a husbanding of these seeds and therefore these words must needs be taken in that Indefinite sense they are exprest that these are the seeds of all Religion I will consider them apart and fiâ—st the Opinion of Ghosts is a seed of Religion Sect. 2. All the Opinion of Ghosts which he expresseth in the former part of this Chapter he makes to be an Error now for Errour to be a sâ—ed of Truth was never heard of before an ill tree cannot bring forth good fruit nor ill seed a good tree Errour the greater growth it hath the greater is the Errour but it never growes into Truth Again in the seventh Chapter he makes Opinion to be a very weak assurance as indeed it is although his description of it is weak in that place but the assurance that there is a God is the greatest that may be and therefore not to grow out of such a seed Thirdly consider that although there can be no assurance of God without an assurance of a Ghost or Spirit because God is exprest in Scripture to be a Spirit yet the beliefe and assurance of God cannot grow out of the Opinion of Ghosts for although the Opinion of Ghosts hath many reasonable and probable arguments in Nature to induce it which prevailed with many Philosophers to perswade them that there were such things yet the Arguments for them are not of like force with those which evince there is a God and therefore the assurance of God may introduce and be a seed of the Opinion of Ghosts but the opinion of Ghosts which is lesse certain and lesse evident cannot introduce it He brings no manner of proof for what he speakes and in his Catalogue of those Deities which this opinion should produce Pag 55. He nameth Chaos Ocean Planets Men Women and other things which have no likeness with Ghosts or Spirits although his Daemons and some others have Now although the opinion of Spirits may perswade a Religion towards those things which were thought Spirits yet it could never invite but would crosse and oppose those Religions which were paid to corporeall things for by all men who have writ of Spirits both Christian and others Spirits are thought to have a more God like power in them then Bodies and therefore the opinion of them could not introduce the other Sect. 3. His second seed is ignorance of second Causes a most unhappy and unreasonable speech Ignorance the Mother of Religion Ignorance of second Causes cannot make a man acknowledge the first Rom. 1.20 S. Paul saith The Invisible things of Him that is of God from the Creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even his eternal Power and Godhead This understanding of eternal Power and Godhead is the foundation and ground of Religion and this was visible although not in its self yet in the things that are made the second Causes so that not the ignorance but the knowledge of the second Causes like Iacobs ladder leads us from one to another step by step until we ascend to the highest and first Cause This he himself acknowledgeth before but as he often doth so he now forgot what he had said Ignorance of second Causes that they are second and mistaking them for first may make a man think them Gods and so turne a Religion to them but as may appear at the bottome of the preceding Page 53. he understands the Ignorance of the Causation of second Causes which without doubt is so farre from bringing in Religion that it is apt to produce Atheism and an opinion that the world is governed by chance not by Providence So that as for his first I deny it to be a Seed of Religion that is the opinion of Ghosts so for this Second the Ignorance of second Causes I affirm that is an enemy to Religion stopping the Soul from ascending up to Heaven by breaking the lowest step of that Ladder which is fixed on Earth Sect. 4. His third Seed is Devotion towards what we fear That feare Timor Reverentialis may be a seed the fomenter and cherisher of Religion yea an act of Religion I do not doubt but that that ugly sordid feare which he speaks of as appeares in the bottom of Page 52. is not to be imagined for the first feare ariseth out of the knowledge and apprehension we have of the Excellency of God but this second feare he speaks of out of Ignorance of Causes Because men know there are Causes saith he of every thing but know not those causes therefore they impute their good or evill fortune to some invisible Agent This ignorance oâ— Causes must needs be understood of second Causes for ignorance of the first Cause can never make a man worship the first nor impute the production of things to him It is true the ignorance of some Attributes as his goodness may make a Maniche think there is an ill God and the same ignorance may produce almost as ill an opinion in others that God is the Author of the evil of sin the one not apprehending his internal goodness conceives God evil in himself the other not apprehending his Goodness in operation his Benignity makes him do and produce that is ill but the ignorance of him as a first Cause can never introduce a Religion to him But then take this ignorance of causes to be the ignorance of the Causation of second Causes we cannot conceive how that should breed a fear of an invisible Agent as he terms it unless it be that god Fortune which the Poet derideth Te facimus Fortuna Deum coeloque locamus And worthily for there can be nothing more contradictory then the Providence of God and the Blindness of Fortune Now when men cannot find the Chain of Causes which produce the effects they discerned and cannot perceive how they depend upon the first Cause as they cannot who discern not the second they must needs have that doubt or fear that they are acted by Fortune and all things fall alike to all without either being rewards or punishments Rods or Scourges c. And therefore is so far from introducing of Religion as it leads to Atheisme But it is not said that this fear but the Devotion to what we feare is the Seed of Religion I could have wished that among other his expositions of words he had put down what he means by Devotion but he hath not Consider then the sense of it is Voto decernere to decree a thing to another by a vow so that when one devotes a thing to another he then decrees it in a sacred manner to be his Now then Devotion to what we feare is decreeing some thing to it by way of Vow Devotion then to what we feare if that we feare be God is not a seed but a fruit and act of Religion for Religion is not only as he not vainly onely but wickedly and prophanely defines Chap. 6. page 26. Feare of
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
expounded what he mean's by that phrase absolutely to wit when there is no word to shew that it is used improperly Certè Surely saith he the Word or Sermo speech so he will render it is not absolutely here called God for it is a great demonstration of an improper signification that in the sentence just before it was said The word was with God to wit that one God I will a little abreviate his discourse this cannot be saith he if that God be that word or speech for saith he that one God cannot be with himself that is the force of his Argument and my answer I shall draw up short although nothing and so not God can be with himself because to be with whomsoever intimate's a diversity yet that which is the same in one respect may differ from him in another and in that regard be said to be with him as in the first to be that other Socrates and Plato are in a Room together Socrates may properly be said to be a man and to be with a man although these persons in the Trinity differ not altogether as much as Socrates and Plato for ought we know because these are not distinct individurl natures as they are yet being distinct persons agreeing in the same nature they may be either of them truly affirmed to be God and with one another which is God which I think is very evident to any intellâ—gent man Again he urgeth Si porro Moreover if he be not absolutely God who is not the God of all things and is constituted a God surely Christ is not God for he is not the God of the Father and the second part that he was constituted a God he prove's out of Acts 2.36 where it is said that God hath made that same Iesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ Lord or God saith he are all one before I go further I shall deny that Lord is a relative Lord and servant are relatives but God is an absolute term and therefore as Tertullian excellently dispute's against Hermogenes God was eternally God but not eternally Lord untill the generations of the Earth were finished and this distinction is observed all along the first chapter of Genesis untill the fifth verse of the second when the world was completed he is called God still but from thence all along the Lord God therefore there is a great difference betwixt saying our Saviour was made Lord of all and that he was made God this I put down here for fear it might slip out of my head hereafter when I come to examine the Argument To the first piece that this word is not the God of the Father I answer the word can have no eminency beyond him whose word it is but he is God with the Father the same God in essence coëqual coëternal with him neither is the Father a God over the Son that is of an higher excellency as he is God but as he is man as he hath all his being dignity eminency whatsoever he hath from the Father he is God of God light of light but no whit inferiour to the Father but eternally proceeding from him as he was man so he was constituted Lord and Christ as he was the word spoken by God in his eternâ—l generation as man he was blessed by God in his temporal productions And this sufficeth for ought I can discern to answer such Arguments as I find against our opinion I would have reserved this for another Discourse I intended God willing to justifie these Truths by reason but that I thought thus much necessary to clear this 〈◊〉 Well then this being sufficiently shewed that the word was God not man and ought to be understood in its plain and express terms that the word was God I shall proceed CHAP. XXXIII Of the Word's being with God before the beginning of St. John Baptist's preaching And in heaven before his corporeall Ascension thither Of his acting in the Creation of the World What Life is in sin and how he is called the Light St. John's testimony of his Divinity evident enough Whom Socinus misinterpret's in what he write's of the Creation The Bishop's Animadversions upon Smalcius and Valkelius glosses of the World in St. John The mysterie of Christ's Incarnation discussed with them Smalcius's three Quaeries answered Sest 1. VErse 2. The same was in the beginning with God There will be little farther quarrell about these Words for every terme in the sentence hath been examined before yet because I have left out one shift of theirs concerning that being which the word had with God I may justly insert that here which is that Christ was the word in the beginning of the Gospel preached by Iohn Baptist ascended up into heaven and so was with God in the beginning just so as an Embassador goe's to his King take's from his mouth his directâ—ons and then goe's about his Embassy so our Saviour with his very humanity ascended first up into heaven and so was with God and then went about wording of it preaching the Gospell this is the Conceit of Smalcius Valkelius how true we must examine Sect. 2. First it seeme's strange to me that it was possible so high and remarkable a passage of our Saviour's Life should no where be recorded by any one of the four Evangelists when so many actions of lesse concernement are registred so exactly but this is not a necessary Argument it is not written therefore it is not but I may say of that as St. Augustin once did it may be with as much reason and more denied then affirmed for a man fifteen hundred years after to relate an action of another man's whose story was written by divers eye-witnesses who mentioned no such thing one would think were very strange Sect. 3. Yea but they have Scripture for it John 6.62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before therefore say they he was there before in his humanity if the Text had added in his humanity the Argument had been somewhat and of force but the words being as they are where he was before it will prove that he was there before onely which is true of his Divinity not of his Humanity I know they deride this distinction and speak basely of it but it is most true and useful and I will illustrate it thus In Socrates there is a soul and a body these two constitute the person of Socrates we can say of Socrates that he is heavy and earthy and fall's down it is true of him according to his body we can say again he is heavenly and light and ascend's upward that is true according to his soul yea we can truly affirm these both at the same time of the same person taken as that person so we can say Socrates is as high as ever he was when by iterated contemplation he admire's and adore's God again which is onely by that part which