or being idle which could not be 401 VII Vasques chargeth Lully with a mistake of a formal cause for an efficient who is mistaken by him 402 And the cause proved no less efficient then formal 403 The discourse drawn into a perfect syllogisme proving the eternal plurality of persons by production 404 The Objection urging that Angels cannot produce the like effect answer'd 405 VIII Vasques's satisfactory answer to Lully's arguments for his second Conclusion 406 The Bishop proceed's upon other grounds of his to prove the Trinity ibid. God's infinite Simplicity and Unity ibid. His spiritual faculties Understanding and Will. ibid. Himself the infinite object of his Understanding 407 Which is eternally productive of his internal word ibid. And that word substantial the same with Himself ibid. The Bishop guided to this discovery by Scripture as the Wisemen by a Star 408 IX God's will as fruitful by love as his Understanding by knowledge ibid. And so productive of a third Person which is likewise God 409 X. Misprinted XI ibid. XI These divine productions not to be multiplyed because infinite by which an objection's answer'd 410 XII The objection made by the Assertours of the Greek Church answered according to the sense of the Catholick touching the procession of the holy Ghost 411 Illustrated by a similitude to facilitate in part our apprehension of it ibid. XIII How the three Divine Persons must necessarily be Father Son and holy Spirit 412 XIV Why they are called three persons being no Scripture-language and how long ago debated by St. Augustine 414 The extent or limits of this personal distinction the Bishop reverently forbeare's to determine 415 And dislike's the rash curiosity of the Schoolmen 416 XV. His Lordship's apology for undertaking to handle the question by reason ibid. And seldom quoting the Fathers 417 A digression to the Reader ibid. CHAP. XXXVI I. Select Aphorismes out of which the Author who apologizeth for Mr. Hobbes draw's his discourse 418 A good foundation of his to build upon 419 His noble Quaere ibid. II. Animadversions upon his ambiguous sense touching the conservation of life ibid. III. His study of it as to his own particular 420 All men may not have like reason to be so intent ibid. The parts and faculties of men not to be levell'd with those of beasts 421 The publick interest to be prefer'd and preserv'd before the personal or more private ibid. IV. What right a man hath to the means of preserving life and how he is to use them 422 V. Each particular maâ— cannot pretend a right to the whole world 423 Nor to things conducing only to mediate and particular ends 424 VI. The danger of pretending a right to all and to having a right judgment of it 425 Two cannot have a right to the same thing at the same time 426 All cannot be useful to one particular person ibid. Nor every thing to every one 427 Of which no right judgment can be made for want of knowledge ibid. The use of some known interdicted to whom hurtfull ibid. VII Other rules by which to institute a right judgment beside Reason 428 How all creatures are granted to man's use limited ibid. His impossible supposition ibid. His fallacy a bene divisis c. 429 VIII The equality of right no argument that each man hath a right to all 430 The case of necessity implye's no such universal right ibid. IX Nor the dissolution of any Common-wealth 431 X. An Objection fram'd by the Author 432 A second of his not so strong ibid. The first but weakly answered by him without regard to God's end ibid. XI His first argument for universal right returning extreme necessity 433 The Bishop's severall answers to it ibid. His second argument for ancient right in a lawful defence 434 How the force or invalidity of this argument may be understood and how the practice moderated ibid. XII His Objection and Answer 435 The Bishop's Animadversions shewing the difference between just defence and unjust invasion and stating the right of possession ibid. Fear entitle's a man to nothing but a guard of himself 436 Propriety without Covenant ibid. The right to goods gotten by conquest what ibid. Thâ— Bishop's answer from the fallibility of judgment 437 XIII His the Apologist's argument against the right of Occupancy ibid. Which the Bishop shew's to hold well against Covenant ibid. What is the right in necessity ibid. Discovery give 's not an equal right with Occupancy 438 The imparity of swift and slow not considerable in the case ibid. The Author 's two Propositions destructive to humane Society 439 And Trade ibid. The difficulty of discerning different titles to goods and estates ibid. Little peace to be expected if that of Occupancy be not allowed 440 The Texts of Holy Scripture illustrated or cited GEN. Chap. Verse Page 1 28 181 29 4 3 4 126 4 9 184 4 26 125 6 5 129 Â Â 185 9 1 2. 186 3 c. 208 9 26 440 9 27 44 188 10 14 305 12 14 161 15 c. 13 3 156 4 5 13 7 143 8 9 17 6 305 19 4 183 5 c. 20 2 161 3 c. 23 3 162 4 c 32 10 309 40 5 71 41 1 ib. EXOD. 1 15 282 16 c. 4 16 329 4 36 286 7 1 ibib 7 1 330 20 2 288 22 28 286 32 7 288 32 11 290 LEVIT 24 11 289 12 c. NUMB. 15 35 290 36 c. DEUT. 9 12 288 JUDGES 4 17 156 I. SAM 17 36 270 26 7 ibid. I. KINGS 21 9 145 II. KINGS 6 25 255 JOB 10 5 314 19 25 338 26 PSAL. 2 7 334 10 6 ibid. 14 1 92 19 1 115 3 4 36 9 389 78 39 376 90 2 109 94 8 95 94 9 96 102 27 314 113 5 355 115 16 185 142 6 245 PROV 1 20 309 ECCLES 5 3 72 ISAIAH 4 6 376 6 3 344 40 3 329 55 9 306 11 312 JER 17 5 376 DAN 2 1 71 3 16 247 MIC 5 2 303 315 ZACH. 2 8 298 13 7 316 MAL. 3 4 306 312 WISD 11 20 104 13 5 116 II. MACCA 7 2 247 3 c. St. MATTH 1 20 71 3 3 330 3 11 364 3 16 387 390 3 17 334 7 2 146 10 1 386 17 11 358 18 18 298 25 45 ibid. 28 18 386 19 20 St. MARKE 13 23 258 St. LUKE 2 32 344 2 52 343 3 4 330 3 22 383 3 38 105 12 19 239 12 33 ibid. St. JOHN 1 1 318 324 328 408 1 2 352 1 3 357 1 4 361 1 5 362 1 6 ib. 1 7 363 1 9 378 1 10 365 1 11 299 374 1 14 ibid. 1 17 378 1 18 346 1 23 330 1 29 364 3 12 355 3 13 354 355 4 25 358 8 58 111 10 11 326 10 34 346 35 348 12 3 347 13 15 362 14 4 326 6 14 26 358 15 1 326 17 3 338 18 37 385 19 28 358 20 21 385 20 23 385 398 20 29 120
saith he pertaines to the constituting a person I answer he was thus although these had nothing to doe in the Constitution of his person these were but the common producers of any individual humane nature and so by consequence were accidents of ordinary personality although they were undiscerned to work any thing nay they could work nothing in his personality To the second part of this distinction or else there must be two distinct persons and so two Sons that which hath been delivered is sufficient to answer that there is but one Son and one person as Athanasius in his Creed as the Soul and Body make one man so the Divinity and Humanity make one Christ the Soul and Body have but one subsistence when they are united but two when they are severed so if the humanity had not been taken ken into the Word or should be left by it there would be two distinct subsistences and two distinct persons but being as they are united there is but one Sect. 16. He hath another objection which he esteem's of very great force pag. 102. which is thus framed When the word is the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost it should follow if the Word be made flâ—sh that the Father and the holy Ghost should be made flâ—sh likewise and so it would agree to the Father and the holy Ghost to be conceived born dy arise again as well as to the Son because Omnia opera c. all the outward works of the Trinity are inseparable For answer to this I grant that Axiome to be true and so farre forth as there is any outward action it is most true that the whole Trinity conspired in that Act they all produced this man Christ our Saviour they all preserved him in his being but the humanity of our Saviour was united onely to the Word which was his Divinity and this union was it by which he was made man nor in respect of it can it be said that that was an externall Action but a taking the humanity into unity with its sâ—lf for although the object be an externall thing yet the act being internall a reception not an extramission or working without upon it it need be no more called an externall act then God's knowledge of the Creatures whose object is externall but the act internall for all that can be said of this is that this manhood is united to the Word which union may well be a work of the Trinity although terminated in the Son as when a man tye's a knot by which two points or any other things are united the union is wrought by the man but terminated in these two so though this unity is wrought by the Trinity yet it is terminated in the Word and humanity not in the other persons or if you would have it closer suppose a man should glew a ring to the midle joynt of his little finger the man made this union but it is onely united or terminated in that joynt nor can we imagine what outward work was terminated by that joynt Scotus to this purpose excellently A point terminateâ—s a line yet hath no outward work upon it one relation terminate's another the Son the Father yet hath no outward causation or work upon him this termination which personality give 's to any individuall nature give 's it onely a finition and stint's it in these particular bounds but hath no externall work upon it at all so that the Father and the holy Ghost produce all the outward work with the Son but the Son onely is interested in the union by being made flesh c. Good Reader if my weak expressions have not rendred this high Mystery lively to thy Capacity excuse me I have done mine endeavour and since they labour with Philosophicall tricks and nice ties to â—ustian and amaze this discourse I must crosse them in their own way or else their triumph will be endlesse the truth is these Mysteries are revealed quòd sunt that they are and men ought to belâ—eve that and should go no farther but when witty men with wicked reason shall labour to lay stumbling-blocks of reason in our way to heaven it becom's us to lay them aside which I hope by the assistance of that God whose glory I endeavour I have and shall do Smalcius where before cited adde's great vaunts of this Argument with most opprobrious Terms which I meddle not with as impertinent Sect. 17. But because he make's some Queries which he think 's or seem's to think are able to stumble a Reader being unanswerable I shall putting them down endeavour to answer them although I may justly say in cases of this nature it is as true as in any that a weak and silly man may ask more then a learned man can answer His first is Potest ne fieri can it be that he who is God can do any thing not as God or in the nature of God this last phrase or in the nature of God seem's to me a strange exposition of that as God for quatenus ipsum is not in the nature of the thing which act's but according to the nature or to act out of the Principles of that nature now that may be done even by God in these outward acts of creating and governing the Creature which acts are not in but out of his nature although according to his nature I do not understand quatenus here in the strictest sense of Logicians for that which is reciprocall but in a larger as I expounded it To the Qâ—estion its self I answer to it as it seem's to be proposed as if it were in generall that nothing can act any thing which is not out of the principles of its nature for this consider Socrates is a man yet he can affect sensuall things which he doth not as a man but as a beast or a sensitive Creature he groweth and the like not as a man that is out of the principles of humanity but as a vegetable again Socrates is a Son or a Father or both he doth many things as neither he doth many being a Son and a man as a Son out of the principles of Sonship not as man out of the principles of humanity so that when any thing hath a substantial essence and a relative it may act out of the principles of that relative condition it hath and not out of the essentiall nature it hath if he speak as he doth of the persons of the Trinity no doubt but those personall actions and relations betwixt Father Son and holy Spirit although done and acted in that essence yet are not essentiall but personall and for other acts if any person assume any thing into a personal union with it it may act by and in that united nature that which it act 's not according to his Divine that is out of that principle thus may it eat walk and the like this because he still
require's instances from the Creature is evident out of them a man when his hand is warmed by fire or cooled by Frost can by putting his hand to another warm or cool another's hand still being a mâ—n he act's according to the Condition of that quality which is added to him and not according to the principles of humanity His second Quere is Can it be that a Divine person can be a divers thing from the Divine nature I think amongst a thousand which he may read that have written about this businesse who are Orthodox he can shew none that ever affirmed it it they say that the Father Son and Spirit are diverse persons but not diverse things diversus est filius not diversum a diverse person not a diverse substance His third and last Quere is Whether it may be that there should be the same nature of all three persons and yet one of these persons acting something the nature should not act that same thing he instances in the incarnation birth death c. of the Son which had the Divine nature and yet the Father and the holy Spirit which had the same nature and essence numero that is in number with the Son should not be incarnate born c. To this I conceive I have spoken sufficiently already where I have shewed that one person can be incarnate and not the other which when it is granted all the rest will follow he may be conceived born dye c. in that nature which was united to him although not in that of which he was a person which hath been a most Catholick universally received truth these thousand yeares and upward in the Christian world and therefore ought if refused to be confuted with reasons not with opposition onely of the Authority of two or three men by a plain denyall and no more This is all of any moment that I find objected against the exposition of this place which I hope I have satisfyed and in it evinced that our Saviour is a person in the Trinity equall with the Father and distinct from the Father Sect. 18. Which being done it must needs follow that Mr. Hobbes was much too bold with him when he said he did personate the Father which as it is a language unheard-of in Scripture so it is impossible to be true he being equall to him in all things and co-acting with him whatsoever he did in Heaven or Earth what he adde's that our Saviour came to â—educe the Jews and induce all Nations into the Kingdom of his Father not as of himself but as sent from his Father was weakly affirmed if not worse for although in that errand he was sent by the Father as he was man yet he with plenarity of power did execute the same as he was the Son of God and God united to that manhood of which I think to discourse more fully hereafter but in a word for the present tâ—ke that onely one Sentence of our Saviour's which is the latter part of the 21. Verse of the 20. Chapter of St. John As my Father hath sent me even so send I you this was spoken to his Apostles here the Father sent Christ as man to bear witnesse to the Truth John 18.37 for this end was I born and for this end came I into the world that I should bâ—ar witnesse to the truth so did he command his Apostles Matth. 28.19 20. Goe teach all nations or discipulize them Verse 20. teaching them to observe all thing whatsoever I have commanded you where we see that his Authority sent them in the same errand that he was sent in himself then next which is most pertinent to this purpose in the 18. Ver. of the same 28. of St. Matth. he saith All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth so if he did not give them such Power or Authority where the greatest power is given there the lesse is included Matth. 10.1 he gave them power over unclean spirits those are the greatest and most powerfull things in the world so likewise John 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. there the power of Heaven and Earth is both included and in none of these is that unworthy diminishing Term added which Mr. Hobbes intrude's not as of himself for although as man his Authority is derivative yet as God he gave these powers with Authority immediately from himself with no expression of any delegation to do it let this suffice as at the present for the examination of that speech of his concerning which I intend a farther indagation in a fuller discourse which the opportunity of another errour will invite me to CHAP. XXXIV The Holy Ghost proved to be neither Attribute nor Gospell nor a mere gift as the Socinians fancy but the third person in the holy Trinity Sect. 1. ANd now my next undertaking must be to do as much for the holy Spirit which I shall endeavour to do exceeding briefly and first I will set down what mistakes have misguided the Adversaries of this Truth and vindicating it from them shall confirm the said Truth with onely one Argument which I conceive convincing of it First then the Socinians deliver that the holy Ghost is an Attribute of the Deity not a person that it is the vertue and power of God by which he operate's and produceth those effects that are wrought amongst us but not a distinct person from either the Father or Son To confute this I shall produce that one place Luke 3.22 and the holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him and loe a voice from heaven which said Thou art my beloved Son in thee I am well pleased the Story of this is evidently thus Our Saviour was now baptized and being gone up out of the water as St. Matth. 3.16 he prayed and then the holy Spirit thus descended upon him that this was not the power of God is evident because I think no man can shew me a bare Attribute of God represented or said to appear in a bodily shape but a person or the essence and secondly if there were an Attribute expressed here by this bodily apparition it could not be the power of God that operating power by which his wonderfull works are wrought because the innocent unacting nature of a dove doth the least expresse that of any other but as Erasmus most excellently paraphrase's upon the place he shew's us here that as the dove brought aâ— Olive branch after the deluge to Noah in taken that the waters were asswaged and the wrath of God pacifyed towards mankind so the holy Spirit after the Baptisme of our Saviour by whose Baptisme ours received a confirmation if not an institution by which like as by the Ark of Noâ—h we are delivered from the wrath of God the holy Spirit appeared in the shape of that Divine messenger before and brought us comfort that we shall be delivered as in the
think that our faith is built upon such reasons only I answer this cannot be with such as I who professe that my faith depend's upon the Scripture which is infallible yet have lifted up my Reason to work upon and serve that Faith Sect. 5. I thought to have examined Trigosius and Carthagena but I find little in them which will not abundantly be satisfied in my following discourse I shall let them passe therefore and for this instant be contented with what hath been written onely let the Reader observe that truth is not opposed to any truth the truth of Faith to the truth of Reason divine to humane nor doth Grace destroy but perfect Nature nor onely enlighten the Soul to apprehend but to see and enable's the Reason to discern what else it could not I have here observed divers Authors undertaking this work as first Richardus de Sancto victore in his third Book de Trinitate cap. 2.3 4. then Bonaventure in 1. senten Disp. 2. but he had ill luck with his Argument for his own Disciples forsake him here as Corialanus and Trigosius Scotus likewise somewhat but all their discourses have been answered I conceive satisfactorily onely Raymund Lully I think passeth unsatisfied though undertaken by diverse I shall not doubt therefore with his assistance to make good my conclusions of Reason that there is a Trinity of persons in the unity of essence Gabriel Vasques in 1. Question 32. Disput. 133. Dispute's against Lully of whom he seem's to have read three Books one called Apostrophe another de Demonstratione aquiparantiae and Lib. sententiarum I have no one of these but three other his Ars magna his Ars parva and his Arbor Scientiarum and I may adde a fourth bound with his Arbor called Introductorium which furnish me with all that he urgeth out of this Author and much more for this purpose I deal with him first because other School men seem to derive what they know of Lully from him and never to have seen his Books so that what shall be satisfactorily spoken to him will be sufficient for the rest I cannot but commend this Author for a noble enemy because he speak's civilly of his Adversary which others do not but raile at him for an haeretick with opprobrious words but he vindicate's him from that unworthy judgment of Aimericus a most censorious unjust Inquisitor in the fourth Chapter of his former Dispute where he said that Raymund Lully thought these demonstrations might be made good against Saracens I have not that particular passage in any of his Books but something like it in his Arbor Scientiarum in Arbore Apostolicali cap. de numero divinali aeternali at the latter end of that Chapter where he saith that Dominus Papa ejus fratres Cardinales the Lord Pope and his brethren the Cardinals should do well if they would ordain certain holy men devoted to dye for Christ and learned in the Arabick or Saracens language who should goe and preach to the Saracens and Dispute with them shewing them the Trinity which Christians believe c. and at the last by these means the Pope and Cardinals would more exalt the Catholick faith then by sword or buckler or any such like means so that it seem's clearly by this place that he judged as Vasques relate's but more then this I shall tell you that when it seem's he could not get the Pope and Cardinals to do it or perhaps they could not find out those persons and devout men which he name's he himself did undertake that work as Hierome Sanches who writ his life relates and went amongst the Turks and did convert diverse of their Masters which saith he Ipsi vocant Alphochines and being apprehended the first time was whipped banished and dismissed in a ship but being one of those devout men who were resolved to dye for Christ he went again to Bugis in Tunis where the Moores had built Schools for the Education of youth in the Liberall Sciences where he converted many of the wisest to Christianity to be brief the King caused him to be put into a loathsome prison where in hunger and nastinesse he remained seven moneths and then being produced and examined he professed himself a Christian and ready to dye for Christ upon which speech he was condemned to a Cave and there to be overwhelmed with Stones which Sentence his Executioners acted most cruelly leaving him as they thought dead but some Merchants stole him away by night and ship'd him and by contrary winds he was driven to the Baleares Insulae and dyed fourscore years old in the year of the Lord 1315. Now let Bernard Lathenburgensis Petrus Gallisardus Aymericus Faber Faventinus with other his flanderers shew me any amongst them of more Christian excellency and piety in that age then this man whom they call haeretick I dare hardly say if he were an haeretick nothing like which I see in his Books yet that Love which doth with God hide a multitude of faults ought to conceal likewise his faults with men and this love and charity towards God of his might excuse almost any thing this Baptismus Flaminis as the Schools call it this tryall by Fire as St. Peter But so much for the defence of my Author to whom I confesse my self much beholden now to the Argument which I undertake to defend Sect. 6. Vasques put 's Raymund's undertaking to consist of three propositions first that there are diverse persons in the Trinity secondly that they are no more nor no lesse then three thirdly that these are the Father Son and holy Spirit Vasques likewise saith that Raymundus undertake's to prove these per demonstrationes aequiparantiae and he expound's it right what that aequiparance is according to one branch which is the equivalence of the things but he left out the other which I set down before that is the equivalence betwixt the power and the effect Next he come's to his particular Argument his first is saith he where is Concord there is plurality but in the divine Goodness there is Concord therefore there is plurality The major saith Vasques he leave 's unproved but his minor he prove's thus Where is an act there is Concord betwixt the Agent and the thing produced But in the Divine Goodness there is an act which is bonificare to make good Therefore there is Concord And then Vasques produceth another Argument of the sâ—me nature Wheresoever is equality there is a distinction between the two equalls But in the Divine Goodness there is an equality to wit betwixt the good thing it self and that which is made good Therefore there is distinction to this he answer's These are not demonstrations because they suppose that which is not to be granted by Reason nor evident but by Faith which is that there is a reall act in God which should be by production that
this internal word the second the Word that is spoken the third this infinite Love Joy Delight Comfort that these two have one in another more cannot be imagined because we can find but two spiritual faculties in the Divine essence by which it can produce any thing that is Understanding and Will and in this notion they have both an infinite production which is the furthest any operation can extend it self and therefore though consequent productions of creation may be like sparks of the same fire afterwards produced to give God an external glory yet no other internal operation which is infinite but these two And now I may apply my self to the third proposition that these three persons are the Father the Son and the holy Spirit Sect. 13. First for the Father and the Son these two relatives cannot be one without the other and it is evident out of that which hath been said that the producer and produced must be Father and Son for although perhaps we cannot properly say that when fire produceth its like that product is the son of the fire nor perhaps when we see a plant or beast do it can we say that that product is a son yet when we see any thing that is rational do it we may most properly say that it is the producer's son now that God is such can be no question therefore in this production there is a Father and a Son for God being most spiritual we must expect onely a pure spiritual propagation which can be conceived no way so â—itly as by the Understanding nor indeed is possible and here in this expression we find all those notions in which the same is delivered to us in Scripture to be clearly evident as that he is the Word the internal Word of God the image of God no image so clear as that which is drawn in the word of any thing the internal word fully expressing that of which it is the word so likewise the wisdom of God because it is the relict of divine knowledge because it is the highest principle and first fountain of all other beings and for the third person the doubt can onely be whether he is holy or whether a person and indeed there can be no doubt of either because he is God and then he must be most spiritual and most holy So that that 3. Proposition is as clear as the former that these persons are the Father Son and holy Spirit I thought to have vindicated Raymund Lully from Faber Faventinus who being a Scotist I thought in his Natural Theology had written something various from Vasques but he deserve's pity having no knowledge of Lully but by Vasques and what is worse when Vasques excuseth Lully from that opprobrious scandal of being an Heretick he who knew nothing of him but in Vasques fall's upon him with that foul and disgraceful Term and endeavour's not to answer Vasques his vindication of him Sect. 14. It may be justly enquired now why we should call these three persons since they are not so termed in Scripture This question was debated by S. Augustine long ago in his 7. book de Trinitate cap. 4. and methink's satisfactorily in the which he hath these passages first Since the Father is God the Son God and the holy Ghost God why are there not three Gods He that saith the Scripture doth not call them three Gods and therefore he dare's not answer's himself for neither doth the Scripture call them three persons He had shewed before that the Scripture saith that there is one God and that these three are called God but as he had shewed that although the Scripture doth not say that there is one essence of God yet we believe confidently there is but one essence so may we do of these persons take this phrase Propterea licuit disputandi necessitate tres personas dicere non quia Scriptura dicit sed quia Scriptura non contradicit he saith That the necessity of Disputation make's a man say something which is not against Scripture in this point and that is enough for if the Scripture express that there are three and that loquendi causâ as he speak's at the beginning of that chapter de ineffabilibus â—ari aliquo modo possumus quod â—ffa i nullo modo pâ—ssumus That saith he we may say somewhat of these unspeakable things which we cannot clearly speak out in full and significant terms we speak thus And again in the same chap. Excedit supereminentia Divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem verius enim cogitatur Deus quà m dicitur veâ—ius est quà m cogitatur the result of which is this that the thoughts of man are short of the Divine perfections and the language of man short of his thoughts because our language being formed to our usual business which we converse about all which are excelled infinitely by the divine perfections they must be short in their expressions of those divine excellencies And therefore again that most excellent and learned man in the same chap. Quid igitur restat nisi ut fateamur loquendi necessitate parta haec vocabula and indeed they are the most significant which can be found out for since we conceive that this term person is the last actuality and addition which can be made to any reasonable substance it may most justly be applied to this of the Trinity and each distinct suppositum thereof but still with this reservation that the Divine things are ineffable and not fully to be conceived much less expressed by us say God's essence is thus or thus we may but to say that that language whatsoever it be doth fully express his essence or being is a presumption in any man and the like and no otherwise of these personalities it is the nearest expression man can make and let us be contented with it A second question may be whether this personal distinction in the Trinity be a main and great difference or some little and inconsiderable thing For answer to this my humility and adoration of the Divine persons is such that I dare affirm positively nothing in the world which is not expressed in the holy Scripture a relation we are sure there is by which the one is signified to us and not the other as the Father the Son and the holy Spirit proceeding from them which spiration signifie's a procession which always involve's a person proceeded and a person from whence it proceeded and these relations must needs be founded in some substance when we consider them in God who hath no accident but what difference is in that foundation the Scripture is silent I am at a maze whether infinite bccause whatsoever is in God is infinite and therefore some may conceive it such but then they must make the unity in God infinite likewise because that is most primarily affirmed in him and yet both may be in him though they seem impossible in us whose perfections excell our thoughts
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
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
run from that instant in which the sign was given so we say it began to be dark from such an hour and indeed in all language used by men these prepositions à or ab are used most genuinely to intimate the ultimum quod non that instant in which the motion action or thâ—ng spoke of was not which in our particular must needs be Eternity Again I entreat the Reader to observe with me that these prepositions à or ab doe not alwayes signifie the Termes or points and instances but very oft the causations and the essence out of which another come's so we say the Son come's from the Father the heate from the fire the light from the Sun now in this sense likewise à principio from the begining that is from whose goings forth have been of old as they from the beginning from God as from the beginning which is eternity which is God likewise Thus all things square evenly with our conceipt I will next examine how it can agree with their exposition From the beginning say they is to be understood from the beginning of Davids reign for this word Beginning is to be applied to the matter precedent as if it were from the beginning of this buisiness which is now treated of and that was as is evident the rule and government of Israel as is evident out of the former part of this verse thus Socinus where before cited and Valkelius and for assurance they produce those places before mentioned Isa. 51.9 11. and Mal. 3.4 Now he that will consider those two places shall find that the connexion so lead's them that they must needs intimate some former time not eternity but can any man shew me a place where beginning put absolutely doth signify any of those antient times and not that which was absolutely the beginning of all I am perswaded no man can for if they could these men would have done it who are most industrious for their owne ends but then suppose this were granted which ought not to be that this word beginning may abide such interpretation what would follow what egressions what goings forth can they shew me to be before he was born at Bethlehem yes they say out of his forefather David no say I the Chick did not goe forth of the egge much lesse out of the hen untill it was a Chick the Son did not go forth from his Father untill he was the shining had no egression out of the Sun untill that shining had its existence being necessary to all these actions and therefore if our Saviour had no existence before his birth at Bethlehem he could not go forth before and indeed a man who consider's their exposition concerning David and our Saviour's manner of going forth by having him according to his humanity his Father may say that his goings forth were before the beginning which yet were a most strange speech for he came forth of Judah Jacob Isaak Abraham Adam c. which were before David but as I have said this might be affirmed of him after he was born that he did come out of those progenitors according to his humanity or before he was born that he should goe forth of them but to say before he was born that his goings forth according to that humanity which should be born afterwards were long before this prophesy this is a Contradiction in adjecto it is inconsistent as if I should say the Chick that will be hatched a twelve-moneths hence hath come out of such a hen two or three yeares past these are impossibilities to be used in the same breath or as I may speak the same verse the same sentence to speak in regard of the same thing of the same person that he shall go forth of Bethlehem hereafter and that he hath gone forth long before Sect. 9. Well I will write no more of this Terme from the beginning I come now to the last Terme a diebus Seculi from the dayes of age they quarrell at every thing This say they cannot be spoken of eternity for eternity hath no dayâ—s but is totum simul without distinction of dayes this hath been answer'd many times that since the infinite excellencies of God are such that man with his weake and finite understanding cannot comprehend them in their proper notions he is pleased to vaile that glory with such Clouds as man may behold somewhat of him in part as the Apostle speak's darkly like the Sun behind a Cloud and in this manner he teacheth all his Attributes which is well known and consented to by Divines and in this manner he teacheth his eternity So Psalm 102.27 thou art the same and thy yeares shall have no end if he have years he hath dayes one as well as another so likewise Iob 10.5 Are thy dayes as the dayes of man are thy years as mans dayes there dayes are attributed because man is acquainted with no duration which is not successive therefore God is pleased to expresse himselfe in such a manner as man is capable of learning him by whence as it is evident in other God's glorious Attributes so in this very particular eternity is used to be expressed by his own pen in such a language as here by dayes and therefore may abide that sense here for their expression of David that his were the dayes of age or time which were mean't here The Arguments before alleadged are of strength against it likewise he could not be said to go forth when he was not if he had no other being but his humanity which was born long after at Bethlehem Sect. 10. And to conclude my handling this Argument I will touch one Argument of Ochinus from this place and the rather because the book is not in every man's hand in his 19. Dialogue which is the first of his second book he make's the interlocutors himselfe who act 's the part of an Orthodox man and Spiritus which I conceive he would have reputed to be some holy Spirit which should instruct Ochinus better well then in my edition put out at Basil 1563 I know not whether there be any other unlesse some pieces in English translated by an English Lady long since page 136. Ochinus bring 's this place I have discoursed on Micheas quoque de Christo loquens Micheas speaking of Christ when he had say'd he should arise out of Bethlehem adde's this whose Originall was antient from eternall times In which he shewes that he alwayes and from eternity was begotten of the Father to which Spiritus answere's that this may be spoken of some Spirit created by God before all creatures that is from the beginning and from the dayes of time that is Olim heretofore and before time or age Saeculo is his word yet not ab aeteruo from eternity the Spirit answere's so that Photinianisme and Socinianisme which conceive that Christ had no being before that at Bethlehem is confuted by this Text
to be in our Saviour a manhood which he called Jesus begotten by Joseph on Mary and something above a manhood which he called Christ which not untill he was thirty yeares old came into him at his baptisme that Jesus suffered as he speake's a little after but Christ did not being spirituall Thus you see â—renaeus his expression concerning Cerinthus where you may observe that he allowe's our Saviour no being before he was borne of Mary as he terme's her for although he grant's him an additionall after his baptisme by the descending down of Christ unto him yet that person had no being before and that additionall was long after his birth of the blessed Virgin and it is not expressed that he thought that Christ which came into Jesus had any being before that coming down And Tertullian adversus haereticos Num. 312. affirme's of Cerinthus that he say'd Christ was onely a man without Divinity to which that of Irenaeus well enough agree's I quote Tertullian now in Pamelius his edition 1617. So that there it seem's that Cerinthus concerning our Saviour's Divinity had the same opinion with Socinus Well to goe on with the story of Cerinthus he was a man of a most turbulent Spirit Epiphanius saith he was the man that raised the charge against St. Peter at Jerusalem for communicating with the Gentiles Acts 11. in the Case of Cornelius as likewise that he raised the tumult against St. Paul about Circumcision with a whole leafe of such schismaticall practices of his for they say he was a Jew by his Father and so stood still for the priviledges of their Nation and the observation of their Rites upon this ground the loving Spirit of St. John justly abhorred him and therefore as Irenaeus in his third Book and third Chapter there are some who have heard Polycarpus report c. which Polycarpus was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by St. John as Irenaeus Eusebius and all agree and that Angell of the Church of Smyrna which St. John writ to Apocalyps 2.8 he say'd Irenaeus who himselfe had seene Polycarpus reported that St. John goeing to wash himselfe in the Bath at Ephesus saw Cerinthus and presently hasted out againe unwashed saying that he might feare the Bath would fall where was that enemy of the Truth Cerinthus so that here you see two things that the Opinion of Cerinthus was much the same with that of the Socinians that this Cerinthus was abhorred by St. John not as a man but as an enemy to truth so that St. John hating his opinions might be reasonably thought to provide against them and all this evident out of that most ancient Author which Socinus himselfe quote's now let us see de facto what was done The same Author Irenaeus in his eleventh Chapter of his third Book somewhat before the midle of that Chapter affirme's in expresse termes that St. John was willing by his declaring the Gospell to take away the errour of Cerinthus then which we could have nothing more cleare a most Authentique Author affirming it upon most just and reasonable grounds Socinus then say'd too much when he affirmed that it was farre from all reason that Saint John should write against Ebion and Cerinthus here we see the contrary as much as it is possible for story to give but he dispute's againe against it page 7. Deinde versimile non est c. Moreover it is not likely that John would passe over so great a matter so slightly with silence but that he would name the haeretiques or at the least their haeresy either secretly or openly and detest it which since he hath not done why did he not somewhere clearely say that Christ was by nature God and Man or that he existed before he was born of Mary why did he affect to be so obscure and sparing in a thing of so great moment the ignorance whereof bring 's eternall destruction c. thus farre he I will not undertake to understand all the Apostle's reasons but am confident he had abundance of reason for all he did but will answer all he sayth first that the Scripture seldome set's down the haeretiques or haeresyes against which it write's although sometimes it doth Secondly to that he saith the Apostle doth not clearly witnesse that Christ was by nature God and Man or existed before he was born of Mary I shall shew him that he hath in as cleare termes as possibly could be although not in the same and I am confident that had he expressed this Mystery in those very words he set's down he and his Companions would have cavilled at them that those Termes are used otherwise in some places that there was some Copy or other without one of them or all that they did relate to something before or behind and not to Christ which are their usuall evasions but it is a vanity of them to teach the Apostle how he should expresse himselfe he hath done it abundantly and as clearly as those words would doe as we shall see shortly Sect. 2. But he urgeth farther that St. John give 's this and no other reason towards the end of his Gospell John 20.31 Cur Jesu signa I translate it why he writ the Miracles of Jesus or as others would have it his whole history then that we should believe that Jesus is Christ the Sonne of God and believing that we should have life eternall I will not trouble his lection which is very erroneous but let the Reader observe that although St. John say that this was the cause why those things which he writ were written yet he useth not that phrase put upon him by Socinus this non aliam and no other but suppose he had this will serve our designe for all we labour for is to prove that our Saviour is the Sonne of God it is true these troublesome men have brought distinctions of the Sonne into naturall and adopted and the like but that he is such a Sonne as believing of which we may have eternall life can be conceived nothing lesse then that he must be the naturall Sonne of the same nature with his Father all other beliefe I doubt will fall short of that excellency and therefore Beza most genuinely according to the Originall which prepose's an Article both to Christ and the Sonne reade's it thus That ye should believe that Jesus is that Christ that Sonne of God which Emphasis doth exceedingly much elevate the Conceipt of him shewing him to be an extraordinary Christ and an extraordinary not merely an adopted Sonne which all his Servants are here bound to believe so that it seeme's St. John writ this Gospell to shew that our Saviour was in some eminent and peculiar way the Sonne of God that which he adde's that believing in him we might have eternall life is an absolute avoyding a strong Argument to prove his Godhead for although I think by life here is meant eternall life yet in the Originall there
he would rather have used renovation regeneration making new then absolute making againe it is evident that St. John in this beginning of his Gospell describe's the nature of Christ according to his Divinity when he was in the beginning where he was with God what he was in himselfe he was God in his effects he made all things then he come's to the preparation of the Gospell by John Baptist and his Gospell by its selfe to his incarnation he was made flesh this I put down to shew the Reader that to us who observe this method in the Evangelist that conceipt of the Gospell that these words should relate to it can have no sense and againe I say let the Reader observe the places commonly cited by them to this purpose that this phrase must be understood according to the subject matter he shall find that there is something obvious in them to shew a Reader that they have such an intention those places are these Matth. 17.11 Mark 13.23 John 4.25 and 14 26. and 19 28. and some other which are needlesse to put down and would be tedious too but in all of them there will appeare somewhat inviting a man to that understanding but in this nothing and let the Reader consider what an uncouth exposition this is by which I can put the Contrary to every proposition and by their glosse it will be more true then the Text as thus The word was not God the Word did not make all things for when the beginning was he was not by them nor thousands of yeares after with God he was not otherwise then every thing in the World was with him in his presence and knowledge and that long after the beginning contrary to the Text and he was so farre from making all things that indeed by them he made nothing but instituted some Lawes and Covenants onely now what a horrid way is this of expounding Scripture onely because they are resolved against our Saviour's eternall Divinity let us go on Sect. 6. And without him was nothing made that was made I believe that before their glosses had come to this Text a man could not possibly have put down more distinct Words was Heaven or Earth or any thing else then what is comprised in all if not then it was not made without him he made it who made all things yea but say they this must be understood of all the things of the Gospell I aske were other things made if they were then they were made by him and without him nothing was made that was made I know they will returne to their former answear and say it must be understood of the subjecta materia which was the Gospell that none of those things that were made were made without him but let a man consider whether it be reasonable to refer this all things to such a business which is treated of two or three verses after or rather to those things which immediately follow that is the things that are made they have an exception likewise against this Word by all things were made by him that signifye's an Instrument say they and by this Christ should be onely here an Instrumentall Cause by which God wrought these things so Smalcius in refutatione libelli de divinâ verbi incarnati naturâ cap. 11. pag. 68. in my edition 1614. it is true he grant's that this Word by is often used for a principal cause as is most evident as we say that this house was built by this man not by his Axe or Hammer no not by his Servants yea all things are said to be made by God but he saye's they who urge this Argument must prove that it is never used otherwise I say that is not necessary in Logick it will be enough if he can prove that it cannot be used otherwise in this place and that I hope to do first against those who allow our Saviour to make all these things concerning the Gospell he was the Author of them and he must not be understood as an Instrument in respect of the sense that they give to by here which make's him to be barely an instrumentall Cause then next taking all things as we do and surely it must be so if we understand that this Word is an Instrument in the making the world the Heaven and Earth he must be long before he was born of the Virgin even before these things themselves were made which although it will not be of force against the Arrians yet is against them so that let this phrase all things be understood which way ye will as they or we yet this Word by cannot be accommodated to their exposition for a bare instrumentall Cause There is another slight objection that the Father is not made by him nor the holy Spirit but the Text answer's this when it saith without him was nothing made that was made but let the Reader observe the same Contrariety to the Text here that was before there was more a hundred times made without him then by him and if where the full and clear sense of a Text will go one way it be lawful to expound it otherwise because some Word or Words are otherwhere applyed to another meaning it is impossible to prove any thing by words for the liberty of language doth allow it and the expressions of all Authors make use of it to apply the same Words to diverse occasions and if this licence should be granted to Expositors there is no refuge but tradition which deliver's the sense not the words and by that a man may know how and in what sense such language was understood either in the Apostolical or next adjacent times for it is reasonable to think that they had with the words the sense likewise delivered Thus I write because as appeare's these men do use such violence to these Scriptures as is unreasonable and without any consent to their own intent as I have shewed Sect. 7. It followe's In him was life here in these words I find little Opposition Smalcâ—us handle's them not as not materiall Socinus saith this word life must be understood of Life eternall I will not deny that life eternall may be mean't and principally mean't here but I am confident likewise that all the life of every thing in the world may truly be said to be in him in the word as in the fountaine from whence it came and is still preserved equally as the other but for Life eternall it may be said in him besides that way as in a fountaine to be in him likewise as the mâ—ritorious cause yea as in the object for in the knowledge of him will consist much of our eternall happinesse hereafter I will proceed and this Life was the light of men that is if we understand it of the naturall Life this Life which originally and preservingly is in the word is that light which enlightneth the understanding in reasonable