Observations, censures, and confutations of notorious errours in Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan and other his bookes to which are annexed occasionall anim-adversions on some writings of the Socinians and such hæreticks of the same opinion with him / by William Lucy ...

Sect. 10.

And, to conclude my handling this Argument, I will touch one Argument of Ochinus from this place, and, the rather, because the book is not in every man's hand; in his 19. Dialogue, which is the first of his se∣cond book, he make's the interlocutors himselfe, who act's the part of an Orthodox man, and Spiritus, which, I conceive, he would have reputed to be some holy Spi∣rit, which should instruct Ochinus better; well then, in my edition put out at Basil 1563, (I know not whether there be any other, unlesse some pieces in English, tran∣slated by an English Lady, long since,) page 136. O∣chinus bring's this place, I have discoursed on, [Micheas quoque de Christo loquens, Micheas, speaking of Christ, when he had say'd, he should arise out of Bethlehem, adde's this, whose Originall was antient, from eternall times. In which he shewes, that he alwayes, and from eternity, was begotten of the Father,] to which Spiritus answere's, that [this may be spoken of some Spirit created by God before all creatures, that is, from the beginning; and from the dayes of time, that is, Olim, heretofore, and before time, or age (Saeculo is his word) yet not ab aeter∣uo, from eternity] the Spirit answere's so, that Photini∣anisme, and Socinianisme, which conceive that Christ had no being before that at Bethlehem, is confuted, by this Text; but, the Spirit was an Arian, who held that Christ was a Creature, according to a Spiritual being, made before the world. Ochinus therefore presseth

him againe, [yea, saith he, this Text is spoken of an eter∣nall generation of the Sonne, therefore he say'd, Origines, goings out in the plurall number, that it might expresse how continually, and alwayes, he proceede's, in the individuall moment of eternity, which cannot be say'd of that created Spirit. Moreover in Zachary God calle's Christ his Com∣panion, &c.] here the Spirit leave's Ochinus his Argu∣ment, and onely falle's upon that place in Zachary; and I am of opinion, the Spirit was at a losse, and there∣fore will enlarge my Conceipt a little upon Ochinus his Argument; first, it is goings forth, that in the words before signifye's his birth at Bethlehem; why should it not be so here? Creation was never termed a goeing forth; it can be nothing then but generation. Then consider, against the Arian, and this Arian Spirit (for I suppose all that I can find in the Socinian confuted) that this goeing forth was before the world was created, out of what must he goe forth? there was nothing but God, he must goe forth, therefore, out of him; againe, consider, that God is eternall, unchangeable, whatso∣ever goe's forth of him must be eternall likewise, or else there must be a change in him; and therefore this must be eternall, as Ochinus urged, and his Spirit never an∣swered. Againe, it is in the plurall number, (goings forth in the dayes of Eternity) this cannot be understood of any but an eternall emanation: all other goings forth have an end, when they are gone forth, and they cannot goe forth againe, unlesse they returne backe to the place, from whence they came; but that which goe's forth eternally, went forth yesterday, to day, and a thousand dayes agoe, dayes without number, and will be so a••terwards; and, in that respect, it may be goeings forth▪ i•• all the dayes and moments of eternity; but yet

a man may object, that all this is but one goeing forth; it is true, but yet, that one contayne's in it ten hundred thousand goings forth, like that Sun which perpetually shine's forth its light, that emanation or goeing forth of light is one continued Act, yet measuring it by dayes, or time, it hath divers goeings forth, according to divers dayes, in which it shined, yesterday, the other day, &c. so may I say of this eternall emanation, or goeing forth, of the Sonne of God, from his Father, it was one eternall egression or goeing forth; but measuring it by dayes, as it is here, it was an hundred thousand, his goeings forth were in the dayes of age or time, as they, or of eternity, as we read it. Thus I conceive, that the errours of the Photinian, or Socinian, and the Arian, are both convict∣ed out of this, and it is proved, that our Saviour had not onely a being, before his birth at Bethlehem, but from all eternity; this by the way of egression or emanation▪ not by creation onely, which was as naturall to his spiri∣tuall and true being, as his birth at Bethlehem to his hu∣mane nature and name. Having, out of this one place, shewed, that the egression of the Son was naturall, I could enlarge my self, upon an explication of the last Clause of my definition, to shew, that the Son of God is of the same nature with his Father; for having shew∣ed how his coming from the Father is by emanation, egres∣sion, not like a thing by force, or made to set him out a perfect Sonne, there is no more required but to prove, how he is of the same nature with the Father; but I love brevity, not to tire the Reader with the least unnecessa∣ry line, because that this will result out of the expositi∣on of those other names, which are given our Saviour in Scripture, I shall knocke off from this, and, by explain∣ing them, hope to stop two gaps with one bush.

Notes

• The discourse between Ochi∣nus and his Spirit moder∣ated by the Bishop.
• Who enlarg∣eth upon the Argument a∣gainst the Photinian or Socinian, and the Arian.