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. 2.

* 1.1In proving our blessed Saviour to be God, I shall not use many places of Scripture, one or two will be enough, so they be cleare and evident; the first shall be Acts 20.

where you shall find that St. Paul verse 17. did at Miletum s••nd to Ephesus, for the elders of the Church which were there; and verse 28. he gave them a charge in these words: Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseeers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath pur∣chased with his own bloud. I observe that the Church is called the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood; this Article (he) can relate to none but God, he therefore, who hath purchas••d this Church with his blood, is God: I will spare nothing that I find brought by any in the way of answeare, but doe hope this place will vindicate its selfe, and this cause very cleerely.* 1.2 First then Bernardinus Ochinus in his second book of his Dialogues, Dialogue 19. but the first of that book page 100. in mine edition, bring's this place and answeares it thus: First, that [this is not spoke of the blood of God, but of Christ, of whom a little before Saint Paul spake] but this is so fa••re from all reason, as no∣thing can be more; for the Apostle did not name ou•• Saviour neerer then foure verses before, in the 24. verse which could abide no construction to this; and here, in this period of Scripture, which is intire in its selfe (the Church of God which he hath purchased with his blood) is no one word which can receive this person, he, but God; that therefore was mighty vaine. He adde's another answeare, that is, that [God may be said to have acquired this Church with his blood, that is, with the blood of Christ, who was his, and whose blood was shed by his will] this answeare of his when Smiglecius had over∣throwne with that reply, that,* 1.3 [by the same reason the blood of Bullockes and Calves might be called the blood of God which were shed by the will of God] which Argument

is of force against that exception o•• Ochinus; for if it were therefore called Gods blood because shed by his will, then all blood, that is shed by his will, may be called the blood of God; for where is the reason of any thing, there that thing is also; Therefore Valentinus Smalcius, a great Socinian,* 1.4 in his answere to Smiglecius, de divina verbi incarnatione, Cap. 24. although he will not under∣take to defend Ochinus, and indeed seeme's not to have read him (although he might as well have owned the Title of these Opinions, as Socinus) yet he endeav∣our's to refute Smiglecius thus; [For (saith he) Ochi∣nus may say, that he did no•• say, that Christs blood was cal∣led God's, onely because it was shed by the will of God, but for the redemption of us, by the will of God, which the blood of Bullocks and Calves could not be said to doe;] thus he; bu••, first, he was mistaken in Ochinus, for he writ no∣thing but the words I have set down, and therefore could not say, he said so, whatsoever he meant. Secondly, if he had said so, as it seeme's Smalcius doth, it had not been material, for which way could the of∣fering that blood, for our redemption, appropriate it to God? it might by that reason have been called our blood, because offered for us; but there is no Colour why the offering for us should entitle God to it, by any particular interest. But Ochinus give's a third answer [I can also say, (saith he) that Christ was God by partici∣pation, and that in a more excellent manner, then any other of the Elect] This answer of his I find deserted by all the Socinians,* 1.5 who allow Christ to be God, but not the great God the Creator, but a man deified, and a God by office, for which those qualifications enabled him; but here the Church, which they were to feed, being acknow∣ledged to be the Church of the great God, they must not

fly to a God by participation, but get some other shift. Valentinus Smalcius, where before,* 1.6 therefore bestowe's that Chap. to expound this place, so as the Divinity of Christ may be avoided; first then he saith that [it is agreed on, who is meant by God in this text, we, the true and chiefe God, he and his part, the father, because he only is the true and chiefe God] thus farre he speake's true, of both our opinions; but now he is mistaken, when he saith [we agree both, that God the father may be said to have acquired his Church with his blood, onely by a figura∣tive speech] first he is mistaken in this, when he saith, that Smiglecius (against whom he write's) should say, that God the father acquired this Church with his blood; for although it were true, that God, who was the father, yet not in the person of the Father, but of the Son, they being both one and the same God. Secondly, he is mistaken in saying, that this was figuratively understood, when indeed it is, as the Text speake's most properly, affirmed of the Son, in whose person the humanity of Christ was taken: that it was acquired or purchased with his owne proper blood. He goe's on, because (saith he) the whole blood of Christ was, by a singular reason, God's; as Christ himself is called the lamb of God, so the blood of this Lamb may be called rightly the blood of God; and al∣though this manner of speech is not familiar and common in the Scriptures; yet is it not absurd or false] I reply: this manner of speaking is not onely unusuall, but not found in Scripture, nor (I think) in any other Author of re∣putation, and is absurd and false; for, certainly, that manner of speaking is absurd and false, which expresseth another thing then what was intended, which this must, if it should meane by the blood of God, the blood of one who was not God, although belonging to God, and, as

I m••y spe••k••, Gods, and not Gods; resemble the case in any other thing; I have a Dog (and, because I will make the instance without exception) I set this Dog at a Sheep; the Dog with his Teeth kill's this Sheep; I may truly say, my Dog killed this Sheep; nay, I can say, because I was the Author of it, that I killed the Sheep, but I cannot say I killed the Sheep with my Teeth, unl••sse I had worried the Sheep with mine own Teeth, but I did it with my Dog's, for although the Dog was mine, and his Teeth were mine out of the same interest; yet they were not mine, but my Dog's Teeth; so in all Sacrifices, the beast which was Sacri∣ficed was his beast, for whom it was offered; and the blood was his, as a part of that beast; but yet neither was it in its self, nor was it ever called the man's blood, but the Calve's the Goate's, &c. nor should any man heare these words, purchased by a mans blood, but he would conceive, that that man spilt his blood for that thing; the reason of that is, that whatsoever is a part of another, whether essentiall, as soul and body, forme and matter; or integrall, as eye, hand, foot, root, branch, or the like, these have all of them a relation to their whole in themselves and in the usage of their names, and therefore these applications of them cannot be made to any other but their own correlative, without some addition to expound it, as thus; my ser∣vant is mine, his Soule and body, bound to serve me; yet, when ••e dye's, I cannot say, my Soul left me, for this word Soul intimate's a relation to that body which it animated or ensouled (as I may speake) nor, what that Soul desi••e's, or hate's, that my Soule desire's or hate's, or the like. So when my horse is blind, I can∣not say, that my eyes have lost their sight, because this

phrase, mine eyes, relate's to mine own body, of which they are an integrall part, and this other not so; the same may be said of my blood; and therefore this lear∣ned man, seeing his answer weak, out of the usage of speeches (although perhaps he did not discern the rea∣son) ••all's into passion, and crye's out, [It is better to use this figurative manner of speech, most easy to understand, then to introduce a thing not onely absurd, but blasphemous, unto Christian religion, to say, that that one and chiefe God should have blood, &c.] I forgive his passion, but grieve, to see so much zeal, if not fury, bestowed upon so ill a Cause; for we do not say, that God had blood, as God, but as manhood was united to the divinity in the same person; that he, taking our nature, had it with all its Conditions, body and blood. I shall insist no farther upon this at this time.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P••••ved to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉, from Acts 20.17, & 28.
• * 1.2

  Against Ber∣nard. Ochinus▪
• * 1.3

  Refuted by Smigl••cius.
• * 1.4

  To whom Sm••lcius re∣plies having either not read or not aright understood Ochinus.
• * 1.5

  O••hinus deser∣••••d by the So∣cinians.
• * 1.6

  Smalcius at∣tempt's in vaine to eva∣cuate the di∣vinity of Christ.