of any thing may be enhaunced ibid. The Asse's head and kab of Pidgeons dung in the siege of Samaria 255 When the Arithmetical proportion must be applyed to the value of the thing ibid. V. Argument 2. against it answer'd 256 A Judge or Umpire limited by the rule of Justice ibid. VI. What may be due by both kinds of justice without covenant 257 VII The justice of an Arbitratour different according to the case 259 Mr. Hobbes too nice and singular in his language ibid. His mistake in the division of justice 260 In his measure of commutative ibid. His boldness in confronting all the learned men before him ibid. Bodin's cavil ibid. His aâ—ery conceit of an harmonical proportion 261 VIII Mr. Hobbes's restraint of Moral Philosophy ibid. IX His censure of all Philosophers 262 He forget's the distinction of a good man and a good citizen ibid. The foundation of Ethicks Oeconomicks Politicks ibid. X. Personal and relative perfection how taught by Philosophers 263 Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy compared with that of Epicurus ibid. With that of Lucretius 265 Epicurus's excellent discourse concerning Death ibid. Frugality and Temperance 266 Mr. Hobbes approacheth nearer the worst of the Epicureans then do the Mahumetans 267 XI Wherein the Stoicks placed humane happiness ibid. Wherein Aristotle 268 XII Mr. Hobbes mistake's the Philosopher's discourse of moderating Passions ibid. St. Paul's Philosophy 269 XIII Of Fortitude and Liberality 270 CHAP. XXX I. Mr. Hobbes's definition of a Person too circumstantial 272 II. No less applicable to a feigned then a true person 273 III. Person not Latine ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppositum 274 Person differently used in several arts and faculties ibid. IV. Misplaced by Mr. Hobbes 275 No man personate's himself ibid. Cicero mis-interpreted ibid. Person how taken by the Criticks 276 V. Boethius's definition of a person ibid. Rich. de sancto Victore object 's against it ibid. His other definition of it more difficult 277 Scotus's Objections against the former ibid. VI. The definition explained and vindicated by the Bishop 278 The distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quo ibid. Reasonable of what extent 279 The Philosophers and School-men could have rectified Mr. Hobbes's mistake of a person ibid. The Etymology and common acception of Persona 280 VII Not the actor but the acted is the person ibid. VIII No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature 281 With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept ibid. IX The first part of Mr. Hobbes's answer destroy's the second 282 God to be obeyed before Man ibid. An instance in the Hebrew Midwives ibid. Whâ— probably had covenanted 283 X. No breach of covenant which had not a right to bind 284 XI The true God improperly and over-boldly said to be personated ibid. Moses though instead of God did not personate him 285 Nor do Kings ibid. Nor Priests ibid. XII How Moses was instead of God to Aaron 186 Hohim used for God what name ibid. How Moses was made a God to Pharaoh ibid. How fully soever Moses had represented God he could not personate him 287 XIII The Israelites how the people of God how of Moses 288 XIV Moses's phrase shew's he personated not God 289 XV. God was King of the Israelites Moses but their Judge and General ibid. A messenger and mediatour betwixt God and them 290 CHAP. XXXI I. Uncomely to say our Saviour personated God 291 Who was really God ibid. II. Proved to be so from Acts 20.17 28. 292 Against Bernardinus Ochinus 293 Refuted by Smiglecius ibid. To whom Smalcius reply's having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus 294 Ochinus deserted by the Socinians ibid. Smalcius attempt's in vain to evacuate the Divinity of Christ. 295 III. Châ—ist's bloud not to be called the bloud of the Father according to Smiglecius 297 Smalcius's answer that argue's how it may ibid. His argument uâ—ged to the farthest by the Bishop 298 Who find's the passions not the actions of men to be called God's ibid. The shifting Genius of the Socinians deluded by a single word 299 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how to be translated ibid. The Text which want's it retorted upon the Socinians 300 IV. How Christ is the Son of God 301 What a Son is ibid. V. The particulars in the definition applyed to our Saviour 302 VI. The mystery of our Saviour's divine and humane generation signifyed Mic. 5.2 303 The Bishop's observation upon that Text ibid. Faustus Socinus answer'd 304 And Valkelius 305 With other of the Socinians 307 VII The Text taken in pieces and vindicated from their Objections 308 One in essence plurally expressed when the effects are divers 309 Christ's eternal Egression compared to the shining of the Sun 310 VIII How from the beginning may signifie from eternity 311 A two-fold consideration of the word Beginning 312 A or Ab often denote causations ibid. From the beginning not to be understood from the beginning of Dâ—vid's reign ibid. The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto 313 IX God's descent to Man's capacity in the doctrine of his Attributes 314 Particularly that of his Eternity ibid. X. The discourse between Ochinus and his Spirit moderated by the Bishop 315 Who enlargeth upon the Argument against the Photinian or Socinian and the Arrian 316 CHAP. XXXII I. The next name of our Saviour the Word 318 Socinus answer'd in his exâ—lication of St. John Chap. 1. ibid. The opinion of Ebion and Cerinthus discussed 319 The shifts of the Socinians 322 II. St. John's reason of his writing not solitary as Socinus alledgeth ibid. Beza's genuine lection 323 Socinus singular in his ibid. But for a little consonance with Tremelius ibid. III. How the Socinians interpret John 1.1 324 With reference to the Baptist's preaching ibid. IV. Their Metaphor And Metonymie 325 V. Figures never used by Christ without intimation how the Text is to be understood ibid. So that of a Vine A Sheepheard A Doore 326 His Metonymies of being the Truth Life and Resurrection ibid. The Truth and Life may be taken without a figure 327 VI. Christ called the Word according to none of those figures 328 But according to the Catholick sense is the internall word of God 329 How Aaron was Moses's mouth ibid. John Baptist called a Voice ibid. The word taken for Christ in a far different sense 330 VIII Not to be understood of our Saviour's humanity 331 Neither Metaphorically Nor Metonymically ibid. IX Socinus's shift 332 X. A brief Paraphrase on the first words in St. John ibid. A word internall and externall both of God and Man 333 XI The Philosophers of old call'd the Son of God his word 335 XII As well they who writ after as who before St. John 336 XIII Which is yielded by Socinus ibid XIV Their language used by the Primitive Fathers and Saint Paul 337 That of Plato consonant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John 338 Plato's description of Heaven parallel'd to that
The severall parts acted by the Understanding and the Will both which faculties are imperfect in this world The certainty of felicity after death resum'd and proved Object 1. Ans. The Objection answer'd toâ—ching man's felicâ—ty in the knowledge c. he hath though â—mperfect Objection 2. Answer A second Objâ—ction answer'd about Eternal felicity being the last Article of our Faith The same Conclusion may be the result of Faith and Reason An Argument to confirme this drawn from the H. Martyrs constancy in their sufferings Mr. Hobbes suspected of a design to disparage the foresaid Article of our â—aith Several qualificâ—tions good and bad in the making and breaking Covenants No dammage without injuâ—y The explication of Commutative and Distâ—ibutive justice To which is premised that of common or legal justice Many acts of Justice being not comprehended under the other two Argument 1. against an Arithmeticall proportion in Commutative Justâ—ce examined By what the price of any thing may â—e enhaunsed The Asse's head and kab of Pidgeons dung in the Siege of Samaria When the Arithmeticall proportion must be applied to the value of the thing 2. Argument agaiâ—st it answered A Judge or Umpire 〈◊〉 by the rule of â—ustice What may be due by both kindes of Justice without Covenant The justice of an Arbitrator different according to the Case Mr. Hobbes 〈◊〉 nice and singular in his language His mistake in the division of justice In his measure of commutative His boldnesse in confronting all the learned men before him Bodâ—n's cavill His aieâ—y conceit of an harmonical proportion Mr. Hobbes's restraint of Moral Philosophy His censure of all Philosophers He forget's the distinction of a good man and a good Citizen The foundation of Ethikes Oeconomikes Politikes Personall and relative perfectâ—on how taught by Philosophers Mr. Hobbes's Philosophy compared with that of Epicurus With that of Lucretius Epicurus's excellent discourse concerning Death Frugality and Temporance Mr. Hobbes approacheth nearer the worst of the Epicureans then do the Mahumetans Wherein the Stoicks placed humâ—ne happinesse Wherein Aristotle Mr Hobbes mâ—stake's the Philosophers discouâ—se of moderating assions St. Pauls Philosophy Of Fortitude and liberality Mr. Hobbes's definition of a Person too circumstantial No less applicable to a feigned than a true person Person not Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppositum Person differently used in severall arts and faculties Misplaced by Mr. Hobbes No man personate's himself Cicero mis-interpreted Person how taken by the Criticks Boethius's definition of a person Rich. de Sancto Vâ—ctore object 's against it His other Definition of it More dâ—fficult Scotus's Objections against the former The Definition explained and vindicated by the Bishop The Distinction of Communicable ut quod and ut quâ— Reasonable of what extent The Philosophers â—nd School-men could have râ—ctified Mr Hâ—bbes's mistake of a person The Etymologie and common aâ—ception of Persona Not the Actor but the acted is the person No Covenant obliging to act against the Law of Nature With whomsoever any such is made it must not be kept The fiâ—st part of Mr. Hobbes's answer destroye's the second God to be obeyâ—d before man An instance in the Hebrew Midwives Who probably had covenanted No breach of Covenant which had not a right to biâ—d The true God improperly and over-boldly said to be personated Moses though instead of God did not personate him Nor doe Kings Nor Priests How Moses was instead of God to Aaron ELOHIM How Moses was made a God to Pharaoh Hoâ— fully soever Moses had represented God he could not personate him The Israelites how the pâ—ople of Gâ—d and how of Mâ—ses Moses's phrase shewe's he personated not God God was King of the Israelites Moses but their Judge and Generall A messenger and Mediatour betwixt God and them Uncomely to say our Saviour personated God Who was really God Pâ—â—ved to be 〈◊〉 from Acts 20.17 28. Against Bernard Ochinus Refuted by Smiglâ—cius To whom Smâ—lcius replies having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus Oâ—hinus deserâ—â—d by the Socinians Smalcius attempt's in vaine to evacuate the divinity of Christ. Christâ—s blood not to be called the blood of the Father according to Smiglecius Smalcius that argue's how it may His argument urged to the farthest by the Bishop Who finde's the passions not the actions of men to be called God's The shifting Genius of the Socinians de luded by a single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how to be translated The text whâ—ch want's it retorted upon the Socinians How Christ is the son of God What a son is The particulars in the definition applyâ—ed to our Saviour The mysterie of our Saviour's divine humane generation signified Mic. 5.2 The Bishop's observation on that Text. Faustus Socinus answâ—â—'d And Valkelius With other Socinians The text taken in pieces and vindicated from their objections One in essence plurally expressed when the effects are divers Christs eternal egression compared to the shining of the Sun How from the beginning may signifie from eternity A twofold consideration of the word Beginning A or Ab often denote causationâ— c. From the beginning not to be understood from the beginning of David's reigne The Socinians urged to a contradiction in adjecto God's descent to man's capacity in the doctrine of his attributes Particularly that of his eternity The discourse between Ochinus and his Spirit moderated by the Bishop Who enlargeth upon the Argument against the Photinian or Socinian and the Arian The next name of our Saviour the Word Socinus answerd in his Explication of St. John Ch. 1. The opinâ—on of Ebion and Cerinthus discussed Epiphanius contra haeret tom 2. cap. 28 The shifts of the Socinians St. Iohn's â—eason of his writing not solitary as Socinus alledgâ—th Beza's genuine lection Socinus rigulaâ— in his But for a little consonance with Tremelius How the Socinians interpret Joh. 1.1 With reâ—erence to the Baptist's preaching Their Metaphor And Metonymie Figures never used by Christ without intimation how the text is to be understood So that of a vine A Shepheard A Doore His Metonymies of being the Truth Life and Resurrection c. The Truth and life may be taken without a figure Christ called the Word according to none of those figures But according to the Catholick sense is the internal Word of God How Aaron was Moses's mouth John Baptist call'd a voice The Woâ—d taken for Christ in a farre different sense Not to be understood of our Saviour's humanity Neither Metaphorically Nor Metonymically Socinus's shift A brief Paraphraâ—â— Wâ—â—es the first 〈◊〉 in St John A Word internal and external both of God and Man The Philosophers of old callâ—d the Son of God his Word As well they who writ after as who before St. John Which is yielded by Socinus Their language used by the primitive Fathers and St. Paul That of Plato conâ—onant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John Plato's deâ—â—â—lption of heaven parallel'd to
is no word of eternity but it is word for word as it is in our English ye might have life through his name or in his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his power his strength which none could grant but the great God and truely I wonder where he got that translation for it is without the Originall nor Beza nor Erasmus nor Montanus nor any that I see but something like it Tremelius his translation out of the Syriacke and yet he reserve's that Emphasis which I make use of and render's it thus and when ye shall believe ye shall have life eternall by his name the force of which last phrase by his name was cleane omitted by Socinus so then it seeme's to me that if St. Iohn did here in these words put down the totall reason of his writing this Gospell which can never be evinced yet in this is clearely taught this Conclusion of our Saviours divinity and that he was the Son of God nor could ever man have understood it in any other sense then we doe untill that foolish conceipt of a created God was introduced of which God willing I entend to treate hereafter Thus I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to his objections against the story of Cerinthus which one thing granted the expressions of the rest would be undoubtedly very perspicuous Sect. 3. So now at the last I will addresse my selfe to my businesse the first Chap. of St. John verse 1. In the beginning was the word c. there is scarce any one word in these fourteen or fifteen verses which I intend God willing to expound that hath not abid some slurre or other to discountenance the true sense of it I shall begin with the first word In the beginning This say they with one consent is understood of the beginning of the Gospell which say they was when John Baptist begun to preach so Socinus where before at the bottome of page 13. and page 14. In principio erat verbum In the beginning was the Word that is Christ the Son of God in the beginning of the Gospell to wit in that time in which John Baptist began to recall the Israelitish people to the right and before that by the preaching of the Baptist he was known to the Jewes he was and he was designed by God to this Office that is of manifesting his will thus far Socinus and by this we see his conceipt to be that in the beginning was in the beginning of the Baptist's preaching then was Christ the word which was man he wonder 's much up and down that men should conceive that St. John should write such mysteries of Christ's essence according to his divinity where indeed we think he make's him write the unreasonable things of his humanity that ever could have been conceived to be expressed by such phrases to understand which I must trespasse a little farther upon the Reader 's patience to consider what these writers meane by this terme Word which Socinus and from him the rest expresse thus Sect. 4. That it is a figurative expression and is mean't of Christ in his Office not his divine nature figurative and so it is either a Metaphor drawn from the similitude Christ hath with our Words for as our Words expresse our minds to those we converse withall so Christ expressed the Will of God to men Secondly by a Metonymy because Christ is the Author of that word which most eminently ought to be called such because it is more profitable and more excellent then all other therefore saith he as Christ sometimes useth a Metaphor calleth himself a vine a Shepheard a gate because he might most fitly be compared to these and now speaking Metonimycally he saith he is the truth the life and the resurrection because he is the Author and cause of these so here c. thus far he in which he and they have taken a greate deale of paines to raise mud in and darken this cleare streame Sect. 5. To which I shall say first that these figures are often used by Christ and such expressions under the notions of Divinity more clearly intelligible but when they are used by him he give 's some intimation to his Auditor how he shall understand them figuratively onely either in that place or some other otherwise a man would hardly assent to him in any but a literal sense There are abundance of other such like names affirmed of our Saviour besides those particularly specified by him in this place all which to handle would require a Volume I will not therefore engage upon them but these he instanceth in now I will touch upon that by them the rest may be discerned First then he call's himself a vine John 15.1 I am the true vine that is I am like a true vine a true not a false vine which look's like a vine but is not a true vine that may be confided in which will bring forth fruit and not deceive the husbandman now that ye may discern the similitude observe he adde's my Father is the husbandman and so go's on with the branches which evidently shew that it is a Similitude For the second John 10.11 I am the good shepheard he explain's it immediately a good shepheard giveth his life for his sheep and so along in that chapter he shew's how his sheep are righteous which make's it apparent that it was a Similitude Again his last Metaphor is used in the same chapter ver 7. I am the Door of the sheep we see he was the shepheard and he is the door in a diverse sense as he is the door he admit's and shut's out now these things are so apparent that the words all about them express them to be Similitudes if not a thousand places of Scripture might teach us that he could not otherwise be a Wooden door or a vine that is a plant or a shepheard such as a countrey shepheard whose sheep were beasts Now let us examine his Metonymy He saith he is the truth life resurrection two of these I find in one sentence in the 14. of this Gospel the 6. I am saith our Saviour the way the truth and the life Truth and Life are his instances our Saviour having told the Disciples ver 4. Whither I go ye know and the way ye know Thomas answered Lord we know not whither thou goest how can we then know the way Jesus answered to this I am the way the truth the life in this word the way no doubt but there may be both those figures he speakes of a Metaphor first for as a way is that Middle place which is between the two Termes à quo and ad quem from whence and whither participating of both and leading whither a man tend's so our Saviour God and man participating of both the extreames heaven and earth and Man walking a long by him shall come to heaven next we may
observe a Metonymy he was the way because by his word he direct's us the way because by his life he hath trod it out for us and by his graces he help 's us to walke in it and this is apparent to any man who shall consider how impossible it is for Christ to be a way a trodden path of ground or how impossible it is for any such way to lead to the Journeyes end which he aimed at The second Terme which is mentioned by Socinus is Truth and for this I may say that I doubt whether there be any figure necessary for Christ as God being Truth it self he must needs likewise be verax true speaking as well as verus and if he should deceive or misguide in the way he should go against his nature and deny himselfe as St. Paul phraseth it 2 Tim. 2.13 now I can justly say that here is no figure or if any it is but this which the context exact's I am the way by directing you to it and that an infallible one which no man can be deceived by for I am truth its self which make's good all I have said and the same I may speake of his last Terme Life I may justly affirme that there needs be no figure in it Christ is the life there is an Article to every Terme life its selfe life in the fountaine all other lives are Peters Pauls a horse's or dog's life but he is life its self life in the fountaine like light in the Sun much more glorious then any other therefore thou who seekest life life eternal which is the journeys end of every man must come by the way which I appoint who am Truth and come to me and thou shalt have it I know as he is life in the fountain and so may be understood so he may be a life to us and called our life the life of men of which hereafter both as an efficient and an object as an efficient producing that life as an object that life of ours consisting in the beatificall vision of the most sacred and blessed Trinity but I see no necessity forcing me to this second exposition but if so the context lead's to it I think I may run through Twenty more and certainly there are Twenty more such speeches but we shall find that there is something in the matter of the discourse or in the Circumstances of the Text which induce to it but in that I have in hand nothing to perswade any man that this Term word should be understood according to any of those figures Sect. 6. Socinus saith it is used now here in Scripture but in the writings of this Evangelist so my search need not be farre in this place of the Gospell in his first Epistle Chapter 1. Verse 1. that which was from the beginning which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the word of Life c. here is no Circumstance inducing us to search a sense that merely a man should be called the word but rather the contrary something divine to which that humanity was united because as here it was from the beginning and because in the second Verse that life of which this is called the word is termed eternall life which was with the Father and was manifested to us was eternall and with him he must therefore be eternally with him this was afterwards manifested to us A third place is Rev. 19.13 his name is called the word of God where I can find againe nothing to that sense but in each place of these this Term word may most aptly be understood according to the Orthodox Catholick sense for the internal word of God nor indeed can they shew me any thing like it in Scrirture Let a man conceive with himselfe what a strange uncouth phrase it is for a man who speake's to be called the word which he speake's yet so must he in their language Sect. 7. Yea but they have just such another fetch Aaron is is sayd Exodus 4.16 to be Moses his mouth the phrase is cleane otherwise and is excellently rendred by our Translators instead of a mouth because Moses had not a clear utterance the second Instance is that Iohn Baptist is called a voyce for my part I think it a reasonable exposition to say that Iohn Baptist was rather he that made the noise and voyce in the Wilderness then the voyce its self to which purpose let us look upon the 40. of Isaiah verse 3. from whence that Text is made use of by three Evangelists we shall find there that the Prophet like a man in a rapture seeme's to heare this noise or voice in the Wilderness and here utter's what he heard he saw in his vision Iohn Baptist in a Wilderness fitting and preparing men for the Gospell but the voice he heard was the vâ—ice of Iohn Baptist who did preach that Doctrine there specifyed I know but one objection of moment can be framed against this which is that Iohn 1.23 when Iohn had been asked who art thou he answered I am the voice c. as saith the Prophet Isaiah to this first it is memorable that in the Originall it is not I am but onely I it is thought by many that this Word I am ought to be understood but if it be not then he doth not affirme himselfe to be the voice but onely leave 's them to apprehend what he is by the Prophet Isaiah but if it be and that we should read it as it is commonly I am yet since he quote's the Prophet I know no reason why it should be understood in a sense dâ—ffering from the Prophets especially since the two other Evangelists which mention this place have not one word of this I am St. Matthew 3.3 for this is he which was spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah the voice of one crying in the Wilderness so likewise St. Luke 3.4 having before delivered how he preached the Baptisme of Repentance adde's as it is written in the Book of the words of Isaiah the Prophet the voice of one c. well then methinke's it is reasonable to conceive that Iohn was rather he that cryed as he did there then the voice which was cryed but I reverence the Antiquity which expound it otherwise and those heavenly Devotions which the Fathers have deduced from that Metaphor and therefore will no further discusse that interpretation that deliver's Iohn to be the voice but grant it and Aaron the mouth of Moses in Exodus the Case is farre differing betwixt these and the word to be taken for Christ who by them was mere man in this sentence In the beginning was the word for consider Reader if in Exodus it had been said the mouth was in the beginning or midle or latter end of a buisinesse would any man living interpret that of Aaron without that Comment which the Spirit of God