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
Begotten not made being of one Substance with the Father Thus he In this they condemn the doctrine of Armus for this word of one Substance in Latine Consubstantialis in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was put as a touch-stone to discern an Arrian from a Catholick and much ado their was about it Thus far t is true but the verity of he subsequent discourse must be considered Constantine himself at the passing of it took it for an hard Word but yet approved it The account is given by Eusebius in his Epistle to his flock in Caesarea Theod. lib. 1. cap. 12. he acquaints them what a form of sound words he presented to the Synod at Nice w ch the Emperor and Synod allowed and approved but the Synod was not satisfyed except this one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was inserted whereupon the Synod entered into a long debate and it past 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we did not admit without enquiry which was after this manner That word of one substance was not to be understood according to any Corporeal passion That it was not a Subsistence by any division or abscission from the Father For an immaterial intellectual and incorporeal Nature can't be the subject of Corporeal passions it behov'd that such things ought to be express'd in divine and arcane words Thus our most wise and religious Emperour did Philosophise And Theoderet cap. 13. saith that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not invented by the Fathers but received from former ages and devolved from Fathers to Children Constantine calling that word Divine not because it was in the divine Scripture for it was not there This is acknowledged But because it was to him an Arcanum not sufficiently undeistood Mr. Hobs takes all the occasion to cast a contempt upon the Council t is fit their should be suitable words for tho the mystery cannot be rightly understood yet the sence of the word may very well be understood This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well enough be known yet how the son of God should be of the same substance with the Father is not so intelligible his reflection upon the Emperor is unworthy a Gentleman And in this appeared the indifferency of the Emperor and that he had for his end in calling the Synod not so much the Truth as the Uniformity of the doctrine and the Peace of his People yet depended on it This is a most notorious scandal What! the famous Constantine who put a period to persecution restored peace to Christians and made Christianity to florish what this Constantine to play the Hypocrite Constantine did desire the Uniformity in Doctrine but not in an evil Doctrine and the Peace of his people but he would not build this upon the foundation of Sin and and Heresy Before that celebrated Emperor convened the Council he was convinced of the true Faith which appeared by his Discourse with Arrius and his large letter to the Churches in Romania They who read the letters of Constantine concerning Arrius before the Council was call'd Constantines Edict for the Convening of the Fathers and his pious and sweet Orations to the Council will find that Constantine's Designe was that so great an Assembly of the best Divines should settle the Church upon the Foundation of Truth and peace Further the cause of the obscurity of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeded clearly from the difference of the Greek and Roman dialect in the Phylosophy of the Peripateticks what should cast Mr. Hobs into this sentiment I cannot understand all his subsequent discourse is of Essence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to this I know no difference in the Greek and Latine Dialect Both Greek and Latine in the Sence of â—hat agreed The Arrians and Catholicks were Harmonious As to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why Mr. Hobs should make their difference to consist in that which they did agree is to me unintelligible The difference lay in the Adjective there is one letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that makes it all Schools agree in this that like is not the same the Arrians would allow the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a substance like to the father but not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with the Father It manifestly appears to be a wild excursion of Mr. Hobs to discourse and quible upon the Sence of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and Substance when the dispute did not lye in that yet if there be a connexion in his discourse in that according to him it did consist but we will follow him in the Chace The first principle of all Religion in all Nations is God is This is a truth That is to say that God really is something and not a meere fancy This is not well sayd It is with a diminution for when we understand the Notion of a God then we must have a conception of a being which is infinitely wise Good Powerful Eternal c. but that which is really something is considerable alone by it self as being somewhere so the Earth the Air are all of them things real whatsoever is in any place hath dimeÌ„sion that is to say Magnitude and this which hath Magnitude whether it be visible or invisible is called by all the learned a Body If it be finite body or Corporeal if it be infinite it followeth that all real things in that they are somewhere are corporeal which Paragraph gives occasion of these 2 considerable things 1. Whether there be any real being but that which is a body and hath magnitude 2. Wherein the Nature of Infinity consists As to the first we will grant that all learn'd men say whatsoever hath Magnitude is a Body yet it must be affirmed that the most and best of the Literati affirme that there are real Beings which are not bodys and have no Magnitude The chief of which we say is God and t is impossible to have any conception of a God but he must remove from him the conception of a Body A Body must of necessity be divisible and have such parts w ch can't be competent to a Deity so that great Attribute of God's Immutability is lost He being a thing that may be changed nor can this consist with Gods Omnipotency how can we think matter can be omnipotent if we seriously cast our Eyes upon this world to contemplate its beauty order and greatness Is 't possible to conceive that it is the product of Matter No the notion of a God must include in its self the Notion of Infinity An Infinite cannot consist of finite parts several finites cannot amount to one infinite therefore God cannot have parts wherefore it must be acknowledged that there is a being which is not corporeal and farther t is most certain that Hobs contradicts his own great principle that the supream Power is the sole Judge of Good and Evil Truth and Falsehood He is a Subject to the King of
England by whose law the Nicene Council was ratified which decreed that God is an immaterial and incorporeal Substance and by his own Law hath declared that God hath no parts 2. As to the Nature of a Thing infinite there can be but two just acceptions of it It signifies a being which includes in it self all perfections and so it connotes the great God the Eternal Majesty and this infers there cannot be two Infinites for there must not be two of all perfections 2. Or a being that is boundless or hath no terme The name Infinite may be given to other things as an Infinite Sea because it cannot be exhausted take what water out of it you please the Sea remaines as full as before Infinite words Infinite Numbers yet there are bounds to them the Sea may be fathomed Words have their Numbers none can imagine a line drawn to such a length but it may be drawn longer fancy any number there may be an addition these are not properly Infinites as a little Stick we see bounded yet divided it may be into Infinite parts i. e. it will be still capable of division for nothing is material but each part will be material 'T is clear that nothing can be esteemed infinite but Space in my apprehension Space simply conceived is nothing 't is a mere imagination so it appears that nothing Corporeal is Infinite That which he subjoyns concerning Essence and Deity shall be considered what he says of Whiteness and Blackness will be granted but what he intends by it shall be presently examined These Real things are called by the Latine Philosophers Entia subjecta substantiae and by the Greek Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other which are Incorporeal are called by the Greek Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but most of the Latine Philosophers use to convert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into substantia and so confound real and corporeal things with incorporeal which is not well For Essence and Substance signifie divers things To which 't is thus returned why doth Mr. Hobs call any thing Incorporeal when he asserts there 's nothing but what is a Body 2. What philosophers say substantiae are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 other things are so called which are not substantiae and who saith that White and Black are substantia and subjecta seeing white and black have their substrata which are different from them and they are separable for that substratum which is now white may anon be black 3. By the Greek Philosophers Incorporeal things are not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these are accidentia nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the spectra are subjects of the eye and what is the object of sense is material but they are by them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latine Authors doe well in translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes Substantia sometimes Essentia Essence and Substande do differ but the Greek is copious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Essence and Substance expresly Arist lib. 4. cap. 9. gives these two significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it signifies both Essence and Substance The Latines take their measures from the Greeks They confound not Essence and Substance who give the just Translation according to the true sense it having divers acceptations and therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is truely rendred One of the same Substance ' And this mistake is receiv'd and continues still in these parts in all disputes both of Philosophy and Divinity for in truth Essentia signified no more than if we should talk ridiculously of the Isness of the thing that is By whom all things were made this is prov'd out of St. John Cap. 1. Verse 1 2 3. and Heb. Cap. 1. Ver. 3. and that again out of Gen. 1. ' To make those expressions which Philosophers us'd ridiculous he thus form'd this word Isness St. Jerome upon these words of the wise man There 's no new thing under the Sun quotes his Master Donatus reading upon Terence Nil dictum quod non priùs dictum Despereant qui nostra ante nos dixerunt That great Rhetorician and Gramarian might be the Inver◠or of some new words or new explanation of the same thing but not else Mr. Hobbs is the sole Inventor of the word Isness but his Leviathan principles were prepared to his hands by fanciful and not thinking men words mightily prevail The reverend Mr. Calvin against the Anabaptists and other wild persons us'd the word Phanatick The Great Monk in his Southern Journey which he manag'd with as curious and fine Stratagems as ever a General did to expose his adversaries the Army abounding with such sort of Creatures he call'd them Phanaticks which was of great efficacy perhaps 't is Mr. Hobbs his imagination by this odd word Isness to render Essentia us'd by the Philosophers contemptible ere long it may be on the Stage And this Isness amongst Drolls may serve to make a Conceit more pleasant If He would have recollected what he said of Speech Cap. 40. Leviathan that words signifie as they are usually understood then if Isness had been used in a common vogue to denote the same with Essence who would have reprov'd it He quarrels with the Father◠and Divines of Note for confounding the Concrete with the Abstract Deus with Deitas Ens with Essentia Sapiens with Sapientia Aeternu◠with Aeternitas In my apprehension the Philosophers do not confound themselves for they suppose a distinction which to me thus appears Essentia the Nature Ens the thing it self I may have apprehensions of a thing and the Nature of a thing the Philosophers make no confusion none of them say that Sapiens is Sapientia if they did so they might truly say that Covetousness is a Covetous man and Holyness is a Holy man c. as he by this would render them contemptible by a Concrete they understand a Thing compounded of Substance and Forms by an abstract they conceive a Form without the Subject as Wisdome not considering the man that is Wise I may at the same time have a conception of Wisdom and not have the conception of a wise man No Philosopher doth say that wisdom and a wise man are the same nor Covetousness and a Covetous man are the same The Schools and Philosophers in speaking of the Deity do fear to speak of God with any irreverence therefore upon just ground admit not any composition in God amongst them Deitas and Deus are the same and by reason that there is nothing Eternal but God in Him aeternus aeternitas are the same For when we concieve a distinction in the mind of man it is concerning created beings but we have none such in God Essence and Existence of created beings afford two different modes of concieving but the contrary is of God There is but one conception of the Essence and Existence of a God and of them there is no sort of distinction The Abstract