battails as God directed and to judge their Causes according to God's Lawes which he had given them and we shall find that Moses used that Authority but sparingly for he had recourse to God still in any weighty matter of that nature and would not judge any thing besides the letter of the Law So you may find Leviticus 24.11 12 13 14. that the Lord himself gave sentence upon him who had blasphemed his name he was in the 12. verse put in ward that the mind of the Lord might be knowne in the 13. verse the Lord spake unâ—o Moses not his person but his Officer bring forth c. verse 14. See likewise Numbers 15.35 The Lord declared to Moses what should be done to the man who gathered stickes on the Sabbath day and the like you may find in the Case of Zelophehad Numbers 27. verse 1. and Moses brought their cause before the Lord verse 5. and verse 6. the Lord spake unto Moses saying c. so that Moses was so far from personating God that he did nothing but as a Messenger and Mediatour betwixt God and them delivering God's will to them their requests and many times his owne for them to God and therefore though God in 32. of Exodus when he was angry with the abominations of the Israelites would disown them and his peculiar interest in them he as it were threw them off to Moses and called them his people yet Moses pleading for them verse 11. c. returne's them to God againe and calle's them his people which he brought forth of the Land of Egypt he owned none of those glorious workes to be his of which he was but an Instrument but attributed all to God Well then we see Moses was but an instrument a Judge a Generall and those Offices in a weake manner performed not without a perpetuall direction from God but in nothing did he personate him so that I think Mr. Hobbes was deceived in using this unheard of phrase concerning Moses but I would he had rested in this and had gone no further me thinke's I could have forgiven this although somewhat too bold a language taking personating in a very large sense that Moses and all Kings might be sayd in a little weake manner to personate God although I did distast it but what followe's is worse CHAP. XXXI Christ personated not God being really God himsâ—lfe His Divinity asserted against Smalcius and other Socinians Christ's bloud not the bloud of the Father the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appropriating it to him Acts 20.28 His Filiation and eternal Generation vindicated from the Subtile exceptions of Valkelius c. And our Saviour justified in his first name of being the Sonne of God Sect. 1. SEcondly by the Son of man his own Son our Saviour Jesus Christ I will stop here and leave the intent of our Saviour's coming to another place he make's here our Saviour to personate God he call's him truly the Sonne of man and the Son of God but in saying he personated God he used a phrase no whit comely to expresse such a sacred Mystery by no man can properly be said to personate another who is that other now this son of man is the son of God and he is God and thought it no robbery to be equall with God if he be God he cannot be said in any propriety of speech to personate God for he who personate's another is not really that other but counterfeitly onely Now our blessed Saviour is really God which he would have him personate and therefore cannot personate God This truth not long since had had no need to have been spoken of amongst Christians whosoever heretofore professed the name of Christ did readily assent to it but of late it hath been denied by many in Polonia and the infection hath come into our nation and that infection hath Antidotes prepared for it which are able to remove it from the heart of those who would cordially apply it to them so that there need no more to be said to it yet because they who read this little treatise may perhaps not have opportunity or leasure to look upon other writers I shall adde a word or two to satisfie the Reader concerning this businesse and shew that Mr. Hobbes hath very unhandsomely expressed himself in it and deâ—ogatorily from the eternall deity of our most blessed Saviour and first in saying he doth personate God for although he say he is the Sonne of God his own Son which in its self were enough to satisfy a Reader that he must be of the same nature with his father for every Son is such yet since the waywardnesse of men hath studied so many foolish distinctions to beguile the simple amongst which that is one of a naturall and adopted Son of an eternally and a temporary begotten Son to which sense are expounded that Christ is his Son but an adopted Christ is his own but a Temporary begotten Son either when the holy Ghost overshadowed the blessed Virgin as soon or before the world was made as others â—his phrase of his cannot shelter him from many peevish and perverse doctrines when he make's him not to be but to personate God I shall first shew that he is God and then how it is not incongruous to reason to say it labouring in all to make my Reason ascend up to my Faith not my Faith descend to my Reason crosse to which I have thought since first I was acquâ—inted with their writings that the Socinians first laid a plot for Religion by Reason then laboured to wrest Scriptures to that plot Sect. 2. In proving our blessed Saviour to be God I shall not use many places of Scripture one or two will be enough so they be cleare and evident the first shall be Acts 20. where you shall find that St. Paul verse 17. did at Miletum sâ—nd to Ephesus for the elders of the Church which were there and verse 28. he gave them a charge in these words Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseeers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud I observe that the Church is called the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood this Article he can relate to none but God he therefore who hath purchasâ—d this Church with his blood is God I will spare nothing that I find brought by any in the way of answeare but doe hope this place will vindicate its selfe and this cause very cleerely First then Bernardinus Ochinus in his second book of his Dialogues Dialogue 19. but the first of that book page 100. in mine edition bring 's this place and answeares it thus First that this is not spoke of the blood of God but of Christ of whom a little before Saint Paul spake but this is so faâ—re from all reason as nothing can be more for the Apostle
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
prosecution of it and to none other Sect. 11. And in this St. John giveth the Son of God no new name but such as men knew him by long before Saint John's time The Philosophers in all ages when their Soules soared so high as to contemplate the essence of God his creation and government of the world they said he had a Son or mind which proceeded from him like Light from the Sun that is a simile they are frequent in and they termed that Son his word and they say that that Word made the world and gave Life and being to all things thus Trismegistus in the first Chapter of his Poemander and Section 4. according to the edition of Flussus he saw in his rapture an indefinite Light then in the fifth Section he enquired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what comes out of the light the answear was made The holy word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy word then in the sixth Section when Trismegistus had begg'd an expression of this vision I saith Poemander I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intellectus mens I a Spirit I translate it or as is commonly amongst those Philosophers the Supreme Spirit of God I that Spirit thy God am that light and presently after that bright or resplendent Word which thou didst see come out is the Son of God I could shew much more to this purpose out of him but this is enough to shew that this which St. John deliver's here when he calle's the Son of God the word internall is according to the language of this Philosopher if there could be any farther doubt let any man read that whole Chapter he shall find his expressions extremely full the same may be found up and down in Plato the Sibylls Zoroaster and many more which I need not name because the observations out of them are made by many and as well as this acknowledged by Socinus as I shall shew presently Sect. 12. But this one thing more may be worth the marking that not onely those Philosophers which writ before St. Iohn had these expressions but those who lived after him as Plotinus Porphyrius Iamblicus Proclus but Amelius who lived after him about two hundred years more or less observe's this concordance of St. Iohn with them it is true he call's him a Barbarian as the pride of the Grecians did all that were not Grecians but that by the Barbarian he mean't St. Iohn is evident because he set's down the words of this Text I treat of and some following verses and approve's the Consent of that Barbarian well then this being a language of learned men before St. Iohn to call the Son of God the Word of God in respect of his Divine nature and it being observed by Philosophers who had no by-end but onely the apprehension of this Evangelist I see no reason why we should be forced to give it a violent sense not used by any and most unconsisting as will appear by the examination of every word with the rest Sect. 13. This consent of these Philosophers Socinus foresaw and therefore pag. 37. of this Treatise he handle's this Sentence The word was made flâ—sh he saith Si ea non addâ—dâ—sset If he had not added these words the word was made flâ—sh some man might and that by right have fallen into that errour c. that he should think that word of which Iohn write's to be another thing or sometimes to have been another thing from the man Iesus and perhaps endowed with Platonical Philosophy when he should see him here called God and in the beginning to be wiâ—h God this is pag. 38. to make the world c. he should presently believe that our Evangelist was conformable to Plato who hath writ of God some things out of which this opinion of the Trinity did flow and presently after he saith that other Philosophers had it from Trismegistus and acknowledgeth Iamblichus so that he yield's that some before and some after St. Iohn understood this phrase of St. Iohn's according to our exposition but I think that he can shew me no writer before or after unless Photinians and themselves which are the same that expounded this Text of the humanity of Christ what concern's that verse which Socinus apply's that discourse to I shall meet with in its proper place but what concern's me now I cannot but think it reasonable that when so many learned Authors had philosophized with such learned discourses concerning God his Word and Spirit under that language and notion I cannot but imagine it most congruous to reason that those divine Speculations of theirs so far as true should be countenanced by one Evangelist one infallible Writer of Divine Truths that every man might hear God speaking to him in his own language Sect. 14. I am sure the first fathers almost all because they had to do with philosophical men made use of those conveniencies they had with Scripture and so did Saint Paul and I may say of our Evangelist that he did frequently make use of their language and expressions never bâ—ulking them but chusing them before other where they were fit for his purpose and especially Plato I could instance in very many of this kind which any man who is acquainted with these Authors know's but I will select two or three which have not as I know of been used to such purpose and the first shall be out of Plato's Epistle to Hermias Erastus and Coriscus these three in that Epistle he invite's to have a kindness and friendship one with another and to avoid all differences he adviseth to establish a kind of Covenant and Law one with another and confirm that even by an oath in which Oath they should call God to witness who is the Captain of all things present and future and the Lord who is father of that Captain and cause whom saith he if we truly philosophize we shall know clearly all of us so far as the nature of a happy soul can attain unto in this speech we see he clearly set's down the Son of God to be the cause and governour of all things as in an hundred well-nigh other places then he saith such as are vertuous shall see him clearly as a happy soul can do what is this but which holy Job who was before him too said I know that my Redeemer liveth and that in my flâ—sh I shall see God Job 19.25 26. and the same that St. John relate's our Saviour to express in his prayer this is life eternal that they might know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17.3 life eternal that is the felicity Plato speak's of it is true Plato could not say Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent because in his humanity our Saviour was not yet seen in the world but Plato spake of him according to his Divinity that felicity consisted in the clear vision of him and I may truly say I was extremely