of any thing may be enhaunced ibid. The Asse's head and kab of Pidgeons dung in the siege of Samaria 255 When the Arithmetical proportion must be applyed to the value of the thing ibid. V. Argument 2. against it answer'd 256 A Judge or Umpire limited by the rule of Justice ibid. VI. What may be due by both kinds of justice without covenant 257 VII The justice of an Arbitratour different according to the case 259 Mr. Hobbes too nice and singular in his language ibid. His mistake in the division of justice 260 In his measure of commutative ibid. His boldness in confronting all the learned men before him ibid. Bodin's cavil ibid. His aâ—ery conceit of an harmonical proportion 261 VIII Mr. Hobbes's restraint of Moral Philosophy ibid. IX His censure of all Philosophers 262 He forget's the distinction of a good man and a good citizen ibid. The foundation of Ethicks Oeconomicks Politicks ibid. X. Personal and relative perfection how taught by Philosophers 263 Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy compared with that of Epicurus ibid. With that of Lucretius 265 Epicurus's excellent discourse concerning Death ibid. Frugality and Temperance 266 Mr. Hobbes approacheth nearer the worst of the Epicureans then do the Mahumetans 267 XI Wherein the Stoicks placed humane happiness ibid. Wherein Aristotle 268 XII Mr. Hobbes mistake's the Philosopher's discourse of moderating Passions ibid. St. Paul's Philosophy 269 XIII Of Fortitude and Liberality 270 CHAP. XXX I. Mr. Hobbes's definition of a Person too circumstantial 272 II. No less applicable to a feigned then a true person 273 III. Person not Latine ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppositum 274 Person differently used in several arts and faculties ibid. IV. Misplaced by Mr. Hobbes 275 No man personate's himself ibid. Cicero mis-interpreted ibid. Person how taken by the Criticks 276 V. Boethius's definition of a person ibid. Rich. de sancto Victore object 's against it ibid. His other definition of it more difficult 277 Scotus's Objections against the former ibid. VI. The definition explained and vindicated by the Bishop 278 The distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quo ibid. Reasonable of what extent 279 The Philosophers and School-men could have rectified Mr. Hobbes's mistake of a person ibid. The Etymology and common acception of Persona 280 VII Not the actor but the acted is the person ibid. VIII No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature 281 With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept ibid. IX The first part of Mr. Hobbes's answer destroy's the second 282 God to be obeyed before Man ibid. An instance in the Hebrew Midwives ibid. Whâ— probably had covenanted 283 X. No breach of covenant which had not a right to bind 284 XI The true God improperly and over-boldly said to be personated ibid. Moses though instead of God did not personate him 285 Nor do Kings ibid. Nor Priests ibid. XII How Moses was instead of God to Aaron 186 Hohim used for God what name ibid. How Moses was made a God to Pharaoh ibid. How fully soever Moses had represented God he could not personate him 287 XIII The Israelites how the people of God how of Moses 288 XIV Moses's phrase shew's he personated not God 289 XV. God was King of the Israelites Moses but their Judge and General ibid. A messenger and mediatour betwixt God and them 290 CHAP. XXXI I. Uncomely to say our Saviour personated God 291 Who was really God ibid. II. Proved to be so from Acts 20.17 28. 292 Against Bernardinus Ochinus 293 Refuted by Smiglecius ibid. To whom Smalcius reply's having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus 294 Ochinus deserted by the Socinians ibid. Smalcius attempt's in vain to evacuate the Divinity of Christ. 295 III. Châ—ist's bloud not to be called the bloud of the Father according to Smiglecius 297 Smalcius's answer that argue's how it may ibid. His argument uâ—ged to the farthest by the Bishop 298 Who find's the passions not the actions of men to be called God's ibid. The shifting Genius of the Socinians deluded by a single word 299 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how to be translated ibid. The Text which want's it retorted upon the Socinians 300 IV. How Christ is the Son of God 301 What a Son is ibid. V. The particulars in the definition applyed to our Saviour 302 VI. The mystery of our Saviour's divine and humane generation signifyed Mic. 5.2 303 The Bishop's observation upon that Text ibid. Faustus Socinus answer'd 304 And Valkelius 305 With other of the Socinians 307 VII The Text taken in pieces and vindicated from their Objections 308 One in essence plurally expressed when the effects are divers 309 Christ's eternal Egression compared to the shining of the Sun 310 VIII How from the beginning may signifie from eternity 311 A two-fold consideration of the word Beginning 312 A or Ab often denote causations ibid. From the beginning not to be understood from the beginning of Dâ—vid's reign ibid. The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto 313 IX God's descent to Man's capacity in the doctrine of his Attributes 314 Particularly that of his Eternity ibid. X. The discourse between Ochinus and his Spirit moderated by the Bishop 315 Who enlargeth upon the Argument against the Photinian or Socinian and the Arrian 316 CHAP. XXXII I. The next name of our Saviour the Word 318 Socinus answer'd in his exâ—lication of St. John Chap. 1. ibid. The opinion of Ebion and Cerinthus discussed 319 The shifts of the Socinians 322 II. St. John's reason of his writing not solitary as Socinus alledgeth ibid. Beza's genuine lection 323 Socinus singular in his ibid. But for a little consonance with Tremelius ibid. III. How the Socinians interpret John 1.1 324 With reference to the Baptist's preaching ibid. IV. Their Metaphor And Metonymie 325 V. Figures never used by Christ without intimation how the Text is to be understood ibid. So that of a Vine A Sheepheard A Doore 326 His Metonymies of being the Truth Life and Resurrection ibid. The Truth and Life may be taken without a figure 327 VI. Christ called the Word according to none of those figures 328 But according to the Catholick sense is the internall word of God 329 How Aaron was Moses's mouth ibid. John Baptist called a Voice ibid. The word taken for Christ in a far different sense 330 VIII Not to be understood of our Saviour's humanity 331 Neither Metaphorically Nor Metonymically ibid. IX Socinus's shift 332 X. A brief Paraphrase on the first words in St. John ibid. A word internall and externall both of God and Man 333 XI The Philosophers of old call'd the Son of God his word 335 XII As well they who writ after as who before St. John 336 XIII Which is yielded by Socinus ibid XIV Their language used by the Primitive Fathers and Saint Paul 337 That of Plato consonant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John 338 Plato's description of Heaven parallel'd to that
The severall parts acted by the Understanding and the Will both which faculties are imperfect in this world The certainty of felicity after death resum'd and proved Object 1. Ans. The Objection answer'd toâ—ching man's felicâ—ty in the knowledge c. he hath though â—mperfect Objection 2. Answer A second Objâ—ction answer'd about Eternal felicity being the last Article of our Faith The same Conclusion may be the result of Faith and Reason An Argument to confirme this drawn from the H. Martyrs constancy in their sufferings Mr. Hobbes suspected of a design to disparage the foresaid Article of our â—aith Several qualificâ—tions good and bad in the making and breaking Covenants No dammage without injuâ—y The explication of Commutative and Distâ—ibutive justice To which is premised that of common or legal justice Many acts of Justice being not comprehended under the other two Argument 1. against an Arithmeticall proportion in Commutative Justâ—ce examined By what the price of any thing may â—e enhaunsed The Asse's head and kab of Pidgeons dung in the Siege of Samaria When the Arithmeticall proportion must be applied to the value of the thing 2. Argument agaiâ—st it answered A Judge or Umpire 〈◊〉 by the rule of â—ustice What may be due by both kindes of Justice without Covenant The justice of an Arbitrator different according to the Case Mr. Hobbes 〈◊〉 nice and singular in his language His mistake in the division of justice In his measure of commutative His boldnesse in confronting all the learned men before him Bodâ—n's cavill His aieâ—y conceit of an harmonical proportion Mr. Hobbes's restraint of Moral Philosophy His censure of all Philosophers He forget's the distinction of a good man and a good Citizen The foundation of Ethikes Oeconomikes Politikes Personall and relative perfectâ—on how taught by Philosophers Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy compared with that of Epicurus With that of Lucretius Epicurus's excellent discourse concerning Death Frugality and Temporance Mr. Hobbes approacheth nearer the worst of the Epicureans then do the Mahumetans Wherein the Stoicks placed humâ—ne happinesse Wherein Aristotle Mr Hobbes mâ—stake's the Philosophers discouâ—se of moderating assions St. Pauls Philosophy Of Fortitude and liberality Mr. Hobbes's definition of a Person too circumstantial No less applicable to a feigned than a true person Person not Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppositum Person differently used in severall arts and faculties Misplaced by Mr. Hobbes No man personate's himself Cicero mis-interpreted Person how taken by the Criticks Boethius's definition of a person Rich. de Sancto Vâ—ctore object 's against it His other Definition of it More dâ—fficult Scotus's Objections against the former The Definition explained and vindicated by the Bishop The Distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quâ— Reasonable of what extent The Philosophers â—nd School-men could have râ—ctified Mr Hâ—bbes's mistake of a person The Etymologie and common aâ—ception of Persona Not the Actor but the acted is the person No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept The fiâ—st part of Mr. Hobbes's answer destroye's the second God to be obeyâ—d before man An instance in the Hebrew Midwives Who probably had covenanted No breach of Covenant which had not a right to biâ—d The true God improperly and over-boldly said to be personated Moses though instead of God did not personate him Nor doe Kings Nor Priests How Moses was instead of God to Aaron ELOHIM How Moses was made a God to Pharaoh Hoâ— fully soever Moses had represented God he could not personate him The Israelites how the pâ—ople of Gâ—d and how of Mâ—ses Moses's phrase shewe's he personated not God God was King of the Israelites Moses but their Judge and Generall A messenger and Mediatour betwixt God and them Uncomely to say our Saviour personated God Who was really God Pâ—â—ved to be 〈◊〉 from Acts 20.17 28. Against Bernard Ochinus Refuted by Smiglâ—cius To whom Smâ—lcius replies having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus Oâ—hinus deserâ—â—d by the Socinians Smalcius attempt's in vaine to evacuate the divinity of Christ. Christâ—s blood not to be called the blood of the Father according to Smiglecius Smalcius that argue's how it may His argument urged to the farthest by the Bishop Who finde's the passions not the actions of men to be called God's The shifting Genius of the Socinians de luded by a single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how to be translated The text whâ—ch want's it retorted upon the Socinians How Christ is the son of God What a son is The particulars in the definition applyâ—ed to our Saviour The mysterie of our Saviour's divine humane generation signified Mic. 5.2 The Bishop's observation on that Text. Faustus Socinus answâ—â—'d And Valkelius With other Socinians The text taken in pieces and vindicated from their objections One in essence plurally expressed when the effects are divers Christs eternal egression compared to the shining of the Sun How from the beginning may signifie from eternity A twofold consideration of the word Beginning A or Ab often denote causationâ— c. From the beginning not to be understood from the beginning of David's reigne The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto God's descent to man's capacity in the doctrine of his attributes Particularly that of his eternity The discourse between Ochinus and his Spirit moderated by the Bishop Who enlargeth upon the Argument against the Photinian or Socinian and the Arian The next name of our Saviour the Word Socinus answerd in his Explication of St. John Ch. 1. The opinâ—on of Ebion and Cerinthus discussed Epiphanius contra haeret tom 2. cap. 28 The shifts of the Socinians St. Iohn's â—eason of his writing not solitary as Socinus alledgâ—th Beza's genuine lection Socinus rigulaâ— in his But for a little consonance with Tremelius How the Socinians interpret Joh. 1.1 With reâ—erence to the Baptist's preaching Their Metaphor And Metonymie Figures never used by Christ without intimation how the text is to be understood So that of a vine A Shepheard A Doore His Metonymies of being the Truth Life and Resurrection c. The Truth and life may be taken without a figure Christ called the Word according to none of those figures But according to the Catholick sense is the internal Word of God How Aaron was Moses's mouth John Baptist call'd a voice The Woâ—d taken for Christ in a farre different sense Not to be understood of our Saviour's humanity Neither Metaphorically Nor Metonymically Socinus's shift A brief Paraphraâ—â— Wâ—â—es the first 〈◊〉 in St John A Word internal and external both of God and Man The Philosophers of old callâ—d the Son of God his Word As well they who writ after as who before St. John Which is yielded by Socinus Their language used by the primitive Fathers and St. Paul That of Plato conâ—onant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John Plato's deâ—â—â—lption of heaven parallel'd to
of it do you think he would believe him But by this Doctrine he hath one evasion which I know not what to say to that is when I shall charge him with it he can reply it was onely an apparition of such an opinion or discourse but no such discourse I can prove it no other way but that these eyes of mine shewed it me in a book under his name called Humane Nature or another called Leviathan Sect. 9. But this being only a negative conclusion he proceeds further to a positive thus The things that really are in the world without us are those motions by which these seemings are caused Surely there was never heard or read so much nonsense and yet it tastes not of folly but a kind of madnesse or else he thinks the world is mad to receive such incredible fancies without colour of reason Is all without us nothing but motion Is the standing still of the earth nothing but motion Is the thing that moves nothing but motion motion moves somwhat that is not motion if so what doth it move whatsoever moves moves something and if that were motion the question goes on infinitely unless we find somthing to be moved which is not motion substances bodies c. are not motion rest is not motion much less are they these motions by which these seemings are caused I discern a stone hard cold heavy by sense are these things yea the stone it self for so they term the things that really involves it nothing but those motions by which they appeare These things confute themselves and yet I may go further many of these representations apparitions seemings are without motion in the object the house standing still unmoved sends forth its image to my eye without motion for all motion is but of six kinds generation and corruption about substances augmentation and diminution about quantities alteration about qualities lation or local motion about place he can find none of these in this house neither in its substance quantitie quality place but the motion is in mine eye no such thing neither mine eye is changed none of these wayes only an image brought to it which is undiscernable by any sense but it self neither is the power of the soul moved which then proceeds to discern the object for it is the same power it was before without any real alteration or change for it hath the same abilities it had neither more nor lesse but it is true there is an internal immament act which results out of that power without any motion or if it may in an improper and forced way be halled into the notion of motion in some unused acceptation yet this must be an internal motion within its self none of those things he speaks of a motion Much of this is needlesse that which sufficeth to shew the weaknesse of his reasoning is to shew that there are hundreds of things discerned by us which are not motions and that is most apparent He proceeds And this is the great deception of sense which also is by sense to be corrected If it were true that this were a deception I should think it a great one yea the most universal deception that ever was in the world but how it shall be corrected by sense that were worth the observing He hath shewed it thus For as sense telleth me when I see directly the colour seemeth to be in the object so also sense telleth me when I see by reflexion that colour is not in the object Sect. 10. First of all observe that if this were true yet being but a particular instance he cannot deduce that generall conclusion out of it concerning all sights much lesse concerning all other senses then observe upon a direct sight he puts onely a seeming to be in the object but upon a reflex peremptorily that it is not in the object when certainly a direct sight shews its object more clearly then any reflex But now to his instance why doth a reflex shew it not to be in the object he sets not down but perhaps he may say in a glass the image may seeme to be in the glasse and not in the object I say the image that which represents the object is there and I have known a Robin Red-breast fighting with his own shadow in a glasse To this I answer that the sight judgeth of colours and therein is not deceived when the distance is not too great nor the organ or medium ill disposed for that is its proper object over which it hath power to judg but in such things as are a common object to it and other senses it is easily mistaken of which kind are figures greatnesse or littleness distance of place and many the like Thus it mistakes the distance of the Moone from the earth the bigness of the stars but then besides these common objects there are other which are objectum per accidens as Logicians an object not out of its own nature affecting that act or faculty in its self but by reason of some other thing to which it is annext or happens to be joyned so we may say we see Socrates or Plato when we see them not but their colour and that colour of theirs is the onely thing by which they are discerned by sight Now there are mighty mistakes in our senses concerning these so when we see one man's cloaths worne by another we think him at the first to be the man whose cloaths he weares so when we see that man to have a red who had a pale face we think him not the same man My opinion of this mistake is because although the vision of the colour is an act of sight yet the applying that colour to the person seemes to be an act of reason a work out of the reach of pure sense This by the way of explication to make all plain that the Reader may the fuller apprehend my answer to this objection punctually then I answer first that there is no such judgment of sense as to say that colour is not in the object for although sense perhaps can onely discern the colour in the glass yet sense meddles not with that question whether the same colour can be in two subjects much less whether this be a real colour in the glasse or whether an intentional or whether it be in the glass or not but if it do meddle with this last yet in that speech which sayes it is in the glasse sense meddles beyond its sphere it judgeth in a cause which belongs not to its Judicature that may be disputed by reason between him and me and sense may give in evidence concerning what it knows circumstantially conducing to the truth but cannot judg of it it is not its proper object so then to say sense sees it in a glass therefore there is no colour in the object is vaine to reason which can discerne that every accident follows its subject remove the glass from the
represent an infinite Excellency infinite in Power infinite in Wisdome c. yea must represent an unspeakable an incommunicable unexpressible an unrepresentable excellency which is impossible If Mr. Hobbes had say'd that some men as Moses were Messengers of God as the Apostles Embassadors of God to deliver or act his will amongst us he had say'd aright but to make them personate him sound 's too high for a finite Creature in his sense Sect. 12. I know Exodus 4.36 it is said by God to Moses That Aaron should be his Spokes-man to the people he should be to him instead of a mouth and Moses should be to him instead of God And again Exodus 7.1 See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet By the understanding these two places I think may be cleared whatsoever can be say'd for Moses his personating God for that which concern's hâ—s being a God to Aaron we may observe that he could be no otherwise a God to Aaron then Aaron was a Mouth to Moses the same words are used to both How was he a mouth but by speaking and delivering those things which Moses directed the same way was he a God to Aaron by directing Aaron such things as God directed so as the people need not doubt but what Aaron spoke was by the Direction of Moses so Aaron need not doubt but what Moses appointed him to doe or speak was the will of God and it is remarkable that in both these places the word used for God is ELOHIM which is a name given often to Kings and Princes to men in Authority so in particular not to multiply the places in the 22 of Exodus 28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods that is the Princes so thou shalt be to him as God or a Prince howsoever the place enforceth no more but that Moses should be so a God as Aaron was his mouth that was to deliver his will this is not to personate or represent him as a person The second place is as cleare where Moses is said in the 7 Chap. 1. to be made a God to Pharaoh The storie is thus Moses had something of man in him and was afraid to goe to Pharaoh be not afraid of him saith God to him as he is above thee without me so thou shall be above him with me I can rule him thou shalt be a God to him thou shalt terrify him with signes and wonders and Aaron thy brother shall be thy Prophet that is deliver thy words as it is expounded in the following verse or else we may take Elohim in the other sense for a Prince or King so I have made thee a King or Prince over Pharaoh thou shalt have power over him as he over his subjects but which way soever he is but enabled by God for certain workes and we may take another observation in neither of these places is he called God or a Representment of God but God to Aaron God to Pharaoh that is to those particular persons in those particular businesses but this come's not up close to Mr. Hobbes who say's the true God may be personated concerning which there is no such expression in these Texts but that Moses was made an Instrument of God's to act some things towards these two persons Pharaoh and Aaron Nay I will adde one note more that from these Texts had Moses represented God never so fully yet could he not be say'd to personate God according to Mr. Hobbes his understanding a person for a person by Mr. Hobbes is such a man as is a Liâ—utenant a representer an Atturney c. according to all these phrases he expresseth him in the preceding page but none of these could Moses be because all those must be notified that they are such to the parties with whom they negotiated but this certainly was onely expressed to Moses he was made acquainted with this power not Aaron not Pharaoh and therefore he was not made one of Mr. Hobbes his persons but if he were which no where appear's yet it is most evident not in that sense which he expressâ—th that is in respect of the people which is his expression who governed the people now he is never sayd to be a God to the people which yet he might have been by the same word which is used in those places signifiing a Râ—ler or Prince he adde's an unadvised Parenthesis that were not his but Gods People Sect. 13. They were God's by adopting them into a more peculiar favour then any other nation in the world guarding them with eminent Miracles of his providence they were Moses his people by being under God the Dispenser of those acts of providence and therefore Exodus 32.7 God called them his people Get thee down for thy people which thou broughtest out of the Land of Egypt have corrupted themselves and Moses repeating in a long Discourse the mercyes of Gods providence towards them rehearseth the same words Deut. 9.12 so that they were the people of God by his especial grace and they were Moses his people by his being under God their Governour the same act is attributed to the first and supreme Cause in a most high and eminent way to the second as an Instrument cooperating with it In the 20 of Genesis it is said that God brought them out of the Land of Egypt in this place it is say'd that Moses brought them both in their several wayes God as the first Moses as the second Cause but let us consider perhaps he gives a reason for what he sâ—ith he affirme's that Moses govern's the people not in his own name with hoc dicit Moyses but in God's with hoc dicit Dominus Sect. 14. If this would serve to make him personate another then he and I should personate God for when we urge Scripture we say God or the Spirit of God saith it nay I may say for Moses whose humility was far from usuâ—ping that excellency which Mr. Hobbes ascribe's unto him if he had personated God in Mr. Hobbeâ— his sense he would not have used that phrase hoc dicit Dominus but Ego hoc dico let a man consider a Player upon the Stage when he personates and act's a King he doth not say the King saith this or the Lord but I command as if he were a King and this is by Mr. Hobbes the original of this word person to which he applie's all Sect. 15. One word more I am of Opinion as Mr. Hobbes in another place speake's rightly and others before him say a much that in the time of Moses Josua and the Judges God was the sole King of the Israelites he gave them Lawes they by Covenant bound themselves to obey those Lawes he to protect them and Moses was so far from being their King that he gave them no Lawes so that he was but as it were a Judge and a Generall to lead them in their
observe a Metonymy he was the way because by his word he direct's us the way because by his life he hath trod it out for us and by his graces he help 's us to walke in it and this is apparent to any man who shall consider how impossible it is for Christ to be a way a trodden path of ground or how impossible it is for any such way to lead to the Journeyes end which he aimed at The second Terme which is mentioned by Socinus is Truth and for this I may say that I doubt whether there be any figure necessary for Christ as God being Truth it self he must needs likewise be verax true speaking as well as verus and if he should deceive or misguide in the way he should go against his nature and deny himselfe as St. Paul phraseth it 2 Tim. 2.13 now I can justly say that here is no figure or if any it is but this which the context exact's I am the way by directing you to it and that an infallible one which no man can be deceived by for I am truth its self which make's good all I have said and the same I may speake of his last Terme Life I may justly affirme that there needs be no figure in it Christ is the life there is an Article to every Terme life its selfe life in the fountaine all other lives are Peters Pauls a horse's or dog's life but he is life its self life in the fountaine like light in the Sun much more glorious then any other therefore thou who seekest life life eternal which is the journeys end of every man must come by the way which I appoint who am Truth and come to me and thou shalt have it I know as he is life in the fountain and so may be understood so he may be a life to us and called our life the life of men of which hereafter both as an efficient and an object as an efficient producing that life as an object that life of ours consisting in the beatificall vision of the most sacred and blessed Trinity but I see no necessity forcing me to this second exposition but if so the context lead's to it I think I may run through Twenty more and certainly there are Twenty more such speeches but we shall find that there is something in the matter of the discourse or in the Circumstances of the Text which induce to it but in that I have in hand nothing to perswade any man that this Term word should be understood according to any of those figures Sect. 6. Socinus saith it is used now here in Scripture but in the writings of this Evangelist so my search need not be farre in this place of the Gospell in his first Epistle Chapter 1. Verse 1. that which was from the beginning which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the word of Life c. here is no Circumstance inducing us to search a sense that merely a man should be called the word but rather the contrary something divine to which that humanity was united because as here it was from the beginning and because in the second Verse that life of which this is called the word is termed eternall life which was with the Father and was manifested to us was eternall and with him he must therefore be eternally with him this was afterwards manifested to us A third place is Rev. 19.13 his name is called the word of God where I can find againe nothing to that sense but in each place of these this Term word may most aptly be understood according to the Orthodox Catholick sense for the internal word of God nor indeed can they shew me any thing like it in Scrirture Let a man conceive with himselfe what a strange uncouth phrase it is for a man who speake's to be called the word which he speake's yet so must he in their language Sect. 7. Yea but they have just such another fetch Aaron is is sayd Exodus 4.16 to be Moses his mouth the phrase is cleane otherwise and is excellently rendred by our Translators instead of a mouth because Moses had not a clear utterance the second Instance is that Iohn Baptist is called a voyce for my part I think it a reasonable exposition to say that Iohn Baptist was rather he that made the noise and voyce in the Wilderness then the voyce its self to which purpose let us look upon the 40. of Isaiah verse 3. from whence that Text is made use of by three Evangelists we shall find there that the Prophet like a man in a rapture seeme's to heare this noise or voice in the Wilderness and here utter's what he heard he saw in his vision Iohn Baptist in a Wilderness fitting and preparing men for the Gospell but the voice he heard was the vâ—ice of Iohn Baptist who did preach that Doctrine there specifyed I know but one objection of moment can be framed against this which is that Iohn 1.23 when Iohn had been asked who art thou he answered I am the voice c. as saith the Prophet Isaiah to this first it is memorable that in the Originall it is not I am but onely I it is thought by many that this Word I am ought to be understood but if it be not then he doth not affirme himselfe to be the voice but onely leave 's them to apprehend what he is by the Prophet Isaiah but if it be and that we should read it as it is commonly I am yet since he quote's the Prophet I know no reason why it should be understood in a sense dâ—ffering from the Prophets especially since the two other Evangelists which mention this place have not one word of this I am St. Matthew 3.3 for this is he which was spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah the voice of one crying in the Wilderness so likewise St. Luke 3.4 having before delivered how he preached the Baptisme of Repentance adde's as it is written in the Book of the words of Isaiah the Prophet the voice of one c. well then methinke's it is reasonable to conceive that Iohn was rather he that cryed as he did there then the voice which was cryed but I reverence the Antiquity which expound it otherwise and those heavenly Devotions which the Fathers have deduced from that Metaphor and therefore will no further discusse that interpretation that deliver's Iohn to be the voice but grant it and Aaron the mouth of Moses in Exodus the Case is farre differing betwixt these and the word to be taken for Christ who by them was mere man in this sentence In the beginning was the word for consider Reader if in Exodus it had been said the mouth was in the beginning or midle or latter end of a buisinesse would any man living interpret that of Aaron without that Comment which the Spirit of God
stand's upon in the Book before specifyed contra Pasno but in his Comment upon this Text he insist's upon that Text 1 Cor. 8.5 For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many ver 6. but unto us there is but one God c. now saith he this shewe's that there are many Gods besides the great God of one of which this Text ought to be understood and to confirme this he in the Chapter before alleadged contra Pasn page 74. urgeth that the Apostle to shew that he mean't not the great God left out an Article here at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he put before and this is much insisted upon by Smalcius Valkâ—lius and the rest I shall take these in order and endeavour to answear them I think that this same Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God in our language signifye's God in his essence throughout the New Testament which is the onely Authenticke book we have to give any undoubted assent unto for any Term there used for although it may sometimes be otherwise used yet there is alwayes some Comment some words added to it which do illustrate it in such a manner as any reasonable man may discerne that it is applyed to an extrinsecall Sense in this piece I shall apply my self principally to Crellius who hath a Chapter of purpose against it being the 13. Chapter of the first Book de Deo ejus Attributis not avoiding any thing I find other where Sect. 20. This Doctrine of mine Crellius allowe's in such cases where this word God is spoken of such powers quae ne imperia quidem sunt propriè sed similitudinem tantum cum eis habent which are not truly Empires but have a likenesse onely to them so saith he Sathan is called the God of this Word 2 Cor. 4.4 where we see it so explained as any man may know the true God is not mean't so likewise the Prince of this World John 12.3 so likewise the belly Philip. 3.19 whose God is their belly in all which he that runneth may reade this Word God is a Metaphor so applyed to other things by the very Context that he cannot choose but discerne it to be used out of its proper sense but this is it I contend for that out of the New Testament no man can shew that this Word in the singular number without a Comment to expound it in a diverse Sense is used for any but for the great God as it is put here in this I have bestowed much pains to examine all places used by this Apostle either in his Gospell Epistles or Apocalyps and I can find none so that undoubtedly it is not his language that Criticisme which is so much stood upon by Crellius Socinus and all of that opinion that where there is no Article put to a Word there it may be understood in a large Sense but where an Article in a more strict for which he tightly produced St. Cyrill I answer That neither with Article nor without can they shew me any place where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God is used in the singular number absolutely without some addition to expound it otherwise for any but the true and great God if there had been any sure after so much paines as they have taken in this Theam they would have found it so that then this Word God being put absolutely the word was God without any limitation or exposition it must be understood of the true and great God those Instances of Socinus will give no denyall to my conclusion that of John 10.34 where it is said of men that God had said they were Gods consider here the plurall number which one onely thing is enough to distinguish them from the true God who can be but one but then reade the next words ver 35. he called them Gods to whom the word of God came observe here that these Gods were not such by their nature but by the power of the word of God and therefore must be of another nature from him so likewise that in 1 Cor. 8.5 there are Gods many and Lord many that is many which by Gentiles are worshipped for Gods and Lords ver 6. yet to us there is but one God c. a man may say of these either they are true Gods or false if true they are Gods to us if false we have nothing to do with them though others magnify them and adore them for Gods yet to us they are not Gods so that here we have the Context teaching the Sense of these phrases clearly but in my Text it is put absolutely without relation to any particular and therefore ought to be allowed in its proper sense and for the rule of St. Cyrill I may justly say of it that it is to be understood of such words which in their genuine and proper signifiation have such a double sense a large and a restrained sense but such Words which do naturally and properly signâ—fie one and by a Figure signâ—fie other things when they are used for other things they ought to have some Circumstance to expound that they are applied to those other things of which nature this word God is it properly signâ—fie's that Divine excellency but when it is affirmed of other things it is out of some resemblance or participation of his Divine Excellencies which are in them and then for what I can find either from them or mine own Study there is some Circumstance or other which demonstrate's that application to us as may appear out of all these instances before Sect. 21. But Smalcius in his Refutation Libelli de divina verbi incarnati natura cap. 8. pag 94. urgeth against our Conceit thus Si in principio c. If in the beginning with God or in God as Smiglecius would have it none can be but God and that which is in God is God certainly he who say's of another that he is in God say's likewise that he is God nor may he adde that he is God but by a Tautology therefore because St. John had said before that he was with God and added that he was God he did not before affirm that he was God when he said he was with God This is his discourse and it is somewhat perplexed but the meaning I guess is that this were a Tautology in St. Iohn if the Antecedent were true but I will answer all in a word although it be true that whatsoever is with God eternally must be God yet this truth being not so apparent to every man's understanding it was most useful for the instruction of men about these divine Truths that there should be some expressions made of it But pag 50. Smalcius proceed's with another objection whereas Smiglecius had said that in this place God is put absolutely and properly which is never said of any man and had