THE Leviathan HERETICAL: OR The Charge Exhibited in Par­liament against M. Hobbs, justified by the Refutati­on of a Book of his, Entituled The Historical Narration of Heresie and the Punish­ments thereof. By JOHN DOWEL, Vicar of Melton-Mowbray in Leicester Shire.

OXON Printed by L. Lichfield, and are to be sold by A. Stephens Bookseller 1683.

THE PREFACE.

THE Author of this Tract may thus be re­proached Are not the Corps of dead men Sacred? To violate Tombs and Graves is Sacrilegious, why doth the Au­thor intend to disturb the Manes of this universal Scholar? Will he not be permitted to sleep quietly in the Grave? How unworthy a thing is it to insult over a dead Lyon, and write a­gainst [Page] him who rests in the dust? The Author hears these words with a quiet mind; Certainly if to answer the works of those who are dead be so Criminal, how hainous offendors have so many writers in all ages been? and how Capital a Delinquent is Mr. Hobs, who hath by write­ing endeavoured to render the sentiments of the best and most learned men ridiculous. This Treatise discourseth with his Ghost; He dyed in 1679, and the Treatise came out in 80. 'Tis his umbra, it carries his own lineaments, and speaks his own language. A Reverend Neighbour Minister, a Learned [Page] Friend of the Authors, ac­quainted him with the language of Mr. Hobs in private di­scourse, exactly agreeing with this Tract, and we find the most of it cap 1, and 2. de He­resi app. ad Leviath. Ed. La­tina. I will acknowledge him a Gentleman of great parts, of a wonderful vivacity to his old age; that he had so fine a Pen, that by the clearness, and pro­priety of his Style, and exactness of his method, he gain'd more Proselytes than by his Princi­ples: few exceed him in both languages, but these aggran­dize his Crimes; he ought not to have abused such excellent [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] qualifications, he hath so mana­ged his Pen, that many believe him unanswerable, yet let this Tract be considered whether he be not fully refuted, as to the Contents of his Narrative. I will appeal to the Learned World, whether Mr. Hobs hath not thrown dirt and ugly ex­pressions upon the Christian Re­ligion, the best of Councils, the whole Christian Clergie, and hath abused the English Laws.

It may be again objected, This Author durst not write whilst he was a live: Whom did Mr. Hobs ever answer, but the clear Pen of the Arch-B. of Armagh, and the Great [Page] Professor Dr. Wallis? In the Verses which he made of him­self he vaunts a Victory, the world is the Judge, if what he saith be true, That there is an Eternal Fate and Necessi­ty: Why can he commend him­self and discommend others; If in these Lines the Author does a thing ill, what reproof does he deserve, he is hurried to it by a fatal Necessity. On this ac­count his praising himself, and dispraising others is groundless, he is charged with contradictions from a great one, of which he en­deavours to vindicate himself; but 'tis in vain, his artifices are fruitless.

[Page] One of his Moral and Politi­cal Principles is, That whatso­ever is just or unjust, or to be received as true or false, is by the approbation or re­jection of the Supream Pow­er. He writes his Ieviathan, in which this is asserted and de­fended, yet in the same evia­than he delivers those doctrines for true, which are judged He­retical by the Church of Eng­land, and Laws of the King­dom: To evade this he useth all Art and Industry.

In the First part of this An­swer some Doctrines which he propagated in that Book are proved Heretical. In the Lat­ter [Page] part is proved, That these Doctrines are Criminal, and the persons that maintain'd them are liable to be punished by the Civil Majestrate. His Book being An Historical Narrative, the Author is forc'd to have recourse to Books. Mr. Hobs gives us several Histories, but Quotes no Au­thour; whereupon the Answer­er is compelled to cite the place whence he has taken them. No Memory, Reading, Ʋnder­standing or Observation is infi­nite, therefore the Authour sometime useth this or the like expression, so as to him it occurs; he abstaines from all virulent [Page] language; the hardest word, and that but once used, is Noto­riously false. Mr. Hobs gives occasion to dispute a great part of his Leviathan, but the An­swerer prosecutes his design, to make good the Contradiction; as for Instance, Mr. Hobs a­verrs That God hath Parts; here is a just occasion to dispute The Nature of Spirits, but the Authour waves it, 'tis sufficient to prove That the Church of England has judged that Pro­position Heretical, and there­upon has contradicted himself: He asserts, That they who embr [...]ce the Liberty of the Will are allyed to the Mani­chees. [Page] This gives a fair op­portunity to discourse of Liberty and Necessity: and he that se­riously considers himself will find, the freedom of his Will ariseth not from the flexibilty of the Ʋnderstanding, flowing from various impressions upon that faculty, but from the Do­minion which the Will has over it self, which the Greeks excel­lently express by [...], but the Authour does not medle with that Controversie, content­ing himself with the Demon­stration of the absurdity of Mr. Hobs his Imputation, and that it is contrariant to the Doctrine of the Church of England. The [Page] Doctrine of the Sacred Trinity is religiously imbrac'd and en­tertain▪d by the Church of Eng­land, as it was by the Church of Christ in all ages; hence Lu­cian in his Philopatris jeer'd the Primitive Christians for be­lieving such an incredible opini­on, That [...] should be [...], and [...], (i. e.) Tres U­nus, and Unus Tres, Three Persons and One God, which scoff shews sufficiently the Faith of the Primitive Church. The Authour does not therefore di­spute the Doctrine of the Trini­ty, but wipes off all that Var­nish with which Mr. Hobs useth to bide the deformity of [Page] his sentiments, and makes him appear in his proper Colours; proves him Heretical, in being an enemy to the Faith, and Do­ctrine of the Church of England. The like may be said of other things which the Author treats of, the charge being made good, that Mr. Hobs has notoriously contradicted himself: His book is answered, and his great Po­stulatum demonstrated to be false, in that he is forc'd to ac­knowledge those things which are contrary to it.

A DISCOURSE OF HERESIE.

A [...] is a Greek word, and the derivations that are given of Heresie from o­ther words then [...], Greek or Latine, are fond and spu­rious. It was a word amongst the Philosophers, Greek and Latine, us'd for any Sect pro­miscuously, and so the ac­ception [Page 2] is indifferent; but 'tis otherwise in sacred Scri­pture, in Ecclesiastical Wri­ters, Fathers, and Histori­ans, amongst whom 'tis al­waies us'd in an evil sense, the Acts of the Apostles be­ing excepted, where [...] is alwaies translated Sect, only Acts 24. 14. 'tis probable 'tis used in an ill sense. The Rea­son may be this, The Catho­lick Church being one, what opinion was broached by a­ny, contrary to the Catholic Church, receiv'd an ill stamp, and was called Heresie. The several opinions of the Philo­sophers were not branded [Page 3] with an ill name, they were not so fixed to one School, that it should be impious to be of another: but 'tis other­wise in the Church of Christ (which owneth the Holy Je­sus to be her Master, and Founder, and glorying that she is the Pillar and ground of Truth) whosoever sets up for himself, and divul­geth to the world an opini­on contrary to the doctrine of the Church, he himself was judged an Heretick, and his opinion, an Heresie: On this account in the Church of Christ, in all ages the word Heresie was not a word [Page 4] of a middle, or indifferent sense, but of an evil, and reproachful acceptation.

'Tis granted, that the Ro­man Empire was full of Phi­losophers when the Gospel was preached, and that some, not many, were converted: but it is denied that most of the Pastors of the Church were chosen out of these Philosophers: The primi­tive Christians had a migh­ty jealousie of them, and the greatest Philosophers which were Christians, were not Bishops: such were the Pro­fessors and Masters in the School of Alexandria, as Pan­taenus, [Page 5] Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, &c. The Heathens objected against the Christi­ans, that few of them were Learned, which caused St. Jerome to write his Book De Viris Illustribus.

'Tis a gaeat attestation to the truth of Christianity, that it appeared when Philosophy so much flourished in the world. Those great Wits, which were so vastly fur­nished with Oratory, Learn­ning, and the Tongues, if there had been any cheat acted by the Christians they would easily have de­tected it: therefore when [Page 6] Christ profest that by his works he might be known, he and his Apostles wrought those Miracles which gave a clear attestation to his do­ctrine. No doubt, but some of these Philosophers were converted, but that (by reason of their great skill in Oratory and Philosophy) most of the Primitive Church were chosen out of the num­ber of these Philosophers; 'Tis deny'd. In the Primi­tive Church for the three first Centuries, there was not a Philosopher made a Bishop.

When Christians became [Page 7] numerous, they sent their Children to be instructed in Philosophy and the Liberal Sciences, who became brave persons. But I am ignorant if any Philosopher convert­ed was made a Bishop. What Hobbs averrs, that these Pa­stors retaining their Philoso­phical Dogma's, interpreting Scriptures according to their own Sect, that thus at first Heresie entered into the Church, is not true; for Heresie was crept into the Church in the Apostles time, St. Paul commands Christi­ans to beware of Heresies, and St. Peter saith there are [Page 8] those who shall privily bring in damnable Heresies. I do ackowledge Tertullian wrote smartly and truly, when he term'd Philosophers the Pa­triarchs of Hereticks. De praescriptione. Irenaeus Lib. 2. Cap. 19. gives us an ac­count from what Philoso­phers the Valentinian and Gnostick Heresies borrow'd their absurd and monstrous opinions, But then we must say, that these Hereticks were not Pastors in the Church. The first that broach't those prodigious o­pinions was Simon Magus, who was onely baptiz'd. In [Page 9] the first Century, there was not one Heretick, which was a Pastor or Bishop in the Church of Christ. The He­resie of the Nicholaitans took its rise from Nicholas one of the Seven Deacons: he did not broach that Heresie, but some who misinterpreted a passage of his, were the Au­thors of it. Nor any of the Christian Clergy was the Author of any Heresie in the second Century. Tatius was a great Orator converted by Justin Martyr, and was the Author of the Heresie of the Encratites, but he was not of the Clerical order. In the [Page 10] third Century. Novatus a Roman Presbyter broach't his Heresie (I speak according to the best knowledge I have in the Church history) viz. con­cerning the not receiving the Lapsi into Communion, but he was not a Philosopher, nor was his opinions any wise a kin to the Dogma's of the heathen Philosophers. Ne­pos was an Aegyptian Bishop, not a profest Philosopher; a person of great excellency in many things, the Author of the opinion of Christs reign­ing a 1000 years upon Earth, which opinion is founded, not upon any of the Principles [Page 11] of Philosophy, but upon some passages in the Reve­lations. Paulus Samosatenus made Bishop of Antioch, was the broacher of many evil Doctrines, but he was not a Philosopher.

The design of Mr. Hobbs easily appears, he every where casts severe Reflecti­ons upon Christianity, and its Professors. The Apostle condemns vain Philosophy, Col. 2. which in the sence of Cl Alexandrinus is the Epicu­rean Philosophy, from which Hobs borrows his Principles, Moral, Natural, and Politi­cal. ‘"Upon the rising of a [Page 12] new opinion, the Pastors of the Church assemble themselves, if the Author of that Novelty persisted con­trary to the determinati­on of the Church, he was laid aside, and consider­ed as an heathen man (i. e.) they excommunicated him, other punishments they could inflict none."’ This shall be easily granted, but what he subjoyns is utterly to be refused: That all the punishments the Church could inflict, was only ig­nominy; by this one stroke of his pen he hath cancel'd the New Testament. To [Page 13] say, that excommunication, or casting a man out of the Church, or esteeming him as an heathen man, was but In­famy, 'tis to deny Christi­anity. One of the great of­fices of the Church was Ec­clesiastical discipline and the divine censures, of which excommunication was the severest, and is still, if duely manag'd, the greatest pu­ishment. To be thrown out of the Church, to be de­priv'd of the Prayers of the Church, to have no part in those offices of Religion, by which the Grace and Favour of God is obtain'd, and to [Page 14] be delivered to Satan, is this Infamy onely? To be outlaw'd, whereby a person is depriv'd of the benefit and liberty of the law; he is de­prived of the liberty of his Countrey, he enjoys not a free air, house, nor harbor, and by reason a Capital pen­alty is inflicted on those who afford him any reception or give him any relief, he is ex­posed to the utmost peril of ruine except the outlawry be reverst. Is this only Infamy? The Calamity that Excom­munication involves a per­son in, is far greater. For Excommunication acording [Page 15] to the Doctrine of the Pri­mitive Church was reputed a sentence excluing the Ex­communicated Persons from the Kingdome of Heaven: and hence by Tertullian in his Apology called futuri judicij praejudicium. Is this on­ly Infamy? He might have said, that Christianity is no­thing, the promises and threatnings contained in it are mere Chimaera's: thence, tho they that embrace it, do entertain such a belief, tis but a fancy, therefore all the evil which attends by excom­municationis onely Infamy. Excommunication was not [Page 16] onely for Heresies, but like­wise for immoralities; and excommunication did not brand a man for an He­retick, but the person being rendred infamous for his He­resie was (if in the bosome of the Church) cast out. That Heretick and Catholick became not Relatives by this excom­munication, nor by this did Heretick become a name, and a name of disgrace both toge­ther. A Person by becoming an Heretick was excommu­nicated, this name did pre­ceed, not follow excommu­nication. It must be acknow­ledged, that the Heresies con­cerning [Page 17] the Trinity were ve­ry troublesome in the Church, but not so vexati­ous during the ten Persecu­tions, as in Constantines time, and after; but what is the cause, that when he propo­ses the Troubles arising from the Doctrine of the Tri­nity, he would mix those doctrines which were whol­ly alienated from the do­ctrine of the Trinity, as those of the Manichees.

‘"For, saith he, according to the usual Curiosity of Natural Philosophy, they could not abstain from dis­puting the first principles [Page 18] of Christianity, into which they were Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost. Some there were who made them Allegorical; others would make one Creator of Good another of Evil. This was the principal Tenet of the Manichees, who took their Names from one Manes. This Monstrous opinion, that there were two Eter­nal Principles, Light and Darkness, these were two Contrary Gods, the one the Author of Good, the other of Evil. What is this to the Trinity?"’ That which [Page 19] he adds is not to be endu­red, ‘"From which doctrine they are not far distant that now make the first cause of Sinful actions to be every man as to his own Sin."’ Is this great Truth Manichism? To say man by his free-will is the Author of Sin. In commen­dation of himself in his own life thus? ‘"I Printed then two treatises that stung the Bishop Bramhal in his Mo­ther Tongue. The ques­tion at the time was, and is still, whether at Gods, or our own choice we will:"’ Can we will evil at Gods [Page 20] choice? We therefore do affirm expressly contrariant to Mr. Hobs, that the cau­sation of Evil cannot be attri­buted to God without Impi­ety. He mentioning our late fatal Wars thus—Such Crimes and Suffe­rings I will not impute unto the Deity.

I have no Sence if this be not a Repugnancy, in this Tract he affirms that those who assert, that the causati­on of Evil cannot be attribu­ted to God are allyed to the Manichees.

And yet when in the Ver­ses, which respect his life, [Page 21] he recounts the English E­vils and Calamities during the Wars, he dares not im­pute them to the Deity. Truly how far this Opinion is from Manichaism, let the World Judge. Can any man have sence to believe, that if Sin flows from God the first Cause, but it must be attributed to him? The Manichees believe an Eter­nal being the Author of all Evil. Take their Mon­strous opinion from them­selves. There was an Epistle which they in St. Austin called the Fundamen­tum, and thus begins. Mani­chaeus [Page 22] Apostolus Jesu Christi, Providentiâ Dei Patris, haec sunt salubria verba de vivo ac perenni Fonte. Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Providence of God the Fa­ther these are sound and wholsōe words flowing from a Liveing and Perpetual Fountain. In this Epistle, thus, In exordio fuêre duae sub­stantiae a se divisae &c. In the beginning there were two substances divided from one another. God the Father had the cōmand of Light; and then he proceeds to describe that kingdom, he then goes to the Kingdome of Darkness, [Page 23] which was at the side of Light, giveing a wild descrip­tion of that Kingdome of Darkness. He gives an ac­count of the Black King of it, that he with his hideous Train assaulted God the Fa­ther, the King of Light; who being affraid of him, sent some of his Troops, who mixing with the Black Regi­ments, formed his World. That what is Good must come from the King of Light, what is bad from the King of Darkness. These frenzies of him who was [...] be­witched once that great man, who by the Grace of God beeing [Page 24] inlightned fell from them to the Catholic Church.

St. Augustine a Presbyter in Hippo disputes Fortunatus a Manichaean Presbyter of that City. Both dispute a­bout the Original of the Evil of Sin, he assigns it to the Black Prince, & quitting the Cause, affirmed, it could have no o­ther Original then from the Evil Nature of the Prince of Darkness. The like we find in his second dispute with Felix the Manichaean. Saint Austin assigns rightly this to the Free will of man. It can­not enter into my head, why Mr. Hobs should give this [Page 25] assertion, my understanding is too shallow to fathom this depth.

Nothing farther to be re­proved till we come to the 6 page, onely this passage may receive a little Censure pag 6 ‘"Constantine the great was made by the valor and assistance of the Christian Soldiers sole Emperor."’ He not much regarding the pe­culiar Providence of God, takes nonotice of that great miracle of ye Cross appearing at Noon, with this inscription [...]. The whole Army of Constantine was inferior to Magnentius his Forces, a [Page 26] small number of his Soldiers were Christians, it was more the peculiar action of the Arme of Heaven, which dissi­pated the Army of Magnen­tius, and gave the Eagles to Constantine. ‘"In the latter end of his time their arose a dispute between Alexan­der the Bishop, and Arrius the Presbyter of that City."’ Here the Philosopher hath erred in his Chronology, for for the quarrel between them began before the Licinian Persecution, in the Tenth of Constantin's; who com­manded the Empire 37 years. Would this was the worst [Page 27] Error! ‘"This Controver­sy between the Inhabitants and Souldiers, presently be­came a quarrel, and was the cause of much blood­shed in and about the Ci­ty. This so far concerned the Emperors Civil go­vernment, that he thought it necessary to call a general Council of all the Bishops and other eminent Divines throwout the Roman Em­pire, to meet at the City of Nice."’ Indeed I read in the Time of Constantius, the Aarrians prosecuted the Ca­tholicks with the greatest fury imaginable. The lamenta­ble [Page 28] Tragedy of which is gi­ven us by an Alexandrian Synod, in their Letters to Julius Bishop of Rome. But that any murders were com­mitted during the Reign of Constantine, I do not observe; but to lessen the honor of Christian Religion, he assigns the calling of that Council to the Peace of the Empire. The prime reason was the Establishing the Peace of the Church, and the Uniformity in Doctrine, which will be manifested, he said to the Fathers in his Exhortation to them, ‘"That they would fall in hand wth [Page 29] the Articles of Faith, and whatsoever they should de­cree therein, he would cause to be Observed:"’ On which he thus Animadverts, ‘"This may perhaps seem a great indifferency, then would in these Days be approved off."’ I know not the sence of this reflection, for what could be more desired by a Council of the Emperor, then to assure them that he would ratify those Canons which they decreed, cencerning the things they were called for. The main of the discourse is concerning his animadversi­ons on this Article, Begotten, [Page 30] not made, being of one Sub­stance with the Father. Thus he: ‘"In this they condemn the doctrine of Armus, for this word, of one Sub­stance, in Latine Consubstan­tialis in Greek [...] was put as a touch-stone to dis­cern an Arrian from a Ca­tholick, and much ado their was about it."’ Thus far tis true, but the verity of he sub­sequent discourse must be considered.

‘"Constantine himself at the passing of it took it for an hard Word, but yet appro­ved it:"’ The account is gi­ven by Eusebius in his Epistle [Page 31] to his flock, in Caesarea. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 12. he acquaints them what a form of sound words he presented to the Synod at Nice, wch the Em­peror and Synod allowed and approved: but the Synod was not satisfyed except this one word [...] was inser­ted; whereupon the Synod entered into a long debate, and it past [...] &c. we did not admit without enqui­ry, which was after this man­ner. That word, of one sub­stance was not to be under­stood according to any Cor­poreal passion; That it was not a Subsistence by any di­vision [Page 32] or abscission from the Father. For an immaterial, in­tellectual, and incorporeal Nature can't be the subject of Corporeal passions, it be­hov'd that such things ought to be express'd in divine and arcane words. Thus our most wise and religious Em­perour did Philosophise. And Theoderet, cap. 13. saith that word [...] was not inven­ted by the Fathers, but re­ceived from former ages, and devolved from Fathers to Children. ‘"Constantine calling that word Divine not because it was in the divine Scripture,"’ for it was [Page 33] not there, This is acknow­ledged. ‘"But because it was to him an Arcanum not sufficiently undeistood,"’ Mr. Hobs takes all the occasion to cast a contempt upon the Council; tis fit their should be suitable words, for tho the mystery cannot be right­ly understood, yet the sence of the word may very well be understood. This word [...] may well enough be known, yet how the son of God should be of the same substance with the Father, is not so intelligible, his re­flection upon the Emperor is unworthy a Gentleman. [Page 34] ‘"And in this appeared the indifferency of the Empe­ror, and that he had for his end in calling the Synod, not so much the Truth as the Uniformity of the doct­rine, and the Peace of his People yet depended on it."’

This is a most notorious scandal; What! the famous Constantine, who put a period to persecution, restored peace to Christians, and made Christianity to florish, what this Constantine to play the Hypocrite? Constantine did desire the Uniformity in Doctrine, but not in an e­vil Doctrine, and the Peace [Page 35] of his people, but he would not build this upon the foun­dation of Sin and and Heresy. Before that celebrated Em­peror convened the Council, he was convinced of the true Faith, which appeared by his Discourse with Arrius, and his large letter to the Churches in Romania. They who read the letters of Con­stantine concerning Arrius before the Council was call'd Constantines Edict, for the Convening of the Fathers, and his pious and sweet O­rations to the Council, will find, that Constantine's De­signe was, that so great an [Page 36] Assembly of the best Di­vines should settle the Church upon the Foundation of Truth and peace. Further, ‘"the cause of the obscurity of this word [...] pro­ceeded clearly from the difference of the Greek and Roman dialect in the Phylosophy of the Peripa­teticks,"’, what should cast Mr. Hobs into this sentiment I cannot understand; all his sub­sequent discourse is of Essence or [...]. As to this I know no difference in the Greek and Latine Dialect. Both Greek and Latine in the Sence of [...]hat agreed. The Arrians [Page 37] and Catholicks were Harmo­nious.

As to the [...], why Mr. Hobs should make their diffe­rence to consist in that which they did agree, is to me un­intelligible. The difference lay in the Adjective; there is one letter ( [...]) that makes it; all Schools agree in this, that like is not the same; the Arrians would allow the [...], of a sub­stance like to the father, but not this [...] of the same Substance with the Father. It manifestly appears to be a wild excursion of Mr. Hobs to discourse and quible upon [Page 38] the Sence of this [...] Essence, and Substance, when the dis­pute did not lye in that; yet if there be a connexion in his discourse, in that, according to him, it did consist: but we will follow him in the Chace. ‘"The first principle of all Religion in all Nati­ons is, God is. This is a truth. That is to say, that God really is something, and not a meere fancy."’ This is not well sayd, It is with a diminution, for when we un­derstand the Notion of a God, then we must have a concep­tion of a being which is in­finitely [Page 39] wise, Good, Power­ful, Eternal. &c. ‘"but that which is really something is considerable alone by it self, as being somewhere, so the Earth, the Air are all of them things real; whatsoever is in any place hath dimēsion, that is to say Magnitude, and this which hath Magnitude whether it be visible or invisible is cal­led by all the learned a Bo­dy, If it be finite, & body or Corporeal, if it be infinite, it followeth, that all real things in that they are some­where, are corporeal,"’ which [Page 40] Paragraph gives occasion of these 2 considerable things. 1. Whether there be any real being but that which is a bo­dy, and hath magnitude? 2. Wherein the Nature of In­finity consists? As to the first we will grant, that all learn'd men say whatsoever hath Magnitude is a Body; yet it must be affirmed, that the most and best of the Literati affirme, that there are real Beings, which are not bo­dys, and have no Magnitude, The chief of which we say is God, and tis impossible to have any conception of a [Page 41] God, but he must remove from him the conception of a Body; A Body must of ne­cessity be divisible and have such parts wch can't be com­petent to a Deity, so that great Attribute of God's Immuta­bility is lost, He being a thing that may be changed; nor can this consist with Gods Omnipotency; how can we think matter can be omnipo­tent, if we seriously cast our Eyes upon this world to con­template its beauty, order and greatness; Is't possible to conceive, that it is the pro­duct of Matter? No, the no­tion of a God must include [Page 42] in its self the Notion of Infi­nity. An Infinite cannot consist of finite parts; several finites cannot amount to one infinite, therefore God can­not have parts, wherefore it must be acknowledged, that there is a being which is not corporeal, and farther tis most certain that Hobs contradicts his own great principle, that the supream Power is the sole Judge of Good and Evil, Truth and Falsehood. He is a Subject to the King of England by whose law the Nicene Coun­cil was ratified, which de­creed that God is an immate­rial [Page 43] and incorporeal Sub­stance, and by his own Law hath declared that God hath no parts.

2. As to the Nature of a Thing infinite, there can be but two just acceptions of it.

It signifies a being which includes in it self all per­fections, and so it connotes the great God, the Eternal Majesty, and this infers, there cannot be two Infinites, for there must not be two of all perfections. 2. Or a being that is boundless, or hath no terme. The name Infinite may be given to other things, [Page 44] as an Infinite Sea because it cannot be exhausted, take what water out of it you please, the Sea remaines as full as before; Infinite words, Infinite Numbers, yet there are bounds to them, the Sea may be fathomed, Words have their Numbers, none can imagine a line drawn to such a length but it may be drawn longer, fancy any number, there may be an addition, these are not pro­perly Infinites, as a little Stick we see bounded, yet di­vided it may be into Infinite parts (i. e.) it will be still ca­pable of division, for nothing [Page 45] is material, but each part will be material. 'Tis clear that nothing can be esteemed infinite but Space, in my ap­prehension. Space simply conceived is nothing, 'tis a mere imagination, so it ap­pears, that nothing Corpore­al is Infinite. That which he subjoyns concerning Essence, and Deity shall be conside­red, what he says of White­ness and Blackness will be granted but what he in­tends by it, shall, be present­ly examined. ‘"These Re­al things, are called by the Latine Philosophers Entia, subjecta, substantiae, and by [Page 46] the Greek Philosophers: [...] The other which are In­corporeal, are called by the Greek Philosophers, [...] but most of the Latine Philoso­phers use to convert [...] into substantia, and so con­found real and corporeal things with incorporeal which is not well. For Es­sence and Substance signifie divers things."’ To which 'tis thus returned; why doth Mr. Hobs call any thing Incorporeal, when he asserts there's nothing but what is a Body?

[Page 47] 2. What philosophers say substantiae are [...], other things are so called which are not substantiae; and who saith that White and Black are substantia and subjecta, seeing white and black have their substrata, which are dif­ferent from them, and they are separable, for that sub­stratum which is now white, may anon be black.

3. By the Greek Philoso­phers Incorporeal things are not called [...], for these are accidentia; nor [...], for the spectra are sub­jects of the eye, and what is the object of sense is materi­al, [Page 48] but they are by them cal­led [...].

The Latine Authors doe well in translating [...] some­times Substantia, sometimes Essentia, Essence and Sub­stande do differ, but the Greek is copious▪ [...] signifies Es­sence and Substance, expresly Arist lib. 4. cap. 9. gives these two significations of [...], that it signifies both Essence and Substance. The Latines take their measures from the Greeks. They confound not Essence and Substance, who give the just Translation ac­cording to the true sense, it having divers acceptations, [Page 49] and therefore this [...] is truely rendred One of the same Substance.

‘'And this mistake is re­ceiv'd, and continues still in these parts, in all disputes both of Philosophy and Di­vinity; for in truth Essen­tia signified no more than if we should talk ridiculously of the Isness of the thing, that is, (By whom all things were made) this is prov'd out of St. John, Cap. 1. Verse 1, 2, 3. and Heb. Cap. 1. Ver. 3. and that again out of Gen. 1.'’ To make those expressions which Philoso­phers us'd ridiculous he thus [Page 50] form'd this word Isness St. Jerome upon these words of the wise man, There's no new thing under the Sun, quotes his Master Donatus, reading upon Terence, Nil dictum, quod non priùs dictum, Des­pereant qui nostra ante nos dix­erunt. That great Rhetori­cian, and Gramarian might be the Inver [...] or of some new words, or new explanation of the same thing but not else Mr. Hobbs is the sole Inven­tor of the word Isness, but his Leviathan principles were prepared to his hands by fan­ciful and not thinking men, words mightily prevail. The [Page 51] reverend Mr. Calvin against the Anabaptists, and other wild persons, us'd the word Phanatick. The Great Monk in his Southern Journey which he manag'd with as cu­rious and fine Stratagems as ever a General did, to expose his adversaries (the Army abounding with such sort of Creatures) he call'd them Phanaticks, which was of great efficacy; perhaps 'tis Mr. Hobbs his imagination by this odd word Isness to render Essentia, us'd by the Philosophers, contemptible ere long (it may be) on the Stage. And this Isness amongst [Page 52] Drolls may serve to make a Conceit more pleasant: If He would have recollected what he said of Speech. Cap. 40. Leviathan; that words sig­nifie as they are usually under­stood, then if Isness had been used in a common vogue to denote the same with Essence who would have reprov'd it. He quarrels with the Father [...] and Divines of Note for con­founding the Concrete with the Abstract, Deus with Dei­tas, Ens with Essentia, Sa­piens with Sapientia, Aeternu [...] with Aeternitas: In my ap­prehension, the Philosophers do not confound themselves, [Page 53] for they suppose a distinction, which to me thus appears: Essentia the Nature, Ens the thing it self. I may have ap­prehensions of a thing, and the Nature of a thing; the Philosophers make no con­fusion, none of them say that Sapiens is Sapientia; if they did so, they might tru­ly say, that Covetousness is a Covetous man, and Holyness is a Holy man &c. as he by this would render them con­temptible: by a Concrete they understand a Thing com­pounded of Substance▪ and Forms, by an abstract they conceive a Form without the [Page 54] Subject; as Wisdome, not con­sidering the man that is Wise. I may at the same time have a conception of Wisdom, and not have the conception of a wise man. No Philosopher doth say that wisdom, and a wise man are the same, nor Co­vetousness, and a Covetous man are the same. The Schools and Philosophers in speaking of the Deity do fear to speak of God with any irreverence, & therefore upon just ground admit not any composition in God amongst them. Deitas and Deus are the same, and by reason that there is no­thing Eternal, but God, in [Page 55] Him aeternus & aeternitas are the same: For when we con­cieve a distinction in the mind of man, it is concerning crea­ted beings; but we have none such in God. Essence and Ex­istence of created beings af­ford two different modes of concieving, but the contrary is of God. There is but one conception of the Essence and Existence of a God, and of them there is no sort of di­stinction: The Abstract and Concrete, and Concrete and Ab­stract are the same, therefore it must be ill said of him: For if Deitas abstracted be Deus, we make two Gods of one. [Page 56] Must then no such word as Essence be used? only Body [...] surely the word Nature may be used? what is this Corporeal? by that means I may use the word Essential His aim is higher, that is, as the Trinity, from that myste­ry of Faith he takes all his Grandeur. Thus Mr. Hobs, The Attributes therefore of God in the abstract, when they are put for God, are put Metonymi­cally, which is a common thing in Scripture; as for Example. Prov. 8. 25. Before the Moun­tains were setled, before the Hills brought forth was I. The Wisdom there spoken of being [Page 57] the wisdom of God, signifies the same with the wise God. In the sacred Scripture by the Wise­dom of God, is sometimes meant the Son of God, the [...], the Eternal Word, and this is not denyed by the Ar­rians themselves. They ac­knowledging that Wisdom mentioned by Solomon is Christ the Son of God, do endeavour to prove him not [...], because he is said to be according to the greek fundata sum, and as cited by Fulgentius contra object. Arri­anorum obj. Creavit me Initi­um viarum suarum. A Crea­ture is not of the same sub­stance, tho the Arrians fals­ly [Page 58] applyed those words, yet tis certain that by the wis­dome of God mentioned in that chapter, was not as Mr. Hobs saith Metonimically by them taken for the wise God, but a being subsistent by it self; what he thinks of the other part of the Creed is not amiss, but to say that it was never questioned a­mongst Christians (except by the Arrians) that Christ was God Eternal is an huge mist­ake. Before Arrius appear'd, several Hereticks denied it, and Arrius according to this word [...], as appears by his Letters and Confession would not scruple to call [Page 59] Christ the Eternal God.

He adds, That no man can be made an Heretick by conse­quence this shall not create any dispute but what means he when he saith because that form was not put into the body of the Creed, but directed onely to the Bishops, there was no reason to punish any Lay-per­son that should speak to the con­trary; I cant find his mean­ing: for the form [...] was in the Creed, and by the Authority of that Council e­very person who did not re­ceive it was anathematiz'd. Perhaps he means this, that God hath no Parts is not in the [Page 60] form of the Creed. This is acknowledged, that the Council did not put that in­to the forme of the Creed, yet it was determined by the Council. The Letters which Eusebius wrote were Synodi­cal.

By the super scriptions it appears, that the Contents of those Epistles did not con­cerne onely the Bishop, but all the People. Socrates, Lib. 1. Cap. 5. gives a full account of this; he wrote an Epistle of the Decrees and Acts of which Eusebius sent by order of the Council. [...], and [Page 61] this same Epistle saith So­crates Eusebius sent [...], to the Church of Alexandria, to those of Lybia, Egypt and Pentapolis. What the Synod by a com­mon suffrage past, when the conciliary decrees were sent to all the Churches: Mr. Hobs would make the World believe that they being di­rected by the Bishops were onely obligatory of them▪ The Contrary in Theodoret. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Cap. 12. The Synodical Epistles of the Ni­cene Fathers were directed not to the Bishops, for the Bi­shops were present in Coun­cil [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] but to the Church of A­lexandria, and to all our be­loved brethren in Aegypt, Libi­a and Pentapolis. These being thus directed there was a reason to punish any Lay-person which should speak to the contrary. ‘'But what was the meaning of this Doctrine, that God hath no parts? Was it made Heresy to say that God who is a re­al Substance, cannot be con­sidered or spoken of as here or there, or any where which are parts of places? Or that there is any real thing without length every way, that is to say which [Page 63] hath no magnitude at all Fi­nite or Infinite? Or is there any whole Substance, whose two halves or three thirds are not the same with that whole? Or did they mean to condemn the Argument of Tertullian, by which he con­futed Apelles and other He­reticks of his time, namely whatsoever was not corpo­real, was nothing but phan­tasm, and not Corporeal for Heretical?'’ no certainly, No Divines say that, What is the meaning of this, that God hath no Parts?

To explain this he adds se­veral questions, whether God [Page 64] considered or spoken of, as here and there, or that there is any real thing without length every way i. e. hath magnitude at all Finite or In­finite: 'tis returned to those questions. God is an Infinite substance without magni­tude▪ nor can it be said, that a magnitude is infinite, 'tis im­possible to think that to be infinite, to which there can be an addition. His third cap­tious question is frivolous; 'Tis true if that substance be material, but it is not true in an immaterial substance. To the Fourth let any Divine be produced who saith that what [Page 65] is not Corporeal is a Phantasme. This is the question, whe­ther all beings which have a­real Substance be Corporeal, the Epicureans affirme it, other Philosophers and Christians wholly deny it, indeed it must be affirmed, that some­times by Corpus or a Body is meant any real being, or what­ever hath any real being; and this it is by some conceived to be the sence of Tertullian; Thus St. Augustine vindicates Tertullian de Genesi ad Literam Lib. 10. Cap. ult. Tertull. de Animâ Cap. 7 Omne Corporale est passibile. Upon that St. Au­gustine, debuit ergò mutare sen­tentiam. [Page 66] He ought there­fore to change his opinion; which he mentions in another place, God is a body, ad, vernis Praxeam. I cannot believe that he was so Child­ish as to believe the Nature of God is passible; but that by this Argument, whatso­ever was not Corporeal was no­thing, should be the argu­ment whereby he confuted Apelles, and other Hereticks in his times is a Conclusion above the reach of my under­standing. He disputes a­gainst Hermogenes who asser­ted an Eternal matter coex­istent with God, who out [Page 67] of that created this Ʋniverse What Argument can be used against Hermogines taken from proposition, Omne quod est Corpus est. There is no­thing but Body. In Cap. 35. Tertullian explains himself; he takes an Argument from Hermogines his contradicting himself, primâ facie materia videtur esse incorporalis; at the first sight matter seems to be incorporeal: but having se­riously pondered what he saith, Matter will be found neither Corporeal, nor Incor­poreal. That I grant, some sub­stance is onely Incorporeal, for the Substance it self is the Bo­dy [Page 68] of every thing when Cor­poreal and Incorporeal are men­tioned; nothing else will be admitted. Thus he explain­ing his sence of Corpus that it is Substantia, he confutes Hermogines not from the re­cited proposition, but his own contrarietys; the same may be applyed to what he dis­putes against Marchiaean Apel­les and Praxeas. Therefore against Mr. Hobs I may be confident to averr that Ter­tullian never attempts the re­futing Apelles, or any other Heretick in his time, from this Topick, whatsoever was not Corporeal was a Phantasme. [Page 69] Tis true the Nicene Fathers went to establish one Indivi­dual God in Trinity, to a­bolish the diversity of Species in God: and tis not true, that they did not intend to destroy the distinction of here and there, for the Council in explaining the word did say, that it could not be un­derstood of God, [...] not [...], for the Es­sence of God was [...], the discourse is not concerning the intent of the Council. Since the Council judged the nature of God to be Immaterial and Incorpo­real, they did conclude that [Page 70] an Incorporeal Substance was not a contradiction; there­fore the holy Fathers must needs have thought that God had no extended parts; nor any sort of parts; and there­fore not be considered as here and there. What a force is don by him to the Apostles quest­ion; St. Paul asks the Corin­thians, Is Christ divided? which he thus interprets. ‘'He did not think, they thought him impossible to be consi­dered as having hands and feet, but that they might think him (alluding to the manner of the Gentiles) one of the sons of God, but not [Page 71] the only begotten. Thus ex­pounded in Athanasius his Creed, Not Confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Sub­stance, i. e. God is not divi­ded into 3 Persons Peter, James and John, nor are the 3 Persons one and the same Person.'’ Tis granted, that the Fathers intended the last, but it is denied that they had any such intent, by not dividing the Substance, to have a respect unto various Indi­viduals, for in that division, the Persons & substances are divided, the Substances are different and not the same; but in the persons of the In­dividual [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] Trinity, the Sub­stance is the same. And in created beings the Persona of every Individual is really distinct, not onely from the essence and person of ano­ther Individual, but from the Substance in which it doth subsist; which appears in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who assu­med not the Person but Na­ture of Man: but the miste­ry being great above all the understanding and appre­hension of man; it is rather the object of Faith, than Reason. My main under­taking against Mr. Hobs in [Page 73] this Tract is not to illustrate or prove the meaning, but to manifest that he has not cleared himself of the con­tradiction, and that in his attempts he throws himself into new absurdities, one of which is this Paragraph.

‘'But Aristotle, and from him all the Greek Fathers, and other learned men, when they distinguish the general latitude of a word, they call it division, as when they divide the Animal into Man and Beast, they call these [...], Species, and when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John, they [Page 74] call these [...] partes indivi­duae. And by this confound­ing the division of the Sub­stance with the distinction of words, divers men have been led into Error of attribut­ing to God a name, which is not the name of any Sub­stance at all, viz. Incorporeal'’ 'Tis true that the Philoso­phers, when they divide A­nimae or the Genus into Men or Beasts, they call these [...] Species, but when they again divide the Species Man, into Peter and John, they never call these [...] Partes Individuae, for [...] are partes dividuae, there­fore Individua are called [Page 75] [...]; but what sence there is in his deduction, I'le give, when I understand it. There is a substance, which is In­corporeal; the Philosophers were led into that truth by observing the operations of some beings which are not Corporeal, where it must needs follow, that these es­sences are Incorporeal; and by some other Arguments: but that they should be led into this, which he calls an Error by confounding the di­vision of Substance with the distinction of words, is a thing far from Truth, and a­ny conception of mine.

[Page 76] ‘'Many Heresies which were Antecedent to the first general Council were con­demned, as that of Manes (he might have added Marcion) by the first article I believe in one God.'’ This was not di­rected onely against them, but also against the poluthe­isme of the Heathens, ‘'tho to me it seems still to remain in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which so attributes a liberty of the will to men, as that their will and purpose to commit sin uot should proceed from the cause of all things God, but originally from them­selves [Page 77] or from the Devil.'’ In­deed Marcion and Manes at­tributed Sin to an evill God, but the Church of Rome, the Church of England, and all other Churches look upon that Opinion as Heretical: why this Doctrine of the Li­berty of the will is to remain in the Church of Rome, this is to palliate. This Doct­rine continues in the Church of England, and in all the Churches of Christ. The Devil does vehemently tempt to sin, but he is not the cause of sin; hence that good Ax­om is received by all know­ing men, No body is injured [Page 78] but by himself, that which is properly an Evil is the Evil of Sin, which our selves only can inflict upon us; but how comes it to pass that this Doctrine of the Liberty of the Will should be opposed by this Article, I believe in one God? they who maintain that Doctrine firmly believe this Article, They say that the one true God is infinite­ly glorious in all perfections, amongst which is the Liberty of his will, he created all things, amongst which he cre­ated Rational beings which he endowed with the Liber­ty of Will, whereby they are [Page 79] made capable of being ver­tuous, and so to be rewarded, or vitious, and so to be pun­ished; where is there by this sentiment a setting up ano­ther God? by God he means one first Cause which necessa­rily moved from all eternity, from which necessary cause there flows an infinite con­catenation of necessary cau­ses, whence if any say, that there is a Liberty of the Will, he must assigne another first Cause, and from thence op­pose this Article I believe in one God; we say there is but one first Cause, and that a free A­gent, whence springs the Li­berty [Page 80] of Rational Beings. By the account which Mr. Hobs gives of God, and by seve­ral of his opinions it must be concluded, that he believes there is no God. One of his sayings is, He that saith there is no mind in the World, hath no mind. This is a gingling quib­ble, besides many gross absur­dites with wch his opinion is charged, this is no mean one; God is the Author of Sin; to which he replys Leviath. cap. 46. by this distinction God is not the Author of Sin, but he is the cause. The Author is he who commands, the Cause by whose Power a thing is [Page 81] done. This with many other distinctions he frames, which are more subtle, perplext, and remote from sence, then a­ny of the School-mens, for which he so much condemns them, certainly every cause is the Author of a thing. He that commands, is by that a moral cause. But he that is a cause by enabling to do, is a Physical cause of Sin, God can't be such a cause; but it may be queried whether God, accor­ding to Mr. Hobs, ever gave any laws to man-kind, for unquestionably if the rule of Justice, & Injustice Good and Bad, true and false be the will [Page 82] of the supream power; God never gave laws to man kind, ‘'perhaps (saith he) the An­thropomorphites were then condemned, but this cānot be for they appeared not untill the time of Valens.'’ This is no great matter, It is certain that the Council did con­demn all those who ascribed any parts to God, which the Anthropomorphites did, yet if Epiphanius be credited, heret, 70. Audianus a Mesopotani­can the Author of this Here­sy of the Anthropomorphites florished in the time of Arri­us, when the Nicene Council was convened.

[Page 83] ‘'No other punishment was ordained by Constantine than Deprivation and Banish­ment; and that not onely of Bishops and Pastors who refused to subscribe to the Faith; thus did Heresie (which at first was the name of a private opinion, and no crime, was by vertue of a law of the Emperor, made onely for the Peace of the Church) become a Crime in a Pastor and punishable.'’ How many Errata's in this Paraptaph? Heresy in the Church of Christ was always a Crime, and never the name of an opinion. This I prov'd [Page 84] before; let it be granted, that every Sin is not a Crime, and that every Crime is that wch is punishable; 'tis a trisle to be lirigious in words, every sin is certainly punishable; some Sins are greater than others, so there is a difference in Crimes, there are Crimes which are onely discernable by Almighty God, and so punishable at his tribunal; but that Heresy should be a Crime onely because the ci­vil power inflicts a corporal punishment, cannot be un­derstood by any, but such a person, who bids a defyance not only to the Christian [Page 85] Religion, but to all other Religions which assert a fu­ture retribution, or con­cludes that the great God doth punish evil men in this life by some extraordinary methods. But that Heresy after this decree of the coun­cil became onely a Crime punishable in the Bishops and Pastors, whether it be true or not, is not much material. In the Pastors the People were always punished, for they followed their Pastors in banishment. Basil with a curious pen delineating the miserys and calamitys under which the Orthodox Bishops [Page 86] and Pastors groan'd, likewise gives us the description of those dreadful sufferings, with which the people were oppprest.

Eusebius giveing us an ac­count of an Edict of Constan­tine against Hereticks, in that not onely Bishops and Past­ors, but all sorts of Here­ticks were involved. de vità Constant. lib. 3 cap. 62. And having proved before that A­rianisme was decreed an He­resy not for the peace of the Church, but likewise that there might be an agreement in the same faith, which was necessary to salvation, we [Page 87] may justly say that every line of that Paragraph is notori­ously untrue. To lessen the Esteem of the Nicene and the 4 General Councils, says he, ‘'There arose new Heresies a­bout the Interpretation of the Creed, and partly a­bout the Holy Ghost, of which the Nicene Coun­cil had not determined, And afterwards concer­ning the Holy Ghost. Nest­orius Bishop of Constantinople & some others denied the di­vinity thereof.'’ The Pneuma­tomachi appearing after the Council of Nice had preten­ded [Page 88] for themselves the si­lence of the Nicene Fathers; to which Basil, Nazianzen, Theoderet, Epiphanius answer, there being no question mo­ved concerning it, the Coun­cil acquiesed in the opinion, and right Faith of the Uni­versal Church, concerning the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost.

Why should the Fathers confirme that truth which was not questioned, but ta­ken for granted, or condemne that for Heresy which was not preached, yet if not in a set forme of words decreed, [Page 89] yet in truth and by good consequence, the sence of the Fathers as to that Article was given. For St. Basil Epist. 78. Hieronom. Epist. 65. Epip. haeresi 74 take off, and an­swer that objection; Epipha­nius and Athanasius prove it thus, that the same glory which is given to the Father, and to the Son, is likewise given to the Holy Ghost; for the Symbol is, I believe in God the Father, and in God the Son; and I believe in the Holy Ghost. This Divine Faith, fixed upon the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, as one [Page 90] and the same God, gives the true sence of the Council.

The great mistake con­cerning Nestorius must only be attributed to Mr. Hobs his animadversion: for it was not Nestorious, but Macedo­nius who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Nestori­us was a great adversary to the [...], therefore in Socrates Lib. 7. Cap 31, we find that Nestorius was so great an Enemy to the Macedonians that when he was Bishop of Constantinople he drove the Macedonians out of all their Churches in that City, and in the Helles­pont.

[Page 91] ‘'Concerning the Parts established there arose dis­putes about the Nature of Christ, and the word Hy­postasis. (i. e.) Substance, for of persons there was yet no mention made, their Creed being written in Greek, in which Language there is no word that an­swereth to the Latine word Persona; and the Union, as the Fathers called it, of the Humane and Divine Nature in Christ Hypostolical caused Eutyches, and after him Dios­curus to affirme there was but one Nature in Christ, [Page 92] thinking that whensoever two things are united, they are one.'’

Tis true the Latine word Persona is used in the Latine Church, which Church em­braced likewise the word Hypostasis, and all differen­ces concerning those words were within a while com­posed, and all Orthodox Christians in that Church who know the Greek Lan­guage do receive the word Hypostasis in the same sense which the Latines use Per­sona. The famous Nicene Councils having decreed, that there were two Natures in [Page 93] Christ, and one Hypostasis which signifies Subsistence, this exactly answers to the La­tine Persona. Nestorius Bi­shop of Constantine broch'd this Heresy that in Christ there were two distinct per­sons, and so Mary the Mo­ther of Christ was not [...] the Mother of God: a­gainst him Eutyches excel­lently disputed in the Fourth Action, in the Council of Constantinople; Eutyches de­clining the one, fell into an­other Heresy, asserting that there was but one Nature in Christ, yet the humane Na­ture was swallowed up by the [Page 94] Divine, and was not of the flesh of the Virgin, but de­scended from God. A great promoter of this impiety was Dioscurus Bishop of Alexan­dria, a wicked and lewd person, a Monster rather than a Bishop. These were condemned in the Chalcedoni­an Council. I will grant that the Disciples of Eutyches did say, If two Natures there would be two hypostases, I will say it was an Heretical illation, and affirme, that the Latine word Persona answers to the Greek [...], according to the Sence of the Churches both East and West. [...] [Page 95] is not Substance but Subsist­ence, to which Persona directly answers. But (saith he) in the Nicene Creed there's no men­tion of Hypostasis or Hyposta­tical Union, nor of Corporeal, nor Incorporeal, nor of parts; but this was acknowledged by the Fathers in that Coun­cil, there was the [...] which necessarily infers it: after a dispute concerning the sense of these words, they all agreed in the same Faith, and that Hypostasis is as well as Persona, entertained by the universal Church; not sig­nifying Substantiam as usally; but Subsistentiam; from the Nicene decree must of n [...] ­cessity [Page 96] flow the Hypostatical Ʋnion. Tho the word Incorpo­real was not used in the Nicene Creed, yet it is used in Euse­bius his Synodical Episties, who styles God [...] and [...], Immaterial and Incorpo­real, as before asserted: but invidiously to throw dirt up­on the Fathers; ‘'such Points (saith he) were not necessary to Salvation, but set a broach for ostentation of learning, or else to dazle men with de­signe to lead them towards some ends of their own.'’ By which he charges the most humble persons with pride, the most sincere with Hypo­crisie, [Page 97] and the most unbiass'd with secular aims. Tis true that it was not judged ne­cessary to Salvation, that vulgar persons should know what Hypostasis and Persona intended, as appears by that Council held at Alexandria by Athanasius Bishop of that See; Eusebius of Vercelles, and Lucifer of Calaris, Two Western Bishops, who af­ter they had contended about these words, were united in this Nicene article, that Christ was the Eternal Son of God, and really God, and that it was an Article of the Christian Faith, & necessary to Salvation. What [Page 98] he says concerning St. Cypri­an is nothing to my design, nor shall I make any remarks upon his discourse of the U­surpation of the Bishop of Rome, or take cognizance of what he says of the punish­ment ordained against Here­ticks in the Reign of K. Rich. the 2. and succeding Princes, for this is nothing to my pur­pose; my whole designe is to make good the contradi­ction with which he is charg­ed. I must therefore have no regard to any penal sta­tures in Causes Ecclesiastical, until the Reign of Queen E­lisabeth. I charge him with [Page 99] these heretical propositions, contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, to whom he is obliged by the laws of the King to be Sub­ject. 1. That God hath parts. 2. That Christ is not of the same Substance with the Fa­ther. 3. That the Persons in the sacred Trinity are tempo­rall; All which are declared Heretical by the lawes, and Church of England. But Mr. Hobs would evade the two last Heretical propositions, by saying he believes the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Church hath explained it in the Catechisme. When [Page 100] the Minister asks the Catecumene, what dost thou chiefly lear in these Articles of thy Belief. He answers, I learn first to be­lieve in God the Father, who cre­ated me and all the World. 2. I God the Son who hath redeemed me and all Mankind. 3. I God the Holy-Ghost who hath Sanctified me and all the Elec [...] People of God. What is then intended but this, tha [...] God in his own person-did create all things, in the Per­son of his Son did redeem Mankind, in the person o [...] the Holy Ghost did Sanctifi [...] the Church: What clearlie concerning the Divine per­sons, [Page 101] or more consentane­ous to the Faith can be said? Appendix ad Leviath. Cap. 1. On the contrary I will pro­nounce that nothing is more obscure nor distentaneous to the Faith: Tully said pro­perly, Ego tres sustineo perso­nas, mei Judicis adversarij; yet it must be granted, that the same word may have divers significations, peculiarly in various sciences, else the great and famous Northern Constellations may note the greatest Bear in the Muscovi­an Snowes. The Latine Fa­thers, and after them the Schools, and Divines, take [Page 102] not the word Persona in the same sence that Orators and Philosophers do; I believe that Bellarmine did know the meaning of the Latine word persona as well as Mr. Hobs. Let common sence be appea­led, can the Mystery of the Trinity be explained accor­ding to Cicero's use of the word Persona For accor­ding to the Church of Eng­land in the Athanasian Creed, which is part of the Liturgy established by Law, and rati­fied in the 8 Article, in which are these words, the Three Creeds, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and that [Page 103] commonly called the Apostles Creed, ought to be throughly re­ceived and believed. In the Athanasian, the Eternity is not onely of the Essence, but of the Persons, not as the Fa­ther Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal, but according to Mr. Hobs the Persons were Temporal (i. e.) God became a Father, when he created the World, A Son when he redeemed Mankind, and the Holy Ghost when he Sanctifies; which is absolutely contrary to the Faith: for upon the Impi­ous account of Mr. Hobs the Persons were not eternal, by [Page 104] reason the Actions of God in creating the World, by which there was the parsonal­ity of the Father, and of the Son in redeeming the World, and of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying the Elect Peo­ple of God, were temporal. Let this be Queried, What Sence is this? God redeemed Mankind in the person of his Son, Persona mei is Tully himself, but Persona Judicis is Tully reprensenting a Judge; did God represent another in the redeeming of the World? This leads to the making good this Heresy concerning the Incarnation [Page 105] of the Son of God, for he utterly denies the eternal Fi­liation, and saith that Christ being the Son of God was an eternal God, but as being be­gotten extraordinarily in time he acknowledgeth that expressly and frequently in the Scriptures Christ is said to be begotten; that he was God born of the Father be­fore the World; when Christ is said to be begotten, tis meant, that he was begotten of God himself, the Father of the Matter of the Virgin, Mat. 1. vers. 20. that which was begotten of the Virgin Ma­ry was of the Holy Ghost, and [Page 106] should be called the Son of God, ‘'But some perhaps will say that the eternal generation differs from that which was made in the Womb of the Virgin.'’

To which he thus answers, where doth the Holy Scrip­ture or Synod thus distin­guish? this Question is a cer­tain demonstration that he denys the eternal generation and that he by a strange passi­on resolves to deny those things which for certain he knows to be true, if a stou denyal serves his designe▪ The sacred Scripture in seve­ral places is express for the [Page 107] eternal generation, makeing it distant from the temporal. The scriptures were wrested and false Glosses put upon them; Arrius did not deny the praeexistence of the Son of God, who was Incarnate, the difference was not con­cerning the Eternal Genera­tion, but the Consubstantia­lity.

Having thus proved, that his Leviathan contains cer­tain Haeretical propositions; It remains, that I prove these Heresies Criminal, and thus I state the Question and pur­sue it.

[Page 108] 'Tis one of Mr. Hob's great Artifices to avoid those absurdities into which his own sentiments casts him. Mr. Hobs percieving that he is justly charg'd with this im­putation, writes the book call'd The Historical Narra­tive of Heresie. The Parlia­ment complain'd, That in it were contain'd several Here­tical Opinions, (i. e.) Opini­ons declared Heresie by the Church and Laws of Eng­land: he being a Subject to the King, is obliged to obedi­ence to the Laws of his So­veraign. By this therefore [Page 109] he doth manifestly contradict himself, and opposeth these his great Moral and Politi­cal Postulata's. ‘'Nothing is Just or Unjust, but what is made so by Law, and that nothing is Criminal, but what a Penal Law prohibits.'’

From this his most just charge he would free his Le­viathan; to shew that his at­temts are frivolous, it must be prov'd, that his Leviathan doth contain Heretical Opi­nions. To which he returns, That there is no opinion that opposeth a Penal Statute; or that no Person can be justly by the Civil Magistrate pu­nish'd [Page 110] for any Opinion con­tain'd in the Leviathan. For (saith he) ‘'All the Penal Laws against Hereticks were repeal'd in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth. To remedy the Inconvenience which might arise by Novel Dog­ma's, She apointed a Court▪ called the High Commission, to declare what was Heresie. But that High Commission ne­ver declared what was He­resie, or if they did, it was to no purpose, for they were not impower'd to inflict a­ny punishment upon an He­retick. Withal the Parlia­ment abolishing that Court▪ [Page 111] nothing could be accounted Heresie: Besides the Levia­than was Printed in 1651. when it was lawful to Write or Preach any thing in mat­ters of Religion.'’ To which I suppose that some, nay ma­ny things contained in the Leviathan are Heretical, and so judged by the Church, and punishable by the Civil Ma­jestrate. Not to mention ma­ny, I will assign these Two. The Nature of God, and the Mystery of the Individual Trinity are by him Heretically and Impiously explicated. He Blasphemously avers God hath parts, and makes the Persons [Page 112] of the Holy Trinity to be Temporal, not Eternal; both which are declared Heretical by the first Article,) and by the three Creeds. The A­thanasian Creed is imbodyed into the Common Law, and that his opinion concerning the Trinity is Heretical is in­dubitable, waveing the Con­tests he strives violently to maintain, that Nothing in mat­ters of Faith is declared Cri­minal by the Law, or punish­able by the Civil Magestrate. For faith he ‘'the Lady Eliza­beth in her first year repealed all the Laws Ecclesiastical of Queen Mary, and all other [Page 113] Laws concerning the pun­ishing of Hereticks, nor did She enact any other pun­ishment in their place.'’ These lines he could not deliver without that same arrogance by which he explodes the U­niversityes, and accounts most of the Learned men in the World, Fools. For the Writs de Heretico Comburendo and de excommunicato capiendo were in force, he adds in the 2 place, it was enacted ‘'That the Queen by her Letters Patents should give a Com­mission to the Bishops with several other Persons in her Majesties name to execute [Page 114] his Power ecclesiastical, this is granted, (he proceeds) In which Commission the Commissioners were for­bidden to adjudge any thing to be Heresy which was not declared to be Heresy by some of the four first Gene­ral Concils, nor was there any thing in that Commissi­on concerning how Here­ticks ought to be punished. But it was granted to them to declare, or not declare to be Heresy or not Heresy as they pleased, any of those Doctrines which had been condemned in the four first general Councils for Here­sie.'’ [Page 115] To refute this, and what he subjoyns, tis requisite that I give the words of the Statute. ‘'They shall not (meaning the High Com­missioners) have Authority or Power to order deter­mine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy, but only such as heretofore have been determined, or­dered or adjudged to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared Heresy by the [Page 116] express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures, or such as here­after shall be ordered, deter­mined or adjudged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realme, with the assent of the Cler­gy in their Convocation.'’ By this it appears what a lame and false account he gives of the Statute, for the Queen, and her Parliament did not leave it indifferent to the High Commission to determine what was or what was not Heresy, but limits them (to declare what was Heresy or not Heresy) not only to the [Page 117] four first general Councils (as he seems falsely to insinuate) but likewise to the express words of Scripture, and to the Parliament) which he seems to exclude, for he o­mits the mentioning of them; ‘'Nor was there (he adds) in that Commission any thing concerning how Hereticks ought to be punished.'’ The High Commission could not in­flict capital punishment. I hope Mr Hobs will not say there is no crime, but twas capitall. That the High Com­mission had power to punish persons in case of Heresy is e­vident both by the Law of England, and practice of that [Page 118] Court. By the Law of Eng­land expressly by the Act E­lizab. that Court was Invested wth all Ecclesiastical power be­fore the Cancelling of the High-Commission, the Bishops had a Power to Imprison persons, and the Writ de ex­communicato capiendo still con­tinues. The words of the Act are that ‘'the Queen, or any of her Successors should nominate one or more persons to use, exercise, and occupy, all manner of jurisdictions, priviledges or preeminences in any wise touching, or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to visi [...] [Page 119] reforme, redress, order, cor­rect and amend all such Er­rors, Heresies, Schismes &c.'’ It was perfect nonsence for a Parliament to enable the English Soveraign to e­rect a Court to punish and amend Errors and Heresies, if the Law of England had not declared what was an Heresy, and likewise not to Invest them with power to accomplish such ends, which they had not, if they could not inflict punishments, he returned, ‘'The jurisdiction was onely spiritual:'’ but to that was annexed a civil punishment. Upon excom­munication there lay a Writ [Page 120] de excommunicato capiendo; that a Person excommunicated for Heresy or Errors in Doct­rine, by that Writ might be Imprisoned, is clear as the day. Certainly imprison­ment is a civil Punishment. This Writ lay against those who were obstinate Offen­ders in Causes Ecclesiastical is evident by 5 Eliz. Cap. 23▪ with the significavit to be ad­ded to the Writ, and in that Significavit 'tis joyn'd that the Excommunication doth pro­ceed upon some cause of some Original matter of Heresy, or Error in Religion or Doct­rine, now received and al­lowed in the said Church of [Page 121] England, whereby it appears that Persons for Heresy might be Imprisoned, and so Heresy to become Criminal. For it was to be punished by the civil Magistrate with Corporal Mulcts; and far­ther lay a Writ de Heretico comburendo; if nothing was declared Heresy, why did their lye such a Writ. That such a Writ was in force, is clear by the annulling of it, when this fetal Plot was de­tected, then the Parliament made an Act to Cancel it, either it was in force, or not; if in force, the Parliament was Prudent in making it [Page 122] void, if not it casts a re­proach upon the Two Hou­ses to annul that which was exploded. That these Writs were in force is declared, and that the Writ de excommuni­cato capiendo retains its Vigor, is evinc'd by the usage of the Kingdome of England. As for the Writ de Heretico com­burendo, it was put in execu­tion in King James his time. Legat & Wightman were Burnt, the one in Smith-field, and the other in Litchfield, for the Arrian Heresy. He saith, that they which approve such executions may perad­venture know better grounds [Page 123] for them then I do. But grounds are very well wor­thy to be enquired after: but he might very well know the just grounds for them. He that affirms the Law to be the Sole rule of just and un­just could not be ignorant that by the common Law of England, the Writ de Here­tico comburendo was valid, and thereupon an Heretick might legally be Burnt. My Lord Cook part 3. cap. 5. affirms that by the Books of the com­mon Law the King Issuing our his VVrit de Heretico combu­rendo, an Heretick ought to be Burnt. That Heresy might [Page 124] be punished by Corporeal and pecumiary Mulcts, is clear by the Queens Letters Patents, authorized by the 1. Statute of her Reign. She did give to the Arch Bishop of Cant. the Bishop of Lon­don, and divers others, any Three or more of them, full Power and Authority to re­forme, redress, order, cor­rect, and amend &c. and to have full Power and Au­thority to order and award, to every such offendor by Fine, Imprisonment, Censure of the Church, or other­ways, or all or any of the said ways. Cawdrys Case. and [Page 125] in that same case it is resol­ved by the Judges, that the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth did not introduce any new Law, but declared an ancient one. The Title of the Statute being an Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spi­ritual. The Sovereign, being the Supream head of the Church, without whose Au­thority no person can or ought to exercise any Eccle­siastical jurisdiction, or pro­ceed to any Censure; it de­monstrates that by the Roy­al Power an Heretick might be [Page 126] punished with a Civil and Corporeal Mulct. Farther the Star-Chamber was an anci­ent Court grounded upon the common Law of England, and confirmed by Act of Parliament. Which Court took cognizance not onely of Civil Crimes but also of Ecclesiastical, and did pun­ish Hereticks by Imprison­ing, Fineing and Stigmatize­ing, as appears by the Records of that Court; and that fa­mous Instance of Thrask, who in the 16. year of King James for spreading of Judai­cal Heresies, he was cited in­to the Court and being obsti­nate [Page 127] was sentenced to be set in the Pillory, Whipt to the Fleet, Fined and Imprisoned, all which was executed: by which it appears what truth there is in this assertion of Mr. Hobs▪ During the Time the High Commission was in being, there was no Statute by which an Heretick might be punished otherwise than by the ordinary Censure of the Church, for 'tis proved that by the Common Law of England and the Statute Law during the time of the High Commission, Hereticks might suffer in their Bodies and Purses: hence it follows that [Page 128] Heresy was criminal, and he hath not vindicated himself from that contradiction with which he stands charged. He farther proceeds. ‘'That no Doctrine could be account­ed Heresy, unless Commissio­ners had actually declared and published, that what was made Heresy by the Four first general Councils should be Heresie:'’ but I ne­ver heard yet there was any such declaration made either by Proclamation, by Recor­ding in Churches, or by Printing, as is requisite in Penal Laws. We have before proved that the High Com­mission [Page 119] was not the Sole Judg­es of Heresy. That which the Church and Law of England condemns for Heresy, is as fully divulged as can be expected. The 39. Articles are sufficiently known, and those Doctrines which the Four first general Councils received as Orthodox, or condemned as Heretical, are ratifi'd by the Law and Church of England, and sufficiently promulged: The Nicene Creed which was completed by the Fourth general Council is read in every Church on Sundaies and Holy daies: The Athana­sian [Page 130] Creed is to be read at pe­culiar Festivals, both which Creeds, as also the Apostles, are part of the Liturgy of the Church, which is imbodyed into the Laws of the Land, and that the opinions which are contrary, are made He­retical appears by these Clauses of the Athanasian Creed, He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is Necessary to Everlasting Sal­vation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ: and this Clause ends the Creed, This is the Catholick Faith which except a [Page 131] man believe Faithfully he cannot be saved. The Doctrines there­fore declared to be Hereti­cal are sufficiently, by Print­ing and Recording in Church­es, divulged. To alleviate his Crime, or at least to vindi­care himself from Heresie, he reflects upon our late sad distractions, wch to me admi­nisters matter of horror. ‘'Be­fore arms were taken up, saith he, the King abolish­ed the High Commission, but the Parliament pursued the Rebellion, and put down both Episopacy and Monar­chy, erecting a power, by them called a Common wealth, [Page 132] by others the Rump, which men obeyed not out of Duty but Fear,'’ those actions were dreadfull, and are the fonti­nels of all those fears which now afflict us. The just prin­ciples by which Government is formed and established, and reasonable laws are e­nacted, deservedly reprove and condemn those actions, perpetrated in our late con­fusions, which gave a scan­dall to our Religion and Na­tion: But how can he cast an odium upon those actions his sentiments justifie. Saith he, ‘'there were no humane Laws left in force to re­strain [Page 133] any man from Preaching, or Writing any Doctrine concerning Reli­gion that he pleased. And in this time it was, that a book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the Kings Power Spiritual or Temporal, without any word against Episcopacy, or against Bishop, or a­gainst the publick Doctrine of the Church.'’ To which tis thus Replyed, ‘'the Levia­than was impressed 1651, and come out in Latine upon his Majesties returne. In 48 England was totally subdu­ed to the Power of the [Page 134] Rump, Ireland in 49. Scot­land in 51. was almost reduct by the Rump, and his Ma­jesties Army totally routed at Worcester, in this year the Leviathan was published, was this Book in defence of the Kings Power, Spiritu­al and Temporal, when his Majestie was in Banishment?'’ His Majestie was then de­vested of all his lawfull Pow­er and Authority, and forc't into Exile; This Leviathan, if the Principles were admit­ed, justfied the Actions of his Enemies; he casts this Imputation on the Rump, that they were obeyed onely [Page 135] for fear; in the same book he endeavours to prove that man is not by Nature a lover of Society, but at his original is in a state of War; The dread of the Evils which are incident to that condition, makes him to enter into a Society with others; and let it be considered, whether, if Fear be the great inducement to Government, they accor­ding to his Principles are to be condemned who out of the same fear obeyed the Rump, and that the fundamental law of Nature is self Preservation, and for fear that end should not be attained, pacts are [Page 136] entred into, but if after those pacts that design cannot be­accomplished, then pacts are void: and therefore if peo­ple have a suspicion that the Prince will destroy them, they may take up Arms. And if the Prince be devest­ed of his Government, the People are no longer obli­ged to obey him, and upon this account of Self-Preserva­tion, they are to submit to those who can protect them. Upon this reason the taking the Engagement was lawful, and it was his honour to pre­sent to the English Nation those Principles wch induced [Page 137] many to take the Engage­ment.

Oliver gaining the Protector­ship, was so pleased with him on those accounts, that the great place of being Secreta­ry was profered him. If these things be true, (as unquesti­onably they are) let it then be considered, whether any Sober man can believe that the Book called the Levia­than was writ in defence of the Kings Power, Tempo­ral and Ecclesiastical; since it manifestly asserts the cause of Usurpers. It must be grant­ed that Mr. Hobs doth give to the Soveraign all illimited [Page 138] power in things just and sa­cred. But this he gives to all sorts of Government, to A­ristocracy and Democracy as well as Monarchy.

A Book to be penned and published by him, when all the Kings Dominions were in the Power of those who took up Arms against him▪ which containes these Doct­tines. Pag. 112. ‘'But in case a great many men have al­ready resisted the Soveraign Power unjustly, or com­mitted some Capital Crime, for which every one of them expects Death, whether have they not the Libertie [Page 139] then to joyn together, and as­sist, and defend one another? certainly they have: for they but defend their lives, which the Guilty man may as well do, as the Innocent. There was indeed Injustice in the first breach of their Duty; Their bearing of Arms subsequent to it, tho it be to maintain what they have done, is no new un­just Act; and if it be only to defend their per­sons it is not unjust at all. Pag. 114. The Obligati­on of Subjects to the Sove­raign is understood to last as long and no longer than [Page 140] the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. For the Right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquish­ed; The Soveraignty is he Soul of the Common-wealth, which once depar­ted from the body, the members do no more receive their motion from it. Pag. 174. When in a War (for­raine or intestine) the E­nemies get a final Victory, so as the forces of the Com­mon Wealth keeping the Field no longer) there is no [Page 141] ther protection of Subjects in their Loyalty; then is the Common-wealth dissol­ved, and every man at liber­ty to protect himself by such causes as his own dis­cretion shall suggest unto him. For the Soveraign is the publick Soul, giveing Life and motion to the Common-wealth, which ex­piring, the Members are governed by it no more, than the Carcass of a man by his departed (tho im­mortal) Soul. For tho the Right of a Soveraign Mo­narch cannot be extinguish­ed by the Act of another, [Page 142] yet the Obligation of the members may. For he that wants protection may seek it any where, and when he hath it, is obliged (without fraudulous pretence of ha­ving submitted himself out of fear) to protect his Protector as long as he is a­ble.'’ It was so far from de­fending His Majesties Au­thority, that without Com­mand they plainly justifie the actions of his usurping Enemies. No person that hath suckt in Hobs his Principles, can be a loyal Subject, and hence likewise it appears, that he did not ingeniously [Page 143] with his Majesty, when he averts in his Apology for his Leviathan, in an Epistle dedi­cated to the King, before Pro­blemata Phisica, nec vitio vertant quod contra Hostes pugnans &c. Let none account me a Cri­minal, that fighting against your Enemies I took what Arms I could, and Brandish­ed a two Edged Sword; cer­tainly those Propositions Fought against his Majesty, and defended the Cause of of his Enemies; That in the same book he did write a­gainst Bishops and the Doct­rine of the Church of Eng­land is manifestly proved be­fore. [Page 144] In the Common-Pray­er book are contained seve­ral Doctrines of the Church of England, to oppose or deny which (as Mr. Hobs doth in the aforesaid book) is made Criminal, that is to be pun­ished by the Civil magistrate, by the first of Queen Eliza. Cap. 2. The Title of which is, That there be Uniformity of Prayer and Administrati­on of the Sacraments, in which there are these words.

‘'Be it enacted, that every Per son or Persons whatsoever­that shall in any Interludes Plays, Songs, Rhymes, or by any other open words de­clare [Page 142] or speak any thing de­praving or despiseing the same Book, or any part thereof, or any thing there­in contained, then the par­ty convicted shall forfeit to the Queen for the first Offence an Hundred Marks.'’ He concludes this Tract with casting an odious and false Scandal upon the whole Christian Clergy; Down from the whole Council of Nice to this present time, in these words;

‘'So fierce are men for the most part in dispute, where either their Learning or Power is debated, that they [Page 143] never think of the Laws, but as soon as they are offended they cry out Cru­cify, forgetting what Paul saith, even in case of obsti­nate holding of an Error. 2. Tim. 24. 25. The Servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to Teach, Patient, in Meekness Instructing those that oppose, if God perad­venture may give them Re­pentance to the acknow­ledging of the Truth.'’ Tis true both the Bishops and the Presbyterians did accuse that Book (in the Parlia­ment) of Heresy: why could [Page 147] they be fierce, their lear­ning and their power being not disputed, when he pro­fesses in that book he medled not with them, their power, or learning. Those things make not the Clergy fierce; tis the Person, the Religion, the Faith of the Holy Jesus for which the Clergy have been and are still so Zealous­ly contending; they are, and were piously fierce in oppo­sing prophane Heresies, and Blasphemous Impieties; the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts hath eaten up those holy Di­vines; their zelous defence of the Doctrine of their master [Page 148] hath not violated the Apost­les direction given to the Pastors of the Church 2. Tim. that reaches only those who erred through infirmity, not obstinacy. Contumacious He­reticks they are bound to op­pose withall Holy Zeal and Indignation. Did not he blush to averr that they cryed Cru­cifie, when they knew not the Law. Could they be igno­rant of that Law which they themselves put in execution: Their ignorance of the Law did not make them cry Cru­fie, but knowing the Law and Gospel became profest Enemies to those who by [Page 149] their Antichristian opinions Crucifie again the Lord of Glory.

What Reproach casts he upon Religion when he loads the Christian Divines with such imputations. Those that are verst in Ecclesiasti­cal History, and have read the Fathers, cannot but con­clude that the Basil's, the Gregory's &c. were men as great for Learning and Good­ness as the World ever pro­duced; their fervent oppositi­on of Hereticks was not contrariant to that Apo­stoliocal Precept. The Holy Christian Divines (obeying [Page 150] the Apostolical Commands Titus 3. 10. An Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject, 2 Pet. 2. 1. If any one bring another Doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor bid him good speed.) down from the Apostles time to this day have and will be till Christ come to Judgement, Zealous and Pious opposers, of those who privately bring in damnable Heresies deny­ing the Lord that bought them.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.