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 require 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 the same Authority And this he saith upon this filly ground That nothing is a Command the performance whereof tendeth to our own benefit He might as well deny the Ten Commandments to be Commands because they have an advantagious promise annexed to them Do this and thou shalt live And Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the words of this Law to do them T. H. Of the Sacraments I said no more than that they are Signs or Commemorations He finds fault that I add not Seals Confirmations and that they confer grace First I would have asked him if a Seal be any thing else besides a Sign whereby to remember somewhat as that we have promised accepted acknowledged given undertaken somewhat Are not other Signs though without a Seal of force sufficient to convince me or oblige me A Writing obligatory or Release signed only with a mans name is as Obligatory as a Bond signed and sealed if it be sufficiently proved though peradventure it may require a longer Process to obtain a Sentence but his Lordship I think knew better than I do the force of Bonds and Bills yet I know this that in the Court of Heaven there is no such difference between saying signing and sealing as his Lordship seemeth here to pretend I am Baptized for a Commemoration that I have enrolled my self I take the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Commemorate that Christ's Body was broken and his Blood shed for my redemption What is there more intimated concerning the nature of these Sacraments either in the Scripture or in the Book of Common-Prayer Have Bread and Wine and Water in their own Nature any other Quality than they had before the Consecration It is true that the Consecration gives these bodies a new Relation as being a giving and dedicating of them to God that is to say a making of them Holy not a changing of their Quality But as some silly young men returning from France affect a broken English to be thought perfect in the French language so his Lordship I think to seem a perfect understander of the unintelligible language of the Schoolmen pretends an ignorance of his Mother Tongue He talks here of Command and Counsel as if he were no English man nor knew any difference between their significations What English man when he commandeth says more than Do this yet he looks to be obeyed if obedience be due unto him But when he says Do this and thou shalt have such or such a Reward he encourages him or advises him or
as an Enemy by an Enemy because he would not accept Laws His reason is because the Atheist never submitted his will to the Will of God whom he never thought to be And he concludeth that mans obligation to obey God proceedeth from his weakness Manifestum est obligationem ad prestandum ipsi Deo obedientiam incumbere hominibus propter imbecilitatem First it is impossible that should be a sin of meer ignorance or imprudence which is directly contrary to the light of natural reason The Laws of nature need no new promulgation being imprinted naturally by God in the heart of Man The Law of nature was written in our hearts by the finger of God without our assent or rather the Law of Nature is the assent it self Then if Nature dictate to us that there is a God and that this God is to be worshipped in such and such manner it is not possible that Atheism should be a sin of meer ignorance Secondly a Rebellious Subject is still a Subject De Jure though not De Facto by right though not by deed and so the most cursed Atheist that is ought by right to be the Subject of God and ought to be punished not as a just Enemy but as a disloyal Traytor Which is confessed by himself This fourth Sin that is of those who do not by word and deed confess one God the Supreme King of Kings in the natural Kingdom of God is the Crime of High Treason for it is a denial of Divine Power or Atheism Then an Atheist is a Traytor to God and punishable as a disloyal Subject not as an Enemy Lastly it is an absurd and dishonourable assertion to make our obedience to God to depend upon our weakness because we cannot help it and not upon our gratitude because we owe our being and preservation to him Who planteth a Vineyard and eateth not of the Fruit thereof And who feedeth a Flock and eateth not of the Milk of the Flock And again Thou art worthy O Lord to receive Glory and Honour and Power for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created But it were much better or at least not so ill to be a down right Atheist than to make God to be such a thing as he doth and at last thrust him into the Devils Office to be the cause of all Sin T. H. Though this Bishop as I said had but a weak attention in reading and little skill in examining the force of an Argument yet he knew men and the art without troubling their judgments to win their assents by exciting their Passions One Rule of his art was to give his Reader what he would have him swallow a part by it self and in the nature of News whether true or not Knowing that the unlearned that is most men are content to believe rather than be troubled with examining Therefore a little before he put these words T. H. no friend to Religion in the Margent And in this place before he offer at any confutation he says my Principles are brim full of Prodigious Impieties And at the next Paragraph in the Margent he puts that I excuse Atheism This behaviour becomes neither a Bishop nor a Christian nor any man that pretends to good education Fear of invisible powers what is it else in savage people but the fear of somewhat they think a God What invisible power does the reason of a savage man suggest unto him but those Phantasms of his sleep or his distemper which we frequently call Ghosts and the Savages thought Gods so that the fear of a God though not of the true one to them was the beginning of Religion as the fear of the true God was the beginning of wisdom to the Jews and Christians Ignorance of second causes made men fly to some first cause the fear of which bred Devotion and Worship The ignorance of what that power might do made them observe the order of what he had done that they might guess by the like order what he was to do another time This was their Prognostication What Prodigious impiety is here How confutes he it Must it be taken for Impiety upon his bare calumny I said Superstition was fear without reason Is not the fear of a false God or fancied Daemon contrary to right reason And is not Atheism Boldness grounded on false reasoning such as is this the wicked prosper therefore there is no 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
innumerable Such a Prophet was his Lordship and such are all Pastors in the Christian Church But the Question here is of those Prophets that from the Mouth of God foretell things future or do other Miracle Of this kind I deny there has been any since the Death of St. John the Evangelist If any Man find fault with this he ought to name some Man or other whom we are bound to acknowledge that they have done a Miracle cast out a Devil or cured any Disease by the sole Invocation of the Divine Majesty We are not bound to trust to the Legend of the Roman Saints nor to the History written by Sulpitius of the Life of St. Martin or to any other Fables of the Roman Clergy nor to such things as were pretended to be done by some Divines here in the time of King James Secondly he says I make little difference between a Prophet and a Mad-man or Demoniack To which I say he accuses me falsly I say only thus much That I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requireth a belief that Demoniacks were any other-thing than Madmen And this is also made very probable out of Scripture by a worthy Divine Mr. Meade But concerning Prophets I say only that the Jews both under the Old Testament and under the New took them to be all one with Mad-men and Demoniacks And prove it out of Scripture by many places both of the Old and New Testament Thirdly that the pretence or arrogating to ones self Divine Inspiration is argument enough to shew a Man is Mad is my opinion but his Lordship understands not Inspiration in the same sence that I do He understands it properly of God's breathing into a Man or pouring into him the Divine Substance or Divine Graces and in that sence he that arrogateth Inspiration into himself neither understands what he saith nor makes others to understand him which is properly Madness in some degree But I understand Inspiration in the Scripture Metaphorically for Gods guidance of our minds to Truth and Piety Fourthly whereas he says I make the pretence of Inspiration to be pernicious to Peace I answer that I think his Lordship was of my Opinion for he called those Men which in the late Civil War pretended the Spirit and New Light and to be the only faithful men Phanaticks for he called them in his Book and did call them in his Life time Phanaticks And what is a Phanatick but a Mad-man and what can be more pernicious to Peace than the Revelations that were by these Phanaticks pretended I do not say there were Doctrines of other Men not called Phanaticks as pernicious to Peace as theirs were and in great part a cause of those troubles Fifthly from that I make Prophetical Revelations subject to the examination of the Lawful Soveraign he inferreth that 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 This consequence is not good for seeing they teach different Doctrines they cannot both of them confirm their Doctrine with Miracles But this I prove in the page 232 he citeth that whether either of their Doctrines shall be taught publickly or not 't is in the power of the Soveraign of the Place only to determine Nay I say now further if a Prophet come to any private Man in the Name of God that Man shall be Judge whether he be a true Prophet or not before he obey him See 1 John 4. 1. Sixthly whereas he says that upon my grounds Christ was to be reputed a false Prophet every where because his Doctrine was received no where His Lordship had read my Book more negligently than was fit for one that would confute it My ground is this that Christ in right of his Father was King of the Jews and consequently Supream Prophet and Judge of all Prophets What other Princes thought of his Prophesies is nothing to the purpose I never said that Princes can make Doctrines or Prophesies true or false but I say every Soveraign Prince has a right to prohibite the publick Teaching of them whether false or true But what an oversight is it in a Divine to say that Christ had the Approbation of no Soveraign Prince when he had the Approbation of God who was King of the Jews and Christ his Vice-Roy and the whole Scripture written Joh. 20.31 to prove it When his Miracles declared it when Pilate confessed it and when the Apostles Office was to proclaim it Seventhly If we must not consider in points of Christian Faith who is the Soveraign Prophet that is who is next under Christ our Supream Head and Governor I wish his Lordship would have cleared ere he dyed these few Questions Is there not need of some Judge of Controverted Doctrines I think no man can deny it that has seen the Rebellion that followed the Controversie here between Gomar and Arminius There must therefore be a Judge of Doctrines But says the Bishop not the King Who then Shall Dr. Bramhall be this Judge As profitable an Office as it is he was more modest than to say that Shall a private Lay-man have it No man ever thought that Shall it be given to a Presbyterian Minister No 't is unreasonable Shall a Synod of Presbyterians have it No For most of the Presbyters in the Primitive Church were undoubtedly subordinate to Bishops and the rest were Bishops Who then A Synod of Bishops Very well His Lordship being too modest to undertake the whole Power would have been contented with the six and twentieth part But suppose it in a Synod of Bishops who shall call them together The King What if he will not Who should Excommunicate him or if he despise your Excommunication who shall send forth a Writ of Significavit No all this was far from his Lordships thoughts The power of the Clergy unless it be upheld legally by the King or illegally by the Multitude amounts to nothing But for the Multitude Suarez and the School-men will never gain them because they are not understood Besides there be very few Bishops that can act a Sermon which is a puissant part of Rhetorick So well as divers Presbyterians and Phanatick Preachers can do I conclude therefore that his Lordship could not possibly believe that the Supream Judicature in matter of Religion could any where be so well placed as in the Head of the Church which is the King And so his Lordship and I think the same thing but because his Lordship knew not how to deduce it he was angry with me because I did it He says further that by my Principles he that blasphemeth Christ at Constantinople is a true Prophet as if a man that blasphemeth Christ to approve his Blasphemy can procure a Miracle for by my principles no Man is a Prophet whose Prophesie is not confirmed by God with a Miracle In the last place out of this That the lawful
shall be at all no wicked men but the Elect all that are have been and hereafter shall be shall live on earth But St. Peter says there shall then be a new Heaven and a new Earth J. D. In summ I leave it to the free judgment of the understanding Reader by these few instances which follow to judge what the Hobbian Principles are in point of Religion Ex ungue leonem First that no man needs to put himself to any hazzard for his Faith but may safely comply with the times And for their Faith it is internal and invisible They have the licence that Naaman had and need not put themselves into danger for it Secondly he alloweth Subjects being commanded by their Soveraign to deny Christ Profession with the Tongue is but an external thing and no more than any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedience And wherein a Christian holding firmly in his heart the Faith of Christ hath the same liberty which the Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman c. Who by bowing before the Idol Rimmon denyed the true God as much in effect as if he had done it with his Lips Alas why did St. Peter Weep so bitterly for denying his Master out of fear of his Life or Members It seems he was not acquainted with these Hobbian Principles And in the same place he layeth down this general Conclusion This we may say that whatsoever a Subject is compelled to in obedience to his Soveraign and doth it not in order to his own mind but in order to the Laws of his Country that action is not his but his Soveraign's nor is it he that in this case denyeth Christ before men but his Governor and the Law of his Country His instance in a Mahometan commanded by a Christian Prince to be present at Divine Service is a weak mistake springing from his gross ignorance in Case-Divinity not knowing to distinguish between an erroneous Conscience as the Mahometans is and a Conscience rightly informed T. H. In these his two first instances I confess his Lordship does not much belye me But neither does he confute me Also I confess my ignorance in his Case-Divinity which is grounded upon the Doctrine of the School-men Who to decide Cases of Conscience take in not only the Scriptures but also the Decrees of the Popes of Rome for the advancing of the Dominion of the Roman Church over Consciences whereas the true decision of Cases of Consciences ought to be grounded only on Scripture or natural Equity I never allowed the denying of Christ with the Tongue in all men but expresly say the contrary Lev. pag. 362. in these words For an unlearned man that is in the power of an Idolatrous King or State if commanded on pain of death to worship before an Idol he detesteth the Idol in his heart he doth well though if he had the fortitude to suffer death rather than worship it he should do better But if a Pastor who as Christ's messenger has undertaken to teach Christ's Doctrine to all Nations should do the same it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian mens Consciences but a persidious forsaking of his charge Therefore St. Peter in denying Christ sinned as being an Apostle And 't is sin in every man that should now take upon him to preach against the power of the Pope to leave his Commission unexecuted for fear of the fire but in a meer Traveller not so The three Children and Daniel were worthy Champions of the true Religion But God requireth not of every man to be a Champion As for his Lordship's words of complying with the times they are not mine but his own spightful Paraphrase J. D. Thirdly if this be not enough he giveth licence to a Christian to commit Idolatry or at least to do an Idolatrous act for fear of death or corporal danger To pray unto a King voluntarily for fair weather or for any thing which God only can do for us is divine Worship and Idolatry On the other side if a King compel a man to it by the terror of death or other great corporal punishment it is not Idolatry His reason is because it is not a sign that he doth inwardly honour him as a God but that he is desirous to save himself from death or from a miserable life If seemeth T. H. thinketh there is no divine Worship but internal And that it is 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 Indels 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 succesful 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 just disposition of Almighty God this Policy turned to a sin and was the utter destruction of Jeroboam and his Family It is not good jesting with edge-tools nor playing with holy things Where men make their greatest fastness many times they find most danger T. H. His Lordship either had a strange Conscience or understood not English Being at Paris when there was no Bishop nor Church in England and every man writ what he pleased I resolved when it should please God to restore the Authority Ecclesiastical to submit to that Authority in whatsoever it should determine This his Lordship construes for a temporizing and too much indifferency in Religion and says further that the last part of my words do smell of Jeroboam To the contrary I say my words were modest and such as in duty I ought to use And I profess still that whatsoever the Church of England the Church I say not every Doctor shall forbid me to say in matter of Faith I shall abstain from saying it excepting this point That Jesus Christ the Son of God dyed for my sins As for other Doctrins I think it unlawful if the Church define them for any Member of the Church to contradict them J. D. His sixth Paradox is a rapper the Civil Laws are the Rules of good and evil just and unjust honest and dishonest and therefore what the Lawgiver commands that is to be accounted good what he forbids bad And a little after before Empires were just and unjust were not as whose nature is Relative to a Command every action in its own nature is indifferent That it is just or unjust proceedeth from the right of him that commandeth Therefore lawful Kings make those things which they command Just by commanding them and those things which they forbid Vnjust by forbidding them To this add his definition of a sin that which one doth or omitteth saith or willeth contrary to the reason of the Common-wealth that is the Civil Laws Where by the Laws he doth not understand the Written Laws elected and approved by the whole Common-wealth but the verbal Commands or Mandates of him that hath the Soveraign Power as we find in many places of his Writings The Civil Laws are nothing else but the Commands of him that is endowed with Soveraign Power in the Common-wealth concerning the future actions of his Subjects And the Civil Laws are fastned to the Lips of that man who hath the Soveraign Power Where are we In Europe or in Asia Where they ascribed a Divinity to their Kings and to
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 fit 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