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 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
mine and thine you may reade a most excellent passage in the 23. of Gen. with what civility of discourse and reciprocal courtesies Abraham bought the field in Machpelah of Ephron the Hittite First I collect thence that Abraham judged there was a legall interest in Ephron for else he would not have payd such a round price for it as foure hundred shekels of Silver and then you may observe how sacred amongst all people the preservation of interest was for in the last of Gen. you shall find that Jacob when he died in Egypt a great way off in another Nation having both he and his left the Land neare two hundred yeares after the purchase when he and his without doubt were not known scarce remembred Iacob gave order for the burying of his body there and it was performed without any disturbance so sacred did those people without any positive law but the principles of nature observe the particular interest of particular men even such who at the time of the Purchase were but sojourners among them and at the time of the last usage were not so much as cohabitants but strangers in another Country and Nation so that we see as men have had alwaies Consciences which directed them in their actions so those Consciences have had a sense of intruding upon another's interest and Abraham was assured that it was such amongst them for upon that presumption he paid so great a price for that field Sect. 11. If it should be asked how men should come to get these interests I will not here scan all wayes one is evident that is Occupancy taking possession of it first for all the things in this world being but Bona utilia and the profit they have is their service to man he who first gets possession of them is Lord of them thus Fowles and Fishes even in planted Nations which are no mans possessions being caught by any man are his to make profit and when one man hath caught them that they are his possession it is thievery to rob him of them I speak not here of Deere Conyes Hares nor Fishes in ponds c. which are impaled and so for their habitation by our laws are made to pay their host with their lives nor such things which our lawes indulging the pleasures of Gent. and men of quality have appropriated to certain persons and places as Pheasants and Partridges and the like but whatsoever no nationall particular Law hath given to another that the law of Nature gives to the first possessor and this law men find before any positive law of Nations in the practise of the world so that then it is apparent that without positive laws or an outward humane coercive power the law of Nations hath alwaies given a propriety in this world's goods to the sons of men Thus I have passed my opinion upon his 13. Chapter and I think have given reasons for what I spake but if this be not enough let the Reader consider what I shall speake to the next Chapter and that will the more fully discribe the mist of his opinions and confirm mine more stronger Censures upon the 14 th Chapter of LEVIATHAN which is entituled The first and second naturall Lawes and of Contracts which thus begin's CHAP. XXII Concerning the pretended necessity in Nature for the preservation of life The prospect of an happiness beyond it Death represented more terrible than it is c. Sect. 1. THE right of Nature which Writers commonly call jus Naturale is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature that is to say his own life and consequently of doing any thing which in his own judgement and reason he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto Here is a description of the right of Nature which is that he saith Writers call Jus Naturale I believe this Gentleman never in his life read Jus Naturale so described in any Author It is true to preserve a mans own life is a branch of the right of nature but it doth not contain the whole nature of it as if the right of nature extended to nothing else but the preservation of a mans own life there are many other things which the right of nature enables us to doe but because I find this question in my opinion more methodically and Schollarly delivered in his Book entituled De Copore Politico Cap. 1. I shall therefore consider that first and having cleared that discourse apply my self to this description and I will begin with his 6. Number That number begins thus Sect. 2. Forasmuch as necessity of nature maketh men to will and desire that which is good for themselves and to avoyd that which is hurtful but most of all the terrible enemy of nature Death from whom men expect the losse of all power and also the greatest of bodily paine in the loosing The phrase which I here censure first is that necessity makes us do this I know this word Necessity is often used for what we terme want or poverty because such a man need 's somewhat therefore we say he is in necessity and in this sense there may be some truth in that Proposition for because men's lives have lack of supplies and according to this Gentleman all the world are his enemies or what is the truth no man will have so much care to supply him as himself therefore he must doe it but then take necessity as it opposeth contingency which is the common logical sense it is absolutely false for many men throw and take away their own lives now that which is necessarily done cannot be otherwise men cannot choose but doe what they doe out of necessity the phrase were much more proper to say that the law of nature enjoyne's them to provide for themselves for the great Natura naturans God as I said before know's our necessities and like a wise law-maker makes lawes to provide for them and so infinitely wise are those laws that what he hath not by some law or other provided for it is not necessary for any man whatsoever and certainly therefore where is no lawfull and honest way to preserve it life its self is not necessary he seem's therefore to expresse himself better in Corpore politico then in Leviathan because in Leviathan he restrain's this right of Nature only to the preservation of his own life but in this I now write against he saith not only but most of all his own life other things he may have a right unto but most of all or chiefly the preservation of his own life or rather the avoyding of death Sect. 3. What he saith that necessity of nature makes us desire our own good and avoyd that which is hurtful is true in that generality but applyed to any particular is false for there is no particular but may appeare to some men good and to others hurtfull even
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
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
these things life or death are such some men have thought this temporall life a misery clothed with these circumstances they possesse it with like a rotten house which when the winds and raine drives in is worse then the open fields like a Prison it were better have no house then that such is the body to the soul and therefore men may and have often wished to be delivered out of it and death to some men is as desired as a freedome from a Gaole This Gentleman talkes up and downe in these books not only like a natural man but like the worst of them and the wickedest for wise men among them have written much in contempt of these sensual temporal things in which he placeth the only aime and happiness of man Sect. 4. Certainly even in Nature the life of man is not the principal thing of man's happinesse and then not of mans intention and care for Life is a thing which a man enjoyes in common with Beasts and Trees and therefore if man's happinesse should be in that he were no better yea much worse then they whose excellency consists in a relation to man to live only is to be a Beast a Plant only but to live vertuously and reasonably to glorifie that God who gave him those abilities by which his life is happy that is the end of man and of mans life which he is to leave then when he cannot enjoy it upon these conditions and to a Christian man as to the best of Philosophers who had thoughts and assurance of Eternity this life hath been reputed of little value and to die no misery because it is but the passage to a better and more spirituall life although perhaps there may be some difficulties in opening the gate yet it is not to be compared with the happiness it admits into nay it hath been of such esteem amongst men of honour alwaies that they would choose to die vertuously rather then live dishonourably Instances would be numerous out of the Roman story so that it is impossible in that absolute sense without limitation in which he speaks it to be true that this is the whole right of Nature as his Leviathan or his chiefe or principal as his Corpus politicum to preserve this life or to avoid this enemy death which for multitudes may and for not a few reasons ought to be despised These phrases which he useth Sect. 5. From whom we expect the lesse of power he meane's Death and the greatest of bodily paines in the loosing must be censured next and first of the first By death we doe not loose all power yea without doubt like a man out of prison he is more active and able then he was within so is the soul when it is broke out of this gaole or dunghill its natural corruptible body nor can he say that he meant bodily power for then he would not have left out that word Bodily in this which he joyned with Paine in his following sentence men without question who have hopes of that better life hereafter do not expect the losse of all power by this death but rather the increase of it and therefore suppose he should say he meant bodily power which indeed must needs be lost by death yet who is troubled to loose a bag of Silver when in its room shall be left a bag of Gold to loose bodily power and gaine spirituall It was said of our Druids in England who taught the Immortality of the soule Ignavi est rediturae parcere vitae it was a poor dull thing to spare that life which would returne again but then if they had pryed into and could have considered the glorious immortall existence which men shall have hereafter for the mortall and contemptible being here it might have been said that it were not only a dul but a beastly thing for a man so much to affect the sensual pleasures of this fleshly life as to be unwilling for the losse of them to gaine Spirituall perfections we cannot then say that we expect to loose by death all our power and if we do leave bodily powers we are not loosers but gainers by it Sect. 6. His next phrase is That by death we expect in the losing these Powers the greatest bodily paine This Gentleman I guesse hath only looked upon Death in those horrid vizards and disguises which fearfull men masque it with he hath not been so often in the house of mourning as I have and there made this observation that Death is not so horrid as many men conceit it nor the paines so great that Death is not so fearful is apparent not only in experience of those Martyrs who have dyed for the glory of CHRIST and so by their blessed sufferings for him have had an assurance that they shall reigne with him but even in those who with heroick spirits have confronted Death in politique concernments yea sought it which shewed that there is not a necessity of nature to preserve Life or that they expected the greatest paine in the losing it I could fill divers sheets with instances both ancient and moderne these I let passe lest they kick me in the teeth whilest I follow them in the Chase for the former consider how many wicked men have killed themselves for feare of worse paines alive so Sardanapalus so Cleopatra so Nero multitudes esteeming the paines of Death deliverance from the pains of unhappie life and themselves made choice of death upon such Conditions but take one instance where men were not concerned in the benefit of death themselves but took it in relation to others good we may read in the life of Otho or rather in his death that when after his losse in that great and fatal battell betwixt his forces and those of Vitellius he being retreated and discontented his Souldiers flocked to him beseeching him to head them again and regaine the losse of that day promising how that they were all ready to dye in that cause with and for him if there should be necessity and to give him assurance of what they said one of the most obscure and meanest sort of Souldiers drew his sword and killing himself told him know O Caesar that we are all provided thus to die for thee this man had no end for himself but onely to encourage Otho either for his Countries good or his owne to engage againe yet go on and we shall find that Otho unmoved with this or any thing else killed himself likewise and his souldiers carrying him to his funeral Pile many more slew themselves there to dye with him so that as love of his Country or Otho's imagined vertues provoked the first so a bare love to his person inflamed the rest to dye with him now certainly there could not be a necessity of Nature in these men to expect the greatest pains in death nor indeed can I think there is such paine Old men weare out questionless
drawn from a declaration that that man should make that he think 's iâ— fit to deceive which no man but a verier foole then he who objected it did ever doe there is no power to act any great wickedness but under the shew of Piety not by professing to deceive but by professing not to deceive oathes covenants protestations cursings of themselves are the horrid maskes of Impiety which wicked men use to deceive with the Devill can no way so efficaciously deceive as by putting on the shape or likeness of an Angel sometimes by putting a false glosse upon the Text as with Adam sometimes urging the Scripture its self as with our Saviour That child of the Devil 's who will prosper in this world must not protest and declare that he will deceive but protest against it and utterly defy it so excellently the Poet makes Sinon in that high fraud of his Cozen by the denying of Cozenage nec si miserum fortuna Sinonem Finxit vanum etiam mendacemque improba finget· Mr. Hobbes I am confident well knowe's that he who is premonished of his danger will avoyd it even birds do avoyd the net openly layd before them so that certainly this come's not close to Mr. Hobbes his purpose which should prove that it were not wisely done according to his wisdome to deceive when he speak's onely of such who manifest and declare they will deceive and it is a maine fault which runne's throughout his whole book that he attempt's one proposition and by shuffling and changing the Tearmes prove's another Now my conclusion is that all deceit is injustice all injustice unprofitable because against the most sacred Law-maker who will avenge it here or hereafter whether men take notice of it or no evil and injustice will hunt the wicked person onely honesty and justice will bring a man peace and prosperity at the last Sect. 10. Afterwards he bring 's another Answer concerning the getting of heaven by violence which is not logical for although he sayes truth that there is but one way of getting heaven which is not breaking but keeping of Covenant yet the Fool supposing the impossibility that men might get heaven by unjust violence he was to answer logically out of the premisses and not to deny the supposition Then he comes to answer that argument which amused me concerning the getting sovereignty by rebellion for let a man read his manner of writing and judge whether in that he did not seem to make this an argument against the fool as indeed it was when sayes he from such reasoning as this succesâ—ful wickedness is called Vertue now from the hatefulness of this Conclusion he overthrow's the fools Conclusion I allow his answer but think he had had more reason to have confirmed the argument then overthrown it because as I have shewed it was a doctrine corroborated by the main principles of his book then he raiseth a new discourse about another opinion There be some saith he that proceed farther and will not have the Law of Nature to be those Rules which conduce to the preservation of mans life upon earth but to the attaining of an eternal felicity after death I am of that mind that the Law of Nature doth give rules for the attaining eternal felicity after death for it is a most undoubted rule of the Law of Nature as to the general that bonum est appetibile so to the particular that according to the degrees of goodnesse that which is majus bonum is magis appetibile and ought to be more desired then what is minus and this is so universally delivered by Nature that no reasonable man heare's the tearme's and understand's them but he assent's to them here is a major one rule delivered concerning eternal life hereafter if we can find a Minor corresponding it will be I think one of the clearest delivered truths that can result out of that habit called by Philosophers intellectus or habitus principiorum but here in these Tearmes he puts it there can be no doubt of it for if it be an eternall felicity as he call's it and all Christians believe the very Tearmes render it cleare that an Eternall is more to be desired then a Temporary and therefore more to be endeavoured for I insist no further upon this at this instant I come to that he applye's this to Sect. 11. To which saith he they think the breach of Covenant may conduce and consequently to be just and reasonable I think he never read in any Author this Conclusion delivered that the breach of Covenant doth conduce to eternal felicity for he put 's it in unlimited Terms It is true if any man or men make a Covenant to do any wicked thing although they bind it by an oath they are bound and in order to heaven they ought to repent of that Covenant and not keep it but it is not the breach of Covenant as a Covenant which disposeth them to heaven but the acting of that holy thing which that wicked Covenant forbid's them to do Suppose a Combination of Thieves should covenant with each other to act whatsoever such a person whom they make their supreme should command one of this College should have a sense of that wicked life he live's in knowing that it lead's to hell and perdition can any man think he is not bound to leave that Society and disobey whatsoever command is imposed upon him of Robbery or Murther Suppose an Adulteress married woman should by her oath covenant with her Adulterer to appropriate her body to him do not you think she was bound in order to heaven to break that wicked Covenant So is it with all Covenants to do evil they ought to violate them but it is not the violation of Covenant but the doing of righteousness which is acceptably pleasing to God but he instance's in his following words Sect. 12. Such are they saith he who think it a work of merit to kill or depose or rebell against the soveraign power constituted over them by their own consent This instance he give 's because he hoped that writing against such a horrid diabolical doctrine would usher in the rest of his wicked opinions plausibly I am not intended to defend their opinions who think so but yet I will say this for them that I think they that write for killing of kings which are the Papists and some others as destructive of civill Society as they will pretend that those Sovereignes are not constituted over them by their own consent they will say they never consented to his Coronation to his acception never took the Oath of Alleageance and Supremacy And I will say that if this be all the ground of this sinne in rebellion there is no such thing as rebellion by Mr. Hobbes his doctrine for Mr. Hobbes as will be seen hereafter make's no Sovereign or Leviathan but such as is consented unto by
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
delighted with the observations of this place and some other more frequently observed but as I was delighted with this so I did admire to find Plato in his Phoedo or de anima describing the heaven where happy souls shall be when they are departed from thâ—s life by those stones which Saint Iohn doth the heavenly Ierusalem Rev. 21. Plato set's down three of them a Sardius a Iasper a Smaragdos with an c. that there were more St. Iohn in the 19. verse put 's them down in another order a Iasper a Sardius and the third a Chalcedony the fourth an Emerald which fourth in the Greek is Smaragdos now I could not but justly wonder at this Consent and perhaps may think that there is some greater Mystery in it then is yet discovered howsoever this serve 's my turn to shew that St. Iohn never avoided the language and expressions of these preceding Philosophers but used them This Dialogue called Phoedo in Plato contain's that Discourse which Socrates delivered to his friends at the day of his death and his whole Comportment in it amongst other passages having philosophized concerning the immortality of the soul and answered all their objections he fall's to treating how it fared with souls departed which died wicked good better best and therein describing the habitations of those happy souls put 's down these very stones which St. Iohn mention's with an Et caetera This being then apparent that these gallant and great Philosophers both before and after St. Iohn used this Term Word as he doth and that St. Iohn no where avoid's their expressions it is reasonable to think he should not do so here unless we would find some greater violence offered to the sense of the Text by it then is yet discovered or unless by some other interpretation we might discern the meaning more clearly expounded when by their way every term is wrested as will appear Sect. 15. Well to proceed this Word being taken for the Son of God is said according to his Divinity to be in the beginning absolutely without any limitation when things first leaped out of nothing and saith St. John the word was with God Socinus expound's this thus hâ—c est that is Jesus as he was the word of God before he was manifested by the preaching of the Baptist Soli Deo notus erat was onely known to God marke this word onely Therefore Valentinus Smalcius was very much to blame when in the third part of Smiglecius cap. 26. pag. 234. editione Racov. 1613. he saith in expresse termes that Socinus doth not adde Deo soli known to God onely but to God and not to men I shall endeavour to confute both what Socinus and what he saith they both agree and so doth Valkelius and the rest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as to be seen or known of God that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render with signifye's to be discerned but they are not so elegantly expresse as they were before to tell us by what figure but they insist much upon the negative part first that Christ was not known by any but God before St. John's preaching known he was but not to be the word I have shewed that he was not the word in their sense before he was preached but that they may have all the Scope that may be he was not known that he should be the Word before but onely to God suppose I granted all this would it follow that to be with God is to be known of God it can hardly be deduced for then to be with God should signifie nothing but the common condition which bring 's to all things past present and to come for all are known of him but they seeme to parallel this with the first Epistle of this Evangelist Chap. 1.2 where he speaking of eternall life which was with the Father and was manifested to us there the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as if it were say they was manifest to the Father take Socinus his own words Quod perinde est which is as much as if he should say we declare to you eternall Life which before this no man knâ—w because it was only known to God who had decreed to give it you this is in his fifteenth page for understanding which place we may observe that it is true that this eternal word of God which is mentioned in St. Johns Gospell was hid with God from all bodily eyes untill the manifestation of it by the incarnation and nativity of our Saviour and that because he was with God in the bosome of the Father as it is expressed John 1.18 but after the birth of Christ in that personall union it was seen and heard as the first verse of this first chap. of his first Epistle expresseth it but in relation to their sense give me leave to expound that second verse of the first chap. of the first Epistle of St. John so much of it as concerne's our businesse which is thus much we declare to you eternall life which was with the Father and is now manifested to us this eternall happy being which we hope to enjoy hereafter so much I find consented unto now saith Socinus this Life was only known to God for was with the Father must be so understood by them I deny this for without doubt the Angels know it which then enjoyed it and those blessed Souls which were admitted into Abraham's bosome the Prophets saw it and taught this eternall Life many Philosophers knew it as I have shewed you and could produce Twenty more if it were needfull nor as they answer concerning the word can they say they did not know the quale or the quantum the quality or the quantity of it for they did know the quality to consist in the beatifical vision they did know the quantity that it was eternall so that then this phrase which was with God cannot be understood of being known to him by being decreed such so that this phrase may if not must thus be expounded in the latter part of the preceding verse the Apostle call's our Saviour the word of life we shall find in the fourth verse of the first chap. of his Gospel in him the word was life in this fiâ—st verse and the words this is applyed to the word was with God this life then must needs be with him because in the word which was with him not onely because known by him but then when our Saviour had divulged the Gospell then this life which was in the word with the Father was manifested to us that is divulged not onely to Prophets by revelation or Philosophers and Wise men by reason and contemplation but even to us men who cannot soare in so high Speculations with our discourse to apprehend it by faith and not only so but to apprehend the way of getting it by the merits of Jesus Christ so that then the Socinian glosse upon
he would rather have used renovation regeneration making new then absolute making againe it is evident that St. John in this beginning of his Gospell describe's the nature of Christ according to his Divinity when he was in the beginning where he was with God what he was in himselfe he was God in his effects he made all things then he come's to the preparation of the Gospell by John Baptist and his Gospell by its selfe to his incarnation he was made flesh this I put down to shew the Reader that to us who observe this method in the Evangelist that conceipt of the Gospell that these words should relate to it can have no sense and againe I say let the Reader observe the places commonly cited by them to this purpose that this phrase must be understood according to the subject matter he shall find that there is something obvious in them to shew a Reader that they have such an intention those places are these Matth. 17.11 Mark 13.23 John 4.25 and 14 26. and 19 28. and some other which are needlesse to put down and would be tedious too but in all of them there will appeare somewhat inviting a man to that understanding but in this nothing and let the Reader consider what an uncouth exposition this is by which I can put the Contrary to every proposition and by their glosse it will be more true then the Text as thus The word was not God the Word did not make all things for when the beginning was he was not by them nor thousands of yeares after with God he was not otherwise then every thing in the World was with him in his presence and knowledge and that long after the beginning contrary to the Text and he was so farre from making all things that indeed by them he made nothing but instituted some Lawes and Covenants onely now what a horrid way is this of expounding Scripture onely because they are resolved against our Saviour's eternall Divinity let us go on Sect. 6. And without him was nothing made that was made I believe that before their glosses had come to this Text a man could not possibly have put down more distinct Words was Heaven or Earth or any thing else then what is comprised in all if not then it was not made without him he made it who made all things yea but say they this must be understood of all the things of the Gospell I aske were other things made if they were then they were made by him and without him nothing was made that was made I know they will returne to their former answear and say it must be understood of the subjecta materia which was the Gospell that none of those things that were made were made without him but let a man consider whether it be reasonable to refer this all things to such a business which is treated of two or three verses after or rather to those things which immediately follow that is the things that are made they have an exception likewise against this Word by all things were made by him that signifye's an Instrument say they and by this Christ should be onely here an Instrumentall Cause by which God wrought these things so Smalcius in refutatione libelli de divinâ verbi incarnati naturâ cap. 11. pag. 68. in my edition 1614. it is true he grant's that this Word by is often used for a principal cause as is most evident as we say that this house was built by this man not by his Axe or Hammer no not by his Servants yea all things are said to be made by God but he saye's they who urge this Argument must prove that it is never used otherwise I say that is not necessary in Logick it will be enough if he can prove that it cannot be used otherwise in this place and that I hope to do first against those who allow our Saviour to make all these things concerning the Gospell he was the Author of them and he must not be understood as an Instrument in respect of the sense that they give to by here which make's him to be barely an instrumentall Cause then next taking all things as we do and surely it must be so if we understand that this Word is an Instrument in the making the world the Heaven and Earth he must be long before he was born of the Virgin even before these things themselves were made which although it will not be of force against the Arrians yet is against them so that let this phrase all things be understood which way ye will as they or we yet this Word by cannot be accommodated to their exposition for a bare instrumentall Cause There is another slight objection that the Father is not made by him nor the holy Spirit but the Text answer's this when it saith without him was nothing made that was made but let the Reader observe the same Contrariety to the Text here that was before there was more a hundred times made without him then by him and if where the full and clear sense of a Text will go one way it be lawful to expound it otherwise because some Word or Words are otherwhere applyed to another meaning it is impossible to prove any thing by words for the liberty of language doth allow it and the expressions of all Authors make use of it to apply the same Words to diverse occasions and if this licence should be granted to Expositors there is no refuge but tradition which deliver's the sense not the words and by that a man may know how and in what sense such language was understood either in the Apostolical or next adjacent times for it is reasonable to think that they had with the words the sense likewise delivered Thus I write because as appeare's these men do use such violence to these Scriptures as is unreasonable and without any consent to their own intent as I have shewed Sect. 7. It followe's In him was life here in these words I find little Opposition Smalcâ—us handle's them not as not materiall Socinus saith this word life must be understood of Life eternall I will not deny that life eternall may be mean't and principally mean't here but I am confident likewise that all the life of every thing in the world may truly be said to be in him in the word as in the fountaine from whence it came and is still preserved equally as the other but for Life eternall it may be said in him besides that way as in a fountaine to be in him likewise as the mâ—ritorious cause yea as in the object for in the knowledge of him will consist much of our eternall happinesse hereafter I will proceed and this Life was the light of men that is if we understand it of the naturall Life this Life which originally and preservingly is in the word is that light which enlightneth the understanding in reasonable
Reader observe here that the word we render made is the word which hath abid and will abide more dispute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not in that Sentence to the Ephesians This word hath hard luck it is used to all purposes by them sometimes it signifye's to be sometimes to be re-made but I say alwayes made in St. John so that although they would shew me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are both used in that place and rendered Workmanship and created may be used for recreation yet it would not follow that this word which is not of kin to them should indure that exposition then let us consider that Text in the Ephes. need not to be forced to his sense for not to stand upon the expositions of learned men which have applyed it to the Creation that by Christ Jesus is mean't our Saviour according to his Divinity and so in him the word we were all created to good works but to take it according to the other sense that this Creation is mean't of creating those saving and justifying graces at which the Apostle seeme's to point and in regard of them we are said to be created those excellent and supernaturall qualities being our perfection so that as a man may be said to be made when his soul is put in him a table or any thing when that worke which give 's it the last complement and degree of perfection is added to it so we in the Text are said to be created but it doth not say men we are created another thing which God by these graces wrought us unto and I thinke is regeneration but this phrase doth not in its nature signify regeneration but it signifye's that which is applyed to men who are fallen from a better to a worse condition to such men it may import a regeneration because it bring 's them backe to their former state and make's them that which was their first condition and so this creation in the Text hath its most genuine and proper sense which making in my Text should not have when it is said that the world was made by him if by it should be understood the world was re-made or regenerated by him Againe consider that if this Text should be understood of regeneration I mean that Text to the Ephesians it must be by vertue of that phrase to good works created to good works for if the Text had barely said we had been his Workmanship created by him no man could have construed it regeneration but now in this Text the world was made by him there is no phrase to expound it to any thing else but the mere sense of the words and yet let us see another violence if this should be granted that this phrase made the world should be understood for regenerating and the world for men all the world that knowe's any thing of Christianity knowe's likewise that not half the world was regenerated then say they it must be understood of our Saviour's endeavour to regenerate the whole so that making must be taken for regeneration regeneration for an endeavour to do it when I dare say he nor they can shew me any place in Scripture where this word make is used for regeneration much lesse meerly for an endeavour to do it nay I do not think that they can shew me any place where make is taken for an endeavour but the very phrase intimating a produced effect is no where used for an ineffectuall endeavour Sect. 11. But I will leave this Comment of Socinus although countenanced by his followers and apply my self to Smalcius in his 13 cap. refutationis libelli de divinâ verbi incarnati naturâ pag. 75. upon these words The world was made by him We deny saith he that by the word World is signified the old world that by the word made is signified creation that by the phrase by him is signified a principal agent I shall undertake these in their order as he handle's them but his greatest endeavour is about the first word the world which he and I both first meddle with First he saith this word World hath divers significations it signifie's onely men it signifie's the future world now saith he when Saint John saith the world was made by him may be understood that we are reformed by him in which sense it is said that Christ enlighten's every man which cometh into the world as it is said in the preceding verse now as Christ is said to enlighten every man because he used sufficient means and endeavoured their enlightening so he is said to make the world that is the men in it by endeavouring to reform them This is a cruel thing to impose upon a man such expositions where making must be taken for reforming for although they can shew the same root for these words in Hebrew yet not in Greek nor any place in the New Testament where the word used for making is used for reforming and then that reforming must be understood onely an endeavour not an act as I have shewed His second way is to take this word World for the future World life eternal this is pag. 76. as this Life eternall is revealed and given by Christ see againe the violence of this exposition the world is taken for the future in Heaven this making of it by the word is the revealing of it by Christ then which never were there heard greater falsifications of any Text for illustration of which he bring 's the 17. Verse of this Chapter Grace and Truth is by Jesus Christ when there is nothing in these words which can give any light to any such sense in the other for how can it follow because Christ is the Agent by which his Servants receive grace and truth therefore his making the world should be understood of his revealing or giving eternall Life but Valkelius in his fifth Book de verà religione cap. 10. pag. 445. and 446. give 's other illustrations that this word World should signify the future World Hebrewes 2.5 2 Peter 3.13 these he put 's in the Margin to justify this acception of the World for the other and in all which places it is observable there is no one but the fourth to the Romans which hath this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render World in it and sometimes the word new added which might well expound his sense as in St. Peter and sometimes no such intent as he would have it to signify the future World so in those places to the Hebrews but then for this place to the Romans although there is this very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it as the Hâ—ir of the world yet Christ was Heir of this world and the promise was made to Abraham that all nations in the earth should be blessed in his seed and so his Seed should be Heir Lord of all the world and have kingdom and
rule over all nations ever here on earth These are the principall things I observe amongst them to justifie their Comment upon that Text and it appear's that they have not shewed that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render made was ever used for regenerating much lesse for the intention of it again we may marke that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used for the world to come or heaven without an addition when it is put absolutely as here it signifye's the present World It will be now time to set down mine own conceipt and vindicate it from such exceptions as they make against it he was in the world that is the word not the light because in the last Clause where it is said the World knew him not him is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine gender which agree's to the Word not to the Light which is the Neuter gender Well then he was in the world the great world the universe is what was mean't by the word was in the world and this must be true because the Word was God and he is every where he in the world and the world in him and this is something that a man learn's here for his Faith that God is alwayes in the world preserving and looking to it but suppose a man should take the word in their Conceipt for a man who preached and taught other men the will of God were it not a strange needlesse speech for a man to say that he was in the world Take the world how they will for the great World which we inhabit or for the company of men who live in it for onely in these two senses they understood World in this place but to say that the Word the Word God was in the world here is something delivered that men would listen to Sest 12. And the world was made by him that is as he is with it in preserving so he was with it in making it at the first when it was made let us view the sense of their way compared with this the Word which is Christ in his humanity by his Sermons Miracles and Life made that is either reformed the world that is men which were in the great World and this reformation was intentionall onely he did not do it in a flat opposition to the Text as can be or else the same Christ made that is prepared and fitted to that Heaven that place of happinesse into which his Servants shall enter hereafter when in the whole Bible they cannot find this word which is used here for world single and alone used for Heaven or for the reformed or regenerated part of men nor that this word which is here rendred made is taken for regeneration Reader this is a strange way of expounding Scripture Sect. 13. And the world knew him not that is the same world which he made and in which he was knew him not did not take such notice as they might by revelations which were made of him by the Creature and the Law written in their hearts here they except against this exposition of the Term World that we vary and change the Terme from what it was used for in the former expositions there we took the world for the great Masse of created things but here we take it for the world of men I say we do not change the sense of any Term from the most genuine and naturall signification it hath for although very many and the greatest number of Expositors do say that this Term World doth signify the men in the world yet that very exposition differ's not in sense from that I have given no more then if a man should say that Socrates did see such or such a thing or that Socrates his eyes saw it which is all one for men are the eye of the World by which it is able to discerne any thing and when it is said the world knew him not it must needs be understood that the men in the world knew him not because the World can know God by nothing but its understanding part which is men It seeme's by Smalcius in refutatione libelli de divina verbi incarnati natura pag. 18. that Smiglecius had made an answer somewhat like this of mine to which Smalcius replye's that this answer profit's nothing for it remaine's firm still that the word World is taken in another sense in the third Sentence then it was in the second since it is certain that the world which did not know Christ is another world from that was made by him and to the similitude he answer's that the men who did not know Christ are not such a part of the World as the eye is of man for when a man see 's not the whole eye see 's not but that men knew not Christ is onely affirmed of part of men and that the worst part of men not all men so that when it is said that the world knew him not it must be understood of man in generall not of the ill the worst part of men I return to this first that such an answer cannot become a Socinian who do in generall make this Synechdoche pars pro toto understood here and it is their own way and not unusuall in Scripture but secondly I say again that it is true of the whole World and each particular man that neither the whole nor any particular man in the world did know him as they were the world the created World but by an addition of supernaturall favour and grace this kind of phrase is used by Saint Paul 1 Cor 15.50 Flesh and bloud cannot inherit the kingdom of God it is quatenus as it is flâ—sh and bloud but when that corruption hath put on incorruption when that flâ—sh and bloud is sanctifyed when it is glorifyed and indued with supernaturall grace then it shall inherit and possesse the kingdom of God and with these eyes they shall see their Redeemer so the 1 Cor. 2.14 the naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit but even St. Peter and St. Paul were naturall men they could not have dyed else but quatenus as naturall he cannot do it that man who is a naturall man can but not as he is naturall by the vertue and force of his naturall abilities so it is here the World knew him not that is by any naturall abilities in that worldly condition in which it was made unlesse perfected by some more excellent endowmenâ—s and blessings The Prophets knew him but they had supernaturall assistance the Shepheards they discerne him at his birth but Angels told it them to conclude we cannot apprehend him as he is by any worldly assistance I am perswaded that men have by the naturall abilities which God hath given them and the consideration of his Creatures found out and known that God made the world and that he rule 's and governe's it by a most exact
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