that will voluntarily present himself to the Officers of Justice Do not we see that all men when they are led to Execution are both bound and guarded and would break loose if they could and get away Such is their Passive Obedience Christ saith The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Mat 23.3 which is a doing an Active Obedience and yet the Scribes and Pharisees appear not by the Scripture to have been such godly men as never to command any thing against the revealed Will of God B. Must Tyrants also be obeyed in every thing actively Or is there nothing wherein a lawful King's Command may be disobeyed What if he should command me with my own hands to execute my Father in case he should be condemn'd to die by the Law A. This is a Case that need not be put We never have read nor heard of any King or Tyrant so inhumane as to command it If any did we are to consider whether that Command were one of his Laws for by disobeying Kings we mean the disobeying of his Laws those his Laws that were made before they were applyed to any particular person for the King though as a Father of Children and a Master of Domestick Servants yet he commands the People in general never but by a precedent Law and as a Politick not a Natural Person And if such a Command as you speak of were contriv'd into a general Law which never was nor never will be you were bound to obey it unless you depart the Kingdom after the Publication of the Law and before the Condemnation of your Father B. Your Author says farther in refusing Active Obedience to the King that commanded any thing contrary to God's Law we must be very well assur'd that the thing is so contrary I would fain know how it is possible to be assur'd A. I think you do not believe that any of those Refusers do immediately from God's own mouth receive any command contrary to the Command of the King who is God's Lieutenant nor any other way than you and I do that is to say than by the Scriptures And because men do for the most part rather draw the Scripture to their own sense than follow the true sense of the Scripture there is no other way to know certainly and in all Cases what God commands or forbids us to do but by the Sentence of him or them that are constituted by the King to determine the sense of the Scripture upon hearing of the particular Case of Conscience which is in question And they that are so constituted are easily known in all Christian Common-wealths whether they be Bishops or Ministers or Assemblies that govern the Church under him or them that have the Sovereign Power B. Some doubts may be rais'd from this that you now say for if Men be to learn their Duty from the Sentence which other Men shall give concerning the meaning of the Scriptures and not from their own Interpretation I understand not to what end they were translated into English and every man not only permitted but also exhorted to read them For what could that produce but diversity of opinion and consequently as Man's Nature is Disputation breach of Charity Disobedience and at last Rebellion Again since the Scripture was allowed to be read in English why were not the Translations such as might make all that 's read understood even by mean Capacities Did not the Jews such as could read understand their Law in the Jewish Language as well as we do our Statute Laws in English And as for such places of the Scripture as had nothing of the Nature of a Law it was nothing to the Duty of the Jews whether they were understood or not seeing nothing is punishable but the Transgression of some Law The same Question I may ask concerning the New Testament for I believe that those Men to whom the Original Language was natural did understand sufficiently what Commands and Counsels were given them by our Saviour and his Apostles and his immediate Disciples Again how will you answer that Question which was put by St. Peter and St. John Acts 4.19 when by Annas the High Priest and others of the Councel of Jerusalem they were forbidden to teach any more in the Name of Jesus Whether is it right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God A. The Case is not the same Peter and John had seen and daily conversed with our Saviour and by the Miracles he wrought did know he was God and consequently knew certainly that their disobedience to the High-Priests present Command was just Can any Minister now say that he hath immediately from God's own Mouth receiv'd a Command to disobey the King or know otherwise than by the Scripture that any Command of the King that hath the Form and Nature of a Law is against the Law of God which in divers places directly and evidently commandeth to obey him in all things The Text you cite does not tell us that a Minister's Authority rather than a Christian King's shall decide the Questions that arise from the different Interpretations of the Scripture And therefore where the King is Head of the Church and by consequence to omit that the Scripture it self was not received but by the Authority of Kings and States Chief Judge of the rectitude of all Interpretations of the Scripture To obey the Kings Laws and publick Edicts is not to disobey but to obey God A Minister ought not to think that his skill in the Latin Greek or Hebrew Tongues if he have any gives him a Priviledge to impose upon all his Fellow-Subjects his own sense or what he pretends to be his sense of every obscure place of Scripture nor ought he as oft as he hath found out some fine Interpretation not before thought on by others to think he had it by Inspiration for he cannot be assur'd of that no nor that his Interpretation as fine as he thinks it is not false and then all his stubbornness and contumacy toward the King and his Laws is nothing but Pride of Heart and Ambition or else Imposture And whereas you think it needless or perhaps hurtful to have the Scriptures in English I am of another mind There are so many places of Scripture easie to be understood that teach both true Faith and good Morality and that as fully as is necessary to salvation of which no Seducer is able to dispossess the mind of any ordinary Readers that the reading of them is so profitable as not to be forbidden without great damage to them and the Common-wealth B. All that is requir'd both in Faith and Manners for Man's Salvation is I confess set down in Scripture as plainly as can be Children obey your Parents in all things Servants obey your Masters Let all Men be subject to the Higher Powers whether it be the King or those that
which is a Person indued with Authority universal to govern all Christian men on Earth no more than there is one Universal Soveraign Prince or State on Earth that hath right to govern all Mankind I deny also that the whole Clergy of a Christian Kingdom or State being assembled are the representative of that Church further than the Civil Laws permits or can lawfully assemble themselves unless by the command or by the leave of the Soveraign Civil Power I say further that the denyal of this point tendeth in England towards the taking away of the Kings Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical But his Lordship has not here denyed any thing of mine because he has done no more but set down my words He says further that this Doctrine destroyes the Authority of all General Councils which I confess Nor hath any General Council at this day in this Kingdom the force of a Law nor ever had but by the Authority of the King J. D. Neither is he more Orthodox concerning the Holy Scriptures Hitherto that is for the Books of Moses the power of making the Scripture Canonical was in the Civil Soveraign The like he saith of the Old Testament made Canonical by Esdras And of the New Testament That it was not the Apostles which made their own Writings Canonical but every Convert made them so to himself Yet with this restriction That until the Soveraign Ruler had prescribed them they were but Counsel and Advice which whether good or bad he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe and being contrary to the Laws established could not without injustice observe He maketh the Primitive Christians to have been in a pretty condition Certainly the Gospel was contrary to the Laws then established But most plainly The word of the Interpreter of the Scripture is the word of God And the same is the Interpreter of the Scripture and the Soveraign Judge of all Doctrines that is the Soveraign Magistrate to whose Authority we must stand no less than to theirs who at first did commend the Scripture to us for the Canon of Faith Thus if Christian Soveraigns of different Communications do clash one with another in their interpretations or misinterpretation of Scripture as they do daily then the word of God is contradictory to it self or that is the word of God in one Common-wealth which is the word of the Devil in another Common-wealth And the same thing may be true and not true at the same time Which is the peculiar priviledge of T.H. to make Contradictories to be true together T. H. There is no doubt but by what Authority the Scripture or any other Writing is made a Law by the same Authority the Scriptures are to be interpreted or else they are made Law in vain But to obey is one thing to believe is another which distinction perhaps his Lordship never heard of To obey is to do or forbear as one is commanded and depends on the Will but to believe depends not on the Will but on the providence and guidance of our hearts that are in the hands of God Almighty Laws only required obedience Belief requires Teachers and Arguments drawn either from Reason or from some thing already believed Where there is no reason for our Belief there is no reason we should believe The reason why men believe is drawn from the Authority of those men whom we have no just cause to mistrust that is of such men to whom no profit accrues by their deceiving us and of such men as never used to lye or else from the Authority of such men whose Promises Threats and Affirmations we have seen confirmed by God with Miracles If it be not from the Kings Authority that the Scripture is Law what other Authority makes it Law Here some man being of his Lordships judgment will perhaps laugh and say 't is the Authority of God that makes them Law I grant that But my question is on what Authority they believe that God is the Author of them Here his Lordship would have been at a Nonplus and turning round would have said the Authority of the Scripture makes good that God is their Author If it be said we are to believe the Scripture upon the Authority of the Universal Church why are not the Books we call Apocrypha the Word of God as well as the rest If this Authority be in the Church of England then it is not any other than the Authority of the Head of the Church which is the King For without the Head the Church is mute the Authority therefore is in the King which is all that I contended for in this point As to the Laws of the Gentiles concerning Religion in the Primitive times of the Church I confess they were contrary to Christian Faith But none of their Laws nor Terrors nor a mans own Will are able to take away Faith though they can compel to an external obedience and though I may blame the Ethnick Princes for compelling men to speak what they thought not yet I absolve not all those that have had the Power in Christian Churches from the same fault For I believe since the time of the first four General Councels there have been more Christians burnt and killed in the Christian Church by Ecclesiastical Authority than by the Heathen Emperors Laws for Religion only without Sedition All that the Bishop does in this Argument is but a heaving at the Kings Supremacy Oh but says he if two Kings interpret a place of Scripture in contrary sences it will follow that both sences are true It does not follow For the interpretation though it be made by just Authority must not therefore always be true If the Doctrine in the one sence be necessary to Salvation then they that hold the other must dye in their sins and be Damned But if the Doctrine in neither sence be necessary to Salvation then all is well except perhaps that they will call one another Atheists and fight about it J. D. All the power vertue use and efficacy which he ascribeth to the Holy Sacraments is to be signs or commemorations As for any sealing or confirming or conferring of Grace he acknowledgeth nothing The same he saith particularly of Baptism Upon which grounds a Cardinals red Hat or a Serjeant at Arms his Mace may be called Sacraments as well as Baptism or the holy Eucharist if they be only signs and commemorations of a benefit If he except that Baptism and the Eucharist are of Divine institution But a Cardinals red Hat or a Serjeant at Arms his Mace are not He saith truly but nothing to his advantage or purpose seeing he deriveth all the Authority of the Word and Sacraments in respect of Subjects and all our obligation to them from the Authority of the Soveraign Magistrate without which these words repent and be Baptized in the name of Jesus are but Counsel no Command And so a Serjeant at Arms his Mace and Baptism proceed both from
in defence of the Civil Power that must be punish'd by him whose Rights he defended like Vzza that was slain because he would needs unbidden put forth his Hand to keep the Ark from falling But what if a whole Nation should revolt from the Pope at once what effect could Excommunication have upon the Nation A. Why they should have no more Mass said at least by any of the Popes Priests Besides the Pope would have no more to do with them but cast them off and so they would be in the same Case as if a Nation should be cast off by their King and left to be governed by themselves or whom they would B. This would not be taken so much for a punishment to the People as to the King and therefore when a Pope Excommunicates a whole Nation methinks he rather Excommunicates himself than them But I pray you tell me what were the Rights that the Pope pretended to in the Kingdoms of other Princes A. First An Exemption of all Priests Friars and Monks in Criminal Causes from the Cognizance of Civil Judges Secondly Collation of Benefices on whom he pleased Native or Stranger and exaction of Tenths First Fruits and other Payments Thirdly Appeals to Rome in all Causes where the Church could pretend to be concern'd Fourthly To be the Supream Judge concerning Lawfulness of Marriage i. e. concerning the Hereditary Succession of Kings and to have the Cognisance of all Causes concerning Adultery and Fornication B. Good A Monopoly of Women A. Fifthly A Power of absolving Subjects of their Duties and of their Oaths of Fidelity to their lawful Sovereigns when the Pope should think fit for the extirpation of Heresie B. This Power of absolving Subjects of their Obedience as also that other of being Judge of Manners and Doctrine is as absolute a Sovereignty as is possible to be and consequently there must be two Kingdoms in one and the same Nation and no Man be able to know which of his Masters he must obey A. For my part I should rather obey that Master that had the Right of making Laws and of inflicting Punishments than him that pretendeth only to a Right of making Canons that is to say Rules and no Right of Co-action or otherwise punishing but by Excommunication B. But the Pope pretends also that his Canons are Laws and for punishing can there be greater than Excommunication supposing it true as the Pope saith it is that he that dies Excommunicate is damn'd Which supposition it seems you believe not else you would rather have chosen to obey the Pope that would cast you Body and Soul into Hell than the King that can only kill the Body A. You say true for it were very uncharitable in me to believe that all English men except a few Papists that have been born and called Hereticks ever since the Reformation of Religion in England should be damn'd B. But for those that die Excommunicate in the Church of England at this day do you not think them also damn'd A. Doubtless he that dies in sin without repentance is damn'd and he that is Excommunicate for disobedience to the Kings Laws either Spiritual or Temporal is Excommunicate for sin and therefore if he die Excommunicate and without desire of reconciliation he dies impenitent You see what follows but to die in disobedience to the Precepts and Doctrines of those Men that have no Authority or Jurisdiction over us is quite another Case and bringeth no such danger with it B. But what is this Heresie which the Church of Rome so cruelly persecutes as to depose Kings that do not when they are bidden turn all Hereticks out of their Dominions A. Heresie is a word which when it is used without passion signifies a private Opinion So the different Sects of the old Philosophers Academians Peripateticks Epicureans Stoicks c. were called Heresies but in the Christian Church there was in the signification of that word comprehended a sinful opposition to him that was chief Judge of Doctrines in order to the salvation of Mens Souls and consequently Heresie may be said to bear the same relation to the Power Spiritual that Rebellion doth to the Power Temporal and is suitably to be persecuted by him that will preserve a Power Spiritual and Dominion over Mens Consciences B. It would be very well because we are all of us permitted to read the Holy Scriptures and bound to make them the Rule of our Actions both publick and private that Heresie were by some Law defined and the particular Opinions set forth for which a man were to be condemned and punished as a Heretick for else not only Men of mean capacity but even the wisest and devoutest Christian may fall into Heresie without any will to oppose the Church for the Scriptures are hard and the Interpretations different of different men A. The meaning of the word Heresie is by Law declared in an Act of Parliament in the first year of Queen Elizabeth wherein it is ordain'd That the persons who had by the Queens Letters Patents the Authority Spiritual meaning the High Commission shall not have Authority to adjudge any Matter or Cause to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be Heresie by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or by any other General Council where the same was declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures or such as hereafter shall be adjudged Heresie by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm with the Assent of the Clergy in their Convocation B. It seems therefore if there arise any new error that hath not yet been declared Heresie and many such may arise it cannot be judged Heresie without a Parliament for how foul soever the error be it cannot have been declar'd Heresie neither in the Scriptures nor in the Councils because it was never before heard of and consequently there can be no error unless it fall within the compass of Blasphemy against God or Treason against the King for which a man can in Equity be punished Besides who can tell what is declared by the Scripture which every man is allowed to read and interpret to himself Nay more what Protestant either of the Laity or Clergy if every General Council can be a competent Judge of Heresie is not already condemned for divers Councils have declared a great many of our Doctrines to be Heresie and that as they pretend upon the Authority of the Scriptures A. What are those Points that the first four General Councils have declared Heresie B. The first General Council held at Nicaea declared all to be Heresie which was contrary to the Nicene Creed upon occasion of the Heresie of Arrius which was the denying the Divinity of Christ. The second General Council held at Constantinople declared Heresie the Doctrine of Macedonius which was that the Holy Ghost was created The third Council assembled at Ephesus condemned the
Doctrine of Nestorius that there were two Persons in Christ. The fourth held at Chalcedon condemned the error of Eutyches that there was but one Nature in Christ. I know of no other Points condemned in these four Councils but such as concern Church-Government or the same Doctrines taught by other Men in other words and these Councils were all called by the Emperors and by them their Decrees confirmed at the Petition of the Councils themselves A. I see by this that both the calling of the Council and the Confirmation of their Doctrine and Church-Government had no obligatory force but from the Authority of the Emperor How comes it then to pass that they take upon them now a Legislative Power and say their Canons are Laws That Text All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth had the same force then as it hath now and conferred a Legislative Power on the Councils not only over Christian Men but over all Nations in the World B. They say no for the Power they pretend to is derived from this that when a King was converted from Gentilisme to Christianity he did by that very submission to the Bishop that converted him submit to the Bishops Government and became one of his Sheep which Right therefore he could not have over any Nation that was not Christian. A. Did Sylvester which was Pope of Rome in the time of Constantine the great converted by him tell the Emperor his new Disciple before hand that if he became a Christian he must be the Popes Subject B. I believe not for it is likely enough if he had told him so plainly or but made him suspect it he would either have been no Christian at all or but a counterfeit one A. But if he did not tell him so and that plainly it was foul play not only in a Priest but in any Christian and for this derivation of their Right from the Emperors consent it proceeds only from this that they dare not challenge a Legislative Power nor call their Canons Laws in any Kingdom in Christendome farther than the Kings make them so But in Peru when Atabalipa was King the Frier told him that Christ being King of all the World had given the disposing of all the Kingdoms therein to the Pope and that the Pope had given Peru to the Roman Emperor Charles the 5 th and requir'd Atabalipa to resign it and for refusing it seized upon his person by the Spanish Army there present and murdered him you see by this how much they claim when they have power to make it good B. When began the Popes to take this Authority upon them first A. After the Inundation of Northern People had overflowed the Western parts of the Empire and possessed themselves of Italy the People of the City of Rome submitted themselves as well in Temporals as Spirituals to their Bishop and then first was the Pope a Temporal Prince and stood no more in so great fear of the Emperors which lived far off at Constantinople In this time it was that the Pope began by pretence of his Power Spiritual to encroach upon the Temporal Rights of all other Princes of the West and so continued gaining upon them till his Power was at the highest in that 300 years or thereabout which passed between the 8 th and 11 th Century that is between the time of Pope Leo the third and Pope Innocent the third For in this time Pope Zachary the first deposed Chilperic then King of France and gave the Kingdom to one of his Subjects Pepin and Pepin took from the Lombards a great part of their Territory and gave it to the Church Shortly after the Lombards having recover'd their Estate Charles the Great retook it and gave it to the Church again and Pope Leo the third made Charles Emperor B. But what Right did the Pope then pretend for the creating of an Emperor A. He pretended the Right of being Christ's Vicar and what Christ could give his Vicar might give and you know that Christ was King of all the World B. Yes as God and so he gives all the Kingdoms of the World which nevertheless proceed from the consent of People either for fear or hope A. But this Gift of the Empire was in a more special manner in such a manner as Moses had the Government of Israel given him or rather as Joshuah had it given him to go in and out before the People as the High-Priest should direct him and so the Empire was understood to be given him on condition to be directed by the Pope for when the Pope invested him with the Regal Ornaments the People all cried out Deus dat that is to say 't is God that gives it and the Emperor was contented so to take it And from that time all or most of the Christian Kings do put into their Titles the words Dei gratia that is by the Gift of God and their Successors use still to receive the Crown and Scepter from a Bishop B. 'T is certainly a very good Custom for Kings to be put in mind by whose Gift they Reign but it cannot from that Custom be inferr'd that they receive the Kingdom by mediation of the Pope or by any other Clergy for the Popes themselves receiv'd the Papacy from the Emperor The first that ever was elected Bishop of Rome after Emperors were Christians and without the Emperors consent excused himself by Letters to the Emperor with this That the People and Clergy of Rome forced him to take it upon him and prayed the Emperor to confirm it which the Emperor did but with reprehension of their proceedings and prohibition of the like for the time to come The Emperor was Lotharius and the Pope Calixtus the first A. You see by this the Emperor never acknowledged this Gift of God was the Gift of the Pope but maintained the Popedom was the Gift of the Emperor but in process of time by the negligence of the Emperors for the greatness of Kings makes them that they cannot easily descend into the obscure and narrow Mines of an ambitious Clergy they found means to make the People believe there was a Power in the Pope and Clergy which they ought to submit unto rather than to the Commands of their own Kings whensoever it should come into controversie And to that end devised and decreed many new Articles of Faith to the diminution of the Authority of Kings and to the disjunction of them and their Subjects and to a closer adherence of their Subjects to the Church of Rome Articles either not at all found in or not well founded upon the Scriptures As first that it should not be lawful for a Priest to marry B. What influence could that have upon the Power of Kings A. Do you not see that by this the King must of necessity either want the Priesthood and therewith a great part of the Reverence due to him from the most religious part of his Subjects or
lawful for a man to value his own life or his limbs more than his God How much is he wiser than the three Children or Daniel himself who were thrown the first into a fiery Furnace the last into the Lions Denn because they refused to comply with the Idolatrous Decree of their Soveraign Prince T. H. Here also my words are truly cited But his Lordship understood not what the word Worship signifies and yet he knew what I meant by it To think highly of God as I had defined it is to honour him But to think is internal To Worship is to signifie that Honour which we inwardly give by signs external This understood as by his Lordship it was all he says to it is but a cavil J. D. A fourth Aphorism may be this That which is said in the Scripture it is better to obey God than man hath place in the Kingdom of God by Pact and not by Nature Why Nature it self doth teach us it is better to obey God than men Neither can he say that he intended this only of obedience in the use of indifferent actions and gestures in the service of God commanded by the Common-wealth for that is to obey both God and man But if divine Law and humane Law clash one with another without doubt it is evermore better to obey God than man T. H. Here again appears his unskilfulness in reasoning Who denyes but it is alwayes and in all causes better to obey God than Man But there is no Law neither divine nor humane that ought to be taken for a Law till we know what it is and if a divine Law till we know that God hath commanded it to be kept We agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God But they are a Law by Pact that is to us who have been Baptized into the Covenant To all others it is an invitation only to their own benefit 'T is true that even nature suggesteth to us that the Law of God is to be obeyed rather than the Law of man But nature does not suggest to us that the Scripture is the Law of God much less how every Text of it ought to be interpreted But who then shall suggest this Dr. Bramhall I deny it Who then The stream of Divines Why so Am I that have the Scripture it self before my eyes obliged to venture my eternal life upon their interpretation how learned soever they pretend to be when no counter-security that they can give me will save me harmless If not the stream of Divines who then The lawful Assembly of Pastors or of Bishops But there can be no lawful Assembly in England without the Authority of the King The Scripture therefore what it is and how to be interpreted is made known unto us here by no other way than the Authority of our Soveraign Lord both in Temporals and Spirituals The Kings Majesty And where he has set forth no Interpretation there I am allowed to follow my own as well as any other man Bishop or not Bishop For my own part all that know me know also it is my opinion That the best government in Religion is by Episcopacy but in the King 's Right not in their own But my Lord of Derry not contented with this would have the utmost resolution of our Faith to be into the Doctrine of the Schools I do not think that all the Bishops be of his mind If they were I would wish them to stand in fear of that dreadful Sentence All covet all lose I must not let pass these words of his Lordship If divine Law and humane Law clash one with another without doubt it is better evermore to obey God than man Where the King is a Christian believes the Scripture and hath the Legislative power both in Church and State and maketh no Laws concerning Christian Faith or divine Worship but by the Counsel of his Bishops whom he trusteth in that behalf if the Bishops counsel him aright what clashing can there be between the divine and humane Laws For if the Civil Law be against God's Law and the Bishops make it clearly appear to the King that it clasheth with divine Law no doubt he will mend it by himself or by the advice of his Parliament for else he is no professor of Christ's Doctrine and so the clashing is at an end But if they think that every opinion they hold though obscure and unnecessary to Salvation ought presently to be Law then there will be clashings innumerable not only of Laws but also of Swords as we have found it too true by late experience But his Lordship is still at this that there ought to be for the divine Laws that is to say for the interpretation of Scripture a Legislative power in the Church distinct from that of the King which under him they enjoy already This I deny Then for clashing between the Civil Laws of Infidels with the Law of God the Apostles teach that those their Civil Laws are to be obeyed but so as to keep their Faith in Christ entirely in their hearts which is an obedience easily performed But I do not believe that Augustus Caesar or Nero was bound to make the holy Scripture Law and yet unless they did so they could not attain to eternal life J. D. His fifth conclusion may be that the sharpest and most successful Sword in any War whatsoever doth give Soveraign Power and Authority to him that hath it to approve or reject all sorts of Theological Doctrines concerning the Kingdom of God not according to their truth or falshood but according to that influence which they have upon political affairs Hear him But because this Doctrine will appear to most men a novelty I do but propound it maintaining nothing in this or any other Paradox of Religion but attending the end of that dispute of the Sword concerning the Authority not yet amongst my Country-men decided by which all sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or rejected c. For the points of Doctrine concerning the Kingdom of God have so great influence upon the Kingdom of Man as not to be determined but by them that under God have the Soveraign Power Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat Let him evermore want success who thinketh actions are to be judged by their events This Doctrine may be plausible to those who desire to fish in troubled Waters But it is justly hated by those which are in Authority and all those who are lovers of peace and tranquillity The last part of this conclusion smelleth rankly of Jeroboam Now shall the Kingdom return to the house of David if this people go up to do Sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem whereupon the King took counsel and made two Calves of Gold and said unto them It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt But by the
from sin and to exhort them by good motives both from Scripture and Reason to obey the Laws and supposeth them though under forty years old by the help they have in the University able in case the Law be not written to teach the people old and young what they ought to follow in doubtful cases of Conscience that is to say they are authorised to expound the Laws of Nature but not so as to make it a doubtful case whether the King's Laws be to be obeyed or not All they ought to do is from the King's Authority And therefore this my Doctrine is no Weed J. D. 17. He admitteth incestuous Copulations of the Heathens according to their Heathenish Laws to have been lawful Marriages Though the Scripture teach us expresly that for those abominations the Land of Canaan spued out her Inhabitants Levit. 18.28 T. H. The 17 th he hath corrupted with a false interpretation of the Text. For in that Chapter from the beginning to verse 20 are forbidden Marriages in certain degrees of kindred From verse 20 which begins with Moreover to the 28 th are forbidden Sacrificing of Children to Molech and Prophaning of God's name and Buggery with Man and Beast with this cause exprest For all these abominations have the men of the Land done which were before you and the Land is defiled That the Land spue not you out also As for Marriages within the degrees prohibited they are not referred to the abominations of the Heathen Besides for some time after Adam such Marriages were necessary J. D. 18. I say that no other Article of Faith besides this that Jesus is Christ is necessary to a Christian man for Salvation 19. Because Christ's Kingdom is not of this World therefore neither can his Ministers unless they be Kings require obedience in his name They have no right of Commanding no power to make Laws T. H. These two smell comfortably and of Scripture The contrary Doctrine smells of Ambition and encroachment of Jurisdiction or Rump of the Roman Tyranny J. D. 20. I pass by his errors about Oaths about Vows about the Resurrection about the Kingdom of Christ about the Power of the Keys Binding Loosing Excommunication c. his ignorant mistakes of meritum congrui and condigni active and passive obedience and many more for fear of being tedious to the Reader T. H. The tears of School Divinity of which number are meritum congrui meritum condigni and passive obedience are so obscure as no man living can tell what they mean so that they that use them may admit or deny their meaning as it shall serve their turns I said not that this was their meaning but that I thought it was so For no man living can tell what a School man means by his words Therefore I expounded them according to their true signification Merit ex condigno is when a thing is deserved by Pact as when I say the Labourer is worthy of his hire I mean meritum ex condigno But when a man of his own grace throweth Money among the people with an intention that what part soever of it any of them could catch he that catcheth merits it not by Pact nor by precedent Merit as a Labourer but because it was congruent to the purpose of him that cast it amongst them In all other meaning these words are but Jargon which his Lordship had learnt by rote Also passive obedience signifies nothing except it may be called passive obedience when a man refraineth himself from doing what the Law hath forbidden For in his Lordship's sense the Thief that is hang'd for stealing hath fulfilled the Law which I think is absurd J. D. His whole works are a heap of mishapen Errors and absurd Paradoxes vented with the confidence of a Jugler the brags of a Mountebank and the Authority of some Pythagoras or third Cato lately dropped down from Heaven Thus we have seen how the Hobbian Principles do destroy the Existence the Simplicity the Ubiquity the Eternity and Infiniteness of God the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity the Hypostatical Union the Kingly Sacerdotal and Prophetical Office of Christ the Being and Operation of the Holy Ghost Heaven Hell Angels Devils the Immortality of the Soul the Catholick and all National Churches the holy Scriptures holy Orders the holy Sacraments the whole frame of Religion and the Worship of God the Laws of Nature the reality of Goodness Justice Piety Honesty Conscience and all that is Sacred If his Disciples have such an implicite Faith that they can digest all these things they may feed with Ostriches T. H. He here concludes his first Chapter with bitter Reproaches to leave in his Reader as he thought a sting supposing perhaps that he will Read nothing but the beginning and end of his Book as is the custom of many men But to make him lose that petty piece of cunning I must desire of the Reader one of these two things Either that he would read with it the places of my Leviathan which he cites and see not only how he answers my arguments but also what the arguments are which he produceth against them or else that he would forbear to condemn me so much as in his thought for otherwise he is unjust The name of Bishop is of great Authority but these words are not the words of a Bishop but of a passionate School-man too fierce and unseemly in any man whatsoever Besides they are untrue Who that knows me will say I have the confidence of a Jugler or that I use to brag of any thing much less that I play the Mountebank What my works are he was no sit Judge But now he has provoked me I will say thus much of them that neither he if he had lived could nor I if I would can extinguish the light which is set up in the World by the greatest part of them and for these Doctrines which he impugneth I have few opposers but such whose Profit or whose Fame in Learning is concerned in them He accuses me first of destroying the Existence of God that is to say he would make the World believe I were an Atheist But upon what ground Because I say that God is a Spirit but Corporeal But to say that is allowed me by St. Paul that says There is a Spiritual Body and there is an Animal Body 1 Cor. 15. He that holds that there is a God and that God is really somewhat for Body is doubtlesly a real Substance is as far from being an Atheist as is possible to be But he that says God is an Incorporeal Substance no man can be sure whether he be an Atheist or not For no man living can tell whether there be any Substance at all that is not also Corporeal For neither the word Incorporeal nor Immaterial nor any word equivalent to it is to be found in Scripture or in Reason But on the contrary that the Godhead dwelleth bodily in Christ is found in Colos. 2.9
and Tertullian maintains that God is either a Corporeal Substance or Nothing Nor was he ever condemned for it by the Church For why Not only Tertullian but all the learned call Body not only that which one can see but also whatsoever has magnitude or that is somewhere for they had greater reverence for the Divine Substance than that they durst think it had no Magnitude or was no where But they that hold God to be a Phantasm as did the Exorcists in the Church of Rome that is such a thing as were at that time thought to be the Sprights that were said to walk in Church-yards and to be the Souls of men buried they do absolutely make God to be nothing at all But how Were they Atheists No. For though by ignorance of the consequence they said that which was equivolent to Atheism yet in their hearts they thought God a Substance and would also if they had known what Substance and what Corporeal meant have said he was a Corporeal Substance So that this Atheism by consequence is a very easie thing to be fallen into even by the most Godly men of the Church He also that says that God is wholly here and wholly there and wholly every where destroys by consequence the Unity of God and the Infiniteness of God and the Simplicity of God And this the Schoolmen do and are therefore Atheists by consequence and yet they do not all say in their hearts that there is no God So also his Lordship by exempting the Will of man from being subject to the necessity of God's Will or Decree denies by consequence the Divine Praescience which also will amount to Atheism by consequence But out of this that God is a Spirit corporeal and infinitely pure there can no unworthy or dishonourable consequence be drawn Thus far to his Lordship's first Chapter in Justification of my Leviathan as to matter of Religion and especially to wipe off that unjust slander cast upon me by the Bishop of Derry As for the second Chapter which concerns my Civil Doctrines since my errors there if there be any will not tend very much to my disgrace I will not take the pains to answer it Whereas his Lordship has talked in his discourse here and there ignorantly of Heresie and some others have not doubted to say publickly that there be many Heresies in my Leviathan I will add hereunto for a general answer an Historical relation concerning the word Heresie from the first use of it amongst the Graecians till this present time FINIS AN Historical Narration CONCERNING HERESIE AND THE Punishment thereof BY THOMAS HOBBES OF MALMESBURY At veluti Pueri trepidant atque omnia caecis In tenebris metuunt Sic nos in luce timemus Interdum nihilo quae sunt metuenda magis quà m Quae Pueri in tenebris pavitant metuuntque futura Lucr. lib. 2.3 6. LONDON Printed in the Year 1682. Haereseωs Larvas Sectarum immania Monstra Hobbius invicto dispulit ingenio AN Historical Narration CONCERNING HERESIE AND THE Punishment thereof THE word Heresie is Greek and signifies a taking of any thing and particularly the taking of an Opinion After the study of Philosophy begun in Greece and the Philosophers disagreeing amongst themselves had started many Questions not only about things Natural but also Moral and Civil because every man took what Opinion he pleased each several Opinion was called a Heresie which signified no more than a private Opinion without reference to truth or falshood The beginners of these Heresies were chiefly Pythagoras Plato Aristotle Epicurus Zeno men who as they held many Errors so also found they out many true and useful Doctrines in all kinds of Learning and for that cause were well esteemed of by the greatest Personages of their own times and so also were some few of their Followers But the rest ignorant men and very often needy Knaves having learned by heart the Opinions of these admir'd Philosophers and pretending to take after them made use thereof to get their Living by the teaching of Rich mens Children that happened to be in love with those great Names Tho' by their impertinent Discourse sordid and ridiculous Manners they were generally despised of what Sect or Heresie soever whether they were Pythagoreans or Academicks Followers of Plato or Peripateticks Followers of Aristotle Epicureans or Stoicks Followers of Zeno For these were the names of Heresies or as the Latines call them Sects à sequendo so much talkt of from after the time of Alexander till this present day and that have perpetually troubled or deceived the people with whom they lived and were never more numerous than in the time of the Primitive Church The Heresie of Aristotle by the Revolutions of time has had the good fortune to be predominant over the rest However originally the name of Heresie was no disgrace nor the word Heretick at all in use Tho' the several Sects especially the Epicureans and the Stoicks hated one another and the Stoicks being the fiercer men used to revile those that differed from them with the most despightful words they could invent It cannot be doubted but that by the preaching of the Apostles and Disciples of Christ in Greece and other parts of the Roman Empire full of these Philosophers many thousands of men were converted to the Christian Faith some really and some feignedly for factious ends or for need for Christians lived then in common and were charitable and because most of these Philosophers had better skill in Disputing and Oratory than the Common people and thereby were better qualified both to defend and propagate the Gospel there is no doubt I say but most of the Pastors of the Primitive Church were for that reason chosen out of the number of these Philosophers who retaining still many Doctrines which they had taken up on the authority of their former Masters whom they had in reverence endeavoured many of them to draw the Scriptures every one to his own Heresie And thus at first entred Heresie into the Church of Christ. Yet these men were all of them Christians as they were when they were first baptized Nor did they deny the Authority of those Writings which were left them by the Apostles and Evangelists tho' they interpreted them many times with a bias to their former Philosophy And this Dissention amongst themselves was a great scandal to the Unbelievers and which not only obstructed the way of the Gospel but also drew scorn and greater Persecution upon the Church For remedy whereof the chief Pastors of Churches did use at the rising of any new Opinion to assemble themselves for the examining and determining of the same wherein if the Author of the Opinion were convinced of his Error and subscribed to the Sentence of the Church assembled then all was well again but if he still persisted in it they laid him aside and considered him but as an Heathen man which to an unfeigned Christian was a great Ignominy and of
some Divine of good Reputation and Learning and of the late King's Party A. I think I can recommend unto you the best that is extant and such a one as except a few passages that I mislike is very well worth your reading The Title of it is The whole Duty of Man laid down in a plain and familiar way and yet I dare say that if the Presbyterian Ministers even those of them which were the most diligent Preachers of the late Sedition were to be tryed by it they would go near to be found Not Guilty He has divided the Duty of Man into three great Branches which are his Duty to God to Himself and to his Neighbour In his Duty to God he puts the acknowledgement of him in his Essence and his Attributes and in the believing of his Word His Attributes are Omnipotence Omniscience Infiniteness Justice Truth Mercy and all the rest that are found in Scripture Which of these did not those seditious Preachers acknowledge equally with the best of Christians The Word of God are the Books of Holy Scripture receiv'd for Canonical in England B. They receive the Word of God but 't is according to their own Interpretation A. According to whose Interpretation was it receiv'd by the Bishops and the rest of the Loyal Party but their own He puts for another Duty Obedience and Submission to Gods Will. Did any of them nay did any man living do any thing at any time against God's Will B. By God's Will I suppose he means there his revealed Will that is to say his Commandements which I am sure they did most horribly break both by their preaching and otherwise A. As for their Actions there is no doubt but all men are guilty enough if God deal severely with them to be damn'd And for their preaching they will say they thought it agreeable to Gods revealed Will in the Scriptures if they thought it so it was not disobedience but error and how can any man prove they thought otherwise B. Hypocrisie hath this great Prerogative above other sins that it cannot be accus'd A. Another Duty he sets down is to Honour him in his House that is the Church in his Possessions in his Day in his Word and Sacraments B. They perform this Duty as well I think as any other Ministers I mean the Loyal Party and the Presbyterians have always had an equal care to have God's House free from Profanation To have Tithes duly paid and Offerings accepted To have the Sabbath-day kept holy the Word preached and the Lords Supper and Baptism duly administred But is not keeping of the Feasts and of the Fasts one of those Duties that belong to the Honour of God If it be the Presbyterians fail in that A. Why so They kept some Holy-days and they had Fasts amongst themselves though not upon the same days that the Church ordains but when they thought fit as when it pleased God to give the King any notable Victory and they govern'd themselves in this Point by the Holy Scripture as they pretend to believe and who can prove they do not believe so B. Let us pass over all other Duties and come to that Duty which we owe to the King and consider whether the Doctrine taught by those Divines which adhered to the King be such in that Point as may justifie the Presbyterians that incited the People to Rebellion for that 's the thing you call in question Concerning our Duty to our Rulers he hath these words An Obedience we must pay either active or passive the active in the case of all lawful Commands that is whenever the Magistrate commands something which is not contrary to some Command of God we are then bound to act according to that Command of the Magistrate to do the things he requires but when he enjoyns any thing contrary to what God hath commanded we are not then to pay him this Active Obedience we may nay we must refuse thus to act yet here we must be very well assur'd that the thing is so contrary and not pretend Conscience for a Cloak of stubbornness we are in that Case to obey God rather than Men but even this is a season for the Passive Obedience we must patiently suffer what he inflicts on us for such refusal and not to secure our selves rise up against him B. What is there in this to give colour to the late Rebellion A. They will say they did it in obedience to God in as much as they did believe it was according to the Scripture out of which they will bring Examples perhaps of David and his adherents that resisted King Saul and of the Prophets afterward that vehemently from time to time preached against the Idolatrous Kings of Israel and Judah Saul was their lawful King and yet they paid him neither Active nor Passive Obedience for they did put themselves into a posture of defence against him though David himself spared his Person and so did the Presbyterians put into their Commissions to their General that they should spare the King's Person Besides you cannot doubt but that they who in the Pulpit did animate the People to take Arms in defence of the then Parliament alleadged Scripture that is the Word of God for it If it be lawful then for Subjects to resist the King when he commands any thing that is against the Scripture that is contrary to the Command of God and to be Judge of the meaning of the Scripture it is impossible that the Life of any King or the Peace of any Christian Kingdom can be long secure It is this Doctrine that divides a Kingdom within it self whatsoever the Men be Loyal or Rebels that write or preach it publickly And thus you see that if those seditious Ministers be tryed by this Doctrine they will come off well enough B. I see it and wonder at People that having never spoken with God Almighty nor knowing one more than another what he hath said when the Laws and the Preacher disagree should so keenly follow the Minister for the most part an Ignorant though a ready Tongu'd Scholar rather than the Laws that were made by the King with the consent of the Peers and the Commons of the Land A. Let us examine his words a little nearer First Concerning Passive Obedience When a Thief hath broken the Laws and according to the Law is therefore executed can any man understand that this suffering of his is an obedience to the Law Every Law is a Command to do or to forbear neither of these is fulfilled by suffering If any Suffering can be called Obedience it must be such as is voluntary for no involuntary Action can be counted a submission to the Law He that means that his suffering should be taken for obedience must not only not resist but also not fly nor hide himself to avoid his punishment and who is there amongst them that discourses of Passive Obedience when his Life is in extream danger
are sent by him Love God with all your Soul and your Neighbour as your self are words of the Scripture which are well enough understood but neither Children nor the greatest part of Men do understand why it is their Duty to do so They see not that the safety of the Common-wealth and consequently their own depends upon their doing it Every man by nature without discipline does in all his Actions look upon as far as he can see the benefit that shall redound to himself from his obedience He reads that Covetousness is the root of all evil but he thinks and sometimes finds it is the root of his Estate And so in other Cases the Scripture says one thing and they think another weighing the Commodities or Incommodities of this present life only which are in their sight never putting into the Scales the Good and Evil of the Life to come which they see not A. All this is no more than happens where the Scripture is seal'd up in Greek and Latin and the People taught the same things out of them by Preachers But they that are of a Condition and Age fit to examine the sense of what they read and that take a delight in searching out the Grounds of their Duty certainly cannot choose but by their reading of the Scriptures come to such a sense of their Duty as not only to obey the Laws themselves but also to induce others to do the same for commonly Men of Age and Quality are followed by their inferior Neighbours that look more upon the Example of those Men whom they reverence and whom they are unwilling to displease than upon Precepts and Laws B. These Men of the Condition and Age you speak of are in my opinion the unfittest of all others to be trusted with the reading of the Scriptures I know you mean such as have studied the Greek or Latin or both Tongues and that are withal such as love knowledge and consequently take delight in finding out the meaning of the most hard Texts or in thinking they have found it in case it be new and not found out by others These are therefore they that pretermitting the easie places which teach them their Duty fall to scanning only of the Mysteries of Religion such as are How it may be made out with wit that there be three that bear Rule in Heaven and those three but One How the Deity could be made Flesh How that Flesh could be really present in many places at once Where 's the Place and what the Torments of Hell and other Metaphysical Doctrines Whether the Will of Man be free or governed by the Will of God Whether Sanctity comes by Inspiration or Education By whom Christ now speaks to us Whether by the King or by the Clergy or by the Bible to every man that reads it and interprets it to himself or by a private Spirit to every private Man These and the like Points are the study of the Curious and the cause of all our late mischief and the cause that makes the plainer sort of Men whom the Scripture had taught belief in Christ Love towards God Obedience to the King and sobriety of behaviour forget it all and place their Religion in the disputable Doctrines of these your wise Men. A. I do not think these men fit to interpret the Scripture to the rest nor do I say that the rest ought to take their Interpretation for the Word of God Whatsoever is necessary for them to know is so easie as not to need Interpretation Whatsoever is more does them no good But in case any of those unnecessary Doctrines shall be authorized by the Laws of the King or other State I say it is the Duty of every Subject not to speak against them in as much as it is every man's Duty to obey Him or Them that have the Sovereign Power and the Wisdom of all such Powers to punish such as shall publish or teach their private Interpretations when they are contrary to the Law and likely to incline men to Sedition or Disputing against the Law B. They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities for such curious Questions in Divinity are first started in the Universities and so are all those Politick Questions concerning the Rights of Civil and Ecclesiastick Government and there they are furnished with Arguments for Liberty out of the Works of Aristotle Plato Cicero Seneca and out of the Histories of Rome and Greece for their Disputation against the necessary Power of their Sovereigns Therefore I despair of any lasting Peace amongst our selves till the Universities here shall bend and direct their Studies to the setling of it that is to the teaching of absolute Obedience to the Laws of the King and to his Publick Edicts under the Great Seal of England for I make no doubt but that solid Reason back'd with the Authority of so many Learned Men will more prevail for the keeping of us in peace within our selves than any Victory can do over the Rebels but I am afraid that 't is impossible to bring the Universities to such a compliance with the Actions of State as is necessary for the business A. Seeing the Universities have heretofore from time to time maintain'd the Authority of the Pope contrary to all Laws Divine Civil and Natural against the Right of our Kings why can they not as well when they have all manner of Laws and Equity on their side maintain the Rights of him that is both Sovereign of the Kingdom and Head of the Church B. Why then were they not in all Points for the King's Power presently after that King Henry the 8 th was in Parliament declared Head of the Church as much as they were before for the Authority of the Pope A. Because the Clergy in the Universities by whom all things there are governed and the Clergy without the Universities as well Bishops as inferior Clerks did think that the pulling down of the Pope was the setting up of them as to England in his place and made no question the greatest part of them but that their Spiritual Power did depend not upon the Authority of the King but of Christ himself derived to them by a successive Imposition of Hands from Bishop to Bishop notwithstanding they knew that this derivation passed through the Hands of Popes and Bishops whose Authority they had cast off For though they were content that the Divine Right which the Pope pretended to in England should be denied him yet they thought it not so fit to be taken from the Church of England whom they now supposed themselves to represent It seems they did not think it reasonable that a Woman or a Child or a Man that could not construe the Hebrew Greek or Latin Bible nor know perhaps the Declensions and Conjugations of Greek or Latin Nouns and Verbs should take upon him to govern so many learned Doctors in matters of Religion meaning matters
God He offers no proof against any of this but says only I make Atheism to be more reasonable than Superstition which is not true For I deny that there is any reason either in the Atheist or in the Superstitious And because the Atheist thinks he has reason where he has none I think him the more irrational of the two But all this while he argues not against any of this but enquires only what is become of my natural Worship of God and of his Existency Infiniteness Incomprehensibility Unity and Ubiquity As if whatsoever reason can suggest must be suggested all at once First all men by nature had an opinion of Gods Existency but of his other Attributes not so soon but by reasoning and by degrees And for the Attributes of the true God they were never suggested but by the Word of God written In that I say Atheism is a sin of ignorance he says I excuse it The Prophet David says The fool hath said in his heart There is no God Is it not then a sin of folly 'T is agreed between us that right reason dictates There is a God Does it not follow that denying of God is a sin proceeding from mis-reasoning If it be not a sin of ignorance it must be a sin of malice Can a man malice that which he thinks has no being But may not one think there is a God and yet maliciously deny him If he think there is a God he is no Atheist and so the question is changed into this whether any man that thinks there is a God dares deliberately deny it For my part I think not For upon what confidence dares any man deliberately I say oppose the Omnipotent David saith of himself My feet were ready to slip when I saw the prosperity of the wicked Therefore it is likely the feet of men less holy slip oftner But I think no man living is so daring being out of passion as to hold it as his opinion Those wicked men that for a long time proceeded so succesfully in the late horrid Rebellion may perhaps make some think they were constant and resolved Atheists but I think rather that they forgot God than believed there was none He that believes there is such an Atheist comes a little too near that opinion himself Nevertheless if words spoken in passion signifie a denial of a God no punishment praeordained by Law can be too great for such an insolence because there is no living in a Common-wealth with men to whose oaths we cannot reasonably give credit As to that I say An Atheist is punished by God not as a Subject by his King but as an Enemy and to my argument for it namely because he never acknowledged himself Gods Subject He opposeth That if nature dictate that there is a God and to be worshiped in such and such manner then Atheism is not a sin of meer ignorance as if either I or he did hold that Nature dictates the manner of Gods Worship or any article of our Creed or whether to worship with or without a Surplice Secondly he answers that a Rebel is still a Subject de Jure though not de Facto And 't is granted But though the King lose none of his right by the Traytors act yet the Traytor loseth the priviledg of being punisht by a praecedent Law and therefore may be punish'd at the Kings will as Ravillac was for murdering Henry the 4th of France An open Enemy and a perfidious Traytor are both enemies Had not his Lordship read in the Roman story how Perseus and other just enemies of that State were wont to be punished But what is this trifling question to my excusing of Atheism In the seventh Paragraph of my Book de Cive he found the words in Latin which he here citeth And to the same sense I have said in my Leviathan That the right of nature whereby God raigneth over men is to be derived not from his creating them as if he required obedience as of Gratitude but from his irresistable Power This he says is absurd and dishonourable Whereas first all power is honourable and greatest power is most honourable Is it not a more noble tenure for a King to hold his Kingdom and the right to punish those that transgress his Laws from his Power than from the gratitude or gift of the Transgressor There is nothing therefore here of dishonour to God Almighty But see the subtility of his disputing He saw he could not catch Leviathan in this place he looks for him in my Book de Cive which is Latine to try what he could fish out of that And says I make our obedience to God depend upon our weakness as if these words signified the Dependence and not the necessity of our submission or that incumbere and dependere were all one J. D. For T. H. his God is not the God of Christians nor of any rational men Our God is every where and seeing he hath no parts he must be wholly here and wholly there and wholly every where So Nature it self dictateth It cannot be said honourably of God that he is in a place for nothing is in a place but that which hath proper bounds of its greatness But T. H. his God is not wholly every where No man can conceive that any thing is all in this place and all in another place at the same time for none of these things ever have or can be incident to sense So far well if by conceiving he mean comprehending but then follows That these are absurd Speeches taken upon credit without any signification at all from deceived Philosophers and deceived or deceiving School-men Thus he denieth the Ubiquity of God A Circumscriptive a Definitive and a Repletive being in a place is some heathen language to him T. H. Though I believe the Omnipotence of God and that he can do what he will yet I dare not say how every thing is done because I cannot conceive nor comprehend either the Divine substance or the way of its operation And I think it Impiety to speak concerning God any thing of my own head or upon the Authority of Philosophers or School-men which I understand not without warrant in the Scripture And what I say of Omnipotence I say also of Ubiquity But his Lordship is more valiant in this place telling us that God is wholly here and wholly there and wholly every where because he has no parts I cannot comprehend nor conceive this For methinks it implies also that the whole World is also in the whole God and in every part of God nor can I conceive how any thing can be called Whole which has no parts nor can I find any thing of this in the Scripture If I could find it there I could believe it and if I could find it in the publick Doctrine of the Church I could easily abstain from contradicting it The School-men say also that the Soul of Man meaning his upper Soul which
they call the rational Soul is also wholly in the whole man and wholly in every part of the man What is this but to make the humane Soul the same thing in respect of mans Body that God is in respect of the World These his Lordship calls here rational men and some of them which applaud this Doctrine would have the High Court of Parliament corroborate such Doctrines with a Law I said in my Leviathan that it is no honourable attribute to God to say he is in a place because infinite is not confined within a place To which he replies T. H. his God is not wholly every where I confess the consequence For I understand in English he that says any thing to be all here means that neither all nor any of the same thing is else where He says further I take a Circumscriptive a Definitive and a Repletive being in a place to be Heathen Language Truly if this Dispute were at the Bar I should go near to crave the assistance of the Court lest some trick might be put upon me in such obscurity For though I know what these Latin words singly signifie yet I understand not how any thing is in a Place Definitively and not Circumscriptively For Definitively comes from definio which is to set bounds And therefore to be in a Place Definitively is when the bounds of the place are every way marked out But to be in a place Circumscriptively is when the bounds of the place are described round about To be in a Place Repletive is to fill a place Who does not see that this dictinction is Canting and Fraud If any man will call it Pious Fraud he is to prove the Piety as clearly as I have here explained the Fraud Besides no Fraud can be Pious in any man but him that hath a lawful Right to govern him whom he beguileth whom the Bishop pretends to govern I cannot tell Besides his Lordship ought to have considered that every Bishop is one of the Great Councel trusted by the King to give their advice with the Lords Temporal for the making of good Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical and not to offer them such obscure Doctrines as if because they are not versed in School-divinity therefore they had no Learning at all nor understood the English Tongue Why did the Divines of England contend so much heretofore to have the Bible translated into English if they never meant any but themselves should read it If a Lay-man be publickly encouraged to search the Scriptures for his own Salvation what has a Divine to do to impose upon him any strange interpretation unless if he make him err to Damnation he will be damned in his stead J. D. Our God is immutable without any shadow of turning by change to whom all things are present nothing past nothing to come But T. H. his God is measured by time losing somthing that is past and acquiring somthing that doth come every minute That is as much as to say That our God is infinite and his God is finite for unto that which is actually infinite nothing can be added neither time nor parts Hear himself Nor do I understand what derogation it can be to the divine perfection to attribute to it Potentiality that is in English Power so little doth he understand what Potentiality is and successive duration And he chargeth it upon us as a fault that will not have eternity to be an endless succession of time How successive duration and an endless succession of time in God Then God is infinite then God is elder to day than he was yesterday Away with Blasphemies Before he destroyed the Ubiquity of God and now he destroyeth his Eternity T. H. I shall omit both here and henceforth his preambulatory impertinent and uncivil calumnies The thing he pretends to prove is this That it is a derogation to the Divine Power to attribute to it Potentiality that is in English Power and Successive Duration One of his reasons is God is infinite and nothing can be added to infinite neither of time nor of parts It is true And therefore I said God is infinite and eternal without beginning or end either of Time or Place which he has not here confuted but confirmed He denies Potentiality and Power to be all one and says I little understand what Potentiality is He ought therefore in this place to have defined what Potenality is For I understand it to be the same with Potentia which is in English Power There is no such word as Potentiality in the Scriptures nor in any Author of the Latin Tongue It is found only in School-Divinity as a word of Art or rather as a word of Craft to amaze and puzzle the Laity And therefore I no sooner read than intepreted it In the next place he says as wondring How an endless succession of time in God! Why not Gods mercy endureth for ever and surely God endureth as long as his mercy therefore there is duration in God and consequently endless succession of time God who in sundry times and divers manners spake in time past c. But in a former dispute with me about Free-will he hath defined Eternity to be Nunc stans that is an ever standing now or everlasting instant This he thinks himself bound in honour to defend What reasonable soul can digest this We read in Scripture that a thousand years with God is but as yesterday And why but because he sees as clearly to the end of a thousand years as to the end of a day But his Lordship affirms That both a thousand years and a day are but one instant the same standing Now or Eternity If he had shewed an holy Text for this Doctrine or any Text of the Book of Common Prayer in the Scripture and Book of Common Prayer is contained all our Religion I had yielded to him but School-Divinity I value little or nothing at all Though in this he contradict also the School-men who say the Soul is eternal only à parte post but God is eternal both à parte post and à parte ante Thus there are parts in eternity and eternity being as his Lordship says the divine substance the divine substance has parts and Nunc stans has parts Is not this darkness I take it to be the Kingdom of Darkness and the teachers of it especially of this Doctrine That God who is not only Optimus but also Maximus is no greater than to be wholly contained in the least Atome of earth or other body and that his whole duration is but an instant of time to be either grosly ignorant or ungodly Deceivers J. D. Our God is a perfect pure simple indivisible infinite Essence free from all composition of matter and form of substance and accidents All matter is finite and he who acteth by his infinite Essence needeth neither Organs nor Faculties id est no power note that nor accidents to render him more compleat But T. H.
were not only a sinful Scandal in respect of other Christian Mens Consciences but a perfidious forsaking of his Charge In which words I distinguish between a Pastor and one of the Sheep of his Flock St. Peter sinned in denying Christ and so does every Pastor that having undertaken the Charge of Preaching the Gospel in the Kingdom of an Infidel where he could expect at the undertaking of his Charge no less than Death And why but because he violates his Trust in doing contrary to his Commission St. Peter was an Apostle of Christ and bound by his voluntary undertaking of that Office not only to Confess Christ but also to Preach him before those Infidels whom he knew would like Wolves devour him And therefore when Paul and the rest of the Apostles were forbidden to preach Christ they gave this Answer We ought to obey God rather than Men. And it was to his Disciples only which had undertaken that Office that Christ saith he that denyeth me before Men shall be denyed before the Angels of God And so I think I have sufficiently answered this place and shewed that I do not allow the denying of Christ upon any colour of Torments to his Lordship nor to any other that has undertaken the Office of a Preacher Which if he think right he will perhaps in this case put himself into the number of those whom he calls merciful Doctors whereas now he extends his severity beyond the bounds of common equity He has read Cicero and perhaps this Story in him The Senate of Rome would have sent Cicero to treat of Peace with Marcus Antonius but when Cicero had shewed them the just fear he had of being killed by him he was excused and if they had forced him to it and he by terror turned Enemy to them he had in equity been excusable But his Lordship I believe did write this more valiantly than he would have acted it J. D. He Deposeth Christ from his true Kingly Office making his Kingdom not to Commence or begin before the day of Judgment And the Regiment wherewith Christ Governeth his Faithful in this Life is not properly a Kingdom but a Pastoral Office or a right to Teach And a little after Christ had not Kingly Authority committed to him by his Father in this World but only Consiliary and Doctrinal T. H. How do I take away Christs Kingly Office He neither draws it by Consequence from my Words nor offers any Argument at all against my Doctrine The words he cites are in the Contents of Chap. 17. de Cive In the Body of the Chapter it is thus The time of Christ's being upon the Earth is called in Scripture the Regeneration often but the Kingdom never When the Son of God comes in Majesty and all the Angels with him then he shall sit on the seat of Majesty My Kingdom is not of this World God sent not his Son that he should Judge the World I came not to Judge the World but to save the World Man who made me a Judge or Divider amongst you Let thy Kingdom come And other words to the same purpose out of which it is clear that Christ took upon him no Regal Power upon Earth before his Assumption But at his Assumption his Apostles asked him if he would then restore the Kingdom to Israel and he Answered it was not for them to know So that hitherto Christ had not taken that Office upon him unless his Lordship think that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ be two distinct Kingdoms From the Assumption ever since all true Christians say daily in their Prayers Thy Kingdom come But his Lordship had perhaps forgot that But when then beginneth Christ to be a King I say it shall be then when he comes again in Majesty with all the Angels And even then he shall Reign as he is Man under his Father For St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 15.25 26. He must Raign till he hath put all Enemies under his feet the last Enemy that shall be destroyed is Death But when shall God the Father Raign again St. Paul saith in the same Chapter verse 28. When all things shall be subdued unto him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all And verse 24. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God even the Father when he shall have put down all Rule Authority and Power This is at the Resurrection And by this it is manifest that his Lordship was not so well versed in Scripture as he ought to have been J. D. He taketh away his Priestly or Propitiatory Office And although this Act of our Redemption be not alwayes in Scripture called a Sacrifice and Oblation but sometimes a Price yet by Price we are not to understand any thing by the value whereof he could claim right to a Pardon for us from his Offended Father but that Price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand And again Not that the Death of one Man though without sin can satisfie for the Offences of all Men in the rigour of Justice but in the mercy of God that ordained such Sacrifices for sin as he was pleased in mercy to accept He knoweth no difference between one who is meer man and one who was both God and man between a Levitical Sacrifice and the All-sufficient Sacrifice of the Cross between the Blood of a Calf and the precious Blood of the Son of God T. H. Yes I know there is a difference between Blood and Blood but not any such as can make a difference in the Case here questioned Our Saviour's Blood was most precious but still it was Humane Blood and I hope his Lordship did never think otherwise or that it was not accepted by his Father for our Redemption J. D. And touching the Prophetical Office of Christ I do much doubt whether he do believe in earnest that there is any such thing as Prophecy in the World He maketh very little difference between a Prophet and a Mad-man and a Demoniack And if there were nothing else says he that bewrayed their madness yet that very arrogating such inspiration to themselves is Argument enough He maketh the pretence of Inspiration in any man to be and always to have been on opinion pernicious to Peace and tending to the dissolution of all Civil Government He subjecteth all Prophetical Revelations from God to the sole Pleasure and Censure of the Soveraign Prince either to Authorize them or to Exauctorate them So as two Prophets prophecying the same thing at the same time in the Dominions of two different Princes the one shall be a true Prophet the other a false And Christ who had the approbation of no Soveraign Prince upon his grounds was to be reputed a false Prophet every where Every man therefore ought to consider who is the Soveraign Prophet that is to say who it is
men Or that any but the King had Authority to affix the Great Seal of England to any Writing And who did ever doubt to call our Laws though made in Parliament the King's Laws What was ever called a Law which the King did not assent to Because the King has granted in divers cases not to make a Law without the advice and assent of the Lords and Commons therefore when there is no Parliament in being shall the Great Seal of England stand for nothing What was more unjustly maintained during the long Parliament besides the resisting and Murdering of the King then this Doctrine of his Lordship's But the Bishop endeavoured here to make the Multitude believe I maintain That the King sinneth not though he bid hang a man for making his Apparel otherwise than he appointed or his Servant for negligent attendance And yet he knew I distinguished always between the King 's natural and politick capacity What name should I give to this wilful slander But here his Lordship enters into passion and exclaims Where are we in Europe or in Asia Gross palpable pernicious flattery poisoning of a Common-wealth poysoning the King's mind But where was his Lordship when he wrote this One would not think he was in France nor that this Doctrine was Written in the year 1658 but rather in the year 1648 in some Cabal of the King's enemies But what did put him into this fit of Choller Partly this very thing that he could not answer my reasons but chiefly that he had lost upon me so much School-learning in our controversie touching Liberty and Necessity wherein he was to blame himself for believing that the obscure and barbarous Language of School Divinity could satisfie an ingenuous Reader as well as plain and perspicuous English Do I flatter the King Why am I not rich I confess his Lordship has not flattered him here J. D. Something there is which he hath a confused glimmering of as the blind man sees men walking like Trees which he is not able to apprehend and express clearly We acknowledge that though the Laws or Commands of a Soveraign Prince be erroneous or unjust or injurious such as a Subject cannot approve for good in themselves yet he is bound to acquiesce and may not oppose or resist otherwise than by Prayers and Tears and at the most by flight We acknowledge that the Civil Laws have power to bind the Conscience of a Christian in themselves but not from themselves but from him who hath said Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers Either they bind Christian Subjects to do their Soveraign's Commands or to suffer for the Testimony of a good Conscience We acknowledge that in doubtful Cases semper praesumitur pro Rege Lege the Soveraign and the Law are always presumed to be in the right But in plain evident cases which admit no doubt it is always better to obey God than man Blunderers whilst they think to mend one imaginary hole make two or three real ones They who derive the Authority of the Scriptures or God's Law from the Civil Laws of men are like those who seek to underprop the Heavens from falling with a Bullrush Nay they derive not only the Authority of the Scripture but even the Law of nature it self from the Civil Law The Laws of nature which need no promulgation in the condition of nature are not properly Laws but qualities which dispose men to peace and obedience When a Common-wealth is once setled then are they actually Laws and not before God help us into what times are we fallen when the immutable Laws of God and Nature are made to depend upon the mutable Laws of mortal men just as one should go about to controll the Sun by the Authority of the Clock T. H. Hitherto he never offered to mend any of the Doctrines he inveighs against but here he does He says I have a glimmering of something I was not able to apprehend and express clearly Let us see his Lordship's more clear expression We acknowledge saith he that though the Laws or Commands of a Soveraign Prince be erroneous or unjust or injurious such as a Subject cannot approve for good in themselves yet he is bound to acquiesce and may not oppose or resist otherwise than by Prayers and Tears and at the most by Flight Hence it follows clearly that when a Soveraign has made a Law though erroneous then if his Subject oppose it it is a sin Therefore I would fain know when a man has broken that Law by doing what it forbad or by refusing to do what it commanded whether he have opposed this Law or not If to break the Law be to oppose it he granteth it Therefore his Lordship has not here expressed himself so clearly as to make men understand the difference between breaking a Law and opposing it Though there be some difference between breaking of a Law and opposing those that are sent with force to see it executed yet between breaking and opposing the Law it self there is no difference Also though the Subject think the Law just as when a Thief is by Law Condemned to dye yet he may lawfully oppose the Execution not only by Prayers Tears and Flight but also as I think any way he can For though his fault were never so great yet his endeavour to save his own life is not a fault For the Law expects it and for that cause appointeth Felons to be carryed bound and encompassed with Armed men to Execution Nothing is opposite to Law but sin Nothing opposite to the Sheriff but force So that his Lordship's sight was not sharp enough to see the difference between the Law and the Officer Again We acknowledge says he that the Laws have power to bind the Conscience of a Christian in themselves but not from themselves Neither do the Scriptures bind the Conscience because they are Scriptures but because they were from God So also the Book of English Statutes bindeth our Consciences in it self but not from it self but from the Authority of the King who only in the right of God has the legislative Powers Again he saith We acknowledge that in doubtful cases the Soveraign and the Law are always presumed to be in the right If he presume they are in the right how dare he presume that the cases they determine are doubtful But saith he in evident cases which admit no doubt it is always better to obey God than man Yes and in doubtful cases also say I. But not always better to obey the inferior Pastors than the Supream Pastor which is the King But what are those cases that admit no doubt I know but very few and those are such as his Lordship was not much acquainted with J. D. But it is not worthy of my labour nor any part of my intention to pursue every shadow of a Question which he springeth It shall suffice to gather a Posie of Flowers or rather a bundle of Weeds