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
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
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