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
evident by 5 Eliz. Cap. 23 with the significavit to be added to the Writ and in that Significavit 'tis joyn'd that the Excommunication doth proceed upon some cause of some Original matter of Heresy or Error in Religion or Doctrine now received and allowed in the said Church of England whereby it appears that Persons for Heresy might be Imprisoned and so Heresy to become Criminal For it was to be punished by the civil Magistrate with Corporal Mulcts and farther lay a Writ de Heretico comburendo if nothing was declared Heresy why did their lye such a Writ That such a Writ was in force is clear by the annulling of it when this fetal Plot was detected then the Parliament made an Act to Cancel it either it was in force or not if in force the Parliament was Prudent in making it void if not it casts a reproach upon the Two Houses to annul that which was exploded That these Writs were in force is declared and that the Writ de excommunicato capiendo retains its Vigor is evinc'd by the usage of the Kingdome of England As for the Writ de Heretico comburendo it was put in execution in King James his time Legat Wightman were Burnt the one in Smith-field and the other in Litchfield for the Arrian Heresy He saith that they which approve such executions may peradventure know better grounds for them then I do But grounds are very well worthy to be enquired after but he might very well know the just grounds for them He that affirms the Law to be the Sole rule of just and unjust could not be ignorant that by the common Law of England the Writ de Heretico comburendo was valid and thereupon an Heretick might legally be Burnt My Lord Cook part 3. cap. 5. affirms that by the Books of the common Law the King Issuing our his VVrit de Heretico comburendo an Heretick ought to be Burnt That Heresy might be punished by Corporeal and pecumiary Mulcts is clear by the Queens Letters Patents authorized by the 1. Statute of her Reign She did give to the Arch Bishop of Cant. the Bishop of London and divers others any Three or more of them full Power and Authority to reforme redress order correct and amend c. and to have full Power and Authority to order and award to every such offendor by Fine Imprisonment Censure of the Church or otherways or all or any of the said ways Cawdrys Case and in that same case it is resolved by the Judges that the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth did not introduce any new Law but declared an ancient one The Title of the Statute being an Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual The Sovereign being the Supream head of the Church without whose Authority no person can or ought to exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or proceed to any Censure it demonstrates that by the Royal Power an Heretick might be punished with a Civil and Corporeal Mulct Farther the Star-Chamber was an ancient Court grounded upon the common Law of England and confirmed by Act of Parliament Which Court took cognizance not onely of Civil Crimes but also of Ecclesiastical and did punish Hereticks by Imprisoning Fineing and Stigmatizeing as appears by the Records of that Court and that famous Instance of Thrask who in the 16. year of King James for spreading of Judaical Heresies he was cited into the Court and being obstinate was sentenced to be set in the Pillory Whipt to the Fleet Fined and Imprisoned all which was executed by which it appears what truth there is in this assertion of Mr. Hobs During the Time the High Commission was in being there was no Statute by which an Heretick might be punished otherwise than by the ordinary Censure of the Church for 't is proved that by the Common Law of England and the Statute Law during the time of the High Commission Hereticks might suffer in their Bodies and Purses hence it follows that Heresy was criminal and he hath not vindicated himself from that contradiction with which he stands charged He farther proceeds ' That no Doctrine could be accounted Heresy unless Commissioners had actually declared and published that what was made Heresy by the Four first general Councils should be Heresie ' but I never heard yet there was any such declaration made either by Proclamation by Recording in Churches or by Printing as is requisite in Penal Laws We have before proved that the High Commission was not the Sole Judges of Heresy That which the Church and Law of England condemns for Heresy is as fully divulged as can be expected The 39. Articles are sufficiently known and those Doctrines which the Four first general Councils received as Orthodox or condemned as Heretical are ratifi'd by the Law and Church of England and sufficiently promulged The Nicene Creed which was completed by the Fourth general Council is read in every Church on Sundaies and Holy daies The Athanasian Creed is to be read at peculiar Festivals both which Creeds as also the Apostles are part of the Liturgy of the Church which is imbodyed into the Laws of the Land and that the opinions which are contrary are made Heretical appears by these Clauses of the Athanasian Creed He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity Furthermore it is Necessary to Everlasting Salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and this Clause ends the Creed This is the Catholick Faith which except a man believe Faithfully he cannot be saved The Doctrines therefore declared to be Heretical are sufficiently by Printing and Recording in Churches divulged To alleviate his Crime or at least to vindicare himself from Heresie he reflects upon our late sad distractions w ch to me administers matter of horror ' Before arms were taken up saith he the King abolished the High Commission but the Parliament pursued the Rebellion and put down both Episopacy and Monarchy erecting a power by them called a Common wealth by others the Rump which men obeyed not out of Duty but Fear ' those actions were dreadfull and are the fontinels of all those fears which now afflict us The just principles by which Government is formed and established and reasonable laws are enacted deservedly reprove and condemn those actions perpetrated in our late confusions which gave a scandall to our Religion and Nation But how can he cast an odium upon those actions his sentiments justifie Saith he ' there were no humane Laws left in force to restrain any man from Preaching or Writing any Doctrine concerning Religion that he pleased And in this time it was that a book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the Kings Power Spiritual or Temporal without any word against Episcopacy or against Bishop or against the publick Doctrine of the Church ' To which t is thus Replyed ' the Leviathan was impressed 1651 and come out
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