some Divine of good Reputation and Learning and of the late King's Party A. I think I can recommend unto you the best that is extant and such a one as except a few passages that I mislike is very well worth your reading The Title of it is The whole Duty of Man laid down in a plain and familiar way and yet I dare say that if the Presbyterian Ministers even those of them which were the most diligent Preachers of the late Sedition were to be tryed by it they would go near to be found Not Guilty He has divided the Duty of Man into three great Branches which are his Duty to God to Himself and to his Neighbour In his Duty to God he puts the acknowledgement of him in his Essence and his Attributes and in the believing of his Word His Attributes are Omnipotence Omniscience Infiniteness Justice Truth Mercy and all the rest that are found in Scripture Which of these did not those seditious Preachers acknowledge equally with the best of Christians The Word of God are the Books of Holy Scripture receiv'd for Canonical in England B. They receive the Word of God but 't is according to their own Interpretation A. According to whose Interpretation was it receiv'd by the Bishops and the rest of the Loyal Party but their own He puts for another Duty Obedience and Submission to Gods Will. Did any of them nay did any man living do any thing at any time against God's Will B. By God's Will I suppose he means there his revealed Will that is to say his Commandements which I am sure they did most horribly break both by their preaching and otherwise A. As for their Actions there is no doubt but all men are guilty enough if God deal severely with them to be damn'd And for their preaching they will say they thought it agreeable to Gods revealed Will in the Scriptures if they thought it so it was not disobedience but error and how can any man prove they thought otherwise B. Hypocrisie hath this great Prerogative above other sins that it cannot be accus'd A. Another Duty he sets down is to Honour him in his House that is the Church in his Possessions in his Day in his Word and Sacraments B. They perform this Duty as well I think as any other Ministers I mean the Loyal Party and the Presbyterians have always had an equal care to have God's House free from Profanation To have Tithes duly paid and Offerings accepted To have the Sabbath-day kept holy the Word preached and the Lords Supper and Baptism duly administred But is not keeping of the Feasts and of the Fasts one of those Duties that belong to the Honour of God If it be the Presbyterians fail in that A. Why so They kept some Holy-days and they had Fasts amongst themselves though not upon the same days that the Church ordains but when they thought fit as when it pleased God to give the King any notable Victory and they govern'd themselves in this Point by the Holy Scripture as they pretend to believe and who can prove they do not believe so B. Let us pass over all other Duties and come to that Duty which we owe to the King and consider whether the Doctrine taught by those Divines which adhered to the King be such in that Point as may justifie the Presbyterians that incited the People to Rebellion for that 's the thing you call in question Concerning our Duty to our Rulers he hath these words An Obedience we must pay either active or passive the active in the case of all lawful Commands that is whenever the Magistrate commands something which is not contrary to some Command of God we are then bound to act according to that Command of the Magistrate to do the things he requires but when he enjoyns any thing contrary to what God hath commanded we are not then to pay him this Active Obedience we may nay we must refuse thus to act yet here we must be very well assur'd that the thing is so contrary and not pretend Conscience for a Cloak of stubbornness we are in that Case to obey God rather than Men but even this is a season for the Passive Obedience we must patiently suffer what he inflicts on us for such refusal and not to secure our selves rise up against him B. What is there in this to give colour to the late Rebellion A. They will say they did it in obedience to God in as much as they did believe it was according to the Scripture out of which they will bring Examples perhaps of David and his adherents that resisted King Saul and of the Prophets afterward that vehemently from time to time preached against the Idolatrous Kings of Israel and Judah Saul was their lawful King and yet they paid him neither Active nor Passive Obedience for they did put themselves into a posture of defence against him though David himself spared his Person and so did the Presbyterians put into their Commissions to their General that they should spare the King's Person Besides you cannot doubt but that they who in the Pulpit did animate the People to take Arms in defence of the then Parliament alleadged Scripture that is the Word of God for it If it be lawful then for Subjects to resist the King when he commands any thing that is against the Scripture that is contrary to the Command of God and to be Judge of the meaning of the Scripture it is impossible that the Life of any King or the Peace of any Christian Kingdom can be long secure It is this Doctrine that divides a Kingdom within it self whatsoever the Men be Loyal or Rebels that write or preach it publickly And thus you see that if those seditious Ministers be tryed by this Doctrine they will come off well enough B. I see it and wonder at People that having never spoken with God Almighty nor knowing one more than another what he hath said when the Laws and the Preacher disagree should so keenly follow the Minister for the most part an Ignorant though a ready Tongu'd Scholar rather than the Laws that were made by the King with the consent of the Peers and the Commons of the Land A. Let us examine his words a little nearer First Concerning Passive Obedience When a Thief hath broken the Laws and according to the Law is therefore executed can any man understand that this suffering of his is an obedience to the Law Every Law is a Command to do or to forbear neither of these is fulfilled by suffering If any Suffering can be called Obedience it must be such as is voluntary for no involuntary Action can be counted a submission to the Law He that means that his suffering should be taken for obedience must not only not resist but also not fly nor hide himself to avoid his punishment and who is there amongst them that discourses of Passive Obedience when his Life is in extream danger
that they fell in hand with the work so quickly For the first Rector of the University of Paris as I have read somewhere was Peter Lombard who first brought in them the Learning called School-Divinity and was seconded by John Scot of Duns who lived in or near the same time whom any ingenious Reader not knowing what was the Design would judge to have been two the most egregious Blockheads in the World so obscure and senseless are their Writings And from these the School-men that succeeded learnt the trick of imposing what they list upon their Readers and declining the force of true Reason by Verbal Forkes I mean Distinctions that signifie nothing but serve only to astonish the multitude of ignorant Men. As for the understanding Readers they were so few that these new sublime Doctors cared not what they thought These School men were to make good all the Articles of Faith which the Popes from time to time should command to be believ'd amongst which there were very many inconsistent with the Rights of Kings and other Civil Sovereigns as asserting to the Pope all Authority whatsoever they should declare to be necessary in ordine ad spiritualia that is to say in order to Religion From the Universities also it was That all Preachers proceeded and were poured out into City and Country to terrifie the People into an absolute obedience to the Pope's Canons and Commands which for fear of wakening Kings and Princes too much they durst not yet call Laws From the Universities it was That the Philosophy of Aristotle was made an Ingredient to Religion as serving for a Salve to a great many of absurd Articles concerning the Nature of Christ's Body and the Estate of Angels and Saints in Heaven which Articles they thought fit to have believed because they bring some of them profit and others reverence to the Clergy even to the meanest of them for when they shall have made the People believe that the meanest of them can make the Body of Christ who is there that will not both shew them reverence and be liberal to them or to the Church especially in the time of their sickness when they think they make and bring unto them their Saviour B. But what advantage to them in these Impostures was the Doctrine of Aristotle A. They have made more use of his obscurity than of his Doctrine for none of the Ancient Philosophers Writings are comparable to those of Aristotle for their aptness to puzzle and entangle men with words and to breed Disputation which must at last be ended in the Determination of the Church of Rome and yet in the Doctrine of Aristotle they made use of many Points as first the Doctrine of seperated Essences B. What are seperated Essences A. Seperated Beings B. Seperated from what A. From every thing that is B. I cannot understand the Being of any thing which I understand not to be but what can they make of that A. Very much in questions concerning the Nature of God and concerning the Estate of Man's Soul after death in Heaven Hell and Purgatory by which you and every man knows how great obedience and how much Money they gain from the Common People Whereas Aristotle holdeth the Soul of Man to be the first giver of motion to the Body and consequently to it self they make use of that in the Doctrine of Free-will what and how they gain by that I will not say He holdeth forth that there be many things that come to pass in this World from no necessity of Causes but meer Contingency Casualty and Fortune B. Methinks in this they make God stand idle and to be a meer Spectator of the Games of Fortune for what God is the cause of must needs come to pass and in my opinion nothing else But because there must be some ground for the Justice of the Eternal Torment of the damned perhaps it is this that mens Wills and Propensions are not they think in the Hands of God but of themselves and in this also I see somewhat conducing to the Authority of the Church A. This is not much nor was Aristotle of such credit with them but that when his Opinion was against theirs they could slight him Whatsoever he says is impossible in nature they can prove well enough to be possible from the Almighty Power of God who can make many Bodies to be in one and the self-same place and one Body to be in many places at the same time if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation require it though Aristotle deny it I like not the Design of drawing Religion into an Art whereas it ought to be a Law and though not the same in all Countries yet in every Country undisputable nor that they teach it not as Arts ought to be taught by shewing first the meaning of their Terms and then deriving from them the truth they would have us believe nor that their Terms are for the most part unintelligible though to make it seem rather want of Learning in the Reader than want of fair dealing in themselves They are for the most part Latin and Greek words wryed a little at the point towards the Native Language of the several Countries where they are used But that which is most intolerable is that all Clerks are forced to make as if they believed them if they mean to have any Church-preferment the Keys whereof are in the Pope's Hands and the Common People whatsoever they believe of those subtile Doctrines are never esteemed better Sons of the Church for their Learning There is but one way there to Salvation that is extraordinary Devotion and Liberality to the Church and readiness for the Churches sake if it be requir'd to fight against their Natural and Lawful Sovereigns B. I see what use they make of Aristotle's Logick Physicks and Metaphysicks but I see not yet how his Politicks can serve their turn A. Nor I. It has I think done them no good though it has done us here much hurt by accident for men grown weary at last of the Insolence of the Priests and examining the truth of these Doctrines that were put upon them began to search the sense of the Scriptures as they are in the learned Languages and consequently studying Greek and Latin became acquainted with the Democratical Principles of Aristotle and Cicero and from the love of their Eloquence fell in love with their Politicks and that more and more till it grew into the Rebellion we now talk of without any other advantage to the Roman Church but that it was a weakening to us whom since we broke out of their Net in the time of Henry the 8 th they have continually endeavoured to recover B. What have they gotten by the teaching of Aristotle's Ethicks A. It is some advantage to them that neither the Morals of Aristotle nor of any other have done them any harm nor us any good Their Doctrines have caused a great deal of dispute concerning Vertue and Vice
of the Jus Divinum of Bishops a thing which before the Reformation here was never allowed them by the Pope Two Jus Divinums cannot stand together in one Kingdom In the last place he mislikes that the Church should Excommunicate by Authority of the King that is to say by Authority of the Head of the Church But he tells not why He might as well mislike that the Magistrates of the Realm should execute their Offices by the Authority of the Head of the Realm His Lordship was in a great error if he thought such incroachments would add any thing to the Wealth Dignity Reverence or Continuance of his Order They are Pastors of Pastors but yet they are the Sheep of him that is on earth their soveraign Pastor and he again a Sheep of that supream Pastor which is in Heaven And if they did their pastoral Office both by Life and Doctrine as they ought to do there could never arise any dangerous Rebellion in the Land But if the people see once any ambition in their Teachers they will sooner learn that than any other Doctrine and from Ambition proceeds Rebellion J. D. It may be some of T. H. his Disciples desire to know what hopes of Heavenly joyes they have upon their Masters Principles They may hear them without any great contentment There is no mention in Scripture nor ground in reason of the Coelum Empyraeum that is the Heaven of the Blessed where the Saints shall live eternally with God And again I have not found any Text that can probably be drawn to prove any Ascention of the Saints into Heaven that is to say into any Coelum Empyraeum But he concludeth positively that Salvation shall be upon earth when God shall Raign at the coming of Christ in Jerusalem And again In short the Kingdom of God is a civil Kingdom c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Glory All the Hobbians can hope for is to be restored to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall So saith T.H. himself From whence may be inferred that the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned As for the beatifical vision he defineth it to be a word unintelligible T. H. This Coelum Empyraeum for which he pretendeth so much zeal where is it in the Scripture where in the Book of Common Prayer where in the Canons where in the Homilies of the Church of England or in any part of our Religion What has a Christian to do with such Language Nor do I remember it in Aristotle Perhaps it may be in some Schoolman or Commentator on Aristotle and his Lordship makes it in English the Heaven of the Blessed as if Empyraeum signified That which belongs to the Blessed St. Austin says better that after the day of Judgment all that is not Heaven shall be Hell Then for Beatifical vision how can any man understand it that knows from the Scripture that no man ever saw or can see God Perhaps his Lordship thinks that the happiness of the Life to come is not real but a Vision As for that which I say Lev. pag. 345. I have answered to it already J. D. But considering his other Principles I do not marvel much at his extravagance in this point To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum or Heaven of the Blessed serve in his judgment who maketh the blessed Angels that are the Inhabitants of that happy Mansion to be either Idols of the brain that is in plain English nothing or thin subtil fluid bodies destroying the Angelical nature The universe being the aggregate of all bodies there is no real part thereof that is not also body And elsewhere Every part of the Vniverse is Body and that which is not Body is no part of the Vniverse And because the Vniverse is all that which is no part of it is nothing and consequently no where How By this Doctrine he maketh not only the Angels but God himself to be nothing Neither doth he salve it at all by supposing erroneously Angels to be corporeal Spirits and by attributing the name of incorporeal Spirit to God as being a name of more honour in whom we consider not what Attribute best expresseth his nature which is incomprehensible but what best expresseth our desire to honour him Though we be not able to comprehend perfectly what God is yet we are able perfectly to comprehend what God is not that is he is not imperfect and therefore he is not finite and consequently he is not corporeal This were a trim way to honour God indeed to honour him with a lye If this that he say here be true That every part of the Vniverse is a Body and whatsoever is not a Body is nothing Then by this Doctrine if God be not a Body God is nothing not an incorporeal Spirit but one of the Idols of the Brain a meer nothing though they think they dance under a Net and have the blind of Gods incomprehensibility between them and discovery T. H. This of Incorporeal substance he urged before and there I answered it I wonder he so often rolls the same stone He is like Sysiphus in the Poets Hell that there rolls a heavy stone up a hill which no sooner he brings to day-light then it slips down again to the bottom and serves him so perpetually For so his Lordship rolls this and other questions with much adoe till they come to the light of Scripture and then they vanish and he vexing sweating and railing goes to 't again to as little purpose as before From that I say of the Universe he infers that I make God to be nothing But infers it absurdly He might indeed have inferr'd that I make him a Corporeal but yet a pure Spirit I mean by the Universe the Aggregate of all things that have being in themselves and so do all men else And because God has a being it follows that he is either the whole Universe or part of it Nor does his Lordship go about to disprove it but only seems to wonder at it J. D. To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum serve in his Judgment who denyeth the immortality of the Soul The Doctrine is now and hath been a long time far otherwise namely that every man hath eternity of life by nature in as much as his Soul is immortal Who supposeth that when a man dyeth there remaineth nothing of him but his Carkase who maketh the word Soul in holy Scripture to signifie always either the Life or the Living Creature And expoundeth the casting of Body and Soul into Hell-fire to be the casting of Body and Life into Hell-fire Who maketh this Orthodox truth that the Souls of men are Substances distinct from their Bodies to be an error contracted by the contagion of the Demonology of the Greeks and a window that gives entrance to the dark Doctrine of eternal torments Who expoundeth these words
of Solomon Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the Spirit shall return to God that gave it Thus God only knows what becomes of a mans Spirit when he exspireth He will not acknowledge that there is a Spirit or any Substance distinct from the Body I wonder what they think doth keep their Bodies from stinking T. H. He comes here to that which is a great Paradox in School Divinity The grounds of my opinion are the Canonical Scripture and the Texts which I cited I must again recite to which I shall also add some others My Doctrine is this First That the elect in Christ from the day of Judgment forward by vertue of Christ's Passion and Victory over death shall enjoy eternal life that is they shall be Immortal Secondly that there is no living Soul separated in place from the Body more than there is a living Body separated from the Soul Thirdly That the reprobate shall be revived to Judgment and shall dye a second death in Torments which death shall be everlasting Now let us consider what is said to these points in the Scripture and what is the harmony therein of the Old and New Testament And first because the word Immortal Soul is not found in the Scriptures the question is to be decided by evident consequences from the Scripture The Scripture saith of God expresly 1 Tim. 6.16 That He only hath immortality and dwelleth in inaccessible light Hence it followeth that the Soul of man is not of its own nature Immortal but by Grace that is to say by the gift of God And then the question will be whether this grace or gift of God were bestowed on the Soul in the Creation and Conception of the Man or afterwards by his redemption Another question will be in what sence immortality of Torments can be called a gift when all gifts suppose the thing given to be grateful to the receiver To the first of these Christ himself saith Luke 14.13 14. When thou makest a Feast call the Poor the Maimed the Lame the Blind and thou shalt be Blessed for they cannot recompense thee For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of them that be just It follows hence that the reward of the Elect is not before the Resurrection What reward then enjoyes a separated Soul in Heaven or any where else till that day come or what has he to do there till the Body rise again Again St. Paul says Rom. 2.6 7. God will render to every man according to his works To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for Honour Glory and Immortality Eternal Life But unto them that be contentious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness indignation and wrath Here it is plain that God gives Eternal Life only to well doers and to them that seek not to them that have already Immortality Again 1 Tim. 1.10 Christ hath abolished Death and brought Life and Immortality to light through the Gospel Therefore before the Gospel of Christ nothing was Immortal but God And St. Paul speaking of the day of Judgment 1 Cor. 15.54 saith that This Mortal shall put on Immortality and that then Death is swallowed in Victory There was no Immortality of any thing Mortal till Death was overcome and that was at the Resurrection And John 8.52 Verily Verily if a man keep my sayings he shall never see Death that is to say he shall be Immortal but it is no where said that he which keeps not Christ's sayings shall never see Death nor be Immortal and yet they that say that the wicked Body and Soul shall be tormented everlastingly do therein say they are Immortal Mat. 10.28 Fear not them that can kill the Body but are not able to kill the Soul but fear him that is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell Man cannot kill a Soul for the Man kill'd shall revive again But God can destroy the Soul and Body in Hell as that it shall never return to life In the Old Testament we read Gen. 7.4 I will destroy every living Substance that I have made from off the face of the Earth therefore if the Souls of them that perished in the Flood were Substances they were also destroyed in the Flood and were not Immortal Math. 25.41 Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels These words are to be spoken in the day of Judgment which Judgment is to be in the Clouds And there shall stand the men that are reprobated alive where Souls according to his Lordships Doctrine were sent long before to Hell Therefore at that present day of Judgment they had one Soul by which they were there alive and another Soul in Hell How his Lordship could have maintained this I understand not But by my Doctrine that the Soul is not a separated Substance but that the Man at his Resurrection shall be revived by God and raised to Judgment and afterwards Body and Soul destroyed in Hell-fire which is the second death there is no such consequence or difficulty to be inferred Besides it avoids the unnecessary disputes about where the Soul of Lazarus was for four dayes he lay dead And the order of the Divine Process is made good of not inflicting torments before the Condemnation pronounced Now as to the harmony of the two Testaments it is said in the old Gen. 2.17 In the day that thou eatest of the Tree of Knowledge dying thou shalt dye Moriendo morieris that is when thou art dead thou shalt not revive for so hath Athanasius expounded it Therefore Adam and Eve were not Immortal by their Creation Then Gen. 3.22 Behold the man is become as one of us Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the Tree of Life and eat and live for ever c. Here they had had an Immortality by the gift of God if they had not sinned It was therefore sin that lost them Eternal-life He therefore that redeemed them from sin was the Author of their Immortality and consequently began in the day of Judgment when Adam and Eve were again made alive by admission to the new Tree of Life which was Christ. Now let us compare this with the New Testament Where we find these words 1 Cor. 15.21 since by Man came Death by Man came also the Resurrection of the dead Therefore all the Immortality of the Soul that shall be after the Resurrection is by Christ and not by the nature of the Soul verse 22. As by Adam all dye even so in Christ shall all be made alive Therefore since we dyed by Adam's sin so we shall live by Christ's Redemption of us that is after the Resurrection Again verse 23. But every man in his order Christ the first Fruits afterwards they that are Christs at his coming Therefore none shall be made alive till the coming of Christ. Lastly as when God had said That day that thou eatest of
lawful for a man to value his own life or his limbs more than his God How much is he wiser than the three Children or Daniel himself who were thrown the first into a fiery Furnace the last into the Lions Denn because they refused to comply with the Idolatrous Decree of their Soveraign Prince T. H. Here also my words are truly cited But his Lordship understood not what the word Worship signifies and yet he knew what I meant by it To think highly of God as I had defined it is to honour him But to think is internal To Worship is to signifie that Honour which we inwardly give by signs external This understood as by his Lordship it was all he says to it is but a cavil J. D. A fourth Aphorism may be this That which is said in the Scripture it is better to obey God than man hath place in the Kingdom of God by Pact and not by Nature Why Nature it self doth teach us it is better to obey God than men Neither can he say that he intended this only of obedience in the use of indifferent actions and gestures in the service of God commanded by the Common-wealth for that is to obey both God and man But if divine Law and humane Law clash one with another without doubt it is evermore better to obey God than man T. H. Here again appears his unskilfulness in reasoning Who denyes but it is alwayes and in all causes better to obey God than Man But there is no Law neither divine nor humane that ought to be taken for a Law till we know what it is and if a divine Law till we know that God hath commanded it to be kept We agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God But they are a Law by Pact that is to us who have been Baptized into the Covenant To all others it is an invitation only to their own benefit 'T is true that even nature suggesteth to us that the Law of God is to be obeyed rather than the Law of man But nature does not suggest to us that the Scripture is the Law of God much less how every Text of it ought to be interpreted But who then shall suggest this Dr. Bramhall I deny it Who then The stream of Divines Why so Am I that have the Scripture it self before my eyes obliged to venture my eternal life upon their interpretation how learned soever they pretend to be when no counter-security that they can give me will save me harmless If not the stream of Divines who then The lawful Assembly of Pastors or of Bishops But there can be no lawful Assembly in England without the Authority of the King The Scripture therefore what it is and how to be interpreted is made known unto us here by no other way than the Authority of our Soveraign Lord both in Temporals and Spirituals The Kings Majesty And where he has set forth no Interpretation there I am allowed to follow my own as well as any other man Bishop or not Bishop For my own part all that know me know also it is my opinion That the best government in Religion is by Episcopacy but in the King 's Right not in their own But my Lord of Derry not contented with this would have the utmost resolution of our Faith to be into the Doctrine of the Schools I do not think that all the Bishops be of his mind If they were I would wish them to stand in fear of that dreadful Sentence All covet all lose I must not let pass these words of his Lordship If divine Law and humane Law clash one with another without doubt it is better evermore to obey God than man Where the King is a Christian believes the Scripture and hath the Legislative power both in Church and State and maketh no Laws concerning Christian Faith or divine Worship but by the Counsel of his Bishops whom he trusteth in that behalf if the Bishops counsel him aright what clashing can there be between the divine and humane Laws For if the Civil Law be against God's Law and the Bishops make it clearly appear to the King that it clasheth with divine Law no doubt he will mend it by himself or by the advice of his Parliament for else he is no professor of Christ's Doctrine and so the clashing is at an end But if they think that every opinion they hold though obscure and unnecessary to Salvation ought presently to be Law then there will be clashings innumerable not only of Laws but also of Swords as we have found it too true by late experience But his Lordship is still at this that there ought to be for the divine Laws that is to say for the interpretation of Scripture a Legislative power in the Church distinct from that of the King which under him they enjoy already This I deny Then for clashing between the Civil Laws of Infidels with the Law of God the Apostles teach that those their Civil Laws are to be obeyed but so as to keep their Faith in Christ entirely in their hearts which is an obedience easily performed But I do not believe that Augustus Caesar or Nero was bound to make the holy Scripture Law and yet unless they did so they could not attain to eternal life J. D. His fifth conclusion may be that the sharpest and most successful Sword in any War whatsoever doth give Soveraign Power and Authority to him that hath it to approve or reject all sorts of Theological Doctrines concerning the Kingdom of God not according to their truth or falshood but according to that influence which they have upon political affairs Hear him But because this Doctrine will appear to most men a novelty I do but propound it maintaining nothing in this or any other Paradox of Religion but attending the end of that dispute of the Sword concerning the Authority not yet amongst my Country-men decided by which all sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or rejected c. For the points of Doctrine concerning the Kingdom of God have so great influence upon the Kingdom of Man as not to be determined but by them that under God have the Soveraign Power Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat Let him evermore want success who thinketh actions are to be judged by their events This Doctrine may be plausible to those who desire to fish in troubled Waters But it is justly hated by those which are in Authority and all those who are lovers of peace and tranquillity The last part of this conclusion smelleth rankly of Jeroboam Now shall the Kingdom return to the house of David if this people go up to do Sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem whereupon the King took counsel and made two Calves of Gold and said unto them It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt But by the
force to make him consider better of his own Doctrine and sometimes brought him to the acknowledgment of the Truth But other punishment they could inflict none that being a right appropriated to the Civil Power So that all the punishment the Church could inflict was only Ignominy and that among the Faithful consisting in this that his company was by all the Godly avoided and he himself branded with the name of Heretick in opposition to the whole Church that condemned his Doctrine So that Catholick and Heretick were terms relative and here it was that Heretick became to be a Name and a name of Disgrace both together The first and most troublesome Heresies in the Primitive Church were about the Trinity For according to the usual curiosity of Natural Philosophers they could not abstain from disputing the very first Principles of Christianity into which they were baptized In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Some there were that made them allegorical Others would make one Creator of Good and another of Evil which was in effect to set up two Gods one contrary to another supposing that causation of evil could not be attributed to God without Impiety From which Doctrine they are not far distant that now make the first cause of sinful actions to be every man as to his own sin Others there were that would have God to be a body with Parts organical as Face Hands Fore-parts and Back-parts Others that Christ had no real body but was a meer Phantasm For Phantasms were taken then and have been ever since by unlearned and superstitious men for things real and subsistent Others denyed the Divinity of Christ. Others that Christ being God and Man was two Persons Others confest he was one Person and withal that he had but one Nature And a great many other Heresies arose from the too much adherence to the Philosophy of those times whereof some were supprest for a time by St. John's publishing his Gospel and some by their own unreasonableness vanished and some lasted till the time of Constantine the Great and after When Constantine the Great made so by the assistance and valour of the Christian Souldiers had attained to be the only Roman Emperor he also himself became a Christian and caused the Temples of the Heathen Gods to be demolished and authorized Christian Religion only to be publick But towards the latter end of his time there arose a Dispute in the City of Alexandria between Alexander the Bishop and Arius a Presbyter of the same City wherein Arius maintained first That Christ was inferiour to his Father and afterwards That he was no God alleadging the words of Christ My Father is greater than I. The Bishop on the contrary alleadging the words of St. John And the Word was God and the words of St. Thomas My Lord and my God This Controversie presently amongst the Inhabitants and Souldiers of Alexandria became a Quarrel and was the cause of much Bloodshed in and about the City and was likely then to spread further as afterwards it did This so far concerned the Emperors Civil Government that he thought it necessary to call a General Council of all the Bishops and other eminent Divines throughout the Roman Empire to meet at the City of Nice When they were assembled they presented the Emperor with Libels of Accusation one against another When he had received these Libels into his hands he made an Oration to the Fathers assembled exhorting them to agree and to fall in hand with the settlement of the Articles of Faith for which cause he had assembled them saying Whatsoever they should decree therein he would cause to be observed This may perhaps seem a greater indifferency than would in these dayes be approved of But so it is in the History and the Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation were not thought then to be so many as afterwards they were defined to be by the Church of Rome When Constantine had ended his Oration he caused the aforesaid Libels to be cast into the fire as became a wise King and a charitable Christian. This done the Fathers fell in hand with their business and following the method of a former Creed now commonly called The Apostles Creed made a Confession of Faith viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible in which is condemned the Polytheism of the Gentiles And in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten Son of God against the many sons of the many Gods of the Heathen Begotten of his Father before all worlds God of God against the Arians Uery God of very God against the Valentinians and against the Heresie of Apelles and others who made Christ a meer Phantasm Light of Light This was put in for explication and used before to that purpose by Tertullian Begotten not made being of one Substance with the Father In this again they condemn the Doctrine of Arius for this word Of one substance in Latine Consubstantialis but in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Of one Essence was put as a Touchstone to discern an Arian from a Catholick And much ado there was about it Constantine himself at the passing of this Creed took notice of it for a hard word but yet approved of it saying That in a divine Mystery it was fit to use divina arcana Verba that is divine words and hidden from humane understanding calling that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine not because it was in the divine Scripture for it is not there but because it was to him Arcanum that is not sufficiently understood And in this again appeared the indifferency of the Emperor and that he had for his end in the calling of the Synod not so much the Truth as the Vniformity of the Doctrine and peace of his People that depended on it The cause of the obscurity of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeded chiefly from the difference between the Greek and Roman Dialect in the Philosophy of the Peripateticks The first Principle of Religion in all Nations is That God is that is to say that God really is Something and not a meer fancy but that which is really something is considerable alone by it self as being somewhere In which sence a man is a thing real for I can consider him to be without considering any other thing to be besides him And for the same reason the Earth the Air the Stars Heaven and their Parts are all of them things real And because whatsoever is real here or there or in any place has Dimensions that is to say Magnitude and that which hath Magnitude whether it be visible or invisible finite or infinite is called by all the Learned a Body It followeth that all real things in that they are somewhere are Corporeal On the contrary Essence Deity Humanity and such-like names signifie nothing that can be considered without first considering
there is an Ens a God a Man c. So also if there be any real thing that is white or black hot or cold the same may be considered by it self but whiteness blackness heat coldness cannot be considered unless it be first supposed that there is some real thing to which they are attributed 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 And this mistake is received and continues still in these parts in all Disputes both of Philosophy and Divinity For in truth Essentia signifies no more than if we should talk ridiculously of the Isness of the thing that is By whom all things were made This is proved out of St. John cap. 1. vers 1 2 3. and Heb. cap. 1. vers 3. and that again out of Gen. 1. where God is said to create every thing by his sole Word as when he said Let there be Light and there was Light And then that Christ was that Word and in the beginning with God may be gathered out of divers places of Moses David and other of the Prophets Nor was it ever questioned amongst Christians except by the Arians but that Christ was God Eternal and his Incarnation eternally decreed But the Fathers all that write Expositions on this Creed could not forbear to philosophize upon it and most of them out of the Principles of Aristotle Which are the same the School-men now use as may partly appear by this that many of them amongst their Treatises of Religion have affected to publish Logick and Physick Principles according to the sense of Aristotle as Athanasius and Damascene And so some later Divines of Note still confound the Concreet with the Abstract Deus with Deitas Ens with Essentia Sapiens with Sapientia Aeternus with Aeternitas If it be for exact and rigid Truth sake why do they not say also that Holiness is a Holy man Covetousness a Covetous man Hypocrisie an Hypocrite and Drunkenness a Drunkard and the like but that it is an Error The Fathers agree that the Wisdom of God is the eternal Son of God by whom all things were made and that he was incarnate by the Holy Ghost if they meant it in the Abstract For if Deitas abstracted be Deus we make two Gods of one This was well understood by Damascene in his Treatise De Fide Orthodoxâ which is an Exposition of the Nicene Creed where he denies absolutely that Deitas is Deus lest seeing God was made man it should follow the Deity was made man which is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nicene Fathers The Attributes therefore of God in the Abstract when they are put for God are put Metonymically which is a common thing in Scripture for Example Prov. 8.28 where it is said Before the mountains were setled before the Hills was I brought forth the Wisdom there spoken of being the Wisdom of God signifies the same with the wise God This kind of speaking is also ordinary in all Languages This considered such abstracted words ought not to be used in Arguing and especially in the deducing the Articles of our Faith though in the Language of God's eternal Worship and in all Godly Discourses they cannot be avoided And the Creed it self is less difficult to be assented to in its own words than in all such Expositions of the Fathers Who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Uirgin Mary and was made Man I have not read of any exception to this For where Athanasius in his Creed says of the Son He was not made but begotten it is to be understood of the Son as he was God Eternal whereas here it is spoken of the Son as he is man And of the Son also as he was man it may be said he was begotten of the Holy Ghost for a Woman conceiveth not but of him that begetteth which is also confirmed Mat. 1.20 That which is begotten in her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Holy Ghost And was also Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate He suffered and was buried And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father And he shall come again with Glory to judge both the Quick and the Dead Whose Kingdom shall have no end Of this part of the Creed I have not met with any doubt made by any Christian. Hither the Council of Nice proceedeth in their general Confession of Faith and no further This finished some of the Bishops present at the Council seventeen or eighteen whereof Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea was one not sufficiently satisfied refused to subscribe till this Doctrine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be better explained Thereupon the Council Decreed that whosoever shall say that God hath parts shall be Anathematized to which the said Bishops subscribed And Eusebius by Order of the Council wrote a Letter the Copies whereof were sent to every absent Bishop that being satisfied with the reason of their subscribing they also should subscribe The reason they gave of their Subscription was this That they had now a form of words prescribed by which as a Rule they might guide themselves so as not to violate the Peace of the Church By this it is manifest that no man was an Heretick but he that in plain and direct words contradicted that Form by the Church prescribed and that no man could be made an Heretick by Consequence And because the said Form was not put into the body of the Creed but directed only to the Bishops there was no reason to punish any Lay-person that should speak to the contrary But what was the meaning of this Doctrine That God has no Parts Was it made Heresie to say that God who is a real substance cannot be considered or spoken of as here or there or any where which are parts of places Or that there is any real thing without length every way that is to say which hath no Magnitude at all finite nor infinite Or is there any whole substance whose two halves or three thirds are not the same with that whole Or did they mean to condemn the Argument of Tertullian by which he confuted Apolles and other Hereticks of his time namely Whatsoever was not Corporeal was nothing but Fantasm and not Corporeal for Heretical No certainly no Divines say that They went to establish the Doctrine of One individual God in Trinity to abolish the diversity of species in God not the distinction of here and there in substance When St. Paul