likewise Consubstantial in the Nicene Creed is properly said of the Trinity But to an English man that understands neither Greek nor Latin and yet is as much concerned as his Lordship was the word Hypostatical is no less Canting than Eternal now J. D. He alloweth every man who is commanded by his lawful Soveraign to deny Christ with his tongue before men T. H. I allow it in some Cases and to some men which his Lordship knew well enough but would not mention I alledged for it in the place cited both Reason and Scripture though his Lordship thought it not expedient to take notice of either If it be true that I have said why does he blame it If false why offers he no Argument against it neither from Scripture nor from Reason Or why does he not show that the Text I cite is non applicable to the Question or not well interpreted by me First He barely cites it because he thought the words would sound harshly and make a Reader admire them for Impiety But I hope I shall so well instruct my Reader are I leave this place that this his petty Art will have no effect Secondly The Cause why he omitted my Arguments was That he could not answer them Lastly The Cause why he urgeth neither Scripture nor Reason against it was That he saw none sufficient My Argument from Scripture was this Leviathan pag. 271. taken out of 2 Kings 5.17 where Naaman the Syrian saith to Elisha the Prophet Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other Gods but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there and he leaneth on my hand and I bow my self in the house of Rimmon when I bow my self in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing and he said unto him Go in peace What can be said to this Did not Elisha say it from God Or is not this Answer of the Prophet a permission When St. Paul and St. Peter commanded the Christians of their time to obey their Princes which then were Heathens and Enemies of Christ did they mean they should lose their Lives for disobedience Did they not rather mean they should preserve both their Lives and their Faith believing in Christ as they did by this denial of the tongue having no command to the contrary If in this Kingdom a Mahometan should be made by terror to deny Mahomet and go to Church with us would any man condemn this Mahometan A denyal with the mouth may perhaps be prejudicial to the power of the Church but to retain the Faith of Christ stedfastly in his Heart cannot be prejudicial to his Soul that hath undertaken no charge to preach to Wolves whom they know will destroy them About the time of the Council of Nice there was a Canon made which is extant in the History of the Nicene Council concerning those that being Christians had been seduced not terrified to a denyal of Christ and again repenting desired to be readmitted into the Church in which Canon it was ordain'd that those men should be no otherwise readmitted than to be in the number of the Catechised and not to be admitted to the Communion till a great many years penitence Surely the Church then would have been more merciful to them that did the same upon terror of present death and torments Let us now see what his Lordship might though but colourably have alledged from Scripture against it There be three places only that seem to favour his Lordship's opinion The first is where Peter denyed Christ and weepeth The second is Acts 5.29 Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said we ought to obey God rather than men The third is Luke 12.9 But he that denyeth me shall be denyed before the Angels of God T. H. For answer to these Texts I must repeat what I have written and his Lordship read in my Leviathan pag. 362. For an unlearned man that is in the power of an Idolatrous King or State if commanded on pain of Death to worship before an Idol doing it he detesteth the Idol in his Heart he doth well though if he had the fortitude to suffer Death rather than worship it he should do better But if a Pastor who as Christ's Messenger has undertaken to teach Christ's Doctrine to all Nations should do the same it were not only a sinful Scandal in respect of other Christian Mens Consciences but a perfidious forsaking of his Charge In which words I distinguish between a Pastor and one of the Sheep of his Flock St. Peter sinned in denying Christ and so does every Pastor that having undertaken the Charge of Preaching the Gospel in the Kingdom of an Infidel where he could expect at the undertaking of his Charge no less than Death And why but because he violates his Trust in doing contrary to his Commission St. Peter was an Apostle of Christ and bound by his voluntary undertaking of that Office not only to Confess Christ but also to Preach him before those Infidels whom he knew would like Wolves devour him And therefore when Paul and the rest of the Apostles were forbidden to preach Christ they gave this Answer We ought to obey God rather than Men. And it was to his Disciples only which had undertaken that Office that Christ saith he that denyeth me before Men shall be denyed before the Angels of God And so I think I have sufficiently answered this place and shewed that I do not allow the denying of Christ upon any colour of Torments to his Lordship nor to any other that has undertaken the Office of a Preacher Which if he think right he will perhaps in this case put himself into the number of those whom he calls merciful Doctors whereas now he extends his severity beyond the bounds of common equity He has read Cicero and perhaps this Story in him The Senate of Rome would have sent Cicero to treat of Peace with Marcus Antonius but when Cicero had shewed them the just fear he had of being killed by him he was excused and if they had forced him to it and he by terror turned Enemy to them he had in equity been excusable But his Lordship I believe did write this more valiantly than he would have acted it J. D. He Deposeth Christ from his true Kingly Office making his Kingdom not to Commence or begin before the day of Judgment And the Regiment wherewith Christ Governeth his Faithful in this Life is not properly a Kingdom but a Pastoral Office or a right to Teach And a little after Christ had not Kingly Authority committed to him by his Father in this World but only Consiliary and Doctrinal T. H. How do I take away Christs Kingly Office He neither draws it by Consequence from my Words nor offers any Argument at all against my Doctrine The words he cites are in the Contents of
the Greeks is expressed by the word Indivisible Certain Hereticks in the primitive Church because special and individual are called Particulars maintained that Christ was a particular God differing in number from God the Father And this was the Doctrine that was condemned for Heresy in the first Councel of Nice by these words God hath no parts And yet many of the Latin Fathers in their explications of the Nicene Creed have expounded the word Consubstantial by the community of nature which different Species have in their Genus and different individuals in the Species as if Peter and John were Consubstantial because they agree in one humane nature which is contrary I confess to the meaning of the Nice Fathers But that in a substance infinitely great it should be impossible to consider any thing as not infinite I do not see it there condemned For certainly he that thinks God is in every part of the Church does not exclude him out of the Church-yard And is not this a considering of him by parts For dividing a thing which we cannot reach nor separate one part thereof from another is nothing else but considering of the same by parts So much concerning Indivisibility from Natural Reason for I will wade no farther but relie upon the Scriptures God is no where said in the Scriptures to be indivisible unless his Lordship meant division to consist only in separation of parts which I think he did not St. Paul indeed saith 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided Not that the followers of Paul Apollo and Cephas followed some one part some another of Christ but that thinking differently of his nature they made as it were different kinds of him Secondly his Lordship expounds Simplicity by not being compounded of Matter and Form or of Substance and Accidents Unlearnedly For nothing can be so compounded The matter of a Chair is Wood the form is the figure it hath apt for the intended use Does his Lordship think the Chair compounded of the Wood and the Figure A man is Rational does it therefore follow that Reason is a part of the man It was Aristotle deceived him who had told him that a Rational living Creature is the definition of a man and that the definition of a man was his Essence and therefore the Bishop and other School-men from this that the word Rational is a part of these words Man is a Rational living Creature concluded that the Essence of man was a part of the man and a Rational man the same thing with a Rational Soul I should wonder how any man much more a Doctor of Divinity should be so grosly deceived but that I know naturally the generality of men speak the words of their Masters by rote without having any Idea of the things which the words signifie Lastly he calls God an Essence If he mean by Essence the same with Ens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I approve it Otherwise what is Essence There is no such word in the Old Testament The Hebrew Language which has no word answerable to the copulative est will not bear it The New Testament hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never for Essence nor for Substance but only for Riches I come now to his Argument in Mood and Figure which is this The Divine Substance is indivisible That 's the Major Eternity is the Divine Substance That 's the Minor Ergo the Divine Substance is indivisible The Major he says is evident because God is Actus simplicissimus The Minor is confessed he thinks by all men because whatsoever is attributed to God is God To this I answered that the Major was so far from being evident that Actus Simplicissimus signifieth nothing and that the Minor was understood by no man First what is Actus in the Major does any man understand Actus for a Substance that is for a thing subsisting by it self Is not Actus in English either an Act or an Action or nothing or is any of these Substances If it be evident why did he not explain Actus by a definition And as to the Minor though all men in the world understand that the Eternal is God yet no man can understand that the Eternity is God Perhaps he and the School-men mean by Actus the same that they do by Essentia What is the Essence of a man but his Humanity or of God but his Deity of Great but Greatness and so of all other denominating Attributes And the words God and Deity are of different signification Damascene a Father of the Church expounding the Nicene Creed denies plainly that the Deity was incarnate but all true Christians hold that God was incarnate Therefore God and the Deity signifie divers things and therefore Eternal and Eternity are not the same no more than a wise man and his wisdom are the same Nor God and his justice the same thing and universally 't is false that the Attribute in the Abstract is the same with the Substance to which it is attributed Also it is universally true of God that the Attribute in the Concrete and the substance to which it is attributed is not the same thing I come now to his next Period or Paragraph wherein he would fain prove that by denying Incorporeal Substance I take away Gods Existence The words he cites here are mine To say an Angel or Spirit is an Incorporeal Substance is to say in effect there is no Angel nor Spirit at all It is true also that to say that God is an Incorporeal Substance is to say in effect there is no God at all What alledges he against it but the School-Divinity which I have already answered Scripture he can bring none because the word Incorporeal is not found in Scripture But the Bishop trusting to his Aristotelean and Scholastick Learning hath hitherto made no use of Scripture save only of these Texts Who hath planted a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock and Rev. 4.11 Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory honour and power for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they were created thereby to prove that the right of God to govern and punish mankind is not derived from his Omnipotence Let us now see how he proves Incorporeity by his own Reason without Scripture Either God he saith is Incorporeal or Finite He knows I deny both and say he is Corporeal and Infinite against which he offers no proof but only according to his custom of disputing calls it the root of Atheism and interrogates me what real thing is left in the world if God be Incorporeal but Body and Accidents I say there is nothing left but Corporeal Substance For I have denyed as he knew that there is any reality in accidents and nevertheless maintain Gods Existence and that he is a most pure and most simple Corporeal Spirit Here his Lordship catching nothing removes to the eternity of the Trinity
Bargains with him but Commands him not Oh the understanding of a Schoolman J. D. Sometimes he is for holy Orders and giveth to the Pastors of the Church the right of Ordination and Absolution and Infallibility too much for a particular Pastor or the Pastors of one particular Church It is manifest that the consecration of the chiefest Doctors in every Church and imposition of hands doth pertain to the Doctors of the same Church And it cannot be doubted of but the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the future Pastors after the same manner as to his present Apostles And our Saviour hath promised this infallibility in those things which are necessary to Salvation to his Apostles until the day of Judgment that is to say to the Apostles and Pastors to be Consecrated by the Apostles successively by the imposition of hands But at other times he casteth all this Meal down with his foot Christian Soveraigns are the supream Pastors and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak from God except such as God speaketh to in these dayes supernaturally What is now become of the promised infallibility And it is from the Civil Soveraign that all other Pastors derive their right of teaching preaching and all other functions pertaining to that Office and they are but his Ministers in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns or Judges in Courts of Justice and Commanders of Armies What is now become of their Ordination Magistrates Judges and Generals need no precedent qualifications He maketh the Pastoral Authority of Soveraigns to be Jure divino of all other Pastors Jure civili He addeth neither is there any Judge of Heresie among Subjects but their own civil Soveraign Lastly the Church Excommunicateth no man but whom she Excommunicateth by the Authority of the Prince And the effect of Excommunication hath nothing in it neither of dammage in this World nor terror upon an Apostate if the Civil Power did persecute or not assist the Church And in the World to come leaves them in no worse estate than those who never believed The dammage rather redoundeth to the Church Neither is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject that obeyeth the Laws of his own Soveraign of any effect Where is now their power of binding and loosing T. H. Here his Lordship condemneth first my too much kindness to the Pastors of the Church as if I ascribed Infallibility to every particular Minister or at least to the Assembly of the Pastors of a particular Church But he mistakes me I never meant to flatter them so much I say only that the Ceremony of Consecration and Imposition of hands belongs to them and that also no otherwise than as given them by the Laws of the Common-wealth The Bishop Consecrates but the King both makes him Bishop and gives him his Authority The Head of the Church not only gives the power of Consecration Dedication and Benediction but may also exercise the Act himself if he please Solomon did it and the Book of Canons says That the King of England has all the Right that any good King of Israel had It might have added that any other King or soveraign Assembly had in their own Dominions I deny That any Pastor or any Assembly of Pastors in any particular Church or all the Churches on earth though united are Infallible Yet I say the Pastors of a Christian Church assembled are in all such points as are necessary to Salvation But about what points are necessary to Salvation he and I differ For I in the 43d chapter of my Leviathan have proved that this Article Jesus is the Christ is the unum necessarium the only Article necessary to Salvation to which his Lordship hath not offered any Objection And he it seems would have necessary to Salvation every Doctrine he himself thought so Doubtless in this Article Jesus is the Christ every Church is infallible for else it were no Church Then he says I overthrow this again by saying that Christian Soveraigns are the Supream Pastors that is Heads of their own Churches That they have their Authority Jure Divino That all other Pastors have it Jure Civili How came any Bishop to have Authority over me but by Letters Patents from the King I remember a Parliament wherein a Bishop who was both a good Preacher and a good Man was blamed for a Book he had a little before Published in maintenance of the Jus Divinum of Bishops a thing which before the Reformation here was never allowed them by the Pope Two Jus Divinums cannot stand together in one Kingdom In the last place he mislikes that the Church should Excommunicate by Authority of the King that is to say by Authority of the Head of the Church But he tells not why He might as well mislike that the Magistrates of the Realm should execute their Offices by the Authority of the Head of the Realm His Lordship was in a great error if he thought such incroachments would add any thing to the Wealth Dignity Reverence or Continuance of his Order They are Pastors of Pastors but yet they are the Sheep of him that is on earth their soveraign Pastor and he again a Sheep of that supream Pastor which is in Heaven And if they did their pastoral Office both by Life and Doctrine as they ought to do there could never arise any dangerous Rebellion in the Land But if the people see once any ambition in their Teachers they will sooner learn that than any other Doctrine and from Ambition proceeds Rebellion J. D. It may be some of T. H. his Disciples desire to know what hopes of Heavenly joyes they have upon their Masters Principles They may hear them without any great contentment There is no mention in Scripture nor ground in reason of the Coelum Empyraeum that is the Heaven of the Blessed where the Saints shall live eternally with God And again I have not found any Text that can probably be drawn to prove any Ascention of the Saints into Heaven that is to say into any Coelum Empyraeum But he concludeth positively that Salvation shall be upon earth when God shall Raign at the coming of Christ in Jerusalem And again In short the Kingdom of God is a civil Kingdom c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Glory All the Hobbians can hope for is to be restored to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall So saith T.H. himself From whence may be inferred that the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned As for the beatifical vision he defineth it to be a word unintelligible T.H. This Coelum Empyraeum for which he pretendeth so much zeal where is it in the Scripture where in the Book of Common Prayer where in the Canons where in the Homilies of the Church of England or in any part of our Religion What has a Christian to