which these my grounds he says destroy How so I say the Trinity and the Persons thereof are that one pure simple and eternal Corporeal Spirit and why does this destroy the Trinity more than if I had called it Incorporeal He labours here and seeketh somewhat to refresh himself in the word Person by the same grounds he saith every King has as many Persons as there by Justices of Peace in his Kingdom and God Almighty hath as many Persons as there be Kings why not For I never said that all those Kings were that God and yet God giveth that name to the Kings of the earth For the signification of the word Person I shall expound it by and by in another place Here ends his Lordships School Argument now let me come with my Scripture Argument St. Paul concerning Christ Col. 2.9 saith thus In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily This place Athanasius a great and zealous Doctor in the Nicene Councel and vehement enemy of Arius the Heretick who allowed Christ to be no otherwise God then as men of excellent piety were so called expoundeth thus The fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in him Bodily Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Realiter So there is one Father for Corporality and that God was in Christ in such manner as Body is in Body Again there were in the primitive Church a sort of Hereticks who maintained that Jesus Christ had not a true real Body but was onely a Phantasm or Spright such as the Latins called Spectra Against the head of this Sect whose name I think was Apelles Tertullian wrote a Book now extant amongst his other Works intituled De Carne Christi wherein after he had spoken of the nature of Phantasms and shewed that they had nothing of reality in them he concludeth with these words whatsoever is not Body is Nothing So here is on my side a plain Text of Scripture and two ancient and learned Fathers nor was this Doctrine of Tertullian condemned in the Council of Nice but the division of the Divine Substance into God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost For these words God has no parts were added for explication of the word Consubstantial at the request of the dissenting Fathers and are farther explained both in Athanasius his Creed in these words not three Gods but one God and by the constant Attribute ever since of the Individual Trinity The same words nevertheless do condemn the Anthropomorphites also For though there appeared no Christians that professed that God had an Organical Body and consequently that the Persons were three Individuals yet the Gentiles were all Anthropomorphites and there condemned by those words God has no parts And thus I have answered his accusation concerning the Eternity and Existence of the Divine Substance and made appear that in truth the question between us is whether God be a Phantasme id est an Idol of the Fancy which St. Paul saith is nothing or a Corporeal Spirit that is to say something that has Magnitude In this place I think it not amiss leaving for a little while this Theological dispute to examine the signification of those words which have occasioned so much diversity of opinion in this kind of Doctrine The word Substance in Greek Hypostasis Hypostan Hypostamenon signifie the same thing namely a Ground a Base any thing that has Existence or Subsistence in it self any thing that upholdeth that which else would fall in which sence God is properly the Hypostasis Base and Substance that upholdeth all the world having Subsistence not only in himself but from himself whereas other Substances have their subsistence only in themselves not from themselves But Metaphorically Faith is called a Substance Heb. 11.1 because it is the foundation or Base of our Hope for Faith failing our Hope falls And 2 Cor. 9.4 St. Paul having boasted of the liberal promise of the Corinthians towards the Macedonians calls that promise the ground the Hypostasis of that his boasting And Heb. 1.3 Christ is called the Image of the Substance the Hypostasis of his Father and for the proper and adequate signification of the word Hypostasis the Greek Fathers did always oppose it to Apparition or Phantasme as when a man seeth his face in the water his real face is called the Hypostasis of the phantastick face in the water So also in speaking the thing understood or named is called Hypostasis in respect of the name so also a Body coloured is the Hypostasis Substance and Subject of the colour and in like manner of all its other Accidents Essence and all other abstract names are words artificial belonging to the Art of Logick and signifies only the manner how we consider the Substance it self And of this I have spoken sufficiently in Pag. 371.372 of my Leviathan Body Lat. Corpus Grae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that Substance which hath Magnitude indeterminate and is the same with Corporeal Substance but A Body is that which hath Magnitude determinate and consequently is understood to be totum or integrum aliquid Pure and Simple Body is Body of one and the same kind in every part throughout and if mingled with Body of another kind though the total be compounded or mixt the parts nevertheless retain their simplicity as when water and wine are mixt the parts of both kinds retain their simplicity For water and wine cannot both be in one and the same place at once Matter is the same with Body But never without respect to a Body which is made thereof Form is the aggregate of all Accidents together for which we give the Matter a new name so Albedo whiteness is the Form of Album or white Body So also Humanity is the Essence of man and Deity the Essence of Deus Spirit is Thin Fluid Transparent Invisible Body The word in Latin signifies Breath Aire Wind and the like In Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiro Flo. I have seen and so have many more two waters one of the River the other a Mineral Water so like that no man could discern the one from the other by his sight yet when they have been both put together the whole substance could not by the eye be distinguished from milk Yet we know that the one was not mixt with the other so as every part of the one to be in every part of the other for that is impossible unless two Bodies can be in the the same place How then could the change be made in every part but only by the Activity of the Mineral water changing it every where to the Sense and yet not being every where and in every part of the water If then such gross Bodies have so great Activity what shall we think of Spirits whose kinds be as many as there be kinds of Liquor and Activity greater Can it then be doubted but that God who
gathered directly from the Soripture is in substance this that the God who is always one and the same was the Person represented by Moses the Person represented by his Son incarnate and the Person represented by the Apostles As represented by the Apostles the holy Spirit by which they spake is God As represented by his Son that was God and Man the Son is that God As represented by Moses and the High Priests the Father that is to say the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that God From whence we may gather the reason why those Names Father Son and Holy Ghost in the signification of the Godhead are never used in the Old Testament For they are Persons that is they have their Names from representing which could not be till divers Persons had represented God in ruling or in directing under him Who is so bold as blind Bayard The Emblem of a little Boy attempting to lade all the Water out of the Sea with a Cockle-shell doth sit T. H. as exactly as if it had been shaped for him who thinketh to measure the profound and inscrutable Mysteries of Religion by his own silly shallow conceits What is now become of the great adorable Mystery of the blessed undivided Trinity It is shrunk into nothing Upon his grounds there was a time when there was no Trinity And we must blot these words out of our Creed The Father eternal the Son eternal and the Holy Ghost eternal And these other words out of our Bibles Let us make man after our Image Unless we mean that this was a consultation of God with Moses and the Apostles What is now become of the eternal generation of the Son of God if this Sonship did not begin until about 4000 years after the Creation were expired Upon these grounds every King hath as many Persons as there be Justices of Peace and petty Constables in his Kingdom Upon this account God Almighty hath as many Persons as there have been Soveraign Princes in the World since Adam According to this reckoning each one of us like so many Geryons may have as many Persons as we please to make Procurations Such bold presumption requireth another manner of confutation T. H. As for the words recited I confess there is a fault in the Ratiocination which nevertheless his Lordship hath not discovered but no Impiety All that he objecteth is That it followeth hereupon that there be as many Persons of a King as there be petty Constables in his Kingdom And so there are or else he cannot be obeyed But I never said that a King and every one of his Persons are the same Substance The fault I here made and saw not was this I was to prove That it is no contradiction as Lucian and Heathen Scoffers would have it to say of God he was One and Three I saw the true definition of the word Person would serve my turn in this manner God in his own Person both created the World and instituted a Church in Israel using therein the Ministry of Moses the same God in the Person of his Son God and Man redeemed the same World and the same Church the same God in the Person of the Holy Ghost sanctified the same Church and all the faithful men in the World Is not this a clear proof that it is no contradiction to say that God is three Persons and one Substance And doth not the Church distinguish the Persons in the same manner See the words of our Catechism Quest What dost thou chiefly learn in these Articles of the Belief Answ First I learn to believe in God the Father that hath made me and all the World Secondly In God the Son who hath redeemed me and all Mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost that hath sanctified me and all the elect people of God But at what time was the Church sanctified Was it not on the day of Pentecost in the descending of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles His Lordship all this while hath catched nothing 'T is I that catched my self for saying instead of By the Ministry of Moses in the Person of Moses But this Error I no sooner saw then I no less publickly corrected then I had committed it in my Leviathan converted into Latin which by this time I think is printed beyond the Seas with this alteration and also with the omission of some such passages as Strangers are not concerned in And I had corrected this Error sooner if I had sooner found it For though I was told by Dr. Cosins now Bishop of Duresme that the place above-cited was not applicable enough to the Doctrine of the Trinity yet I could not in reviewing the same espy the defect till of late when being sollicited from beyond Sea to translate the Book into Latin and fearing some other man might do it not to my liking I examined this passage and others of the like sence more narrowly But how concludes his Lordship out of this that I put out of the Creed these words The Father eternal the Son eternal the Holy Ghost eternal Or these words Let us make man after our Image out of the Bible Which last words neither I nor Bellarmine put out of the Bible but we both put them out of the number of good Arguments to prove the Trinity for it is no unusual thing in the Hebrew as may be seen by Bellarmine's quotations to joyn a Noun of the plural Number with a Verb of the singular And we may say also of many other Texts of Scripture alledged to prove the Trinity that they are not so firm as that high Article requireth But mark his Lordship's Scholastick charity in the last words of this period Such bold presumption requireth another manner of confutation This Bishop and others of his opinion had been in their Element if they had been Bishops in Queen Maries time J. D. Concerning God the Son forgetting what he had said elsewhere where he calleth him God and Man and the Son of God incarnate he doubteth not to say that the word Hypostatical is canting As if the same Person could be both God and Man without a Personal that is an Hypostatical Union of the two Natures of God and Man T. H. If Christian Profession be as certainly it is in England a Law and if it be of the nature of a Law to be made known to all men that are to obey it in such manner as they may have no excuse for disobedience from their ignorance then without doubt all words unknown to the people and as to them insignificant are Canting The word Substance is understood by the Vulgar well enough when it is said of a Body but in other sence not at all except for their Riches But the word Hypostatical is understood only by those and but few of those that are learned in the Greek Tongue and is properly used as I have said before of the Union of the two Natures of Christ in one Person So
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
Soveraign is the Judge of Prophesie he deduces That then Samuel and other Prophets were false Prophets that contested with their Soveraigns As for Samuel he was at that time the Judge that is to say the Soveraign Prince in Israel and so acknowledged by Saul For Saul received the Kingdom from God himself who had right to give and take it by the hands of Samuel And God gave it him to himself only and not to his Seed though if he had obeyed God he would have setled it also upon his Seed The Commandement of God was that he should not spare Agag Saul obeyed not God therefore sent Samuel to tell him that he was rejected For all this Samuel went not about to resist Saul That he caused Agag to be slain was with Sauls consent Lastly Saul confesses his sin Where is this contesting with Saul After this God sent Samuel to anoint David not that he should depose Saul but succeed him the Sons of Saul having never had a right of Succession Nor did ever David make War on Saul or so much as resist him but fled from his persecution But when Saul was dead then indeed he claimed his right against the House of Saul What Rebellion or Resistance could his Lordship find here either in Samùel or in David Besides all these Transactions are supernatural and oblige not to imitation Is there any Prophet or Priest now that can set up in England Scotland or Ireland another King by pretence of Prophesie or Religion What did Jeroboam to the man of God 1 Kings 13 that prophesied against the Altar in Bethel without first doing a Miracle but offer to seize him for speaking as he thought rashly of the Kings Act and after the miraculous withering of his Hand desire the Prophet to pray for him The sin of Jeroboam was not his distrust of the Prophet but his Idolatry He was the sole Judge of the truth which the man of God uttered against the Altar and the process agreeable to equity What is the story of Eliah and Ahab 1 Kings 18. but a confirmation of the Right even of Ahab to be the Judge of Prophesie Eliah told Ahab he had transgressed the Commandement of God So may any Minister now tell his Soveraign so he do it with sincerity and discretion Ahab told Eliah he troubled Israel Upon this controversie Eliah desired tryal Send saith he and assemble all Israel Assemble also the Prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty Ahab did so The Question is stated before the People thus If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal follow him Then upon the Altars of God and Baal were laid the Wood and the Bullocks and the cause was to be judged by Fire from Heaven to burn the Sacrifices which Eliah procured the Prophets of Baal could not procure Was not this cause here Pleaded before Ahab The Sentence of Ahab is not required for Eliah from that time forward was no more persecuted by Ahab but only by his Wife Jezabel The story of Micaiah 2 Cron. 18. is this Ahab King of Israel consulted the Prophets four hundred in number whether he should prosper or not in case he went with Jehosaphat King of Judah to fight against the Syrians at Ramoth-gilead The Prophet Micaiah was also called and both the Kings Ahab and Jehosaphat sat together to hear what they should prophecy There was no Miracle done The 400 pronounced Victory Micaiah alone the contrary The King was Judge and most concern'd in the event nor had he received any Revelation in the business What could he do more discreetly than to follow the Counsel of 400 rather than of one Man But the event was contrary for he was slain but not for following the Counsel of the 400 but for his Murder of Naboth and his Idolatry It was also a sin in him that he afflicted Micaiah in Prison but an unjust Judgment does not take away from any King his right of Judicature Besides what 's all this or that of Jeremiah which he cites last to the Question of who is Judge of Christian Doctrine J. D. Neither doth he use God the Holy Ghost more favourably than God the Son Where St. Peter saith Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit He saith By the Spirit is meant the Voice of God in a Dream or Vision Supernatural which Dreams or Visions he maketh to be no more than imaginations which they had in their sleep or in an extasie which in every true Prophet were Supernatural but in false Prophets were either natural or feigned and more likely to be false than true To say God hath spoken to him in a Dream is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him c. To say he hath seen a Vision or heard a Voice is to say That he hath dreamed between sleeping and waking So St. Peter's Holy Ghost is come to be their own imaginations which might be either feigned or mistaken or true As if the Holy Ghost did enter only at their eyes and at their ears not into their understandings nor into their minds Or as if the Holy Ghost did not seal unto their hearts the truth and assurance of their Prophesies Whether a new light be infused into their understandings or new graces be inspired into their heart they are wrought or caused or created immediately by the Holy Ghost And so are his imaginations if they be Supernatural T. H. For the places of my Leviathan he cites they are all as they stand both true and clearly proved the setting of them down by Fragments is no Refutation nor offers he any Argument against them His consequences are not deduced I never said that the Holy Ghost was an Imagination or a Dream or a Vision but that the Holy Ghost spake most often in the Scripture by Dreams and Visions supernatural The next words of his As if the Holy Ghost did enter only at their eyes and at their ears not into their understandings nor into their minds I let pass because I cannot understand them His last words Whether new light c. I understand and approve J. D. But he must needs fall into these absurdities who maketh but a jest of inspiration They who pretend Divine inspiration to be a supernatural entring of the Holy Ghost into a Man are as he thinks in a very dangerous Dilemma for if they worship not the Men whom they conceive to be inspired they fall into impiety and if they worship them they commit Idolatry So mistaking the Holy Ghost to be corporeal some thing that is blown into a Man and the Graces of the Holy Ghost to be corporeal Graces And the words inpoured or infused virtue and inblown or inspired virtue are as absurd and insignificant as a round Quadrangle He reckons it as a common error That faith and sanctity are not attained by study and reason but by supernatural inspiration or infusion And layeth this for a firm ground Faith
and Sanctity are indeed not very frequent but yet they are not Miracles but brought to pass by Education Discipline Correction and other natural wayes I would see the greatest Pelagian of them all fly higher T. H. I make here no jest of Inspiration Seriously I say that in the proper signification of the words Inspiration and Infusion to say virtue is inspired or infused is as absurd as to say a Quadrangle is round But Metaphorically for Gods bestowing of Faith Grace or other Vertue those words are intelligible enough J. D. Why should he trouble himself about the Holy Spirit who acknowledgeth no Spirit but either a subtil fluid body or a Ghost or other Idol or Phantasm of the imagination who knoweth no inward Grace or intrinsecal Holyness Holy is a word which in Gods Kingdom answereth to that which men in their Kingdoms use to call publick or the Kings And again wheresoever the word Holy is taken properly there is still some thing signified of propriety gotten by consent His Holiness is a Relation not a Quality for inward sanctification or real infused holiness in respect whereof the third Person is called the Holy Ghost because he is not only holy in himself but also maketh us holy he is so great a stranger to it that he doth altogether deny it and disclaim it T. H. The word Holy I had defined in the words which his Lordship here sets down and by the use thereof in the Scripture made it manifest That that was the true signification of the word There is nothing in Learning more difficult than to determine the signification of words That difficulty excuses him He says that Holiness in my sence is a Relation not a Quality All the Learned agree that Quality is an Accident so that in attributing to God Holiness as a Quality he contradicts himself for he has in the beginning of this his discourse denyed and rightly that any Accident is in God saying whatsoever is in God is the Divine Substance He affirms also that to attribute any Accident to God is to deny the simplicity of the Divine Substance And thus his Lordship makes God as I do a Corporeal Spirit Both here and throughout he discovers so much ignorance as had he charged me with error only and not with Atheism I should not have thought it necessary to answer him J. D. We are taught in our Creed to believe the Catholick or Universal Church But T. H. teacheth us the contrary That if there be more Christian Churches than one all of them together are not one Church personally And more plainly Now if the whole number of Christians be not contained in one Common-wealth they are not one Person nor is there an Vniversal Church that hath any Authority over them And again The Vniversal Church is not one Person of which it can be said that it hath done or Decreed or Ordained or Excommunicated or Absolved This doth quite overthrow all the Authority of General Councils All other Men distinguish between the Church and the Common-wealth only T. H. maketh them to be one and the same thing The Common-wealth of Christian men and the Church of the same are altogether the same thing called by two names for two reasons For the matter of the Church and of the Common-wealth is the same namely the same Christian men and the Form is the same which consisteth in the lawful power of convocating them And hence he concludeth That every Christian Common-wealth is a Church endowed with all spiritual Authority And yet more fully The Church if it be one Person is the same thing with the Common-wealth of Christians called a Common-wealth because it consisteth of men united in one Person their Soveraign And a Church because it consisteth in Christian men united in one Christian Soveraign Upon which account there was no Christian Church in these Parts of the World for some hundreds of years after Christ because there was no Christian Soveraign T. A. For answer to this Period I say only this That taking the Church as I do in all those places for a company of Christian men on Earth incorporated into one Person that can speak command or do any act of a Person all that he citeth out of what I have written is true and that all private Conventicles though their belief be right are not properly called Churches and that there is not any one Universal Church here on Earth which is a Person indued with Authority universal to govern all Christian men on Earth no more than there is one Universal Soveraign Prince or State on Earth that hath right to govern all Mankind I deny also that the whole Clergy of a Christian Kingdom or State being assembled are the representative of that Church further than the Civil Laws permits or can lawfully assemble themselves unless by the command or by the leave of the Soveraign Civil Power I say further that the denyal of this point tendeth in England towards the taking away of the Kings Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical But his Lordship has not here denyed any thing of mine because he has done no more but set down my words He says further that this Doctrine destroyes the Authority of all General Councils which I confess Nor hath any General Council at this day in this Kingdom the force of a Law nor ever had but by the Authority of the King J. D. Neither is he more Orthodox concerning the Holy Scriptures Hitherto that is for the Books of Moses the power of making the Scripture Canonical was in the Civil Soveraign The like he saith of the Old Testament made Canonical by Esdras And of the New Testament That it was not the Apostles which made their own Writings Canonical but every Convert made them so to himself Yet with this restriction That until the Soveraign Ruler had prescribed them they were but Counsel and Advice which whether good or bad he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe and being contrary to the Laws established could not without injustice observe He maketh the Primitive Christians to have been in a pretty condition Certainly the Gospel was contrary to the Laws then established But most plainly The word of the Interpreter of the Scripture is the word of God And the same is the Interpreter of the Scripture and the Soveraign Judge of all Doctrines that is the Soveraign Magistrate to whose Authority we must stand no less than to theirs who at first did commend the Scripture to us for the Canon of Faith Thus if Christian Soveraigns of different Communications do clash one with another in their interpretations or misinterpretation of Scripture as they do daily then the word of God is contradictory to it self or that is the word of God in one Common-wealth which is the word of the Devil in another Common-wealth And the same thing may be true and not true at the same time Which is the peculiar priviledge of T.H. to make
present time I am forced to in my defence not against the Church but against the accusations and arguments oâ— my Adversaries For the Church though it excommunicates for scandalous life and for teaching false Doctrines yet it professeth to impose nothing to be held as Faith but what may be warranted by Scripture and this the Church it self saith in thâ— 20th of the 39 Articles of Religion Anâ— therefore I am permitted to alledge Scrâ—pture at any time in the defence of my Belief J. D. But they that in one case are grieved in another must be relieved If perchance T. H. hath given his Disciples any discontent in his Doctrine of Heaven and the holy Angels and the glorified Souls of the Saints he will make them amends in his Doctrine of Hell and the Devils and the damned Spirits First of the Devils He fancieth that all those Devils which our Saviour did cast out were Phrensies and all Demoniacks or Persons possessed no other than Mad-men And to justifie our Saviour's speaking to a Disease as to a Person produceth the example of inchanters But he declareth himself most clearly upon this Subject in his Animadversions upon my reply to his defence of fatal destiny There are in the Scripture two sorts of things which are in English translated Devils One is that which is called Satan Diabolus Abaddon which signifieth in English an Enemy an Accuser and a destroyer of the Church of God in which sence the Devils are but wicked men The other sort of Devils are called in the Scripture Daemonia which are the feigned Gods of the Heathen and are neither Bodies nor spiritual Substances but meer fancies and fictions of terrified hearts feigned by the Greeks and other Heathen People which St. Paul calleth Nothings So T.H. hath killed the great infernal Devil and all his black Angels and left no Devils to be feared but Devils Incarnate that is wicked men T. H. As for the first words cited Levi. page 38 39. I refer the Reader to the place it self and for the words concerning Satan I leave them to the judgment of the Learned J. D. And for Hell he describeth the Kingdom of Satan or the Kingdom of darkness to be a confederacy of deceivers He telleth us that the places which set forth the torments of Hell in holy Scripture do design Metaphorically a grief and discontent of mind from the sight of that eternal felicity in others which they themselves through their own incredulity and disobedience have lost As if Metaphorical descriptions did not bear sad truths in them as well as literal as if final desperation were no more than a little fit of grief or discontent and a guilty conscience were no more than a transitory passion as if it were a loss so easily to be born to be deprived for evermore of the beatifical Vision and lastly as if the Damned besides that unspeakable loss did not likewise suffer actual Torments proportionable in some measure to their own sins and Gods Justice T. H. That Metaphors bear sad truths in them I deny not It is a sad thing to lose this present life untimely Is it not therefore much more a sad thing to lose an eternal happy Life And I believe that he which will venture upon sin with such danger will not stick to do the same notwithstanding the Doctrine of eternal torture Is it not also a sad truth that the Kingdom of darkness should be a Confederacy of deceivers J. D. Lastly for the damned Spirits he declareth himself every where that their sufferings are not eternal The Fire shall be unquenchable and the Torments everlasting but it cannot be thence inferred that he who shall be cast into that Fire or be tormented with those Torments shall endure and resist them so as to be eternally burnt and tortured and yet never be destroyed nor dye And though there be many places that affirm everlasting fire into which men may be cast successivily one after another for ever yet I find none that affirm that there shall be an everlasting life therein of any individual Person If he had said and said only that the pains of the Damned may be lessened as to the degree of them or that they endure not for ever but that after they are purged by long torments from their dross and Corruptions as Gold in the fire both the damned Spirits and the Devils themselves should be restored to a better condition he might have found some Ancients who are therefore called the merciful Doctors to have joyned with him though still he should have wanted the suffrage of the Catholick Church T. H. Why does not his Lordship cite some place of Scripture here to prove that all the Reprobates which are dead live eternally in torment We read indeed That everlasting Torments were prepared for the Devil and his Angels whose natures also are everlasting and that the Beast and the false Prophet shall be tormented everlastingly but not that every Reprobate shall be so They shall indeed be cast into the same fire but the Scripture says plainly enough that they shall be both Body and Soul destroyed there If I had said that the Devils themselves should be restored to a better condition his Lordship would have been so kind as to have put me into the number of the Merciful Doctors Truly if I had had any Warrant for the possibility of their being less enemies to the Church of God than they have been I would have been as merciful to them as any Doctor of them all As it is I am more merciful than the Bishop J. D. But his shooting is not at rovers but altogether at randome without either President or Partner All that eternal sire all those torments which he acknowledgeth is but this That after the Resurrection the Reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his Posterity were in after the sin committed saving that God promised a Redeemer to Adam and not to them Adding that they shall live as they did formerly Marry and give in Marriage and consequently engender Children perpetually after the Resurrection as they did before which he calleth an immortallity of the kind but not of the persons of men It is to be presumed that in those their second lives knowing certainly from T. H. that there is no hope of Redemption for them from corporal death upon their well-doing nor fear of any Torments after death for their ill-doing they will pass their times here as pleasantly as they can This is all the Damnation which T. H. fancieth T. H. This he has urged once before and I answered to it That the whole Paragraph was to prove that for any Text of Scripture to the contrary men might after the Resurrection live as Adam did on earth and that notwithstanding the Text of St. Luke chap. 20. verse 34 35 36. Marry and propagate But that they shall do so is no assertion of mine His Lordship knew I held that after the Resurrection there
is an infinitely fine Spirit and withall intelligent can make and change all species and kinds of Body as he pleaseth but I dare not say that this is the way by which God Almighty worketh because it is past my apprehension yet it serves very well to demonstrate that the Omnipotence of God implieth no contradiction and is better than by pretence of magnifying the fineness of the divine Substance to reduce it to a Spright or Phantasm which is Nothing A Person Lat. Persona signifies an intelligent Substance that acteth any thing in his own or anothers Name or by his own or anothers Authority Of this Definition there can be no other proof than from the use of that word in such Latin Authors as were esteem'd the most skilful in their own Language of which number was Cicero But Cicero in an Epistle to Atticus saith thus Vnus sustineo tres Personas Mei Adversarii Judicis That is I that am but one man sustain three Persons mine own Person the Person of my Adversary and the Person of the Judge Cicero was here the Substance intelligent one man and because he pleaded for himself he calls himself his own Person and again because he pleaded for his Adversary he says he sustained the Person of his Adversary and lastly because he himself gave the Sentence he says he sustained the Person of the Judge In the same sence we use the word in English vulgarly calling him that acteth by his own Authority his own Person and him that acteth by the Authority of another the Person of that other And thus we have the exact meaning of the word Person The Greek Tongue cannot render it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly a Face and Metaphorically a Vizard of an Actor upon the Stage How then did the Greek Fathers render the word Person as it is in the blessed Trinity Not well Instead of the word Person they put Hypostasis which signifies Substance from whence it might be inferr'd that the three Persons in the Trinity are three divine Substances that is three Gods The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not use because Face and Vizard are neither of them honourable Attributes of God nor explicative of the meaning of the Greek Church Therefore the Latin and consequently the English Church renders Hypostasis every where in Athanasius his Creed by Person But the word Hypostatical Vnion is rightly retained and used by Divines as being the Union of two Hypostases that is of two Substances or Natures in the Person of Christ But seeing they also hold the Soul of our Saviour to be a Substance which though separated from his Body subsisted nevertheless in it self and consequently before it was separated from his Body upon the Cross was a distinct Nature from his Body how will they avoid this Objection That then Christ had three Natures three Hypostases without granting that his Resurrection was a new vivification and not a return of his Soul out of Heaven into the Grave The contrary is not determined by the Church Thus far in explication of the words that occur in this Controversie Now I return again to his Lordship's Discourse J. D. When they have taken away all incorporeal Spirits what do they leave God himself to be He who is the Fountain of all Being from whom and in whom all Creatures have their Being must needs have a real Being of his own And what real Being can God have among Bodies and Accidents for they have left nothing else in the Universe Then T. H. may move the same Question of God which he did of Devils I would gladly know in what Classis of Entities the Bishop ranketh God Infinite Being and participated Being are not of the same nature Yet to speak according to humane apprehension apprehension and comprehension differ much T. H. confesseth that natural Reason doth dictate to us that God is Infinite yet natural Reason cannot comprehend the Infiniteness of God I place him among incorporeal Substances or Spirits because he hath been pleased to place himself in that rank God is a Spirit Of which place T. H. giveth his opinion that it is unintelligible and all others of the same nature and fall not under humane understanding They who deny all incorporeal Substances can understand nothing by God but either Nature not Naturam naturantem that is a real Author of Nature but Naturam naturatam that is the orderly concourse of natural Causes as T. H. seemeth to intimate or a fiction of the Brain without real Being cherished for advantage and politick Ends as a profitable Error howsoever dignified with the glorious title of the eternal Cause of all things T. H. To his Lordship's Question here What I leave God to be I answer I leave him to be a most pure simple invisible Spirit Corporeal By Corporeal I mean a Substance that has Magnitude and so mean all learned men Divines and others though perhaps there be some common people so rude as to call nothing Body but what they can see and feel To his second Question What real Being he can have amongst Bodies and Accidents I answer The Being of a Spirit not of a Spright If I should ask any the most subtil Distinguisher what middle nature there were between an infinitely subtil Substance and a meer Thought or Phantasm by what Name could he call it He might call it perhaps an Incorporeal Substance and so Incorporeal shall pass for a middle nature between Infinitely subtil and Nothing and be less subtil than Infinitely subtil and yet more subtil than a thought 'T is granted he says that the Nature of God is incomprehensible Doth it therefore follow that we may give to the divine Substance what negative Name we please Because he says the whole divine Substance is here and there and every where throughout the World and that the Soul of a man is here and there and every where throughout man's Body must we therefore take it for a Mystery of Christian Religion upon his or any Schoolman's word without the Scripture which calls nothing a Mystery but the Incarnation of the eternal God Or is Incorporeal a Mystery when not at all mentioned in the Bible but to the contrary 't is written That the fulness of the Deity was bodily in Christ When the nature of the thing is incomprehensible I can acquiesce in the Scripture but when the signification of words are incomprehensible I cannot acquiesce in the Authority of a Schoolman J. D. We have seen what his Principles are concerning the Deity they are full as bad or worse concerning the Trinity Hear himself A person is he that is represented as often as he is represented And therefore God who has been represented that is personated thrice may properly enough be said to be three Persons though neither the word Person nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible And a little after To conclude the doctrine of the Trinity as far as can be