Bishop These were condemned in the Chalcedonian Council I will grant that the Disciples of Eutyches did say If two Natures there would be two hypostases I will say it was an Heretical illation and affirme that the Latine word Persona answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Sence of the Churches both East and West 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Substance but Subsistence to which Persona directly answers But saith he in the Nicene Creed there 's no mention of Hypostasis or Hypostatical Union nor of Corporeal nor Incorporeal nor of parts but this was acknowledged by the Fathers in that Council there was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which necessarily infers it after a dispute concerning the sense of these words they all agreed in the same Faith and that Hypostasis is as well as Persona entertained by the universal Church not signifying Substantiam as usally but Subsistentiam from the Nicene decree must of nâ—cessity flow the Hypostatical Vnion Tho the word Incorporeal was not used in the Nicene Creed yet it is used in Eusebius his Synodical Episties who styles God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immaterial and Incorporeal as before asserted but invidiously to throw dirt upon the Fathers ' such Points saith he were not necessary to Salvation but set a broach for ostentation of learning or else to dazle men with designe to lead them towards some ends of their own ' By which he charges the most humble persons with pride the most sincere with Hypocrisie and the most unbiass'd with secular aims T is true that it was not judged necessary to Salvation that vulgar persons should know what Hypostasis and Persona intended as appears by that Council held at Alexandria by Athanasius Bishop of that See Eusebius of Vercelles and Lucifer of Calaris Two Western Bishops who after they had contended about these words were united in this Nicene article that Christ was the Eternal Son of God and really God and that it was an Article of the Christian Faith necessary to Salvation What he says concerning St. Cyprian is nothing to my design nor shall I make any remarks upon his discourse of the Usurpation of the Bishop of Rome or take cognizance of what he says of the punishment ordained against Hereticks in the Reign of K. Rich. the 2. and succeding Princes for this is nothing to my purpose my whole designe is to make good the contradiction with which he is charged I must therefore have no regard to any penal statures in Causes Ecclesiastical until the Reign of Queen Elisabeth I charge him with these heretical propositions contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England to whom he is obliged by the laws of the King to be Subject 1. That God hath parts 2. That Christ is not of the same Substance with the Father 3. That the Persons in the sacred Trinity are temporall All which are declared Heretical by the lawes and Church of England But Mr. Hobs would evade the two last Heretical propositions by saying he believes the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Church hath explained it in the Catechisme When the Minister asks the Catecumene what dost thou chiefly lear in these Articles of thy Belief He answers I learn first to believe in God the Father who created me and all the World 2. I God the Son who hath redeemed me and all Mankind 3. I God the Holy-Ghost who hath Sanctified me and all the Elecâ— People of God What is then intended but this thaâ— God in his own person-did create all things in the Person of his Son did redeem Mankind in the person oâ— the Holy Ghost did Sanctifiâ— the Church What clearlie concerning the Divine persons or more consentaneous to the Faith can be said Appendix ad Leviath Cap. 1. On the contrary I will pronounce that nothing is more obscure nor distentaneous to the Faith Tully said properly Ego tres sustineo personas mei Judicis adversarij yet it must be granted that the same word may have divers significations peculiarly in various sciences else the great and famous Northern Constellations may note the greatest Bear in the Muscovian Snowes The Latine Fathers and after them the Schools and Divines take not the word Persona in the same sence that Orators and Philosophers do I believe that Bellarmine did know the meaning of the Latine word persona as well as Mr. Hobs. Let common sence be appealed can the Mystery of the Trinity be explained according to Cicero's use of the word Persona For according to the Church of England in the Athanasian Creed which is part of the Liturgy established by Law and ratified in the 8 Article in which are these words the Three Creeds the Nicene Creed the Athanasian Creed and that commonly called the Apostles Creed ought to be throughly received and believed In the Athanasian the Eternity is not onely of the Essence but of the Persons not as the Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal but according to Mr. Hobs the Persons were Temporal i. e. God became a Father when he created the World A Son when he redeemed Mankind and the Holy Ghost when he Sanctifies which is absolutely contrary to the Faith for upon the Impious account of Mr. Hobs the Persons were not eternal by reason the Actions of God in creating the World by which there was the parsonality of the Father and of the Son in redeeming the World and of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying the Elect People of God were temporal Let this be Queried What Sence is this God redeemed Mankind in the person of his Son Persona mei is Tully himself but Persona Judicis is Tully reprensenting a Judge did God represent another in the redeeming of the World This leads to the making good this Heresy concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God for he utterly denies the eternal Filiation and saith that Christ being the Son of God was an eternal God but as being begotten extraordinarily in time he acknowledgeth that expressly and frequently in the Scriptures Christ is said to be begotten that he was God born of the Father before the World when Christ is said to be begotten t is meant that he was begotten of God himself the Father of the Matter of the Virgin Mat. 1. vers 20. that which was begotten of the Virgin Mary was of the Holy Ghost and should be called the Son of God ' But some perhaps will say that the eternal generation differs from that which was made in the Womb of the Virgin ' To which he thus answers where doth the Holy Scripture or Synod thus distinguish this Question is a certain demonstration that he denys the eternal generation and that he by a strange passion resolves to deny those things which for certain he knows to be true if a stou denyal serves his designe The sacred Scripture in several places is express for the eternal generation
in Latine upon his Majesties returne In 48 England was totally subdued to the Power of the Rump Ireland in 49. Scotland in 51. was almost reduct by the Rump and his Majesties Army totally routed at Worcester in this year the Leviathan was published was this Book in defence of the Kings Power Spiritual and Temporal when his Majestie was in Banishment ' His Majestie was then devested of all his lawfull Power and Authority and forc't into Exile This Leviathan if the Principles were admited justfied the Actions of his Enemies he casts this Imputation on the Rump that they were obeyed onely for fear in the same book he endeavours to prove that man is not by Nature a lover of Society but at his original is in a state of War The dread of the Evils which are incident to that condition makes him to enter into a Society with others and let it be considered whether if Fear be the great inducement to Government they according to his Principles are to be condemned who out of the same fear obeyed the Rump and that the fundamental law of Nature is self Preservation and for fear that end should not be attained pacts are entred into but if after those pacts that design cannot beaccomplished then pacts are void and therefore if people have a suspicion that the Prince will destroy them they may take up Arms. And if the Prince be devested of his Government the People are no longer obliged to obey him and upon this account of Self-Preservation they are to submit to those who can protect them Upon this reason the taking the Engagement was lawful and it was his honour to present to the English Nation those Principles w ch induced many to take the Engagement Oliver gaining the Protectorship was so pleased with him on those accounts that the great place of being Secretary was profered him If these things be true as unquestionably they are let it then be considered whether any Sober man can believe that the Book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the Kings Power Temporal and Ecclesiastical since it manifestly asserts the cause of Usurpers It must be granted that Mr. Hobs doth give to the Soveraign all illimited power in things just and sacred But this he gives to all sorts of Government to Aristocracy and Democracy as well as Monarchy A Book to be penned and published by him when all the Kings Dominions were in the Power of those who took up Arms against him which containes these Docttines Pag. 112. ' But in case a great many men have already resisted the Soveraign Power unjustly or committed some Capital Crime for which every one of them expects Death whether have they not the Libertie then to joyn together and assist and defend one another certainly they have for they but defend their lives which the Guilty man may as well do as the Innocent There was indeed Injustice in the first breach of their Duty Their bearing of Arms subsequent to it tho it be to maintain what they have done is no new unjust Act and if it be only to defend their persons it is not unjust at all Pag. 114. The Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign is understood to last as long and no longer than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them For the Right men have by nature to protect themselves when none else can protect them can by no covenant be relinquished The Soveraignty is he Soul of the Common-wealth which once departed from the body the members do no more receive their motion from it Pag. 174. When in a War forraine or intestine the Enemies get a final Victory so as the forces of the Common Wealth keeping the Field no longer there is no ther protection of Subjects in their Loyalty then is the Common-wealth dissolved and every man at liberty to protect himself by such causes as his own discretion shall suggest unto him For the Soveraign is the publick Soul giveing Life and motion to the Common-wealth which expiring the Members are governed by it no more than the Carcass of a man by his departed tho immortal Soul For tho the Right of a Soveraign Monarch cannot be extinguished by the Act of another yet the Obligation of the members may For he that wants protection may seek it any where and when he hath it is obliged without fraudulous pretence of having submitted himself out of fear to protect his Protector as long as he is able ' It was so far from defending His Majesties Authority that without Command they plainly justifie the actions of his usurping Enemies No person that hath suckt in Hobs his Principles can be a loyal Subject and hence likewise it appears that he did not ingeniously with his Majesty when he averts in his Apology for his Leviathan in an Epistle dedicated to the King before Problemata Phisica nec vitio vertant quod contra Hostes pugnans c. Let none account me a Criminal that fighting against your Enemies I took what Arms I could and Brandished a two Edged Sword certainly those Propositions Fought against his Majesty and defended the Cause of of his Enemies That in the same book he did write against Bishops and the Doctrine of the Church of England is manifestly proved before In the Common-Prayer book are contained several Doctrines of the Church of England to oppose or deny which as Mr. Hobs doth in the aforesaid book is made Criminal that is to be punished by the Civil magistrate by the first of Queen Eliza. Cap. 2. The Title of which is That there be Uniformity of Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in which there are these words ' Be it enacted that every Per son or Persons whatsoeverthat shall in any Interludes Plays Songs Rhymes or by any other open words declare or speak any thing depraving or despiseing the same Book or any part thereof or any thing therein contained then the party convicted shall forfeit to the Queen for the first Offence an Hundred Marks ' He concludes this Tract with casting an odious and false Scandal upon the whole Christian Clergy Down from the whole Council of Nice to this present time in these words ' So fierce are men for the most part in dispute where either their Learning or Power is debated that they never think of the Laws but as soon as they are offended they cry out Crucify forgetting what Paul saith even in case of obstinate holding of an Error 2. Tim. 24. 25. The Servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men apt to Teach Patient in Meekness Instructing those that oppose if God peradventure may give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth ' T is true both the Bishops and the Presbyterians did accuse that Book in the Parliament of Heresy why could they be fierce their learning and their power being not disputed when he professes in that book he medled not with them their power or learning Those things make not the Clergy fierce t is the Person the Religion the Faith of the Holy Jesus for which the Clergy have been and are still so Zealously contending they are and were piously fierce in opposing prophane Heresies and Blasphemous Impieties the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts hath eaten up those holy Divines their zelous defence of the Doctrine of their master hath not violated the Apostles direction given to the Pastors of the Church 2. Tim. that reaches only those who erred through infirmity not obstinacy Contumacious Hereticks they are bound to oppose withall Holy Zeal and Indignation Did not he blush to averr that they cryed Crucifie when they knew not the Law Could they be ignorant of that Law which they themselves put in execution Their ignorance of the Law did not make them cry Crufie but knowing the Law and Gospel became profest Enemies to those who by their Antichristian opinions Crucifie again the Lord of Glory What Reproach casts he upon Religion when he loads the Christian Divines with such imputations Those that are verst in Ecclesiastical History and have read the Fathers cannot but conclude that the Basil's the Gregory's c. were men as great for Learning and Goodness as the World ever produced their fervent opposition of Hereticks was not contrariant to that Apostoliocal Precept The Holy Christian Divines obeying the Apostolical Commands Titus 3. 10. An Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject 2 Pet. 2. 1. If any one bring another Doctrine receive him not into your house nor bid him good speed down from the Apostles time to this day have and will be till Christ come to Judgement Zealous and Pious opposers of those who privately bring in damnable Heresies denying the Lord that bought them FINIS
Begotten not made being of one Substance with the Father Thus he In this they condemn the doctrine of Armus for this word of one Substance in Latine Consubstantialis in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was put as a touch-stone to discern an Arrian from a Catholick and much ado their was about it Thus far t is true but the verity of he subsequent discourse must be considered Constantine himself at the passing of it took it for an hard Word but yet approved it The account is given by Eusebius in his Epistle to his flock in Caesarea Theod. lib. 1. cap. 12. he acquaints them what a form of sound words he presented to the Synod at Nice w ch the Emperor and Synod allowed and approved but the Synod was not satisfyed except this one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was inserted whereupon the Synod entered into a long debate and it past 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we did not admit without enquiry which was after this manner That word of one substance was not to be understood according to any Corporeal passion That it was not a Subsistence by any division or abscission from the Father For an immaterial intellectual and incorporeal Nature can't be the subject of Corporeal passions it behov'd that such things ought to be express'd in divine and arcane words Thus our most wise and religious Emperour did Philosophise And Theoderet cap. 13. saith that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not invented by the Fathers but received from former ages and devolved from Fathers to Children Constantine calling that word Divine not because it was in the divine Scripture for it was not there This is acknowledged But because it was to him an Arcanum not sufficiently undeistood Mr. Hobs takes all the occasion to cast a contempt upon the Council t is fit their should be suitable words for tho the mystery cannot be rightly understood yet the sence of the word may very well be understood This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well enough be known yet how the son of God should be of the same substance with the Father is not so intelligible his reflection upon the Emperor is unworthy a Gentleman And in this appeared the indifferency of the Emperor and that he had for his end in calling the Synod not so much the Truth as the Uniformity of the doctrine and the Peace of his People yet depended on it This is a most notorious scandal What! the famous Constantine who put a period to persecution restored peace to Christians and made Christianity to florish what this Constantine to play the Hypocrite Constantine did desire the Uniformity in Doctrine but not in an evil Doctrine and the Peace of his people but he would not build this upon the foundation of Sin and and Heresy Before that celebrated Emperor convened the Council he was convinced of the true Faith which appeared by his Discourse with Arrius and his large letter to the Churches in Romania They who read the letters of Constantine concerning Arrius before the Council was call'd Constantines Edict for the Convening of the Fathers and his pious and sweet Orations to the Council will find that Constantine's Designe was that so great an Assembly of the best Divines should settle the Church upon the Foundation of Truth and peace Further the cause of the obscurity of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeded clearly from the difference of the Greek and Roman dialect in the Phylosophy of the Peripateticks what should cast Mr. Hobs into this sentiment I cannot understand all his subsequent discourse is of Essence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to this I know no difference in the Greek and Latine Dialect Both Greek and Latine in the Sence of â—hat agreed The Arrians and Catholicks were Harmonious As to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why Mr. Hobs should make their difference to consist in that which they did agree is to me unintelligible The difference lay in the Adjective there is one letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that makes it all Schools agree in this that like is not the same the Arrians would allow the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a substance like to the father but not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with the Father It manifestly appears to be a wild excursion of Mr. Hobs to discourse and quible upon the Sence of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Substance when the dispute did not lye in that yet if there be a connexion in his discourse in that according to him it did consist but we will follow him in the Chace The first principle of all Religion in all Nations is God is This is a truth That is to say that God really is something and not a meere fancy This is not well sayd It is with a diminution for when we understand the Notion of a God then we must have a conception of a being which is infinitely wise Good Powerful Eternal c. but that which is really something is considerable alone by it self as being somewhere so the Earth the Air are all of them things real whatsoever is in any place hath dimeÌ„sion that is to say Magnitude and this which hath Magnitude whether it be visible or invisible is called by all the learned a Body If it be finite body or Corporeal if it be infinite it followeth that all real things in that they are somewhere are corporeal which Paragraph gives occasion of these 2 considerable things 1. Whether there be any real being but that which is a body and hath magnitude 2. Wherein the Nature of Infinity consists As to the first we will grant that all learn'd men say whatsoever hath Magnitude is a Body yet it must be affirmed that the most and best of the Literati affirme that there are real Beings which are not bodys and have no Magnitude The chief of which we say is God and t is impossible to have any conception of a God but he must remove from him the conception of a Body A Body must of necessity be divisible and have such parts w ch can't be competent to a Deity so that great Attribute of God's Immutability is lost He being a thing that may be changed nor can this consist with Gods Omnipotency how can we think matter can be omnipotent if we seriously cast our Eyes upon this world to contemplate its beauty order and greatness Is 't possible to conceive that it is the product of Matter No the notion of a God must include in its self the Notion of Infinity An Infinite cannot consist of finite parts several finites cannot amount to one infinite therefore God cannot have parts wherefore it must be acknowledged that there is a being which is not corporeal and farther t is most certain that Hobs contradicts his own great principle that the supream Power is the sole Judge of Good and Evil Truth and Falsehood He is a Subject to the King of
Author of Sin but he is the cause The Author is he who commands the Cause by whose Power a thing is done This with many other distinctions he frames which are more subtle perplext and remote from sence then any of the School-mens for which he so much condemns them certainly every cause is the Author of a thing He that commands is by that a moral cause But he that is a cause by enabling to do is a Physical cause of Sin God can't be such a cause but it may be queried whether God according to Mr. Hobs ever gave any laws to man-kind for unquestionably if the rule of Justice Injustice Good and Bad true and false be the will of the supream power God never gave laws to man kind ' perhaps saith he the Anthropomorphites were then condemned but this cānot be for they appeared not untill the time of Valens ' This is no great matter It is certain that the Council did condemn all those who ascribed any parts to God which the Anthropomorphites did yet if Epiphanius be credited heret 70. Audianus a Mesopotanican the Author of this Heresy of the Anthropomorphites florished in the time of Arrius when the Nicene Council was convened ' No other punishment was ordained by Constantine than Deprivation and Banishment and that not onely of Bishops and Pastors who refused to subscribe to the Faith thus did Heresie which at first was the name of a private opinion and no crime was by vertue of a law of the Emperor made onely for the Peace of the Church become a Crime in a Pastor and punishable ' How many Errata's in this Paraptaph Heresy in the Church of Christ was always a Crime and never the name of an opinion This I prov'd before let it be granted that every Sin is not a Crime and that every Crime is that w ch is punishable 't is a trisle to be lirigious in words every sin is certainly punishable some Sins are greater than others so there is a difference in Crimes there are Crimes which are onely discernable by Almighty God and so punishable at his tribunal but that Heresy should be a Crime onely because the civil power inflicts a corporal punishment cannot be understood by any but such a person who bids a defyance not only to the Christian Religion but to all other Religions which assert a future retribution or concludes that the great God doth punish evil men in this life by some extraordinary methods But that Heresy after this decree of the council became onely a Crime punishable in the Bishops and Pastors whether it be true or not is not much material In the Pastors the People were always punished for they followed their Pastors in banishment Basil with a curious pen delineating the miserys and calamitys under which the Orthodox Bishops and Pastors groan'd likewise gives us the description of those dreadful sufferings with which the people were oppprest Eusebius giveing us an account of an Edict of Constantine against Hereticks in that not onely Bishops and Pastors but all sorts of Hereticks were involved de vità Constant lib. 3 cap. 62. And having proved before that Arianisme was decreed an Heresy not for the peace of the Church but likewise that there might be an agreement in the same faith which was necessary to salvation we may justly say that every line of that Paragraph is notoriously untrue To lessen the Esteem of the Nicene and the 4 General Councils says he ' There arose new Heresies about the Interpretation of the Creed and partly about the Holy Ghost of which the Nicene Council had not determined And afterwards concerning the Holy Ghost Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople some others denied the divinity thereof ' The Pneumatomachi appearing after the Council of Nice had pretended for themselves the silence of the Nicene Fathers to which Basil Nazianzen Theoderet Epiphanius answer there being no question moved concerning it the Council acquiesed in the opinion and right Faith of the Universal Church concerning the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost Why should the Fathers confirme that truth which was not questioned but taken for granted or condemne that for Heresy which was not preached yet if not in a set forme of words decreed yet in truth and by good consequence the sence of the Fathers as to that Article was given For St. Basil Epist 78. Hieronom Epist 65. Epip haeresi 74 take off and answer that objection Epiphanius and Athanasius prove it thus that the same glory which is given to the Father and to the Son is likewise given to the Holy Ghost for the Symbol is I believe in God the Father and in God the Son and I believe in the Holy Ghost This Divine Faith fixed upon the Father Son and holy Ghost as one and the same God gives the true sence of the Council The great mistake concerning Nestorius must only be attributed to Mr. Hobs his animadversion for it was not Nestorious but Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost Nestorius was a great adversary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore in Socrates Lib. 7. Cap 31 we find that Nestorius was so great an Enemy to the Macedonians that when he was Bishop of Constantinople he drove the Macedonians out of all their Churches in that City and in the Hellespont ' Concerning the Parts established there arose disputes about the Nature of Christ and the word Hypostasis i. e. Substance for of persons there was yet no mention made their Creed being written in Greek in which Language there is no word that answereth to the Latine word Persona and the Union as the Fathers called it of the Humane and Divine Nature in Christ Hypostolical caused Eutyches and after him Dioscurus to affirme there was but one Nature in Christ thinking that whensoever two things are united they are one ' T is true the Latine word Persona is used in the Latine Church which Church embraced likewise the word Hypostasis and all differences concerning those words were within a while composed and all Orthodox Christians in that Church who know the Greek Language do receive the word Hypostasis in the same sense which the Latines use Persona The famous Nicene Councils having decreed that there were two Natures in Christ and one Hypostasis which signifies Subsistence this exactly answers to the Latine Persona Nestorius Bishop of Constantine broch'd this Heresy that in Christ there were two distinct persons and so Mary the Mother of Christ was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God against him Eutyches excellently disputed in the Fourth Action in the Council of Constantinople Eutyches declining the one fell into another Heresy asserting that there was but one Nature in Christ yet the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine and was not of the flesh of the Virgin but descended from God A great promoter of this impiety was Dioscurus Bishop of Alexandria a wicked and lewd person a Monster rather than a