THE Leviathan HERETICAL: OR The Charge Exhibited in Parliament against M. Hobbs, justified by the Refutation of a Book of his, Entitled The Historical Narration of Heresy 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. Stephen's Bookseller 1683.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE Author of this Tract may thus be reproached Are not the Corpse of dead men Sacred? To violate Tombs and Graves is Sacrilegious, why doth the Author intent 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 Lion, and write against him who rests in the dust? The Author hears these words with a quiet mind; Certainly if to answer the works of those who are dead be so Criminal, how heinous offenders have so many writers in all ages been? and how Capital a Delinquent is Mr. Hobbs, who hath by writing endeavoured to render the sentiments of the best and most learned men ridiculous. This Treatise discourseth with his Ghost; He died 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 Friend of the Authors, acquainted him with the language of Mr. Hobbs 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 gained more Proselytes than by his Principles: few exceed him in both languages, but these aggrandise his Crimes; he ought not to have abused such excellent qualifications, he hath so managed his Pen, that many believe him unanswerable, yet let this Tract be considered whether he be not fully refuted, as to the Contents of his Narrative. I will appeal to the Learned World, whether Mr. Hobbs hath not thrown dirt and ugly expressions upon the Christian Religion, the best of Councils, the whole Christian Clergy, and hath abused the English Laws.  
It may be again objected, This Author durst not write whilst he was a live: Whom did Mr. Hobbs ever answer, but the clear Pen of the Arch-B. of Armagh, and the Great Professor Dr. Wallis? In the Verses which he made of himself he vaunts a Victory, the world is the Judge, if what he saith be true, That there is an Eternal Fate and Necessity: Why can he commend himself and discommend others; If in these Lines the Author does a thing ill, what reproof does he deserve, he is hurried to it by a fatal Necessity. On this account his praising himself, and dispraising others is groundless, he is charged with contradictions from a great one, of which he endeavours to vindicate himself; but 'tis in vain, his artifices are fruitless.  
One of his Moral and Political Principles is, That whatsoever is just or unjust, or to be received as true or false, is by the approbation or rejection of the Supreme Power. He writes his jeviathan, in which this is asserted and defended, yet in the same eviathan he delivers those doctrines for true, which are judged Heretical by the Church of England, and Laws of the Kingdom: To evade this he useth all Art and Industry.  
In the First part of this Answer some Doctrines which he propagated in that Book are proved Heretical. In the Latter part is proved, That these Doctrines are Criminal, and the persons that maintained them are liable to be punished by the Civil Magistrate. His Book being An Historical Narrative, the Author is forced to have recourse to Books. Mr. Hobbs gives us several Histories, but Quotes no Author; whereupon the Answerer is compelled to cite the place whence he has taken them. No Memory, Reading, Understanding or Observation is infinite, therefore the Author sometime useth this or the like expression, so as to him it occurs; he abstaines from all virulent language; the hardest word, and that but once used, is Notoriously false. Mr. Hobbs 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. Hobbs averrs That God hath Parts; here is a just occasion to dispute The Nature of Spirits, but the Author 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 embrace the Liberty of the Will are allied to the Manichees. This gives a fair opportunity to discourse of Liberty and Necessity: and he that seriously considers himself will find, the freedom of his Will ariseth not from the flexibilty of the Understanding, flowing from various impressions upon that faculty, but from the Dominion which the Will has over itself, which the Greeks excellently express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the Author does not meddle with that Controversy, contenting himself with the Demonstration of the absurdity of Mr. Hobbs his Imputation, and that it is contrariant to the Doctrine of the Church of England. The Doctrine of the Sacred Trinity is religiously embraced and entertain▪ d by the Church of England, as it was by the Church of Christ in all ages; hence Lucian in his Philopatris jeered 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 shows sufficiently the Faith of the Primitive Church. The Author does not therefore dispute the Doctrine of the Trinity, but wipes off all that Varnish with which Mr. Hobbs useth to bide the deformity of his sentiments, and makes him appear in his proper Colours; proves him Heretical, in being an enemy to the Faith, and Doctrine of the Church of England. The like may be said of other things which the Author treats of, the charge being made good, that Mr. Hobbs has notoriously contradicted himself: His book is answered, and his great Postulatum demonstrated to be false, in that he is forced to acknowledge those things which are contrary to it.   

A DISCOURSE OF HERESY.  
A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Greek word, and the derivations that are given of Heresy from other words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Greek or Latin, are fond and spurious. It was a word amongst the Philosophers, Greek and Latin, used for any Sect promiscuously, and so the acception is indifferent; but 'tis otherwise in sacred Scripture, in Ecclesiastical Writers, Fathers, and Historians, amongst whom 'tis always used in an evil sense, the Acts of the Apostles being excepted, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always translated Sect, only Acts 24. 14. 'tis probable 'tis used in an ill sense. The Reason may be this, The Catholic Church being one, what opinion was broached by any, contrary to the Catholic Church, received an ill stamp, and was called Heresy. The several opinions of the Philosophers were not branded with an ill name, they were not so fixed to one School, that it should be impious to be of another: but '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 Heretic, and his opinion, an Heresy: On this account in the Church of Christ, in all ages the word Heresy was not a word 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 jealousy of them, and the greatest Philosophers which were Christians, were not Bishops: such were the Professors and Masters in the School of Alexandria, as Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, etc. 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 Christ professed 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 denied. In the Primitive Church for the three first Centuries, there was not a Philosopher made a Bishop.  
When Christians became numerous, they sent their Children to be instructed in Philosophy and the Liberal Sciences, who became brave persons. But I am ignorant if any Philosopher converted was made a Bishop. What Hobbs averrs, that these Pastors retaining their Philosophical Dogmas, interpreting Scriptures according to their own Sect, that thus at first Heresy entered into the Church, is not true; for Heresy was crept into the Church in the Apostles time, St. Paul commands Christians to beware of Heresies, and St. Peter saith there are those who shall privily bring in damnable Heresies. I do acknowledge Tertullian wrote smartly and truly, when he termed Philosophers the Patriarches of Heretics. De praescriptione. Irenaeus Lib. 2. Cap. 19 gives us an account from what Philosophers the Valentinian and Gnostick Heresies borrowed their absurd and monstrous opinions, But then we must say, that these Heretics were not Pastors in the Church. The first that broached those prodigious opinions was Simon Magus, who was only baptised. In the first Century, there was not one Heretic, which was a Pastor or Bishop in the Church of Christ. The Heresy of the Nicholaitans took its rise from Nicholas one of the Seven Deacons: he did not broach that Heresy, but some who misinterpreted a passage of his, were the Authors of it. Nor any of the Christian Clergy was the Author of any Heresy in the second Century. Tatius was a great Orator converted by Justin Martyr, and was the Author of the Heresy of the Encratites, but he was not of the Clerical order. In the third Century. Novatus a Roman Presbyter broached his Heresy (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 Dogmas of the heathen Philosophers. Nepos was an Egyptian Bishop, not a professed Philosopher; a person of great excellency in many things, the Author of the opinion of Christ's reigning a 1000 years upon Earth, which opinion is founded, not upon any of the Principles of Philosophy, but upon some passages in the Revelations. Paulus Samosatenus made Bishop of Antioch, was the broacher of many evil Doctrines, but he was not a Philosopher.  
The design of Mr. Hobbs easily appears, he every where casts severe Reflections upon Christianity, and its Professors. The Apostle condemns vain Philosophy, Col. 2. which in the sense of Cl Alexandrinus is the Epicurean Philosophy, from which Hobbs borrows his Principles, Moral, Natural, and Political. " Upon the rising of a new opinion, the Pastors of the Church assemble themselves, if the Author of that Novelty persisted contrary to the determination of the Church, he was laid aside, and considered as an heathen man (i. e.) they excommunicated him, other punishments they could inflict none." This shall be easily granted, but what he subjoins 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 cancelled the New Testament. To say, that excommunication, or casting a man out of the Church, or esteeming him as an heathen man, was but Infamy, '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 duly managed, the greatest punishment. To be thrown out of the Church, to be deprived of the Prayers of the Church, to have no part in those offices of Religion, by which the Grace and Favour of God is obtained, and to be delivered to Satan, is this Infamy only? To be outlawed, whereby a person is deprived of the benefit and liberty of the law; he is deprived of the liberty of his Country, he enjoys not a free air, house, nor harbour, 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 ruin except the outlawry be reversed. Is this only Infamy? The Calamity that Excommunication involves a person in, is far greater. For Excommunication according to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church was reputed a sentence excluing the Excommunicated Persons from the Kingdom 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 threatenings contained in it are mere Chimaeras: thence, though they that embrace it, do entertain such a belief, 'tis but a fancy, therefore all the evil which attends by excommunicationis only Infamy. Excommunication was not only for Heresies, but likewise for immoralities; and excommunication did not brand a man for an Heretic, but the person being rendered infamous for his Heresy was (if in the bosom of the Church) cast out. That Heretic and Catholic became not Relatives by this excommunication, nor by this did Heretic become a name, and a name of disgrace both together. A Person by becoming an Heretic was excommunicated, this name did preceded, not follow excommunication. It must be acknowledged, that the Heresies concerning the Trinity were very troublesome in the Church, but not so vexatious during the ten Persecutions, as in Constantine's 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 of Christianity, into which they were Baptised 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 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 freewill 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 God's choice? We therefore do affirm expressly contrariant to Mr. Hobbs, 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 Sense 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 allied to the Manichees.  
And yet when in the Verses, which respect his life, 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 sense 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 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 wholsone words flowing from a Living and Perpetual Fountain. In this Epistle, thus, In exordio fuêre duae substantiae a se divisae etc. In the beginning there were two substances divided from one another. God the Father had the command of Light; and then he proceeds to describe that kingdom, he than goes to the Kingdom of Darkness, which was at the side of Light, giving a wild description of that Kingdom 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 afraid of him, sent some of his Troops, who mixing with the Black Regiments, form 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 being enlightened 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. Hobbs should give this assertion, my understanding is too shallow to fathom this depth.  
Nothing farther to be reproved till we come to the 6 page, only this passage may receive a little Censure pag 6 " Constantine the great was made by the valour and assistance of the Christian Soldiers sole Emperor." He not much regarding the peculiar Providence of God, takes nonotice of that great miracle of the Cross appearing at Noon, with this inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The whole Army of Constantine was inferior to Magnentius his Forces, a small number of his Soldiers were Christians, it was more the peculiar action of the Arm 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 Error! " This Controversy between the Inhabitants and Soldiers, presently became a quarrel, and was the cause of much bloodshed in and about the City. This so far concerned the Emperor's 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 Catholics with the greatest fury imaginable. The lamentable 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 honour 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 w th' 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 sense 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, 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 Latin Consubstantialis in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was put as a touchstone to discern an Arrian from a Catholic, 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 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, which the Emperor and Synod allowed and approved: but the Synod was not satisfied except this one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was inserted; whereupon the Synod entered into a long debate, and it passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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 or abscission from the Father. For an immaterial, intellectual, and incorporeal Nature can't be the subject of Corporeal passions, it behoved that such things ought to be expressed in divine and arcane words. Thus our most wise and religious Emperor did Philosophise. And Theodoret, 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 not there, This is acknowledged. " But because it was to him an Arcanum not sufficiently undeistood," Mr. Hobbs takes all the occasion to cast a contempt upon the Council; 'tis fit their should be suitable words, for though the mystery cannot be rightly understood, yet the sense 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. " 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 flourish, what this Constantine to play the Hypocrite? Constantine did desire the Uniformity in Doctrine, but not in an evil Doctrine, and the Peace 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 called Constantine's Edict, for the Convening of the Fathers, and his pious and sweet Orations to the Council, will find, that Constantine's Design was, that so great an 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 Philosophy of the Peripatetics,", what should cast Mr. Hobbs 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 Latin Dialect. Both Greek and Latin in the Sense of ●hat agreed. The Arrians and Catholics were Harmonious.  
As to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why Mr. Hobbs 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. Hobbs to discourse and quibble upon the Sense of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence, and Substance, when the dispute did not lie 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 Chase. " 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 mere fancy." This is not well said, It is with a diminution, for when we understand the Notion of a God, than we must have a conception of a being which is infinitely wise, Good, Powerful, Eternal. etc. " but that which is really something is considerable alone by itself, as being somewhere, so the Earth, the Air are all of them things real; whatsoever is in any place hath dimension, 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 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 learned men say whatsoever hath Magnitude is a Body; yet it must be affirmed, that the most and best of the Literati affirm, that there are real Being's, which are not bodies, and have no Magnitude, The chief of which we say is God, and 'tis impossible to have any conception of a God, but he must remove from him the conception of a Body; A Body must of necessity be divisible and have such parts which 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 God's 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 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 Hobbs contradicts his own great principle, that the supreme 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 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 itself 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 term. The name Infinite may be given to other things, as an Infinite Sea because it cannot be exhausted, take what water out of it you please, the Sea remains 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 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 subjoins 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 Latin Philosophers Entia, subjecta, substantiae, and by the Greek Philosophers: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other which are Incorporeal, are called by the Greek Philosophers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but most of the Latin Philosophers use to convert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into substantia, and so confound real and corporeal things with incorporeal which is not well. For Essence and Substance signify divers things." To which 'tis thus returned; why doth Mr. Hobbs call any thing Incorporeal, when he asserts there's nothing but what is a Body?  
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, but they are by them called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The Latin Authors do well in translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes Substantia, sometimes Essentia, Essence and Substande do differ, but the Greek is copious▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Essence and Substance, expressly Arist lib. 4. cap. 9 gives these two significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it signifies both Essence and Substance. The Latins 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, and therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is truly rendered One of the same Substance.  
‛ And this mistake is received, 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 proved 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 used ridiculous he thus formed 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 prius dictum, Despereant qui nostra ante nos dixerunt. That great Rhetorician, and Grammarian might be the Invert 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 reverend Mr. Calvin against the Anabaptists, and other wild persons, used the word Fanatic. The Great Monk in his Southern Journey which he managed with as curious and fine Stratagems as ever a General did, to expose his adversaries (the Army abounding with such sort of Creatures) he called them fanatics, which was of great efficacy; perhaps 'tis Mr. Hobbs his imagination by this odd word Isness to render Essentia, used by the Philosophers, contemptible ere long (it may be) on the Stage. And this Isness amongst Drolls may serve to make a Conceit more pleasant: If He would have recollected what he said of Speech. Cap. 40. Leviathan; that words signify as they are usually understood, then if Isness had been used in a common vogue to denote the same with Essence who would have reproved it. He quarrels with the Father's 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, for they suppose a distinction, which to me thus appears: Essentia the Nature, Ens the thing itself. 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 Holiness is a Holy man etc. 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 Subject; as Wisdom, 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 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. 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. Hobbs, 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 settled, before the Hills brought forth was I. The Wisdom there spoken of being the wisdom of God, signifies the same with the wise God. In the sacred Scripture by the Wisdom of God, is sometimes meant the Son of God, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eternal Word, and this is not denied 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, though the Arrians falsely applied those words, yet 'tis certain that by the wisdom of God mentioned in that chapter, was not as Mr. Hobbs saith Metonimically by them taken for the wise God, but a being subsistent by itself; 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 appeared, several Heretics denied it, and Arrius according to this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as appears by his Letters and Confession would not scruple to call Christ the Eternal God.  
He adds, That no man can be made an Heretic 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 only 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 anathematised. Perhaps he means this, that God hath no Parts is not in the form of the Creed. This is acknowledged, that the Council did not put that into the form 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 concern only 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 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 passed, when the conciliary decrees were sent to all the Churches: Mr. Hobbs would make the World believe that they being directed by the Bishops were only 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 but to the Church of Alexandria, and to all our beloved brethren in Egypt, Libya 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 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 Heretics 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 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 is not Corporeal is a Phantasm. This is the question, whether all beings which have areal Substance be Corporeal, the Epicureans affirm 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 sense 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. 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 passable; but that by this Argument, whatsoever was not Corporeal was nothing, should be the argument whereby he confuted Apelles, and other Heretics 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 of that created this Universe 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 only Incorporeal, for the Substance itself is the Body of every thing when Corporeal and Incorporeal are mentioned; nothing else will be admitted. Thus he explaining his sense of Corpus that it is Substantia, he confutes Hermogines not from the recited proposition, but his own contrarieties; the same may be applied to what he disputes against Marchiaean Apelles and Praxeas. Therefore against Mr. Hobbs I may be confident to aver that Tertullian never attempts the refuting Apelles, or any other Heretic in his time, from this Topick, whatsoever was not Corporeal was a Phantasm. '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 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 done by him to the Apostles question; St. Paul asks the Corinthians, Is Christ divided? which he thus interprets. ‛ He did not think, they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet, but that they might think him (alluding to the manner of the Gentiles) one of the sons of God, but not the only begotten. Thus expounded in Athanasius his Creed, Not Confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance, i. e. God is not divided into 3 Persons Peter, James and John, nor are the 3 Persons one and the same Person. ' '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 Trinity, the Substance is the same. And in created beings the Persona of every Individual is really distinct, not only 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 mystery being great above all the understanding and apprehension of man; it is rather the object of Faith, than Reason. My main undertaking against Mr. Hobbs in this Tract is not to illustrate or prove the meaning, but to manifest that he has not cleared himself of the contradiction, and that in his attempts he throws himself into new absurdities, one of which is this Paragraph.  
‛ But Aristotle, and from him all the Greek Fathers, and other learned men, when they distinguish the general latitude of a word, they call it division, as when they divide the Animal into Man and Beast, they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Species, and when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John, they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 parts 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Parts Individuae, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are parts dividuae, therefore Individua are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but what sense there is in his deduction, I'll give, when I understand it. There is a substance, which is Incorporeal; the Philosophers were led into that truth by observing the operations of some beings which are not Corporeal, where it must needs follow, that these essences are Incorporeal; and by some other Arguments: but that they should be led into this, which he calls an Error by confounding the division of Substance with the distinction of words, is a thing far from Truth, and any conception of mine.  
‛ Many Heresies which were Antecedent to the first general Council were condemned, as that of Manes (he might have added Martion) by the first article I believe in one God. ' This was not directed only 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 vot should proceed from the cause of all things God, but originally from themselves or from the Devil. ' Indeed Martion and Manes attributed Sin to an evil God, but the Church of Rome, the Church of England, and all other Churches look upon that Opinion as Heretical: why this Doctrine of the Liberty of the will is to remain in the Church of Rome, this is to palliate. This Doctrine continues in the Church of England, and in all the Churches of Christ. The Devil does vehemently tempt to sin, but he is not the cause of sin; hence that good Axom is received by all knowing men, No body is injured but by himself, that which is properly an Evil is the Evil of Sin, which ourselves only can inflict upon us; but how comes it to pass that this Doctrine of the Liberty of the Will should be opposed by this Article, I believe in one God? they who maintain that Doctrine firmly believe this Article, They say that the one true God is infinitely glorious in all perfections, amongst which is the Liberty of his will, he created all things, amongst which he created Rational beings which he endowed with the Liberty of Will, whereby they are made capable of being virtuous, and so to be rewarded, or vicious, 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 assign another first Cause, and from thence oppose this Article I believe in one God; we say there is but one first Cause, and that a free Agent, whence springs the Liberty of Rational Being's. By the account which Mr. Hobbs 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 which his opinion is charged, this is no mean one; God is the Author of Sin; to which he replies Leviath. cap. 46. by this distinction God is not the Author of Sin, but he is the cause. The Author is he who commands, the Cause by whose Power a thing is done. This with many other distinctions he frames, which are more subtle, perplexed, and remote from sense, than 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. Hobbs, ever gave any laws to mankind, for unquestionably if the rule of Justice, & Injustice Good and Bad, true and false be the will of the supreme power; God never gave laws to man kind, ‛ perhaps (saith he) the Anthropomorphites were then condemned, but this cannot be for they appeared not until 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 flourished in the time of Arrius, when the Nicene Council was convened.  
‛ No other punishment was ordained by Constantine than Deprivation and Banishment; and that not only of Bishops and Pastors who refused to subscribe to the Faith; thus did Heresy (which at first was the name of a private opinion, and no crime, was by virtue of a law of the Emperor, made only for the Peace of the Church) become a Crime in a Pastor and punishable. ' How many Erratas in this Paraptaph? Heresy in the Church of Christ was always a Crime, and never the name of an opinion. This I proved before; let it be granted, that every Sin is not a Crime, and that every Crime is that which 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 only discernible by Almighty God, and so punishable at his tribunal; but that Heresy should be a Crime only because the civil power inflicts a corporal punishment, cannot be understood by any, but such a person, who bids a defiance not only to the Christian Religion, but to all other Religions which assert a future retribution, or concludes that the great God doth punish evil men in this life by some extraordinary methods. But that Heresy after this decree of the council became only 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 miseries and calamities under which the Orthodox Bishops and Pastors groaned, likewise gives us the description of those dreadful sufferings, with which the people were oppprest.  
Eusebius giving us an account of an Edict of Constantine against Heretics, in that not only Bishops and Pastors, but all sorts of Heretics were involved. de vità Constant. lib. 3 cap. 62. And having proved before that Arianism was decreed an Heresy not for the peace of the Church, but likewise that there might be an agreement in the same faith, which was necessary to salvation, we may justly say that every line of that Paragraph is notoriously untrue. To lessen the Esteem of the Nicene and the 4 General Councils, says he, ‛ There arose new Heresies about the Interpretation of the Creed, and partly about the Holy Ghost, of which the Nicene Council had not determined, And afterwards concerning the Holy Ghost. Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople & some others denied the divinity thereof. ' The Pneumatomachi appearing after the Council of Nice had pretended for themselves the silence of the Nicene Fathers; to which Basil, Nazianzen, Theodoret, 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 confirm that truth which was not questioned, but taken for granted, or condemn that for Heresy which was not preached, yet if not in a set form of words decreed, yet in truth and by good consequence, the sense of the Fathers as to that Article was given. For St. Basil Epist. 78. Hieronom. Epist. 65. Epip. haeresi 74 take off, and answer that objection; Epiphanius and Athanasius prove it thus, that the same glory which is given to the Father, and to the Son, is likewise given to the Holy Ghost; for the Symbol is, I believe in God the Father, and in God the Son; and I believe in the Holy Ghost. This Divine Faith, fixed upon the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, as one and the same God, gives the true sense of the Council.  
The great mistake concerning Nestorius must only be attributed to Mr. Hobbs his animadversion: for it was not Nestorious, but Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Nestorius' was a great adversary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore in Socrates Lib. 7. Cap 31, we find that Nestorius was so great an Enemy to the Macedonians that when he was Bishop of Constantinople he drove the Macedonians out of all their Churches in that City, and in the Hellespont.  
‛ Concerning the Parts established there arose disputes about the Nature of Christ, and the word Hypostasis. (i. e.) Substance, for of persons there was yet no mention made, their Creed being written in Greek, in which Language there is no word that answereth to the Latin 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 affirm there was but one Nature in Christ, thinking that whensoever two things are united, they are one. '  
'tis true the Latin word Persona is used in the Latin 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 Latins use Persona. The famous Nicene Councils having decreed, that there were two Natures in Christ, and one Hypostasis which signifies Subsistence, this exactly answers to the Latin Persona. Nestorius' Bishop of Constantine broached this Heresy that in Christ there were two distinct persons, and so Marry the Mother of Christ was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God: against him Eutyches excellently disputed in the Fourth Action, in the Council of Constantinople; Eutyches declining the one, fell into another Heresy, asserting that there was but one Nature in Christ, yet the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine, and was not of the flesh of the Virgin, but descended from God. A great promoter of this impiety was Dioscurus Bishop of Alexandria, a wicked and lewd person, a Monster rather than a 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 affirm, that the Latin word Persona answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Sense of the Churches both East and West. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 necessity flow the Hypostatical Union. 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 dazzle men with design to lead them towards some ends of their own. ' By which he charges the most humble persons with pride, the most sincere with Hypocrisy, 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 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 Heretics in the Reign of K. Rich. the 2. and succeeding Princes, for this is nothing to my purpose; my whole design 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 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 temporal; All which are declared Heretical by the laws, and Church of England. But Mr. Hobbs would evade the two last Heretical propositions, by saying he believes the Doctrine of the Trinity as the Church hath explained it in the Catechism. When 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 Elect 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 Sanctify the Church: What clearly concerning the Divine persons, 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 Snows. The Latin Fathers, and after them the Schools, and Divines, take not the word Persona in the same sense that Orators and Philosophers do; I believe that Bellarmine did know the meaning of the Latin word persona as well as Mr. Hobs. Let common sense 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 commonly called the Apostles Creed, aught to be throughly received and believed. In the Athanasian, the Eternity is not only of the Essence, but of the Persons, not as the Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal, but according to Mr. Hobbs 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. Hobbs the Persons were not eternal, by 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 Sense 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 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 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 denial serves his design▪ The sacred Scripture in several places is express for the eternal generation, making 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.  
'Tis one of Mr. Hob's great Artifices to avoid those absurdities into which his own sentiments casts him. Mr. Hobbs percieving that he is justly charged with this imputation, writes the book called The Historical Narrative of Heresy. The Parliament complained, That in it were contained several Heretical Opinions, (i. e.) Opinions declared Heresy by the Church and Laws of England: he being a Subject to the King, is obliged to obedience to the Laws of his Sovereign. By this therefore he doth manifestly contradict himself, and opposeth these his great Moral and Political Postulatas. ‛ 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 show that his attemts are frivolous, it must be proved, 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 punished for any Opinion contained in the Leviathan. For (saith he) ‛ All the Penal Laws against Heretics were repealed in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth. To remedy the Inconvenience which might arise by Novel Dogmas, She appointed a Court▪ called the High Commission, to declare what was Heresy. But that High Commission never declared what was Heresy, or if they did, it was to no purpose, for they were not impowered to inflict any punishment upon an Heretic. Withal the Parliament abolishing that Court▪ nothing could be accounted Heresy: 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 Magistrate. Not to mention many, I will assign these Two. The Nature of God, and the Mystery of the Individual Trinity are by him Heretically and Impiously explicated. He Blasphemously avers God hath parts, and makes the Persons of the Holy Trinity to be Temporal, not Eternal; both which are declared Heretical by the first Article,) and by the three Creeds. The Athanasian Creed is embodied 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 magistrate. For faith he ‛ the Lady Elizabeth in her first year repealed all the Laws Ecclesiastical of Queen Mary, and all other Laws concerning the punishing of Heretics, 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 Majesty's name to execute his Power ecclesiastical, this is granted, (he proceeds) In which Commission the Commissioners were forbidden to adjudge any thing to be Heresy which was not declared to be Heresy by some of the four first General Concils, nor was there any thing in that Commission concerning how Heretics 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 Heresy. ' To refute this, and what he subjoins, '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 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 Realm, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation. ' By this it appears what a lame and false account he gives of the Statute, for the Queen, and her Parliament did not leave it indifferent to the High Commission to determine what was or what was not Heresy, but limits them (to declare what was Heresy or not Heresy) not only to the four first general Councils (as he seems falsely to insinuate) but likewise to the express words of Scripture, and to the Parliament) which he seems to exclude, for he omits the mentioning of them; ‛ Nor was there (he adds) in that Commission any thing concerning how Heretics ought to be punished. ' The High Commission could not inflict capital punishment. I hope Mr Hobbs will not say there is no crime, but 'twas capital. That the High Commission had power to punish persons in case of Heresy is evident both by the Law of England, and practice of that Court. By the Law of England expressly by the Act Elizab. that Court was Invested with 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, privileges or preeminences in any wise touching, or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to visi● reform, redress, order, correct and amend all such Errors, Heresies, Schisms & c. ' It was perfect nonsense for a Parliament to enable the English Sovereign 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 only spiritual: ' but to that was annexed a civil punishment. Upon excommunication there lay a Writ de excommunicato capiendo; that a Person excommunicated for Heresy or Errors in Doctrine, by that Writ might be Imprisoned, is clear as the day. Certainly imprisonment is a civil Punishment. This Writ lay against those who were obstinate Offenders in Causes Ecclesiastical is evident by 5 Eliz. Cap. 23▪ with the significavit to be added to the Writ, and in that Significavit 'tis joined that the Excommunication doth proceed upon some cause of some Original matter of Heresy, or Error in Religion or Doctrine, now received and allowed in the said Church of England, whereby it appears that Persons for Heresy might be Imprisoned, and so Heresy to become Criminal. For it was to be punished by the civil Magistrate with Corporal Mulcts; and farther lay a Writ de Heretico comburendo; if nothing was declared Heresy, why did their lie such a Writ. That such a Writ was in force, is clear by the annulling of it, when this fetal Plot was detected, than the Parliament made an Act to Cancel it, either it was in force, or not; if in force, the Parliament was Prudent in making it void, if not it casts a reproach upon the Two Houses to annul that which was exploded. That these Writs were in force is declared, and that the Writ de excommunicato capiendo retains its Vigour, is evinced by the usage of the Kingdom 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 Smithfield, and the other in Litchfield, for the Arrian Heresy. He saith, that they which approve such executions may peradventure know better grounds for them then I do. But grounds are very well worthy to be enquired after: but he might very well know the just grounds for them. He that affirms the Law to be the Sole rule of just and unjust could not be ignorant that by the common Law of England, the Writ de Heretico comburendo was valid, and thereupon an Heretic 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 Writ de Heretico comburendo, an Heretic ought to be Burnt. That Heresy might be punished by Corporeal and pecumiary Mulcts, is clear by the Queen's 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 reform, redress, order, correct, and amend etc. and to have full Power and Authority to order and award, to every such offendor by Fine, Imprisonment, Censure of the Church, or otherways, or all or any of the said ways. Cawdrys Case. and in that same case it is resolved by the Judges, that the Statute of the First of Queen Elizabeth did not introduce any new Law, but declared an ancient one. The Title of the Statute being an Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual. The Sovereign, being the Supreme head of the Church, without whose Authority no person can or aught to exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or proceed to any Censure; it demonstrates that by the Royal Power an Heretic might be punished with a Civil and Corporeal Mulct. Farther the Star-Chamber was an ancient Court grounded upon the common Law of England, and confirmed by Act of Parliament. Which Court took cognizance not only of Civil Crimes but also of Ecclesiastical, and did punish Heretics by Imprisoning, Fineing and Stigmatizeing, as appears by the Records of that Court; and that famous Instance of Thrask, who in the 16. year of King James for spreading of Judaical Heresies, he was cited into the Court and being obstinate was sentenced to be set in the Pillory, Whipped to the Fleet, Fined and Imprisoned, all which was executed: by which it appears what truth there is in this assertion of Mr. Hobbs▪ During the Time the High Commission was in being, there was no Statute by which an Heretic 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, Heretics might suffer in their Bodies and Purses: hence it follows that Heresy was criminal, and he hath not vindicated himself from that contradiction with which he stands charged. He farther proceeds. ‛ That no Doctrine could be accounted Heresy, unless Commissioners had actually declared and published, that what was made Heresy by the Four first general Councils should be Heresy: ' but I never heard yet there was any such declaration made either by Proclamation, by Recording in Churches, or by Printing, as is requisite in Penal Laws. We have before proved that the High Commission was not the Sole Judges of Heresy. That which the Church and Law of England condemns for Heresy, is as fully divulged as can be expected. The 39 Articles are sufficiently known, and those Doctrines which the Four first general Councils received as Orthodox, or condemned as Heretical, are ratified 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 Sundays and Holy days: The Athanasian Creed is to be read at peculiar Festivals, both which Creeds, as also the Apostles, are part of the Liturgy of the Church, which is embodied 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 Catholic Faith which except a man believe Faithfully he cannot be saved. The Doctrines therefore declared to be Heretical are sufficiently, by Printing and Recording in Churches, divulged. To alleviate his Crime, or at least to vindicare himself from Heresy, he reflects upon our late sad distractions, which to me administers matter of horror. ‛ Before arms were taken up, saith he, the King abolished the High Commission, but the Parliament pursued the Rebellion, and put down both Episopacy and Monarchy, erecting a power, by them called a Common wealth, by others the Rump, which men obeyed not out of Duty but Fear, ' those actions were dreadful, and are the fontinells of all those fears which now afflict us. The just principles by which Government is form and established, and reasonable laws are enacted, deservedly reprove and condemn those actions, perpetrated in our late confusions, which gave a scandal to our Religion and Nation: But how can he cast an odium upon those actions his sentiments justify. Saith he, ‛ there were no humane Laws left in force to restrain any man from Preaching, or Writing any Doctrine concerning Religion that he pleased. And in this time it was, that a book called the Leviathan was writ in defence of the King's Power Spiritual or Temporal, without any word against Episcopacy, or against Bishop, or against the public Doctrine of the Church. ' To which 'tis thus Replied, ‛ the Leviathan was impressed 1651, and come out in Latin upon his Majesty's return. In 48 England was totally subdued to the Power of the Rump, Ireland in 49. Scotland in 51. was almost reduct by the Rump, and his Majesty's Army totally routed at Worcester, in this year the Leviathan was published, was this Book in defence of the King's Power, Spiritual and Temporal, when his Majesty was in Banishment? ' His Majesty was then devested of all his lawful Power and Authority, and forced into Exile; This Leviathan, if the Principles were admitted, justfied the Actions of his Enemies; he casts this Imputation on the Rump, that they were obeyed only 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 entered into, but if after those pacts that design cannot beaccomplished, than 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 which induced 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 proffered 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 King's Power, Temporal and Ecclesiastical; since it manifestly asserts the cause of Usurpers. It must be granted that Mr. Hobbs doth give to the Sovereign all illimited 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 King's Dominions were in the Power of those who took up Arms against him▪ which contains these Docttines. Pag. 112. ‛ But in case a great many men have already resisted the Sovereign Power unjustly, or committed some Capital Crime, for which every one of them expects Death, whether have they not the Liberty then to join 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, though 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 Sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer than 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 Sovereignty is he Soul of the Commonwealth, which once departed from the body, the members do no more receive their motion from it. Pag. 174. When in a War (foreign or intestine) the Enemies get a final Victory, so as the forces of the Common Wealth keeping the Field no longer) there is no there protection of Subjects in their Loyalty; then is the Commonwealth dissolved, and every man at liberty to protect himself by such causes as his own discretion shall suggest unto him. For the Sovereign is the public Soul, giving Life and motion to the Commonwealth, which expiring, the Members are governed by it no more, than the Carcase of a man by his departed (though immortal) Soul. For though the Right of a Sovereign Monarch cannot be extinguished by the Act of another, 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 Majesty's Authority, that without Command they plainly justify the actions of his usurping Enemies. No person that hath sucked in Hobbs his Principles, can be a loyal Subject, and hence likewise it appears, that he did not ingeniously 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 etc. Let none account me a Criminal, that fight 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. In the Common-Prayer book are contained several Doctrines of the Church of England, to oppose or deny which (as Mr. Hobbs 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 or speak any thing depraving or despiseing the same Book, or any part thereof, or any thing therein contained, than 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 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 they be fierce, their learning and their power being not disputed, when he professes in that book he meddled 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 profane Heresies, and Blasphemous Impieties; the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts hath eaten up those holy Divines; their zealous defence of the Doctrine of their master 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 Heretics they are bound to oppose withal Holy Zeal and Indignation. Did not he blush to aver that they cried Crucify, 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 professed Enemies to those who by their Antichristian opinions Crucify again the Lord of Glory.  
What Reproach casts he upon Religion when he loads the Christian Divines with such imputations. Those that are versed 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 Heretics was not contrariant to that Apostoliocal Precept. The Holy Christian Divines (obeying the Apostolical Commands Titus 3. 10. An Heretic 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.