the Church cast out That Heretick and Catholick became not Relatives by this excommunication nor by this did Heretick become a name and a name of disgrace both together A Person by becoming an Heretick was excommunicated this name did preceed not follow excommunication It must be acknowledged that the Heresies concerning the Trinity were very troublesome in the Church but not so vexatious during the ten Persecutions as in Constantines time and after but what is the cause that when he proposes the Troubles arising from the Doctrine of the Trinity he would mix those doctrines which were wholly alienated from the doctrine of the Trinity as those of the Manichees For saith he according to the usual Curiosity of Natural Philosophy they could not abstain from disputing the first principles of Christianity into which they were Baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost Some there were who made them Allegorical others would make one Creator of Good another of Evil. This was the principal Tenet of the Manichees who took their Names from one Manes This Monstrous opinion that there were two Eternal Principles Light and Darkness these were two Contrary Gods the one the Author of Good the other of Evil. What is this to the Trinity That which he adds is not to be endured From which doctrine they are not far distant that now make the first cause of Sinful actions to be every man as to his own Sin Is this great Truth Manichism To say man by his free-will is the Author of Sin In commendation of himself in his own life thus I Printed then two treatises that stung the Bishop Bramhal in his Mother Tongue The question at the time was and is still whether at Gods or our own choice we will Can we will evil at Gods choice We therefore do affirm expressly contrariant to Mr. Hobs that the causation of Evil cannot be attributed to God without Impiety He mentioning our late fatal Wars thus Such Crimes and Sufferings I will not impute unto the Deity I have no Sence if this be not a Repugnancy in this Tract he affirms that those who assert that the causation of Evil cannot be attributed to God are allyed to the Manichees And yet when in the Verses which respect his life he recounts the English Evils and Calamities during the Wars he dares not impute them to the Deity Truly how far this Opinion is from Manichaism let the World Judge Can any man have sence to believe that if Sin flows from God the first Cause but it must be attributed to him The Manichees believe an Eternal being the Author of all Evil. Take their Monstrous opinion from themselves There was an Epistle which they in St. Austin called the Fundamentum and thus begins Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi Providentiâ Dei Patris haec sunt salubria verba de vivo ac perenni Fonte Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Providence of God the Father these are sound and wholsōe words flowing from a Liveing and Perpetual Fountain In this Epistle thus In exordio fuêre duae substantiae a se divisae c. In the beginning there were two substances divided from one another God the Father had the cōmand of Light and then he proceeds to describe that kingdom he then goes to the Kingdome of Darkness which was at the side of Light giveing a wild description of that Kingdome of Darkness He gives an account of the Black King of it that he with his hideous Train assaulted God the Father the King of Light who being affraid of him sent some of his Troops who mixing with the Black Regiments formed his World That what is Good must come from the King of Light what is bad from the King of Darkness These frenzies of him who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bewitched once that great man who by the Grace of God beeing inlightned fell from them to the Catholic Church St. Augustine a Presbyter in Hippo disputes Fortunatus a Manichaean Presbyter of that City Both dispute about the Original of the Evil of Sin he assigns it to the Black Prince quitting the Cause affirmed it could have no other Original then from the Evil Nature of the Prince of Darkness The like we find in his second dispute with Felix the Manichaean Saint Austin assigns rightly this to the Free will of man It cannot enter into my head why Mr. Hobs should give this assertion my understanding is too shallow to fathom this depth Nothing farther to be reproved till we come to the 6 page onely this passage may receive a little Censure pag 6 Constantine the great was made by the valor and assistance of the Christian Soldiers sole Emperor He not much regarding the peculiar Providence of God takes nonotice of that great miracle of y e Cross appearing at Noon with this inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole Army of Constantine was inferior to Magnentius his Forces a small number of his Soldiers were Christians it was more the peculiar action of the Arme of Heaven which dissipated the Army of Magnentius and gave the Eagles to Constantine In the latter end of his time their arose a dispute between Alexander the Bishop and Arrius the Presbyter of that City Here the Philosopher hath erred in his Chronology for for the quarrel between them began before the Licinian Persecution in the Tenth of Constantin's who commanded the Empire 37 years Would this was the worst Error This Controversy between the Inhabitants and Souldiers presently became a quarrel and was the cause of much bloodshed in and about the City This so far concerned the Emperors Civil government that he thought it necessary to call a general Council of all the Bishops and other eminent Divines throwout the Roman Empire to meet at the City of Nice Indeed I read in the Time of Constantius the Aarrians prosecuted the Catholicks with the greatest fury imaginable The lamentable Tragedy of which is given us by an Alexandrian Synod in their Letters to Julius Bishop of Rome But that any murders were committed during the Reign of Constantine I do not observe but to lessen the honor of Christian Religion he assigns the calling of that Council to the Peace of the Empire The prime reason was the Establishing the Peace of the Church and the Uniformity in Doctrine which will be manifested he said to the Fathers in his Exhortation to them That they would fall in hand w th the Articles of Faith and whatsoever they should decree therein he would cause to be Observed On which he thus Animadverts This may perhaps seem a great indifferency then would in these Days be approved off I know not the sence of this reflection for what could be more desired by a Council of the Emperor then to assure them that he would ratify those Canons which they decreed cencerning the things they were called for The main of the discourse is concerning his animadversions on this Article
Hermogines not from the recited proposition but his own contrarietys the same may be applyed to what he disputes against Marchiaean Apelles and Praxeas Therefore against Mr. Hobs I may be confident to averr that Tertullian never attempts the refuting Apelles or any other Heretick in his time from this Topick whatsoever was not Corporeal was a Phantasme T is true the Nicene Fathers went to establish one Individual God in Trinity to abolish the diversity of Species in God and t is not true that they did not intend to destroy the distinction of here and there for the Council in explaining the word did say that it could not be understood of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Essence of God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the discourse is not concerning the intent of the Council Since the Council judged the nature of God to be Immaterial and Incorporeal they did conclude that an Incorporeal Substance was not a contradiction therefore the holy Fathers must needs have thought that God had no extended parts nor any sort of parts and therefore not be considered as here and there What a force is don by him to the Apostles question St. Paul asks the Corinthians Is Christ divided which he thus interprets ' He did not think they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet but that they might think him alluding to the manner of the Gentiles one of the sons of God but not the only begotten Thus expounded in Athanasius his Creed Not Confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance i. e. God is not divided into 3 Persons Peter James and John nor are the 3 Persons one and the same Person ' T is granted that the Fathers intended the last but it is denied that they had any such intent by not dividing the Substance to have a respect unto various Individuals for in that division the Persons substances are divided the Substances are different and not the same but in the persons of the Individual Trinity the Substance is the same And in created beings the Persona of every Individual is really distinct not onely from the essence and person of another Individual but from the Substance in which it doth subsist which appears in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who assumed not the Person but Nature of Man but the mistery being great above all the understanding and apprehension of man it is rather the object of Faith than Reason My main undertaking against Mr. Hobs in this Tract is not to illustrate or prove the meaning but to manifest that he has not cleared himself of the contradiction and that in his attempts he throws himself into new absurdities one of which is this Paragraph ' But Aristotle and from him all the Greek Fathers and other learned men when they distinguish the general latitude of a word they call it division as when they divide the Animal into Man and Beast they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species and when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partes individuae And by this confounding the division of the Substance with the distinction of words divers men have been led into Error of attributing to God a name which is not the name of any Substance at all viz. Incorporeal ' 'T is true that the Philosophers when they divide Animae or the Genus into Men or Beasts they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species but when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they never call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Partes Individuae for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are partes dividuae therefore Individua are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what sence there is in his deduction I 'le give when I understand it There is a substance which is Incorporeal the Philosophers were led into that truth by observing the operations of some beings which are not Corporeal where it must needs follow that these essences are Incorporeal and by some other Arguments but that they should be led into this which he calls an Error by confounding the division of Substance with the distinction of words is a thing far from Truth and any conception of mine ' Many Heresies which were Antecedent to the first general Council were condemned as that of Manes he might have added Marcion by the first article I believe in one God ' This was not directed onely against them but also against the polutheisme of the Heathens ' tho to me it seems still to remain in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which so attributes a liberty of the will to men as that their will and purpose to commit sin uot should proceed from the cause of all things God but originally from themselves or from the Devil ' Indeed Marcion and Manes attributed Sin to an evill God but the Church of Rome the Church of England and all other Churches look upon that Opinion as Heretical why this Doctrine of the Liberty of the will is to remain in the Church of Rome this is to palliate This Doctrine continues in the Church of England and in all the Churches of Christ The Devil does vehemently tempt to sin but he is not the cause of sin hence that good Axom is received by all knowing men No body is injured but by himself that which is properly an Evil is the Evil of Sin which our selves only can inflict upon us but how comes it to pass that this Doctrine of the Liberty of the Will should be opposed by this Article I believe in one God they who maintain that Doctrine firmly believe this Article They say that the one true God is infinitely glorious in all perfections amongst which is the Liberty of his will he created all things amongst which he created Rational beings which he endowed with the Liberty of Will whereby they are made capable of being vertuous and so to be rewarded or vitious and so to be punished where is there by this sentiment a setting up another God by God he means one first Cause which necessarily moved from all eternity from which necessary cause there flows an infinite concatenation of necessary causes whence if any say that there is a Liberty of the Will he must assigne another first Cause and from thence oppose this Article I believe in one God we say there is but one first Cause and that a free Agent whence springs the Liberty of Rational Beings By the account which Mr. Hobs gives of God and by several of his opinions it must be concluded that he believes there is no God One of his sayings is He that saith there is no mind in the World hath no mind This is a gingling quibble besides many gross absurdites with w ch his opinion is charged this is no mean one God is the Author of Sin to which he replys Leviath cap. 46. by this distinction God is not the
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