not dayes Sect. 13. This doctrine is most agreeing to the Scriptures which teacheth the truest Philosophy for the Scripture makes him to be the Creatour of the world if so then before the world then Eternall then these durations which are measures of our worldly things cannot be affirmed of him nor time nor parts of it which are onely measures proportioned to those things of this world which are successive I need not name the places but there are many of Scripture which expresse this eternal being of God so Psal. 90.2 Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou hadst formed the Earth and the World even from everlasting to everlasting thou art GOD Here in this one place is all the Philosophy I have delivered of Gods eternity here is contained his Eternal being when the world was not in that is said before c. when they were not he was Secondly here is expressed the totall being of the Eternal together in that is said Thou art God from everlasting to everlasting not thou wert or wilt be only but before them thou art and here is expressed likewise that in respect of other things the Creatures he may be said to have these relations before and after though not in relation to himself but yet no set terme as to say a day or two dayes or years before I am confident there is no one place of Scripture which expresseth any certaine measures of duration belonging to him I know it may be objected to this that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1. vers 10 11 12. The Apostle speaking of the Eternity of our Saviour according to his Divinity saith Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the works of thy hands Verse 11. They shall perish but thou remainest and they all shall wax old as doth a garment Verse 12. And like a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy yeares shall not faile In this place the eternity of Christs divinity is called yeares and therefore those measures of our times must be applied to that Eternity and then dayes may of which years are composed To this we may most reasonably answer that the Apostle accommodates his manner of language to the capacity of the vulgar and the language of men concerning durations so well as actions so before he said the Heavens were the works of Gods hands as if he had said because all great works are wrought by hands amongst men God had hands by which he wrought those heavens So thy yeares shall not faile that is thou art Eternal because men reckon their duration by yeares and yet observe the language it is said they are indeficient yeares yeares which faile not all our yeares faile the last yeare is gone this farre in going and untill the end of the world mans yeares the worlds yeares and their durations will faile but Gods yeares no part of his duration reckon it what you will shall faile This is the sense of the Scriptures and men cannot without a contradiction expound it of our time every part of which is deficient Thus the Philosophy I have delivered being framed according to Scripture I shall answer his Argument The dayes which may be attributed to God and the measures of our time can onely be in regard of his coexisting with time in this world and therefore he doth not nor can be said to be of more dayes then the world hath for he who affirms he hath more dayes or any such Computation affirmes a falshood there were not more dayes therefore not a coexisting with them and therefore he had more dayes when Isaac was born then when Abraham but in neither of them had he an infinite number but finite numbers of dayes nor doth the world yeeld more his durance is without number of weeks or dayes what successive thing soever we accompt by and therefore that Argument against the worlds eternity hath no force applied to God Sect. 14. I proceed with him Ita ab hoc absurdo c. Therefore saith he from this absurd thing they fall into another being constrained to say that Eternity is a standing instant and an infinite number of numbers is an Unity which is much more absurd There are two parts in this Objection the first concernes the nunc stans or permanent instant the second of innumerable numbers c. for perspicuity I take them apart and handle them distinctly And first for his absurdity that he conceives to be in a standing instant if it doe not stand still and when it doth not it is no longer nunc or an instant but time or at the least two parts of time but instant it is not now certainly that which hath no mutation cannot choose but perpetually eternally stand still and that which to mutable things would be time to him must be instant I can shew him one instant that stood still neare two thousand yeares of time and therefore if time could be infinite would last eternally which is Iohn 8.58 When the Iewes wondred that our Saviour should have seen Abraham he answered before Abraham was not I was but I am There is a difference in exposition some say that this speech is understood of his Humanity that his humanity was in the thoughts of God and his Decree before Abraham but this cannot be the sense for Christ being the son and posterity of Abraham even in the knowledge and decree of God as well as in his birth in the world therefore it could not be spoke of his humanity that it was in the Decree of God before Abraham for Abraham in the same Decree must be before Christs humanity as the father of him But suppose it were let me enquire was that being which Christ had then in the knowledge or being of God before Abraham was that being existing when he spake these words or no If no then he could not say I am but I was if so it proves my Conclusion that there was a nunc stans a standing instant neare two thousand years But I am well satisfied that that speech of his was meant of his Divinity which is eternally the same and was before Abraham when Abraham was and after him he being that which is which was and is to come Revelation 1.4 And certainly there must needs be the same reason that that instant must be Eternall as that it should stand still so long as before Abraham to our Saviour But his words presently after seeme to make another reason of the absurdity in nunc stans thus Sect. 15. Cur enim Eternitas Why saith he should Eternity be called nunc stans now standing rather then tunc then standing there must therefore be either many Eternities or now and then must signifie the same Thus he for answer this terme stans or standing is indifferent to time passed or to come when applyed to either positively but
grants there are divers lawes both of men in society to men single and to men that live together although not united in a policy Sect. 3. In his 9. Number he affirms As a mans judgement in right of nature is to be imployed for his own benefit so also the strength c. of every man is then rightly imployed when he useth it for himself To use the Phrase of the time this Gent. is very selfish and indeed there is some reason in what he writes for as his judgement so his strength c. but his judgement is to be imployed according to the law of nature only for himself and so his strength when some greater good shall be proposed to him the good of his family his Nation the glory of God in his vertuous death then this life is to be neglected and contemned as a limb is to be lost rather then a life the lesse good rather then the greater so a private life rather then that of a Nation But his Argument is feeble and of no force when he saith Else a man hath no right to preserve himself for although it be right for a man to preserve himself yet not with those other greater losses it is right for a man to preserve each piece of his estate yet to preserve it by force or losse of a Sons life or his owne when that piece of his estate shall be inconsiderable it is not right for him to doe it In a word a mans understanding strength or whatsoever a man hath he hath right to bestow upon the preservation of this life but then when they are not called for by some more excellent and more desirable good then this life then they are to be bestowed upon that better imployment not this Sect. 4. Now I am arrived at his 10. and last Number which I meane to handle in this Chapter which begins thus Every man by nature hath right to all things that is to say to doe whatsoever he listeth to whom he listeth to possess use and enjoy all things he will and can A good large Commission I will examine it and to the understanding it I will return to his Leviathan where I left Pag. 64. and discussing the beginning of that 14. Chap. lay a foundation for that truth which this Number occasions me to deliver First then let me observe that as in the beginning of this Chap. he define's right by equity liberty so immediately after he define's liberty to be the absence of external impediments and again a little after putting a distinction betwixt right and law he saith that Law and Right differ as much as Obligation and Liberty which in one and the same matter are inconsistent in which proposition he discovers a mighty weakness for in his definition of right he make's it nothing but the power and ability to doe what he will as indeed he make's it afterwards when right implies an equitable title to what he doth and a man may have right when he hath not power to doe accordingly but is hindred by externall impediments from acting according to his right that definition of his is therefore very weak for what he speaks that Law and Right are inconsistent I am so directly in my judgement against it that I think there is no right to any thing but by law which I will thus confirme by what followes Sect. 5. Right and wrong or injury are opposite termes so that right is the convenience or agreement which one thing hath with another and wrong is the disagreement as it is a right line which agree's with the rule of streightness a crooked line or a wrong one which deviates from those rules a right shot that which hit's the white and a wrong which misseth So it is a right action which is according to the rules of Actions and a wrong which differ's from them These rules are that we call law which regulate's our actions and when they are done accordingly they are right and we have right to doe them and to this purpose he said in the preceding Chap. Where no law no injustice and I may say where can be no injustice there can be no justice contraries appertaine to the same subject and expell each other out of it So then if right be an agreeing with some rule or law it is so farre from being inconsistent with it that it cannot be without it As in a Common-wealth a man hath only such a right to use or act any thing as the law of that Common-wealth gives him so in the generality of this world a man can only have right to doe or act such things which the universal law of nature direct's or impowers him to doe Thus his Leviathan being touched concerning this point I will returne to his De Corpore politico where I left and shew what manner of right the law of Nature gives a man and whether there be such a large Charter as he expresseth or no. CHAP. XXIV Of the law and right of nature Man's subjection to God and dominion over the Creatures The rules of his actions Man exempted out of Adam's charter why Noah's Patent And his Sons pâ—ssâ—ssing themselves of the world The titles of propriety discussd Jus Vtile c. Sect. 1. TO understand which let us conceive that the law of Nature belonging to every thing is that law which was given it at the Creation and the right of nature or jus Naturale must be that authority or title is granted by that law to use or doe any thing which title can be nothing but that jus or right which God gave him Gen. 1.28 29. Which we find to extend to the Earth the Fowle the fishes the living things that move upon the earth the herbs and trees This is his Jus Naturale but yet this is not to be used as he will although he be Lord of them there are lawes for Lords as well as servants Kings as well as subjects and they must be subject to the King of heaven as their subjects to them yea in these things which they are made Lords over We may see in the 4. of Genesis that Cain and Abel brought Oblations to GOD of those things over which they had a most peculiar dominion they pay'd God as it were a tribute out of those things he gave them a right to by that law of nature which he gave them at their creation from whence it appeare's that man hath not such right to any thing much lesse to all things to do what he pleaseth with or to them for then they had had no right to have neglected that duty of Oblation and then they could have done nothing by which God should have put a difference betwixt Cain and his Oblation and Abel and his Oblation as he did Sect. 2. Then secondly let us consider that here is not in this Charter expressed any right a man hath over other men but this
satisfaction of the powers but a curbing them which yield's but a half enjoyment such as may be proper for a Viator a Traveller to it not a possessor of happiness in hope as the Prophet David say'th but God is our portion in the land of the living we are here in the land of the dying where others and we die dayly and our happiness here is God but God in hope when we come to the land of the living God will be our portion and possession to conclude men may have a begun happiness here but noâ— perfect untill hereafter man perhaps may have content here but felicity onely in heaven after life A Traveller joye's his heart to see at a distance that happy Palace where he hope 's for comfort but he is not satisfied untill he come there so it is with us in our Journey to heaven the happiness we have here is our hope of it but hereafter our possession The next Objection may be That this future Felicity is an Article of our Faith the Conclusion of all the Twelve The resurrection of the body and the life everlasting Now if it were demonstrable thus by reason an act of Faith is not necessary to it I can here bring the first and last Articles of our Faith together that which concern's God's creation and this which concern's man's salvation man's beginning and end which are both from God and say That for both of them there is abundance of reason but those Reasons cannot be easily argued by every man and yet though every man cannot Philosophize in high points of learning every man can believe these Conclusions which are proved by learned men and that belief is requâ—red of every man and surely belief hath great force to fasten men to that which they upon good grounds believe no man know's who is his Mother but by his belief of very easie people to deceive and to be deceived and yet this belief is constantly adhered unto by all sorts of men so that men dare depose that such a one was this man's Mother and such this man's none of us that are not travelled in those parts know that there is a Constantinople yet we are assured by hear-say and are most confident there is such a City and stronger than all these may our Faith be of this Tâ—uth as I have shewed Faith and Reason doe not destroy but help one the other for it is with our way to heaven as to other places when a man hath shewed us one way we can by that guess at another which hath proportion and convenience to that like lights when you have kindled one Candle you may easily light others at that when the Soul of man is enlightened by Faith it can with much more ease afterwards inlighten Reason which perhaps else it would never have thought upon and Reason sometimes assist's Faith for when the persons we believe deliver to be believed nothing but that is reasonable it is with comfort swallowed down and entertained and the work of Faith hath less labour when it imposeth no unreasonable thing Thus you see the same Conclusion may be the result of Faith and Reason and therefore although proved in one yet exalted as an Article in the other I could now insist upon the Article of Faith how confirmed by Scripture but that is done by an hundred men before and is evident too to every one that looke's upon the New Testament I could further enlarge upon that I have already touched concerning the Credibility and Fitness to believe those men which delivered it to us that certainly as Festus said to S. Paul not he onely but all the rest were mad with learning or something else who did endure so many afflictions yea death for Religion if there were no reward hereafter and the Story of their sufferings was sealed to us by the blood of thousands in divers immediate Centuryes and continued by the most universally consented Story in the world so that for certainty we have not so much reason to believe any Article of the Faith I speak of reason nor any Conclusion delivered by relation as this one That there is a Blessedness hereafter for God's servants because this is the reason and chief reason why these men durst dye for Religion this made Shadrach Meshach and Abednego Dan. 3. despise the fire for Gods cause the Heroick Sons 2 Mac. 7. contemn Tortures with a most noble Constancy because they looked for a better and happier life so as it is phrased Hebr. 12.1 We are compassed about with a mighty cloud of Witnesses or indeed a cloud of mighty Witnesses to evidence the Truth Mr. Hobbes therefore did not doe this noble heavenly Conclusion right when he say'd It is received onely upon a belief grounded upon other mens saying that know it supernaturally or that they know those that knew them that knew others that knew it supernaturally which was a disgracefull expression and I can justly fear intended to that purpose to disparage this Article for let a man consider his Conclusion which follows Breach of Faith cannot be called a Precept of Reason or Nature This he saith was opposed by some who held killing of Sovereigns lawfull this seemed out of his premisses to be argued for thus That which conduceth to future felicity ought to be done but the breach of faith in killing of Sovereigns conduceth to future felicity therefore c. what need had he any way to have disgraced our hope of heaven it might have served his turn much better to have shewed how the God of Truth love's Truth and hate's Falshood how unpossible it is that Error and Falshood should be the way to Truth how inconsistent they are these things would abundantly have served his turn and have contented the Reader but to leave that and fall foule without occasion upon our hope of heaven was very ill done of him CHAP. XXIX Of Covenants and keeping faith Of dammage and injury The exercise of justice in its several kinds Arithmetical proportion is that call'd Commutative What in it and distributive may be due without Covenant The justice of an Arbritratour Mr. Hobbes's mistakes about justice merit c. Bodin's harmonical proportion The old Philosophers unjustly censur'd by Mr. Hobbes Of Epicurus and his Philosophy The Stoicks c. Fortitude and Liberality stated better by them then he pretend's Sect. 1. I Leave this now and on with him Others saith he that allow for a Law of Nature the keeping of Faith doe neverthelesse make exception of certaine persons as hereticks c. I condemn this with him but doe not approve his reason for it which is If any fault of a man be sufficient to discharge our Covenant made the same ought in reason to have been sufficient to have hindred the making of it I allow not this answer because it destroye's that supposition upon which it was grounded which is that men have made a Covenant now
introduce a thing not onely absurd but blasphemous unto Christian religion to say that that one and chiefe God should have blood c. I forgive his passion but grieve to see so much zeal if not fury bestowed upon so ill a Cause for we do not say that God had blood as God but as manhood was united to the divinity in the same person that he taking our nature had it with all its Conditions body and blood I shall insist no farther upon this at this time Sect. 3. Valentinus Smalcius urgeth out of Smiglecius a little further this language is unheard of in Scripture that Christ's blood should be called the blood of the Father or that we should be redeemed by the blood of God the Father nay if at any time our redemption be attributed to God the Father then it is added by Christ or by his blood but not by the blood of God the Father thus farre Smiglecius now let us observe Smalcius his answear thus this argue's onely that the Language is unusuall and rare not that it is impossible and false that which is rare and unusuall may be most true if it agree with the Analogy of Christian Religion and may be excused which saith he I have done above neither doth any thing hindeâ— but that that which is commonly properly used that God by Christ and his blood acquired us may in one place be improperly used that God the Father hath acquired us by his owne blood First that which he affirme's he hath done above I conceive to be no more then that refuted exception he made to Smiglecius that these Speeches might be affirmed of God by reason that Christ was the Lamb of God and therefore his blood God's blood or else what he spake in the preceding Chapter that it must be understood metaphorically as Zacharie 2.8 he that toucheth you toucheth the Apple of mine eye as likewise Math. 25.45 where our Saviour saith in that ye did or did not these things to his little ones ye did or not did them to him the meaning is that as God hold's his servanâ—s so deare to him that he esteeme's the demeanour used to them as done to himself so these actions done by his dear ones in which rank Christ was the chief may be sayd to be done by him when Christ shed his blood then God the Father may be sâ—id to shed his because done by one Deare like himself to him I have pressed this Argument to the height and indeed farther then he hath and now consider how I shall acquit my self of it which will be thus I doe not nor doe I think others can find the actions of men called Gods actions although the passions are often as thus in that you did it to those you did it to me and so he toucheth the Apple of mine eye of any one that toucheth his Servants but actions not so Math. 18.18 as whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in haven here is a double act on earth and in heaven although God interested himself as much in that act of man's as may be yet he call's it not his own but man's act so likewise he expresseth it Iohn 20.23 Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted where is set down a twofold action or remission now this expression is of an action which he hath purchased with his blood and although there was never such a shifting Genius runne through any sort of men as these Socinians to avoyd the sense of Scripture yet methinke's this place is penned as of purpose to delude their evasions it hath stopp'd all their Mushes and therefore it is put emphatically with his owne blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimateth a peculiar propriety to that thing to which it is applyed appropriating it to God distinct from other things The answer of Smalcius is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then suus his own and so it is rendred by the vulgar latine John 1.11 thus it is but whether truth or no there is the question our English rendreth it much better He came unto his own and his own received him not and although this word suus doth not enforce this more restrained and peculiar sense yet it doth not deny it but many times is used for it and certainly those in St. John were in a most proper expression called his his friends his kindred his Servants what you please of that kind the same answer may passe to his second instance which is taken out of the 1 Cor. 6.18 he who commits fornication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is by the vulgar Latine translated suum his body but by our English much better his owne body nor indeed can the blood of Christ God be more his owne then a man's body is his own and therefore whatsoever Translators read it is evident that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beare's the same sense every where and it is remarkable that these writers who abhorre that vulgar translation in an hundred places should in this refuse the Original for it upon no ground He give 's another answer that the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God although it doe not naturally flow from the Father we doe not say it is the blood of the Father but of God because saith he chiefly by a miraculous working of the Father Christ had his blood but can he shew me where there is any such example or phrase in Scripture I believe not but he goe's on with an instance out of Socinus Things saith he like blood may be said to be belonging to one which notwithstanding are not his naturally I can grant all this and it hurt 's not this last phrase of being his properly which his Text enforceth but he instanceth 1 Cor. 6 20. glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are Gods but here is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word enforcing the propriety and consider that the Apostle taught the Corinthians in the beginning of that verse how to understand that language that our Souls and bodies are God's for saith he you are bought with a price because your Soules and bodies are bought with a price therefore they are his his by purchase yours by nature and this distinction in either part is put downe evidently in the Text Glorify God in your Soul and body both which are their own naturally which yet are his by redemption nay I can urge this Text emphatically for the divinity of Christ for if he bought us and payd a price for us then we are hâ—s and he whose we are is God most expresse in the Text him we must glorifie whose we are that is God Christ's we are by redemption therefore Christ is God thus this Text urged in one word to avoyd his divinity proved by the former Text in the words taken together doth most cleerly confirme it and yet you
is no word of eternity but it is word for word as it is in our English ye might have life through his name or in his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his power his strength which none could grant but the great God and truely I wonder where he got that translation for it is without the Originall nor Beza nor Erasmus nor Montanus nor any that I see but something like it Tremelius his translation out of the Syriacke and yet he reserve's that Emphasis which I make use of and render's it thus and when ye shall believe ye shall have life eternall by his name the force of which last phrase by his name was cleane omitted by Socinus so then it seeme's to me that if St. Iohn did here in these words put down the totall reason of his writing this Gospell which can never be evinced yet in this is clearely taught this Conclusion of our Saviours divinity and that he was the Son of God nor could ever man have understood it in any other sense then we doe untill that foolish conceipt of a created God was introduced of which God willing I entend to treate hereafter Thus I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to his objections against the story of Cerinthus which one thing granted the expressions of the rest would be undoubtedly very perspicuous Sect. 3. So now at the last I will addresse my selfe to my businesse the first Chap. of St. John verse 1. In the beginning was the word c. there is scarce any one word in these fourteen or fifteen verses which I intend God willing to expound that hath not abid some slurre or other to discountenance the true sense of it I shall begin with the first word In the beginning This say they with one consent is understood of the beginning of the Gospell which say they was when John Baptist begun to preach so Socinus where before at the bottome of page 13. and page 14. In principio erat verbum In the beginning was the Word that is Christ the Son of God in the beginning of the Gospell to wit in that time in which John Baptist began to recall the Israelitish people to the right and before that by the preaching of the Baptist he was known to the Jewes he was and he was designed by God to this Office that is of manifesting his will thus far Socinus and by this we see his conceipt to be that in the beginning was in the beginning of the Baptist's preaching then was Christ the word which was man he wonder 's much up and down that men should conceive that St. John should write such mysteries of Christ's essence according to his divinity where indeed we think he make's him write the unreasonable things of his humanity that ever could have been conceived to be expressed by such phrases to understand which I must trespasse a little farther upon the Reader 's patience to consider what these writers meane by this terme Word which Socinus and from him the rest expresse thus Sect. 4. That it is a figurative expression and is mean't of Christ in his Office not his divine nature figurative and so it is either a Metaphor drawn from the similitude Christ hath with our Words for as our Words expresse our minds to those we converse withall so Christ expressed the Will of God to men Secondly by a Metonymy because Christ is the Author of that word which most eminently ought to be called such because it is more profitable and more excellent then all other therefore saith he as Christ sometimes useth a Metaphor calleth himself a vine a Shepheard a gate because he might most fitly be compared to these and now speaking Metonimycally he saith he is the truth the life and the resurrection because he is the Author and cause of these so here c. thus far he in which he and they have taken a greate deale of paines to raise mud in and darken this cleare streame Sect. 5. To which I shall say first that these figures are often used by Christ and such expressions under the notions of Divinity more clearly intelligible but when they are used by him he give 's some intimation to his Auditor how he shall understand them figuratively onely either in that place or some other otherwise a man would hardly assent to him in any but a literal sense There are abundance of other such like names affirmed of our Saviour besides those particularly specified by him in this place all which to handle would require a Volume I will not therefore engage upon them but these he instanceth in now I will touch upon that by them the rest may be discerned First then he call's himself a vine John 15.1 I am the true vine that is I am like a true vine a true not a false vine which look's like a vine but is not a true vine that may be confided in which will bring forth fruit and not deceive the husbandman now that ye may discern the similitude observe he adde's my Father is the husbandman and so go's on with the branches which evidently shew that it is a Similitude For the second John 10.11 I am the good shepheard he explain's it immediately a good shepheard giveth his life for his sheep and so along in that chapter he shew's how his sheep are righteous which make's it apparent that it was a Similitude Again his last Metaphor is used in the same chapter ver 7. I am the Door of the sheep we see he was the shepheard and he is the door in a diverse sense as he is the door he admit's and shut's out now these things are so apparent that the words all about them express them to be Similitudes if not a thousand places of Scripture might teach us that he could not otherwise be a Wooden door or a vine that is a plant or a shepheard such as a countrey shepheard whose sheep were beasts Now let us examine his Metonymy He saith he is the truth life resurrection two of these I find in one sentence in the 14. of this Gospel the 6. I am saith our Saviour the way the truth and the life Truth and Life are his instances our Saviour having told the Disciples ver 4. Whither I go ye know and the way ye know Thomas answered Lord we know not whither thou goest how can we then know the way Jesus answered to this I am the way the truth the life in this word the way no doubt but there may be both those figures he speakes of a Metaphor first for as a way is that Middle place which is between the two Termes à quo and ad quem from whence and whither participating of both and leading whither a man tend's so our Saviour God and man participating of both the extreames heaven and earth and Man walking a long by him shall come to heaven next we may
delighted with the observations of this place and some other more frequently observed but as I was delighted with this so I did admire to find Plato in his Phoedo or de anima describing the heaven where happy souls shall be when they are departed from thâ—s life by those stones which Saint Iohn doth the heavenly Ierusalem Rev. 21. Plato set's down three of them a Sardius a Iasper a Smaragdos with an c. that there were more St. Iohn in the 19. verse put 's them down in another order a Iasper a Sardius and the third a Chalcedony the fourth an Emerald which fourth in the Greek is Smaragdos now I could not but justly wonder at this Consent and perhaps may think that there is some greater Mystery in it then is yet discovered howsoever this serve 's my turn to shew that St. Iohn never avoided the language and expressions of these preceding Philosophers but used them This Dialogue called Phoedo in Plato contain's that Discourse which Socrates delivered to his friends at the day of his death and his whole Comportment in it amongst other passages having philosophized concerning the immortality of the soul and answered all their objections he fall's to treating how it fared with souls departed which died wicked good better best and therein describing the habitations of those happy souls put 's down these very stones which St. Iohn mention's with an Et caetera This being then apparent that these gallant and great Philosophers both before and after St. Iohn used this Term Word as he doth and that St. Iohn no where avoid's their expressions it is reasonable to think he should not do so here unless we would find some greater violence offered to the sense of the Text by it then is yet discovered or unless by some other interpretation we might discern the meaning more clearly expounded when by their way every term is wrested as will appear Sect. 15. Well to proceed this Word being taken for the Son of God is said according to his Divinity to be in the beginning absolutely without any limitation when things first leaped out of nothing and saith St. John the word was with God Socinus expound's this thus hâ—c est that is Jesus as he was the word of God before he was manifested by the preaching of the Baptist Soli Deo notus erat was onely known to God marke this word onely Therefore Valentinus Smalcius was very much to blame when in the third part of Smiglecius cap. 26. pag. 234. editione Racov. 1613. he saith in expresse termes that Socinus doth not adde Deo soli known to God onely but to God and not to men I shall endeavour to confute both what Socinus and what he saith they both agree and so doth Valkelius and the rest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as to be seen or known of God that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render with signifye's to be discerned but they are not so elegantly expresse as they were before to tell us by what figure but they insist much upon the negative part first that Christ was not known by any but God before St. John's preaching known he was but not to be the word I have shewed that he was not the word in their sense before he was preached but that they may have all the Scope that may be he was not known that he should be the Word before but onely to God suppose I granted all this would it follow that to be with God is to be known of God it can hardly be deduced for then to be with God should signifie nothing but the common condition which bring 's to all things past present and to come for all are known of him but they seeme to parallel this with the first Epistle of this Evangelist Chap. 1.2 where he speaking of eternall life which was with the Father and was manifested to us there the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as if it were say they was manifest to the Father take Socinus his own words Quod perinde est which is as much as if he should say we declare to you eternall Life which before this no man knâ—w because it was only known to God who had decreed to give it you this is in his fifteenth page for understanding which place we may observe that it is true that this eternal word of God which is mentioned in St. Johns Gospell was hid with God from all bodily eyes untill the manifestation of it by the incarnation and nativity of our Saviour and that because he was with God in the bosome of the Father as it is expressed John 1.18 but after the birth of Christ in that personall union it was seen and heard as the first verse of this first chap. of his first Epistle expresseth it but in relation to their sense give me leave to expound that second verse of the first chap. of the first Epistle of St. John so much of it as concerne's our businesse which is thus much we declare to you eternall life which was with the Father and is now manifested to us this eternall happy being which we hope to enjoy hereafter so much I find consented unto now saith Socinus this Life was only known to God for was with the Father must be so understood by them I deny this for without doubt the Angels know it which then enjoyed it and those blessed Souls which were admitted into Abraham's bosome the Prophets saw it and taught this eternall Life many Philosophers knew it as I have shewed you and could produce Twenty more if it were needfull nor as they answer concerning the word can they say they did not know the quale or the quantum the quality or the quantity of it for they did know the quality to consist in the beatifical vision they did know the quantity that it was eternall so that then this phrase which was with God cannot be understood of being known to him by being decreed such so that this phrase may if not must thus be expounded in the latter part of the preceding verse the Apostle call's our Saviour the word of life we shall find in the fourth verse of the first chap. of his Gospel in him the word was life in this fiâ—st verse and the words this is applyed to the word was with God this life then must needs be with him because in the word which was with him not onely because known by him but then when our Saviour had divulged the Gospell then this life which was in the word with the Father was manifested to us that is divulged not onely to Prophets by revelation or Philosophers and Wise men by reason and contemplation but even to us men who cannot soare in so high Speculations with our discourse to apprehend it by faith and not only so but to apprehend the way of getting it by the merits of Jesus Christ so that then the Socinian glosse upon
is his soul. Give me leave to apply this to our purpose the Divinity and Humanity of Christ make one person what is done by either is done by Christ 1 Cor. 2.8 they have crucified the Lord of glory which was according to his Humanity and he is the Lord of glory according to his Divinity not his Humanity so the same Christ may be said to ascend up by hâ—s Humanity where he was before with his Divinity There is one place more which they insist upon that is John 3.13 where our Saviour saith No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven here say they it is intimated that he had been in heaven before because it is said in the Preterperfect Tense he ascended first I will answer ad homines that this Text cannot avail their turn for first if it were true that he ascended in body yet it must be such an one as descended first that is such an one as came down from heaven before and then he must be in heaven before the beginning if in the beginning he ascended into heaven which they say but then mark the Clause that is one who is in heaven when our Saviour spake it to the later they say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existens being in heaven because it is a Participle of the Present Tense by a Grecism may be understood of the Preterperfect Tense he was in heaven I confess such a language is many times used but that it should be so here I utterly deny for it is not fit for us to think that our Saviour in so pithy a short delivery of such Mysteries did use any Tautology or unnecessary or non-significant terms now consider if he had said that no man ascended into heaven but he that descended who was in heaven what would this last clause adde to the rest no man can ascend up to heaven but then he must be in heaven no man can descend from heaven but then when he descended he must be there and this is apparent to every man upon the repeating of the very Terms who understand's them and therefore if it should be construed who was in heaven there must be something more in it then I can discern or else it is a Tautology but no such thing taking it who is in heaven because that was neither expresly nor impliedly delivered before so then to understand this Text we may go two wayes either take these words figuratively and that Socinus seem's to allow in his 7. chap. against the 10. of Wiceus thus a man may be said to ascend into heaven as I spake before as Socrates by contemplation and to descend by looking down and busieing himself about the things of this world so God is said to humble himself to behold the things that are in heaven and earth and he is in heaven now at this instant who contemplate's divine Excellencies even in this Discourse Or else we may expound it thus according to those two natures which were in that one person no man ascended c. Christ's humanity was elevated by the incarnation and union it had with his Divinity it was a great descent of his Divinity to be united to his Humanity and by this Divinity he is still in heaven and this mightily enforceth his Argument to prove what went before to Nicodemus If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things he reprove's them for not believing him who onely can tell them being the onely person who is acquainted truly with heaven who hath been in heaven by ascent by descent by a present inhabitation now let us see how this can agree with our Saviour's bodily ascent into heaven indeed in the first sense I do wonder Socinus and they did not apply it to our Saviour's being with God in Contemplation even before John Baptist his preaching but I do not find that they have done it but that that Text is invironed with so many Circumstances that would not abide it and they only press this for to prove a corporal presence of his humanity which the Text will endure for the reasons before specified and this later hath no colour for them Well I have done with what I find they excuse rather then defend their exposition by now I shall apply my self to the conâ—utation of it Sect. 4. It is a hard thing to prove a negative and in Logick it lies upon them to justifie what they affirm against all the stream of Christian writers but I will endeavour to repeat what others have said before and argue it clearly first then we may observe Heb. 9.12 it is said that Christ entered once into the holy place this word once intimate's no more no other time but then this a man might think were clear enough but they have an evasion he entered once as high Priest at other times before he entered as a Lay-man methink's they should say as Embassador to receive his commands from his King Now Reader consider how unfit this answer is for their months certainly if then in the beginning he did go up to heaven in his Humanity he was as much a Priest then as the Word for he was not nor could be the Word by their Doctrine untill he delivered the Will of God that he could not do untill he received his Commission and direction from God if they say he had it by the decree and predetermination of God it is answered that undoubtedly so was his Priesthood and therefore he was then as much Priest as Word and if it might be said the word was with God a man may say the Priest was with him which that Text to the Hebrewes denye's because it saith he entred but once into the holy place which was after his death therefore could not be said to do it before this Argument thus pressed I have not read urged by others and I do not know how they can avoid it well then I know not of any thing more need be said to these words we see them inconsistent with their glosse and not agreeing to ours who hold that the word is eternally produced and with God Sect. 5. I will go on verse 3. all things were made by him there is not one word which is not wrested by them by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things say they is understood all things of the Gospell for so it is often used in Scripture not absolutely but according to the Subject matter that is in hand and so it is here the Gospell of St. John was the matter in hand and these things were established by our Saviour I do not deny that that phrase all or all things should be understood of the subject matter I do deny that the immediate subject matter is the renovation or Gospell but is the Creation for if the Apostle had intended that
of any thing may be enhaunced ibid. The Asse's head and kab of Pidgeons dung in the siege of Samaria 255 When the Arithmetical proportion must be applyed to the value of the thing ibid. V. Argument 2. against it answer'd 256 A Judge or Umpire limited by the rule of Justice ibid. VI. What may be due by both kinds of justice without covenant 257 VII The justice of an Arbitratour different according to the case 259 Mr. Hobbes too nice and singular in his language ibid. His mistake in the division of justice 260 In his measure of commutative ibid. His boldness in confronting all the learned men before him ibid. Bodin's cavil ibid. His aâ—ery conceit of an harmonical proportion 261 VIII Mr. Hobbes's restraint of Moral Philosophy ibid. IX His censure of all Philosophers 262 He forget's the distinction of a good man and a good citizen ibid. The foundation of Ethicks Oeconomicks Politicks ibid. X. Personal and relative perfection how taught by Philosophers 263 Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy compared with that of Epicurus ibid. With that of Lucretius 265 Epicurus's excellent discourse concerning Death ibid. Frugality and Temperance 266 Mr. Hobbes approacheth nearer the worst of the Epicureans then do the Mahumetans 267 XI Wherein the Stoicks placed humane happiness ibid. Wherein Aristotle 268 XII Mr. Hobbes mistake's the Philosopher's discourse of moderating Passions ibid. St. Paul's Philosophy 269 XIII Of Fortitude and Liberality 270 CHAP. XXX I. Mr. Hobbes's definition of a Person too circumstantial 272 II. No less applicable to a feigned then a true person 273 III. Person not Latine ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppositum 274 Person differently used in several arts and faculties ibid. IV. Misplaced by Mr. Hobbes 275 No man personate's himself ibid. Cicero mis-interpreted ibid. Person how taken by the Criticks 276 V. Boethius's definition of a person ibid. Rich. de sancto Victore object 's against it ibid. His other definition of it more difficult 277 Scotus's Objections against the former ibid. VI. The definition explained and vindicated by the Bishop 278 The distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quo ibid. Reasonable of what extent 279 The Philosophers and School-men could have rectified Mr. Hobbes's mistake of a person ibid. The Etymology and common acception of Persona 280 VII Not the actor but the acted is the person ibid. VIII No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature 281 With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept ibid. IX The first part of Mr. Hobbes's answer destroy's the second 282 God to be obeyed before Man ibid. An instance in the Hebrew Midwives ibid. Whâ— probably had covenanted 283 X. No breach of covenant which had not a right to bind 284 XI The true God improperly and over-boldly said to be personated ibid. Moses though instead of God did not personate him 285 Nor do Kings ibid. Nor Priests ibid. XII How Moses was instead of God to Aaron 186 Hohim used for God what name ibid. How Moses was made a God to Pharaoh ibid. How fully soever Moses had represented God he could not personate him 287 XIII The Israelites how the people of God how of Moses 288 XIV Moses's phrase shew's he personated not God 289 XV. God was King of the Israelites Moses but their Judge and General ibid. A messenger and mediatour betwixt God and them 290 CHAP. XXXI I. Uncomely to say our Saviour personated God 291 Who was really God ibid. II. Proved to be so from Acts 20.17 28. 292 Against Bernardinus Ochinus 293 Refuted by Smiglecius ibid. To whom Smalcius reply's having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus 294 Ochinus deserted by the Socinians ibid. Smalcius attempt's in vain to evacuate the Divinity of Christ. 295 III. Châ—ist's bloud not to be called the bloud of the Father according to Smiglecius 297 Smalcius's answer that argue's how it may ibid. His argument uâ—ged to the farthest by the Bishop 298 Who find's the passions not the actions of men to be called God's ibid. The shifting Genius of the Socinians deluded by a single word 299 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how to be translated ibid. The Text which want's it retorted upon the Socinians 300 IV. How Christ is the Son of God 301 What a Son is ibid. V. The particulars in the definition applyed to our Saviour 302 VI. The mystery of our Saviour's divine and humane generation signifyed Mic. 5.2 303 The Bishop's observation upon that Text ibid. Faustus Socinus answer'd 304 And Valkelius 305 With other of the Socinians 307 VII The Text taken in pieces and vindicated from their Objections 308 One in essence plurally expressed when the effects are divers 309 Christ's eternal Egression compared to the shining of the Sun 310 VIII How from the beginning may signifie from eternity 311 A two-fold consideration of the word Beginning 312 A or Ab often denote causations ibid. From the beginning not to be understood from the beginning of Dâ—vid's reign ibid. The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto 313 IX God's descent to Man's capacity in the doctrine of his Attributes 314 Particularly that of his Eternity ibid. X. The discourse between Ochinus and his Spirit moderated by the Bishop 315 Who enlargeth upon the Argument against the Photinian or Socinian and the Arrian 316 CHAP. XXXII I. The next name of our Saviour the Word 318 Socinus answer'd in his exâ—lication of St. John Chap. 1. ibid. The opinion of Ebion and Cerinthus discussed 319 The shifts of the Socinians 322 II. St. John's reason of his writing not solitary as Socinus alledgeth ibid. Beza's genuine lection 323 Socinus singular in his ibid. But for a little consonance with Tremelius ibid. III. How the Socinians interpret John 1.1 324 With reference to the Baptist's preaching ibid. IV. Their Metaphor And Metonymie 325 V. Figures never used by Christ without intimation how the Text is to be understood ibid. So that of a Vine A Sheepheard A Doore 326 His Metonymies of being the Truth Life and Resurrection ibid. The Truth and Life may be taken without a figure 327 VI. Christ called the Word according to none of those figures 328 But according to the Catholick sense is the internall word of God 329 How Aaron was Moses's mouth ibid. John Baptist called a Voice ibid. The word taken for Christ in a far different sense 330 VIII Not to be understood of our Saviour's humanity 331 Neither Metaphorically Nor Metonymically ibid. IX Socinus's shift 332 X. A brief Paraphrase on the first words in St. John ibid. A word internall and externall both of God and Man 333 XI The Philosophers of old call'd the Son of God his word 335 XII As well they who writ after as who before St. John 336 XIII Which is yielded by Socinus ibid XIV Their language used by the Primitive Fathers and Saint Paul 337 That of Plato consonant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John 338 Plato's description of Heaven parallel'd to that
of St. John in his Revelation ibid. XV. The words Being with God signifie more then Known to God against Socinus and his followers 340 Eternall life before Christ's Incarnation known to the Angels blessed Souls Prophets Philosophers 341 Although not till afterward manifested to others 342 The Philosophers excell the Socinians in this knowledge ibid. XVI Socinus's other Text of no validity to his purpose 343 XVII The Discourse resumed concerning knowledge of the word before the preaching of St. John Baptist. ibid. XVIII Whether in the Socinian or Catholick sense may be more truly said The word was God 345 XIX God with them no proper name but an Appellative c. 346 Contrary to the use of it single throughout the New Testament ibid. XX. How Satan is called the God of this world c. 347 How the Belly God ibid. The Socinians criticisme about the article ibid. Answer'd 348 And Socinus's Instances ibid. How St. Cyrill's rule is to be understood ibid. XXI Socinus answer'd about Tautology 349 As likewise to that objection God cannot be with himself 350 Lord and God not both one 351 The Word God with though not of the Father ibid. CHAP. XXXIII I. The Socinians conceit of the Word being with God in the beginning 352 II. Improbable having no Evangelical authority 353 III. That they pretend to prove's it not ibid. The distinction of Christ's Divinity and Humanity illustrated ibid. His Ascent into heaven which they insist on not corporeall 354 IV. His double capacity of Priest and Lay-man alledged by them discussed 356 V. How all things we made by him 357 St. John's method very considerable against the Socinians interpretation ibid. Which is such as permit's the more truth to be in the negative propositions opposite to those in holy Scripture 358 VI. Christ's interest in the Creation re-inforced against the Socinians gloss 359 Wherein he was a principal no bare instrumental cause ibid. Their other slight objection answer'd 360 The use of words ibid. The benefit of Tradition ibid. VII How Life eternal and what else is to be understood ver 4. 361 How both that and the naturall life is said to be the light of men ibid. How Christ is called the light according to Socinus 362 How according to the Bishop ibid. VIII What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie's properly and why render'd was ibid. Why the Evangelist chose to use it rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writing of St. John Baptist. 363 IX Socinus put 's a diminution upon St. John's testimony of Christ ibid. Which is evidently affirmative of his Divinity 364 X. Socinus misinterpret's Creation by Recreation or Regeneration 365 And misapplie's to his purpose a Text in the Epistle to the Eâ—hesians 366 Another violence of his in wresting actuall Regeneration to Regeneration in endeavour 367 XI Smalcius's gloss ibid. His various significations put upon the word World ibid. Whereâ—n he imposeth fallacies upon his Reader 368 The Bishop's Animadversions 369 XII Their sense directly opposite to that evident in the Text. 370 XIII The genuine sense of the Terms not changed as they object 371 Smalcius's reply to Smiglecius ibid. Little becoming a Socinian 372 The World knew not the Word but by supernaturall grace ibid. What men apprehend of God by naturall abilities ibid. The Objection about St. John's upbraiding the world answer'd 373 The exposition of the words immediately following why omitted 374 XIV The Socinians word could not be made Flesh ibid. Their evasion 375 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how used in the beginning of St. John's Gospell ibid. Their heterodox interpretation of Flesh ibid. Not evident in Scripture cited by Socinus 376 The result of their Comment 177 The summe of ours ibid. XV. The union of the Divinity with the Humanity implyeth no mutation of God into Man 378 Notwithstanding the praedication God is Man ibid. Which is asserted and by a familiar instance illustrated ibid. Their Objection answer'd by the dependance of substances upon God ibid. Another Argument of Smalcius's 379 Answer'd by the manner of existing ibid. Christ a true man though a divine Person 380 Whose Conception and Gestation in the blessed Virgin 's womb conduced nothing to his personality ibid. The Divinity and Humanity united render him neither two Sons nor two Persons ibid. XVI Objection of his being the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost 381 Answer which identity implie's not that they were made flesh with him ibid. As Scotus illustrate's excellently 382 The Bishop's Apology to the Reader ibid. XVII Smalcius's first Quaere c. Rectifyed Answer'd 383 All actions not alwayes necessarily according to the nature of him or that which act's ibid. Smalcius's second Quaere Answered and frustrated 384 His third Quaere Answered with reference to the discourse before concerning the Incarnation of the Father and holy Ghost ibid. XVIII Our Saviour's mission derogate's nothing from the authority and plenitude of power in himself 385 Which he exercised in giving commission to his Apostles 386 CHAP. XXXIV I. The Socinians opinion of the holy Ghost 387 Confuted and this proved that he is a distinct Person of the Trinity not a mere Attribute of the Deity ibid. II. Not the Gospel of Christ as they pretend out of holy Scripture 389 III. Not the gift of God to certain men but by a figure 390 A defiance to them that call for reason in these mysteries 391 CHAP. XXXV I. Carthagena's little lesse then then blasphemous limiting God's power of enlarging the capacity of his Creature 392 II. What of God to be proved by reason and by whom to be attempted 393 III. Aquinas's first Argument against the possibility to attain by naturall reason any knowledge of the Trinity 394 The Bishop's Answer grounded upon Lully's demonstration by aequiparance ibid. IV. Aquinas's second Argument 395 The Bishop's first Answer concerning the invisible objects of Faith ibid. The Bishop's second Answer concerning the after-sight of Reason ibid. His third Argument from scorn and scandal 396 Answered by the adherence to infallibility of Scripture ibid. V. Trigosius and Carthagena passed by ibid. Truth not oppos'd to Truth ibid. The Bishop closeth with Raymund Lully whom he vindicateth against Vasques 397 And Aymericus who make's him an heretick ibid. His advice to the Pope and Cardinal about converting the Saracens 398 His devout enterprize according to it with successe ibid. His like adventure among the Moores ibid. Their cruel sentence and execution frustrated by his strange deliverance 399 The notable effect of his sufferings ibid. VI. Lully's undertaking according to Vasques ibid. Whose Arguments he recite's and forme's 400 The first prove's a personal plurality by concord ibid. Another from equality distinction ibid. Vasques's first Answer excepting against the supposition of a reall effective act in God ibid. The Bishop's reply that Lully not only suppos'd but prov'd iâ— ibid. His Lordship's explanation of Lully's sense by the necessity of God's acting somewhat from all eternity
The severall parts acted by the Understanding and the Will both which faculties are imperfect in this world The certainty of felicity after death resum'd and proved Object 1. Ans. The Objection answer'd toâ—ching man's felicâ—ty in the knowledge c. he hath though â—mperfect Objection 2. Answer A second Objâ—ction answer'd about Eternal felicity being the last Article of our Faith The same Conclusion may be the result of Faith and Reason An Argument to confirme this drawn from the H. Martyrs constancy in their sufferings Mr. Hobbes suspected of a design to disparage the foresaid Article of our â—aith Several qualificâ—tions good and bad in the making and breaking Covenants No dammage without injuâ—y The explication of Commutative and Distâ—ibutive justice To which is premised that of common or legal justice Many acts of Justice being not comprehended under the other two Argument 1. against an Arithmeticall proportion in Commutative Justâ—ce examined By what the price of any thing may â—e enhaunsed The Asse's head and kab of Pidgeons dung in the Siege of Samaria When the Arithmeticall proportion must be applied to the value of the thing 2. Argument agaiâ—st it answered A Judge or Umpire 〈◊〉 by the rule of â—ustice What may be due by both kindes of Justice without Covenant The justice of an Arbitrator different according to the Case Mr. Hobbes 〈◊〉 nice and singular in his language His mistake in the division of justice In his measure of commutative His boldnesse in confronting all the learned men before him Bodâ—n's cavill His aieâ—y conceit of an harmonical proportion Mr. Hobbes's restraint of Moral Philosophy His censure of all Philosophers He forget's the distinction of a good man and a good Citizen The foundation of Ethikes Oeconomikes Politikes Personall and relative perfectâ—on how taught by Philosophers Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy compared with that of Epicurus With that of Lucretius Epicurus's excellent discourse concerning Death Frugality and Temporance Mr. Hobbes approacheth nearer the worst of the Epicureans then do the Mahumetans Wherein the Stoicks placed humâ—ne happinesse Wherein Aristotle Mr Hobbes mâ—stake's the Philosophers discouâ—se of moderating assions St. Pauls Philosophy Of Fortitude and liberality Mr. Hobbes's definition of a Person too circumstantial No less applicable to a feigned than a true person Person not Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppositum Person differently used in severall arts and faculties Misplaced by Mr. Hobbes No man personate's himself Cicero mis-interpreted Person how taken by the Criticks Boethius's definition of a person Rich. de Sancto Vâ—ctore object 's against it His other Definition of it More dâ—fficult Scotus's Objections against the former The Definition explained and vindicated by the Bishop The Distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quâ— Reasonable of what extent The Philosophers â—nd School-men could have râ—ctified Mr Hâ—bbes's mistake of a person The Etymologie and common aâ—ception of Persona Not the Actor but the acted is the person No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept The fiâ—st part of Mr. Hobbes's answer destroye's the second God to be obeyâ—d before man An instance in the Hebrew Midwives Who probably had covenanted No breach of Covenant which had not a right to biâ—d The true God improperly and over-boldly said to be personated Moses though instead of God did not personate him Nor doe Kings Nor Priests How Moses was instead of God to Aaron ELOHIM How Moses was made a God to Pharaoh Hoâ— fully soever Moses had represented God he could not personate him The Israelites how the pâ—ople of Gâ—d and how of Mâ—ses Moses's phrase shewe's he personated not God God was King of the Israelites Moses but their Judge and Generall A messenger and Mediatour betwixt God and them Uncomely to say our Saviour personated God Who was really God Pâ—â—ved to be 〈◊〉 from Acts 20.17 28. Against Bernard Ochinus Refuted by Smiglâ—cius To whom Smâ—lcius replies having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus Oâ—hinus deserâ—â—d by the Socinians Smalcius attempt's in vaine to evacuate the divinity of Christ. Christâ—s blood not to be called the blood of the Father according to Smiglecius Smalcius that argue's how it may His argument urged to the farthest by the Bishop Who finde's the passions not the actions of men to be called God's The shifting Genius of the Socinians de luded by a single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how to be translated The text whâ—ch want's it retorted upon the Socinians How Christ is the son of God What a son is The particulars in the definition applyâ—ed to our Saviour The mysterie of our Saviour's divine humane generation signified Mic. 5.2 The Bishop's observation on that Text. Faustus Socinus answâ—â—'d And Valkelius With other Socinians The text taken in pieces and vindicated from their objections One in essence plurally expressed when the effects are divers Christs eternal egression compared to the shining of the Sun How from the beginning may signifie from eternity A twofold consideration of the word Beginning A or Ab often denote causationâ— c. From the beginning not to be understood from the beginning of David's reigne The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto God's descent to man's capacity in the doctrine of his attributes Particularly that of his eternity The discourse between Ochinus and his Spirit moderated by the Bishop Who enlargeth upon the Argument against the Photinian or Socinian and the Arian The next name of our Saviour the Word Socinus answerd in his Explication of St. John Ch. 1. The opinâ—on of Ebion and Cerinthus discussed Epiphanius contra haeret tom 2. cap. 28 The shifts of the Socinians St. Iohn's â—eason of his writing not solitary as Socinus alledgâ—th Beza's genuine lection Socinus rigulaâ— in his But for a little consonance with Tremelius How the Socinians interpret Joh. 1.1 With reâ—erence to the Baptist's preaching Their Metaphor And Metonymie Figures never used by Christ without intimation how the text is to be understood So that of a vine A Shepheard A Doore His Metonymies of being the Truth Life and Resurrection c. The Truth and life may be taken without a figure Christ called the Word according to none of those figures But according to the Catholick sense is the internal Word of God How Aaron was Moses's mouth John Baptist call'd a voice The Woâ—d taken for Christ in a farre different sense Not to be understood of our Saviour's humanity Neither Metaphorically Nor Metonymically Socinus's shift A brief Paraphraâ—â— Wâ—â—es the first 〈◊〉 in St John A Word internal and external both of God and Man The Philosophers of old callâ—d the Son of God his Word As well they who writ after as who before St. John Which is yielded by Socinus Their language used by the primitive Fathers and St. Paul That of Plato conâ—onant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John Plato's deâ—â—â—lption of heaven parallel'd to
that of St. John in his Revelation The words Being with God signifie more thâ—n Known to God against Socinus and hâ—s â—ollowers Eternal life before Christ's Iâ—carnation knowne to the Angelâ— blessed Souls Prophets Philosophers Although not till afterward manifested to others The Phâ—losophers excell the Socinians in this knowledge Socinus's other Text of no validity to his purpose The Discourse resumed concerning the knowledge of the Word before the preaching of St. John Baptist Whether in the Socinian or Catholick sense may be more truly said the Word was God God with them no proper name but an Appellative â— Contrary to the use of it single thâ—oughout the New Testament How Satan is called the God of this World c. How the belly God The Socinian's Criticisme about the Article Answered And Sociâ—uâ—'s Instances How St. Cyrâ—ll's rule is to be understood Smalcius answered about Tautology As likewise to that objection God cannot be with himself Loâ—d and God not both one The Word God with though not of the Father The Sociniaâ—s conceit of tâ—e Word being with God in the bâ—ginning Improbable having no Evangelical authority That they pretend to prove's it not The distinction of Christ's Divinity and Humanity illustrated His ascent into heaven which they insist on not corporeal His double capacity of Priest and Lay-man alledged by them discussed How all things were made by him St. John's method very considerable against the Socinians interpretation Which is such as permit's the more truth to be in the negative propositions opposite to those in holy Scripture Christ's interest in the Câ—eatiâ—n reinforced against the Socinians glosse Wherein he was a principal no bare instrumental Cause Their other slight objection answered The use of words The benefit of Tradition How life eternall and what else is to be understood ver 4. Hâ—w both that and the naturall life is said to be the light of men How Christ is called the lâ—ght according to Socinus How according to the Bishop What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie's properly and why rendred was Why the Evangelist chose to use it rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writing of St. John Baptist Socinus put 's a diminution upon St. John's testimony of Christ. Which is evidently affirmatâ—ve of his Divinity Socinus misinterprets creation by recreation or regeneration And in supplie's to his purpose a Text in the Epistle to the Ephesians Another violence of his in wresting actuall regeneration to regeneration in endeavour Smalcius's gâ—oâ—â—e His various significations put upon the word World Wherein he imposeth fallacies upon his Reader The Bishop's Animadversions 〈◊〉 sense â—irectly opposite to that evident in the Text. The genuine sense of the Terms not changed as they object Smalcius's reply to Smeglecius Little bâ—câ—ming a Socinian The World knew not the Woâ—d but by supernaturall grace What men appâ—ehend of God by naturall abilities The objection about Saint Johâ—'s upbraiding the world answered The exposition of the words immediately following why omitted The Socinians Word couâ—d not be made Flâ—sh Their evasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how used in the beginning of St. John's Gospell Their heterodox interpretation of flesh Not evident in Scripture Cited by Socinus The result of their Comment The summe of ours The union of the Divinâ—ty with the humanity implieth no mutation of God into Man Notwithstanding the predâ—cation God is Man Whâ—ch is asserted â—nd by a familliar instance illustrated Their Objection Answer'd by the dependaâ—â—â— of substances up on God Another Argument of Smalcius's Answer'd by the manner of existing Christ a true man though a divine persâ—n Whose conception and gestation in the blessed Virgin 's wâ—mb conduced nothing to his personality The Divinity an humanity uniâ—ed render him neither two Sons nor two persons Object Of his being the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost Answer Which identity implies not that they were made flâ—sh with him As Scotus illustâ—ate's excellently The Bishop's apology to the Reader Smâ—lcius's fiâ—st Qâ—erie c. Rectifyed Answered All actions not alwayes necessariâ—y according to the nature of him or that which act 's Smalius's second Querie Answeâ—ed and frustrated His third Querie Answered with reference to the discourse before concerning the incarnation of the Father and holy Ghost Our Saviour's mission derogate's nothing from the authoriâ—y and plenitude of power in himself Whâ—ch he exercised in giving commission to his Apostles The Socinian's opinion of the holy Ghost Confuted and this proved that he is a distinct person of the Trinity not a mere Attribute of the Deity Noâ— the Gospel oâ— Christ as they pretend out of holy Scripture Not the gift of God to certain men but by a figure A defiance to them that call for Reason in these mysteries Which notwithstanding may be subservienr to Faith Câ—rthagâ—na's lâ—tle lesse then blasphemous intimating God's power of enlarging the capacâ—ty of his Creature What of God to be proved by Reason and by whom to be attempted Aquinas's first argument against the possibility to attain by naturall reason any knowledge of the Trinity The Bishop's answer grounded upon Lulli's demonstratâ—on by aequiparance Aquinas's second Argum. The Bishop's first answer concerning the invisible objects of Faith The Bishop's second answer concerning the after-sight of Reason His third argument from scorn and scâ—ndal Answer'd by the adherence to infallibility of Scripture Trigosius and Carthagena passed by Truth not oppos'd to Truth The Bishop closeâ—h with Raymund Lully whom he vindicateth against Vasques And Aymericus who make's him an haeretick His advice to the Pope and Cardinal about convertâ—ng the Saracens Hiâ— devout enterprize according to it wâ—th successe His like adventure among the 〈◊〉 Their cruel sentence and execution frustrated by his strange deliverance The notable effâ—ct of his sufferings Lully's undertaking according to Vâ—sques Whose Arguments he recite's and forme's The first prove's a personal plurality by concord Another from equality distinction Vasques's first Answer excepting against the supposiâ—ion of a reall effective act in God The Bishop's Râ—ply that Lulâ—y not only suppâ—sâ—d but proved it His Lordship's explanation of Lully's sense by the necessity of God's acting somewhat from all eternity or being idle which could nâ—t be Vasques chargeth Lully with a mâ—stake of a formal cause for an efficient Who is mâ—staken by him And the cause proved no less efficient then formal The discourse drawn into perfect syllogisme provâ—ng the eternall plurality of persons by production The Objection urging the Angel cannot produce the like effect answer'd Vasquâ—s's satisfactâ—â—y answerâ— to Lully's arguments for his second Conclusion The Bâ—shop proceed's upon other grounds of his to prove the Trinity God's infinite Simpliciâ—y and Uniâ—y His spiritual faculties Understandâ—ng and Will Himself the infinite objâ—ct of his Understanding Which is eternally productive of his internal Word And that word substâ—â—tiâ—â— the same with himself The Bishop guided to this discovery by Scripture as the Wise-men by a Sâ—ar God's Will as fruitful by love as hiâ— Understanding by knowledge And so productive of a third person which is likewise God These divine productions not to be multiplyed because infinite by which an objection's answered The objection made by the Assertors of the Greek Church answered accordâ—ng to the sense of the Catholick touching the procession of the holy Ghost Illustrated by a similitude to facilitate in part our apprehension of it How the three Divine Persons must necessarily be Father Son and Holy Spirit Why they are called three persons being no Scripture-language and â—ow long ago debated by St. Augustâ—ne The extent or limits of this personal distiâ—ction the Bishâ—p â—eveâ—ently forbear's to determâ—ne And dislâ—ke's the rash curiosity of the School-men His Lordship's apology for undertaking to handle the question by reason And seldom quoting the Fathers A digression to the Reader Select Aphorâ—smes out of which the Author draw's his Discourse A good foundation of his to build upon His noble Quaeâ—e Animadversions upon his ambiguous sense touching the conservation of life His study of it as to his own particular All men may not have like reason to be so intent The parts and faculties of men not to be levelled with those of beasts The publick interest to be prefer'd and preserv'd before the personal or more private What right a man hath to the mâ—aâ—s of preserviâ—g life and how he is to use them Each particular man cannot pretend a right to the whole world Nor to things conducing onely to mediate and particular ends The danger of pretending a right to all and so having a right judgment of it Two cannot have a right to the same thing at the same time All cannot be usefull to one particular perperson Nor every thing to evâ—ry one Of which no right judgment can be made for want of knowledge The use of some known interdicted to whom hurtful Oâ—her ruleâ— by which to institâ—te a right judgment beside reason How all creatures are granted to man's usâ— limited Hiâ— impossible supâ—osition His falâ—acy à bâ—ne divisiâ— c. The equality of right no argument that each man hath a right to all The case of necessity imply's no such universal right Nor dissolution of any Common-wealth An Objection fram'd by the Author A second of his not so strong The first but weakly answer'd by him without regard to God's end His first Argument for universal right returning extreme necessity The Bishop's severall answers to it His second Argument for ancient right in a lawfull defense How the force oâ— invalidity of this argument mâ—y be understood and how the practice moderated His Objection And answer The Bishop's Animadversions shewing the difference between just 〈…〉 invasion staâ—ing the râ—ght of possâ—ssion Fear entitle's a man to nothing but a guard of himself Propriety withouâ— Covenant The râ—ght to goodâ— gotten by conquest what His third Argument The Bishâ—p's answer from the fallibiliâ—y of judgmâ—nt His argument against the right of Occupancy Which the Bishop shew's to hold well against Covenant What is the râ—ght in necessity Discovery 〈◊〉 not an equal right with Occupancy The imparity of swift and slow not considerable in the case The Author 's two Propositions destructive to humane Society and Trade The difficulty of discerning different titles to goods and estates Little peace to be expected if that of Occupancy be not allowed