And as a sequel to his non-understanding of the statements regarding the
“wrath” of God, he continues: “Is it not ridiculous to suppose that,
whereas a _man_, who became angry with the Jews, slew them all from the
youth upwards, and burned their city (so powerless were they to resist
him), the mighty _God_, as they say, being angry, and indignant, and
uttering threats, should, [instead of punishing them,] send His own
_Son_, who endured the sufferings which He did?” If the Jews, then,
after the treatment which they dared to inflict upon Jesus, perished
with all their youth, and had their city consumed by fire, they suffered
this punishment in consequence of no other wrath than that which they
treasured up for themselves; for the judgment of God against them, which
was determined by the divine appointment, is termed “wrath” agreeably to
a traditional usage of the Hebrews. And what the Son of the mighty God
suffered, He suffered voluntarily for the salvation of men, as has been
stated to the best of my ability in the preceding pages. He then
continues: “But that I may speak not of the Jews alone (for that is not
my object), but of the whole of nature, as I promised, I will bring out
more clearly what has been already stated.” Now what modest man, on
reading these words, and knowing the weakness of humanity, would not be
indignant at the offensive nature of the promise to give an account of
the “whole of nature,” and at an arrogance like that which prompted him
to inscribe upon his book the title which he ventured to give it [of a
True Discourse]? But let us see what he has to say regarding the “whole
of nature,” and what he is to place “in a clearer light.”