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
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
Author of Sin but he is the cause The Author is he who commands the Cause by whose Power a thing is done This with many other distinctions he frames which are more subtle perplext and remote from sence then any of the School-mens for which he so much condemns them certainly every cause is the Author of a thing He that commands is by that a moral cause But he that is a cause by enabling to do is a Physical cause of Sin God can't be such a cause but it may be queried whether God according to Mr. Hobs ever gave any laws to man-kind for unquestionably if the rule of Justice Injustice Good and Bad true and false be the will of the supream power God never gave laws to man kind ' perhaps saith he the Anthropomorphites were then condemned but this cānot be for they appeared not untill the time of Valens ' This is no great matter It is certain that the Council did condemn all those who ascribed any parts to God which the Anthropomorphites did yet if Epiphanius be credited heret 70. Audianus a Mesopotanican the Author of this Heresy of the Anthropomorphites florished in the time of Arrius when the Nicene Council was convened ' No other punishment was ordained by Constantine than Deprivation and Banishment and that not onely of Bishops and Pastors who refused to subscribe to the Faith thus did Heresie which at first was the name of a private opinion and no crime was by vertue of a law of the Emperor made onely for the Peace of the Church become a Crime in a Pastor and punishable ' How many Errata's in this Paraptaph Heresy in the Church of Christ was always a Crime and never the name of an opinion This I prov'd before let it be granted that every Sin is not a Crime and that every Crime is that w ch is punishable 't is a trisle to be lirigious in words every sin is certainly punishable some Sins are greater than others so there is a difference in Crimes there are Crimes which are onely discernable by Almighty God and so punishable at his tribunal but that Heresy should be a Crime onely because the civil power inflicts a corporal punishment cannot be understood by any but such a person who bids a defyance not only to the Christian Religion but to all other Religions which assert a future retribution or concludes that the great God doth punish evil men in this life by some extraordinary methods But that Heresy after this decree of the council became onely a Crime punishable in the Bishops and Pastors whether it be true or not is not much material In the Pastors the People were always punished for they followed their Pastors in banishment Basil with a curious pen delineating the miserys and calamitys under which the Orthodox Bishops and Pastors groan'd likewise gives us the description of those dreadful sufferings with which the people were oppprest Eusebius giveing us an account of an Edict of Constantine against Hereticks in that not onely Bishops and Pastors but all sorts of Hereticks were involved de vità Constant lib. 3 cap. 62. And having proved before that Arianisme was decreed an Heresy not for the peace of the Church but likewise that there might be an agreement in the same faith which was necessary to salvation we may justly say that every line of that Paragraph is notoriously untrue To lessen the Esteem of the Nicene and the 4 General Councils says he ' There arose new Heresies about the Interpretation of the Creed and partly about the Holy Ghost of which the Nicene Council had not determined And afterwards concerning the Holy Ghost Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople some others denied the divinity thereof ' The Pneumatomachi appearing after the Council of Nice had pretended for themselves the silence of the Nicene Fathers to which Basil Nazianzen Theoderet Epiphanius answer there being no question moved concerning it the Council acquiesed in the opinion and right Faith of the Universal Church concerning the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost Why should the Fathers confirme that truth which was not questioned but taken for granted or condemne that for Heresy which was not preached yet if not in a set forme of words decreed yet in truth and by good consequence the sence of the Fathers as to that Article was given For St. Basil Epist 78. Hieronom Epist 65. Epip haeresi 74 take off and answer that objection Epiphanius and Athanasius prove it thus that the same glory which is given to the Father and to the Son is likewise given to the Holy Ghost for the Symbol is I believe in God the Father and in God the Son and I believe in the Holy Ghost This Divine Faith fixed upon the Father Son and holy Ghost as one and the same God gives the true sence of the Council The great mistake concerning Nestorius must only be attributed to Mr. Hobs his animadversion for it was not Nestorious but Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost Nestorius was a great adversary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore in Socrates Lib. 7. Cap 31 we find that Nestorius was so great an Enemy to the Macedonians that when he was Bishop of Constantinople he drove the Macedonians out of all their Churches in that City and in the Hellespont ' Concerning the Parts established there arose disputes about the Nature of Christ and the word Hypostasis i. e. Substance for of persons there was yet no mention made their Creed being written in Greek in which Language there is no word that answereth to the Latine word Persona and the Union as the Fathers called it of the Humane and Divine Nature in Christ Hypostolical caused Eutyches and after him Dioscurus to affirme there was but one Nature in Christ thinking that whensoever two things are united they are one ' T is true the Latine word Persona is used in the Latine Church which Church embraced likewise the word Hypostasis and all differences concerning those words were within a while composed and all Orthodox Christians in that Church who know the Greek Language do receive the word Hypostasis in the same sense which the Latines use Persona The famous Nicene Councils having decreed that there were two Natures in Christ and one Hypostasis which signifies Subsistence this exactly answers to the Latine Persona Nestorius Bishop of Constantine broch'd this Heresy that in Christ there were two distinct persons and so Mary the Mother of Christ was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God against him Eutyches excellently disputed in the Fourth Action in the Council of Constantinople Eutyches declining the one fell into another Heresy asserting that there was but one Nature in Christ yet the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine and was not of the flesh of the Virgin but descended from God A great promoter of this impiety was Dioscurus Bishop of Alexandria a wicked and lewd person a Monster rather than a
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
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
makeing it distant from the temporal The scriptures were wrested and false Glosses put upon them Arrius did not deny the praeexistence of the Son of God who was Incarnate the difference was not concerning the Eternal Generation but the Consubstantiality Having thus proved that his Leviathan contains certain Haeretical propositions It remains that I prove these Heresies Criminal and thus I state the Question and pursue it 'T is one of Mr. Hob's great Artifices to avoid those absurdities into which his own sentiments casts him Mr. Hobs percieving that he is justly charg'd with this imputation writes the book call'd The Historical Narrative of Heresie The Parliament complain'd That in it were contain'd several Heretical Opinions i. e. Opinions declared Heresie by the Church and Laws of England he being a Subject to the King is obliged to obedience to the Laws of his Soveraign By this therefore he doth manifestly contradict himself and opposeth these his great Moral and Political Postulata's ' Nothing is Just or Unjust but what is made so by Law and that nothing is Criminal but what a Penal Law prohibits ' From this his most just charge he would free his Leviathan to shew that his attemts are frivolous it must be prov'd that his Leviathan doth contain Heretical Opinions To which he returns That there is no opinion that opposeth a Penal Statute or that no Person can be justly by the Civil Magistrate punish'd for any Opinion contain'd in the Leviathan For saith he ' All the Penal Laws against Hereticks were repeal'd in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth To remedy the Inconvenience which might arise by Novel Dogma's She apointed a Court called the High Commission to declare what was Heresie But that High Commission never declared what was Heresie or if they did it was to no purpose for they were not impower'd to inflict any punishment upon an Heretick Withal the Parliament abolishing that Court nothing could be accounted Heresie Besides the Leviathan was Printed in 1651. when it was lawful to Write or Preach any thing in matters of Religion ' To which I suppose that some nay many things contained in the Leviathan are Heretical and so judged by the Church and punishable by the Civil Majestrate Not to mention many I will assign these Two The Nature of God and the Mystery of the Individual Trinity are by him Heretically and Impiously explicated He Blasphemously avers God hath parts and makes the Persons of the Holy Trinity to be Temporal not Eternal both which are declared Heretical by the first Article and by the three Creeds The Athanasian Creed is imbodyed into the Common Law and that his opinion concerning the Trinity is Heretical is indubitable waveing the Contests he strives violently to maintain that Nothing in matters of Faith is declared Criminal by the Law or punishable by the Civil Magestrate For faith he ' the Lady Elizabeth in her first year repealed all the Laws Ecclesiastical of Queen Mary and all other Laws concerning the punishing of Hereticks nor did She enact any other punishment in their place ' These lines he could not deliver without that same arrogance by which he explodes the Universityes and accounts most of the Learned men in the World Fools For the Writs de Heretico Comburendo and de excommunicato capiendo were in force he adds in the 2 place it was enacted ' That the Queen by her Letters Patents should give a Commission to the Bishops with several other Persons in her Majesties name to execute his Power ecclesiastical this is granted he proceeds In which Commission the Commissioners were forbidden to adjudge any thing to be Heresy which was not declared to be Heresy by some of the four first General Concils nor was there any thing in that Commission concerning how Hereticks ought to be punished But it was granted to them to declare or not declare to be Heresy or not Heresy as they pleased any of those Doctrines which had been condemned in the four first general Councils for Heresie ' To refute this and what he subjoyns t is requisite that I give the words of the Statute ' They shall not meaning the High Commissioners have Authority or Power to order determine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four general Councils or any of them or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be ordered determined or adjudged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realme with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation ' By this it appears what a lame and false account he gives of the Statute for the Queen and her Parliament did not leave it indifferent to the High Commission to determine what was or what was not Heresy but limits them to declare what was Heresy or not Heresy not only to the four first general Councils as he seems falsely to insinuate but likewise to the express words of Scripture and to the Parliament which he seems to exclude for he omits the mentioning of them ' Nor was there he adds in that Commission any thing concerning how Hereticks ought to be punished ' The High Commission could not inflict capital punishment I hope Mr Hobs will not say there is no crime but t was capitall That the High Commission had power to punish persons in case of Heresy is evident both by the Law of England and practice of that Court. By the Law of England expressly by the Act Elizab that Court was Invested w th all Ecclesiastical power before the Cancelling of the High-Commission the Bishops had a Power to Imprison persons and the Writ de excommunicato capiendo still continues The words of the Act are that ' the Queen or any of her Successors should nominate one or more persons to use exercise and occupy all manner of jurisdictions priviledges or preeminences in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to visiâ— reforme redress order correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schismes c. ' It was perfect nonsence for a Parliament to enable the English Soveraign to erect a Court to punish and amend Errors and Heresies if the Law of England had not declared what was an Heresy and likewise not to Invest them with power to accomplish such ends which they had not if they could not inflict punishments he returned ' The jurisdiction was onely spiritual ' but to that was annexed a civil punishment Upon excommunication there lay a Writ de excommunicato capiendo that a Person excommunicated for Heresy or Errors in Doctrine by that Writ might be Imprisoned is clear as the day Certainly imprisonment is a civil Punishment This Writ lay against those who were obstinate Offenders in Causes Ecclesiastical is