in that down right sense which the words seem at first to beare and they who object it would inferre For Invocation or calling upon the name of the Lord as it is many times it being a principal piece of it is taken for the whole worship of God it cannot be that men should now begin to do that which without doubt Adam Abel Seth and all such as were godly must needs have done long before Nay although this Story of the Fathers is delivered by Moses in exceeding short notes yet in the 3. and 4. vers of this 4. Chap. it is recorded that both Cain and Abel brought Oblations to the Lord which was an Act of Religion so that Religion did not now begin There are many witty Expositions given and some in their Expositions destroy the Text but what seem's most probable to me is that as in every age men desirous of Gods honour studied which way to act it most laudably and give any addition to it so now they might at this time adde something to their natural worship by prostration on the ground and Oblaeions and sacrifices as Hymmes and Invocations of God which were not used before Men began to call upon the name of the Lord in such a way which afterwards improving it selfe to a generall Devotion amongst the sonnes of God as I think pious men were called in those dayes it gained that name in a peculiar manner to be attributed to it so that men began that worship which was known by the name of calling upon God As you may see in Confession every acknowledgement of a mans sins or God's goodnesse is Confession yet if you aske have you been at Confession It is understood of Confessing to a Priest and accounting your sinnes to him Instances might be very many in this kind take one more perhaps a little closer We know that every pious act is a service to God yet for the eminence and excellence of it The Common Prayer used in the Church hath so appropriated that name that if a man asked were you at Service to day it will be understood of Common Prayer If the Question be at what time did service begin The answer will be Nine Ten Two Three a clock and be applyed only to the beginning of serving God with it yea I have heard many answer I was at Sermon not at Service so distinctly is the word applied to that of Common Prayer I can adde one Instance more almost in the very words before specified that Doxologie which is used in the Church at the end of every Psalm and some other times in the Common Prayers used in divine Service Glory be to the Father c. did so gaine the approbation of that name Gloria Patri that although all religious devotions payd to God are honouring and glorifying of him yet when we heare men speake of Gloria Patri we know they meane this Doxologie and we can say of it that Gloria Patri began with Flavianus as Theodoret assisted by St. Chrysostom and Nicephorus so that although in the end of this Doxologie it is said As it was in the beginning is now c. that is that in all ages men did give Glory to the Father c. Yet we can say that at that time began Glory to the Father c. So was it in this occasion then began the Name of God to be glorified with some particular service although men did in all ages before glorifie him So that we may well beleeve that in that time of the birth of Enos or some years after began that piece of worship which for some eminency had that name of calling upon God by the use of speech appropriated to it Whether this addition was by the Institution of God immediately or Divine men as Seth or Enos introduced it in the Publique Religion I determine not being not revealed but conceive this the most reasonable way of expounding that place which cannot be understood in that grosse way it is urged Sect. 3 A second Argument to prove that there was an Idolatrous worship before the Floud is thus framed The punishment of Sinnes is proportioned to the Sins which are punished now the Floud being the greatest punishment that ever God afflicted the world with it is necessary that it should be for the worship of false Gods or Idolatry which are the greatest Sins To this is rightly answered that the punishment of Sins in this world is not alwaies proportioned to the sins All the temporal punishment that men have is lesse then they deserve and therefore may in justice be moderated according to Gods equitable kindnesse what punishment God layd upon these men who perished in the Floud after death was not revealed but the judgement was most right because they held the truth of God in unrighteousness as St. Paul Rom. 1.18 and as it is in the 21. verse of the same Because they knowing GOD glorified him not as God neither were thankful but became vaine in their imaginations So that the Condemnation upon the Gentiles was not alwaies for Errours in judgement but Errours in practise that although they did know God aright yet they did not worship him as God And therefore we may be satisfied concerning their sins with what the Scripture revealeth and need not make them worse then they were described there which sayes That the wickednesse of man was great in the Earth and that every Imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evill continually Gen. 6.5 and it is the same which S. Paul before they became vaine in their Imaginations that is their desires and affections as was described before they were given to all Luxury and sensuality So that here was a large scope for Gods justice to punish and the temporal punishment of this world Death by drowning was vehemently called for by the sins of those men who lived in that Age without any addition of false worship I therefore conclude for that first age in the first sense in respect of the God they worshipped there was none but the right God worshipt in the world but in regard of the second sense the manner of worship in their Religion to him unlesse these Oblations before spoke of we find nothing recorded before the Floud that is necessary to be assented to Sect. 4. For both these we cannot conceive that this Religion so formed was founded upon the Faith c. For although we may justly think that men who have either by an Innate principle or else by reason knowledge that there is a GOD of an infinite excellency to whom out of duty they owe this divine Worship which is called Religion we may likewise think that it is impossible for their capacities to find out what worship would be pleasing to him unlesse he reveale it and therefore did act all they did in that worship by his direction yet because there is no mention
of St. John in his Revelation ibid. XV. The words Being with God signifie more then Known to God against Socinus and his followers 340 Eternall life before Christ's Incarnation known to the Angels blessed Souls Prophets Philosophers 341 Although not till afterward manifested to others 342 The Philosophers excell the Socinians in this knowledge ibid. XVI Socinus's other Text of no validity to his purpose 343 XVII The Discourse resumed concerning knowledge of the word before the preaching of St. John Baptist. ibid. XVIII Whether in the Socinian or Catholick sense may be more truly said The word was God 345 XIX God with them no proper name but an Appellative c. 346 Contrary to the use of it single throughout the New Testament ibid. XX. How Satan is called the God of this world c. 347 How the Belly God ibid. The Socinians criticisme about the article ibid. Answer'd 348 And Socinus's Instances ibid. How St. Cyrill's rule is to be understood ibid. XXI Socinus answer'd about Tautology 349 As likewise to that objection God cannot be with himself 350 Lord and God not both one 351 The Word God with though not of the Father ibid. CHAP. XXXIII I. The Socinians conceit of the Word being with God in the beginning 352 II. Improbable having no Evangelical authority 353 III. That they pretend to prove's it not ibid. The distinction of Christ's Divinity and Humanity illustrated ibid. His Ascent into heaven which they insist on not corporeall 354 IV. His double capacity of Priest and Lay-man alledged by them discussed 356 V. How all things we made by him 357 St. John's method very considerable against the Socinians interpretation ibid. Which is such as permit's the more truth to be in the negative propositions opposite to those in holy Scripture 358 VI. Christ's interest in the Creation re-inforced against the Socinians gloss 359 Wherein he was a principal no bare instrumental cause ibid. Their other slight objection answer'd 360 The use of words ibid. The benefit of Tradition ibid. VII How Life eternal and what else is to be understood ver 4. 361 How both that and the naturall life is said to be the light of men ibid. How Christ is called the light according to Socinus 362 How according to the Bishop ibid. VIII What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie's properly and why render'd was ibid. Why the Evangelist chose to use it rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 writing of St. John Baptist. 363 IX Socinus put 's a diminution upon St. John's testimony of Christ ibid. Which is evidently affirmative of his Divinity 364 X. Socinus misinterpret's Creation by Recreation or Regeneration 365 And misapplie's to his purpose a Text in the Epistle to the Eâ—hesians 366 Another violence of his in wresting actuall Regeneration to Regeneration in endeavour 367 XI Smalcius's gloss ibid. His various significations put upon the word World ibid. Whereâ—n he imposeth fallacies upon his Reader 368 The Bishop's Animadversions 369 XII Their sense directly opposite to that evident in the Text. 370 XIII The genuine sense of the Terms not changed as they object 371 Smalcius's reply to Smiglecius ibid. Little becoming a Socinian 372 The World knew not the Word but by supernaturall grace ibid. What men apprehend of God by naturall abilities ibid. The Objection about St. John's upbraiding the world answer'd 373 The exposition of the words immediately following why omitted 374 XIV The Socinians word could not be made Flesh ibid. Their evasion 375 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how used in the beginning of St. John's Gospell ibid. Their heterodox interpretation of Flesh ibid. Not evident in Scripture cited by Socinus 376 The result of their Comment 177 The summe of ours ibid. XV. The union of the Divinity with the Humanity implyeth no mutation of God into Man 378 Notwithstanding the praedication God is Man ibid. Which is asserted and by a familiar instance illustrated ibid. Their Objection answer'd by the dependance of substances upon God ibid. Another Argument of Smalcius's 379 Answer'd by the manner of existing ibid. Christ a true man though a divine Person 380 Whose Conception and Gestation in the blessed Virgin 's womb conduced nothing to his personality ibid. The Divinity and Humanity united render him neither two Sons nor two Persons ibid. XVI Objection of his being the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost 381 Answer which identity implie's not that they were made flesh with him ibid. As Scotus illustrate's excellently 382 The Bishop's Apology to the Reader ibid. XVII Smalcius's first Quaere c. Rectifyed Answer'd 383 All actions not alwayes necessarily according to the nature of him or that which act's ibid. Smalcius's second Quaere Answered and frustrated 384 His third Quaere Answered with reference to the discourse before concerning the Incarnation of the Father and holy Ghost ibid. XVIII Our Saviour's mission derogate's nothing from the authority and plenitude of power in himself 385 Which he exercised in giving commission to his Apostles 386 CHAP. XXXIV I. The Socinians opinion of the holy Ghost 387 Confuted and this proved that he is a distinct Person of the Trinity not a mere Attribute of the Deity ibid. II. Not the Gospel of Christ as they pretend out of holy Scripture 389 III. Not the gift of God to certain men but by a figure 390 A defiance to them that call for reason in these mysteries 391 CHAP. XXXV I. Carthagena's little lesse then then blasphemous limiting God's power of enlarging the capacity of his Creature 392 II. What of God to be proved by reason and by whom to be attempted 393 III. Aquinas's first Argument against the possibility to attain by naturall reason any knowledge of the Trinity 394 The Bishop's Answer grounded upon Lully's demonstration by aequiparance ibid. IV. Aquinas's second Argument 395 The Bishop's first Answer concerning the invisible objects of Faith ibid. The Bishop's second Answer concerning the after-sight of Reason ibid. His third Argument from scorn and scandal 396 Answered by the adherence to infallibility of Scripture ibid. V. Trigosius and Carthagena passed by ibid. Truth not oppos'd to Truth ibid. The Bishop closeth with Raymund Lully whom he vindicateth against Vasques 397 And Aymericus who make's him an heretick ibid. His advice to the Pope and Cardinal about converting the Saracens 398 His devout enterprize according to it with successe ibid. His like adventure among the Moores ibid. Their cruel sentence and execution frustrated by his strange deliverance 399 The notable effect of his sufferings ibid. VI. Lully's undertaking according to Vasques ibid. Whose Arguments he recite's and forme's 400 The first prove's a personal plurality by concord ibid. Another from equality distinction ibid. Vasques's first Answer excepting against the supposition of a reall effective act in God ibid. The Bishop's reply that Lully not only suppos'd but prov'd iâ— ibid. His Lordship's explanation of Lully's sense by the necessity of God's acting somewhat from all eternity
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
Power invisible feigned by the mind or imagined from tales publikely allowed but it is the worship due to God and this worship is when it is as it ought to be accompanied and attended with reverential feare and awe of that Infinite Excellency and this makes us devote our selves in all holy waies to his service but if these things we feare be lesse then God although we may devote our selves or any thing is ours to them it is not Religion nor in any way doth it introduce Religion So that if the thing we feare have in it the estimation of Divine Excellency Devotion to it is an Act of Religion not a Seed if it have not that estimation it is an act of some Reverence or other habit but no way a Seed of Religion for a Seed precedes the fruit and introduceth it which this doth not Sect. 5. His fourth and last Seed is taking things casual for Prognostiques In all these according to his scornfull derision rather then definition of Religion he makes â—he Seeds of it nothing but Errour and Folly no wonder that the Tree should be so weak and rotten when the very Seeds are corrupted This Seed he applies Page 56. only to the Religion of the Gentiles although in general with the rest it was uttered of all Religion and so exprest as I have shewed Indeed if he should speak it of the true Religion it were most impiously wicked and would imply that the very Prophecies in the old and new Testament which were a true and reall Seed of Religion were but casual things and not fore-seen by God and revealed to his Prophets But I wil take him in the best sense that he can be taken that the taking things casual for Prognostiques were a seed of those false Religions and then I say first for the Oracles men did not therefore beleeve that there were Gods and so worship them because of their oraculous sentences but because of their beliefe that these were Gods they were confident that they spake truth and so expounded them according to the event whatsoever it was For the Sibyls I might say the like if they were such as the other and although he imagined these but feigned whose Copies we have yet that there were such is evident in Story and that they prophecied such things as could be applyed to none but our Saviour which were not to be interpreted Casual events but Prognostiques real and although the beliefe in them for a great while was a fruit of Religion for because men believed they were Prophetesses and inspired by God therefore they beleeved what they said yet afterwards as it haps in Trees so did it with their Prophesies that which was the fruit of one was the seed of another so these Prophesies which were a fruit of Religion before were a seed of Religion in planting the Christian Church and often made use of by the Fathers an Argument against the Idolatrous world to perswade them to Christianity but it was not as he speakes a taking Casual things for Prognostiques For the other things he there reckons up I guess them for the most part unhappy illusions and the fruit of Superstition not the seeds of Religion or else mistakes of second Causes which in no sense conduce to Religion as Horoscopy Presages and the like CHAP. XIV What the seed of Religion Concerning the chaine of causes What of God to be known Of finite and infinite The first mover The sound doctrine of Eternity c. Sect. 1. CErtainly the sole immediate seed of Religion is the assurance that there is a God of an infinite excellency governing all the world for therefore men perform Religion to him but that which propagates this naturally is first without doubt an innate principle born in and with a man which naturally every man hath as soon as he hath reason and there never was Nation or society of men found in the world which denied it It is true there may be now and then by the suggestions of the Devill a man found that with malicious reason hath laboured to diswade this Principle but that is not material There are Errours and Monsters in the morall part of man as well as in his natural This Gentleman who hath by nature the sight of Colours and ability to discern them yet hath studied reasons to make men beleeve he sees none There is nothing so abhorring to Reason that malicious Reason doth not oppose but such a truth as this Quod ubique semper et ab omnibus hath been held cannot be other then natural and whereas he can shew one man breaking this rule I can shew him a hundred that have no use of reason at all and a thousand that have lost it so that as such a man as he is a rarer sight then those so he may well be reckoned amongst the worst of fooles and mad-men and therefore the Psalmist Psal. 14.1 saith The fool hath said in his heart there is no God and he himself in this Chapter pag. 58. affirmes That an opinion of a Diety and Powers invisible and supernatural can never be abolished out of humane nature but that new Religions may be made to spring out of them So that this Seed is so naturally and firmly rooted in mans heart that it cannot be extirpated by any thing that doth not likewise with it extirpate reason Sect. 2. But because although this is natural yet some men by the wickednesse of malicious reason have endeavoured to wither it therefore other Children of Nature have endeavoured to cherish this root by watering it with the strength of invincible reasons drawne from the chaine of Causes which suppose a seed or a tree first and that first to be created not generated for if generated then it requires a preceding tree or seed and then that was not first and so in all the effects in the world But these men pretend an Eternity in the world and so in the propagation and causation of Natural things that there may be an infinity of these causations from one to another which is almost impossible to be conceived for then there should be an Infinite number of Causes which cannot be for then Robert who is now born should have no more Paternities or Precedings in causes then Adam had for if there should be an infinite Number of Causes preceding Adam then there can be no addition to it for what can receive addition is not Infinite it hath a bound to it and then all the Causations from Adam to Robert are nothing for if you should imagine in these five or six Thousand yeares there may have been so many hundred generations more then were before I can answer no the other was infinite for should you fill this sheet with Ciphers and head them with the figure of one I can make all these Ciphers nines and the figure of one Nine and make nine Millions of such sheets and yet all this
not dayes Sect. 13. This doctrine is most agreeing to the Scriptures which teacheth the truest Philosophy for the Scripture makes him to be the Creatour of the world if so then before the world then Eternall then these durations which are measures of our worldly things cannot be affirmed of him nor time nor parts of it which are onely measures proportioned to those things of this world which are successive I need not name the places but there are many of Scripture which expresse this eternal being of God so Psal. 90.2 Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou hadst formed the Earth and the World even from everlasting to everlasting thou art GOD Here in this one place is all the Philosophy I have delivered of Gods eternity here is contained his Eternal being when the world was not in that is said before c. when they were not he was Secondly here is expressed the totall being of the Eternal together in that is said Thou art God from everlasting to everlasting not thou wert or wilt be only but before them thou art and here is expressed likewise that in respect of other things the Creatures he may be said to have these relations before and after though not in relation to himself but yet no set terme as to say a day or two dayes or years before I am confident there is no one place of Scripture which expresseth any certaine measures of duration belonging to him I know it may be objected to this that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1. vers 10 11 12. The Apostle speaking of the Eternity of our Saviour according to his Divinity saith Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the works of thy hands Verse 11. They shall perish but thou remainest and they all shall wax old as doth a garment Verse 12. And like a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy yeares shall not faile In this place the eternity of Christs divinity is called yeares and therefore those measures of our times must be applied to that Eternity and then dayes may of which years are composed To this we may most reasonably answer that the Apostle accommodates his manner of language to the capacity of the vulgar and the language of men concerning durations so well as actions so before he said the Heavens were the works of Gods hands as if he had said because all great works are wrought by hands amongst men God had hands by which he wrought those heavens So thy yeares shall not faile that is thou art Eternal because men reckon their duration by yeares and yet observe the language it is said they are indeficient yeares yeares which faile not all our yeares faile the last yeare is gone this farre in going and untill the end of the world mans yeares the worlds yeares and their durations will faile but Gods yeares no part of his duration reckon it what you will shall faile This is the sense of the Scriptures and men cannot without a contradiction expound it of our time every part of which is deficient Thus the Philosophy I have delivered being framed according to Scripture I shall answer his Argument The dayes which may be attributed to God and the measures of our time can onely be in regard of his coexisting with time in this world and therefore he doth not nor can be said to be of more dayes then the world hath for he who affirms he hath more dayes or any such Computation affirmes a falshood there were not more dayes therefore not a coexisting with them and therefore he had more dayes when Isaac was born then when Abraham but in neither of them had he an infinite number but finite numbers of dayes nor doth the world yeeld more his durance is without number of weeks or dayes what successive thing soever we accompt by and therefore that Argument against the worlds eternity hath no force applied to God Sect. 14. I proceed with him Ita ab hoc absurdo c. Therefore saith he from this absurd thing they fall into another being constrained to say that Eternity is a standing instant and an infinite number of numbers is an Unity which is much more absurd There are two parts in this Objection the first concernes the nunc stans or permanent instant the second of innumerable numbers c. for perspicuity I take them apart and handle them distinctly And first for his absurdity that he conceives to be in a standing instant if it doe not stand still and when it doth not it is no longer nunc or an instant but time or at the least two parts of time but instant it is not now certainly that which hath no mutation cannot choose but perpetually eternally stand still and that which to mutable things would be time to him must be instant I can shew him one instant that stood still neare two thousand yeares of time and therefore if time could be infinite would last eternally which is Iohn 8.58 When the Iewes wondred that our Saviour should have seen Abraham he answered before Abraham was not I was but I am There is a difference in exposition some say that this speech is understood of his Humanity that his humanity was in the thoughts of God and his Decree before Abraham but this cannot be the sense for Christ being the son and posterity of Abraham even in the knowledge and decree of God as well as in his birth in the world therefore it could not be spoke of his humanity that it was in the Decree of God before Abraham for Abraham in the same Decree must be before Christs humanity as the father of him But suppose it were let me enquire was that being which Christ had then in the knowledge or being of God before Abraham was that being existing when he spake these words or no If no then he could not say I am but I was if so it proves my Conclusion that there was a nunc stans a standing instant neare two thousand years But I am well satisfied that that speech of his was meant of his Divinity which is eternally the same and was before Abraham when Abraham was and after him he being that which is which was and is to come Revelation 1.4 And certainly there must needs be the same reason that that instant must be Eternall as that it should stand still so long as before Abraham to our Saviour But his words presently after seeme to make another reason of the absurdity in nunc stans thus Sect. 15. Cur enim Eternitas Why saith he should Eternity be called nunc stans now standing rather then tunc then standing there must therefore be either many Eternities or now and then must signifie the same Thus he for answer this terme stans or standing is indifferent to time passed or to come when applyed to either positively but
world without a Law and a common Power over him and others the Law is that writ in their hearts and this is it which St. Paul speake's Rom. 2.15 Which shewe's the law written in their hearts that law of Nature that practique law which is writ in the heart of every man and this common Power is GOD and therefore as St. Paul speakes there their Conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the mean while accusing or excusing one another where there is evidence accusing excusing there is supposed a common Power so that there is a Common Power and this secretly acknowledged by men and that he hath given them certain lawes for the breach of which there is a horror and dread insomuch as a man cannot live or it is a prodigie to see a man without all Conscience of the principal and fundamentall rules of reason although men may doe and act against those Lawes yet untill a long custom of living have hardned their hearts or some such wicked principles as his have by degrees stollen an approbation in their their understandings by degrees I say for I think it not possible to be done in an instant untill then it is not pospossible for men to sin against these without an accusation of their Consciences He proceed's Sect. 8. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal vertues In a war actually waged force is of great use and may well be called one of the best hinges upon which war is moved yea if we take force not for strength but violence as I think he doth but in the posture of war or in war only in expectation violence is the chiefe support of all injustice but certainly it is most improperly called a vertue in any but a most forced and violent way for vertues are those things which perfect the soule which make the work and worker good but no force doth that neither doth it assist in doing but it is indifferent to good or bad then againe force even in war may be a help to increase the wickednesse of it if the war be unjust it is doubly evill which is fortified with force If the acts of that war be cruell it is doubly bloudy which is effected by force And then for fraud although stratagems are lawfull yet falshood in war is wicked which is comprehended under that notion of fraud as to promise one thing and doe another all Stratagems have a double sense by which the enemy deceive's himself taking the visard from the true face but they having a true face discernable are not all visards and forces where there is no war engaged in but only some private end or design of one man against another they are in themselves wicked and provoke the just vengeance of a war from the injured party upon them He should have said valour and prudence were cardinal vertues in war but force and fraud are these degenerated and when they get these names of force and fraud they never retaine that excellent nature of being Vertues Sect. 9. He urgeth further Iustice and Injustice saith he are none of the faculties neither of the body nor the mind I think if he take Faculty as he seem's to doe for an innate quality no man ever said they were therefore his proof is needlesse when he come's on if they were they might be in a man that were alone in the world as well as his Senses and Passions although they are not innate faculties but acquisite habits I meane the vertue justice or the vice injustice yet the habits may be when they are acquired with that man who is alone and when he is alone though to act accordingly require's a present Object now denominations are given from the habits not the acts He proceed's They are qualities that relate to men in society not in solitude our dispute is of a third sort of men neither in such Society as a civill policy nor a Solitude but men without all relations of being under one common sublunary governance and yet men cohabiting in the same neighbourhood where may be perpetrated those horrid and unjust actions of Murder and Theevery c. And again although the acts of Justice doe suppose other men to doe justice upon yet it is other men not other men in the same City or polities and when by the use of those acts a habite is got it remaine's in Solitude Sect. 10. He draw's another Conclusion Hence thus it is consequent also to the same Condition that there be no propriety no dominion no mine and thine distinct but only that to be every mans that he can get and for so long as he can keep it The wickednesse of this Proposition will best appeare betwixt two States two neighbour Nations they certainly have distinct Dominions and it is injustice for one to take by force from the other or detaine by force what he hath gotten ill which is against all the consent of men from the beginning of the world now these two Nations are without any other coercive power in this world and from that reason are justly paralleld by him to such men as he formerly spake of and therefore these Nations should have no propriety as he explaines himself not in any thing Consider therefore Gen. 12. and the 20. Chap. How in two places Abraham's wife Sarah was like to have been taken from him by the Kings of those Nations where he lived but God punished them for it and they acknowledged it would have been a great sin to have layne with another mans wife Mr. Hobbes would have pleaded with God there is no propriety in any thing All men have title to all things where is no coercive power upon earth there is no injustice the woman is any mans who can get her by fraud or force so long as he can keep her they who have no common power above them as these had not to make Lawes which might appropriate interests to particular persons these are bound to no law nor have any propriety but such as force gives them and then both Abimelek and Pharaoh or other of them might lawfully have kept Sarah Abrahams wife from him but the Principles of the law of Nature say it was unjust and they did not doe it Thus it fared concerning the propriety of Wives now we will examine what propriety men had in Estates where was no such humane authority without doubt the first that ever gave outward Lawes to governe a Nation by was Moses and I conceive the Decalogue to be like our Magna Charta which was not a new law but a briefe and pithy expression of what was the old law by which this people was governed so were the Ten Commandements not a new law but an expression in tables of that morall law of nature which was writ in the heart of men before and practised before his time in particular this of Stealing which injured the possessor of Meum tuum
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
true I read of Iob and many others that have had a restitution of worldly comforts but that is not so with all and those that dye for him leave the world can have no reward in this world Againe is it possible that this God of an infinite excellency wisdome power justice c. should suffer so many villaines to eat up his Children and Servants as it were bread to commit Sacriledge in all kinds perjury blasphemy and the like persevering in those sins to passe without any punishment whâ—ch some doe in this world although but a few supposing a God men cannot think so and therefore supposing a God it is not to be imagined but that there is an eternall happinesse provided for such as serve God which is all I contend for Sect. 9. Againe let us consider man in himself as he is a fellow creature wiâ—h beasts plants stones c. we shall upon consideration of all the Creatures in the world find that every Creature hath an object fitted to any power it hath and some matter or other fit to fill every empty roome in it and satisfie every natural desire in it to see this cleare let us first view the lowest sort of things stones earth water aire c. which have no life in them if they have power to operate by their qualitie to heat or coole there are objects in the world fit for such actions if they have appetites of this place or that high or low there are room 's in the world to receive them if the matter as Aristotle desire's formes there are formes to fit it you may find this truly applyed to any thing according to that sacred Axiome so often urged by both Divines and Philosophers Deus et Natura nihil faciunt frustra whereas if there were nothing to satisfy those powers and appetites they were in vaine if we climb higher to plants and Trees which have life and no sense it is evident in them that their powers and desires of nutrition generation augmentâ—tion by which they exceed these inferiour things have whilest they are in this world enough plentifully in this world to satisfy these appetites as well as those which they have in common with those other inferiour things Then come to that other degree higher to beasts and such things which do not live only but have a power of moving themselves of apprehending by Sense of delighting themselves in sensual things these appetites have that which can satisfie yea fill their desires so that more cannot be desired yea there is to be had in this world not onely a Satisfaction but a satiety of sensual pleasure not a belly full onely but enough to surfeit so that for all those things below man whatsoever they are there is something which can sufficiently satâ—sfy all the powers and appetites they have Can we think God is so liberal to these things and lesse to man As the Apostle dispute's doth God take care of Oxen that is in comparison of us men As our Saviour if he so clothe the grasse of the field shall he not much rather take care for us if he hath so provided for them in these mean faculties and appetites which have here as the Schoolemen speake vestigium Dei onely a footstep of God in them shall he not much raâ—her for these noble powers and appetite of Reason and Will in man which are made after his image certainly it were a high ingratitude to think so well then let us inquire what satisfaction there can be found for these humane powers of Reason and Will by which he excells all other things that must be it which a man desire's for every thing endeavour's the perfecting of its powers and the satisfaction of its appetite which is truly the good of that thing to which it belong's Sect. 10. It is an undoubted conclusion a Principle if not the Principle which the inbred Law of nature which governe's man hath taught every Child of man and so powerfully imprinted it in him thâ—t no Child which hath reason will deny but that he would be happy and in particular if he understâ—nd the Tearmes that that is his happinesse to have all his desires to have his Will satisfied for untill that be he hath some deficiency there is something farther to be enquired after he is not at hâ—s journey's end â—hus it is with all things there is enough for any thing below man to fulfill its appetite to â—urfeit but not so for mans appetite this will appeare ouâ— of the consideration of the things in this world which are reputed good those that are bodily sensuall intellectuall bodily strength beauty health these cannot satisfy a man's soule though altogether joyn to these all sensuall delights meates drinkes luxuriousnesse in any kind for hearing seeing smelling let a man have all those are but things which beasts may enjoy as well as he and in these he cannot excell them yea they excell him in a fuller fruition of them then he can have then they are apt to have many casualties to deprive us of them and a certainty that one day they must be lost which to a man that hath a forecast with him which other inferiour Creatures have not must needs disturb the content he might take in enjoying them consider those humane intellectual things which have pretended a title to man's felicity either the Stoick's Apathy freedome from passion or the Aristotelian way of governing Passions by Reason although those were handsome and ingenious and those men trod some steps towards felicity yet they were but the first Steps onely and those the lowest for if the Subjects be tumultuous the King cannot be in safety The Stoicke instead of ruling would kill his Subjects take away all Passions and then the King in man will lack fitting instruments to effect his businesse the Aristotelian governed or at the leâ—st prescribed rules to governe the Passions but left the Palace of Reason unrectâ—fied and although he freed it from the rebellion of Passions yet satisfied it noâ— with plenty at home to conclude that which make's a man happy and satisfie's his Soule must be something in him by which he excell's beasts that must be his Reason and reasonable Will this Will is not satisfied but by knowledge no satisfaction of it but the enjoying that it love's no love without knowledge and therefore though the Will be the seat of happinesse yet the Understanding is the Conduit by which thâ—s happinesse is brought to the Will Sect. 11. Now let us then examine what there can be in the Will brought by the Understanding which can satisfie it and make it happy in this life certainly all the things in the world cannot doe it for although a man desire 's to know any thing every thing yet he cannot be happy in knowing all the things in the world I will not dispute concerning those things which men doe know for alas it is mighty short of
many more no doubt who were borne in Bethlehem In my judgement this Text is the most wretchedly tortured by them that ever any when no one word in the Text ever else was used to that purpose nor in this use is a man taught any thing which was not full in the Text before which expressed his birth in Bethlehem Sect. 7. I will take every word apart and vindicate it from their several Objections first this word egressus whose goings forth as our English their explication of this is that he came forth by the generation of his forefather in particular of David I answer that it is true that a man may be said to come forth of another who was long time before in him as in our usuall language we express it he descended from such Ancestors I make their expression clearer then I find it in any of their Authors by this explication Nay we can say such a man's Son when he shall be born will be descended from an antient family from Kings and great Persons but to say he hath descended before he is can abide no answerable construction but this is our consideration the Text saith of him who shall be borne in Bethlehem but yet is not that his goings forth have been from of old now untill a man is he cannot be said to have his going forth from of old a man may say it will be not that it hath been and therefore without doubt this Text speaking of the same person which he said should be borne in Bethlehem whose goings forth we must understand by it something of that person which was in those ancient times which can be nothing but our Saviour's divinity but they object against this Phrase that it is said goings forth in the plurall number now according to true doctrine our Saviour's divinity hath but one emanation or egression or going forth therefore say they this cannot be understood of that egression That our Saviour's Egression according to his divinity was but one will easily be granted by us but it is excellently observed by Hebricians that the holy Ghost is usually pleased to expresse that which is but one in his essence by a plurall number when the effests are divers So Prov. 1.20 Wisdome we read it cryeth without but in the Original it is in the plural number wisdomes without doubt the Wisdome of God is one onely as he is one but the energies the operations of this wisdome are many in regard of which it is called wisdomes in that holy language so likewise concerning the mercy of God Gen. 32.10 the least of thy mercies when without doubt the mercy of God is one but the operations of mercy are divers multitudes of Instances might be given to this purpose and this is the Case of our Saviour's divinity the emanation the going forth of it is but one the operations are divers and in regard of them it is called goings forth God's eternall purpose to make man to forgive him for Jesus Christ's sake to work man's redemption by him to judge the world at the last day by him these are operations of the eternall emanation of the Son of God and because these are diverse this going forth of his which is one is put in the plural number goings forth Again because I will shew that these words in their own Language can confute nothing of our Doctrine conceive with me then that these goings out may be understood of the manifestation of his eternal going out to us So we say the sun shin'd oftentimes this or that day when we know that the shining of the Sunne is nothing but an emission and sending forth his light which act being a proper passiâ—n of the Sun we know its shining out to have been ever since the Sun was created but because this blessed act of the Sun is often impeded and hindred from manifesting its self to us by Cloudes or such impediments therefore we say it shines only when those Cloudes are removed and that shining which is alwayes actu exercito alwaies in operation hath this operation only then manifested to us and these shinings of the Sun in this respect are said to be many in Consideration of those various manifestations although in its own nature it be but one thus this eternall egrâ—ssion going forth of the Son of God although it be but one in its self yet in respect of its manifestations to us by Moses and the Prophets it may in the plural number be said to be egrâ—ssions many and yet give me leave to adde this that unlesse the Sun-shine had its being it could not have those many egressions and manifestations to us So unlesse our Saviour had had a being of old or in the beginning he could not be said to have many egressions but yet methink's I am not full enough in my expression for taking the words as they require they may say that these egressions were not ab initio or principio for the egressions or rather manifestations of his egressions were not made in the beginning if I should take beginning as they doe for the beginning of David's raigne they had their answer but if principium must be the reading as we require and indeed is countenanced by both Vatablus Tremelius and the Septuagint let it be then from the beginning we will distinguish then of a twofold egression of our Saviour eternall from the father and temporal to us in his manifestation to the world in his Creation in his Prophets in his providence and in this sense the Divinity of our Saviour hath diverse egressions and these were a principio and à diebus seculi from the beginning and in antient dayes Sect. 8. From the beginning here is not a word which they do not make a quarrell at they are like such a man who should make a Scare-crow and then throw stones at it or build a Castle in the air and then shoot at it first they make the words of a Sentence what they will and then quarrel with us that it will not abide our sense in particular it is so here they say it must be read a principio or ab initio and then they object that eternity hath no beginning nor end and therefore it cannot be understood of an eternal emanation or egression or going forth well let it be granted that eternity hath no beginning nor end which is most true let it be granted that what we read from of old is best read from the beginning which is not necessary yet the Consequence is false for that eternity which is God himself is the begining of all temporal things so that from the beginning is from eternity This word beginning hath a twofold Consideration in this as it is that point or instant in which any line or time begin's to be or else for that external point or instant from which that point or instant took its rise thus we say a horse began to
give 's when it saith that Aaron should be a Spokesman for Moses and therefore instead of a mouth unto him again had any Evangelist said as here the word was in the beginning the voice was in the beginning could any man have expounded it without that Glosse of the Prophet Isaiah's saying and St. Iohn's practice it must therefore be as wild and reasonlesse to say that this term word when there is no use of Speech or other phrase in the whole Book of God expounding it so should be so interpreted that our Saviour's humanity which by them should speake this word should be here called the word I must begge the Reader 's patience for this tediousnesse but the right understanding of this one syllable word is of high Consideration and therefore I have dwelled so long upon it but now wee 'le strike home Sect. 8. In this sentence In the beginning was the word it is not possible to understand this Tearm word of our Saviour's humanity which did exist in the beginning of the Gospell which was when St. Iohn began to preach for although our Saviour was then in being yet he was not then the word for the Gospell was not then preached but about to be preached and according to them he was called the word in reference onely to that word which was the Gospell so that although he was man before in the beginning of the Gospell yet he could not be in their notion the word then neither Metaphorically because then he had not revealed the will of God concerning the Salvation of men nor Metonymically because then this word which reveale's the will of God was not produced and the Text most expressely set's downe the time in the beginning was the word Sect. 9. But Socinus hath one shift which is on the top of the 14. page of his Treatise against the Pasnonienses pag. 61. Christ was then when John Baptist began to preach and was then destined by God to that Office to wit in opening or preaching the will of God Thus farre he now the revealing the will of God is the nature of the word and it seeme's by him that although Christ was not actually the word in the beginning of the Gospell yet he wâ—s such in God's decree and that may suffice to make him the word but let the Reader consider that he who is decreed to be any thing cannot be said to be such untill he actually exist now the Text saith In the beginning was the Word not it shall be the Word when the decree is expired was and shall be differ as much as time can distinguish and yet what the Text saith was Socinus saith shall be when he saith he was decreed to be upon such a foundation we may say any thing that is or shall be a thousand yeares hence was a thousand yeares agoe because it was then decreed to be such And now it seeming to me that I have answered whatsoever I have observed delivered by any man in defence of their exposition it will become me to apply my selfe to the Justification of our exposition which thus I doe Sect. 10. In the beginning was the word that is in the beginning of time of things when the world was created out of nothing then was the word then it had its being and existence other things had their beginning they being then made but he being not a thing made in time but eternall was then This is a short delivering the true sense of the words and I shall endeavour God willing to explaine them The first Term which I shall endeavour to expound is this Term Word a word is twofold internall and externall internall is that expression our intellect or understanding hath of its conceipt within its self externall is the expression of that internall conceipt I will not here stand upon the difference betwixt Sermo and Verbum it is not materiall that there is such a difference is apparent to any man who will consider how he deliver's nothing with his tongue which he hath not a notion of in his understanding before and that which he deliver's with his tongue is the same which was before in his understanding in the Wombe when it is in the understanding in its birth when it is delivered by the mouth it had an internall being in the Soul an externall being in the voice now words are produced two wayes either by voice or by the hand by the mouth or the pen this Philosophy we must needs apprehend after our weak manner to be true true concerning God for we cannot think of God as we ought but we must think that he doth actually know his owne infinite excellencyes and all whatsoever he intend's to doe or doth in Heaven or Earth this knowledge being active produceth somewhat which is his Word when he pleaseth to expresse himselfe outwardly to man he doth it two wayes or by two sorts of words written in the hearts of men or in the Creatures legibly which are two Books in which God expresseth his will or else by voice immediately framed by himselfe or his Prophets inspired by him the Scripture confirme's all this Philosophy First for men I need not write of their inward Words Psal. 10.6 speaking of the wicked man he hath said in his heart I shall never be removed so Psal. 14.1 The foole hath said in his heart there is no God many times there are words and Speeches in the heart which were never delivered by Tongue or Pen but never any delivered outwardly that was not first conceived inwardly a man may as well be borne who was never conceived we may discerne the Spirit of God shewing us all those wayes of God's speaking outwardly Mat. 3. and the last Lo a voice from Heaven saying this is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased so Rom. 2.15 which shew the works of the Law written in their hearts there is an expression by writing and Rom. 1.19 20. for God hath shewed it unto them for the invisible things from the creation of the World are clearly seene being understood by the things that are made there we see a writing in the Creatures and that written by God for saith the Text God hath shâ—wed it unto them And for God's internall word Psal. 2.7 The Lord hath said unto me thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee here was a Word spoken internally by God and not to man it was declared to man but spoken internally only to his Sonne Much more may be added to this purpose but I love not to weary my Reader unnecessarily The word spoken of in my Text is this internall word and therefore written with an Article the or that Word emphatically other words are the words of Isaiah Ieremiah Iohn Peter or the like but this was the that word the like of which never was and to this will agree most aptly all which St. Iohn discourseth as will appeare in my
things or the very sensitive in sensitive things for there is necessary to sight and understanding a two-fold Light internall and externall internall which enable's the power to work and externall which render's the object visible this internall light is that life which God preserve's in any living thing that doth see but then apply it to the eternall life inchoate or begun here so those graces which put a man in the State of future happinesse do likewise like light shew him the way to it or for that light perfect in Heaven for thaâ— glory which felicitate's and make 's us happy doth likewise enlighten and shew that blessed object of the most sacred Trinity Here we have no controversy with them I am briefe therefore And the light shined in darknesse and the darknesse comprehended it not To this all that Socinus saith is that Christ is called the light not onely because by heavenly Doctrine he enlighten's men to Life eternall but likewise because that by an irreprehensible and most holy Life he shined before them that they ought to imitate him for so he saye's John 13.15 I have given you an example that as I have done so should ye do likewise the men of this world were this darknesse saith he c. this hath much truth with it but not all that this Text conteyneâ—s for first if we conceive Christ to be this light as he saith we may take him in a two-fold Capacity as the word of which was spoke before the word of God then we may consider that this which was before shined in his humanity which was darknesse in Comparison and that darknesse comprehended it not that is obscured it not so but that some ray or glorious Lustre of his Divinity brake out or else the whole person came into the World which was darknesse and that darknesse laboured to crush and suppresse him but did not comprehend him Sect. 8. There was a man sent from God whose name was John Let me here admonish the Reader of one word to prevent a future objection with which the whole troop of the Socinians are full and boast that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render was signifye's in its proper nature to be born or begotten of another or draw his Originall from another and from thence I conceive the word gigno in Latine to be derived but because amongst all created things there is nothing which is not originated doth not draw its being from some other therefore it is often used to signify to be but I am perswaded no where in the language of this Evangelist and could the Latine or English Language so well beare with the Graecisme they would have rendered it there was a man made sent factus missus but because that sound 's harshly in these languages they choose rather to be contented with saying he was sent then he was made sent this Caution I premit now I meet with the word for the elegancy of the English rendred it so but it was used in its naturall sense where the language would beare it all things were made by him c. for although the sense be the same to say he was made sent as to to say he was sent yet the English or Latine phrase better agree's with the latter then the former and the Evangelist did of purpose as St. Cyrill thought change the phrase from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he had used before In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the like because the word was not made nor created but when he came to St. John although the sense be much the same he changed the phrase from he was to that he was made such made sent because he was a made creature Sect. 9. The same came for a Witnesse to beare witnesse of that light I find little in these words excepted against by them onely Socinus urgeth that if John Baptist were a Witnesse of Christ he either knew him not to be that great God or else he very weakly performed his trust for he onely testifyed that he was Christ that he was the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the World that he should baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire that he was greater then himself but nothing of his being the great God I put down his sense and first I answer to his last Clause that if he had put it down in the clearest words that he or I could invent they would have found where some of these words had been used to another sense some where or other in Scripture but I am perswaded that he did witnesse enough to satisfy any Conscience that were not absolutely resolved to the Contrary for first consider that place in the 29. of this Chapter Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World Who can take away man's sinnes but God but the great God against whom they were committed and therefore he saye's in the 34. Verse of the same bearing witnesse of it This is the Son of God we mince it in our translation to make the phrase smoothe there is an Article at both Son and God it should be that Son of that God both with an Emphasis which these men stand much upon in other places I know their expositions of these words but I bring them for illustration that a man who is not maliciously benâ— might think this enough to expresse him the God and then looke upon St. Matth. 3.11 he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire who could do that but the great God then see in the same place whose shooes latchet I am not worthy to untyâ— certainly the meanest man is worthy enough to unty the Shooe-latchet of the greatest King in the World who is onely a man but if he be God likewise the greatest is not worthy of the meanest Office about him Certainly St. John Baptist delivered abundantly enough for the satisfaction of any sober man in this point I proceed That all men through him might believe I find no dispute concerning this businesse out of these words I let them passe therefore nor about the two next Verses I come therefore to the tenth Verse Sect. 10. He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Socinus in his Comment upon these Words boast's much pag. 19. that no man which he knowe's expound's them right but himselfe and his exposition is that the New Testament being full of Hebraismes and the Hebrewes having compound Words do therefore use uncompounded words for compounds and so in this place the World was made by him is as much as re-made regenerated made anew and to this purpose he produceth Ephes. 2.10 we are his Workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works Certainly if there be no clearer Text then this this Term made need not be wrested to re-makeing for first let the
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
distribution to l. 19. r. This which p. 266. l. 29. r. although I l. 33. r. making men p. 268. l. 11. r. of God I l. 30. r. liberality p. 269. l. 4. r. men who l. 9. r. Prudence l. 14. r. mistaken in l. 15. r. passions l. 16. r. Custom to p. 270. l. 27. r. Fortitude are p. 271. p. 273. l. 18. r. person a â—rue p. 282. l. 28. r. men p. 284. l. 13. r. it is p. 285. l. 24. r. he who p. 288. l. 4. r. God's People l. 26. r. give 's a reason p. 289. l. 12. r. Mr. Hobbes the p. 293. l. 20. r. our Saviour l. 33. r. God which p. 299. l. 25. r. God be p. 300. l. 19. r. body both p 308. l. 1. r. phrase of p. 312. l. 10. r. which in p. 334. l. 24. r. word spoken p. 335. l. 32. r. and as well as this acknowledged p. 345. l. 29. r. this Word which is a reall Word p. 356. l. 24. r. before he p. 357. l. 32. r. God in p. 358. l. 29. r. this of p. 365. l. 17. r. produceth Ephes. p. 369. l. 1. r. observable there p. 370. l. 20. r. the same Christ p. 372. l. 28. r. Angels told p. 274. l. 24. r. as by p. 375. l. 32. r. Flesh in p. 378. l. 25. r. respect of p. 379. l. 16 r. inhaesion or p. 380. l. 8. r. person to be p. 383. l. 16. r. expounded it p. 392. l. 30. r. Creature 's p. 393. l. 14. r. But I say p. 394. l. 31. r. effects some p. 395. l. 31. r. faith may p. 396. l. 31. r. and for l. 33. r. Faith to p. 397. l. 12. r. Lully I think passeth p. 397. l. 16. r. essence Gabriel l. 26. r. Lully from p. 398. l. 2. r. Lully thought p. 399. r. Bernard Luthenburgensis p. 400. l. 23. r demonstration can p. 405. l. 30. r. God-head p. 410. l. 11. r. these they p. 411. l. 24. r. fires or l. 31. r. object so p. 413. l. 21. r. Spirit I p. 421. l. 31. r. end so p. 427. l. 22. r. them these p. 434. l. 24. r. Paricides nor p. 435. l. 29. r. interest and In the Margin P. 11. l. last r. motion p. 13. l. 7. r. brain p. 16. l 2. r. amisse p. 20. l. 3. r. contraction p. 21. l. 3. r. medium p. 145. l. last r. feares p. 146. l. 5. r. injury p. 161. l. 5. r. wives l 6. r. estates p. 16â— l. 3. r. various p. 166. l. 7. r. life l. last r. happinesse p. 176. l. 8. r. end p. 177. l. 9. r. judgment p. 181. l. 5. r. Man in p. 183. l. last r. it p. 190. l. 5. r. it p. 193. l. 10. r. nothing p. 194 l. 4. r. war p. 200. r. socis p. 204. l. 4. r. Hobbes p. 215. l. 6. r. principles p. 216. l. 9. r. other p. 217 l. last r. Fool p. 219. l. last r. question p. 224. l. 2. r. Covenant l. 4. r. one l. 6. r. felicity l. 9. r. broken l. 12. r. Theeves p. 225. l. 4. r. Rebellion p. 228. l. 5. r. happinesse p. 231. l. 9. r. felicity p. 232. l. last r. Caesar p 237. l last r. it p. 240. l. last r. life p. 242. l. 3. r. it p. 251. l. last r. justice It. p. 252. l. last p. 260. l. 3. r. justice l. last r. cavill p. 261. l last r. Philosophy p. 263. l. last r. Epicurus p. 267. l. last r. happinesse p. 272. l. last 1. circumstantial p. 274. l. last r. faculties p. 277. r it p. 281. l. 4. r. Nature p. 282. l. 7. r. obeyed l. last r. Midwives 285. l. 4. r. him l. 6. r. Kings p. 289. l. last r. Generall p. 291. l. 4. r. God It. l. last p. 293. l. 2 r. Ochinus l. last r. Smiglecius p. 298. l 4. r. Bishop p. 300. l. 24. r. God Christ's r. 304. l. 2. r. answer'd p. 314. l. 5. r. Attributes p 315. l. last r. Bishop p. 323. l. 4. r. his p. 325. l. 2. r. Metaphor l. 4. r. Metonymâ—e p. 326. l. 2. r. vine l. 3. r. shepheard p. 328. l. last r. figures p. 330. l. last r. sense p. 331. l. 4. r. humanity l. 6. r. Metaphorically p. 335. l. last r. Word p. 341. r. Philosophers p. 349. l. last r. Tautology p. 357. l. last r. interpretation p. 362. l. 4. r. Socinus p. 363. l. last r. Christ p. 365. r. regeneration p. 367. l. last World p. 371. l. last r. Smiglecius p. 375. l. last r. flesh p. 376. l. 2. r. Scripture p. 377. l. 3. r. Comment p. 378. l. 7. r Man Iâ— p. 11. l. 18. r. Objection p. 379. l. 3 r. Smalcius's p. 380. l. 3. r. person p. 381. l. last r. him p. 385. l. last r. himself p. 387. l. 3. r. Ghost l last r. Deity p. 389. l. last r. Scripture p. 390. l. last r. mysteries p. 392. l. 4. r. blasphemous limiting p. 396. l. 4. r. scandal p. 397. l. 6. r. Vasques p. 398. l 5. r. Saracens p. 399. l. last r. Vasques p. 400. l. 9. r. Another from p. 401. l. 8. r. eternity or p. 405. l. 5. r. effect p. 40â— l. last r. knowledge p. 411. l. 13. r. Ghost p. 415. l. last r. determine p. 416. l. last r. reason p. 424. l. 5. r. world p. 026. l. last r. person p. 437. l. â— r. Occupancy The Literal Transpositions Defects c. will discover themselves to the Reader without particular Advertisement and not disordering the sense require little or no amendment by his Pen. The most remarkable Errours to be amended Table to the Chap. and Sect. chap. â—3 s. 5. for we read Were Numbers mistaken FOr page 207. printed 208. for 208. printed 100. for 312. is printed 212. for 320. printed 220. for 368. printed 37â— page 33. r. chap. 5. p. 80. r. chap. â—â— page 169. r. chap. 22. page 177. r. chap. â—3 page 180. r. chap. 23. page 181. r. chap. 24. p. 184. r. chap. 24. p. 208. r. chap. 27 In the Alphabeticall Table col 2. l. 28. for 181. r. 1â— In the Book Page 7. insert this Title Observations c. upon the second Chapter of his Humane Nature p. 9. l. 7. for many r. may p 18. l. 2 â— I think it should be effected is not hard to prove p. 34. l. 9. r. those species p. 35. l. 31. r. I finding p. 40. l. 21. dele it p. 44. l. 1. for some r. smell p. 52. l. 31. for they passe r. it passeth p. 61. l. 16. r. bring p. 70. l. 1. for reat r. that p. 77. l. 4. r. of ingenuity of docibility doe appear in as great a resemblance of stupidity p. 95. l. 25. r. deduced p. 97. l. 12 r. this is not that p. 100. l. 29. for boldly r. solidly p. 104. l. 12. r. or more or greater numbers p. 105. l. 15. r. must be infinite twenties likewise p. 108. l. 15. dele
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
their Doctrine with Miracles every where it must therefore be understood of the Governours to whom this Religion is committed but how harshly in Common language that Relative those men will be applyed to these Governours may easily appeare to any man who reads it well his Conclusion is that they the Governours being suspected the Religion which they desire to uphold must be suspected likewise and without the feare of the Civil Sword contradicted and rejecâ—â—d Sect. 2. I conceive if his premises had been true the Conclusion would not be deduced out of them for Religion formed is like the statute Lsw as before is expressed the Governours may be thought as Iudges whose ability or integrity may be suspected in expounding the sense of it yet the Law is still as true and remaines as unsuspected as if they were vertuous the folly and corrupt mannage of the Iudges may let in a loosnesse of living and a neglect of the Law but it lessens not the Obligation of it nor the estimation but amongst sleight and trivial persons So if Bishops or the Governours in Religion cease to have Apostolical integrity or sufficiencies or that degree of it which should be expected from such persons they open a gap to the Countenancing of wickedness and prophaneness but the Religion of Christians which is built and founded upon the revealed will of God in the Statute Book the Bible is not tainted by it nor the duty to it in the Opinion of any but men of Fancy for they neither being the foundation nor the evidence of the foundation onely preservers of it out of Office not of nature they may do much harme to the building but not corrupt the foundation nor destroy the evidence of it which was set out by those who were instruments in the first forming that Religion not them which were Governours afterwards Sect. 3. He goes on indeed in some Method and ingenuity to shew how Governours may fall under this suspicion and first he saith That which taketh away the reputation of wisdome in him who formeth or addeth to Religion when it is already formed is the enjoyning a beleefe of contradictories I here stop and tell you there is a difference betwixt the formers of a Religion and the Governours as I have shewed and for this word Contradiction I say that in the forming of Religion which is to be done by the revealed will of God immediately the wit of man is not to dispute contradictions but whatsoever it shall please God to reveale we are to beleeve though it appeare to us Contradictory I dare say I can demonstrate some things which a weak and silly man would think contradictions and a man exceeding me in learning as much as I do him may serve me so and much rather that infinite perfection and not to be fathomed abysse of Gods most unsearchable wisdom may say a thousand things apparent to it feasible by that infinite power which the wisest man may be at a losse to find possible and therefore whatsoever is delivered by the first agents in forming a Religion by the immediate revelation of God must be beleeved although it appear to us full of contradictions but what he speaks to us concerning the Governours if they should adde any thing to the former credenda things to be beleeved which to humane judgement appeares contradictory their wisdome will be disparaged by it may be allowed But at the latter end of that sentence he saith Sect. 4. A man may have a revelation of many things above but of nothing against natural reason This seems to be flat against the excellency of that Faith for which the Father and patterne of the faithfull is commended by St. Paul Rom. 4.18 who speaking of Abraham saith Who against not onely above hope beleeved in hope where in expresse terms the Apostle overthrows his distinction for against hope must be against that hope which natural Reason could give him he beleeved in the promise which God made in Faith as it was with him so it must be with us It is said in the following verse that he considered not his own body now dead nor the deadnesse of Sarahs womb so must we not consider our impossibility in things delivered by God how they oppose our reason but beleeve without thought of nature or reason for it yea though it be against our reason and therefore it is most appositly phrased by St. Paul in the first and last Chapters to the Romans Obedience unto faith men must captivate their Reason to the revelations of God and not considering what Reason saith against it submit to it Thus I think in those cases where the instruments of forming a Religion doe propose any thing though contrary to our reason or contradictory in our apprehension we ought to submit to it although not in those cases to these who have the government in Religion when it is once formed Sect. 5. I will adde one note more pertinent to this business that although in the following 59. pag. he puts downe examples which illustrate his other grounds of suspicion yet as a man guilty he sets down none for this but having as I have reason to mistrust some ill design puts it downe in a language and manner fit enough to steale a beleefe of what he speaks into an inconsiderate Reader although he gives no proof of what he writes to a judicious Reader And now I have finished what I intended concerning this Chapter for the other things which he saith bring these persons into suspicion by reason of the deficience of those qualities I grant to him and cannot choose but say they were handsome and ingenious expressions and likewise fitted with very pertinent examples but they accidentally only when unluckily they happen to be observed by weak capacities doe distract the vivacity and quicknesse of their Faith and so perhaps may in tract of time quench and extinguish the flame of it to its first Principles as I have shewed And here I will settle my self to what followes in the next Chapter CHAP. XVIII Concerning the equality or inequality of men by nature Their prudence and self-opinion of it not universal Sect. 1. THis Chapter is intituled Of the naturall Condition of Mankind as concerning their felicity or misery and is the prettiest great nothing that ever I read it makes a brave and gallant shew of ingenious Paradoxes but is only a shew where truths and falshoods are so ingeniously mixed as the one sets off the other with a great semblance of reality although it be but a semblance He describes a man by his worst peices only many of which are truly in him but delivering them only without his good he makes him little better then an incarnate Devill yea what is worser makes him seeme to act those things justly which we abominate in them so that he should be the hatefullest creature in the world I will therefore for the honour of Mankind
endeavour to rescue it from such foule scandals and aspersions not catching at every word but driving at the maine sense of what he delivers Sect. 2. He layes the foundation of this Chapter upon equality of men which are saith he made so equall by nature that there is an inconsiderable difference I put not down his own words but the sense to avoid tediousnesse This Conclusion for the most part is true but in general false for if we look to the bodies of some men we see them so decrepid that their strength is not considerable alone and what he talkes of confederacy by that accompt he may bring a Fly in competition for a Fly with company enough can effect any thing and for the Soule there are some men so sottish and uncapable of designe or contrivance that certainly there are many Beasts which exceed them in fitness for such business as he allot's them but allow this phrase as he utter's it to be understood of the greater sort and number of men not of all Sect. 3. Then let us consider that Phrase Nature hath made men what shall we understand by Nature Natura naturans the God of Nature who at the first made men then we must affirme this of Adam and Evah which were made without question in no state of enmity nor in an absolute equality but such a difference as was necessary for two friends which might assist one another wishing each other good and the good of each other was the good of both the hopes of each the hopes of both so that those could not be the works of Nature which he meanes being such as were made for peace and amity and where was impossibility of hostility betwixt them the hurt of either being the hurt of both because which soever was destroyed the other lost much of assistance We will therefore see how other sons of Nature are made in what condition whatsoever Man else was made by nature he was made a poor helpless Child in the greatest disproportion both of Soul and body to his Parents that possibly can be and in this state there are none of those things which he fancieth nor hopes of attaining ends nor feares of others assistance but the poor Infant confides and trusts in hâ—s Parents and submits to them Methinks he discourses of Men as if they were Terrigenae born out of the earth come up like Seeds without any relation one to the other I let alone his secret vaunt of Knowledge in the latter end of this 60. Pag. Sect. 4. But in the bottome of that page he saith Prudence is but Experience which equall time bestowes equally upon all men in those things they equally apply themselves to See here the unconstancy of this Author Chap. the 2. Of which I have discoursed he saith Experience is memory of many things Chap. 8. pag. 34. he saith Prudence depends upon Experience now it is but Experience These two are impossible to be true both for nothing doth depend upon it self that which it depend's upon must be distinct from what depend's upon it now we may distinguish thâ—se three thus Memory retaines the actions done and past Experience collects from thence the practices of men in such cases but Prudence according to both Memory Experience and the rules of right reason drawne from all the guidance of History or Natural reason or what else can supply any assistance to the intended end directs a man in his actions and therefore he spake very weakly of Prudence when he said it was but Experience and contrarily there is a mighty difference in mens Prudence for Prudence is a thing acquired by industry and paines in which as men differ in the industry so they doe in Prudence yea all men have not the like advantages of conversing with able men and Bookes which are great helps for the getting Prudence though they may have the same industry Sect. 5. Pag. 61. He saith that that which may make such equality that is of Prudence concerning which he had spoken before incredible is but a vaine conceit of our own wisdome c. for such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty or more Elâ—quent or more Learned yet they will hardly beleeve there are many so wise as themselves for they see their owne wit at hand and others at a distance This is a strange contradictory passage to its self for first consider that what was conceited by this to be opposed was the equality of Prudence to oppose this he introduceth mens conceits of their own wisdome he that reflects upon his Exposition of names in Cap. 5. pag. 22. shall find Prudence and Wisdome two things Therefore a high esteeme of a mans own wisdom may be without the like imagination of his own Prudence Then consider that he saith Men will allow others more witty learned eloquent but not more wise he proves this because men see their own wit at hand mark how he said just before that they would allow others more wit but not more wisdom the reason saith he because they see their wit at hand would not this if it prove any thing prove the contrary to what he useth it That because their wit not their wisdom is discerned at hand others at a distance therefore their wit must appear great though not their wisdom This manner of false reasoning unreasonable arguing is frequent with him throughout the whole Book Sect. 6. But to the Conclusion this estimation of a mans own eminence in Prudence is least discerned of any thing in that universality which he expresseth for first if Prudence as he just before defined it be but Experience it is impossible that young men should think they have as much Experience as old then if Prudence be as it is the guide of a mans actions to their designed ends then consider that there are none but Fooles who do not take advise of men more excellent in their several wayes then themselves Doe not men that would get health advise with Physicians for the setling their estates advise with Lawyers for the managing of a business at Court or Countrey advise with others more prudent in these practises In this particular business although I am confident I speak more rationally then he or perhaps then some others would doe with whom I consult yet I advise with those lesse scient but I think more prudent then my self whether it be discretion to publish this or not what is the reason of this but that I and all others doe acknowledge our selves to be lesse prudent though we find our selves more learned then some others well then that doubt he raiseth was but a fancy of his own and had no foundation upon any ground of reason or experience and therefore what he builds upon it must needs fall of its self where I leave it and step to the consideration of other inferences which he introduceth the