of St. John in his Revelation ibid. XV. The words Being with God signifie more then Known to God against Socinus and his followers 340 Eternall life before Christ's Incarnation known to the Angels blessed Souls Prophets Philosophers 341 Although not till afterward manifested to others 342 The Philosophers excell the Socinians in this knowledge ibid. XVI Socinus's other Text of no validity to his purpose 343 XVII The Discourse resumed concerning knowledge of the word before the preaching of St. John Baptist. ibid. XVIII Whether in the Socinian or Catholick sense may be more truly said The word was God 345 XIX God with them no proper name but an Appellative c. 346 Contrary to the use of it single throughout the New Testament ibid. XX. How Satan is called the God of this world c. 347 How the Belly God ibid. The Socinians criticisme about the article ibid. Answer'd 348 And Socinus's Instances ibid. How St. Cyrill's rule is to be understood ibid. XXI Socinus answer'd about Tautology 349 As likewise to that objection God cannot be with himself 350 Lord and God not both one 351 The Word God with though not of the Father ibid. CHAP. XXXIII I. The Socinians conceit of the Word being with God in the beginning 352 II. Improbable having no Evangelical authority 353 III. That they pretend to prove's it not ibid. The distinction of Christ's Divinity and Humanity illustrated ibid. His Ascent into heaven which they insist on not corporeall 354 IV. His double capacity of Priest and Lay-man alledged by them discussed 356 V. How all things we made by him 357 St. John's method very considerable against the Socinians interpretation ibid. Which is such as permit's the more truth to be in the negative propositions opposite to those in holy Scripture 358 VI. Christ's interest in the Creation re-inforced against the Socinians gloss 359 Wherein he was a principal no bare instrumental cause ibid. Their other slight objection answer'd 360 The use of words ibid. The benefit of Tradition ibid. VII How Life eternal and what else is to be understood ver 4. 361 How both that and the naturall life is said to be the light of men ibid. How Christ is called the light according to Socinus 362 How according to the Bishop ibid. VIII What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie's properly and why render'd was ibid. Why the Evangelist chose to use it rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writing of St. John Baptist. 363 IX Socinus put 's a diminution upon St. John's testimony of Christ ibid. Which is evidently affirmative of his Divinity 364 X. Socinus misinterpret's Creation by Recreation or Regeneration 365 And misapplie's to his purpose a Text in the Epistle to the Eâ—hesians 366 Another violence of his in wresting actuall Regeneration to Regeneration in endeavour 367 XI Smalcius's gloss ibid. His various significations put upon the word World ibid. Whereâ—n he imposeth fallacies upon his Reader 368 The Bishop's Animadversions 369 XII Their sense directly opposite to that evident in the Text. 370 XIII The genuine sense of the Terms not changed as they object 371 Smalcius's reply to Smiglecius ibid. Little becoming a Socinian 372 The World knew not the Word but by supernaturall grace ibid. What men apprehend of God by naturall abilities ibid. The Objection about St. John's upbraiding the world answer'd 373 The exposition of the words immediately following why omitted 374 XIV The Socinians word could not be made Flesh ibid. Their evasion 375 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how used in the beginning of St. John's Gospell ibid. Their heterodox interpretation of Flesh ibid. Not evident in Scripture cited by Socinus 376 The result of their Comment 177 The summe of ours ibid. XV. The union of the Divinity with the Humanity implyeth no mutation of God into Man 378 Notwithstanding the praedication God is Man ibid. Which is asserted and by a familiar instance illustrated ibid. Their Objection answer'd by the dependance of substances upon God ibid. Another Argument of Smalcius's 379 Answer'd by the manner of existing ibid. Christ a true man though a divine Person 380 Whose Conception and Gestation in the blessed Virgin 's womb conduced nothing to his personality ibid. The Divinity and Humanity united render him neither two Sons nor two Persons ibid. XVI Objection of his being the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost 381 Answer which identity implie's not that they were made flesh with him ibid. As Scotus illustrate's excellently 382 The Bishop's Apology to the Reader ibid. XVII Smalcius's first Quaere c. Rectifyed Answer'd 383 All actions not alwayes necessarily according to the nature of him or that which act's ibid. Smalcius's second Quaere Answered and frustrated 384 His third Quaere Answered with reference to the discourse before concerning the Incarnation of the Father and holy Ghost ibid. XVIII Our Saviour's mission derogate's nothing from the authority and plenitude of power in himself 385 Which he exercised in giving commission to his Apostles 386 CHAP. XXXIV I. The Socinians opinion of the holy Ghost 387 Confuted and this proved that he is a distinct Person of the Trinity not a mere Attribute of the Deity ibid. II. Not the Gospel of Christ as they pretend out of holy Scripture 389 III. Not the gift of God to certain men but by a figure 390 A defiance to them that call for reason in these mysteries 391 CHAP. XXXV I. Carthagena's little lesse then then blasphemous limiting God's power of enlarging the capacity of his Creature 392 II. What of God to be proved by reason and by whom to be attempted 393 III. Aquinas's first Argument against the possibility to attain by naturall reason any knowledge of the Trinity 394 The Bishop's Answer grounded upon Lully's demonstration by aequiparance ibid. IV. Aquinas's second Argument 395 The Bishop's first Answer concerning the invisible objects of Faith ibid. The Bishop's second Answer concerning the after-sight of Reason ibid. His third Argument from scorn and scandal 396 Answered by the adherence to infallibility of Scripture ibid. V. Trigosius and Carthagena passed by ibid. Truth not oppos'd to Truth ibid. The Bishop closeth with Raymund Lully whom he vindicateth against Vasques 397 And Aymericus who make's him an heretick ibid. His advice to the Pope and Cardinal about converting the Saracens 398 His devout enterprize according to it with successe ibid. His like adventure among the Moores ibid. Their cruel sentence and execution frustrated by his strange deliverance 399 The notable effect of his sufferings ibid. VI. Lully's undertaking according to Vasques ibid. Whose Arguments he recite's and forme's 400 The first prove's a personal plurality by concord ibid. Another from equality distinction ibid. Vasques's first Answer excepting against the supposition of a reall effective act in God ibid. The Bishop's reply that Lully not only suppos'd but prov'd iâ— ibid. His Lordship's explanation of Lully's sense by the necessity of God's acting somewhat from all eternity
this internal word the second the Word that is spoken the third this infinite Love Joy Delight Comfort that these two have one in another more cannot be imagined because we can find but two spiritual faculties in the Divine essence by which it can produce any thing that is Understanding and Will and in this notion they have both an infinite production which is the furthest any operation can extend it self and therefore though consequent productions of creation may be like sparks of the same fire afterwards produced to give God an external glory yet no other internal operation which is infinite but these two And now I may apply my self to the third proposition that these three persons are the Father the Son and the holy Spirit Sect. 13. First for the Father and the Son these two relatives cannot be one without the other and it is evident out of that which hath been said that the producer and produced must be Father and Son for although perhaps we cannot properly say that when fire produceth its like that product is the son of the fire nor perhaps when we see a plant or beast do it can we say that that product is a son yet when we see any thing that is rational do it we may most properly say that it is the producer's son now that God is such can be no question therefore in this production there is a Father and a Son for God being most spiritual we must expect onely a pure spiritual propagation which can be conceived no way so â—itly as by the Understanding nor indeed is possible and here in this expression we find all those notions in which the same is delivered to us in Scripture to be clearly evident as that he is the Word the internal Word of God the image of God no image so clear as that which is drawn in the word of any thing the internal word fully expressing that of which it is the word so likewise the wisdom of God because it is the relict of divine knowledge because it is the highest principle and first fountain of all other beings and for the third person the doubt can onely be whether he is holy or whether a person and indeed there can be no doubt of either because he is God and then he must be most spiritual and most holy So that that 3. Proposition is as clear as the former that these persons are the Father Son and holy Spirit I thought to have vindicated Raymund Lully from Faber Faventinus who being a Scotist I thought in his Natural Theology had written something various from Vasques but he deserve's pity having no knowledge of Lully but by Vasques and what is worse when Vasques excuseth Lully from that opprobrious scandal of being an Heretick he who knew nothing of him but in Vasques fall's upon him with that foul and disgraceful Term and endeavour's not to answer Vasques his vindication of him Sect. 14. It may be justly enquired now why we should call these three persons since they are not so termed in Scripture This question was debated by S. Augustine long ago in his 7. book de Trinitate cap. 4. and methink's satisfactorily in the which he hath these passages first Since the Father is God the Son God and the holy Ghost God why are there not three Gods He that saith the Scripture doth not call them three Gods and therefore he dare's not answer's himself for neither doth the Scripture call them three persons He had shewed before that the Scripture saith that there is one God and that these three are called God but as he had shewed that although the Scripture doth not say that there is one essence of God yet we believe confidently there is but one essence so may we do of these persons take this phrase Propterea licuit disputandi necessitate tres personas dicere non quia Scriptura dicit sed quia Scriptura non contradicit he saith That the necessity of Disputation make's a man say something which is not against Scripture in this point and that is enough for if the Scripture express that there are three and that loquendi causâ as he speak's at the beginning of that chapter de ineffabilibus â—ari aliquo modo possumus quod â—ffa i nullo modo pâ—ssumus That saith he we may say somewhat of these unspeakable things which we cannot clearly speak out in full and significant terms we speak thus And again in the same chap. Excedit supereminentia Divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem verius enim cogitatur Deus quà m dicitur veâ—ius est quà m cogitatur the result of which is this that the thoughts of man are short of the Divine perfections and the language of man short of his thoughts because our language being formed to our usual business which we converse about all which are excelled infinitely by the divine perfections they must be short in their expressions of those divine excellencies And therefore again that most excellent and learned man in the same chap. Quid igitur restat nisi ut fateamur loquendi necessitate parta haec vocabula and indeed they are the most significant which can be found out for since we conceive that this term person is the last actuality and addition which can be made to any reasonable substance it may most justly be applied to this of the Trinity and each distinct suppositum thereof but still with this reservation that the Divine things are ineffable and not fully to be conceived much less expressed by us say God's essence is thus or thus we may but to say that that language whatsoever it be doth fully express his essence or being is a presumption in any man and the like and no otherwise of these personalities it is the nearest expression man can make and let us be contented with it A second question may be whether this personal distinction in the Trinity be a main and great difference or some little and inconsiderable thing For answer to this my humility and adoration of the Divine persons is such that I dare affirm positively nothing in the world which is not expressed in the holy Scripture a relation we are sure there is by which the one is signified to us and not the other as the Father the Son and the holy Spirit proceeding from them which spiration signifie's a procession which always involve's a person proceeded and a person from whence it proceeded and these relations must needs be founded in some substance when we consider them in God who hath no accident but what difference is in that foundation the Scripture is silent I am at a maze whether infinite bccause whatsoever is in God is infinite and therefore some may conceive it such but then they must make the unity in God infinite likewise because that is most primarily affirmed in him and yet both may be in him though they seem impossible in us whose perfections excell our thoughts
that of St. John in his Revelation The words Being with God signifie more thâ—n Known to God against Socinus and hâ—s â—ollowers Eternal life before Christ's Iâ—carnation knowne to the Angelâ— blessed Souls Prophets Philosophers Although not till afterward manifested to others The Phâ—losophers excell the Socinians in this knowledge Socinus's other Text of no validity to his purpose The Discourse resumed concerning the knowledge of the Word before the preaching of St. John Baptist Whether in the Socinian or Catholick sense may be more truly said the Word was God God with them no proper name but an Appellative â— Contrary to the use of it single thâ—oughout the New Testament How Satan is called the God of this World c. How the belly God The Socinian's Criticisme about the Article Answered And Sociâ—uâ—'s Instances How St. Cyrâ—ll's rule is to be understood Smalcius answered about Tautology As likewise to that objection God cannot be with himself Loâ—d and God not both one The Word God with though not of the Father The Sociniaâ—s conceit of tâ—e Word being with God in the bâ—ginning Improbable having no Evangelical authority That they pretend to prove's it not The distinction of Christ's Divinity and Humanity illustrated His ascent into heaven which they insist on not corporeal His double capacity of Priest and Lay-man alledged by them discussed How all things were made by him St. John's method very considerable against the Socinians interpretation Which is such as permit's the more truth to be in the negative propositions opposite to those in holy Scripture Christ's interest in the Câ—eatiâ—n reinforced against the Socinians glosse Wherein he was a principal no bare instrumental Cause Their other slight objection answered The use of words The benefit of Tradition How life eternall and what else is to be understood ver 4. Hâ—w both that and the naturall life is said to be the light of men How Christ is called the lâ—ght according to Socinus How according to the Bishop What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie's properly and why rendred was Why the Evangelist chose to use it rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writing of St. John Baptist Socinus put 's a diminution upon St. John's testimony of Christ. Which is evidently affirmatâ—ve of his Divinity Socinus misinterprets creation by recreation or regeneration And in supplie's to his purpose a Text in the Epistle to the Ephesians Another violence of his in wresting actuall regeneration to regeneration in endeavour Smalcius's gâ—oâ—â—e His various significations put upon the word World Wherein he imposeth fallacies upon his Reader The Bishop's Animadversions 〈◊〉 sense â—irectly opposite to that evident in the Text. The genuine sense of the Terms not changed as they object Smalcius's reply to Smeglecius Little bâ—câ—ming a Socinian The World knew not the Woâ—d but by supernaturall grace What men appâ—ehend of God by naturall abilities The objection about Saint Johâ—'s upbraiding the world answered The exposition of the words immediately following why omitted The Socinians Word couâ—d not be made Flâ—sh Their evasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how used in the beginning of St. John's Gospell Their heterodox interpretation of flesh Not evident in Scripture Cited by Socinus The result of their Comment The summe of ours The union of the Divinâ—ty with the humanity implieth no mutation of God into Man Notwithstanding the predâ—cation God is Man Whâ—ch is asserted â—nd by a familliar instance illustrated Their Objection Answer'd by the dependaâ—â—â— of substances up on God Another Argument of Smalcius's Answer'd by the manner of existing Christ a true man though a divine persâ—n Whose conception and gestation in the blessed Virgin 's wâ—mb conduced nothing to his personality The Divinity an humanity uniâ—ed render him neither two Sons nor two persons Object Of his being the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost Answer Which identity implies not that they were made flâ—sh with him As Scotus illustâ—ate's excellently The Bishop's apology to the Reader Smâ—lcius's fiâ—st Qâ—erie c. Rectifyed Answered All actions not alwayes necessariâ—y according to the nature of him or that which act 's Smalius's second Querie Answeâ—ed and frustrated His third Querie Answered with reference to the discourse before concerning the incarnation of the Father and holy Ghost Our Saviour's mission derogate's nothing from the authoriâ—y and plenitude of power in himself Whâ—ch he exercised in giving commission to his Apostles The Socinian's opinion of the holy Ghost Confuted and this proved that he is a distinct person of the Trinity not a mere Attribute of the Deity Noâ— the Gospel oâ— Christ as they pretend out of holy Scripture Not the gift of God to certain men but by a figure A defiance to them that call for Reason in these mysteries Which notwithstanding may be subservienr to Faith Câ—rthagâ—na's lâ—tle lesse then blasphemous intimating God's power of enlarging the capacâ—ty of his Creature What of God to be proved by Reason and by whom to be attempted Aquinas's first argument against the possibility to attain by naturall reason any knowledge of the Trinity The Bishop's answer grounded upon Lulli's demonstratâ—on by aequiparance Aquinas's second Argum. The Bishop's first answer concerning the invisible objects of Faith The Bishop's second answer concerning the after-sight of Reason His third argument from scorn and scâ—ndal Answer'd by the adherence to infallibility of Scripture Trigosius and Carthagena passed by Truth not oppos'd to Truth The Bishop closeâ—h with Raymund Lully whom he vindicateth against Vasques And Aymericus who make's him an haeretick His advice to the Pope and Cardinal about convertâ—ng the Saracens Hiâ— devout enterprize according to it wâ—th successe His like adventure among the 〈◊〉 Their cruel sentence and execution frustrated by his strange deliverance The notable effâ—ct of his sufferings Lully's undertaking according to Vâ—sques Whose Arguments he recite's and forme's The first prove's a personal plurality by concord Another from equality distinction Vasques's first Answer excepting against the supposiâ—ion of a reall effective act in God The Bishop's Râ—ply that Lulâ—y not only suppâ—sâ—d but proved it His Lordship's explanation of Lully's sense by the necessity of God's acting somewhat from all eternity or being idle which could nâ—t be Vasques chargeth Lully with a mâ—stake of a formal cause for an efficient Who is mâ—staken by him And the cause proved no less efficient then formal The discourse drawn into perfect syllogisme provâ—ng the eternall plurality of persons by production The Objection urging the Angel cannot produce the like effect answer'd Vasquâ—s's satisfactâ—â—y answerâ— to Lully's arguments for his second Conclusion The Bâ—shop proceed's upon other grounds of his to prove the Trinity God's infinite Simpliciâ—y and Uniâ—y His spiritual faculties Understandâ—ng and Will Himself the infinite objâ—ct of his Understanding Which is eternally productive of his internal Word And that word substâ—â—tiâ—â— the same with himself The Bishop guided to this discovery by Scripture as the Wise-men by a Sâ—ar God's Will as fruitful by love as hiâ— Understanding by knowledge And so productive of a third person which is likewise God These divine productions not to be multiplyed because infinite by which an objection's answered The objection made by the Assertors of the Greek Church answered accordâ—ng to the sense of the Catholick touching the procession of the holy Ghost Illustrated by a similitude to facilitate in part our apprehension of it How the three Divine Persons must necessarily be Father Son and Holy Spirit Why they are called three persons being no Scripture-language and â—ow long ago debated by St. Augustâ—ne The extent or limits of this personal distiâ—ction the Bishâ—p â—eveâ—ently forbear's to determâ—ne And dislâ—ke's the rash curiosity of the School-men His Lordship's apology for undertaking to handle the question by reason And seldom quoting the Fathers A digression to the Reader Select Aphorâ—smes out of which the Author draw's his Discourse A good foundation of his to build upon His noble Quaeâ—e Animadversions upon his ambiguous sense touching the conservation of life His study of it as to his own particular All men may not have like reason to be so intent The parts and faculties of men not to be levelled with those of beasts The publick interest to be prefer'd and preserv'd before the personal or more private What right a man hath to the mâ—aâ—s of preserviâ—g life and how he is to use them Each particular man cannot pretend a right to the whole world Nor to things conducing onely to mediate and particular ends The danger of pretending a right to all and so having a right judgment of it Two cannot have a right to the same thing at the same time All cannot be usefull to one particular perperson Nor every thing to evâ—ry one Of which no right judgment can be made for want of knowledge The use of some known interdicted to whom hurtful Oâ—her ruleâ— by which to institâ—te a right judgment beside reason How all creatures are granted to man's usâ— limited Hiâ— impossible supâ—osition His falâ—acy à bâ—ne divisiâ— c. The equality of right no argument that each man hath a right to all The case of necessity imply's no such universal right Nor dissolution of any Common-wealth An Objection fram'd by the Author A second of his not so strong The first but weakly answer'd by him without regard to God's end His first Argument for universal right returning extreme necessity The Bishop's severall answers to it His second Argument for ancient right in a lawfull defense How the force oâ— invalidity of this argument mâ—y be understood and how the practice moderated His Objection And answer The Bishop's Animadversions shewing the difference between just 〈…〉 invasion staâ—ing the râ—ght of possâ—ssion Fear entitle's a man to nothing but a guard of himself Propriety withouâ— Covenant The râ—ght to goodâ— gotten by conquest what His third Argument The Bishâ—p's answer from the fallibiliâ—y of judgmâ—nt His argument against the right of Occupancy Which the Bishop shew's to hold well against Covenant What is the râ—ght in necessity Discovery 〈◊〉 not an equal right with Occupancy The imparity of swift and slow not considerable in the case The Author 's two Propositions destructive to humane Society and Trade The difficulty of discerning different titles to goods and estates Little peace to be expected if that of Occupancy be not allowed
OBSERVATIONS CENSURES and CONFUTATIONS OF NOTORIOUS ERROURS IN Mr. Hobbes HIS LEVIATHAN and other his Bookes To which are annexed OCCASIONALL ANIMADVERSIONS On some VVritings of the Socinians and such Haereticks of the same opinions with him By WILLIAM LUCY Bishop of St. David's LONDON Printed by J. G. for Nath. Brooke at the Angel in Cornhill 1663. IMPRIMATUR Hic Liber cui Titulus Observations Censures and Confutations of Notorious Errours in Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan and other his Books c. ROBERTUS PORY S. T. P. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Archiepiscopo Cantuar. Sacellanus Domesticus Iunii 10. 1662. To the Right Honourable EDWARD Earl of Clarendon and Lord High Chancellar of ENGLAND c. MY LORD THere is no man read's Your great name in the Front of this book but will be ready to enquire in himself what interest Your Lordship can have in it I could satisfie them with the common language of Dedications and say that those noble and high Favours I have received by Your Lordships kindnesse make me endeavour what I can to acknowledge them with all humility and gratitude but these are particular duties the obligation of them alwayes doth and will lie upon me to the utmost of my power This Treatise is of publick concernment it handle's the highest and greatest business of Church and State that since the plantation of Christian Religion in England ever any man had need to write of and by that Title it is Yours My Lord I know and whosoever shall have the happiness to write the story of these times as he ought must record it to Your perpetuall honour that those most glorious and blessed alterations which this present age enjoy's both in Ecclesiastick and Politick concernments have in a great part resulted out of Your presence and assistance to our sacred Sovereign in those intricacies of affaires with which He and in Him We were all involved My Lord I know that most addresses to him in his accursed exile were by Your hands transferred to His the returns again were for the most part through the same conduct so that if there had been flaw or chink in Your Lordship's secrecy to let out what was committed to Your trust or defect of prudence in directing what was returned I have often thought with my self there would scarce have been a subject faithful and trusted by the King who could have supervived his Restauration to congratulate this blessed morning of happinesse which we now enjoy and therefore most of those gallant persons may acknowledge the preservation of their lives to those great and Counsellour-vertues as I may term them such as most highly adorn a Counsellour of state with which Your Lordship was indued I am sure though unworthy those Epithetes I can affirme it of my self and mine own being This is the reason why this Treatise creep's under and expect's Your Lordships protection It handle's the Fundamental articles of all those things which hitherto you and all vertuous men have endeavour'd to preserve and for which you and they have suffered so much hardship for when this unhappy Author slight's those reasons which have been brought to defend the eternall infinite being of a God this Book hath justifyed it against him O my Lord it is that God which hath untwisted and unravelled those many misfortunes with which you were lately entangled and hath exalted you to a high place of Dignity wherein you may serve him as then you have alwayes kept your integrity to him through many dangers for defence of his glory â—o I am confident the memory and honour of him must alwayes be pretious in your sight hereafter VVhen he hath most unworthily disgraced our hope of Heaven this Treatise hath laboured to vindicate that by reason my Lord I know you have always thought those eternal joys are of an unmeasurable condition excelling these temporal and therefore your duty and thankfulness to that God who hath provided such blessings for you wâ—ll assist me to suppress all wicked thoughts and suggestions of false reasons which may any way disturbe the blessed assurance of that glorious expectation VVhen this Author hath spoken very dangerously of the blessed Trinity this Treatise hath by reason as well as Scripture endeavour'd to justifie it My Lord doth know how without the divinity of our Saviour there can be no salvation for man the arm of man onely could not compass it our thought of a God our hope of heaven were in vain without it the blessed Trinity joyn's in the productions of these divine effects which we enjoy Your Lordship therefore will perfect these noble duties towards God which in such a high measure you have already expressed in protecting such a sacred truth from the blasting of malicious wits These things my Lord I dedicate to Your Lordship as to a person of great and eminent honour and worth besides these there are in this book the vindication of divers truths which reflect upon you as the highest dispenser of justice in our Nation under our Sovereign He hath abused the nature of justice of meum and tuum and let the world out to a dissolute confusion of which although I have much more to say hereafter yet here are delivered many things which may vindicate the anciently-received conclusions from those violences which he hath offered to them so then as to a great Patron of Vertue of Religion of Justice these Papers are submitted to your protection how the particulars are handled by the Author will be your wisdom to judge howsoever since it is the child of my brain the fruit of my studies and so one of the dearest things in the world to me I most humbly beseech you accept this present from him who would make you a nobler if he could and acknowledge me to be MY LORD Your Lordships most reall honourer and hearty Servant WILL. St. David's TO THE CHRISTIAN READER REader I intreat you take notice that long since in a sullen retirement being amazed at the transactions of businesses in the Church so well as State I not only grieved to observe the ruines of that glorious hedge with which God had fenced his Vineyard that hedge of thorns which formerly no man could have kicked against but it would have hurt his foot broken down but likewise how the foxes had been in the Vineyard how they had eaten up and devoured most of those desirable fruits of piety humility obedience and fidelity which had only a name of honour left them by former writers but no existence in the practice of men amongst us Considering these sad misfortunes and studying what would become of them I found many gallant men with noble and heroïque spirits repairing the hedge by shewing the necessity of that discipline whose decay introduced all those mischiefs to the Church others with as high a vertue and as effectuall pens pruning the Vines and cherishing those decayed fruits I honoured their endeavours but considered cui
the reality of Colours other then the reflexion of light 33 III. Answered ibid. Colours reall and intentionall not the same ibid Intentional Colours not the same with Light 35 IV. Sight more then a bare reception of species 36 The conceipt of the Species not founded only upon Aristotle's Texts ibid. V. Aristotle's first reason for them 37 A second Argument from Aristotle's image in Plato's eye ibid. A third Argument from the distance between the Object and Organ of Sight 38 The species why so called ibid. An Objection answer'd ibid. CHAP. VI. I. Mr. Hobbes fallacious in his discourse about conceptions 39 II. The Philosophers first opinion concerning Echoes 40 Their second opinion concerning Echoes 41 Their third opinion concerning Echoes ibid. III. The distinction of formally and vertually applyed to their Axiom Nihil dat quod non habet 42 IV. Mr. Hobbes's absurdities touching the production of sounds ibid. V. Smell and Taste where 44 VI. What difference between the heat in the fire and that transmitted to the hand and how it prove's no nullity of an externall object ibid. The nature of first and second qualities 45 VII Heat is neither pleasure nor pain but a cause of both 46 VIII The same cause worketh different effects according to the subject or object about which it is busied 47 Some danger in asserting sensible qualities to be nothing but mere apparitions 48 IX A Universe of motion madly fancyed by Mr. Hobbes ibid. X. Colour in the Object when seen by reflexion 50 Sight when and when not deceived ibid. Sense judgeth not of colour but Reason by collection from it 5â— CHAP. VII I. Animals will move themselves after rest 54 Every thing will move towaâ—ds its proper place ibid. II. All Animals being subject to lassitude require rest 55 Inanimates by locall motion tend toward rest ibid. All things able to overcome the ill they are affected with change themselves ibid CHAP. VIII I. The distinction of Appetite into naturall and rationall their conflicts c. 57 II. Appetite and knowledge not more then man hath 58 III. What appetite and knowledge is in inferiour creatures and how excellently dispoped by providence 59 IV. God's Wisdom not Art in the natures of all he made and disposing the principles of their severall operations 60 V. All things act according to God's method with an innate appetite to accomplâ—sh his end though without knowledge how they tend to it 61 CHAP. IX I. How standing Water put in motion recovereth rest 63 II. How improperly Dreames are assimilated to it when ceasing 64 III. Imagination something more then decaying sense ibid. IV. Memory no decaying sense the act of Sensation being wholly past 65 His illustration from the Sun 's light obscuring that of the Stars incongruous 66 V Extent of time doth not alwayes weaken the imagination 67 VI VII Imagination and Memory not one and the same thing 68 VIII What Memory it is that maketh Experience 69 CHAP. X. I. There have been Prognostick Dreams and such cannot be said to arise from the agitation of the inward parts 71 II. Solomon's opinion of Dreams dâ—fferent from Mr. Hobbes's 72 III. His reasons invalid drawn from the differences of Dreams 73 Old men's dreams constitutional dreams phantastick dreams ibid. Whence coherent and incoherent dreams 74 CHAP. XI I. Sensitive creatures become acquainted with words and signs by custom or the suggestions of appetite not by understanding 75 II. The specifick souls and signal differences distinguishing them each from other 76 Their sagacity 77 CHAP. XII I. Religion defined 79 Why reckoned among the duties of Justice 80 II. The seed of Religion in Man onely because rational ibid. III. But Mr. Hobbes's reasons of no force to prove it ibid. IV. His opinion of the feigned Gods invisible Agents Ghosts c. 81 Invisible Agents what ibid. Mr. Hobbes stick 's an absurd opinion of man's soul undeservedly upon Idolaters 82 V. His discourse of Spirits and Ghosts c. too perplexed 83 CHAP. XIII I. Mr. Hobbes sow's ambiguous seeds to produce false and true Religion 85 II. The opinion of Ghosts could not introduce the assurance that There is a God ibid. III. Ignorance of second causes apter to produce Atheism then Religion 86 IV. Devotion to what we fear rather a fruit then seed of Religion 87 V. A taking things casual for Prognosticks no seed of the false Religions 8â— There have been Sibylls that prophesied of our Saviour 90 CHAP. XIV I. The sole immediate seed of Religion an innate principle 91 II. To be proved from the chain of Causes 92 An eternity of the World with an infinity of causations why not to be admitted ibid. III. Somewhat of God though infinite may be known 94 IV. And that from Phantasms 95 V. The conceit of finite and infinite explained 96 What conceit may be had of infinite 98 VI. An Eternity acknowledged by all of different opinions 99 VII Mr. Hobbes's indifference be the world finite or infinite 101 VIII His contradiction touching the first mover ibid. The first mover proved immoveable ibid. IX Mr. Hobbes's Paralogism by which he would charge the absurdity of one infinite exceeding another 102 X. His disputing ex non concessis 103 No infinity at all of numbers 104 Why the world cannot be conceived infinite in duration ibid. XI And yet God the Creatour of it may and must be 105 No before or after in Eternity and yet how these terms are applicable to God's duration or co-existence not to his simple or absolute existence 106 XII Our double conceit of God's eternity to which no computation of time is applicable 108 XIII The doctrine of Eternity most agreeable to H. Scripture 109 XIV No absurdity in asserting Eternity to be a standing instant 111 XV. The difference of nunc stans and tunc sâ—ans as applied to Eternity 113 XVI Eternity co-exist's with no infinite number of dayes 115 XVII God so manifest in the creatures as all ignorance is inexcusaâ—le ibid. The Bishop's character of Mr. Hobbes 117 And censure of his Dispute here touching the eternity of the world ibid. And of the apology he is likely to make out of such principles at the last day 118 His Lordship 's seasonable and salutary advice to him 119 Mr. Hobbes pretend's to be content with the doctrine of holy Scripture the fame of Miracles Country-custome and Laws yet wrangle's against all ibid. CHAP. XV. I. Mr. Hobbes contradict's himself as touching the seeds of Religion 121 Which are more then onely an opinion of a Deity ibid. II. Mr. Hobbes more perplexed in his writing then the Schoolmen 122 How far the foresaid opinion may be abolished out of humane nature ibid. III. What may be supposed Mr. Hobbes mean's by a Formed Religion 123 How he imposeth upon his Reader ibid. Formed Religion not founded upon his phantastick Faith 124 The Jewish and Christian principally to be examined ibid. CHAP. XVI I. No probability of idolatry before the Floud 125 II. The
or being idle which could not be 401 VII Vasques chargeth Lully with a mistake of a formal cause for an efficient who is mistaken by him 402 And the cause proved no less efficient then formal 403 The discourse drawn into a perfect syllogisme proving the eternal plurality of persons by production 404 The Objection urging that Angels cannot produce the like effect answer'd 405 VIII Vasques's satisfactory answer to Lully's arguments for his second Conclusion 406 The Bishop proceed's upon other grounds of his to prove the Trinity ibid. God's infinite Simplicity and Unity ibid. His spiritual faculties Understanding and Will. ibid. Himself the infinite object of his Understanding 407 Which is eternally productive of his internal word ibid. And that word substantial the same with Himself ibid. The Bishop guided to this discovery by Scripture as the Wisemen by a Star 408 IX God's will as fruitful by love as his Understanding by knowledge ibid. And so productive of a third Person which is likewise God 409 X. Misprinted XI ibid. XI These divine productions not to be multiplyed because infinite by which an objection's answer'd 410 XII The objection made by the Assertours of the Greek Church answered according to the sense of the Catholick touching the procession of the holy Ghost 411 Illustrated by a similitude to facilitate in part our apprehension of it ibid. XIII How the three Divine Persons must necessarily be Father Son and holy Spirit 412 XIV Why they are called three persons being no Scripture-language and how long ago debated by St. Augustine 414 The extent or limits of this personal distinction the Bishop reverently forbeare's to determine 415 And dislike's the rash curiosity of the Schoolmen 416 XV. His Lordship's apology for undertaking to handle the question by reason ibid. And seldom quoting the Fathers 417 A digression to the Reader ibid. CHAP. XXXVI I. Select Aphorismes out of which the Author who apologizeth for Mr. Hobbes draw's his discourse 418 A good foundation of his to build upon 419 His noble Quaere ibid. II. Animadversions upon his ambiguous sense touching the conservation of life ibid. III. His study of it as to his own particular 420 All men may not have like reason to be so intent ibid. The parts and faculties of men not to be levell'd with those of beasts 421 The publick interest to be prefer'd and preserv'd before the personal or more private ibid. IV. What right a man hath to the means of preserving life and how he is to use them 422 V. Each particular maâ— cannot pretend a right to the whole world 423 Nor to things conducing only to mediate and particular ends 424 VI. The danger of pretending a right to all and to having a right judgment of it 425 Two cannot have a right to the same thing at the same time 426 All cannot be useful to one particular person ibid. Nor every thing to every one 427 Of which no right judgment can be made for want of knowledge ibid. The use of some known interdicted to whom hurtfull ibid. VII Other rules by which to institute a right judgment beside Reason 428 How all creatures are granted to man's use limited ibid. His impossible supposition ibid. His fallacy a bene divisis c. 429 VIII The equality of right no argument that each man hath a right to all 430 The case of necessity implye's no such universal right ibid. IX Nor the dissolution of any Common-wealth 431 X. An Objection fram'd by the Author 432 A second of his not so strong ibid. The first but weakly answered by him without regard to God's end ibid. XI His first argument for universal right returning extreme necessity 433 The Bishop's severall answers to it ibid. His second argument for ancient right in a lawful defence 434 How the force or invalidity of this argument may be understood and how the practice moderated ibid. XII His Objection and Answer 435 The Bishop's Animadversions shewing the difference between just defence and unjust invasion and stating the right of possession ibid. Fear entitle's a man to nothing but a guard of himself 436 Propriety without Covenant ibid. The right to goods gotten by conquest what ibid. Thâ— Bishop's answer from the fallibility of judgment 437 XIII His the Apologist's argument against the right of Occupancy ibid. Which the Bishop shew's to hold well against Covenant ibid. What is the right in necessity ibid. Discovery give 's not an equal right with Occupancy 438 The imparity of swift and slow not considerable in the case ibid. The Author 's two Propositions destructive to humane Society 439 And Trade ibid. The difficulty of discerning different titles to goods and estates ibid. Little peace to be expected if that of Occupancy be not allowed 440 The Texts of Holy Scripture illustrated or cited GEN. Chap. Verse Page 1 28 181 29 4 3 4 126 4 9 184 4 26 125 6 5 129 Â Â 185 9 1 2. 186 3 c. 208 9 26 440 9 27 44 188 10 14 305 12 14 161 15 c. 13 3 156 4 5 13 7 143 8 9 17 6 305 19 4 183 5 c. 20 2 161 3 c. 23 3 162 4 c 32 10 309 40 5 71 41 1 ib. EXOD. 1 15 282 16 c. 4 16 329 4 36 286 7 1 ibib 7 1 330 20 2 288 22 28 286 32 7 288 32 11 290 LEVIT 24 11 289 12 c. NUMB. 15 35 290 36 c. DEUT. 9 12 288 JUDGES 4 17 156 I. SAM 17 36 270 26 7 ibid. I. KINGS 21 9 145 II. KINGS 6 25 255 JOB 10 5 314 19 25 338 26 PSAL. 2 7 334 10 6 ibid. 14 1 92 19 1 115 3 4 36 9 389 78 39 376 90 2 109 94 8 95 94 9 96 102 27 314 113 5 355 115 16 185 142 6 245 PROV 1 20 309 ECCLES 5 3 72 ISAIAH 4 6 376 6 3 344 40 3 329 55 9 306 11 312 JER 17 5 376 DAN 2 1 71 3 16 247 MIC 5 2 303 315 ZACH. 2 8 298 13 7 316 MAL. 3 4 306 312 WISD 11 20 104 13 5 116 II. MACCA 7 2 247 3 c. St. MATTH 1 20 71 3 3 330 3 11 364 3 16 387 390 3 17 334 7 2 146 10 1 386 17 11 358 18 18 298 25 45 ibid. 28 18 386 19 20 St. MARKE 13 23 258 St. LUKE 2 32 344 2 52 343 3 4 330 3 22 383 3 38 105 12 19 239 12 33 ibid. St. JOHN 1 1 318 324 328 408 1 2 352 1 3 357 1 4 361 1 5 362 1 6 ib. 1 7 363 1 9 378 1 10 365 1 11 299 374 1 14 ibid. 1 17 378 1 18 346 1 23 330 1 29 364 3 12 355 3 13 354 355 4 25 358 8 58 111 10 11 326 10 34 346 35 348 12 3 347 13 15 362 14 4 326 6 14 26 358 15 1 326 17 3 338 18 37 385 19 28 358 20 21 385 20 23 385 398 20 29 120
much lesse is man able to reach at that infinite excellency of God being many degrees much lower then God than any Creature is below man This is the knowledge a man may have of God if there be any thing else it must be that other way in which many Divines have trod besides these negatives of imperfections to conceive these things we call perfections to be in a much more infinitely excellent manner in him who is God So a husbandman may know that a learned man exceed's him in knowledge and that this knowledge is in divine naturall and morall things but what that knowledge of his is he cannot tell unlesse that learned man reveale it to him so it is in respect of God we know he hath excellencies beyond us that these consist in these or these eminencies but what is the nature of these eminencies no man can know but he to whom God reveale's them yet he cannot choose but desire to know them But it may here be said that God hath revealed these excellencies of his in his holy book he hath revealed something of himself in Scripture enough for a viaticum for a repâ—st by the way in a Riddle darkely behind a Cloud by which he believe's there are such things yet faith cannot make men absolutely perfect it is the support the foundation of things hoped for but Peregrinamur fide we must be strangers from happiness whilst we live in faith it is of things absent happinesse consists in the fruition the possession of what is present which cannot be so long as we are believing Faith give 's a man a nearer approach to happinesse then any thing else in this world and therefore a faithfull man can passe better through all the affronts of this world then any other because he knowe's there is a happiness for him elswhere that he is approaching to it his conversation is in heaven as S. Paul speaketh his thoughts are there his businesse and negotiation this world belong's not to him but yet he is going to his happinesse onely he is not there untill he put off his flesh and blood There are other revelations to prophetique persons by dreames visions and other apparitions by which God is pleased to reveale himself to some especiall Servants of his but these are of some particular things which cannot fill the vast understanding of man there are likewise extasies in some men which I guess have had by them fuller and greater manifestations of God of that kind was that Saint Paul speake's of in which were unutterable mysteries but these are very short enough to give a man a taste of heaven not satisfie him enough to make him long for more of the same and desire to be dissolved and be with Christ enough to give him an eagernesse of desire mixed with the Comfort of assurance He who hath happinesse as it must be full so it must be â—onstant without losse or feare of losing for although beasts are happy in the present enjoyment of their happy objects because they have no forecast of any future evill unlesse such little Sagacities and instincts of nature as dispose them to these or these provisions for the future yet man having foreseeing eyes alwayes looking at what will become of him hereafter cannot be happy in the present without forecast of the future what he shall be and therefore these temporary felicities cannot make him blessed Sect. 13. What I have said of the Understanding may be applyed to the Will for the Understanding give 's light to all the Will 's actions and the reasonable Will cannot possibly enjoy any thing without it Therefore as the Understanding cannot in this world fully apprehend the infinite good neither can the Will enjoy it the Will joye's in nothing which is not present and the Vnderstanding is that onely arme which embraceth this infinite good and the onely hand which layeth hold of it to convey it to the Will and therefore because the Understanding cannot fully and clearely receive this infinite Goodnesse neither Understanding nor Will neither of these most excellent faculties can be perfected in this World Sect. 14. And now after this tedious discourse from which I can yet hardly withdraw my Pen consider my Argument and see if in reason it may not yield a man as strong assurance as almost any natural Truth that there is a felicity after death Consider the most apparent truths which thy Reason can perswadâ— thee to of things unseen thou art â—ssured that all men in all the world are mortal and must dye ask the reason thou seest or â—earest that all here doe so where thou livest and from thence canst collect that death belong's to all mankind thou knowest that the fire burn's in the Indies because it hath a power of burning and an appetite to it wheresoever it is so I wâ—ll argue not from one Species or sort of things but from all the things in this world there is nothing in the world which hath an appetite not satisfiable a power without an adequate subject as Logicians speak therefore it must be in man in whom certainly there can be nothing in vain or imperfect so that the certainty of this is drawn from the most universal Principle that is in Nature and such a Principle which is as universally touched upon by Philosophers and School-men as any one whatsoever that Deus natura nihil faciunt frustra that frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum which these powers should be if there were no felicity after this life because there can be none absolutely here Sect. 15. I know of but two things which can be objected here against this Conclusion and I will endeavour to satisfie them in order severally The first is that although man cannot enjoy the compleat full satisfaction of these powers in this life yet he may be happy in those little parcels of knowledge of God and his delight in that by confining his desire and curbing it in sapere ad sobrietatem as S. Paul speaketh and thus he will be happy here in this life I answer this may breed a moderate content but not a happiness Happiness is thâ—n which no more can be desired but there is no man know's so much of God in this life that he ought not to desire more because more is knowable for although in the fulness of happiness the whole blessed Vision is manifest in a glorious manner at one act and that enjoyed yet here we get it by piece-meal now one then another apprehension by parts and pieces and the Infiniteness of Divine perfections is such that no man's life applyed to nothing else can compass a full apprehension of it yea the further he goe's in this Journey the further he finde's himself at a loss and behind with knowledge therefore a man must not be content but strive for more knowledge or if he have some content yet this cannot be
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
Ark to which St. Peter allude's 1.3.21 the like figure whereunto that is of the Ark spoken of in the 20. Verse is Baptisme well by no meanes could it any way notify the power of God in this shape but his kindness and meekness now likewise that it is a distinct person from the other is evident because in this very Verse the other persons are not intimated onely but expressed the voice from heaven uttering these words thou art my c. manifesting the Father and the person spoken to declaring the Son Sect. 2. But I find another opinion amongst them which is in the Racovian Catechisme Chapter 6. de Christi prophetico munere pag. 162. in that edition I use now at Racovia 1651. where the question being put Quid verò Spiritus Sanctus What is the holy Ghost he answer 's that first in the New Testament the Gospell of Christ is designed by it the Catechisme produceth two places of Scripture to prove this by the first 1 Cor. 2.10 but God hath revealed them that is the things which he hath prepared for them that love him unto us by his Spirit where say those Divines the holy Spirit is said to reveal the Mysteries of Godlinesse to God's Servants the other is 2 Tim. 1.10 where it is said God hath brought life and immortality to light by the Gospell now say they in this latter place the Gospell is said to do that which the Spirit was said to act in the former therefore they are one A most piteous Argument The Fire a Candle and the Sun make us see the same thing therefore they three are one but more closely the internall light in mine eye or whatsoever it is that fit 's the Organ for discerning and the externall light of the Sun which illuminate's the object both make me perceive the same visible object therefore by their Logick they are one which is absurd so is it with these two the carnall or naturall man of himself cannot behold the things of the Spirit God therefore infuseth into him the holy Ghost by which he is enabled to discern these Mysterâ—es of Godlinesse bue yet thâ— object lie's in the dark the Gospell therefore reveale's it unto them as the Kingly Prophet most punctually phrasâ—th it Psalm 36.9 in thy light we shall see light in the light of the Spirit we shall see the light of the Gospell and yet these two are very distinct nay my Text confute's all for if there be any thing in this Verse which look's like the Gospell it is the words of the voice thou art my beloved Son c. the apparition of the holy Ghost in the likenesse of a dove hath nothing to do with the Gospell therefore the Spirit here cannot be taken for the Gospell but they urge again that it is called the Gospell of the Spirit 2 Cor 3 6. I say therefore it is not the Spirit it is the Gospell of the Spirit because it reveale's the Spirit unto us and Spiritual Mysteries but nothing is the same with that which it reveale's nay if we say any thing is of another we must in that imply that it is not that other Sect. 3. But they goe farther and say that this phrase the holy Spirit signifie's Dei Donum which is given to certain men and is called the earnest of our inheritance no doubt and he cite's 2 Cor. 1.22 as Ephesians 1.14 all this is granted that the holy Spirit is taken sometimes for the Gifts but by a Metonymie the cause for the effect but that it should never be taken for that Divine person we deny and they cannot prove for as St. Paul dispute's the case at large 1 Cor. 12. The gifts of the spirit are divers but the same Spirit that third person of the Trinity is one so that although the Spirit may be called by the name of those Gifts which proceed from it yet he is distinct from them and here it is evident in my Text he was another thing besides them This is all that I find objected and all this is confuted out of this where the holy Spirit is said to descend upon our Saviour in the likeness of a dove to which none of these extravagant expressions can be applyed And now there needs no more from Scripture Their great defiance to us to produce Reason for what we speak may be defyed by us as unnecessary in a Case of Faith where we have Scripture we must believe beyond yea against reason the Scripture hath been abundantly handled by diverse although in these places which I have handled I have endeavoured to contribute something to the clearing of them The rationall laid aside by all almost as an impossible work Sect. 4. I therefore will adore and admire that high Mystery and shall most humbly thank Almighty God that he hath pleased to reveal such a sacred Truth to our Faith but then shall admire likewise his bounty to such men whose Souls and Reason he hath awakened by his Spirit to such a height as that they have made their Reason attend their Faith and follow it although non passibus aequis yet come up to it and discern that it is most rationall for a man to believe it is so What I have observed in this kind and wherein I can enlarge the Conceipt of others and explain any thing by reason I shall set down having this occasion and impart to the world with all humility to more learned men and to adoration of the Divine Excellencies which are not to be fathomed by man quid sunt what they are although quòd sunt that they are believing that they are by faith humane reason may justly strive to prove them and certainly it is a Godly work as impious to labour against it but I am discouraged mightily by the whole body of the School who almost with one voice Thomist and Scotist cry out that it is impossible to be done CHAP. XXXV Concerning God's enlarging the capacity of Nature and admitting Reason to some discovery of the Holy Trinity Of Lullies Demonstration by Aequiparance Whom the Bishop magnifies and vindicate's against Vasques c. The production of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost by the spiritual acts of the divine Understanding and Will Sect. 1. CArthagena is so impudent that he affirme's impossibile est per Dei potentiam fieri creaturam cui sit naturalis cognitio mysterii Trinitatis in Thomam Quaest. 32. art primo conclusione secunda It is impossible that by the power of God a creature should be made to whom the knowledge of the Trinity should be natural which in my conceipt is little lesse then blasphemy for why cannot â—od make a Creature natural doe that which he can enable him to doe for these Termes naturall or supernatural are only such because God hath confined Nature to such bounds as it cannot goe farther and exalted other things to such an height as is ultra Sphaeram
p. 8. Colour in the object when Image is not sect 2. ib. Colour varyed according to the medium sect 3. p. 9. Colour in the object sect 4. p. 10. Colour no apparition of motion in the brain chap. 3. sect 3. p. 12. chap. 4. sect 1. p. 25. Colour a reall thing in the object chap. 4. sect 2. p. 26. Different colours dissipating and congregating the Sun-beams ibid. Colour and Light not the same thing sect 4. p. 30. Some colours opposite to Light ib. Light not therefore the form of colours because it produceth them into act chap. 5. sect 1. p. 32. sect 3. p. 34. The difference between reall and intentionall colours sect 3. p. 33. Intentionall colours not the same with Light chap. 5. sect 3. p. 35. Whence the fancy of colours in the dark chap. 9. sect 4. p. 66. The foundations whereon Mr. Hobbes build's a Commonwealth and theâ— justice of it ch 27. sect 4. p. 214 The distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quo chap. 29. sect 6. p. 278. The Concord of little families not dependent upon lust ch 21. sect 4. p. 156. How vulgar speech hath appropriated Confession chap. 16. sect 2. p. 126. Carthagena confine's God's infinite power unto his fancy chap. 35. sect 1. p. 393. The right to goods by Conquest what chap. 36. sect 12. p. 436. Conscience dictate's submission to a common power and Laws chap. 21 sect 7. p. 158. The restraint of Conscience from scandalous and great injuries chap. 27. sect 2. page 212. When Man resolve's things into their constitutive causes he need not lose himself in the inquest chap. 14. sect 6. p. 100. Benignity to a Musician varyeth not the nature of this or that Donor's contract cha 26. sect 2. p. 203. The original of Justice consisteth not in the Law of Nature for keeping Covenants ch 27. sect 1. p. 208. Propriety good without Covenant p. 209. chap. 36. sect 12. p. 436. Suspicion make's not Covenants void ch 27. sect 2. p. 210. The evil consequences of Mr. Hobbes's opinion in it p. 211. The Fool 's doctrine about Covenants more honest then Mr. Hobbes's sect 5. p. 215. The breach of Covenant though a wicked one conduceth not to eternal felicity yet such Covenants ought to be broken sect 11. p. 224. As that enter'd into by Thieves ib. The other by an Adulteresse ibid. Several qualifications good and bad in the making and breaking Covenants chap. 29. sect 1. p. 249. No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature chap. 30. s. 8. p. 281. With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept ib. The Hebrew Midwives had probably Covenanted sect 9. p. 283. No breach of covenant which had not a right to bind sect 10. p. 284 The Creation of the World asserted by the same authority Mr. Hobbes pretend's he will submit to p. 119. The world's Creation not the Gospel's renovation the subject matter of St John 1.3 ch 33. sect 5. p. 357. Christ's interest in the Creation re-inforced against the Socinians glosse upon that Text sect 6. p. 359. Wherein he was a principal no baâ—e instrumental cause ibid. The Creation by Him not to be taken for recreation or regeneration sect 10. p. 365. much lesse for an endevour to regenerate p. 367 Creatures acting by naturall inclinations and appetites compared unto a Clock How God can enlarge the capacity of his creature and how make the object of knowledge approach the limits of its nature ch 35. sect 1. p. 393. D. No dammage without injury chap. 29. sect 2. p. 250. Death desired by such as foresee the happinesse they are to enjoy chapter 22. section 4. page 167. No losse but rather increase of power by death ib. section 5. Our Druâ—ds opinion of it p. 168. Death not so terrible and painful as pretended ib. section 6. Ancient instances to confirm it That of Otho and his souldiers most â—â—gnal page 169. Arria's encouragement of self-dispatcâ— to her husband Paetus page 171. A modern instance in the Bishop's child against the supposed pains of death ibid. Death as sleep to many and a-like desirable section 7. page 172. Diogenes took them for Brother and Sister ibid. Another young child of the Bishop's mistook Death for sleep p. 173 Misrepresentations make it otherwise apprehended ibid. The three periods of Death ibid. section 8. In which of them and when otherwise pain affect's the sick page 174. Epicurus's excellent discourse against the fear of death chapter 29. section 10. page 265. He that mean's to deceive will not declare his intent chapter 27. section 9. page 221. Devotion what and whence chaptâ—r 13. section 4. page 89. How Dogs and other sensitive creatures come acquainted with words and signs chapter 11. section 1. page 75. Man in his most peculiar Dominion subject and tributary to God chapter 44. section 1. page 181. Man in his first Charter had dominion given him over other creatures but not over other men section 2. page 182. Why men are exempt section 3. page 183. The contradiction of mutual dominion every man over every man page 185. How Christ call's himself a Door chapter 32. section 5. page 326. Dreams improperly assimilated to moved water in its return to rest chapter 9. section 2. page 64. Prophetike Dreams such as are recorded in holy Scripture arise not from an agitation of the inward paâ—ts chapter 10. s. 1. p. 71. f. 2. p. 72. Dreams according to Solomon come from the multitude of businesse ibid. Oâ—d men not alwayes subject to more dreams then young section 3. page 73. The Bishop's opinion of Naturall Constitutionall and Phantastike dreams ib. of coherent and incoherent dreams page 74. E The Philosophers first opinion cerning Echoes chapter 6. sect 2. p. 40. Their second opinion page 41. Their third opinion ib. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie's properly and why rendred was chapter 33. section 8. page 362. Why the Evangelist chose it rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 363. what hard luck that word has among the Socicians section 10. page 365. Christ's eternal Egression compared to the shining of the Sun chapter 31. section 7. page 310. ELOHIM the name of God often given to Kings and Princes chapter 30. section 12. page 286. Equality of hopes oâ— desires render's not men alwayes enemies chapter 19. section 1. page 142. An instance in the contract between Abraham and Lot section 2. page 143. Nor self-conservation nor delectation ib. section 3. Not Equality of desires chapter 19. section 4. page 145. Ahab's and Naboth's case ib. Upon what hard conditions an Estate is not to be preserved chapter 23. section 3. page 178. No Eternity à parte ante which is not likewise à parte pâ—st chapter 14. section 2. page 93. An Eternity to be found in all the different principles of Philosophers section 6. page 99. How before and after may be applyed to God's Eternall being section 11. page 106. The double conceipt we may have of
The Philosophers excell the Socinians in the knowledge of eternal life section 15. p. 342. Place no motion nor can motion be in it chapter 1. section 3. p. 6. The study of self-preservation not alwayes earnest chapter 36. section 3. p. 420. The Promises and Oaths of men by experience very fallacious chap. 28. section 6. p. 231. Particular interest and propriety very sacred among the ancient Jews chapter 21. section 10. p. 162. God by his own Prerogative gave the Children of Israel a title to the Canaanites Land and the goods of the Aegyptians chapter 24. s. 5. p. 187. The first generation of men understood their title of Propriety without God's peremptory command p. 188. Places c. not appropriated become duly his that first seizeth section 6. p. 189. How the owner keep 's his Propriety who intended to renounce it chapter 26. section 3. p. 203. A Propriety where is no coercive power chapter 27. s. 4. page 213. Two persons cannot have a Propriety in the same thing at the same time ch 36. sect 6. page 426. ib. sect 8 page 430. The inequality of men's prudence chapter 18. section 4. p. 14. ib. s. 5. The reasons why men may and do often distrust their own prudence section 6. p. 141. Prudence whence and how it may be said to be but experience chapter 18. section 4. page 140. What some Philosophers thought of prudence chap. 29. sect 13. p. 271. God's punishment in this world not alwayes proportion'd to the sin chapter 16. section 3 p. 128. Q The qualifications of the visible species according to the disposition or indisposition of the Organ chapter 2. section 3. p. 9. The nature of prime qualities as they affect the Organ chapter 6. section 6. p. 45. How second qualities transmit their species ib. Sensible qualities more then mere apparitions section 8. p. 48. Quod ubique semper ab omnibus c. a rule seldom oppos'd by malicious Reason except by that of Mr. Hobbes chapter 14. section 1. p. 92. R The approach or analogy to Reason in the acts of inferiour creatures chapter 8. section 3. p. 59. The same conclusion may be the result of Faith and Reason chapter 28. section 12. page 242. Reasonable of what extent chapter 30. section 15. page 247. A godly work to make Reason subservient to Faith chapter 34. section 4. page 391. How it may be so chapter 35. section 4. page 395. Being neither unprofitable nor scandalous to Faith p. 396. What of God may be known by Reason section 2. page 393. Unnaturall for Reason to subject it self to passions and sensual desires chapter 36. section 3. page 421. No rebound of the object from the brain to the Optick nerve chapter 3. section 14. page 22. Mr. Hobbes's subtilty in writing against Rebellion which cannot be by his doctrine chapter 27. section 12. page 225. What Religion is and how it come's to be reckoned a part of Justice chap 12. section 1. p. 79. What is the seed of Religion and why only in man section 2. page 80. chapter 14. section 1. page 91. How far Religion may be abated and abolished in particular men chapter 15. section 2. page 122. Form'd Religion not founded upon Mr. Hobbes's phantastike Faith section 3. page 1â—4 The difference betwixt an occasion and the foundation of Religion explained ib. section 5. How far the opinion of any person that introduceth it should prevail with the people chapter 16. section 5. p. 130. Some difference between the foundation of Religion and formed Religion section 6. p. 132. The want of integrity and prudence in Chuâ—ch-Goveâ—ners render's not the Catholick Christian Religion suspected chapter 17. section 1. 2. p. 133. 134. No eternity of rest in things unmoved whether animal or naturall when extralocall chapter 7. section 1 p. 54. Revelation did first dictate a form of Religion which might afterward be improv'd by Reason chapter 16. section 4. p. 129. God's Revelation of himself by dreams visions c. chapter 28. section 12. p. 242. Trismegistus Socrates Plato and such others probably had Revelations or met with some Prophetike person or writing chapter 33. section 13. p. 373. Râ—ches cannot satisfie man's Will which bring with them an impatient covetousnesse of getting more when men have most chapter 28. section 11. page 239. They are not things absolutely good page 240. He that hath right to the end hath not right to all means whatsoever in the attaining that end chapter 23. section 1. page 176. The ultimate end exceâ—ted ib. Mr. Hobbes mistaken in his definition of Right and distinction of it from Law chapter 23. section 4. p. 179. What Right is â—roperly and what Wrong section 5. p. 180. The necessary consistence of Right with Law ib. A man need 's lay down his right to nothing chapter 25. section 5. page 195. That is not alwayes really good for which a man part 's with his right section 6. p. 196. A man may lay down his right to resistance and preservation of his life for a greater good page 197. A man may renounce his right pro aris focis section 8. page 200. and for the good of his posterity c. ibid. The usefulnesse of things de futuro give 's a man no present Right to them chapter 36. section 6. page 427. section 12. p. 437. What Right the Law of humanity give 's a man to what is in the possession of another section 8. page 430. The dissolution of a Commonwealth give 's a man no perpetuall right to his neighbours goods section 9. page 431. S The sagacity of severall Animals Elephants Dogs c. chapter 11. section 2. page 77. Which yet do not syllogize though they seem to do it p. 78. Lully's advice to the Pope and Cardinals about converting the Saracens chapter 35. section 5. page 398. Mr Hobbes's censure of all Philosophy-Schools c. chapter 1. section 3. page 6. The School-men condemn'd both for their rashnesse and negligence in the rational search of the holy Trinity ch 35. â— 14. p. 416. Holy Scripture to be believed against Reason chapter 34. section 3. page 390. No sense of objects visible or audible in Sleep or Attention chapter 1. section 1. p. 2. The cause of sense section 2. page 3. Master Hobbes's fancy of it ibid. How it come's to passe that the same object is seen double chapter 2. section 3. p. 9. Mr. Hobbes unconstant in placing the seat of sense chapter 3. section 4. page 12. What required to prevent the deception of sense section 5. page 14. No such deception of sense as Mr. Hobbes fancieth chapter 6. section 9. p. 50. Not sense but Reason judgeth whether colour seen by reflexion be in the object section 10. p. 51. How service in vulgar language is come to be taken for the Common-prayer of the Church chapter 16. section 2. p. 137. How Christ call's himself a Shepheard chapter 32. section 5. page 326. There were Sibylls
that prophesied of our Saviour chapter 13. section 5. page 90. Sight the prae-requisites not wanting judgeth aright of colours but not alwayes of a common object chapter 6. section 10. page 50. nor of objects by accident as Logicians speak page 51. How the Thief would be gratified if the object of sight were but apparition chapter 6. section 8. page 48. The subtilty of an evasion in Mr. Hobbes's power ibid. Smalcius's vain attempt to evacuate the Divinity of Christ chapter 31. section 2. page 295. Smell and Taste are in the men but sensible qualities in the objects chap. 6. section 5. p. 44. The shifting Genius of the Socinians deluded by a single word section 3. page 299. The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto section 8. p. 313. Their shifts chapter 32. section 1. page 322. The sin of Sodom and some others may be supposed to be under no restraint of a positive Law chapter 24. section 3. p. 183. We ought not beyond the Revelation in holy Scripture to aggravate their sins who perished by the floud chapter 16. section 3. p. 128. How Christ is the Son of God chapter 31. sect 4. page 301. What a Son is ibid. The particulars in the definition applyed to our Saviour section 5. p. 302. How we must believe Christ to be the naturall Son of God chapter 32. section 3. p. 322. Even Idolaters had a better opinion of the soul of Man then to fancy it like the appearance in a dream or Looking-glasse chap. 12. section 4. page 83. The subject of sound chapter 6. section 2. p. 40. Sound dormant before collision section 3. p. 42. Sound no rebound from the brain to the nerves outward section 4. page 43. Nor apparition of motion ibid. Of Spirits and invisible Agents chapter 11. section 5. page 83. Light and fire from the strong emission of species in the dark chapter 3. s. 5. p. 13. Not the receipt of the species but the soul's judgment of it is sight chapter 5. section 4. p. 36. Aristotle's reasons for visible species chapter 5. section 5. page 37. Why the propagation of them through the medium is not discerned ibid. Their name supposed to be taken from some seminal vertue ib. Why reall Colours produce but intentionall species chapter 5. section 5. page 38. Whence the appearance of light or fire after a suddain stroke chapter 3. section 5. p. 13. How substances depend upon God as Accidents upon their subjects chapter 33. section 15 page 378. That succesfull wickednesse obtaine's the name of Vertue argued by the Fool and consonant to Mr. Hobbes's principles though he disowne's it chapter 27. section 7. page 217. Severall difficulties objected against Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy about the Sun chapter 3. section 15. page 23. With what sagacious artifice Swallowes build their nests chapter 8. section 3. page 59. The actions dictated by what the School call's Synderesis chapter 27. section 2. page 212. T Smalcius answer'd about the Tautology is in God and is God chapter 31. section 21. page 349. Man's thought more then a mere representation chapter 1. section 1. page 2. The Catcher's title to scatter'd money chapter 26. section 1. page 202. The benefit of Tradition chap. 33. section 6. page 360. How otherwise then by the effects of God in the Creature we may adventure upon the proof of the holy Trinity chapter 35. section 3. page 395. Lully's undertaking concerning the rationall proof of the holy Trinity ibid. section 6. page 399. Vasques's Answer and the Bishop's reply to his Arguments page 400. An explanation of his sense section 7. page 401. section 8. page 406. The Bishop proceede's in this discourse section 9. page 408. The principall Authors that have attempted the rational discovery of the holy Trinity section 15. page 416. How Christ call's himselfe the Truth chapter 32. section 52. page 327. V What value may be set on things to be sold and how enhaunced chapter 29. section 4. page 254. When the Arithmeticall proportian must be applyed to the value of the thing page 255. How Christ call's himself a Vine chapter 32. section 5. page 326. An untouch'd Viol sounding in harmony with one touch'd chapter 6. section 2. p. 40. How Man understand's simple termes in their proper but Beasts only in their generall notion chapter 11. section 2. p. 77. Man's understanding imperfect in this world chapter 28. section 13. page 243. The Union of the Divinity with the Humanity implieth no mutation of God into Man chapter 33. section 15. page 378. It maketh but one Christ page 380. The use and benefit of Universities chapter 1. section 3. p. 7. How John Baptist was call'd a Voice chapter 32. section 7. page 329. The Bishop discover's no such thing as St. John's unbraiding the World chapter 1.10 chapter 33. section 13. page 373. The use of some things known interdicted chapter 36. section 6. page 427. How a man may know what is not page 428. section 7. page 429. Jus and Utile not the same thing chapter 24. section 6. p. 188. How Tully understood Utile far otherwise then Mr. Hobbes page 189. W How two Walls of different colours equally affect the brain chapter 4. section 1 page 26. Three sorts of men in no condition of War chapter 20. section 1. page 148. What may and what may not be called War in respect of time section 3. page 149. in respect of a disposition to it section 5. page 151. Neither a monastike nor sociable course of life put 's men presently into a posture of defensive War section 6. page 152. No universal War ever enterpriz'd by Mankind chapter 21. section 1. page 153. The mutuall jealousies of Soveraignes put them not presently into a condition of War section 6. page 157. Men have no right to practice inhumanity in War chapter 25. section 4. page 194. What condition prae-requisite to a just engagement in War ibid. War not the only Conservatour of Man's right or Nature's section 5. page 195. How Christ call's himself the Way chapter 32. section 5. page 327. What Weather may be rightly called fair or foul chapter 20. section 1. page 148. The Whispering place in Glocester Church chapter 6. section 2. page 40. Man's Will not to be the rule of his Judgment nor the reason of his actions chapter 24. section 2. page 183. A very Child require's the satisfaction of his Will chapter 28. section 10. page 236. A man's Will is satisfied with no worldly goods whether bodily sensual or intellectual section 13. page 243. nor ought else which is not infinite and that infinite is God section 11. page 238. The Socinians interpret Word St. John 1.1 by a Metaphor and Metonymie chapter 32. section 4. page 325. How he is there call'd the Word section 6. page 328. section 7. page 330. The Word not to be understood of our Saviour's Humanity section 8. page 331. neither Metaphorically nor Metonymically ibid. Socinus's shift that he was decreed to be the