this The Catholick Church being one what opinion was broached by any contrary to the Catholic Church receiv'd an ill stamp and was called Heresie The several opinions of the Philosophers were not branded with an ill name they were not so fixed to one School that it should be impious to be of another but 't is otherwise in the Church of Christ which owneth the Holy Jesus to be her Master and Founder and glorying that she is the Pillar and ground of Truth whosoever sets up for himself and divulgeth to the world an opinion contrary to the doctrine of the Church he himself was judged an Heretick and his opinion an Heresie On this account in the Church of Christ in all ages the word Heresie was not a word of a middle or indifferent sense but of an evil and reproachful acceptation 'T is granted that the Roman Empire was full of Philosophers when the Gospel was preached and that some not many were converted but it is denied that most of the Pastors of the Church were chosen out of these Philosophers The primitive Christians had a mighty jealousie of them and the greatest Philosophers which were Christians were not Bishops such were the Professors and Masters in the School of Alexandria as Pantaenus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen c. The Heathens objected against the Christians that few of them were Learned which caused St. Jerome to write his Book De Viris Illustribus 'T is a gaeat attestation to the truth of Christianity that it appeared when Philosophy so much flourished in the world Those great Wits which were so vastly furnished with Oratory Learnning and the Tongues if there had been any cheat acted by the Christians they would easily have detected it therefore when Christ profest that by his works he might be known he and his Apostles wrought those Miracles which gave a clear attestation to his doctrine No doubt but some of these Philosophers were converted but that by reason of their great skill in Oratory and Philosophy most of the Primitive Church were chosen out of the number of these Philosophers 'T is deny'd In the Primitive Church for the three first Centuries there was not a Philosopher made a Bishop When Christians became numerous they sent their Children to be instructed in Philosophy and the Liberal Sciences who became brave persons But I am ignorant if any Philosopher converted was made a Bishop What Hobbs averrs that these Pastors retaining their Philosophical Dogma's interpreting Scriptures according to their own Sect that thus at first Heresie entered into the Church is not true for Heresie was crept into the Church in the Apostles time St. Paul commands Christians to beware of Heresies and St. Peter saith there are those who shall privily bring in damnable Heresies I do ackowledge Tertullian wrote smartly and truly when he term'd Philosophers the Patriarchs of Hereticks De praescriptione Irenaeus Lib. 2. Cap. 19. gives us an account from what Philosophers the Valentinian and Gnostick Heresies borrow'd their absurd and monstrous opinions But then we must say that these Hereticks were not Pastors in the Church The first that broach't those prodigious opinions was Simon Magus who was onely baptiz'd In the first Century there was not one Heretick which was a Pastor or Bishop in the Church of Christ The Heresie of the Nicholaitans took its rise from Nicholas one of the Seven Deacons he did not broach that Heresie but some who misinterpreted a passage of his were the Authors of it Nor any of the Christian Clergy was the Author of any Heresie in the second Century Tatius was a great Orator converted by Justin Martyr and was the Author of the Heresie of the Encratites but he was not of the Clerical order In the third Century Novatus a Roman Presbyter broach't his Heresie I speak according to the best knowledge I have in the Church history viz. concerning the not receiving the Lapsi into Communion but he was not a Philosopher nor was his opinions any wise a kin to the Dogma's of the heathen Philosophers Nepos was an Aegyptian Bishop not a profest Philosopher a person of great excellency in many things the Author of the opinion of Christs reigning a 1000 years upon Earth which opinion is founded not upon any of the Principles of Philosophy but upon some passages in the Revelations Paulus Samosatenus made Bishop of Antioch was the broacher of many evil Doctrines but he was not a Philosopher The design of Mr. Hobbs easily appears he every where casts severe Reflections upon Christianity and its Professors The Apostle condemns vain Philosophy Col. 2. which in the sence of Cl Alexandrinus is the Epicurean Philosophy from which Hobs borrows his Principles Moral Natural and Political Upon the rising of a new opinion the Pastors of the Church assemble themselves if the Author of that Novelty persisted contrary to the determination of the Church he was laid aside and considered as an heathen man i. e. they excommunicated him other punishments they could inflict none This shall be easily granted but what he subjoyns is utterly to be refused That all the punishments the Church could inflict was only ignominy by this one stroke of his pen he hath cancel'd the New Testament To say that excommunication or casting a man out of the Church or esteeming him as an heathen man was but Infamy 't is to deny Christianity One of the great offices of the Church was Ecclesiastical discipline and the divine censures of which excommunication was the severest and is still if duely manag'd the greatest puishment To be thrown out of the Church to be depriv'd of the Prayers of the Church to have no part in those offices of Religion by which the Grace and Favour of God is obtain'd and to be delivered to Satan is this Infamy onely To be outlaw'd whereby a person is depriv'd of the benefit and liberty of the law he is deprived of the liberty of his Countrey he enjoys not a free air house nor harbor and by reason a Capital penalty is inflicted on those who afford him any reception or give him any relief he is exposed to the utmost peril of ruine except the outlawry be reverst Is this only Infamy The Calamity that Excommunication involves a person in is far greater For Excommunication acording to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church was reputed a sentence excluing the Excommunicated Persons from the Kingdome of Heaven and hence by Tertullian in his Apology called futuri judicij praejudicium Is this only Infamy He might have said that Christianity is nothing the promises and threatnings contained in it are mere Chimaera's thence tho they that embrace it do entertain such a belief t is but a fancy therefore all the evil which attends by excommunicationis onely Infamy Excommunication was not onely for Heresies but likewise for immoralities and excommunication did not brand a man for an Heretick but the person being rendred infamous for his Heresie was if in the bosome of
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
Author of Sin but he is the cause The Author is he who commands the Cause by whose Power a thing is done This with many other distinctions he frames which are more subtle perplext and remote from sence then any of the School-mens for which he so much condemns them certainly every cause is the Author of a thing He that commands is by that a moral cause But he that is a cause by enabling to do is a Physical cause of Sin God can't be such a cause but it may be queried whether God according to Mr. Hobs ever gave any laws to man-kind for unquestionably if the rule of Justice Injustice Good and Bad true and false be the will of the supream power God never gave laws to man kind ' perhaps saith he the Anthropomorphites were then condemned but this cānot be for they appeared not untill the time of Valens ' This is no great matter It is certain that the Council did condemn all those who ascribed any parts to God which the Anthropomorphites did yet if Epiphanius be credited heret 70. Audianus a Mesopotanican the Author of this Heresy of the Anthropomorphites florished in the time of Arrius when the Nicene Council was convened ' No other punishment was ordained by Constantine than Deprivation and Banishment and that not onely of Bishops and Pastors who refused to subscribe to the Faith thus did Heresie which at first was the name of a private opinion and no crime was by vertue of a law of the Emperor made onely for the Peace of the Church become a Crime in a Pastor and punishable ' How many Errata's in this Paraptaph Heresy in the Church of Christ was always a Crime and never the name of an opinion This I prov'd before let it be granted that every Sin is not a Crime and that every Crime is that w ch is punishable 't is a trisle to be lirigious in words every sin is certainly punishable some Sins are greater than others so there is a difference in Crimes there are Crimes which are onely discernable by Almighty God and so punishable at his tribunal but that Heresy should be a Crime onely because the civil power inflicts a corporal punishment cannot be understood by any but such a person who bids a defyance not only to the Christian Religion but to all other Religions which assert a future retribution or concludes that the great God doth punish evil men in this life by some extraordinary methods But that Heresy after this decree of the council became onely a Crime punishable in the Bishops and Pastors whether it be true or not is not much material In the Pastors the People were always punished for they followed their Pastors in banishment Basil with a curious pen delineating the miserys and calamitys under which the Orthodox Bishops and Pastors groan'd likewise gives us the description of those dreadful sufferings with which the people were oppprest Eusebius giveing us an account of an Edict of Constantine against Hereticks in that not onely Bishops and Pastors but all sorts of Hereticks were involved de vità Constant lib. 3 cap. 62. And having proved before that Arianisme was decreed an Heresy not for the peace of the Church but likewise that there might be an agreement in the same faith which was necessary to salvation we may justly say that every line of that Paragraph is notoriously untrue To lessen the Esteem of the Nicene and the 4 General Councils says he ' There arose new Heresies about the Interpretation of the Creed and partly about the Holy Ghost of which the Nicene Council had not determined And afterwards concerning the Holy Ghost Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople some others denied the divinity thereof ' The Pneumatomachi appearing after the Council of Nice had pretended for themselves the silence of the Nicene Fathers to which Basil Nazianzen Theoderet Epiphanius answer there being no question moved concerning it the Council acquiesed in the opinion and right Faith of the Universal Church concerning the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost Why should the Fathers confirme that truth which was not questioned but taken for granted or condemne that for Heresy which was not preached yet if not in a set forme of words decreed yet in truth and by good consequence the sence of the Fathers as to that Article was given For St. Basil Epist 78. Hieronom Epist 65. Epip haeresi 74 take off and answer that objection Epiphanius and Athanasius prove it thus that the same glory which is given to the Father and to the Son is likewise given to the Holy Ghost for the Symbol is I believe in God the Father and in God the Son and I believe in the Holy Ghost This Divine Faith fixed upon the Father Son and holy Ghost as one and the same God gives the true sence of the Council The great mistake concerning Nestorius must only be attributed to Mr. Hobs his animadversion for it was not Nestorious but Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost Nestorius was a great adversary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore in Socrates Lib. 7. Cap 31 we find that Nestorius was so great an Enemy to the Macedonians that when he was Bishop of Constantinople he drove the Macedonians out of all their Churches in that City and in the Hellespont ' Concerning the Parts established there arose disputes about the Nature of Christ and the word Hypostasis i. e. Substance for of persons there was yet no mention made their Creed being written in Greek in which Language there is no word that answereth to the Latine word Persona and the Union as the Fathers called it of the Humane and Divine Nature in Christ Hypostolical caused Eutyches and after him Dioscurus to affirme there was but one Nature in Christ thinking that whensoever two things are united they are one ' T is true the Latine word Persona is used in the Latine Church which Church embraced likewise the word Hypostasis and all differences concerning those words were within a while composed and all Orthodox Christians in that Church who know the Greek Language do receive the word Hypostasis in the same sense which the Latines use Persona The famous Nicene Councils having decreed that there were two Natures in Christ and one Hypostasis which signifies Subsistence this exactly answers to the Latine Persona Nestorius Bishop of Constantine broch'd this Heresy that in Christ there were two distinct persons and so Mary the Mother of Christ was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God against him Eutyches excellently disputed in the Fourth Action in the Council of Constantinople Eutyches declining the one fell into another Heresy asserting that there was but one Nature in Christ yet the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine and was not of the flesh of the Virgin but descended from God A great promoter of this impiety was Dioscurus Bishop of Alexandria a wicked and lewd person a Monster rather than a