest Scripture expressions to a sense never received nor contained in them, it is surely lawful for them, who are willing to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,' to clear the mind of God in his word, by expressions and terms suitable thereunto. Neither have heretics carried on their cause without the invention of new words and phrases.

If any shall make use of any words, terms, phrases, and expressions, in and about religious things, requiring the embracing and receiving of those words, &c. by others, without examining either the truth of what by those words, phrases, &c. they intend to signify and express; or the propriety of those expressions themselves, as to their accommodation for the signifying of those things, I plead not for them. It is not in the power of man, to make any word or expression

κ ̓ Ουκ ἐν ἔχω, μᾶλλον ἐν διανοίᾳ κεῖται ἡ ἀλήθεια. Greg. Naz.

1 Ἦν ὅταν οὐκ ἦν. ομοιούσιος. Homo deificatus, &c. dixit Arius. 1. υἱον ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων yeyevñobai. 2, "Eival TOTE OTE oux hv, &c. Zozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 14. p. 215. Theodor. Hist. 1. 1. c. 2. p. 3. Socrat. Scholast. Hist. lib. 1. c. 3, &c. 'Oux Eλeye yàp ἕνωσιν τοῦ λόγου τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ δυὸ ὑποστάσεις ἔλεγε, καὶ διάιρεσιν. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ θεὸν ἀπεκάλει τὸν Χριστὸν, ἀλλὰ οὐκ ἔτι ὡς ἡμεῖς, ἀλλὰ τῆ σχέσει, καὶ τῆ οἰκειώσει κατὰ τὸ ταυτὰ ἀλλήλοις ἀρέσκειν διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς φιλίας. Leont. de Sect. de Nestorio.

not pnres found in the Scripture to be canonical," and for its own sake, to be embraced and received. But yet if any word or phrase do expressly signify any doctrine or matter contained in the Scripture, though the word or phrase itself be not in so many letters found in the Scripture, that such words or phrases may not be used for the explication of the mind of God, I suppose will not easily be proved. And this we farther grant, that if any one shall scruple the receiving and owning of such expressions, so as to make them the way of professing that which is signified by them, and yet do receive the thing or doctrine, which is by them delivered, for my part, I shall have no contest with him. For instance; the word ouooúdios, was made use of by the first Nicene council, to express the unity of essence and being that is in the Father and Son, the better to obviate Arius and his followers, with their v öтav oùк v, and the like forms of speech, nowhere found in Scripture, and invented on set purpose to destroy the true and eternal Deity of the Son of God. If now any man should scruple the receiving of that word, but withal should profess that he believes Jesus Christ to be God equal to the Father, one with him from the beginning, and doth not explain himself by other terms, not found in the Scripture, viz. that he was made a God, and is one with the Father as to will, not essence, and the like, he is like to undergo neither trouble nor opposition from me. We know what troubles arose between the east and western churches, about the words Hypostasis and Persona, until they understood on each side, that by these different words, the same thing was intended; and that iπóσraois, with the Greeks, was not the same with Substantia, with the Latins; nor Persona with the Latins, the same with рóσwπоv among the Greeks, as to their application to the thing, the one and the other expressed by those terms, that such 'monstrous terms are brought into our religion, as neither they that invented them, nor they that use them do understand,' Mr. B. may be allowed to aver, from the measure he hath taken of all men's understandings, weighing them in his own; and saying, 'thus far can they go and no farther;' this they can understand, that they cannot. A prerogative, as we shall see

"Vide Cal. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 13. Alting. Theol. Elenct. loc. de Deo.