that is Gods Vicegerent upon Earth and hath next under God the Authority of governing Christian Men and to observe for a Rule that Doctrine which in the Name of God he hath Commanded to be taught and thereby to examine and try out the truth of those Doctrines which pretended Prophets with miracle or without shall at any time advance c. And if he disavow them then no more to obey their Voice or if he Approve them then to obey them as Men to whom God hath given a part of the Spirit of their Soveraign Upon his Principles the case holdeth as well among Jews and Turks and Heathens as Christians Then he that Teacheth Transubstantiation in France is a true Prophet he that Teacheth it in England a false Prophet He that Blasphemeth Christ in Constantinople a true Prophet he that doth the same in Italy a false Prophet Then Samuel was a false Prophet to Contest with Saul a Soveraign Prophet So was the Man of God who submitted not to the more Divine and Prophetick Spirit of Jeroboam And Elijah for Reproving Ahab Then Michaiah had but his deserts to be clapt up in Prison and fed with Bread of Affliction and Water of Affliction for daring to Contradict God's Vice-gerent upon Earth And Jeremiah was justly thrown into a Dungeon for Prophecying against Zedekiah his Liege Lord. If his Principles were true it were strange indeed that none of all these Princes nor any other that ever was in the World should understand their own Priviledges And yet more strange that God Almighty should take the part of such Rebellious Prophets and justifie their Prophesies by the Event if it were true that none but the Soveraign in a Christian the Reason is the same for Jewish Commonwealth can take notice what is or what is not the Word of God T. H. To remove his Lordships doubt in the first place I confess there was true Prophesie and true Prophets in the Church of God from Abraham down to our Saviour the greatest Prophet of all and the last of the Old Testament and first of the New After our Saviour's time till the Death of St. John the Apostle there were true Prophets in the Church of Christ Prophets to whom God spake Supernaturally and Testified the truth of their Mission by Miracles Of those that in the Scripture are called Prophets without Miracles and for this cause only that they spake in the Name of God to Men and in the name of Men to God there are have been and shall be in the Church 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
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
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
had corrected this Error sooner if I had sooner found it For though I was told by Dr. Cosins now Bishop of Duresme that the place above-cited was not applicable enough to the Doctrine of the Trinity yet I could not in reviewing the same espy the defect till of late when being sollicited from beyond Sea to translate the Book into Latin and fearing some other man might do it not to my liking I examined this passage and others of the like sence more narrowly But how concludes his Lordship out of this that I put out of the Creed these words The Father eternal the Son eternal the Holy Ghost eternal Or these words Let us make man after our Image out of the Bible Which last words neither I nor Bellarmine put out of the Bible but we both put them out of the number of good Arguments to prove the Trinity for it is no unusual thing in the Hebrew as may be seen by Bellarmine's quotations to joyn a Noun of the plural Number with a Verb of the singular And we may say also of many other Texts of Scripture alledged to prove the Trinity that they are not so firm as that high Article requireth But mark his Lordship's Scholastick charity in the last words of this period Such bold presumption requireth another manner of confutation This Bishop and others of his opinion had been in their Element if they had been Bishops in Queen Maries time J. D. Concerning God the Son forgetting what he had said elsewhere where he calleth him God and Man and the Son of God incarnate he doubteth not to say that the word Hypostatical is canting As if the same Person could be both God and Man without a Personal that is an Hypostatical Union of the two Natures of God and Man T. H. If Christian Profession be as certainly it is in England a Law and if it be of the nature of a Law to be made known to all men that are to obey it in such manner as they may have no excuse for disobedience from their ignorance then without doubt all words unknown to the people and as to them insignificant are Canting The word Substance is understood by the Vulgar well enough when it is said of a Body but in other sence not at all except for their Riches But the word Hypostatical is understood only by those and but few of those that are learned in the Greek Tongue and is properly used as I have said before of the Union of the two Natures of Christ in one Person So likewise Consubstantial in the Nicene Creed is properly said of the Trinity But to an English man that understands neither Greek nor Latin and yet is as much concerned as his Lordship was the word Hypostatical is no less Canting than Eternal now J. D. He alloweth every man who is commanded by his lawful Soveraign to deny Christ with his tongue before men T. H. I allow it in some Cases and to some men which his Lordship knew well enough but would not mention I alledged for it in the place cited both Reason and Scripture though his Lordship thought it not expedient to take notice of either If it be true that I have said why does he blame it If false why offers he no Argument against it neither from Scripture nor from Reason Or why does he not show that the Text I cite is not applicable to the Question or not well interpreted by me First He barely cites it because he thought the words would sound harshly and make a Reader admire them for Impiety But I hope I shall so well instruct my Reader ere I leave this place that this his petty Art will have no effect Secondly The Cause why he omitted my Arguments was That he could not answer them Lastly The Cause why he urgeth neither Scripture nor Reason against it was That he saw none sufficient My Argument from Scripture was this Leviathan pag. 271. taken out of 2 Kings 5.17 where Naaman the Syrian saith to Elisha the Prophet Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other Gods but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there and he leaneth on my hand and I bow my self in the house of Rimmon when I bow my self in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing and he said unto him Go in peace What can be said to this Did not Elisha say it from God Or is not this Answer of the Prophet a permission When St. Paul and St. Peter commanded the Christians of their time to obey their Princes which then were Heathens and Enemies of Christ did they mean they should lose their Lives for disobedience Did they not rather mean they should preserve both their Lives and their Faith believing in Christ as they did by this denial of the tongue having no command to the contrary If in this Kingdom a Mahometan should be made by terror to deny Mahomet and go to Church with us would any man condemn this Mahometan A denyal with the mouth may perhaps be prejudicial to the power of the Church but to retain the Faith of Christ stedfastly in his Heart cannot be prejudicial to his Soul that hath undertaken no charge to Preach to Wolves whom they know will destroy them About the time of the Council of Nice there was a Canon made which is extant in the History of the Nicene Council concerning those that being Christians had been seduced not terrified to a denyal of Christ and again repenting desired to be readmitted into the Church in which Canon it was ordain'd that those men should be no otherwise readmitted than to be in the number of the Catechised and not to be admitted to the Communion till a great many years penitence Surely the Church then would have been more merciful to them that did the same upon terror of present death and torments Let us now see what his Lordship might though but colourably have alledged from Scripture against it There be three Places only that seem to favour his Lordship's opinion The first is where Peter denyed Christ and Weepeth The second is Acts 5.29 Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said we ought to obey God rather than men The third is Luke 12.9 But he that denyeth me shall be denyed before the Angels of God T. H. For answer to these Texts I must repeat what I have written and his Lordship read in my Leviathan pag. 362. 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 doing it 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
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 Soveraign is the Judge of Prophesie he deduces That then Samuel and other Prophets were false Prophets that contested with their Soveraigns As for Samuel he was at that time the Judge that is to say the Soveraign Prince in Israel and so acknowledged by Saul For Saul received the Kingdom from God himself who had right to give and take it by the hands of Samuel And God gave it him to himself only and not to his Seed though if he had obeyed God he would have setled it also upon his Seed The Commandement of God was that he should not spare Agag Saul obeyed not God therefore sent Samuel to tell him that he was rejected For all this Samuel went not about to resist Saul That he caused Agag to be slain was with Sauls consent Lastly Saul confesses his sin Where is this contesting with Saul After this God sent Samuel to anoint David not that he should depose Saul but succeed him the Sons of Saul having never had a right of Succession Nor did ever David make War on Saul or so much as resist him but fled from his persecution But when Saul was dead then indeed he claimed his right against the House of Saul What Rebellion or Resistance could his Lordship find here either in Samuel or in David Besides all these Transactions are supernatural and oblige not to imitation Is there any Prophet or Priest now that can set up in England Scotland or Ireland another King by pretence of Prophesie or Religion What did Jeroboam to the man of God 1 Kings 13 that Prophesied against the Altar in Bethel without first doing a Miracle but offer to seize him for speaking as he thought rashly of the Kings Act and after the Miraculous withering of his Hand desire the Prophet to pray for him The sin of Jeroboam was not his distrust of the Prophet but his Idolatry He was the sole Judge of the truth which the man of God uttered against the Altar and the process agreeable to equity What is the story of Eliah and Ahab 1 Kings 18. but a confirmation of the Right even of Ahab to be the Judge of Prophesie Eliah told Ahab he had transgressed the Commandement of God So may any Minister now tell his Soveraign so he do it with sincerity and discretion Ahab told Eliah he troubled Israel Upon this controversie Eliah desired Tryal Send saith he and Assemble all Israel Assemble also the Prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty Ahab did so The Question is stated before the People thus If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal follow him Then upon the Altars of God and Baal were laid the Wood and the Bullocks and the cause was to be Judged by Fire from Heaven to Burn the Sacrifices which Eliah procured the Prophets of Baal could not procure Was not this cause here Pleaded before Ahab The Sentence of Ahab is not required for Eliah from that time forward was no more persecuted by Ahab but only by his Wife Jezabel The story of Micaiah 2 Cron. 18. is this Ahab King of Israel consulted the Prophets four hundred in number whether he should prosper or not in case he went with Jehosaphat King of Judah to fight against the Syrians at Ramoth-gilead The Prophet Micaiah was also called and both the Kings Ahab and Jehosaphat sat together to hear what they should prophecy There was no Miracle done The 400 pronounced Victory Micaiah alone the contrary The King was Judge and most concern'd in the event nor had he received any Revelation in the business What could he do more discreetly than to follow the Counsel of 400 rather than of one Man But the event was contrary for he was slain but not for following the Counsel of the 400 but for his Murder of Naboth and his Idolatry It was also a sin in him that he afflicted Micaiah in Prison but an unjust Judgment does not take away from any King his right of Judicature Besides what 's all this or that of Jeremiah which he cites last to the Question of who is Judge of Christian Doctrine J. D. Neither doth he use God the Holy Ghost more favourably than God the Son Where St. Peter saith Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit He saith By the Spirit is meant the Voice of God in a Dream or Vision Supernatural which Dreams or Visions he maketh to be no more than imaginations which they
of the Jus Divinum of Bishops a thing which before the Reformation here was never allowed them by the Pope Two Jus Divinums cannot stand together in one Kingdom In the last place he mislikes that the Church should Excommunicate by Authority of the King that is to say by Authority of the Head of the Church But he tells not why He might as well mislike that the Magistrates of the Realm should execute their Offices by the Authority of the Head of the Realm His Lordship was in a great error if he thought such incroachments would add any thing to the Wealth Dignity Reverence or Continuance of his Order They are Pastors of Pastors but yet they are the Sheep of him that is on earth their soveraign Pastor and he again a Sheep of that supream Pastor which is in Heaven And if they did their pastoral Office both by Life and Doctrine as they ought to do there could never arise any dangerous Rebellion in the Land But if the people see once any ambition in their Teachers they will sooner learn that than any other Doctrine and from Ambition proceeds Rebellion J. D. It may be some of T. H. his Disciples desire to know what hopes of Heavenly joyes they have upon their Masters Principles They may hear them without any great contentment There is no mention in Scripture nor ground in reason of the Coelum Empyraeum that is the Heaven of the Blessed where the Saints shall live eternally with God And again I have not found any Text that can probably be drawn to prove any Ascention of the Saints into Heaven that is to say into any Coelum Empyraeum But he concludeth positively that Salvation shall be upon earth when God shall Raign at the coming of Christ in Jerusalem And again In short the Kingdom of God is a civil Kingdom c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Glory All the Hobbians can hope for is to be restored to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall So saith T.H. himself From whence may be inferred that the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned As for the beatifical vision he defineth it to be a word unintelligible T. H. This Coelum Empyraeum for which he pretendeth so much zeal where is it in the Scripture where in the Book of Common Prayer where in the Canons where in the Homilies of the Church of England or in any part of our Religion What has a Christian to do with such Language Nor do I remember it in Aristotle Perhaps it may be in some Schoolman or Commentator on Aristotle and his Lordship makes it in English the Heaven of the Blessed as if Empyraeum signified That which belongs to the Blessed St. Austin says better that after the day of Judgment all that is not Heaven shall be Hell Then for Beatifical vision how can any man understand it that knows from the Scripture that no man ever saw or can see God Perhaps his Lordship thinks that the happiness of the Life to come is not real but a Vision As for that which I say Lev. pag. 345. I have answered to it already J. D. But considering his other Principles I do not marvel much at his extravagance in this point To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum or Heaven of the Blessed serve in his judgment who maketh the blessed Angels that are the Inhabitants of that happy Mansion to be either Idols of the brain that is in plain English nothing or thin subtil fluid bodies destroying the Angelical nature The universe being the aggregate of all bodies there is no real part thereof that is not also body And elsewhere Every part of the Vniverse is Body and that which is not Body is no part of the Vniverse And because the Vniverse is all that which is no part of it is nothing and consequently no where How By this Doctrine he maketh not only the Angels but God himself to be nothing Neither doth he salve it at all by supposing erroneously Angels to be corporeal Spirits and by attributing the name of incorporeal Spirit to God as being a name of more honour in whom we consider not what Attribute best expresseth his nature which is incomprehensible but what best expresseth our desire to honour him Though we be not able to comprehend perfectly what God is yet we are able perfectly to comprehend what God is not that is he is not imperfect and therefore he is not finite and consequently he is not corporeal This were a trim way to honour God indeed to honour him with a lye If this that he say here be true That every part of the Vniverse is a Body and whatsoever is not a Body is nothing Then by this Doctrine if God be not a Body God is nothing not an incorporeal Spirit but one of the Idols of the Brain a meer nothing though they think they dance under a Net and have the blind of Gods incomprehensibility between them and discovery T. H. This of Incorporeal substance he urged before and there I answered it I wonder he so often rolls the same stone He is like Sysiphus in the Poets Hell that there rolls a heavy stone up a hill which no sooner he brings to day-light then it slips down again to the bottom and serves him so perpetually For so his Lordship rolls this and other questions with much adoe till they come to the light of Scripture and then they vanish and he vexing sweating and railing goes to 't again to as little purpose as before From that I say of the Universe he infers that I make God to be nothing But infers it absurdly He might indeed have inferr'd that I make him a Corporeal but yet a pure Spirit I mean by the Universe the Aggregate of all things that have being in themselves and so do all men else And because God has a being it follows that he is either the whole Universe or part of it Nor does his Lordship go about to disprove it but only seems to wonder at it J. D. To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum serve in his Judgment who denyeth the immortality of the Soul The Doctrine is now and hath been a long time far otherwise namely that every man hath eternity of life by nature in as much as his Soul is immortal Who supposeth that when a man dyeth there remaineth nothing of him but his Carkase who maketh the word Soul in holy Scripture to signifie always either the Life or the Living Creature And expoundeth the casting of Body and Soul into Hell-fire to be the casting of Body and Life into Hell-fire Who maketh this Orthodox truth that the Souls of men are Substances distinct from their Bodies to be an error contracted by the contagion of the Demonology of the Greeks and a window that gives entrance to the dark Doctrine of eternal torments Who expoundeth these words
the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil thou shalt dye though he condemned him then yet he suffered him to live a long time after so when Christ had said to the Thief on the Cross this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise yet he suffered him to lye dead till the General Resurrection for no man rose again from the dead before our Saviours coming and conquering death If God bestowed Immortality on every man then when he made him and he made many to whom he never purposed to give his saving Grace what did his Lordship think that God gave any man Immortality with purpose only to make him capable of Immortal Torments 'T is a hard saying and I think cannot piously be believed I am sure it can never be proved by the Canonical Scripture But though I have made it clear that it cannot be drawn by lawful consequence from Scripture that Man was Created with a Soul Immortal and that the Elect only by the Grace of God in Christ shall both Bodies and Souls from the Resurrection forward be Immortal yet there may be a Consequence well drawn from some words in the Rites of Burial that prove the contrary as these Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed c. And these Almighty God with whom do live the Spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord. Which are words Authorised by the Church I wonder his Lordship that had so often pronounced them took no notice of them here But it often happens that men think of those things least which they have most perfectly learnt by rote I am sorry I could not without deserting the sence of Scripture and mine own Conscience say the same But I see no just cause yet why the Church should be offended at it For the Church of England pretendeth not as doth the Church of Rome to be above the Scripture nor forbiddeth any man to Read the Scripture nor was I forbidden when I Wrote my Leviathan to Publish any thing which the Scriptures suggested For when I Wrote it I may safely say there was no lawful Church in England that could have maintained me in or prohibited me from Writing any thing There was no Bishop and though there were Preaching such as it was yet no Common-Prayer For Extemporary Prayer though made in the Pulpit is not Common-Prayer There was then no Church in England that any man living was bound to obey What I Write here at this present time I am forced to in my defence not against the Church but against the accusations and arguments of my Adversaries For the Church though it excommunicates for scandalous life and for teaching false Doctrines yet it professeth to impose nothing to be held as Faith but what may be warranted by Scripture and this the Church it self saith in the 20th of the 39 Articles of Religion And therefore I am permitted to alledge Scripture at any time in the defence of my Belief J. D. But they that in one case are grieved in another must be relieved If perchance T. H. hath given his Disciples any discontent in his Doctrine of Heaven and the holy Angels and the glorified Souls of the Saints he will make them amends in his Doctrine of Hell and the Devils and the damned Spirits First of the Devils He fancieth that all those Devils which our Saviour did cast out were Phrensies and all Demoniacks or Persons possessed no other than Mad-men And to justifie our Saviour's speaking to a Disease as to a Person produceth the example of inchanters But he declareth himself most clearly upon this Subject in his Animadversions upon my reply to his defence of fatal destiny There are in the Scripture two sorts of things which are in English translated Devils One is that which is called Satan Diabolus Abaddon which signifieth in English an Enemy an Accuser and a destroyer of the Church of God in which sence the Devils are but wicked men The other sort of Devils are called in the Scripture Daemonia which are the feigned Gods of the Heathen and are neither Bodies nor spiritual Substances but meer fancies and fictions of terrified hearts feigned by the Greeks and other Heathen People which St. Paul calleth Nothings So T.H. hath killed the great infernal Devil and all his black Angels and left no Devils to be feared but Devils Incarnate that is wicked men T. H. As for the first words cited Levi. page 38 39. I refer the Reader to the place it self and for the words concerning Satan I leave them to the judgment of the Learned J. D. And for Hell he describeth the Kingdom of Satan or the Kingdom of darkness to be a confederacy of deceivers He telleth us that the places which set forth the torments of Hell in holy Scripture do design Metaphorically a grief and discontent of mind from the sight of that eternal felicity in others which they themselves through their own incredulity and disobedience have lost As if Metaphorical descriptions did not bear sad truths in them as well as literal as if final desperation were no more than a little fit of grief or discontent and a guilty conscience were no more than a transitory passion as if it were a loss so easily to be born to be deprived for evermore of the beatifical Vision and lastly as if the Damned besides that unspeakable loss did not likewise suffer actual Torments proportionable in some measure to their own sins and Gods Justice T. H. That Metaphors bear sad truths in them I deny not It is a sad thing to lose this present life untimely Is it not therefore much more a sad thing to lose an eternal happy Life And I believe that he which will venture upon sin with such danger will not stick to do the same notwithstanding the Doctrine of eternal torture Is it not also a sad truth that the Kingdom of darkness should be a Confederacy of deceivers J. D. Lastly for the damned Spirits he declareth himself every where that their sufferings are not eternal The Fire shall be unquenchable and the Torments everlasting but it cannot be thence inferred that he who shall be cast into that Fire or be tormented with those Torments shall endure and resist them so as to be eternally burnt and tortured and yet never be destroyed nor dye And though there be many places that affirm everlasting fire into which men may be cast successivily one after another for ever yet I find none that affirm that there shall be an everlasting life therein of any individual Person If he had said and said only that the pains of the Damned may be lessened as to the degree of them or that they endure not for ever but that after they are purged by long torments from their dross and Corruptions as Gold in the fire both the damned Spirits and the Devils themselves should be restored to a better
condition he might have found some Ancients who are therefore called the merciful Doctors to have joyned with him though still he should have wanted the suffrage of the Catholick Church T. H. Why does not his Lordship cite some place of Scripture here to prove that all the Reprobates which are dead live eternally in torment We read indeed That everlasting Torments were prepared for the Devil and his Angels whose natures also are everlasting and that the Beast and the false Prophet shall be tormented everlastingly but not that every Reprobate shall be so They shall indeed be cast into the same fire but the Scripture says plainly enough that they shall be both Body and Soul destroyed there If I had said that the Devils themselves should be restored to a better condition his Lordship would have been so kind as to have put me into the number of the Merciful Doctors Truly if I had had any Warrant for the possibility of their being less enemies to the Church of God than they have been I would have been as merciful to them as any Doctor of them all As it is I am more merciful than the Bishop J. D. But his shooting is not at rovers but altogether at randome without either President or Partner All that eternal fire all those torments which he acknowledgeth is but this That after the Resurrection the Reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his Posterity were in after the sin committed saving that God promised a Redeemer to Adam and not to them Adding that they shall live as they did formerly Marry and give in Marriage and consequently engender Children perpetually after the Resurrection as they did before which he calleth an immortallity of the kind but not of the persons of men It is to be presumed that in those their second lives knowing certainly from T. H. that there is no hope of Redemption for them from corporal death upon their well-doing nor fear of any Torments after death for their ill-doing they will pass their times here as pleasantly as they can This is all the Damnation which T. H. fancieth T. H. This he has urged once before and I answered to it That the whole Paragraph was to prove that for any Text of Scripture to the contrary men might after the Resurrection live as Adam did on earth and that notwithstanding the Text of St. Luke chap. 20. verse 34 35 36. Marry and propagate But that they shall do so is no assertion of mine His Lordship knew I held that after the Resurrection there 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 be lye 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 perfidious 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 It seemeth T. H. thinketh there is no divine Worship but internal And that it is