The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 04 · Thomas Hobbes
AN ANSWER, ETC.
The Greek tongue cannot render it; for πρὸσωπον 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 inferred, that the three persons in the Trinity are three Divine substances, that is, three Gods. The word πρὸσωπον 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 union_ 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 itself, 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 controversy. 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 classes of entities, the Bishop ranketh God?_ Infinite being and participated being are not of the same nature. Yet to speak according to human 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 human 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 politic 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 subtile distinguisher, what middle nature there were between an infinitely subtile substance, and a mere 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 subtile_ and _nothing_, and be less subtile than infinitely subtile, and yet more subtile than a thought. It 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 other 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 it 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 is 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 gathered directly from the Scripture, 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 fit 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 four thousand 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 sovereign 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. Question. _What dost thou chiefly learn in these articles of thy belief?_ Answer. _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. It is I that catched myself, for saying, instead of _by the ministry of Moses_, in the person of Moses. But this error I no sooner saw, than I no less publicly corrected than 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 Durham, 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 solicited 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 sense 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 join a noun of the plural number with a verb of the singular. And we may say also of many other texts of Scripture alleged to prove the Trinity, that they are not so firm as that high article requireth. But mark his Lordship’s Scholastic 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 Mary’s 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 sense 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 likewise _consubstantial_ in the Nicene creed, is properly said of the Trinity. But to an Englishman that understands neither Greek nor Latin, and yet is as much concerned as his Lordship was, the word _hypostatical_ is no less canting than _eternal now_.
_J. D._ He alloweth every man who is commanded by his lawful sovereign, _to deny Christ with his tongue before men_. _T. H._ I allow it in some cases, and to some men, which his Lordship knew well enough, but would not mention. I alleged for it, in the place cited, both reason and Scripture, though his Lordship thought it not expedient to take notice of either. If it be true that I have said, why does he blame it? If false, why offers he no argument against it, neither from Scripture nor from reason? Or why does he not show that the text I cite is not applicable to the question, or not well interpreted by me? First, he barely cites it, because he thought the words would sound harshly, and make a reader admire them for impiety. But I hope I shall so well instruct my reader ere I leave this place, that this his petty art will have no effect. Secondly, the cause why he omitted my arguments was, that he could not answer them. Lastly, the cause why he urgeth neither Scripture nor reason against it was, that he saw none sufficient. My argument from Scripture was this, (_Leviathan_, vol. III. p. 493) taken out of 2 Kings v. 17-19, where Naaman the Syrian saith to Elisha the prophet: _Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other Gods, but unto the Lord.
In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, Go in peace._ What can be said to this? Did not Elisha say it from God? Or is not this answer of the prophet a permission? When St. Paul and St. Peter commanded the Christians of their time to obey their princes, which then were heathens and enemies of Christ, did they mean they should lose their lives for disobedience? Did they not rather mean they should preserve both their lives and their faith, believing in Christ as they did, by this denial of the tongue, having no command to the contrary? If in this kingdom a Mahometan should be made by terror to deny Mahomet and go to church with us, would any man condemn this Mahometan?
A denial with the mouth may perhaps be prejudicial to the power of the church; but to retain the faith of Christ stedfastly in his heart, cannot be prejudicial to his soul that hath undertaken no charge to preach to wolves, whom they know will destroy them. About the time of the Council of Nice, there was a canon made (which is extant in the history of the Nicene Council) concerning those that being Christians had been seduced, not terrified, to a denial of Christ, and again repenting, desired to be readmitted into the church; in which canon it was ordained, that those men should be no otherwise readmitted than to be in the number of the cathechised, and not to be admitted to the communion till a great many years' penitence. Surely the church then would have been more merciful to them that did the same upon terror of present death and torments. Let us now see what his Lordship might, though but colourably, have alleged from Scripture against it. There be three places only that seem to favour his Lordship’s opinion. The first is where Peter denied Christ, and weepeth. The second is, Acts v. 29: _Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men_. The third is, Luke xii. 9: _But he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God_.
For answer to these texts, I must repeat what what I have written, and his Lordship read in my _Leviathan_, p. 656. _For an unlearned man that is in the power of an idolatrous king, or state, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an idol, doing it, he detesteth the idol in his heart, he doth well; though if he had the fortitude to suffer death, rather than worship it, he should do better. But if a pastor, who, as Christ’s messenger, has undertaken to teach Christ’s doctrine to all nations, should do the same, it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian men’s consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge._ In which words I distinguish between a pastor and one of the sheep of his flock. St. Peter sinned in denying Christ; and so does every pastor, that denieth Christ, having undertaken the charge of preaching the gospel in the kingdom of an infidel, where he could expect at the undertaking of his charge no less than death. And why, but because he violates his trust in doing contrary to his commission.
St. Peter was an apostle of Christ, and bound by his voluntary undertaking of that office not only to confess Christ, but also to preach him before those infidels who, he knew, would like wolves devour him. And therefore, when Paul and the rest of the apostles were forbidden to preach Christ, they gave this answer, _We ought to obey God rather than men_. And it was to his disciples only which had undertaken that office, that Christ saith, _he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God_. And so I think I have sufficiently answered this place, and showed that I do not allow the denying of Christ, upon any colour of torments, to his Lordship, nor to any other that has undertaken the office of a preacher. Which if he think right, he will perhaps in this case put himself into the number of those whom he calls merciful doctors: whereas now he extends his severity beyond the bounds of common equity. He has read Cicero, and perhaps this story in him. The senate of Rome would have sent Cicero to treat of peace with Marcus Antonius; but when Cicero had showed them the just fear he had of being killed by him, he was excused; and if they had forced him to it, and he by terror turned enemy to them, he had in equity been excusable. But his Lordship, I believe, did write this more valiantly than he would have acted it.
_J. D._ He deposeth Christ from his true kingly office, making his _kingdom not to commence or begin before the day of judgment_. And _the regimen, wherewith Christ governeth his faithful in this life, is not properly a kingdom, but a pastoral office, or a right to teach_. And a little after, _Christ had not kingly authority committed to him by his Father in this world, but only consiliary and doctrinal_. _T. H._ How do I take away Christ’s kingly office? He neither draws it by consequence from my words, nor offers any argument at all against my doctrine. The words he cites are in the contents of chap. XVII. De Cive (vol. II). In the body of the chapter it is thus: _The time of Christ’s being upon the earth is called, in Scripture, the regeneration often, but the kingdom never. When the Son of God comes in majesty, and all the angels with him, then he shall sit on the seat of majesty. My kingdom is not of this world. God sent not his Son that he should judge the world. I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Man, who made me a judge or divider amongst you? Let thy kingdom come._ And other words to the same purpose. Out of which it is clear that Christ took upon him no regal power upon earth before his assumption. But at his assumption his Apostles asked him if he would then restore the kingdom to Israel, and he answered, it was not for them to know. So that hitherto Christ had not taken that office upon him, unless his Lordship think that the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of Christ, be two distinct kingdoms.
From the Assumption ever since, all true Christians say daily in their prayers, _Thy kingdom come_. But his Lordship had perhaps forgot that. But when then beginneth Christ to be a king? I say it shall be then, when he comes again in majesty with all the angels. And even then he shall reign (as he is man) under his Father. For St. Paul saith (1 Cor. xv. 25, 26): _He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; the last enemy that shall be destroyed, is death_. But when shall God the Father reign again? St. Paul saith in the same chapter, verse 28: _When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all_. And verse 24: _Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, authority, and power_. This is at the resurrection. And by this it is manifest, that his Lordship was not so well versed in Scripture as he ought to have been.
_J. D._ He taketh away his priestly or propitiatory office. _And although this act of our redemption be not always in Scripture called a sacrifice and oblation, but sometimes a price; yet by price we are not to understand anything, by the value whereof he could claim right to a pardon for us from his offended Father, but that price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand._ And again: _Not that the death of one man, though without sin, can satisfy for the offences of all men in the rigour of justice, but in the mercy of God, that ordained such sacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in mercy to accept_. He knoweth no difference between one who is mere man, and one who was both God and man; between a Levitical sacrifice, and the all-sufficient sacrifice of the cross; between the blood of a calf, and the precious blood of the Son of God. _T. H._ Yes, I know there is a difference between blood and blood, but not any such as can make a difference in the case here questioned. Our Saviour’s blood was most precious, but still it was human blood; and I hope his Lordship did never think otherwise, or that it was not accepted by his Father for our redemption.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.