Chapter X (4)

_T. H._ As for the words recited, I confess there is a fault in the ratiocination, which nevertheless his Lordship hath not discovered, but no impiety. All that he objecteth is, that it followeth hereupon, that there be as many persons of a king, as there be petty constables in his kingdom. And so there are, or else he cannot be obeyed. But I never said that a king, and every one of his persons, are the same substance. The fault I here made, and saw not, was this; I was to prove that it is no contradiction, as Lucian and heathen scoffers would have it, to say of God, he was one and three. I saw the true definition of the word _person_ would serve my turn in this manner; God, in his own person, both created the world, and instituted a church in Israel, using therein the ministry of Moses: the same God, in the person of his Son God and man, redeemed the same world, and the same church; the same God, in the person of the Holy Ghost, sanctified the same church, and all the faithful men in the world. Is not this a clear proof that it is no contradiction to say that God is three persons and one substance? And doth not the church distinguish the persons in the same manner? See the words of our catechism. Question. _What dost thou chiefly learn in these articles of thy belief?_ Answer. _First, I learn to believe in God the Father, that hath made me and all the world; Secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind; Thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost, that hath sanctified me and all the elect people of God._ But at what time was the church sanctified? Was it not on the day of Pentecost, in the descending of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles? His Lordship all this while hath catched nothing. It is I that catched myself, for saying, instead of _by the ministry of Moses_, in the person of Moses. But this error I no sooner saw, than I no less publicly corrected than I had committed it, in my _Leviathan_ converted into Latin, which by this time I think is printed beyond the seas with this alteration, and also with the omission of some such passages as strangers are not concerned in. And I had corrected this error sooner, if I had sooner found it. For though I was told by Dr. Cosins, now Bishop of Durham, that the place above-cited was not applicable enough to the doctrine of the Trinity, yet I could not in reviewing the same espy the defect, till of late, when being solicited from beyond sea, to translate the book into Latin, and fearing some other man might do it not to my liking, I examined this passage and others of the like sense more narrowly. But how concludes his Lordship out of this, that I put out of the creed these words, _the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal_? Or these words, _let us make man after our image_, out of the Bible? Which last words neither I nor Bellarmine put out of the Bible, but we both put them out of the number of good arguments to prove the Trinity; for it is no unusual thing in the Hebrew, as may be seen by Bellarmine’s quotations, to join a noun of the plural number with a verb of the singular. And we may say also of many other texts of Scripture alleged to prove the Trinity, that they are not so firm as that high article requireth. But mark his Lordship’s Scholastic charity in the last words of this period: _such bold presumption requireth another manner of confutation_. This bishop, and others of his opinion, had been in their element, if they had been bishops in Queen Mary’s time.

_J. D._ Concerning God the Son, forgetting what he had said elsewhere, where he calleth him _God and man_, and _the Son of God incarnate_, he doubteth not to say, that _the word_ hypostatical _is canting_. As if the same person could be both God and man without a personal, that is, an hypostatical union of the two natures of God and man.

_T. H._ If Christian profession be (as certainly it is in England) a law; and if it be of the nature of a law to be made known to all men that are to obey it, in such manner as they may have no excuse for disobedience from their ignorance; then, without doubt, all words unknown to the people, and as to them insignificant, are canting. The word _substance_ is understood by the vulgar well enough, when it is said of a body, but in other sense not at all, except for their riches. But the word _hypostatical_ is understood only by those, and but few of those that are learned in the Greek tongue, and is properly used, as I have said before, of the union of the two natures of Christ in one person. So likewise _consubstantial_ in the Nicene creed, is properly said of the Trinity. But to an Englishman that understands neither Greek nor Latin, and yet is as much concerned as his Lordship was, the word _hypostatical_ is no less canting than _eternal now_.

_J. D._ He alloweth every man who is commanded by his lawful sovereign, _to deny Christ with his tongue before men_.

_T. H._ I allow it in some cases, and to some men, which his Lordship knew well enough, but would not mention. I alleged for it, in the place cited, both reason and Scripture, though his Lordship thought it not expedient to take notice of either. If it be true that I have said, why does he blame it? If false, why offers he no argument against it, neither from Scripture nor from reason? Or why does he not show that the text I cite is not applicable to the question, or not well interpreted by me? First, he barely cites it, because he thought the words would sound harshly, and make a reader admire them for impiety. But I hope I shall so well instruct my reader ere I leave this place, that this his petty art will have no effect. Secondly, the cause why he omitted my arguments was, that he could not answer them. Lastly, the cause why he urgeth neither Scripture nor reason against it was, that he saw none sufficient. My argument from Scripture was this, (_Leviathan_, vol. III. p. 493) taken out of 2 Kings v. 17-19, where Naaman the Syrian saith to Elisha the prophet: _Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other Gods, but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, Go in peace._ What can be said to this? Did not Elisha say it from God? Or is not this answer of the prophet a permission? When St. Paul and St. Peter commanded the Christians of their time to obey their princes, which then were heathens and enemies of Christ, did they mean they should lose their lives for disobedience? Did they not rather mean they should preserve both their lives and their faith, believing in Christ as they did, by this denial of the tongue, having no command to the contrary? If in this kingdom a Mahometan should be made by terror to deny Mahomet and go to church with us, would any man condemn this Mahometan? A denial with the mouth may perhaps be prejudicial to the power of the church; but to retain the faith of Christ stedfastly in his heart, cannot be prejudicial to his soul that hath undertaken no charge to preach to wolves, whom they know will destroy them. About the time of the Council of Nice, there was a canon made (which is extant in the history of the Nicene Council) concerning those that being Christians had been seduced, not terrified, to a denial of Christ, and again repenting, desired to be readmitted into the church; in which canon it was ordained, that those men should be no otherwise readmitted than to be in the number of the cathechised, and not to be admitted to the communion till a great many years' penitence. Surely the church then would have been more merciful to them that did the same upon terror of present death and torments.

Let us now see what his Lordship might, though but colourably, have alleged from Scripture against it. There be three places only that seem to favour his Lordship’s opinion. The first is where Peter denied Christ, and weepeth. The second is, Acts v. 29: _Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men_. The third is, Luke xii. 9: _But he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God_.

For answer to these texts, I must repeat what what I have written, and his Lordship read in my _Leviathan_, p. 656. _For an unlearned man that is in the power of an idolatrous king, or state, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an idol, doing it, he detesteth the idol in his heart, he doth well; though if he had the fortitude to suffer death, rather than worship it, he should do better. But if a pastor, who, as Christ’s messenger, has undertaken to teach Christ’s doctrine to all nations, should do the same, it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian men’s consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge._ In which words I distinguish between a pastor and one of the sheep of his flock. St. Peter sinned in denying Christ; and so does every pastor, that denieth Christ, having undertaken the charge of preaching the gospel in the kingdom of an infidel, where he could expect at the undertaking of his charge no less than death. And why, but because he violates his trust in doing contrary to his commission. St. Peter was an apostle of Christ, and bound by his voluntary undertaking of that office not only to confess Christ, but also to preach him before those infidels who, he knew, would like wolves devour him. And therefore, when Paul and the rest of the apostles were forbidden to preach Christ, they gave this answer, _We ought to obey God rather than men_. And it was to his disciples only which had undertaken that office, that Christ saith, _he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God_. And so I think I have sufficiently answered this place, and showed that I do not allow the denying of Christ, upon any colour of torments, to his Lordship, nor to any other that has undertaken the office of a preacher. Which if he think right, he will perhaps in this case put himself into the number of those whom he calls merciful doctors: whereas now he extends his severity beyond the bounds of common equity. He has read Cicero, and perhaps this story in him. The senate of Rome would have sent Cicero to treat of peace with Marcus Antonius; but when Cicero had showed them the just fear he had of being killed by him, he was excused; and if they had forced him to it, and he by terror turned enemy to them, he had in equity been excusable. But his Lordship, I believe, did write this more valiantly than he would have acted it.

_J. D._ He deposeth Christ from his true kingly office, making his _kingdom not to commence or begin before the day of judgment_. And _the regimen, wherewith Christ governeth his faithful in this life, is not properly a kingdom, but a pastoral office, or a right to teach_. And a little after, _Christ had not kingly authority committed to him by his Father in this world, but only consiliary and doctrinal_.

_T. H._ How do I take away Christ’s kingly office? He neither draws it by consequence from my words, nor offers any argument at all against my doctrine. The words he cites are in the contents of chap. XVII. De Cive (vol. II). In the body of the chapter it is thus: _The time of Christ’s being upon the earth is called, in Scripture, the regeneration often, but the kingdom never. When the Son of God comes in majesty, and all the angels with him, then he shall sit on the seat of majesty. My kingdom is not of this world. God sent not his Son that he should judge the world. I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Man, who made me a judge or divider amongst you? Let thy kingdom come._ And other words to the same purpose. Out of which it is clear that Christ took upon him no regal power upon earth before his assumption. But at his assumption his Apostles asked him if he would then restore the kingdom to Israel, and he answered, it was not for them to know. So that hitherto Christ had not taken that office upon him, unless his Lordship think that the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of Christ, be two distinct kingdoms. From the Assumption ever since, all true Christians say daily in their prayers, _Thy kingdom come_. But his Lordship had perhaps forgot that. But when then beginneth Christ to be a king? I say it shall be then, when he comes again in majesty with all the angels. And even then he shall reign (as he is man) under his Father. For St. Paul saith (1 Cor. xv. 25, 26): _He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; the last enemy that shall be destroyed, is death_. But when shall God the Father reign again? St. Paul saith in the same chapter, verse 28: _When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all_. And verse 24: _Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, authority, and power_. This is at the resurrection. And by this it is manifest, that his Lordship was not so well versed in Scripture as he ought to have been.

_J. D._ He taketh away his priestly or propitiatory office. _And although this act of our redemption be not always in Scripture called a sacrifice and oblation, but sometimes a price; yet by price we are not to understand anything, by the value whereof he could claim right to a pardon for us from his offended Father, but that price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand._ And again: _Not that the death of one man, though without sin, can satisfy for the offences of all men in the rigour of justice, but in the mercy of God, that ordained such sacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in mercy to accept_. He knoweth no difference between one who is mere man, and one who was both God and man; between a Levitical sacrifice, and the all-sufficient sacrifice of the cross; between the blood of a calf, and the precious blood of the Son of God.

_T. H._ Yes, I know there is a difference between blood and blood, but not any such as can make a difference in the case here questioned. Our Saviour’s blood was most precious, but still it was human blood; and I hope his Lordship did never think otherwise, or that it was not accepted by his Father for our redemption.

_J. D._ And touching the prophetical office of Christ, I do much doubt whether he do believe in earnest, that there is any such thing as prophecy in the world. He maketh very little difference between a _prophet_ and a _madman_, and a _demoniac_. _And if there were nothing else_, says he, _that bewrayed their madness, yet that very arrogating such inspiration to themselves is argument enough_. He maketh the pretence of inspiration in any man to be, and always to have been, _an opinion pernicious to peace, and tending to the dissolution of all civil government_. He subjecteth all prophetical revelations from God, to the sole pleasure and censure of the sovereign prince, either to authorize them, or to exauctorate them. So as two prophets prophecying the same thing at the same time, in the dominions of two different princes, the one shall be a true prophet, the other a false. And Christ, who had the approbation of no sovereign prince, upon his grounds, was to be reputed a false prophet everywhere. _Every man therefore ought to consider who is the sovereign prophet; that is to say, who it is that is God’s vicegerent upon earth, and hath next under God the authority of governing Christian men; and to observe for a rule that doctrine, which in the name of God he hath commanded to be taught, and thereby to examine and try out the truth of those doctrines which pretended prophets, with miracle or without, shall at any time advance_, &c. _And if he disavow them, then no more to obey their voice; or if he approve them, then to obey them as men, to whom God hath given a part of the Spirit of their sovereign._ Upon his principles the case holdeth as well among Jews and Turks and Heathens, as Christians. Then he that teacheth transubstantiation in France, is a true prophet; he that teacheth it in England, a false prophet; he that blasphemeth Christ in Constantinople, a true prophet; he that doth the same in Italy, a false prophet. Then Samuel was a false prophet to contest with Saul, a sovereign prophet: so was the man of God, who submitted not to the more Divine and prophetic spirit of Jeroboam. And Elijah for reproving Ahab. Then Micaiah had but his deserts, to be clapped up in prison, and fed with bread of affliction, and water of affliction, for daring to contradict _God’s vicegerent upon earth_. And Jeremiah was justly thrown into a dungeon, for prophecying against Zedekiah his liege lord. If his principles were true, it were strange indeed, that none of all these princes, nor any other that ever was in the world, should understand their own privileges. And yet more strange, that God Almighty should take the part of such rebellious prophets, and justify their prophesies by the event, if it were true that _none but the sovereign in a Christian_ (the reason is the same for Jewish) _commonwealth, can take notice, what is or what is not the word of God_.

_T. H._ To remove his Lordship’s doubt in the first place, I confess there was true prophesy and true prophets in the church of God, from Abraham down to our Saviour, the greatest prophet of all, and the last of the Old Testament, and first of the New. After our Saviour’s time, till the death of St. John the apostle, there were true prophets in the church of Christ, prophets to whom God spake supernaturally, and testified the truth of their mission by miracles. Of those that in the Scripture are called prophets without miracles, (and for this cause only, that they spake in the name of God to men, and in the name of men to God), there are, have been, and shall be in the church, innumerable. Such a prophet was his Lordship, and such are all pastors in the Christian church. But the question here is of those prophets that from the mouth of God foretell things future, or do other miracle. Of this kind I deny there has been any since the death of St. John the Evangelist. If any man find fault with this, he ought to name some man or other, whom we are bound to acknowledge that they have done a miracle, cast out a devil, or cured any disease by the sole invocation of the Divine Majesty. We are not bound to trust to the legend of the Roman saints, nor to the history written by Sulpitius of the life of St. Martin, or to any other fables of the Roman clergy, nor to such things as were pretended to be done by some divines here in the time of king James. Secondly, he says I make little difference between a _prophet_, and a _madman_ or _demoniac_; to which I say, he accuses me falsely. I say only thus much, _that I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requireth a belief, that demoniacs were any other thing than madmen_. And this is also made very probable out of Scripture, by a worthy divine, Mr. Mede. But concerning prophets, I say only that the Jews, both under the Old Testament and under the New, took them to be all one with _madmen_ and _demoniacs_; and prove it out of Scripture by many places, both of the Old and New Testament. Thirdly, that the pretence or arrogating to one’s-self Divine inspiration, is argument enough to show a man is _mad_, is my opinion; but his Lordship understands not _inspiration_ in the same sense that I do. He understands it properly of God’s breathing into a man, or pouring into him the Divine substance, or Divine graces. And in that sense, he that arrogateth inspiration unto himself, neither understands what he saith, nor makes others to understand him: which is properly madness in some degree. But I understand _inspiration_ in the Scripture metaphorically, for God’s guidance of our minds to truth and piety. Fourthly, whereas he says, I make the pretence of _inspiration_ to be pernicious to peace; I answer, that I think his Lordship was of my opinion; for he called those men, which in the late civil war pretended the spirit, and new light, and to be the only faithful men, _fanatics_; for he called them in his book, and did call them in his life-time, _fanatics_. And what is a _fanatic_ but a _madman_? And what can be more pernicious to peace, than the revelations that were by these _fanatics_ pretended? I do not say there were not doctrines of other men, not called _fanatics_, as pernicious to peace as their’s were, and in great part a cause of those troubles. Fifthly, from that I make prophetical revelations subject to the examination of the lawful sovereign, he inferreth, that two prophets prophecying the same thing at the same time, in the dominions of two different princes, the one shall be a true prophet, the other a false. This consequence is not good: for seeing they teach different doctrines, they cannot both of them confirm their doctrine with miracles. But this I prove, in the place (vol. iii. p. 426) he citeth, that whether either of their doctrines shall be taught publicly or not, it is in the power of the sovereign of the place only to determine. Nay, I say now further, if a prophet come to any private man in the name of God, that man shall be judge whether he be a true prophet or not, before he obey him. See 1 John, iv. 1. Sixthly, whereas he says that, upon my grounds, Christ was to be reputed a false prophet every where, because his doctrine was received no where; his Lordship had read my book more negligently, than was fit for one that would confute it. My ground is this; that Christ in right of his Father was king of the Jews, and consequently supreme prophet, and judge of all prophets. What other princes thought of his prophesies, is nothing to the purpose. I never said that princes can make doctrines or prophesies true or false; but I say every sovereign prince has a right to prohibit the public teaching of them, whether false or true. But what an oversight is it in a divine, to say that Christ had the approbation of no sovereign prince, when he had the approbation of God, who was king of the Jews, and Christ his viceroy, and the whole Scripture written (John, xx. 31) to prove it; when his miracles declared it; when Pilate confessed it; and when the apostles' office was to proclaim it? Seventhly, if we must not consider, in points of Christian faith, who is the sovereign prophet, that is, who is next under Christ our supreme head and governor, I wish his Lordship would have cleared, ere he died, these few questions. Is there not need of some judge of controverted doctrines? I think no man can deny it, that has seen the rebellion that followed the controversy here between Gomar and Arminius. There must therefore be a judge of doctrines. But, says the Bishop, not the king. Who then? Shall Dr. Bramhall be this judge? As profitable an office as it is, he was more modest than to say that. Shall a private layman have it? No man ever thought that. Shall it be given to a Presbyterian minister? No; it is unreasonable. Shall a synod of Presbyterians have it? No; for most of the Presbyters in the primitive church were undoubtedly subordinate to bishops, and the rest were bishops. Who then? A synod of bishops? Very well. His Lordship being too modest to undertake the whole power, would have been contented with the six-and-twentieth part. But, suppose it in a synod of bishops, who shall call them together? The king. What if he will not? Who should excommunicate him, or if he despise your excommunication, who shall send forth a writ of _significavit_? No; all this was far from his Lordship’s thoughts. The power of the clergy, unless it be upheld legally by the king, or illegally by the multitude, amounts to nothing. But for the multitude, Suarez and the Schoolmen will never gain them, because they are not understood. Besides there be very few bishops that can act a sermon, which is a puissant part of _rhetoric_, so well as divers Presbyterians, and fanatic preachers can do. I conclude therefore, that his Lordship could not possibly believe that the supreme judicature in matter of religion could any where be so well placed as in the head of the church, which is the king. And so his Lordship and I think the same thing; but because his Lordship knew not how to deduce it, he was angry with me because I did it. He says, further, that _by my principles, he that blasphemeth Christ at Constantinople, is a true prophet_: as if a man that blasphemeth Christ, to approve his blasphemy can procure a miracle. For by my principles, no man is a prophet whose prophesy is not confirmed by God with a miracle. In the last place, out of this, that the lawful sovereign is the judge of prophesy, he deduces that then Samuel and other prophets were false prophets, that contested with their sovereigns. As for Samuel, he was at that time the judge, that is to say, the sovereign prince in Israel, and so acknowledged by Saul. For Saul received the kingdom from God himself, who had right to give and take it, by the hands of Samuel. And God gave it to himself only, and not to his seed; though if he had obeyed God, he would have settled it also upon his seed. The commandment of God was, that he should not spare Agag. Saul obeyed not. God therefore sent to Samuel to tell him that he was rejected. For all this, Samuel went not about to resist Saul. That he caused Agag to be slain, was with Saul’s consent. Lastly, Saul confesses his sin. Where is this contesting with Saul? After this God sent Samuel to anoint David, not that he should depose Saul, but succeed him, the sons of Saul having never had a right of succession. Nor did ever David make war on Saul, or so much as resist him, but fled from his persecution. But when Saul was dead, then indeed he claimed his right against the house of Saul. What rebellion or resistance could his Lordship find here, either in Samuel or in David? Besides, all these transactions are supernatural, and oblige not to imitation. Is there any prophet or priest now, that can set up in England, Scotland, or Ireland, another king by pretence of prophecy or religion? What did Jeroboam to the man of God (1 Kings xiii.) that prophesied against the altar in Bethel without first doing a miracle, but offer to seize him for speaking, as he thought, rashly of the king’s act; and after the miraculous withering of his hand, desire the prophet to pray for him? The sin of Jeroboam was not his distrust of the prophet, but his idolatry. He was the sole judge of the truth which the man of God uttered against the altar, and the process agreeable to equity. What is the story of Elijah and Ahab (1 Kings xviii.), but a confirmation of the right even of Ahab to be judge of prophecy? Elijah told Ahab, he had transgressed the commandment of God. So may any minister now tell his sovereign, so he do it with sincerity and discretion. Ahab told Elijah he troubled Israel. Upon this controversy Elijah desired trial. Send, saith he, and assemble all Israel; assemble also the prophets of Baal, four hundred and fifty. Ahab did so. The question is stated before the people thus: if the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, follow him. Then upon the altars of God and Baal were laid the wood and the bullocks; and the cause was to be judged by fire from heaven, to burn the sacrifices; which Elijah procured, the prophets of Baal could not procure. Was not this cause here pleaded before Ahab? The sentence of Ahab is not required; for Elijah from that time forward was no more persecuted by Ahab, but only by his wife, Jezabel. The story of Micaiah (2 Chron. xviii.) is this. Ahab King of Israel consulted the prophets, four hundred in number, whether he should prosper or not, in case he went with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to fight against the Syrians at Ramoth-gilead. The prophet Micaiah was also called, and both the kings, Ahab and Jehoshaphat, sat together to hear what they should prophecy. There was no miracle done. The four hundred pronounced victory; Micaiah alone the contrary. The king was judge, and most concerned in the event; nor had he received any revelation in the business. What could he do more discreetly than to follow the counsel of four hundred, rather than of one man? But the event was contrary; for he was slain; but not for following the counsel of the four hundred, but for his murder of Naboth, and his idolatry. It was also a sin in him, that he afflicted Micaiah in prison. But an unjust judgment does not take away from any king his right of judicature. Besides, what is all this, or that of Jeremiah which he cites last, to the question of who is judge of Christian doctrine?

_J. D._ Neither doth he use God the Holy Ghost, more favourably than God the Son. Where St. Peter saith, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; he saith, _By the spirit, is meant the voice of God in a dream or vision supernatural_; which dreams or visions, he maketh to be no more than _imaginations which they had in their sleep, or in an extasy, which in every true prophet were supernatural, but in false prophets were either natural or feigned_, and more likely to be false than true. To say, _God hath spoken to him in a dream, is no more than to say, he dreamed that God spake to him, &c. To say, he hath seen a vision or heard a voice, is to say, that he hath dreamed between sleeping and waking._ So St. Peter’s Holy Ghost, is come to be their own imaginations, which might be either feigned, or mistaken, or true. As if the Holy Ghost did enter only at their eyes, and at their ears, not into their understandings, nor into their minds; or as if the Holy Ghost did not seal unto their hearts the truth and assurance of their prophecies. Whether a new light be infused into their understandings, or new graces be inspired into their heart, they are wrought, or caused, or created immediately by the Holy Ghost; and so are his _imaginations_, if they be supernatural.

_T. H._ For the places of my _Leviathan_ he cites, they are all, as they stand, both true and clearly proved. The setting of them down by fragments is no refutation; nor offers he any arguments against them. His consequences are not deduced. I never said that the Holy Ghost was an imagination, or a dream, or a vision, but that the Holy Ghost spake most often in the Scripture by dreams and visions supernatural. The next words of his, _as if the Holy Ghost did enter only at their eyes, and at their ears, not into their understandings, nor into their minds_, I let pass, because I cannot understand them. His last words, _Whether new light, &c._ I understand and approve.

_J. D._ But he must needs fall into these absurdities, who maketh but a jest of inspiration. _They who pretend Divine inspiration to be a supernatural entering of the Holy Ghost into a man, are_, as he thinks, _in a very dangerous dilemma; for if they worship not the men whom they conceive to be inspired, they fall into impiety; and if they worship them, they commit idolatry_. So mistaking the Holy Ghost to be corporeal, something that is blown into a man, and the graces of the Holy Ghost to be corporeal graces. And the words, _inpoured or infused virtue_, and, _inblown or inspired virtue, are as absurd and as insignificant, as a round quadrangle_. He reckons it as a common error, that _faith and sanctity are not attained by study and reason, but by supernatural inspiration or infusion_. And layeth this for a firm ground; _faith and sanctity are indeed not very frequent, but yet they are not miracles, but brought to pass by education, discipline, correction, and other natural ways_. I would see the greatest Pelagian of them all, fly higher.

_T. H._ I make here no jest of inspiration. Seriously, I say, that in the proper signification of the words _inspiration_ and _infusion_, to say virtue is inspired, or infused, is as absurd as to say a quadrangle is round. But metaphorically, for God’s bestowing of faith, grace, or other virtue, those words are intelligible enough.

_J. D._ Why should he trouble himself about the Holy Spirit, who acknowledgeth no spirit, but either a subtle fluid body, or a ghost, or other idol or phantasm of the imagination; who knoweth no inward grace or intrinsical holiness? _Holy is a word which in God’s kingdom answereth to that, which men in their kingdoms use to call public, or the king’s._ And again, _wheresoever the word, holy, is taken properly, there is still something signified of propriety gotten by consent_. His holiness is a relation, not a quality; for inward sanctification, or real infused holiness, (in respect whereof the third person is called the Holy Ghost, because he is not only holy in himself, but also maketh us holy), he is so great a stranger to it, that he doth altogether deny it, and disclaim it.

_T. H._ The word _holy_ I had defined in the words which his Lordship here sets down, and by the use thereof in the Scripture made it manifest, that that was the true signification of the word. There is nothing in learning more difficult than to determine the signification of words. That difficulty excuses him. He says that _holiness_, in my sense, is a relation, not a quality. All the learned agree that quality is an accident: so that in attributing to God _holiness_, as a quality, he contradicts himself. For he has in the beginning of this his discourse denied, and rightly, that any accident is in God; saying, whatsoever is in God is the Divine substance. He affirms also, that to attribute any accident to God, is to deny the simplicity of the Divine substance. And thus his Lordship makes God, as I do, a corporeal spirit. Both here, and throughout, he discovers so much ignorance, as had he charged me with error only, and not with atheism, I should not have thought it necessary to answer him.

_J. D._ We are taught in our creed to believe the catholic or universal church. But T. H. teacheth us the contrary: _That if there be more Christian churches than one, all of them together are not one church personally_. And more plainly: _Now if the whole number of Christians be not contained in one commonwealth, they are not one person, nor is there an universal church, that hath any authority over them_. And again: _The universal church is not one person, of which it can be said, that it hath done, or decreed, or ordained, or excommunicated, or absolved_. This doth quite overthrow all the authority of general councils.

All other men distinguish between the church and the commonwealth; only T. H. maketh them to be one and the same thing. _The commonwealth of Christian men, and the church of the same, are altogether the same thing, called by two names for two reasons. For the matter of the church and of the commonwealth is the same, namely, the same Christian men; and the form is the same, which consisteth in the lawful power of convocating them._ And hence he concludeth, that _every Christian commonwealth is a church endowed with all spiritual authority_. And yet more fully: _The church if it be one person, is the same thing with the commonwealth of Christians; called a commonwealth, because it consisteth of men united in one person their sovereign; and a church, because it consisteth in Christian men united in one Christian sovereign_. Upon which account there was no Christian church in these parts of the world, for some hundreds of years after Christ, because there was no Christian sovereign.

_T. H._ For answer to this period, I say only this; that taking the church, as I do, in all those places, for a company of Christian men on earth incorporated into one person, that can speak, command, or do any act of a person, all that he citeth out of what I have written is true; and that all private conventicles, though their belief be right, are not properly called churches; and that there is not any one universal church here on earth, which is a person indued with authority universal to govern all Christian men on earth, no more than there is one universal sovereign prince or state on earth, that hath right to govern all mankind. I deny also that the whole clergy of a Christian kingdom or state being assembled, are the representative of that church further than the civil laws permit; or can lawfully assemble themselves, unless by the command or by the leave of the sovereign civil power. I say further, that the denial of this point tendeth in England towards the taking away of the king’s supremacy in causes ecclesiastical. But his Lordship has not here denied any thing of mine, because he has done no more but set down my words. He says further, that this doctrine destroys the authority of all general councils; which I confess. Nor hath any general council at this day in this kingdom the force of a law, nor ever had, but by the authority of the king.

_J. D._ Neither is he more orthodox concerning the holy Scriptures: _hitherto_, that is, for the books of Moses, _the power of making the Scripture canonical, was in the civil sovereign_. The like he saith of the Old Testament, made canonical by Esdras. And of the New Testament, that _it was not the apostles which made their own writings canonical, but every convert made them so to himself_: yet with this restriction, that _until the sovereign ruler had prescribed them, they were but counsel and advice, which whether good or bad, he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws established, could not without injustice observe_. He maketh the primitive Christians to have been in a pretty condition. Certainly the gospel was contrary to the laws then established. But most plainly, _The word of the interpreter of the Scripture is the word of God_. And the _same is the interpreter of the Scripture, and the sovereign judge of all doctrines_, that is, the sovereign magistrate, _to whose authority we must stand no less, than to theirs, who at first did commend the Scripture to us for the canon of faith_. Thus if Christian sovereigns, of different communications, do clash one with another, in their interpretation, or misinterpretation of Scripture, as they do daily, then the word of God is contradictory to itself; or that is the word of God in one commonwealth, which is the word of the Devil in another commonwealth. And the same thing may be true, and not true at the same time: which is the peculiar privilege of T. H. to make contradictories to be true together.

_T. H._ There is no doubt but by what authority the Scripture or any other writing is made a law, by the same authority the Scriptures are to be interpreted, or else they are made law in vain. But to obey is one thing, to believe is another; which distinction perhaps his Lordship never heard of. To obey is to do or forbear as one is commanded, and depends on the will; but to believe, depends not on the will, but on the providence and guidance of our hearts that are in the hands of God Almighty. Laws only require obedience; belief requires teachers and arguments drawn either from reason, or from some thing already believed. Where there is no reason for our belief, there is no reason we should believe. The reason why men believe, is drawn from the authority of those men whom we have no just cause to mistrust, that is, of such men to whom no profit accrues by their deceiving us, and of such men as never used to lie, or else from the authority of such men whose promises, threats, and affirmations, we have seen confirmed by God with miracles. If it be not from the king’s authority that the Scripture is law, what other authority makes it law? Here some man being of his Lordship’s judgment, will perhaps laugh and say, it is the authority of God that makes them law. I grant that. But my question is, on what authority they believe that God is the author of them? Here his Lordship would have been at a nonplus, and turning round, would have said the authority of the Scripture makes good that God is their author. If it be said we are to believe the Scripture upon the authority of the universal church, why are not the books we call Apocrypha the word of God as well as the rest? If this authority be in the church of England, then it is not any other than the authority of the head of the church, which is the king. For without the head the church is mute. The authority therefore is in the king; which is all that I contended for in this point. As to the laws of the Gentiles, concerning religion in the primitive times of the church, I confess they were contrary to Christian faith. But none of their laws, nor terrors, nor a man’s own will, are able to take away faith, though they can compel to an external obedience; and though I may blame the _Ethnic_ princes for compelling men to speak what they thought not, yet I absolve not all those that have had the power in Christian churches from the same fault. For I believe, since the time of the first four general councils, there have been more Christians burnt and killed in the Christian church by ecclesiastical authority, than by the heathen emperors' laws, for religion only without sedition. All that the Bishop does in this argument is but a heaving at the King’s supremacy. Oh, but, says he, if two kings interpret a place of Scripture in contrary senses, it will follow that both senses are true. It does not follow. For the interpretation, though it be made by just authority, must not therefore always be true. If the doctrine in the one sense be necessary to salvation, then they that hold the other must die in their sins, and be damned. But if the doctrine in neither sense be necessary to salvation, then all is well, except perhaps that they will call one another atheists, and fight about it.

_J. D._ All the power, virtue, use, and efficacy, which he ascribeth to the holy sacraments, is to be _signs or commemorations_. As for any sealing, or confirming, or conferring of grace, he acknowledged! nothing. The same he saith particularly of baptism: upon which grounds a cardinal’s red hat, or a serjeant-at-arms his mace, may be called sacraments as well as baptism, or the holy eucharist, if they be only signs and commemorations of a benefit. If he except, that baptism and the eucharist are of Divine institution; but a cardinal’s red hat or a serjeant-at-arms his mace are not: he saith truly, but nothing to his advantage or purpose, seeing he deriveth all the authority of the word and sacraments, in respect of subjects, and all our obligation to them, from the authority of the sovereign magistrate, without which these words, _Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus_, are but counsel, no command. And so a serjeant-at-arms his mace, and baptism, proceed both from the same authority. And this he saith upon this silly ground, _that nothing is a command, the performance whereof tendeth to our own benefit_. He might as well deny the Ten Commandments to be commands, because they have an advantageous promise annexed to them, _Do this and thou shalt live_; and _cursed is every one that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them_.

_T. H._ Of the sacraments I said no more, than that they are _signs_ or _commemorations_. He finds fault that I add not _seals_, _confirmations_, and that they _confer grace_. First, I would have asked him, if a seal be any thing else besides a sign, whereby to remember somewhat, as that we have promised, accepted, acknowledged, given, undertaken somewhat. Are not other _signs_, though without a _seal_, of force sufficient to convince me or oblige me? A writing obligatory, or release, signed only with a man’s name, is as obligatory as a bond signed and sealed, if it be sufficiently proved, though peradventure it may require a longer process to obtain a sentence; but his Lordship I think knew better than I do the force of bonds and bills; yet I know this, that in the court of heaven there is no such difference between saying, signing, and sealing, as his Lordship seemeth here to pretend. I am baptized for a commemoration that I have enrolled myself. I take the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to commemorate that Christ’s body was broken, and his blood shed for my redemption. What is there more intimated concerning the nature of these sacraments, either in the Scripture or in the book of Common Prayer? Have bread and wine and water in their own nature, any other quality than they had before the consecration? It is true that the consecration gives these bodies a new relation, as being a giving and dedicating of them to God, that is to say a making of them holy, not a changing of their quality. But as some silly young men returning from France affect a broken English, to be thought perfect in the French language; so his Lordship, I think, to seem a perfect understander of the unintelligible language of the Schoolmen, pretends an ignorance of his mother-tongue. He talks here of _command_ and _counsel_, as if he were no Englishman, nor knew any difference between their significations. What Englishman, when he commandeth, says more than, _Do this_; yet he looks to be obeyed, if obedience be due unto him. But when he says, _Do this, and thou shalt have such or such a reward_, he encourages him, or advises him, or bargains with him; but commands him not. Oh, the understanding of a Schoolman!

_J. D._ Sometimes he is for holy orders, and giveth to the pastors of the church the right of ordination and absolution, and infallibility, too much for a particular pastor, or the pastors of one particular church. _It is manifest, that the consecration of the chiefest doctors in every church, and imposition of hands, doth pertain to the doctors of the same church._ And, _it cannot be doubted of, but the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the future pastors, after the same manner as to his present apostles_. And, _our Saviour hath promised this infallibility in those things which are necessary to salvation, to his apostles, until the day of judgment, that is to say, to the apostles, and pastors to be consecrated by the apostles successively, by the imposition of hands_.

But at other times he casteth all this meal down with his foot. _Christian sovereigns are the supreme pastors, and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak from God, except such as God speaketh to in these days supernaturally._ What is now become of the promised infallibility? And, _it is from the civil sovereign that all other pastors derive their right of teaching, preaching, and all other functions pertaining to that office; and they are but his ministers in the same manner as the magistrates of towns, or judges in courts of justice, and commanders of armies_. What is now become of their ordination? Magistrates, judges, and generals, need no precedent qualifications. He maketh _the pastoral authority of sovereigns to be_ jure divino, _of all other pastors_ jure civili: he addeth, _neither is there any judge of heresy among subjects, but their own civil sovereign_.

Lastly, _the church excommunicateth no man but whom she excommunicateth by the authority of the prince_. And, _the effect of excommunication hath nothing in it, neither of damage in this world, nor terror upon an apostate, if the civil power did persecute or not assist the church: and in the world to come, leaves them in no worse estate, than those who never believed. The damage rather redoundeth to the church. Neither is the excommunication of a Christian subject, that obeyeth the laws of his own sovereign, of any effect._ Where is now their power of binding and loosing?