Father which made the world no one word which signifieth one person to be more proper then another Secondly in God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all mankind it is true this Redemption being a glorious effect of the Death and Sufferance of Christ which must needs be acted in his humanity which was united to his Divinity to the second Person 〈◊〉 the Trinity hath a most proper termination in the Son so that I do yield it must be implyed that it was acted in the Son but it is not expressed and therefore although it was materially the same yet formally it was not and he said more then was in the Catechism and for the last it is not said in the Catechism that God in the Person of the Holy Ghost did Sanctify his Church but in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God which although God the Holy Ghost in the Catechism be the same with the third Person yet he is not called so there and we may mark that although these three Persons are put down in the Catechisme as fountains of those great Blessings comminicated to man yet no where is any called proper person of God more then the other nor is any of those blessings appropriated to any person exclusively shutting out the other so that although it is said God the Father who made me it is not said without the Son of which abundance of Scripture affirms he made the World and Mr. Hobs dealt unhandsomly with our Catechism when he forced such a sense upon it SECT III. Another Answer Censur'd BUt perhaps he hath a better Exposition afterwards for when the Objector immediately after urged that Mr. Hobs used that Language in divers places he answered That all of them might receive that Exposition but he a little further explains himself thus Vel si dixisset or saith he if he had said God in his proper person had constituted himself a Church by the Ministry of Moses in the person of his Son had redeemed the same in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified the same he had not erred Thus far he but it seems to me strange that both these should be without Errors for they are extreamly different in the first God in his proper person to Create the World and the second in his proper person by the Administration of Moses to constitute a Church but that phrase of in his proper person is unheard of amongst any who are not with it called Hereticks for if God the Father did any of those great works in his proper person then the Son did not operate in them which is against the whole sense of Scripture Joh. 1. 3. All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made Of which I have treated at large in my former Piece with much more which is to be seen in every Writer upon this Subject or else the same must be the very person of the Father which is horrid Divinity or else not a proper but an improper person of the Deity which is alike hateful Then consider his next proposition that God in the person of the Son did redeem the same what is that he calls the same surely that was the Church of the Israelites only for Moses constituted no other Church then Christ Redemed them only when before in the former opposition according to our Church Catechisme he Redeems Mankind which is much larger then the Church which Moses constituted and then last of all when he saith that God in the person of the Holy Ghost did sanctifie the same it is too narrow for his former proposition which was that in the Person of the Holy Ghost God did Sanctifie the Church which is much larger then the Synagogue which was constituted by Moses and when he said he had not Erred if he had phrased it after that manner I say it is evident he had erred and erred grievously in expressing himself either of these ways CAP. V. Joh. 1. 1. Explained I Pass now to Page 364. where at the top is objected that in his 43. Cap. he should say Joh. 1. 1. that the word there and so likewise in the 14. verse doth signifie a promise and that promise is the same with the thing promised that is Jesus Christ as it is Psalm 105. 19. and the 40. 13. and other places I will not dispute this further I have writ at large concerning this place and do answer to him both in this objection and to his Justification of it in his answer that avails him nothing towards his disgrace of the Divine Nature of this word if it should be allowed such a sense for that he was the person is evident out of his gloss and let that person be eternally with God and be God as the Text speaks that he should make all things and the like he must needs be that person which we conceive he â—s and referring the Reader to what I have formerly writ where the genuine sense of that word is exprest I pass to the next objection which immediately follows and crosses one conclusion of mine in this Treatise though I know not punctually where my papers being now with the Printer CAP. VI. Whether it be Lawful for a Faithful man to deny Christ Examined THe Conclusion by the Objector set down is drawn from an answer to a Question What If a faithful man should be commanded by his Prince to deny Christ what should he do he saith it is lawful to obey his Superiors by the Example of Naaman the Assyrian who was by the Prophet bid go in Peace which words saith the Objector seem to me not a permission but a form of Valediction Mr. Hobs justifies the conclusion and begins his answer fortasse perhaps it is so if he had answered any thing else either approving or disproving his Petition but in this place it can be understood of nothing but a Permission I will stop here for this present and examine it first what the offence was that he seems to parallel with the denying of Christ the Story is Recorded in the second Book of Kings Cap. 5. where in the 17. vers you may observe that Naaman professing thy Servant will from henceforth neither offer burnt Offerings or Sacrifice to other Gods but unto the Lord. By burnt Offerings and Sacrifice we must understand all Religious worship which was due to God for so it was to him but then in the 18. verse he begins to make a scruple that his attendance upon his Master at his Idolatrical worship may seem to be a Divine worship because it might seem to have an affinity with it and in this doubt he prays a pardon thus In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship thâ—re and he leaâ—eth on my hand and I â—ow my self in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon 〈…〉 this thing Mark you this it was a
action for which he is nevertheless put to death without injury I could wish he would let Scripture alone for he loving it not with a due reverence seldom naâ—es it but to countenance some wickedness as here This story is recorded Judges the 11. And Mr. Hobbs I am perswaded did know how it is with sharpness disputed by Divines whether he sacrificed her or made a Votary of her I will embroile my self in no unnecessary controversies but will grant all he requires in that dispute that he did sacrifice her what follows then that he did iâ— justly certainly no the actions of bad Kings yea the bad actions of good Princes cannot be justifiable precedents for following ages The world and the particular men in it are compounded of good and evill there is not any man so bad as hath no good but that he may be worse nor any man so good but he may be better he hath some ill actions falling from him That is it which I speak of this very gallant person Jephta he might have such an ill action out of a foolish mistaken Zeal that that rash vow of his was to be kept it was a foolish and a rash vow for for my parâ— I cannot guesse what he could imagine what he could conceive should come out of his doors which should be fit for a sacrifice to God Domestick creatures as dogs servants or children are all of them hated by God for sacrifices Calves Rams Cows Goats c. which are the proper things for sacrifices are not domestick inhabitants but to shed innocent blood in offering his daughter for a sacrifice was without doubt most impious and this is reckoned by David in Psalm 106. verse 38. amongst the abominations of the Israelites that they shed blood in their offering up their Sons and Daughters to Divels I but it may be objected that he had vowed it to God A vow made to do evil is ipso facto void God never confirmed it he ought not to keep it but to repent for making it this was to shed innocent blood which was a sacrifice fit for none but the Divel from whom the instigation to it proceeded so that if Jephta did kill her for a sacrifice he did wickedly There is a certain humour in many men who will be peremptory in some point of religion that they may seem godly who value not much the reality of it they will keep a rash or which amounts to the same a not well advised oath although to sin when they will neglect obedience to do righteously this was evident in King Saul you may find 1 Sam. 14. 24. Saul curseth any man who should eat any food until eventide here was a most rash curse and the 27. verse Johnathan who knew nothing of this curse of his Fathers eats a little honey in the 44. verse Saul swears again that he shall surely dye what a horrid injustice had this been in Saul to slay that gallant person a man of so much honour and worth for the satisfaction of his rash oath You shall find in the next Chap. that Samuel gave Saul a commandment from God to do execution upon Amalek and then he can in the 9. verse spare Agag and the best of their cattle see the same humour in both that which God had prohibited murther even upon his own son he would have committed although against Gods law because it was agreeing with that religion which he had instituted for God to wit his oath but then upon the same reason he spared Agag when God commanded his destruction because it suited better with his phancie that they should make a glorious sacrifice to God of what they had taken and therefore in the 22. v. Sam. gives him this heavy reproof Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord behold to obey is better than sacrifice When God hath given laws for mens actions it is a disobedience to invent witty ways of our own which cross them to spare what God would have us destroy and destroy that which God would have us save This was the humour of Sauls religion I dare not censure Jephta he was a person of as spotless integrity as any I find amongst the Judges unless Samuel but if he did kill his daughter I may justly say it was a most unjust act and a satisfaction of his fancy in religion which imagined what he had sworn in re illicita must be performed although against Gods law which forbids killing which in sacrifice required no such thing but not a religious act nor can this be a precedent for others nor a justification of others in doing the like although a better man than he be joyned with him which is David and so I come to his second instance CHAP. XX. SECT III. The murther of Uriah discussed Mr Hobbs his distinction censured Killing of an innocent contrary not only to the equitable part but the very letter of the law of nature The law not the executioner kills a Criminal No power given by Uriah to David to kill him being an innocent Mr. Hobbs his errors multiplied from his fictitious institution of Soveraignes by popular election Uriah not impowered to dispose of his own life HIs words are In which and the like cases he that so dyeth had liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless without injury put to death I have shewed the contrary it is an injury to put any man to death for that which he had liberty that is was not bound by law not to do and such a law which enjoyned such a penalty for the breach of it Again he And the same holdeth also in a Soveraign Prince that putteth to death an innocent Subject What a Tautologie is this I thought he had discoursed of a Soveraign Prince all this while if not it is more abominable I but he hath reason for what he hath delivered for sath he Though the action be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God A very fine and delicate distinction of which I have spoke before But now concerning this language as it is used here though the action saith he be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie First Reader consider if he take equity as many times it is for a mitigation or a gentle exposition which moderates the extream rigor of the law this surely may be deduced out of the law of nature then saith he it is against the law of nature because against the kind and charitable exposition of the law of nature only but without question killing an innocent is most directly contrary to the very letter of the law of nature and the full sence of it for although he makes nothing of the positive law of God in this discourse yet the ten commandments being by all understood to be an
but by divine revelation therefore he who taught it had divine revelation I must not spend time in particulars look upon all the Prophecies in the whole Book of God so many as their time is expired we find them all fufilled the Prophecies made to Abraham of the children of Israels long captivity in Aegypt and their extraction thence and plantation in the land of Canaan of all the great transactions of the highest affairs of the world The erection and destruction of all the great Monarchies which were punctually foretold and accomplished and foretold long before could these be foretold by any other way than by divine revelation Certainly it could not be nor can the wit of man think how it should be done Jaddus the high Priest shewed Alexander his own story foretold by Daniel Let us consider how the Prophets long before prophesied of Christ how the Prophet Isaiah writ like an antedated Evangelist differing only in these words shall and did only in the time Let us consider how not only those great and remarkable passges of his birth his miracles his death his resurrection but even such little things as the piercing of his side the parting of his garment casting lots for his vesture his burial were foretold hundreds of yeares before Let Mr. Hobbs or any other heathen tell me how these could be foretold without divine revelation But perhaps he will say as before these were not true books nor prophecies but fained since Christianity No even the Jewes themselves yet remaining in the world do consent unto them and are preserved by God a glorious witness of these truths who are the greatest enemies of Christianity CHAP. XXII SECT III. The former assertion further proved from the piety of the doctrines taught in the scripturâ—s and excellency of the matter contained in them The power of the word of God and efficacy of Scripture above the reach of Philoophie BUt then consider the doctrines taught here they are so full of religious piety to God so full of such excellent moral conversation betwixt men that the wit of man could not invent them there must needs be divine revelation in them there was never any thing delivered by men meer men without divine revelation that had not imperfections in it he who reads the Philosophers may find it I do not love to rake their Dunghills and shew their filth but the duties taught in this book are so divine and so like God from whence they came that they are able to make a man absolutely good if practised Wherefore as a tree may be known by its fruits as the heart of man by his language so these Books may be known to be Gods by the heavenliness of the matters delivered in them which have such a power of sanctity in them as is able to make such as receive them of a more Godly disposition than other men yea than themselves at other times before they received these doctrines I could treat of a strange Metamorphosis in Saul to Paul who was a persecutor a destroyer and when converted with this doctrine accounted it joy to suffer and be persecuted for this cause As also of King David who to hide the shame of his adultery committed Murther and slept securely in his sin yet when awakened from that stupidity he was in and taught his state by the Prophet Nathan he cares for no shame of this world so God be pleased cares for nothing but the shame of his sin and made his penitence for it to be chaunted out in all ages for all Churches in the 51. Psalm Se that there is a strange power and force in the word of God to turn men to godliness which no other hath And the great and mighty effects wrought by this scripture do fully evince it to be divine having divine power annexed to them Thus having shewed that the doctrines contained in scripture are fit for a man to believe they are divine and by divine revelation yea that they could not proceed from a pen which was not guided and assisted by the holy spirit we therefore may have assurance that they were such I shall come next to shew how we may be further assured from the manner of their delivery CHAP. XXII SECT IV. The second Argument from the difference of the Style of the Scriptures from the books of Philosophers The propositions and conclusions in Scripture not so much deduced from reason as asserted from the Majesty of God not disputing or endeavouring to perswade but commanding to do The rewards and punishments proposed in scripture of eternal truth impossible to be propounded or given but by God himself LEt a man look upon all the doctrines of the Philosophers concerning God his essence his attributes concerning the Creation we shall find that they laboured still to prove what they spoke and by reason to convince mans understanding Only I must confess Trismegistus in his Pomander makes his discourse which is most divine to be revelation and four ought I know it may be so much of it but otherwise they all go upon ratiocination and the reason is because such things ought not to be assented to which are not either proved or revealed by God which is the most invincible evidence that any truth can have But now Moses and those holy writers inspired by God in their compiling those holy Books only affirm this and this without arguing the reasons of it because they were divine not humane words likewise in all those moral duties which concern men they are writ with the majesty of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Do this or this not disputing as Plato and Aristotle how it conduceth to the present happiness but exacting obedience It is true when the Prophets disputed with the Gentiles or Apostles with Jewes or Gentiles who believed not their report they confuted the one by reason or out of their own authors and the other out of the former Scriptures because all proofs must be made ex concessis and out of such premisses they would confirm these Conclusions God exacted a belief and this he doth with the greatest arguments and most forcing that are possible by Praemium and Poena reward and punishment but such as never King or Emperour either did or was able to propose by eternal happiness or misery which nothing can doe but God alone And this is done to those who will receive or not receive his word Well the words contained here are delivered with such an exaction as never man proposed the same truths in and required with such promises as never man did meet with nor could perform we must needs therefore be assured they are divine CHAP. XXII SECT V. The third Argument from the sanctity and integrity of the persons who delivered these truths The miraculous conduct of the Children of Israel by Moses The objection of his assertation of dominion answered The predictions of the Prophets not possible without a divine revelation The truth and
tender nicâ—ty in this man who was but little acquainted with 〈…〉 and but newly converted to one Article of 〈…〉 that the Lord was God but certainly I find not so 〈…〉 in this action as Mr. Hobs seems to do in 〈…〉 with the denyal of Christ for first it is not said he did worship Rimmon but only that he went into the house and bowed in the house not to Rimmon but if he had I think I may boldly say that Idolatry worshiping a false God is not so bad as to deny a true one and therefore if he had worshipt Rimmon it had not been so bad as to deny Christ but I deny that he did worship or in that act shew so much as a practical Idolatry for to bow to Baal to bow to Rimmon is the sin of Idolatry not to be in the house where Baal or Rimmon was or to bow in that house which yet is all that is desired by him If Elisha had the thoughts which I have that valedictions may seem to imply a tacite assent of his to what he said he going no further in worshiping Rimmon but he proves it farther from the practise of the Primitive Church SECT II. The Canons of the Councel of Nice Examined I Will set down his words You know saith he that there were many Christians a little before the Nicene Synod good men but not most valiant who being threatned with Deaths or Torments renounced their Christianity what punishment do you think was appointed them in that general Synod at Nice In the 19. Canon of that Councel it is Decreed that â—e who should do that is his Phrase which is deny his Chriâ—tianity without Tâ—rments or danger should return to the Catechism Here I will pause and indeed did when I read it for I was well acquainted with that Councel and the story of it but remembred no such easie Penance whereupon being not in my Study I borrowed Binnius and there found in his two first Lections no such thing in the 19. Canon of either as he speaks of or relating to it in the 11. of both the vulgar Editions and the 19. of Pisanus I did it would be tedious to transcribe the words but what is material will easily appear in the canvassing his discourse consider therefore first that in his answer to the question he said it was lawful to obey his Prince commanding to deny Christ how can any thing in this Cannon prove it to be such if it were only as he said condemning to be amongst the Catechismens this supposeth it a fault for which a man should be amongst the Catechismens this supposeth it a fault for which he should be banished the Communion and on such terms as they were it could not be unless they had thought it a hainous crime then I observe that in that Eleventh Canon as the vulgar it is said of those which prevaricated without necessity or without the taking away their goods or danger of the life as was done under the Tyranny of Lucinius here is not Mr. Hobs his case Licinius persecuted Christians severely which being discerned by many a fearful Christian they would deny Christ before they came to suffer for him rather than put themselves in that hazard just as Mr. Hobs would have men afterwards repenting of that fault they would seek admittance into Gods mercies communicated in the Church what thinks the Councel Thus although such men are adjudged unworthy of humanity yet let benevolence be administred to them or as the other Reading although they are unworthy of mercy yet let them have humanity shewed them Here you see what a severe judgment was past upon these men for this Crime that they are unworthy of any mercy in themselves who should deny Christ to flatter Princes but let us see the humanity judged fit to use towards them it is true the Church should imitate God who hath shut the Gates of Heaven to no penitent Soul but because the Church cannot have the All-seeing Eye of God to discern who is penitent but by the outward expressions therefore the Councel sets down what shall be thought a sufficient evidence of it That which he termes redire ad Catechumenâ—s to return the Catechumens was somewhat but not half his work for saith that Councel quicunque whosoever do truly Repent let him spend three years inter audiculâ—s amongst the hearers which were the Catechumens for they were admitted to hear the Catechistical Sermons Preached before they went to Prayers but not to the Communion of Prayers which kind of Penance too many men amongst us punish themselves with but this is not all then let him detest himself seven years more with all contrition nor hath the Councel done yet let them communicate with the people two years more in Prayer so that here are twelve years Penance and if in this time he relapsed he was to begin again and as it is expressed in other cases not until his death to receive the Communion and if he recover to be where he was when he did receive it because that out of Christian piety the Eucharist was given him for his viaticum as it is called to strengthen him in his long Journy he was to go after all this consider good Reader what a miserable shift Mr. Hobs was put to when he took this Canon for to countenance such a horrid conclusion that it is fit in obedience to man to deny Christ when this Canon most sharply punisheth that horrid Sin and he that will read but the next Canon which is the 12. shall find the like severity used to them who having at first left the Military girdle stoutly would afterwards put it on the story was thus the Emperors for a reward of their gallantry would give deserving Souldiers a girdle and by it many priviledges But if they were Christians and would not renounce their Faith this girdle was taken from them and with it all priviledges divers after they had refuâ—ed it upon these accuâ—sed terms being over allured by the pleasures and hoâ—ours of the world would desire it again and then this Councel passeth the like judgment upon those as the former so that all kinds of denying Christ was most hateful to those Fathers and sentenced as a most grievous sin having a most severe pennance injoyned it but heâ—â— Mr. Hobs again SECT III. Peters Denial of Christ Examined IT were a Sin saith he in an Apostle or Disciple who had undertaken to Preach the Gospel against Christs Enemies and in Peter a great fault but of infirmity and easily pardon'd by Chrâ—â—â— where good Mr. Hobs was the infirmity evident in Peter more then any other person sure you have no Scripture ground for it he was forewarned by our Saviour and so armed against it yet saith he it was easily forgâ—â—en by our Saviour Good God what easiness do we find it was not without Repentance and how sharp that was we cannot tell the word of God notifies that