Cameron:

1^st letter,

All your reasons . . . are taken from the authority of one of the greatest of men, and the retractation of another from the nature of God, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. As to the two first, I am exceeding sorry that these two persons, one whereof hath justly ye greatest reputation of the Church, and the other highly esteemed by you for his piety, aprove what such as either deny Christ’s satisfaction or turn it to nothing, make the great foundation of their cause: and if we yield this, they have what they would be at, and ye horrour of the evil nature of sin which the Holy Ghost works in the soul, is turned to smoak. But I come to the other two reasons. Its said, that God loves not things because they are good, but every thing is good because loved of God. At this rate, God loves not himself because he is good, but he is so, because he loves himself. If this be absurd, the absurdity will hold in everything that is a branch of the Divine image: for if God, by a natural and immutable propension, loves himself, the same way must he love his image, and both with a natural love. And you yourself have demonstrat this point: only you would notice, that in some things the Divine image shines, as he is God, and yet in them there is no likenes to his justice. And these are undoubtedly, if persons, either approven or disapproven by God: or, if they be actions, they may be commanded or forbidden, without any difference. But then God can neither condemn the innocent nor approve the guilty, nor discharge love to himself, or commend or command the hatred of himself. Hold fast this–let no arts and sophisms drive you from it. Fix all ye powers of your soul here, if you would know what horrible evils have filled mankind by the loss of God’s image. Again, they say, God is free, and may make of his own what he will. But dare they extend this to God’s denying himself? And what is so much his own as himself? Or can he destinate the innocent to eternal pains? But this they say is not what God will ever pleese to do–(ei non libet). Indeed, I say also, it can never please him, because contrary to his nature. The liberty of God, then, either depends on his nature or upon his hidden wisdom, the reasons of which are far above our reach. This last is very clear, in things which are not repugnant to his Divine nature–as to creat the world or not, to conserve it or not, to permit sin or not. The guide of such actions is mysterious infinite wisdom, to which, the reason of the difference is perfectly obvious, which nevertheless cannot be known by us. Thus, that God makes a man sunk in sin either a member of Christ or not, is a secret of Divine wisdom: but that God punishes a sinner, out of Christ, is from plain justice, and we can tell the reason of it, as also why he absolves a person who is in Christ, which is an effort both of justice and mercy. But to make a person the object of compensating justice, or permitting that he is not, is merely voluntary. Yet if one be not the object of compensating justice, for God to consider him as if he were so is against the nature of things, till the impedement be removed. Would you have an instance? The object of compensating justice is a righteous person. God therefor makes us so, before he compensates. To make a man righteous is merely voluntary, but to compensate the righteousness is not merely voluntary; for its contrary to the Divine nature not to love a righteous person: and if he love him, he will compensate him. Thus the object of punishing, and vindictive justice, is a sinner. To hinder or not hinder sinning is perfectly free [to God:] but it can never be free to God (save on the taking away of sin) not to punish the sinner, since he cannot lye, and he is faithfull to his threatnings as well as his promises. From hence we may understand that liberty which results from the Divine nature, [which] is perfectly free to take away, or not to take away the impediment; but the impediment not being removed, I cannot allow that the same freedom can be in God. And yet God is not astricted thus by any other laws than those of his own nature: but from these he neither will, nor can depart. Will you or any other person think that God will revock the damnatory sentence, till the cause of the condemnation be removed? or that the cause of condemnation can ever be removed without a satisfaction? Now, that damnatory sentence is decreed from eternity against the sinner, and promulgat to Adam in time. Its necessary then, that it should continue fixed and firm, till its cause be removed. Canot you perceive how frivolouse their argument is, The person who can remove the impediment by a satisfaction, or not remove it, can also, while the impediment stands, doe the same without any satisfaction on sin: the doing this is ye same as to ye matter with ye removing the impediment? Let me add another thing. There are two kinds of Divine actions–one, wherof there is no cause without God. In these, liberty is directed by wisdom. There are others, the cause of which is without God. In them the Divine liberty is directed or circumscribed by the Divine nature. For instance, the punishing of sin hath its cause without God, and therfor is directed not by the mere will of God, but by his will proceeding from his nature. Lastly, its false which they say, that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is merely voluntary; since God, according to his nature, cannot but impute Christ’s righteousness to him who is represented by Christ. If I pay you a summ of money in the debitor’s name, is ther not here a real imputation? For what is it, in the debitor’s name, for you to accept and receive that money, but to impute ye accepted money to the debitor? Its a contradiction then to say, Christ satisfyed for all men. God imputes this satisfaction only to some. How then does the Scripture say, Christ satisfyed for all? Just as the reward is proposed and appointed to all that strive and run in a race: and yet that is bestowed upon none but him that wins the race. I noticed to you, if I remember, that there is a twofold mercy in God–an antecedent, from which the gift of faith comes, of which Paul speaks, Rom. 9: and the exercise of this is undoubtedly free. The other, consequent, by which God justifyes those to whom he gives faith, which is an act of justice as to Christ, though as to us it’s mercy. This is not meerly voluntary in God. If we will speak then, properly, we must say, Christ satisfyed only for such as believe on him, since these are only his members. As then Adam infected only his own by sin, so Christ abolishes sin only in his own: and none are his but such as believe in him. Observe what I say. Faith makes you a member of Christ, but faith would not save you unless Christ had satisfyed for you. These are two acts very distinct–the ingrafting in Christ by faith, and the imputing Christ’s righteousness to him thus sinned in Christ. The first is merely voluntary, but not the second. What, you will say, is not faith given because of the merit of Christ? Truly, faith is given you that you may participat of the merits of Christ. The death of Christ therfor, is properly the final cause of faith. Whence then, say you, is faith? Just, in my opinion, from the same spring from which God redeems mankind by the blood of Christ, without which, or some other satisfaction, of which I can have no notion, the wordle would have perished, that is, God’s good pleasure. To what you adduce from 1 Tim. 2, 4, I answer, prayers for the salvation of others are either absolute, as when we pray against the sworn enemies of the Church, or for the elect and the Church: or, hypotheticall, for the conversion or conservation of this or that person in the faith. And thus I argue, that in that way, we are to pray for the salvation of particular persons, the same way God wills the salvation of all. But we are to pray for particular persons conditionally: therfor, conditionally, God wills the salvation of all. You err widely if you think you can pray for all in faith absolutely, since ther is not one single promise in ye Bible for the salvation of all; and without a promise ther can be no faith. If you think that God wills equally the salvation of all, without any condition: this is quite wrong, to say no worse. Can you once think that, what God absolutely wills, he again does not will? This is a contradiction. Or cannot do? That is blasphemy. If then God wills absolutely that all shall be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, he will certainly bring this about. But that he does not. The Scripture describes antecedent love to us, as that which hath some degrees–the first of which is, that Christ is given both to Gentiles and Jews, with this condition, that they believe in him. These are expressed in ye Scripture, by every creature, all flesh, the world, in opposition to ye nature of the Jewish Church, which was not Catholick, but restrained to that nation. This degree is spoken of, John 3, 16, as if we should say, the King of France so loved the Parisians, that he pardoned the penitent. Here I understand all the Parisians; and yet I assert that priviledge absolutely to none of them, but only to such as come up to ye condition and penitently ask pardon. In respect of this degree, God is said to give Christ, for ye life of ye world, and to will the salvation of all, as he calls all to penitence, some by the law of nature, others by his written law, others by the gospell. Therfor, here God is said to will all men to be saved, as he calls them to the knowledge of the truth, and because he calls them, and wills they should live piously, and commands so. From the 2d degree of antecedent love, God gives faith. This appears from that celebrated place, ‘No man cometh unto me but he whom my Father draweth;’ and in this respect, Christ is said to be given for the elect only, and that he wills only to save them. God does multitudes of things which to us may seem to be repugnant, but they are not so. We, little creatures, because we cannot fathom what God does, endeavour to take them in among the things we can fathom and know; but these being finit and limited, represent only parts of the Divine way, and very obscurely too. From hence come the seeming repugnancys in what God does–just as if you were looking with dim confused eyes to the parts of the human body, all their harmony would appear to you disharmoniouse: and yet it would be reasonable to you, consciouse of your own weakness, to conclude, that though at present they appeared thus to you, yet really things are not so. Cited from, Robert Wodrow, Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (Glasow: Edward Khull, Printer to the University, 1845), 2: 92-96; dated, Bourdeaux, Dec. 1610. [Some minor reformatting; where applicable, Wodrow’s interpolated comments removed; spelling original; bracketed inserts original; italics original; marginal notation not included; and underlining mine.]

2^nd letter,

[T]hey are fallen into such times, in which its reconed unlawfull to depart in the least from the opinions of such as are reconed pillars; and therefor you must be prudent as well as candid, unless you would barr your own way to preferment. That place, Isaiah v. 4, vexes you somewhat:–’What could have I done more that I have not done in my vineyard?’ After the manner of men, the Lord reproaches his people with their misimprovement of his mercies–his bringing them from Egypt, giving the law, and the possession of Canaan–his sending prophets among them : in short, he had done all, that, had they not been hardened like iron, they would have been moved. This is so far from favouring free will, that I know not one place of Scripture quhich¹ strikes more against it, and proclaims men’s inconquerable malice. When men would conciliat friendship, they apply themselves to the affections of others by benefits, prayers, exhortations, professions of love; and, if these have no weight, the fault lyes in such as will not be bowed. Thus God acts with men in men’s methods and words–but in vain, unless he shed abroad his light in our minds; which light is neither common to all nor given to any of the wicked. Such as say so have not considered the nature of effectual calling; and when I think upon that opinion, which is plausible enough to reason, I tremble, especially when I reflect on God, and the native blindness and deceit of the soul of man. But to return: such who understand Esai otherwise, either injure the Divine omnipotence, as if it could not change the hearts of his people, or charge God with a lye, when he cryes, ‘ What could I have done more?’ and therefor it must be understood alter the manner of men. I have lately, in reading the Scriptures, observed a new figure, very frequently used, and I have affixed a new name to it, the anteeeden put for the consequent. For example, when we read of the dilating our name out of the book of life, this does not signify dilation, but the consequence or it, it I may say so, to wit, damnation. If we suppose a [marginal reading here, p97] book of life with God, the blotting out our names thence would infer our perishing. When God threateneth death, we may suppose is intended that quhich is connected with death. So, when he sayes that his ‘bowels sound for Moab,’ the meaning is terrible destruction, which goes befor the sounding of the bowels; and this is another figure we may call, the consequent put for the antecedent. I could shew you 600 places of Scripture to which, if we apply these figures, they will run exceeding plain, tho’ at present difficult. I come now to Erastus. What his sentiments as to excommunication are I know not, for I never saw his book; only I am told Beza answered it. My opinion is this, there are two things in the Church–Word and sacraments. The Word not only nourishes but begets faith, and therefor none ought to be excluded from communion in it who will join. The sacraments are not of the same nature, and require a profession of repentance and faith. Such, then, who deny that they have faith, and pertinaciously continue to sin, and so not so much as pretend to repent, I am of opinion they ought to be excluded from the sacraments; and this is the only lawful excommunication. Cited from, Robert Wodrow, Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (Glasow: Edward Khull, Printer to the University, 1845), 2: 96-98; dated, Oct. 1611. [Some minor reformatting; where applicable, Wodrow’s interpolated comments removed; spelling original; bracketed inserts original; italics original; marginal notation not included; and underlining mine.]

3^rd letter,

I agree with you about faith, but my explication differs a little. The sun enlightens all men, yet a person sleeping or shutting his eyes receives no light, not by any fault in the sun, but in himself, who does not make use of the light; so Christ died for all, yet his death makes only those happy who by faith embrace him. God could not receive and take a satisfaction from Christ without considering him as the head of such for whom he satisfyed. The fruits, then, of his satisfaction can only belong to them who shall be his members–that is, believers. I believe, then, that Christ satisfyed for me, because he did so truely; but I know only that his true satisfaction brings salvation to me by being conscious of faith in myself. Neither do I divide the fruit of satisfaction from the satisfaction itself: for Christ satisfied for me upon condition that I believe–just as if I should redeem a captive, by paying a particular summ, upon this condition, that he should own his obligation to me, and without that he should not be redeemed. As to the afflictions of believers, my opinion is, all punishment comes either from hatred or love. The first tends to destruction, the last to salvation: the first comes from a Judge, the other from a Father. Christ, by his death, satisfyed God as a Judge, and made him a Father to us; and so, by his death, did not stop paternal punishment, but only those that are regide and severe coming from a Judge. In this matter we need not speak of the whole or of parts: those phrazes are unfitt and dangerouse, and its better to distinguish the two kinds of punishment, jumbled together in this question. I am not ignorant of the idle sophismes about resistible and irresistible power in God. Its a pitifull cause that drives its advocates to this distinction. I own no resistable power in God. He essays nothing quhich he cannot [do]; and what he cannot do, as being a contradiction or unrighteouse, he never attempts. Dare they say that its simply impossible to God to take away the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh–to introduce his love so into a soul, that he cannot but be loved of the person? This is new divinity, as ill as Socinianisme. What you produce from the adversarys’ similitude of a healing medicine, is a most impertinent comparison in them. The medicine heals every malady to which its proper, and no other; and where the medicine does not, no doubt the person is not healed. The Spirit, therefor, you may yield them, is a healing medicine to all diseases to quhich its proper; and there is no distemper of the soul but this heavenly medicine is able to cure, and no doubt, wherever its applied, it cures; but if the distemper be so great as the medicine is rejected, be it never so powerfull and proper, it does not heal. If then grace be sufficient, as they talk, its either not to be compared to a medicine; or its only sufficient in as far as its efficacious; for nobody will say that inefficaceouse medicines are sufficient. Indeed, I’le own that if our heart wer not perverse, and above all concepception pervicacious, the least spark of grace might raise a flame in us. But the question is not what measure of grace is sufficient to a piouse and good heart, but to an impious person to make him piouse. A spark will kindle powder, but a flame will scarce kindle green wood. Does God then lie quhen² he sayes, ‘What could I have done more?’ Far from it. He speaks there after the manner of men. I have done all, and left nothing undone, that might prevail with a human mind not perfectly lost. He there reproaches the pertinaciousnes of the Jews, as I wrote to you before. I remember those people, whose gifts and morals I do not blame, but am grieved to observe in them so litle of any true sense or taste of Christ, frequently cast up the instance of the sun. ‘What!’ say they, ‘is not the light of the sun sufficient?’ I answer, ‘ To whom? Is it sufficient to one that is blind?’ They were silent. Absurd and impiouse doctrines are never more exposed than quhen they bring the best similitudes to cover their ill cause. What you adduce as to Divine Providence, and the nature of the will, are excellent, and destroy the doctrine of the enemies of the truth; but I cannot go in with you when you say, ‘Philosophers do not agree that the will must follow the light of the mind;’ . . . that the indifference of the will is only in cases where the objects appear equally good or equally evil. In all other cases its a plain figment. What you tell me as to ye progress of Socinianisme, I partly know, and am much grieved to hear there are but few that have yet struck at ye proper foundation of that prodigiouse heresy. And till that be done, very little is done. Cited from, Robert Wodrow, Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (Glasow: Edward Khull, Printer to the University, 1845), 2: 98-100; Dec 1611. [Some minor reformatting; where applicable, Wodrow’s interpolated comments removed; spelling original; bracketed inserts original; italics original; marginal notation not included; and underlining mine.]

4^th letter,

I’ll endeavour to remove the difficultys you have cast up in your last. You do not approve that I use the phraze ‘Christ dyed for all; but this is ane expression of the Spirit of God–this is the confession of the whole Church–’God so loved the world,’ &c.; John iii. 16. You fix this sense on these words, God so loved the believing. But wher is your accuracy here? There is here a common gift spoken of, and the efficacy of the gift is restricted to a few by the adjected condition of faith. This is obvious–you cannot but see it. The Church have alwise given Christ the title of the ‘Saviour of the world;’ and divines do not oppose this, only they soften it by a little distinction, because the expression sounds a little harsh, and teach that, in respect of sufficiency, Christ dyed for all, but, in point of efficacy, only for believers. In this I do not differ. I have said that such only perceive, and have the fruit of his death, who have true faith. Thus far we will agree; but you think it hard, and very much sib [akin] to the Lutheran heresy to say, ‘the Saviour of the world dyed as much for Judas as for Peter.’ This I never said, wrote, or thought, as far as I mind. Indeed, the Spirit seems to say that Christ dyed for the wicked, and redeemed them; 2 Pet. ii. 1. Thus they are reproached, if possible, to convince them of one of the highest of evils, that they had ultroneousy rejected so great a benefit, and the author of it. But as you put it together, that ‘Christ dyed as much for the wicked and impiouse as for ye good,’ the Spirit never taught it–no. I, who profess myself a disciple of the Spirit, never asserted it. You ask next, ‘How is it possible but the fruits of Christ’s satisfaction must be divided from his satisfaction, if Christ satisfyed for such as receive no benefit from his satisfaction? That quhich I said was that Christ simply (ἁπως) satisfyed for none but on condition (ea lege) that we, who are by nature of the world, should be taken out of it and ingrafted into Christ by a living faith. Thus Christ’s satisfaction belongs no more to Peter, dead in trespasses and sins, than to any other; but quhen after its given to Peter to believe, the difference is great. The similitude of the sun holds here. Christ, the Sun of righteousnes, is like ye natural sun, and his satisfaction, like the light of the sun, diffused every where. The fruits of his satisfaction are like the pleasure quhich the light of the sun hath attending it, and faith may be compared to our senses and eyes. Suppose, then, the sun were a rational agent. Whether would the sun be to be blamed, or he who shuts his eyes and will not come to the light? or, would he be right, who, upon his first opening his eyes, sees the sun, concludes the sun is but new risen, because his eyes are just opened? Indeed he may say, that then the sun first shined to him, when he began to use and feel the fruits of this. Its only the piouse that can glory in Christ’s satisfaction; not because he did not satisfy for others, but its only to them the principal fruits of Christ’s satisfaction belong, and the efficacy of it. You made use of this instance of mine, as to the sun, in a manner I would take ill, if I did not know your integrity. Altho’ the wicked participat not of the great and chief fruit of Christ’s death–eternal life–yet it cannot be denyed, that none is condemned by the law, but for unbelief. This belongs to all, and is to be attributed to Christ’s death delivering all from the malediction of the law; so that none shall be condemned, but such who will not believe that Christ is dead for them. Thus the apostles run out in the strongest manner against such as neglect this great salvation; adjudges them to eternal pain, principally upon this score, that they trode under foot the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctifyed, Heb. x.; that they denyed the Lord that bought them; that they make God a liar, and crucify the Lord afresh. But its pretended these things are spoken in the judgment of charity. Fine reasoning! The apostles are running out against the capitall enemies of Christ, and contemners of the gospel, and speaks to them in the judgment of charity! They are agravating their impiety, ingratitude, and unbelief; and shall we think they recon them pious and believers? for, if we believe these writers, Christ died only for ye pious and believers. Is it possible to evade this? Either the apostles thought, in the judgment of charity, that Christ dyed for apostates, and–quhich is to them a just consequence–these apostates wer members of Christ, at least in the judgment of charity, and so wer rash in denouncing eternal death against them; or, the apostles certainly knew–quhich is indeed the truth–that the contemners of Christ did not believe, nor ever would believe, and therfor, that they were to perish: and therfor, were quite wrong, if they should reproach them with a blessing they never had bestowed on them. They doe far better, who say, Christ dyed sufficiently for the wicked, and efficaciously for the believers; quhich is, indeed, my opinion. But then, I extend the term sufficiently, in this subject, further, it may be, than some others. The threasury of the king of Great Britain would sufficiently enrich me, altho’ I did believe this proceeded from the king’s liberality; and, if I did not despise, all that treasure would be mine. You see whither I point. My Capell, pardon me, if I speak a little obscurely. Follow the thought, and you will soon take it. You remember the gospel feast. That I take to be Christ and him crucified: many were called to it, and did not come. Will you deny the feast was made for them? But you say, in every satisfaction three things are only required–summ of money given; the creditor to whom it is given; and the giving it in name of the debitor. This holds, indeed, when the creditor or debitor, principally, have not this in their eye, that the person for whom the satisfaction is given shall acknowledge it. But when the great end of the satisfaction is, that the debitor, knowing the munificence of ye sponsor and giver, will be carried out, to love him, I assert that the debt is payed in the debitor’s name and room; but the payment is only ratified when the debitor acknowledges the benefit of the sponsor. To which purpose the instance I brought of captives comes yet more up; quhich I would have you carefully to consider. A man redeems captives who never once dreamed of it: he adds this law and condition–that if any of the captives pertinaceouse despised their liberty, and the author of it, with ane obdurate mind, the ransom should be held as not paid for them. And make the supposition that you are dealing with any of these obdurate persons–would you not reproach those wretches that despised the benefits of their redemption? And if he answer–I am not redeemed, I am detained in prison and chains; would you not answer–this comes not from your not being redeemed, but from your proud contempt of the redemption and redeemer? The similitude perfectly hits. All men are by nature captives: Christ gave a ransom for all, adding a law and condition, that the payment should only profit such who believe in Christ. The most part do not believe–they stick fast in sin, and shall go down to the pit; chiefly because they have contemned the Redeemer. Its cavilled and objected, that these two are repugnant–persons redeemed, and yet going to the pit. But let us go on. You are to call one to believe: would you say?–Believe, and Christ hath dyed for you. Or, would you not rather say?–Christ is really dead for you; you are indeed an enemy to God, without faith, without God; but such, was the love of God, that he gave his own Son for you; since he hath done so, believe and live. This is the very words of the covenant, Believe that he dyed for thee, and thou shall live. Do you not clearly see the death of Christ is not contained in the promise, but the efficacy of his death? as it runs thus–Christ is dead for thee; but if you believe not, you shall not be the better of it; yea, your sin shall be agravated: believe, therfor, and you shall live. And so all you built upon the terms of the covenant falls to the ground. I am not ignorant that Christ interceeds only for such as believe with the Father; but that belongs to ye³ efficacy and fruits of Christ’s death, quhich, I willingly grant, are peculiar to believers. Its then faith quhich renders the death of Christ efficaciouse; not from any dignity and worth in it, but because God would have us by it to be united to Christ, as our head. It is nixt asked–Why Christ is not offered to all, since he dyed for all? Let me again ask–Why is He offered to any but them who believe, since its only for such He dyed? This is quite to divert from the purpose we are on. We are speaking of God’s revealed will in the Gospell. The object⁴ is, fly to God’s secret councils. There would be some force in the objection, if it wer not from the fault of men, that the gospell is not preached to all; and yet its not from worth and merit that its preached to any. God hath not restrained the preaching of the Gospell any more than almes and other dutys of religion. The Word of Life was committed to Adam and Noah, our common parents. If posterity neglected the truth, they are to answer for it. You ask me what its, to require or exact satisfaction from Christ? The expression is very clear, and I know not the intent of ye query. God could not, in point of justice, exact the punishment of sin from Christ, perfectly free from sin; but after be made himself surety for us in his Father’s sight, he might. It was mercy in God to constitute his Son our sponsor, and that his Son spontaneously undertook this: but after he had undertaken it, it was justice to call for ye payment of our debt. This is what I mean by exacting a satisfaction. I cannot conceive what can move you to yield so far to ye Papists, as to say that we in part satisfy God, who are believers. Your sentiments are piouse, but I cannot approve this way of speaking. The chastisments of believers are neither from law nor judgments. The curse of the law is intirely abolished in ye afflictions believers are under; and they consider them as from God, as a father, and not as a judge. He does not sit on a throne of justice, nor is angry with us as a judge, but as a father. You will be so far out, if you think punishing justice in God to be anything else but just hatred at sin; quhich the Jews express, not by הקדצ but חינק. But you will say they are still punishments. Who denys this? I’ll yeild they are punishments of sin: but will it follow that they are of the law, which brings forth wrath? No; but from the gospell–see that open and illustrious type of this, 2 Sam. vii. 14, to which, undoubtedly, Paul refers, 1 Cor. x. The comparing of the places will make it plain. To be sure you feel this : I beseech you, speak agreeable to it. I know and despise the sophistical blasphemy of the Pelagians, by God’s grace. The horrible ravings of the Socinians are to be refuted easily by the authority of the Scriptures and a pious sense of things. We have scarcely need of anything save reason against Socinus. He denys the world to be created of nothing. But, wiser than Vorstius, he does not own this in any of his writings I know of: but he taught this to his scholars, as I was assured by one of themselves. Indeed, otherwise he could not defend his doctrine as to the first essence of God. This I have noticed to you, that you may not recall Vorstius–the first corner of this execrable doctrine. He that talks so of God, what treatment could you expect from him to the Redeemer? Vile miscreants ! who are so bold as to father their blasphemies on the Bible : it had been a little modester in them to lay by the Scriptures, and coin a new Bible, with Mahomet; and then Socinus, or, rather, his uncle, Lælius Socinus, should have been the fourth prophet come down from heaven. I leave other things till meeting. Cited from, Robert Wodrow, Collections Upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland (Glasow: Edward Khull, Printer to the University, 1845), 2: 100-105; May 16, 1612. [Some minor reformatting; where applicable, Wodrow’s interpolated comments removed; spelling original; bracketed inserts original; italics original; marginal notation not included; and underlining mine.]

[Credit to Michael Lynch for the find.]

____________________________

¹Archaic word-form for “which.”

²Archaic word-form for “when.”

³Archaic word-form for “the.”

⁴That is, the ‘objection.’