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 ...

Sest. 7.

Againe (saith he) his reason to prove that there is an act of production in God,* 1.1 is because he is bonificativum, bonificare & bonificabile, that is, making good, and the act to make good, and the thing made good; this (saith he) is frivolous, for (saith he) this act is not that which Faith teacheth to be the production of a person, and a rationall operation, but it is a certaine act not of an efficient or pro∣ducing cause, but of a formall cause, as we say, whiteness make's a thing white.

By his leave, first, I find he hath reade more in Lully his Arguments then he set down, or else he could not have urged this now, for proofe of that which (he said) before he left unproved; Secondly, the proposition to be proved was not, that there was a production of a person, for that was the conclusion before to be proved, and this, that there was a reall production, was the medium from whence that will follow; for, if there be an eter∣nall production, it must be another essence, or an other

person; the first is impossible, therefore the second must be; and then lastly I answer, that bonification,* 1.2 as making good, is not onely taken for a forme, but an ef∣ficient Cause, which may be thus proved, first from God's goodnesse, and the infinite excellency of it; now goodnesse, in its own nature, is communicative, in mo∣rality; a good rich man give's more then a poor good man; a good wise man communicate's his wisdome, &c. In nature it is an excellence of fire not onely that it is warm in it selfe, but that it communicate's this warmth to other things; of the Sun, not onely that it is light, but that it doth enlighten; of any thing, that it is good, and that it doth communicate that goodnesse; so then, see if Nature doe not teach us, that, if God be an infi∣nite Good, he must communicate and produce an infinite good; thus may we discourse from his infinite power; if good and powerfull both, then why should he not produce some infinite effect that is infinitely good? for else his power should be without an act proportionable; let no man talk of this world, this was made in time, and there would have been an infinite duration without it, or that he might make other works before it, they must be all in time; besides that, they are finite things▪ which doe not, cannot extend themselves to the expres∣sion of such an infinite excellencie; and then, let me urge from that other medium aequiparantiae, before spoken of: powers are known by their act, and by their ob∣ject; all the world acknowledgeth God to have an in∣finite power; where is the infinite act the infinite produ∣ction? and then conceiving that this infinite goodnesse and power are eternall, this production must needs be such if at all, because else there would be a duration in which this power were not produced into act, in which this

goodnesse produced no good. Thus far I think I have vindicated Lully and the conclusion, out of invincible reason, that there is a plurality of persons, it must needs be that God eternally produced some infinitely good eff••ct, which, because it canno•• be another essentiall God, must be another person; If you would have thi•• discourse drawn into a perfect Syllogisme,* 1.3 take it thus:

That which is infinite in power, goodnesse, immensity, eternity, perfection, must produce such an effect eter∣nally;

But God is infinite in power, &c.

Therefore God must produce an effect correspondent.

The major onely needs proofe; the minor is granted even by Saracens: and I prove the major thus;

That eternall thing, whose power can never be idle, must produce an effect correspondent to it selfe eter∣nally;

But that which is infinite in power, goodness, and the like, is such a thing which can never be idle;

Therefore it must produce such an effect eternally.

The major is evident, because, if it be eternall, and never idle, it must produce something, or else its act is in vaine; and it being infinite, it must produce an infi∣nite effect, or else the infinity is idle; we see fire, or eve∣ry thing else, the more intense it is, the greater effect it produceth; and thence climb up by degrees to infinite, we shall find that infinite must needs produce an infinite effect.

I will only then prove the minor thus.

That which is infinitely perfect must not onely have a lazy power which doth nothing (for that is an in∣firmity for a power not to act) but must worke accor∣dingly.

But God is infinitely perfect (as is granted by all even Saracens) Therefore he must not have this power idle and act nothing. Let any man enquire, why any power doth not work, it must needes be answered, because the Agent cannot, or will not; to say God cannot, is to deny the infinity of his power, for that power is not infinite, which can be restrained; and to say he will not, doth both destroy his goodnesse and perfection; his goodnesse, because goodness is diffusive, it is no•• goodness else; and infinite goodness must be infinitely d••ffusive: his perfe∣ction, because it is a greater perfection, to be, and worke accordingly, then to be, onely; he therefore must needs act this infinitely excellent work eternally; and for my part, I see no reason why a man may not think, that Lully, upon such grounds as this, might convert to this first foundation of the Trinity, that God the Father did eternally produce an infinitely excellent work like him∣selfe. I have considered with my self what may logi∣cally be objected against this,* 1.4 and I find nothing of mo∣ment, but that Angels do not, cannot produce such an ef∣fect, which are the Creatures the nearest and likest to God of any; and my answer is, that they doe not, be∣cause they cannot; and they cannot, because they have limited natures which are confined; but God is in∣finite, without limitation; if they could▪ they would; but all things that are amongst us, which have vestigia Dei, the footsteps of God, doe teach us this, and therefore by reason we ought to think so of God; This may suffice for the first conclusion, that there are diverse per∣sons in the God head, to wit one person generating or pro∣ducing, and another generated or produced.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Vasques char∣geth Lully with a m••stake of a formal cause for an effici∣ent. Who is m••staken by him▪
• * 1.2

  And the cause proved no less efficient then formal.
• * 1.3

  The discourse drawn into perfect syllo∣gisme prov••ng the eternall plurality of persons by pro¦duction.
• * 1.4

  The Objecti∣on urging, the Angel cannot produce the like effect an∣swer'd▪