that Nestorius his Heresie was in that he held No real and physical Union as I may so speak such as is betwixt Body and Soul betwixt Christ and the Word but that the Word and Humanity of Christ were really disjoyned Observe how shie the Doctor is As if it were some question whether he might so speak and how is that it is indeed but as S. Athanasius speaks in his Creed As the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one man so God and man is one Christ and what is this but a real and physical Union such as is betwixt the Body and the Soul the reason of this shiness will appear hereafter Mean while suppose Nestorius held no real and physical Union of Christs 2 Natures such as is of our Body and Soul i. e. an union into one Person Yet he professes in his forementioned Assertions produced in the Council an Union and that a very close one his words are tetradio 15 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us therefore hold the inconfused conjunction of the natures let us confess God in Man let us adore Man who by conjunction to God Almighty is together worshipped with him Which I here set down that we may by and by see upon examination whether what the Doctor writes in his Mystery will amount to any nearer Union then that which Nestorius himself pleads to have acknowledged He adds other Citations 1. Out of Photius 2. Out of the Collection of the 6 Oecumenical Councils by an uncertain Authour 3. Out of the Synodicon and then concludes thus in the close of his 7th Section Out of all which it is exceeding plain that the Heresy of Nestorius consisteth in this that he divided and cut quite asunder the Humanity and Divinity of Christ into two separaâ—e Hypostases making Christ a mere man and so denying the Incarnation of the Word the Godhead of Christ and the honour that accrewed to the Blessed Virgin c. I see so little to our Question in his Citations that I will spare my self the trouble of searching whether he hath faithfully produced them or no and be content to take them upon his word For by the Doctors leave these passages affirm not that Nestorius held two separate Hypostases in Christ though the Doctor would pin that sense upon them All that may seem to favour his Assertion is in the first Citation which saith That Nestorius cut and divided Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into two Hypostases but it saith not Into two separate Hypostases Nor could it truly say so seeing it appears by Nestorius his own words which I have alledged above that he professed a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the two Hypostases and where there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there may be distinction indeed but not separation Wherefore those following words in the Citation out of Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie onely distinction and by no means separation namely that God and man were not united in one Hypostasis though otherwise they did most closely cohere unless Photius understood Nestorius his minde better then Nestorius himself In the next place Sect. 8. for perfectly quitting himself of Nestorianism which heresie he falsly presumes that he hath truly stated he brings several passages opposite as he saith thereunto out of the 1 Book of his Mysterie cap. 5. Book 5. cap. 17. Book 10. cap. 6. But what is all this to the 6th Objection founded upon Book 6. cap. 15 If he happens to speak Catholickly in some places is that a justification for his speaking the contrary in others Let us therefore now see what he saith after this long Proem to the Objection it self which is this as he sets it down in the 10th Sect. of this Chapter Object 6. He brings in an humane person of Christ lib. 6. c. 15. sect 1. p. 258. and afterwards without any mincing calls it so ten times in that Chapter and several times afterwards The Doctor having produced this Objection falls upon a piece of ingenuity which being a rarity I will do him so much right as to note it For he saith I will also add what was hinted to me at second hand out of Book 9. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. where I declare How that the Humanity of Christ and the eternal Word may be Hypostatically united without any contradiction to humane Reason unsophisticated with the Fopperies of the Schools and both their Hypostases remain still entire And afterward in the same Sect. I bring in Christ as made up if one may so speak of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of that Humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem Where by the way I must minde him That in this ingenuity he also betrays a piece of boldness which I know not how he can answer Namely in his Magisterial stamping upon the Schoolmens Writings the name of Fopperies and such as sophisticate humane Reason For though those Authours were men who could have answered for themselves with more acute and solid Reason then the Doctor could oppose them yet that is not all King Iames of blessed Memory a Prince of as great judgement surely as Dr More hath recommended and enjoyned the Reading of the Schoolmen to our University The same injunction was renewed by the glorious Martry K. Charles the First and also by our present Sovereign K. Charles the Second Which makes me much wonder with what face this Doctor could tax the Schoolmen with Fopperies and sophisticating of humane Reason in the matter of the hypostatical union of the Word and Humanity of Christ. For be it will he say in the matter of Transubstantiation and Worship of Images c. they have sophisticated Yet to turn off every thing when he wants a starting hole as the same Numerical body raised again and in Christ but one Person not two Persons under the Notion of School Fopperies is as good as to leave nothing wherein these three Kings could well recommend them to our studies Who knows not that there is an allowance or abatement to be made for humane Errours in most humane Authours recommended to us And though our University Statutes order Platos Aristotles and Plinies Books to be publickly taught yet they suppose them not to be in all parts free from Errours We understand therefore that those sacred Kings commended the Schoolmen to our studies so far as they clash not with the Doctrine of ours and the Catholick Church But in his next the 11th Section he undertakes to shew all these passages to be blameless but saith he must first settle the true Notion of Persona and Hypostasis To do this he first defines Suppositum to be A singular individual substance compleatly existing by it self but not incommunicably though incommunicately i. as yet not actually concurring as a potential principle to the making up of Eni unum per se. Truly he takes a fair liberty to make definitions of his own and then examine his Doctrines by
say not separate as I have noted above for Nestorius professed a Conjunction though not a Personal Union and if the Doctor stands strictly upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if Nestorius had cut the whole and rendred one part here and another there he obtrudes upon him what he never thought of Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hesychius tells us and this Nestorius did though he did not separate them and this Dr More seems to do in his Answer to the Objector if he justifies as he doth justifie all in his Preface what he saith he wrote lib. 9. cap. 2. I bring in saith he there Christ as made up if one may so speak of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of the humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem If one may so speak is but a necessary mollifying of the foregoing word made up of not of what follows without any mollifying of the second Hypostasis of the Trinity and of the humane Person that conversed at Ierusaelem Now whosoever distinguisheth really though he do not separate the second Hypostasis i. e. Person of the Trinity from the Humane Person that conversed at Ierusalem speaks that which is Heresie and if after idoneous admonition he doth defend and say he demonstrates that he hath therein writ no Errour may be judged an Heretick though he do add that Christ is made up of these two but as one may so speak for Nestorius himself would have forwardly concurred in such a modification Made up of them but as one may so speak But the Doctor pretends that in naming the humane Person of Christ alone he doth no more divide Christ into two Hypostases then he that names Christs Humane Nature alone doth divide him into two Natures which were it done that is were his two natures cut asunder it would most certainly dissolve the Hypostatical Union I cannot say whether this Plea be more bold or vain Most bold it is to dally in such great Points and childishly to argue from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used about Christs Person as if they imported such a cutting asunder as is made by a knife when it divides a stick into two pieces And most vain it is for first Christs two natures though united in one Person are still two really distinct Natures wherefore he who names one of them alone doth not thereby cut asunder the Personal Union of both no more then he who names Dr Mores Body alone or his Soul alone cuts asunder the Union of his Body and Soul in one Person but he who names an Humane Person of Christ alone in distinction from a Divine Person of Christ as the Doctor here doth most undenyably divides Christ into two persons and infers as much as lies in him the dissolution of the Hypostatical Union of two natures in one person And should any Man so far dote as to speak of the Person of Dr Mores Body and the Person of his Soul who doubts but such words would import a dissolution of that one Person which results from the Union of the Doctors Soul and Body Sect. 14. he adds Though I say that the Hypostases remain intire yet my so expressly affirming them Hypostatically united shews plainly that they do not remain Intire separately but united unconfoundedly And doth not Nestorius himself acknowledge that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Unconfounded Conjunction of the two Natures How differs this from the Doctors conclusion that the two Hypostases remain not Intire separately but united unconfoundedly Nestorius was as far from separating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Humane Nature as Dr More Nor can the Doctors affirming that the two Hypostases are hypostatically united though those two Hypostases remain Intire be any excuse for him unless he will bring an impossibility for his Apologie for to be hypostatically united is to become One Hypostasis but if the two Hypostases remain Intire they are certainly two Hypostases and not onely One unless the Doctor hath any trick to prove that two in the very same Notion can be one and one two Sect. 15. he concludes with this jolly vaunt I have not departed from the very language and sense of the Councils and Athanasius his Creed in adventuring to say that the Humane Person of Christ Jesus concurs with the Divine Hypostasis which confessedly all men will grant to be well rendred here the Divine Person for the making up one Christ Truly to use the language of the Councils and S. Athanasius his Creed was no such high valour in a Doctor of Divinity that he should term it an Adventure But to prove his Consonance with the Councils he shews that the Greek Church calls the three Hypostases as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence he infers that the Council of Chalcedon manifestly allows a concurse of the Divine and Humane Hypostases for the making that one Person which is called Christ. The Councils words he cites are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in Binius his Copie it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Binius omits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense he pins upon the Council he draws from those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this I answer though some Greek writers be granted to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not that the Council of Chalcedon uses it so here Nay that it doth not use it so here is evident by comparing the premised words with these in question those words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which later words are an Illustration and Assertion of the former the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Difference of the Natures viz. of the Divine and Humane is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken away by the Union but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Property of each Nature by which they are differenced from one another namely the one being impassible the other passible c. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is concurring into one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council must understand that to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preserved which it saith was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken away that which was not taken away was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Difference of the Natures therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Difference of the Natures is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preserved and concurring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one Hypostasis Observe then the Doctors boldness who in his Translation of this Citation which he subjoyns to the
them And here he hath minted a very pretty one witness those words not actually concurring as a potential Principle but let him have it He proceeds I need onely add That Hypostasis in the concrete sense is the same that Suppositum in the abstract subsistentia and that subsistere is sometimes in the very language of the Schools said of an individual substance although it exist dependently upon another Suppositum as in the Humane Nature of Christ. And lastly for Persona it is nothing but Suppositum Rationale Let him have all this too to please him Now he answers to the Objection Sect. 13. thus I do not bring in an Humane Person of Christ without any mincing of the matter For at the very first naming of the terms I both modestly and cautiously ask leave in these words Now that the Humane Person of Christ as I may so call it is not to be laid aside c. Most acutely The Objector saith not that Dr More brought in the Humane Person of Christ without any mincing of the matter at the first naming of the terms but expresly saith That he so brings it in Afterwards Now the Doctor proves that he did not so bring it in because at his very first naming of the terms he inserts this Parenthesis as I may so call it Is not this Answer direct and apposite But he would perswade us that by this Parenthesis he modestly and cautiously asked leave How modest a Creature this Doctor is appears as by the general strein of his Writings so by his particular censure of the Schoolmen and impudent reflection upon three Kings at once which I noted but now And how cautious is too too legible in those foul and dangerous Opinions into which he hath plunged himself no man forcing him thereunto Nay to see the unluckiness of it in this very particular where he boasts of both there is neither modesty nor caution He saith he ask'd leave but of whom did he ask it or did he Modestly and Cautiously stay for an Answer to know whether such leave would or might be granted him suppose I should here say That Dr More is as I may so call him a Nestorian Heretick you will easily think the Doctor would be offended though I should plead that modestly and cautiously ask'd leave in those words as I may so call him But the Doctor should have known that it was not lawfull for him or any other Christian to use any expressions which are of an heretical import especially in such high points And for so doing no leave can modestly be asked seeing it is Impudence to desire Liberty of speaking what is Heresie or what may vehemently and justly be suspected thereof Nor can any such leave justly be given though it be asked He proceeds I interserted those words viz. the Parenthesis mentioned as being well assured in my own judgement that whatsoever might otherwise be a suppositum of it self if it once concur as a Potential Principle with some other Hypostasis for the making up one Hypostasis it loseth then the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis it being then not actually such but potentially and in that sense onely it can be called an Hypostasis and there is the same reason of Persona Reader would you know the Doctors Drift in these words It is to prepare you to swallow what he saith Sect. 14. viz. That though he names 2 Hypostases in Christ yet he understands the Humane Hypostasis to be but improperly so termed to wit Because it concurs as a potential Principle with the Divine Hypostasis for the making up one Hypostasis A quaint Fetch the Doctor frequently named the Humane Person of Christ and now we must believe that he meant it improperly yea though by his own confession he declared in the forecited place Book 9. ch 2. Sect. 6. that both the Hypostases in Christ remain still intire Intire and yet Improperly But still the very ground of his Fetch fails him For first it supposes 2 Hypostases actually such namely in this point the Divine actual Hypostasis and the Humane actual Hypostasis for upon their Concurrence into one he saith that they lose the proper nature and Definition of an Hypostasis But they cannot lose what they had not and if they had the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis they must needs be Actual Hypostases Secondly he supposes these two Actual Hypostases to concur into one third Hypostasis and that hereupon either of the two which did thus concur though they cease to be actually two Hypostases yet Potentially they continue such and in that sense i. e. improperly may still be termed Hypostases Now let the Doctor shew us How Christs Humanity was once a complete intire Hypostasis by it self and afterward concurrent with his Divinity to make up the Hypostasis of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which Concurrence it lost the proper Nature and Definition of an Hypostasis it being then not actually such but potentially otherwise his premised Devise will stand him in no stead His second Answer is that he was necessitated to use this Term because of the Familists with whom he disputed c. This necessity if such was made by himself for who necessitated him to dispute with the Familists But the Doctor can never perswade sober men that there is no disputing with Hereticks unless the Disputer makes bold to speak like an Heretick himself If the Familists would as he here pretends have melted the Catholick expression into a Mystical meaning it concerned him not therefore to change that Catholick expression but so to fortifie it that the Familists might not have been able justly and rationally to have avoided it Yet this is not all I must have leave plainly to tell him that his dispute with the Familists was not the thing that necessitated him to call it the Humane Person of Christ and that this is both a frivolous and ridiculous excuse for his dispute with them is in his 6th Book from the 12. chap. to the end of that Book but in his 9th Book Chap. 2. Sect. 6. he again calls it the Humane Person of Christ though he meddles not there with the Familists Wherefore for his using that phrase there was some other motive which I doubt not but himself well wots of His third Answer in the same 13th Sect. runs thus It brings nothing of Nestorianism in with it because though I name the Humane Person of Christ alone yet I do no more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then he that names the Humane Nature of Christ alone doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if they were cut asunder would most certainly dissolve the Hypostatical Union also The ground of this Answer is Photius his saying that Nestorius did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the meaning of those words is onely this That Nestorius acknowledged not the two Natures Divine and Humane united in one Person but made them two Distinct Persons Distinct I
them great Babylons the wiser course sure is to leave them imperfect and little as they now are I but his following words more carefully to purge out the old leaven argue that he would have whatsoever is Babylonish be purged out Be it so but then let him look how to reconcile those words with them which precede viz. to perfect the good work they had begun for that work as the Doctor hath ordered the business was the building of less Babylons which work cannot be perfected if all that is Babylonish must be rooted up In his 7th Section he goeth on touching the Reformed Churches presaging that God will not tolerate nor connive any longer at their childish squabling about nutshels counters and cherrystones These if there be any dependence and sense in his discourse must be their little Babylons so that his long tragical Invectives were upon the matter made onely against Boys-play Mean while those Churches are much beholding to the Doctor who makes them a company of silly coxcombs whose most serious business for such sure is their Reformation amounts to no more then squabling about such childish toys and trifles as nutshels counters and cherrystones His 8th Section he thus begins I have I hope by this time abundantly satisfied the 9th Objection we come now to the tenth and last It is well he doth not define but onely hope so Whether his hopes fail him or not I leave to indifferent Judges and follow to the 10th Objection to which he replies in this 9th Chapter Object 10. He saith that the Laws of God are like words in an unknown tongue till the conscience be convinced lib. 10. cap. 10. as I take it Whence it necessarily follows that it is no sin to act against those Laws if a man believe it lawfull Then those who thought they did God good service in killing the Apostles were no sinners in doing it As I take it said the Objector which he would not have said nor trusted his memory but reviewed the place and set it down positively if he had intended that his Objections as they were given to the Doctor should have been published What the Doctor hath got by his publication of them he may thank himself for In the mean time it so happens that the Objector charged him not wrongfully in that particular else he should have heard of it This saith the Doctor seems to be a smart and stinging Objection and he saith so with scorn enough for he presently adds That it reacheth not the right state of the Question A great fault I grant If true the very fault which I have so often detected in Dr Mores writings To prove it therefore he cites that passage in his Mystery whence the Objection is taken and subjoyns thus where it is plain that the most essential part of the state of the question is omitted by leaving out in those that are sincere and that therefore the Objection though very strong yet cannot touch or harm any position of ours by those formidable consequences according as the question is by me stated in this 10th chapter both in respect of the person and also in respect of the matter of the command Sect. 9 For I suppose the person sincere and what I mean by sincerity I have fully explicated under my first Aphorism and it is needless here again to repeat it And for the matter of the command I suppose it to be such things as are not discoverable by the light of nature such as the belief of matter of fact done many ages agoe and Religious precepts and ceremonies thereupon depending But I have expresly declared in my 4th Aphorism extracted out of this 10th chapter that nothing that hath any real turpitude or immorality in it can justly be pretended to be the voice or command of God to either the sincere or unsincere Out of all which we are abundantly furnished to answer this last Objection I say therefore that such Laws of God as are meerly positive or depend upon historical or miraculous Revelation are like words in an unknown tongue to him that is truly sincere till his conscience be convinced This I say and this is all I have said in that 10th Chapter How his sincere person serves the Doctor for a subterfuge I have shown already and need not repeat it And that what he affirms to be all that he hath said in that 10th chapter is not all I could easily evince were it requisite to the present point But fully to gratifie him I will take into the question both the person and the matter of the command which he desires viz. the sincere and that which hath turpitude and immorality in it and then I hope the formidable consequences mentioned in the Objection will touch the Doctors position For the person his Tenet is which he repeats in his 10th Sect. of this 9th chapter That the light and law of Nature and of eternal and immutable morality cries louder in the soul of the sincere then that he should admit of any such foul motions much less as from God or be ignorant of any indispensable morality as if it were not his command But what thinks he then of S. Paul before his conversion Was not he zealous and hearty in his Religon he saith himself Phil. 3.6 that he was touching Righteousness which is in the law blameless that is according to the knowledge which he then had of Religion his deportment was so exact that it could not be taxed with any wickedness Whereupon he faith 1 Tim. 1. 13. that though he had been a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious yet he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief he did it not for want of sincerity and uprightness of heart in his present perswasion but onely for want of knowledge Well and what was it he then did one particular was persecution of the faithfull and that to the death Act. 22. 10. he confesses that he assented to S. Stephens death and doubtless he verily thought that herein he did God good service accounting S. Stephen an enemy to the true Religion Yet this act of his was a sin for which it being done ignorantly notwithstanding the moral law printed in his heart he afterwards obtained mercy It appears then that a person most sincere in his way may in blinde zeal run upon hainous sins and such as Dr More holds to be against the moral law viz. to use his own words The killing of good men under pretence of heresie against the Iudaical Religion Now what can be the reason of such zeal but because this sincere Zelot counted that he obeyed Gods Will in this Action It follows therefore That the Law of Nature cries not so loud in the sincere soul but that such a soul may sometimes admit such foul motions and that as proceeding from God This for the Person Now for the Matter of the Command viz. Things not discoverable by the Light of Nature and these he
original renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hypostasis or proper subsistency And let me add that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they are really divers and distinct in one and the same Divine Nature each of them with that one common Nature or Essence is a person by himself but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there are three really distinct persons in one Nature and here there are two really dictinct Natures in one Person but not two really distinct Persons in one Person See now whether he hath any better luck in vouching his language to be sutable to the Athanasian Creed He saith Sect. 16. It is no Soloecism to call the Humane Nature of Christ an Hypostasis the words of the Creed declaring him to be Perfect God and perfect Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then defining what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting not consisting And can there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not Hypostasis But I must confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here in a less proper sense but it being used and I understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when I apply it to the Humane nature of Christ in no other sense then the Creed I think I am wholly irreprehensible for so doing And thus the whole imputation of Nestorianism hath vanished into a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or less O impregnable Doctor First I note that he builds here upon the Greek of the Athanasian Creed and if that ground be sufficient I could furnish him out of it as it is Printed in St Athanas. his Works A. D. 1627. at Paris with a place more express for his purpose then this he hath pitched on For where the Latine reads it Unus omnino non confusione substantiae sed Unitate Personae the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by unity of Persons or Hypostases in the plural But Baronius ad An. Christi 340. will tell him That St Athanasius wrote this Creed originally in the Latine not in the Greek language Let him therefore who put it into Greek answer it if he differs from the Latine Secondly Whereas in the Latine it is Perfectus homo exanima rationali humana carne subsistens the word subsistens cannot properly or improperly be understood for Hypostasis or Persona but must onely signifie what we mean in English by Being or Consisting though in our Liturgie it be rendred subsisting For it follows in the Creed Unus non confusione substantiae sed Unitate Personae which is spoken of Christ as he is God and Man Wherefore St Athanasius determining in this clause the Divine and Humane Natures of Christ to be one Person he cannot be imagined in those precedent words ex anima rationali humanâ carne subsistens spoken of the Humane Nature to have any ways meant that Humane Nature to be Persona unless we should fancy him to write Repugnancies in his Creed Thirdly If the Doctor would justifie his calling Christs Humanity the Humane Person of Christ by this Creed he should shew us where the Creed calls it so Had he onely said that Christs Humanity is of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting who would have quarrelled with him for that Expression for that Subsistere in the Primitive Churches Latine did often signifie no more then Esse appears by Iob 7. 21. Lam. 4. 17. Esa. 17. 14. Ierem. 10. 20. Iob 8. 22. 3. 16. 7. 8. to add no more in the Vulgar Translation Thus the Doctor hath by his Apologie much mended the matter Had not the better way been to have honestly acknowledged his Unadvisedness and Errour in calling it the Humane Person of Christ and to have imitated Him who ingenously said Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo But this would have grated too fore upon his obstinate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Upon the 7th Objection Touching Gods conveying a false Perswasion into the minde of his Creature HERE the Doctor paves his way by certain Aphorisms of his own forging and if he hath not made them home to his own purpose it is pitty but he should hear of it His first Aphorism is this That nothing but Conviction of Conscience in a soul that is sincere can be properly the Promulgation of any Law Will or Command of Gods to that soul. And the reason he gives is Because he that is sincere is willing and ready to know and do any thing that is the minde of God he should do and doth his best endeavour to know it and do it Whenas on the contrary he that is not sincere but false to the present light he hath and knowingly and wittingly sins against his own Conscience such a man may justly be likened to one that stops his ears and will not hear the Law of his Prince which it being in his power notwithstanding to hear the Law is justly deemed to be promulgated to him Because a sincere man is ready to know and do Gods Wâ—… and Law is therefore that Will and Law not promulgateâ— to that man till his Conscience is convinced A very strangâ— Reason How in Gods Name can any mans Conscience be convinced of Gods Law before the Law be promulgated and made known to that man Can he be convinced of he knows not what If then he must first know it before he can be convinced of it then must it first be Promulgated And it 〈◊〉 must first be Promulgated then his conviction of Conscience which ensues thereupon cannot properly be as the Doctor affirms the Promulgation of it How else could the Doctor say That the Law is justly deemed to be Promulgated to the Unsincere man though he stops his ears and hardens his heart against it for if to receive and in conscience yield to the Law be the proper Promulgation of it to any man it must be so to every man and the Doctor deals but hardly with his unsincere man if he gives him not leave to plead That because he is not convinced in his Conscience therefore the Law was never Promulgated to him Nor can the Doctor evade this by his comparing the unsincere man to one who stops his ears and so doth not actually hear the Kings Law Proclaimed though he be present at the Proclamation For first did the Doctor ever know any man come to a Proclamation and stop his ears when he is come Secondly Suppose him so vain and wilfull as to stop his ears yet by that very act he acknowledgeth the Proclamation and that the Law is Promulgated to him that he might hear it if he would Thirdly Though his ears were open yet his heart mean while may be shut and he may actually hear the Proclamation and yet not count himself in conscience bound to obey the Law Proclaimed as the
all Persons And tell me if that Consequence will not be much clearer for hereupon the wicked Person having Right to what Religion he lists will never scruple to profess any thing that may best consist with his temporal Advantage for still he professeth no more then he hath Natural Right to profess As for the Conscientious this will expose them he saith to persecution Suppose so Is therefore the Position That no Nation nor Person can claim Liberty of Religion as their Right incommensurable to humane Affairs St Paul saith All that will live godly in Christ Iesus shall suffer persecution 2 Tim. 3. 12. Dr More would prevent this and therefore likes no Positions that will occasion Conscientious men to be persecuted But what thinks he of the Religion planted by Christ was that Incommensurable to humane Affairs I hope not Yet he assured his Apostles that it would expose them to the hatred of all the world Did Christian Religion not teach us a reward in the life to come the Doctor might count it as he doth this later Position to be of very partial and injurious consequence but upon supposal of this future reward neither this Religion nor that Position can be justly so accounted In the next the 11th Section though I were so well aware of the Doctor that I thought he could not have cheated me yet I must confess I was down right gulled for thus he begins But to answer more closely and satisfactorily to the purpose This Preface rowzed me to an expectation of something not impertinent at least but the sum of all I finde is but this that he himself saith That Right of Liberty of Religion as he hath stated it overthrows not any due Laws of Government in any Church nor opposeth any Interest but the Romane and that Reformed Churches need not fear but it will rather enlarge their Iurisdiction then overthrow their Laws And the Reason he subjoyns is this For what hinders men from coming over to the Truth but those Babylonish Chains of barbarous and Antichristian Persecution Is this close and satisfactory to the purpose as was promised First Let me ask the Doctor Whether he ever heard of greater complaints of Persecution from those who lived under the Romane Church then from those who lived under the Reformed Church yea under the Reformed Church of England which he tacking about hath of late so highly magnified Secondly If this Right of Liberty in Religion were granted let us consider how the Jurisdiction of the Church of England would be thereby inlarged Did the Doctor never hear of such things as Presbyterians Independents Quakers Latitudinarians here in England Are not these a pretty round company make they not a great I dare not say how great part of the Nation and are they not sincere and hearty enemies to our Church-government or proud despisers of it Now let all these be allowed a Right of Liberty and who doubts but they would soon have Governments and Disciplines of their own whereby so vast a part of the Subjects of our Churches Discipline being taken away it is very strange how her Jurisdiction should by this device be Inlarged And how cordially Dr More desires the inlargement of it let it be guessed by the goodly means he would have used for that purpose I but he will tell you now That he means not that all those Sects should be allowed their Right of Liberty Indeed he may tell us so now when he sees it is not safe for him to say the contrary But I have already shewed that his sincere Religionist for whom he pleads this Liberty is not the same here in his Apologie with him whom he holds forth in his Mysterie Besides if this Liberty be as he saith the Natural Right of all Persons none of all the Rabble I have named but will make good his Title to it against any forfeiture the Doctor can pretend For what is every mans Natural Right is his Right given him by God the Authour of Nature and therefore part of Natures Law How then can any man forfeit what he holds by the Charter and Law of God and Nature onely because he conforms not to the Churches Order in things which were in themselves but Indifferent unless he makes the Churches Law more sacred then Gods I say in things in themselves but Indifferent for which of those forementioned Sects will not readily profess that they imbrace all the Essentials and indispensable Precepts of Religion And to tell them that Obedience in things Indifferent is Commanded by God will nothing prevail with them seeing they are taught that this is inconsistent with the exercise of their Natural Right of Liberty and therefore any such Command infers no Indispensable Duty because this would destroy that Original Right which they have by the Law of God and Nature They may obey if they please but if they have no minde so to do that Natural Right will bear them out His next pretence in the Clause immediately subjoyned is this Again when there was no external force nor compulsion to make men Christians as there was not for some hundreds of years were there no Laws for Church-government and Discipline all that time Wherefore Liberty of Religion doth not take away or overthrow all Laws for Church-government and Discipline but rather keeps men from making any disallowable and scandalous ones which was one reason that kept the Church from that Antichristian Lapse all the time before the Empire professed Christianity But external force imprints Truth and Falshood Superstition and Religion alike upon the dawed spirits of men Marvellous close and to the purpose still for I see that in the Doctors Dialect Close signifies Extravagant and To the purpose quite beside it His business was to have shewed us That the Laws for Church-government are not frustrated though men be allowed Liberty of Religion By which men who understands not men entered into Christianity and living under Christian Governours To prove there is no such Frustration he appeals to the Primitive times when Infidels were not compelled to turn Christians which notwithstanding there were in those Times Laws for Church-government and Discipline Whereas his Proof should have been That the Primitive Church compelled none of her Members by Censure to obey her Commands but gave Dissenting Brethren their Liberty and onely exercised her Jurisdiction upon Assenters But he knew he could never make out this Proof and therefore wonderous wisely and demurely walked aside from the Question At length he concludeth That External force imprints Truth and Falshood alike c. But what he means or how this sentence coheres with what was premised let them divine who are more at leisure then I. To his Thirdly in which he refers us to his Answer to the 4th Objection I will repeat nothing but make the like reference desiring the Reader to review if he pleases my Reply to that his Answer In his Fourthly he saith That this Right of Liberty
supposeth to be such as have no real Turpitude or Immorality in them For saith he Any thing that includes such Turpitude or Immorality cannot justly be counted the Command of God Here I must reminde him of the example of Abrahams being commanded to kill his innocent son This Act in the Doctors Opinion for I have declared mine own about it already was against the Moral Law and therefore by his Rule Abraham could not justly count it the Command of God but must have judged it a Trick of the subtile Tempter I may add Gods commanding Israel to plunder and spoil the Egyptians which was against the 8th Commandment as also his commanding them to invade the Countrey seize the Possessions and destroy the lives of the Canaanites who never had done them injury Would the Doctor have allowed the Israelites to dispute these Commands to object that they were against the general Law of Nature Quod tibi fieri non vis c. and that therefore they included Turpitude I hope not God is Lord of all things and may do what he will with his own yea even with his own Laws He hath not bound his own hands by binding ours and giving Laws to Nature and if at any time he thinks fit to countermand such Laws his infinite Wisdom and Justice have sufficient reason for so doing whether man understands it or no. The Moral Turpitude of violating the Law of Nature is not imputable as such to any man who hath certainly received Gods Command to violate it for whatsoever is Gods Command is by being so necessarily free from inferring any Turpitude and most undoubtedly Just and Right So that though the Action examined by the standard of the Moral Law common to all men would include Turpitude yet Gods particular Law to the contrary doth wholly justifie it But then we must alwaies remember that the Moral Law being his revealed known Will it must be our Rule till we assuredly have his Will revealed unto us to the contrary Now I infer ad hominem I mean as to Dr More If God be above the Laws he hath made for us in general and may in particular cases for such onely concern this Querie command contrary to those Laws then doth that contrariety not at all prove such a Command not to be the Command of God This for the Matter of the Command And now having premised this I will as I promised that the Doctor may have as fair play as himself can with take into the Question his sincere Person and such Matter of the Command as is not discoverable by the Light of Nature viz. as himself terms it The belief of matter of fact done many ages ago and Religious precepts and Ceremonies thereupon depending and Laws meerly Positive or such as depend upon History and miraculous Revelation and not the eternal Moral Law of God for these also are his phrases Nay I will take in whatsoever else he can desire me provided it be but a Command of God derived to the ears of the supposed sincere Man His Position will then be this at least namely That the Laws or Commands of God such as are described or any else that are certainly his Laws and Commands are to the sincere man like words in an unknown tongue till his Conscience be convinced And what hath the Doctor got by this new Model of his Position for still the consequence mentioned in the Objection will be good viz. That it is no sin in that sincere man to act against those Laws of God till his Conscience be convinced And so will the result of that consequence added in the Objection also viz. That those men sinned not who thought they did God good service in killing the Apostles For first it appears by the example of St Paul that those men might be sincere and right-heartily zealous in their Religion 2. The Laws of Christian Religion were in the Doctors sense Gods Positive Laws for which those men persecuted the Apostles and which they themselves ought to have imbraced having heard them from the Apostles 3. Though they heard them they were not convinced in Conscience that they were Gods Laws but quite the contrary and this appears in that they thought they did God good service in persecuting the Apostles for them 4. Being not convinced in Conscience that they were Gods Laws by the Doctors Principle those Laws were but like words in an unknown tongue and therefore obliged not these men to obey them 5. If these men were not obliged to obey them then they sinned not in disobeying and resisting them nor in persecuting the Apostles to the death for asserting those Laws against the Iewish Religion which they were in Conscience perswaded to be of God and for the defence of which their Religion they were likewise perswaded in Conscience that this their persecuting them was doing of God good service But the Doctor tells us also That invincible ignorance makes an Act involuntary and that therefore there is no inconvenience to admit that the transgression or non-observance of these kinde of Laws in him that is thus invincibly ignorant and unconvicted of them as we suppose the truly sincere to be hath not the proper nature of sin in the sincere though in the unsincere it may This non-reception of Truth or Inconviction may be Trial Punishment or fatal Defect but the nature of sin it properly hath not as being wholly and perfectly involuntary and absolutely out of the reach of the party to help it For the nature of sincerity is to do all we can and no man can do any more Whence I will easily admit That it is no sin to act against that is to transgress or not observe such Positive Laws of God while a man stands unconvinced in such circumstances as I have described firmly believing that it is lawfull for him not to observe them and being fully perswaded that they are not his First Is it not pretty sport that he makes the transgression of Gods Positive Laws to be sin in the unsincere persons but no sin in the sincere I have heard of an Opinion that God sees no sin in his Children and I have often wondered at it but this fancy of the Doctor goeth much higher God not onely doth not but cannot see sin in them for there is none in them to be seen that which is sin in others being no such thing in them Secondly He saith That non-reception of Truth in the sincere which is indeed as himself is forced to confess the transgression of Gods Positive Laws may be Trial Punishment or fatal Defect 1. For Trial Can any sober man believe that God would make that a trial of his faithfull sincere Servant which puts him necessarily upon resisting Truth and not believing but transgressing his own Laws This the Doctor holds that God doth by conveying into that person a false perswasion But if he narrowly examineth the business he will finde that this cannot possibly be any