THE Leviathan HERETICAL OR The Charge Exhibited in Parliament against M. Hobbs justified by the Refutation of a Book of his Entituled The Historical Narration of Heresie and the Punishments thereof By JOHN DOWEL Vicar of Melton-Mowbray in Leicester Shire OXON Printed by L. Lichfield and are to be sold by A. Stephens Bookseller 1683. THE PREFACE THE Author of this Tract may thus be reproached Are not the Corps of dead men Sacred To violate Tombs and Graves is Sacrilegious why doth the Author intend to disturb the Manes of this universal Scholar Will he not be permitted to sleep quietly in the Grave How unworthy a thing is it to insult over a dead Lyon and write against him who rests in the dust The Author hears these words with a quiet mind Certainly if to answer the works of those who are dead be so Criminal how hainous offendors have so many writers in all ages been and how Capital a Delinquent is Mr. Hobs who hath by writeing endeavoured to render the sentiments of the best and most learned men ridiculous This Treatise discourseth with his Ghost He dyed in 1679 and the Treatise came out in 80. 'T is his umbra it carries his own lineaments and speaks his own language A Reverend Neighbour Minister a Learned Friend of the Authors acquainted him with the language of Mr. Hobs in private discourse exactly agreeing with this Tract and we find the most of it cap 1 and 2. de Heresi app ad Leviath Ed. Latina I will acknowledge him a Gentleman of great parts of a wonderful vivacity to his old age that he had so fine a Pen that by the clearness and propriety of his Style and exactness of his method he gain'd more Proselytes than by his Principles few exceed him in both languages but these aggrandize his Crimes he ought not to have abused such excellent qualifications he hath so managed his Pen that many believe him unanswerable yet let this Tract be considered whether he be not fully refuted as to the Contents of his Narrative I will appeal to the Learned World whether Mr. Hobs hath not thrown dirt and ugly expressions upon the Christian Religion the best of Councils the whole Christian Clergie and hath abused the English Laws It may be again objected This Author durst not write whilst he was a live Whom did Mr. Hobs ever answer but the clear Pen of the Arch-B of Armagh and the Great Professor Dr. Wallis In the Verses which he made of himself he vaunts a Victory the world is the Judge if what he saith be true That there is an Eternal Fate and Necessity Why can he commend himself and discommend others If in these Lines the Author does a thing ill what reproof does he deserve he is hurried to it by a fatal Necessity On this account his praising himself and dispraising others is groundless he is charged with contradictions from a great one of which he endeavours to vindicate himself but 't is in vain his artifices are fruitless One of his Moral and Political Principles is That whatsoever is just or unjust or to be received as true or false is by the approbation or rejection of the Supream Power He writes his Ieviathan in which this is asserted and defended yet in the same eviathan he delivers those doctrines for true which are judged Heretical by the Church of England and Laws of the Kingdom To evade this he useth all Art and Industry In the First part of this Answer some Doctrines which he propagated in that Book are proved Heretical In the Latter part is proved That these Doctrines are Criminal and the persons that maintain'd them are liable to be punished by the Civil Majestrate His Book being An Historical Narrative the Author is forc'd to have recourse to Books Mr. Hobs gives us several Histories but Quotes no Authour whereupon the Answerer is compelled to cite the place whence he has taken them No Memory Reading Vnderstanding or Observation is infinite therefore the Authour sometime useth this or the like expression so as to him it occurs he abstaines from all virulent language the hardest word and that but once used is Notoriously false Mr. Hobs gives occasion to dispute a great part of his Leviathan but the Answerer prosecutes his design to make good the Contradiction as for Instance Mr. Hobs averrs That God hath Parts here is a just occasion to dispute The Nature of Spirits but the Authour waves it 't is sufficient to prove That the Church of England has judged that Proposition Heretical and thereupon has contradicted himself He asserts That they who embrâ—ce the Liberty of the Will are allyed to the Manichees This gives a fair opportunity to discourse of Liberty and Necessity and he that seriously considers himself will find the freedom of his Will ariseth not from the flexibilty of the Vnderstanding flowing from various impressions upon that faculty but from the Dominion which the Will has over it self which the Greeks excellently express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Authour does not medle with that Controversie contenting himself with the Demonstration of the absurdity of Mr. Hobs his Imputation and that it is contrariant to the Doctrine of the Church of England The Doctrine of the Sacred Trinity is religiously imbrac'd and entertain d by the Church of England as it was by the Church of Christ in all ages hence Lucian in his Philopatris jeer'd the Primitive Christians for believing such an incredible opinion That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Tres Unus and Unus Tres Three Persons and One God which scoff shews sufficiently the Faith of the Primitive Church The Authour does not therefore dispute the Doctrine of the Trinity but wipes off all that Varnish with which Mr. Hobs useth to bide the deformity of his sentiments and makes him appear in his proper Colours proves him Heretical in being an enemy to the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England The like may be said of other things which the Author treats of the charge being made good that Mr. Hobs has notoriously contradicted himself His book is answered and his great Postulatum demonstrated to be false in that he is forc'd to acknowledge those things which are contrary to it A DISCOURSE OF HERESIE A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Greek word and the derivations that are given of Heresie from other words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek or Latine are fond and spurious It was a word amongst the Philosophers Greek and Latine us'd for any Sect promiscuously and so the acception is indifferent but 't is otherwise in sacred Scripture in Ecclesiastical Writers Fathers and Historians amongst whom 't is alwaies us'd in an evil sense the Acts of the Apostles being excepted where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is alwaies translated Sect only Acts 24. 14. 't is probable 't is used in an ill sense The Reason may be
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
the Church cast out That Heretick and Catholick became not Relatives by this excommunication nor by this did Heretick become a name and a name of disgrace both together A Person by becoming an Heretick was excommunicated this name did preceed not follow excommunication It must be acknowledged that the Heresies concerning the Trinity were very troublesome in the Church but not so vexatious during the ten Persecutions as in Constantines time and after but what is the cause that when he proposes the Troubles arising from the Doctrine of the Trinity he would mix those doctrines which were wholly alienated from the doctrine of the Trinity as those of the Manichees For saith he according to the usual Curiosity of Natural Philosophy they could not abstain from disputing the first principles of Christianity into which they were Baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost Some there were who made them Allegorical others would make one Creator of Good another of Evil. This was the principal Tenet of the Manichees who took their Names from one Manes This Monstrous opinion that there were two Eternal Principles Light and Darkness these were two Contrary Gods the one the Author of Good the other of Evil. What is this to the Trinity That which he adds is not to be endured 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 Is this great Truth Manichism To say man by his free-will is the Author of Sin In commendation of himself in his own life thus I Printed then two treatises that stung the Bishop Bramhal in his Mother Tongue The question at the time was and is still whether at Gods or our own choice we will Can we will evil at Gods choice We therefore do affirm expressly contrariant to Mr. Hobs that the causation of Evil cannot be attributed to God without Impiety He mentioning our late fatal Wars thus Such Crimes and Sufferings I will not impute unto the Deity I have no Sence if this be not a Repugnancy in this Tract he affirms that those who assert that the causation of Evil cannot be attributed to God are allyed to the Manichees And yet when in the Verses which respect his life he recounts the English Evils and Calamities during the Wars he dares not impute them to the Deity Truly how far this Opinion is from Manichaism let the World Judge Can any man have sence to believe that if Sin flows from God the first Cause but it must be attributed to him The Manichees believe an Eternal being the Author of all Evil. Take their Monstrous opinion from themselves There was an Epistle which they in St. Austin called the Fundamentum and thus begins Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi Providentiâ Dei Patris haec sunt salubria verba de vivo ac perenni Fonte Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Providence of God the Father these are sound and wholsōe words flowing from a Liveing and Perpetual Fountain In this Epistle thus In exordio fuêre duae substantiae a se divisae c. In the beginning there were two substances divided from one another God the Father had the cōmand of Light and then he proceeds to describe that kingdom he then goes to the Kingdome of Darkness which was at the side of Light giveing a wild description of that Kingdome of Darkness He gives an account of the Black King of it that he with his hideous Train assaulted God the Father the King of Light who being affraid of him sent some of his Troops who mixing with the Black Regiments formed his World That what is Good must come from the King of Light what is bad from the King of Darkness These frenzies of him who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bewitched once that great man who by the Grace of God beeing inlightned fell from them to the Catholic Church St. Augustine a Presbyter in Hippo disputes Fortunatus a Manichaean Presbyter of that City Both dispute about the Original of the Evil of Sin he assigns it to the Black Prince quitting the Cause affirmed it could have no other Original then from the Evil Nature of the Prince of Darkness The like we find in his second dispute with Felix the Manichaean Saint Austin assigns rightly this to the Free will of man It cannot enter into my head why Mr. Hobs should give this assertion my understanding is too shallow to fathom this depth Nothing farther to be reproved till we come to the 6 page onely this passage may receive a little Censure pag 6 Constantine the great was made by the valor and assistance of the Christian Soldiers sole Emperor He not much regarding the peculiar Providence of God takes nonotice of that great miracle of y e Cross appearing at Noon with this inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole Army of Constantine was inferior to Magnentius his Forces a small number of his Soldiers were Christians it was more the peculiar action of the Arme of Heaven which dissipated the Army of Magnentius and gave the Eagles to Constantine In the latter end of his time their arose a dispute between Alexander the Bishop and Arrius the Presbyter of that City Here the Philosopher hath erred in his Chronology for for the quarrel between them began before the Licinian Persecution in the Tenth of Constantin's who commanded the Empire 37 years Would this was the worst Error This Controversy between the Inhabitants and Souldiers presently became a quarrel and was the cause of much bloodshed in and about the City 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 throwout the Roman Empire to meet at the City of Nice Indeed I read in the Time of Constantius the Aarrians prosecuted the Catholicks with the greatest fury imaginable The lamentable Tragedy of which is given us by an Alexandrian Synod in their Letters to Julius Bishop of Rome But that any murders were committed during the Reign of Constantine I do not observe but to lessen the honor of Christian Religion he assigns the calling of that Council to the Peace of the Empire The prime reason was the Establishing the Peace of the Church and the Uniformity in Doctrine which will be manifested he said to the Fathers in his Exhortation to them That they would fall in hand w th the Articles of Faith and whatsoever they should decree therein he would cause to be Observed On which he thus Animadverts This may perhaps seem a great indifferency then would in these Days be approved off I know not the sence of this reflection for what could be more desired by a Council of the Emperor then to assure them that he would ratify those Canons which they decreed cencerning the things they were called for The main of the discourse is concerning his animadversions on this Article
and Concrete and Concrete and Abstract are the same therefore it must be ill said of him For if Deitas abstracted be Deus we make two Gods of one Must then no such word as Essence be used only Body 〈◊〉 surely the word Nature may be used what is this Corporeal by that means I may use the word Essential His aim is higher that is as the Trinity from that mystery of Faith he takes all his Grandeur Thus Mr. Hobs The Attributes therefore of God in the abstract when they are put for God are put Metonymically which is a common thing in Scripture as for Example Prov. 8. 25. Before the Mountains were setled before the Hills brought forth was I. The Wisdom there spoken of being the wisdom of God signifies the same with the wise God In the sacred Scripture by the Wisedom of God is sometimes meant the Son of God the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eternal Word and this is not denyed by the Arrians themselves They acknowledging that Wisdom mentioned by Solomon is Christ the Son of God do endeavour to prove him not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he is said to be according to the greek fundata sum and as cited by Fulgentius contra object Arrianorum obj Creavit me Initium viarum suarum A Creature is not of the same substance tho the Arrians falsly applyed those words yet t is certain that by the wisdome of God mentioned in that chapter was not as Mr. Hobs saith Metonimically by them taken for the wise God but a being subsistent by it self what he thinks of the other part of the Creed is not amiss but to say that it was never questioned amongst Christians except by the Arrians that Christ was God Eternal is an huge mistake Before Arrius appear'd several Hereticks denied it and Arrius according to this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by his Letters and Confession would not scruple to call Christ the Eternal God He adds That no man can be made an Heretick by consequence this shall not create any dispute but what means he when he saith because that form was not put into the body of the Creed but directed onely to the Bishops there was no reason to punish any Lay-person that should speak to the contrary I cant find his meaning for the form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Creed and by the Authority of that Council every person who did not receive it was anathematiz'd Perhaps he means this that God hath no Parts is not in the form of the Creed This is acknowledged that the Council did not put that into the forme of the Creed yet it was determined by the Council The Letters which Eusebius wrote were Synodical By the super scriptions it appears that the Contents of those Epistles did not concerne onely the Bishop but all the People Socrates Lib. 1. Cap. 5. gives a full account of this he wrote an Epistle of the Decrees and Acts of which Eusebius sent by order of the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this same Epistle saith Socrates Eusebius sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of Alexandria to those of Lybia Egypt and Pentapolis What the Synod by a common suffrage past when the conciliary decrees were sent to all the Churches Mr. Hobs would make the World believe that they being directed by the Bishops were onely obligatory of them The Contrary in Theodoret. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Cap. 12. The Synodical Epistles of the Nicene Fathers were directed not to the Bishops for the Bishops were present in Council but to the Church of Alexandria and to all our beloved brethren in Aegypt Libia and Pentapolis These being thus directed there was a reason to punish any Lay-person which should speak to the contrary ' But what was the meaning of this Doctrine that God hath no parts Was it made Heresy 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 or 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 Apelles and other Hereticks of his time namely whatsoever was not corporeal was nothing but phantasm and not Corporeal for Heretical ' no certainly No Divines say that What is the meaning of this that God hath no Parts To explain this he adds several questions whether God considered or spoken of as here and there or that there is any real thing without length every way i. e. hath magnitude at all Finite or Infinite 't is returned to those questions God is an Infinite substance without magnitude nor can it be said that a magnitude is infinite 't is impossible to think that to be infinite to which there can be an addition His third captious question is frivolous 'T is true if that substance be material but it is not true in an immaterial substance To the Fourth let any Divine be produced who saith that what is not Corporeal is a Phantasme This is the question whether all beings which have areal Substance be Corporeal the Epicureans affirme it other Philosophers and Christians wholly deny it indeed it must be affirmed that sometimes by Corpus or a Body is meant any real being or whatever hath any real being and this it is by some conceived to be the sence of Tertullian Thus St. Augustine vindicates Tertullian de Genesi ad Literam Lib. 10. Cap. ult Tertull. de Animâ Cap. 7 Omne Corporale est passibile Upon that St. Augustine debuit ergò mutare sententiam He ought therefore to change his opinion which he mentions in another place God is a body ad vernis Praxeam I cannot believe that he was so Childish as to believe the Nature of God is passible but that by this Argument whatsoever was not Corporeal was nothing should be the argument whereby he confuted Apelles and other Hereticks in his times is a Conclusion above the reach of my understanding He disputes against Hermogenes who asserted an Eternal matter coexistent with God who out of that created this Vniverse What Argument can be used against Hermogines taken from proposition Omne quod est Corpus est There is nothing but Body In Cap. 35. Tertullian explains himself he takes an Argument from Hermogines his contradicting himself primâ facie materia videtur esse incorporalis at the first sight matter seems to be incorporeal but having seriously pondered what he saith Matter will be found neither Corporeal nor Incorporeal That I grant some substance is onely Incorporeal for the Substance it self is the Body of every thing when Corporeal and Incorporeal are mentioned nothing else will be admitted Thus he explaining his sence of Corpus that it is Substantia he confutes
Hermogines not from the recited proposition but his own contrarietys the same may be applyed to what he disputes against Marchiaean Apelles and Praxeas Therefore against Mr. Hobs I may be confident to averr that Tertullian never attempts the refuting Apelles or any other Heretick in his time from this Topick whatsoever was not Corporeal was a Phantasme T is true the Nicene Fathers went to establish one Individual God in Trinity to abolish the diversity of Species in God and t is not true that they did not intend to destroy the distinction of here and there for the Council in explaining the word did say that it could not be understood of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Essence of God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the discourse is not concerning the intent of the Council Since the Council judged the nature of God to be Immaterial and Incorporeal they did conclude that an Incorporeal Substance was not a contradiction therefore the holy Fathers must needs have thought that God had no extended parts nor any sort of parts and therefore not be considered as here and there What a force is don by him to the Apostles question St. Paul asks the Corinthians Is Christ divided which he thus interprets ' He did not think they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet but that they might think him alluding to the manner of the Gentiles one of the sons of God but not the only begotten Thus expounded in Athanasius his Creed Not Confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance i. e. God is not divided into 3 Persons Peter James and John nor are the 3 Persons one and the same Person ' T is granted that the Fathers intended the last but it is denied that they had any such intent by not dividing the Substance to have a respect unto various Individuals for in that division the Persons substances are divided the Substances are different and not the same but in the persons of the Individual Trinity the Substance is the same And in created beings the Persona of every Individual is really distinct not onely from the essence and person of another Individual but from the Substance in which it doth subsist which appears in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who assumed not the Person but Nature of Man but the mistery being great above all the understanding and apprehension of man it is rather the object of Faith than Reason My main undertaking against Mr. Hobs in this Tract is not to illustrate or prove the meaning but to manifest that he has not cleared himself of the contradiction and that in his attempts he throws himself into new absurdities one of which is this Paragraph ' But Aristotle and from him all the Greek Fathers and other learned men when they distinguish the general latitude of a word they call it division as when they divide the Animal into Man and Beast they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species and when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partes individuae And by this confounding the division of the Substance with the distinction of words divers men have been led into Error of attributing to God a name which is not the name of any Substance at all viz. Incorporeal ' 'T is true that the Philosophers when they divide Animae or the Genus into Men or Beasts they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species but when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they never call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Partes Individuae for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are partes dividuae therefore Individua are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what sence there is in his deduction I 'le give when I understand it There is a substance which is Incorporeal the Philosophers were led into that truth by observing the operations of some beings which are not Corporeal where it must needs follow that these essences are Incorporeal and by some other Arguments but that they should be led into this which he calls an Error by confounding the division of Substance with the distinction of words is a thing far from Truth and any conception of mine ' Many Heresies which were Antecedent to the first general Council were condemned as that of Manes he might have added Marcion by the first article I believe in one God ' This was not directed onely against them but also against the polutheisme of the Heathens ' tho to me it seems still to remain in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which so attributes a liberty of the will to men as that their will and purpose to commit sin uot should proceed from the cause of all things God but originally from themselves or from the Devil ' Indeed Marcion and Manes attributed Sin to an evill God but the Church of Rome the Church of England and all other Churches look upon that Opinion as Heretical why this Doctrine of the Liberty of the will is to remain in the Church of Rome this is to palliate This Doctrine continues in the Church of England and in all the Churches of Christ The Devil does vehemently tempt to sin but he is not the cause of sin hence that good Axom is received by all knowing men No body is injured but by himself that which is properly an Evil is the Evil of Sin which our selves only can inflict upon us but how comes it to pass that this Doctrine of the Liberty of the Will should be opposed by this Article I believe in one God they who maintain that Doctrine firmly believe this Article They say that the one true God is infinitely glorious in all perfections amongst which is the Liberty of his will he created all things amongst which he created Rational beings which he endowed with the Liberty of Will whereby they are made capable of being vertuous and so to be rewarded or vitious and so to be punished where is there by this sentiment a setting up another God by God he means one first Cause which necessarily moved from all eternity from which necessary cause there flows an infinite concatenation of necessary causes whence if any say that there is a Liberty of the Will he must assigne another first Cause and from thence oppose this Article I believe in one God we say there is but one first Cause and that a free Agent whence springs the Liberty of Rational Beings By the account which Mr. Hobs gives of God and by several of his opinions it must be concluded that he believes there is no God One of his sayings is He that saith there is no mind in the World hath no mind This is a gingling quibble besides many gross absurdites with w ch his opinion is charged this is no mean one God is the Author of Sin to which he replys Leviath cap. 46. by this distinction God is not the
Bishop These were condemned in the Chalcedonian Council I will grant that the Disciples of Eutyches did say If two Natures there would be two hypostases I will say it was an Heretical illation and affirme that the Latine word Persona answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Sence of the Churches both East and West 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Substance but Subsistence to which Persona directly answers But saith he in the Nicene Creed there 's no mention of Hypostasis or Hypostatical Union nor of Corporeal nor Incorporeal nor of parts but this was acknowledged by the Fathers in that Council there was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which necessarily infers it after a dispute concerning the sense of these words they all agreed in the same Faith and that Hypostasis is as well as Persona entertained by the universal Church not signifying Substantiam as usally but Subsistentiam from the Nicene decree must of nâ—cessity flow the Hypostatical Vnion Tho the word Incorporeal was not used in the Nicene Creed yet it is used in Eusebius his Synodical Episties who styles God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immaterial and Incorporeal as before asserted but invidiously to throw dirt upon the Fathers ' such Points saith he were not necessary to Salvation but set a broach for ostentation of learning or else to dazle men with designe to lead them towards some ends of their own ' By which he charges the most humble persons with pride the most sincere with Hypocrisie and the most unbiass'd with secular aims T is true that it was not judged necessary to Salvation that vulgar persons should know what Hypostasis and Persona intended as appears by that Council held at Alexandria by Athanasius Bishop of that See Eusebius of Vercelles and Lucifer of Calaris Two Western Bishops who after they had contended about these words were united in this Nicene article that Christ was the Eternal Son of God and really God and that it was an Article of the Christian Faith necessary to Salvation What he says concerning St. Cyprian is nothing to my design nor shall I make any remarks upon his discourse of the Usurpation of the Bishop of Rome or take cognizance of what he says of the punishment ordained against Hereticks in the Reign of K. Rich. the 2. and succeding Princes for this is nothing to my purpose my whole designe is to make good the contradiction with which he is charged I must therefore have no regard to any penal statures in Causes Ecclesiastical until the Reign of Queen Elisabeth I charge him with these heretical propositions contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England to whom he is obliged by the laws of the King to be Subject 1. That God hath parts 2. That Christ is not of the same Substance with the Father 3. That the Persons in the sacred Trinity are temporall All which are declared Heretical by the lawes and Church of England But Mr. Hobs would evade the two last Heretical propositions by saying he believes the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Church hath explained it in the Catechisme When the Minister asks the Catecumene what dost thou chiefly lear in these Articles of thy Belief He answers I learn first to believe in God the Father who created me and all the World 2. I God the Son who hath redeemed me and all Mankind 3. I God the Holy-Ghost who hath Sanctified me and all the Elecâ— People of God What is then intended but this thaâ— God in his own person-did create all things in the Person of his Son did redeem Mankind in the person oâ— the Holy Ghost did Sanctifiâ— the Church What clearlie concerning the Divine persons or more consentaneous to the Faith can be said Appendix ad Leviath Cap. 1. On the contrary I will pronounce that nothing is more obscure nor distentaneous to the Faith Tully said properly Ego tres sustineo personas mei Judicis adversarij yet it must be granted that the same word may have divers significations peculiarly in various sciences else the great and famous Northern Constellations may note the greatest Bear in the Muscovian Snowes The Latine Fathers and after them the Schools and Divines take not the word Persona in the same sence that Orators and Philosophers do I believe that Bellarmine did know the meaning of the Latine word persona as well as Mr. Hobs. Let common sence be appealed can the Mystery of the Trinity be explained according to Cicero's use of the word Persona For according to the Church of England in the Athanasian Creed which is part of the Liturgy established by Law and ratified in the 8 Article in which are these words the Three Creeds the Nicene Creed the Athanasian Creed and that commonly called the Apostles Creed ought to be throughly received and believed In the Athanasian the Eternity is not onely of the Essence but of the Persons not as the Father Eternal the Son Eternal and the Holy Ghost Eternal but according to Mr. Hobs the Persons were Temporal i. e. God became a Father when he created the World A Son when he redeemed Mankind and the Holy Ghost when he Sanctifies which is absolutely contrary to the Faith for upon the Impious account of Mr. Hobs the Persons were not eternal by reason the Actions of God in creating the World by which there was the parsonality of the Father and of the Son in redeeming the World and of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying the Elect People of God were temporal Let this be Queried What Sence is this God redeemed Mankind in the person of his Son Persona mei is Tully himself but Persona Judicis is Tully reprensenting a Judge did God represent another in the redeeming of the World This leads to the making good this Heresy concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God for he utterly denies the eternal Filiation and saith that Christ being the Son of God was an eternal God but as being begotten extraordinarily in time he acknowledgeth that expressly and frequently in the Scriptures Christ is said to be begotten that he was God born of the Father before the World when Christ is said to be begotten t is meant that he was begotten of God himself the Father of the Matter of the Virgin Mat. 1. vers 20. that which was begotten of the Virgin Mary was of the Holy Ghost and should be called the Son of God ' But some perhaps will say that the eternal generation differs from that which was made in the Womb of the Virgin ' To which he thus answers where doth the Holy Scripture or Synod thus distinguish this Question is a certain demonstration that he denys the eternal generation and that he by a strange passion resolves to deny those things which for certain he knows to be true if a stou denyal serves his designe The sacred Scripture in several places is express for the eternal generation
evident by 5 Eliz. Cap. 23 with the significavit to be added to the Writ and in that Significavit 'tis joyn'd that the Excommunication doth proceed upon some cause of some Original matter of Heresy or Error in Religion or Doctrine now received and allowed in the said Church of England whereby it appears that Persons for Heresy might be Imprisoned and so Heresy to become Criminal For it was to be punished by the civil Magistrate with Corporal Mulcts and farther lay a Writ de Heretico comburendo if nothing was declared Heresy why did their lye such a Writ That such a Writ was in force is clear by the annulling of it when this fetal Plot was detected then the Parliament made an Act to Cancel it either it was in force or not if in force the Parliament was Prudent in making it void if not it casts a reproach upon the Two Houses to annul that which was exploded That these Writs were in force is declared and that the Writ de excommunicato capiendo retains its Vigor is evinc'd by the usage of the Kingdome of England As for the Writ de Heretico comburendo it was put in execution in King James his time Legat Wightman were Burnt the one in Smith-field and the other in Litchfield for the Arrian Heresy He saith that they which approve such executions may peradventure know better grounds for them then I do But grounds are very well worthy to be enquired after but he might very well know the just grounds for them He that affirms the Law to be the Sole rule of just and unjust could not be ignorant that by the common Law of England the Writ de Heretico comburendo was valid and thereupon an Heretick might legally be Burnt My Lord Cook part 3. cap. 5. affirms that by the Books of the common Law the King Issuing our his VVrit de Heretico comburendo an Heretick ought to be Burnt That Heresy might be punished by Corporeal and pecumiary Mulcts is clear by the Queens Letters Patents authorized by the 1. Statute of her Reign She did give to the Arch Bishop of Cant. the Bishop of London and divers others any Three or more of them full Power and Authority to reforme redress order correct and amend c. and to have full Power and Authority to order and award to every such offendor by Fine Imprisonment Censure of the Church or otherways or all or any of the said ways Cawdrys Case and in that same case it is resolved by the Judges that the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth did not introduce any new Law but declared an ancient one The Title of the Statute being an Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual The Sovereign being the Supream head of the Church without whose Authority no person can or ought to exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or proceed to any Censure it demonstrates that by the Royal Power an Heretick might be punished with a Civil and Corporeal Mulct Farther the Star-Chamber was an ancient Court grounded upon the common Law of England and confirmed by Act of Parliament Which Court took cognizance not onely of Civil Crimes but also of Ecclesiastical and did punish Hereticks by Imprisoning Fineing and Stigmatizeing as appears by the Records of that Court and that famous Instance of Thrask who in the 16. year of King James for spreading of Judaical Heresies he was cited into the Court and being obstinate was sentenced to be set in the Pillory Whipt to the Fleet Fined and Imprisoned all which was executed by which it appears what truth there is in this assertion of Mr. Hobs During the Time the High Commission was in being there was no Statute by which an Heretick might be punished otherwise than by the ordinary Censure of the Church for 't is proved that by the Common Law of England and the Statute Law during the time of the High Commission Hereticks might suffer in their Bodies and Purses hence it follows that Heresy was criminal and he hath not vindicated himself from that contradiction with which he stands charged He farther proceeds ' That no Doctrine could be accounted Heresy unless Commissioners had actually declared and published that what was made Heresy by the Four first general Councils should be Heresie ' but I never heard yet there was any such declaration made either by Proclamation by Recording in Churches or by Printing as is requisite in Penal Laws We have before proved that the High Commission was not the Sole Judges of Heresy That which the Church and Law of England condemns for Heresy is as fully divulged as can be expected The 39. Articles are sufficiently known and those Doctrines which the Four first general Councils received as Orthodox or condemned as Heretical are ratifi'd by the Law and Church of England and sufficiently promulged The Nicene Creed which was completed by the Fourth general Council is read in every Church on Sundaies and Holy daies The Athanasian Creed is to be read at peculiar Festivals both which Creeds as also the Apostles are part of the Liturgy of the Church which is imbodyed into the Laws of the Land and that the opinions which are contrary are made Heretical appears by these Clauses of the Athanasian Creed He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity Furthermore it is Necessary to Everlasting Salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and this Clause ends the Creed This is the Catholick Faith which except a man believe Faithfully he cannot be saved The Doctrines therefore declared to be Heretical are sufficiently by Printing and Recording in Churches divulged To alleviate his Crime or at least to vindicare himself from Heresie he reflects upon our late sad distractions w ch to me administers matter of horror ' Before arms were taken up saith he the King abolished the High Commission but the Parliament pursued the Rebellion and put down both Episopacy and Monarchy erecting a power by them called a Common wealth by others the Rump which men obeyed not out of Duty but Fear ' those actions were dreadfull and are the fontinels of all those fears which now afflict us The just principles by which Government is formed and established and reasonable laws are enacted deservedly reprove and condemn those actions perpetrated in our late confusions which gave a scandall to our Religion and Nation But how can he cast an odium upon those actions his sentiments justifie Saith he ' there were no humane Laws left in force to restrain any man from Preaching or Writing any Doctrine concerning Religion that he pleased And in this time it was that a book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the Kings Power Spiritual or Temporal without any word against Episcopacy or against Bishop or against the publick Doctrine of the Church ' To which t is thus Replyed ' the Leviathan was impressed 1651 and come out
in Latine upon his Majesties returne In 48 England was totally subdued to the Power of the Rump Ireland in 49. Scotland in 51. was almost reduct by the Rump and his Majesties Army totally routed at Worcester in this year the Leviathan was published was this Book in defence of the Kings Power Spiritual and Temporal when his Majestie was in Banishment ' His Majestie was then devested of all his lawfull Power and Authority and forc't into Exile This Leviathan if the Principles were admited justfied the Actions of his Enemies he casts this Imputation on the Rump that they were obeyed onely for fear in the same book he endeavours to prove that man is not by Nature a lover of Society but at his original is in a state of War The dread of the Evils which are incident to that condition makes him to enter into a Society with others and let it be considered whether if Fear be the great inducement to Government they according to his Principles are to be condemned who out of the same fear obeyed the Rump and that the fundamental law of Nature is self Preservation and for fear that end should not be attained pacts are entred into but if after those pacts that design cannot beaccomplished then pacts are void and therefore if people have a suspicion that the Prince will destroy them they may take up Arms. And if the Prince be devested of his Government the People are no longer obliged to obey him and upon this account of Self-Preservation they are to submit to those who can protect them Upon this reason the taking the Engagement was lawful and it was his honour to present to the English Nation those Principles w ch induced many to take the Engagement Oliver gaining the Protectorship was so pleased with him on those accounts that the great place of being Secretary was profered him If these things be true as unquestionably they are let it then be considered whether any Sober man can believe that the Book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the Kings Power Temporal and Ecclesiastical since it manifestly asserts the cause of Usurpers It must be granted that Mr. Hobs doth give to the Soveraign all illimited power in things just and sacred But this he gives to all sorts of Government to Aristocracy and Democracy as well as Monarchy A Book to be penned and published by him when all the Kings Dominions were in the Power of those who took up Arms against him which containes these Docttines Pag. 112. ' But in case a great many men have already resisted the Soveraign Power unjustly or committed some Capital Crime for which every one of them expects Death whether have they not the Libertie then to joyn together and assist and defend one another certainly they have for they but defend their lives which the Guilty man may as well do as the Innocent There was indeed Injustice in the first breach of their Duty Their bearing of Arms subsequent to it tho it be to maintain what they have done is no new unjust Act and if it be only to defend their persons it is not unjust at all Pag. 114. The Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign is understood to last as long and no longer than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them For the Right men have by nature to protect themselves when none else can protect them can by no covenant be relinquished The Soveraignty is he Soul of the Common-wealth which once departed from the body the members do no more receive their motion from it Pag. 174. When in a War forraine or intestine the Enemies get a final Victory so as the forces of the Common Wealth keeping the Field no longer there is no ther protection of Subjects in their Loyalty then is the Common-wealth dissolved and every man at liberty to protect himself by such causes as his own discretion shall suggest unto him For the Soveraign is the publick Soul giveing Life and motion to the Common-wealth which expiring the Members are governed by it no more than the Carcass of a man by his departed tho immortal Soul For tho the Right of a Soveraign Monarch cannot be extinguished by the Act of another yet the Obligation of the members may For he that wants protection may seek it any where and when he hath it is obliged without fraudulous pretence of having submitted himself out of fear to protect his Protector as long as he is able ' It was so far from defending His Majesties Authority that without Command they plainly justifie the actions of his usurping Enemies No person that hath suckt in Hobs his Principles can be a loyal Subject and hence likewise it appears that he did not ingeniously with his Majesty when he averts in his Apology for his Leviathan in an Epistle dedicated to the King before Problemata Phisica nec vitio vertant quod contra Hostes pugnans c. Let none account me a Criminal that fighting against your Enemies I took what Arms I could and Brandished a two Edged Sword certainly those Propositions Fought against his Majesty and defended the Cause of of his Enemies That in the same book he did write against Bishops and the Doctrine of the Church of England is manifestly proved before In the Common-Prayer book are contained several Doctrines of the Church of England to oppose or deny which as Mr. Hobs doth in the aforesaid book is made Criminal that is to be punished by the Civil magistrate by the first of Queen Eliza. Cap. 2. The Title of which is That there be Uniformity of Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in which there are these words ' Be it enacted that every Per son or Persons whatsoeverthat shall in any Interludes Plays Songs Rhymes or by any other open words declare or speak any thing depraving or despiseing the same Book or any part thereof or any thing therein contained then the party convicted shall forfeit to the Queen for the first Offence an Hundred Marks ' He concludes this Tract with casting an odious and false Scandal upon the whole Christian Clergy Down from the whole Council of Nice to this present time in these words ' So fierce are men for the most part in dispute where either their Learning or Power is debated that they never think of the Laws but as soon as they are offended they cry out Crucify forgetting what Paul saith even in case of obstinate holding of an Error 2. Tim. 24. 25. The Servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men apt to Teach Patient in Meekness Instructing those that oppose if God peradventure may give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth ' T is true both the Bishops and the Presbyterians did accuse that Book in the Parliament of Heresy why could they be fierce their learning and their power being not disputed when he professes in that book he medled not with them their power or learning Those things make not the Clergy fierce t is the Person the Religion the Faith of the Holy Jesus for which the Clergy have been and are still so Zealously contending they are and were piously fierce in opposing prophane Heresies and Blasphemous Impieties the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts hath eaten up those holy Divines their zelous defence of the Doctrine of their master hath not violated the Apostles direction given to the Pastors of the Church 2. Tim. that reaches only those who erred through infirmity not obstinacy Contumacious Hereticks they are bound to oppose withall Holy Zeal and Indignation Did not he blush to averr that they cryed Crucifie when they knew not the Law Could they be ignorant of that Law which they themselves put in execution Their ignorance of the Law did not make them cry Crufie but knowing the Law and Gospel became profest Enemies to those who by their Antichristian opinions Crucifie again the Lord of Glory What Reproach casts he upon Religion when he loads the Christian Divines with such imputations Those that are verst in Ecclesiastical History and have read the Fathers cannot but conclude that the Basil's the Gregory's c. were men as great for Learning and Goodness as the World ever produced their fervent opposition of Hereticks was not contrariant to that Apostoliocal Precept The Holy Christian Divines obeying the Apostolical Commands Titus 3. 10. An Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject 2 Pet. 2. 1. If any one bring another Doctrine receive him not into your house nor bid him good speed down from the Apostles time to this day have and will be till Christ come to Judgement Zealous and Pious opposers of those who privately bring in damnable Heresies denying the Lord that bought them FINIS