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
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
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
in respect of Eternity will be not so much as one unite to all this and six or seaven hundred thousand were nothing being added because whatsoever you adde to Roberts number of Fathers I can adde a thousand times as many to Adams and therefore Nature that abhors impossibilities abhors likewise infinites of Numbers and by consequence of Causations eternally for a man to say this Eternity is à parte ante and not à parte post is a contradiction for although there may be some imagination of a thing which having a beginning may have no end but exist eternally because it may be created with eternal Principles and the Number infinite is not presently existing nor ever shall be for whensoever you reckon you shall have a finite time to reckon from although it were ten thousand Millions of yeares hence or whensoever yet there can be nothing without a beginning eternal à parte ante but must needs have eternal Principles which no time can corrupt for if time could corrupt it as suppose ten thousand yeares or a thousand times so many fix any time it had been corrupted before this or else it was not eternal à parte ante And then to the second part such a person he hath actually an Infinite number of Causes which cannot be and therefore these things must be created in some certaine time These and many more arguments out of Metaphysiques as that which the Philosophers call Essential Subordination of Causes as likewise many others are such as of which I may say that they render the Proposition There is a God evidently to be discerned by the Creatures but as Aegidius Romanus excellently speaks Sapientibus this evidence is perceiveable only by wise men from the disquisition whereof they are not to be scared by the infinity of Gods essence because inaccessible to a finite Inquirer as he plainly asserts it in his Element of Philosophy c. whither I will make a transition to inlarge this discourse and cleare what I have writ from somewhat I find there opposite to my purpose Sect. 3. In his said book of Philosophy de Corpore Cap. 26. Pag. 236. having proposed divers questions about the World he concludes at the bottome of that pag. and the beginning of the next Et haec omnia ab eo qui Philosophiam complecti profiteretur universam determinanda essent si quantum quaerit tantum sciri potest est autem infiniti scientia finito quaesitori inaccessibilis Thus far he And not without reason no finite understanding can grasp that which is infinite yet although we cannot perfectly know that which is Infinite we may know many things of it Mr. Hobbes himself I dare say doth not know the essence of the Sun yet there is not the meanest person which follows the Plough but knowes there is a Sun and many effects of the Sun that he doth send forth light and heat by which the poor man is comforted Mr. Hobbes his Argument Therefore because finite things cannot know God as he is we must know nothing of him is weake He proceeds Sect. 4. Whatsoever we men know we have learned from our Phantasm but there is no Phantasm of that which is either Infinite in magnitude or time Neque enim homo saith he neiiher man nor any thing that is not infinite can have any conceipt of that which is infinite He said true in affirming that what we know we have learned from our Phantasm so although the soul of man have many things in it which have no being in the world as Chimera's Utopia's Leviathans and our Phantasmes are properly of things in the world yet those things which are in the understanding and not in the world are learned from those Phantasmes which are of things in the world as thus That man who cannot behold the Sun in his own glory and lustre yet seeing him behinde a thin Cloud can learn from thence that the Sun who shines so glorious vailed and hid from eyes by such a dark body would have a strange high degree of resplendent lustre if we could see him as he is So we learn from Phantasmes apparent as the Apostle speaks from visible things to collect many apprehensions of that which is of its self invisible and not to be perceived and having reduced one Conclusion may collect from thence many more and men desirous to know God as he who desires knowledge doth will make such collections The Prophet David there in a most heavenly invective calls them not onely fools but beastly people who do not so collect Psal. 94.8 Understand ye brutish among the People and ye fools when will ye be wise Mark they were foolish and brutish because they did not make such Collections He that planted the Ear shall he not hear and he that formed the Eye shall he not see Thus from one truth men may and ought to enlarge their talent to another and learn as Mr. Hobbes expresseth from Phantasmes But I like not so well what Mr. Hobbes adds that there is no Phantasme of that whch is Infinite nor what he further expresseth Neither man nor any thing that is not Infinite can have any conceipt of that which is Infinite To understand which I shall take a little pains to explain the conceipt of Finite and Infinite Sect. 5. Finite is the same to have bounds or limits beyond which it cannot passe Infinite is that which hath no bounds nor limits and although concerning these terms in the first sounding a man would think that Infinite should express a meere negation as finite an affirmation yet upon judgment of these things expressed by these termes we shall find the cleane contrary for by finite we understand non ultra as much as hitherto and no farther but by Infinite we apprehend such a vastness to which we can alwaies say ultra that there is further there is somewhat beyond and there must be something more And out of this regard finite things must have a cause of their finite nature because whatsoever is bounded is bounded by somewhat but infinite can have no cause because unbounded or limited These bounds or limits we may consider in three things in the essence of things in their quantities and in their qualities In their Essence and so we consider all finite things to be this and no other as a Tree is a tree and not a Beast or Bird nor another tree the being of it is bounded and limited by that difference which constituted it either in its specifical or particular being and whatsoever is the Cause of that being is that which limits that thing and makes it thus finite in being But that which is infinite in essence hath no bounds no limits of that being it is all essence without limitation and in a most eminent manner comprehends all being without any negation It is true it is not finite and therefore it is not a Man a horse a dog a tree all
but the Spirit was an Arian who held that Christ was a Creature according to a Spiritual being made before the world Ochinus therefore presseth him againe yea saith he this Text is spoken of an eternall generation of the Sonne therefore he say'd Origines goings out in the plurall number that it might expresse how continually and alwayes he proceede's in the individuall moment of eternity which cannot be say'd of that created Spirit Moreover in Zachary God calle's Christ his Companion c. here the Spirit leave 's Ochinus his Argument and onely falle's upon that place in Zachary and I am of opinion the Spirit was at a losse and therefore will enlarge my Conceipt a little upon Ochinus his Argument first it is goings forth that in the words before signifye's his birth at Bethlehem why should it not be so here Creation was never termed a goeing forth it can be nothing then but generation Then consider against the Arian and this Arian Spirit for I suppose all that I can find in the Socinian confuted that this goeing forth was before the world was created out of what must he goe forth there was nothing but God he must goe forth therefore out of him againe consider that God is eternall unchangeable whatsoever goe's forth of him must be eternall likewise or else there must be a change in him and therefore this must be eternall as Ochinus urged and his Spirit never answered Againe it is in the plurall number goings forth in the dayes of Eternity this cannot be understood of any but an eternall emanation all other goings forth have an end when they are gone forth and they cannot goe forth againe unlesse they returne backe to the place from whence they came but that which goe's forth eternally went forth yesterday to day and a thousand dayes agoe dayes without number and will be so aâ—terwards and in that respect it may be goeings forth iâ— all the dayes and moments of eternity but yet a man may object that all this is but one goeing forth it is true but yet that one contayne's in it ten hundred thousand goings forth like that Sun which perpetually shine's forth its light that emanation or goeing forth of light is one continued Act yet measuring it by dayes or time it hath divers goeings forth according to divers dayes in which it shined yesterday the other day c. so may I say of this eternall emanation or goeing forth of the Sonne of God from his Father it was one eternall egression or goeing forth but measuring it by dayes as it is here it was an hundred thousand his goeings forth were in the dayes of age or time as they or of eternity as we read it Thus I conceive that the errours of the Photinian or Socinian and the Arian are both convicted out of this and it is proved that our Saviour had not onely a being before his birth at Bethlehem but from all eternity this by the way of egression or emanation not by creation onely which was as naturall to his spirituall and true being as his birth at Bethlehem to his humane nature and name Having out of this one place shewed that the egression of the Son was naturall I could enlarge my self upon an explication of the last Clause of my definition to shew that the Son of God is of the same nature with his Father for having shewed how his coming from the Father is by emanation egression not like a thing by force or made to set him out a perfect Sonne there is no more required but to prove how he is of the same nature with the Father but I love brevity not to tire the Reader with the least unnecessary line because that this will result out of the exposition of those other names which are given our Saviour in Scripture I shall knocke off from this and by explaining them hope to stop two gaps with one bush CHAP. XXXII Of our Saviour's being the Word Of Ebion and Cerinthus The Socinian shifts Of Christ's speaking by figures His being the Word by none The division of it by internal and external The ancient Philosophers language consonant to that in holy Scripture about the Word Who excelled the Socinians in the knowledge of eternal life With whom God in Saint Ioh. 1. is but an Appllative Each particular in which Text is discussed by the Bishop Sect. 1. THE next name that I shall undertake to treat of is that of Word Our Saviour is termed the word and herein I shall treat upon the first part of the first chap. of S. John's Gospel which because it is of high concernment in the setting forth of this Truth Socinus besides those many several places in which he hath touched upon it hath written a distinct Comment upon it So hath Valentinus Smalcius I shall consider them both in my Treatise upon this Scripture and whatsoever else I find by them other where or any other pertinently objected to begin then with Socinus in his explication of the first part of the first chap. of Iohn put out in Octavo at Racovia 1618. presently after his preface pag. 4. Primum itaq saith he quicquid de Ebione Cerinthio vulgò ostentatur First saith he whatsoever is commonly boasted of concerning Ebion and Cerinthus against whom as if they denied Christ to have been before his mother John writ his Gospell it shall be judged a figment for besides that there is no solid thing brought in its proofe there are not lacking efficacious reasons which constraine us to think the contrary Thus far he I will draw his reasons short and answer them but before he undertake's his reasons he bring 's his surmise why men were of another opinion from him such as which he cannot answer satisfactorily but in this place put 's off that they understand not the sense of the Scripture but I let this discourse alone his first reason why this opinion of St. John's Gospell should be false is page 6. first that the opinion of Ebion and Cerinthus was much other if Ebion were a certaine man and iâ— so declared by all our Age and in former ages or if we credit Irenaeus a most antient Writer who recording the doctrines of either doth not so much as shew that doctrine that they should deny that Christ the word of God was before Mary yea when he mention's Cerinthus he speake's the cleane contrary I love not to trouble the Reader with the vanity of citing Authors for the clearing of this story I shall set down what Irenaeus speake's onely and first for the opinion of Cerinthus his words are cleare in his first book Chap. 25. speaking of Cerinthus he adde's that Jesus was not borne of a Virgin but that he was born of Joseph and Mary as all other men after his baptisme Christ descended into him from that Principality which is above all c. So that here I observe a double nature which Cerinthus conceived
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
this Text is utterly false which saith that this Life was onely known to God when for ought I find the Philosophers many of them apprehended it much better then they because they conceived the immortality of the Soule and that the Soul coming from God must needs go to him and receive according to its works in this flesh when they the Socinians conceive the Soul of man like a beast's to return to nothing of its self but its corrupted principles where Philosophers apprehended the Soul to return to its incorruptible principle God so that the text meane's thus much that the life which was with God as in the fountaine of it was by our most blessed Saviour revealed to men in such a way as might most clearly manifest him to the meanest Capacity by faith Socinus hath another Text which he would have to serve this illustration but I find it not mentioned by his followers as not of force to clear this exposition Sect. 16. This is Luke 2. and the last Jesus increased in Wisdome and Age so he but better Stature as we and grace with God and men that is in Dei conspectu the Strength of this comparison lye's in this Word with which is not the same with what was so rendred in St. John that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I stand not upon this the very Sense be it what it will will overthrow his exposition for I must not run away to other extravagancies for he could not grow in Wisdome Stature or grace in conspectu Dei which is his gloss unlesse he were so re and indeed and therefore whatsoever is the sense of these Words which perhaps an other occasion may give me opportunity to expound his exposition cannot be true and so I passe from his illustrations of this phrase by Scripture which I can observe in any of them and returne to my Text. Sect. 17. The word was with God that is saith he was known to God and God onely before the preaching of John Baptist thus Smalcius likewise and Valkelius what concerne's Angels in this exclusive word Soli I have already touched as likewise how he did falsify Socinus to say he did not use it but they are all peremptory that no man knew he was the word before the preaching of the Baptist but then being pinched by Smiglecius with an objection that he was known to the Shepheards to the wise men to Anna and Simeon he answer's in his 26. chap. to the third part of Smig page 234. thus that he was known to God not onely that he was but his quality that he was the word that before the preaching of John Baptist he was known to neither Men nor Angels they knew him that he should be the deliverer of Gods people from the hands of their earthly enemies but not to be the word some knew that he should deliver his people from their Sins but this word they knew not Well let my Text confute all this which saith the word was with God in the beginning therefore he was then the word if they fly to God's fore-knowledge in his decree as I have said it could not be affirmed of him that he was with God but should hereafter be with him then secondly that he should be the word in their sense is no more but that he should manifest the will of God concerning mens Salvation his Gospel-will and that was known before I know not how Smiglecius pressed his Argument whether in those general terms which Smalcius produceth or particular but to this very distinction of his I shall presse old Simeon's nunc dimittis Luke 2.32 where our Saviour is said to be a light to lighten the Gentiles now let any man imagine how he should be this light but by revealing this will of God to them for my part I can conceive no other and yet this is the whole matter which they make to be expressed by this Term word for although the Term its self be not expressed yet it is cleaâ—ly implyed in that the whole sense of it is either a Metaphor or a Metonymie is evident to this I could adde that the Prophets foresaw this so Isaiah 60.3 The Gentiles shall come to thy light that is the light which his Sermons his miracles did give and that evidence of God's will for our Salvation which he did hold forth this is enough to shew that the Socinians were over-seen in saying that according to their sense no man foresaw that our Saviour should be the word as well as in saying that God did know him to be such when he was not such that is before the preaching of the Baptist and to conclude I have no more to do with this phrase concerning their objections but set down the true meaning of them which is thus The Word which I have shewed was in the beginning the internall Word was with God it would not else indeed be from him for being an internall effect of his understanding it proceeded not inâ—o any externall existence but remained there eternally in Sinu Patris in the bosome of the Father but lest any man should doubt that this word might be some accident of another nature then God was the Text adde's the word was God Sect. 18. What the Word is in their Sense what in ours is apparent now it remaine's whether in theirs or ours it may be most truly said that the word was God in their sense it is that he who declare's the will of God for the Salvation of men is God though he be a man according to his nature yet he is a God according to his Office nor will I do them that injury to say they affirme him God onely in regard of this one particular of revealing the will of God but they say that planè Divâ—na Virtus in illo relucebat So Socinus in his defense of his Animadversions contra Pasnonienses in assertionem primam cap. 4. pag. 74. edit Racov. 1618. So that the effect of their saying is that Christ who was this word was a Creature endowed with divine excellencies But we say that this Word which is a reall Word was God in its nature by being the naturall Son of the Father as my Text he was God Sect. 19. Their exposition of this Text is thus that this Term God is not a proper name to that infinite excellency which created and governe's Heaven and Earth but an Appellative or name of Office and Authority not a name signifying any essence or person so Socinus upon these Words and his Followers but yet he grant's that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is often applyed to the great God of all he saith it is often given to Angels and Men he seeme's much to delight in that place John 10.34 It is written in your Law I have said ye are Gods ver 35. if he call them Gods unto whom the word of God came c. this he
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