that they fell in hand with the work so quickly For the first Rector of the University of Paris as I have read somewhere was Peter Lombard who first brought in them the Learning called School-Divinity and was seconded by John Scot of Duns who lived in or near the same time whom any ingenious Reader not knowing what was the Design would judge to have been two the most egregious Blockheads in the World so obscure and senseless are their Writings And from these the School-men that succeeded learnt the trick of imposing what they list upon their Readers and declining the force of true Reason by Verbal Forkes I mean Distinctions that signifie nothing but serve only to astonish the multitude of ignorant Men. As for the understanding Readers they were so few that these new sublime Doctors cared not what they thought These School men were to make good all the Articles of Faith which the Popes from time to time should command to be believ'd amongst which there were very many inconsistent with the Rights of Kings and other Civil Sovereigns as asserting to the Pope all Authority whatsoever they should declare to be necessary in ordine ad spiritualia that is to say in order to Religion From the Universities also it was That all Preachers proceeded and were poured out into City and Country to terrifie the People into an absolute obedience to the Pope's Canons and Commands which for fear of wakening Kings and Princes too much they durst not yet call Laws From the Universities it was That the Philosophy of Aristotle was made an Ingredient to Religion as serving for a Salve to a great many of absurd Articles concerning the Nature of Christ's Body and the Estate of Angels and Saints in Heaven which Articles they thought fit to have believed because they bring some of them profit and others reverence to the Clergy even to the meanest of them for when they shall have made the People believe that the meanest of them can make the Body of Christ who is there that will not both shew them reverence and be liberal to them or to the Church especially in the time of their sickness when they think they make and bring unto them their Saviour B. But what advantage to them in these Impostures was the Doctrine of Aristotle A. They have made more use of his obscurity than of his Doctrine for none of the Ancient Philosophers Writings are comparable to those of Aristotle for their aptness to puzzle and entangle men with words and to breed Disputation which must at last be ended in the Determination of the Church of Rome and yet in the Doctrine of Aristotle they made use of many Points as first the Doctrine of seperated Essences B. What are seperated Essences A. Seperated Beings B. Seperated from what A. From every thing that is B. I cannot understand the Being of any thing which I understand not to be but what can they make of that A. Very much in questions concerning the Nature of God and concerning the Estate of Man's Soul after death in Heaven Hell and Purgatory by which you and every man knows how great obedience and how much Money they gain from the Common People Whereas Aristotle holdeth the Soul of Man to be the first giver of motion to the Body and consequently to it self they make use of that in the Doctrine of Free-will what and how they gain by that I will not say He holdeth forth that there be many things that come to pass in this World from no necessity of Causes but meer Contingency Casualty and Fortune B. Methinks in this they make God stand idle and to be a meer Spectator of the Games of Fortune for what God is the cause of must needs come to pass and in my opinion nothing else But because there must be some ground for the Justice of the Eternal Torment of the damned perhaps it is this that mens Wills and Propensions are not they think in the Hands of God but of themselves and in this also I see somewhat conducing to the Authority of the Church A. This is not much nor was Aristotle of such credit with them but that when his Opinion was against theirs they could slight him Whatsoever he says is impossible in nature they can prove well enough to be possible from the Almighty Power of God who can make many Bodies to be in one and the self-same place and one Body to be in many places at the same time if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation require it though Aristotle deny it I like not the Design of drawing Religion into an Art whereas it ought to be a Law and though not the same in all Countries yet in every Country undisputable nor that they teach it not as Arts ought to be taught by shewing first the meaning of their Terms and then deriving from them the truth they would have us believe nor that their Terms are for the most part unintelligible though to make it seem rather want of Learning in the Reader than want of fair dealing in themselves They are for the most part Latin and Greek words wryed a little at the point towards the Native Language of the several Countries where they are used But that which is most intolerable is that all Clerks are forced to make as if they believed them if they mean to have any Church-preferment the Keys whereof are in the Pope's Hands and the Common People whatsoever they believe of those subtile Doctrines are never esteemed better Sons of the Church for their Learning There is but one way there to Salvation that is extraordinary Devotion and Liberality to the Church and readiness for the Churches sake if it be requir'd to fight against their Natural and Lawful Sovereigns B. I see what use they make of Aristotle's Logick Physicks and Metaphysicks but I see not yet how his Politicks can serve their turn A. Nor I. It has I think done them no good though it has done us here much hurt by accident for men grown weary at last of the Insolence of the Priests and examining the truth of these Doctrines that were put upon them began to search the sense of the Scriptures as they are in the learned Languages and consequently studying Greek and Latin became acquainted with the Democratical Principles of Aristotle and Cicero and from the love of their Eloquence fell in love with their Politicks and that more and more till it grew into the Rebellion we now talk of without any other advantage to the Roman Church but that it was a weakening to us whom since we broke out of their Net in the time of Henry the 8 th they have continually endeavoured to recover B. What have they gotten by the teaching of Aristotle's Ethicks A. It is some advantage to them that neither the Morals of Aristotle nor of any other have done them any harm nor us any good Their Doctrines have caused a great deal of dispute concerning Vertue and Vice
speaking the thing understood or named is called Hypostasis in respect of the name so also a Body coloured is the Hypostasis Substance and Subject of the colour and in like manner of all its other Accidents Essence and all other abstract names are words artificial belonging to the Art of Logick and signifies only the manner how we consider the Substance it self And of this I have spoken sufficiently in Pag. 371.372 of my Leviathan Body Lat. Corpus Grae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that Substance which hath Magnitude indeterminate and is the same with Corporeal Substance but A Body is that which hath Magnitude determinate and consequently is understood to be totum or integrum aliquid Pure and Simple Body is Body of one and the same kind in every part throughout and if mingled with Body of another kind though the total be compounded or mixt the parts nevertheless retain their simplicity as when water and wine are mixt the parts of both kinds retain their simplicity For water and wine cannot both be in one and the same place at once Matter is the same with Body But never without respect to a Body which is made thereof Form is the aggregate of all Accidents together for which we give the Matter a new name so Albedo whiteness is the Form of Album or white Body So also Humanity is the Essence of man and Deity the Essence of Deus Spirit is Thin Fluid Transparent Invisible Body The word in Latin signifies Breath Aire Wind and the like In Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiro Flo. I have seen and so have many more two waters one of the River the other a Mineral Water so like that no man could discern the one from the other by his sight yet when they have been both put together the whole substance could not by the eye be distinguished from milk Yet we know that the one was not mixt with the other so as every part of the one to be in every part of the other for that is impossible unless two Bodies can be in the the same place How then could the change be made in every part but only by the Activity of the Mineral water changing it every where to the Sense and yet not being every where and in every part of the water If then such gross Bodies have so great Activity what shall we think of Spirits whose kinds be as many as there be kinds of Liquor and Activity greater Can it then be doubted but that God who is an infinitely fine Spirit and withall intelligent can make and change all species and kinds of Body as he pleaseth but I dare not say that this is the way by which God Almighty worketh because it is past my apprehension yet it serves very well to demonstrate that the Omnipotence of God implieth no contradiction and is better than by pretence of magnifying the fineness of the divine Substance to reduce it to a Spright or Phantasm which is Nothing A Person Lat. Persona signifies an intelligent Substance that acteth any thing in his own or anothers Name or by his own or anothers Authority Of this Definition there can be no other proof than from the use of that word in such Latin Authors as were esteem'd the most skilful in their own Language of which number was Cicero But Cicero in an Epistle to Atticus saith thus Vnus sustineo tres Personas Mei Adversarii Judicis That is I that am but one man sustain three Persons mine own Person the Person of my Adversary and the Person of the Judge Cicero was here the Substance intelligent one man and because he pleaded for himself he calls himself his own Person and again because he pleaded for his Adversary he says he sustained the Person of his Adversary and lastly because he himself gave the Sentence he says he sustained the Person of the Judge In the same sence we use the word in English vulgarly calling him that acteth by his own Authority his own Person and him that acteth by the Authority of another the Person of that other And thus we have the exact meaning of the word Person The Greek Tongue cannot render it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly a Face and Metaphorically a Vizard of an Actor upon the Stage How then did the Greek Fathers render the word Person as it is in the blessed Trinity Not well Instead of the word Person they put Hypostasis which signifies Substance from whence it might be inferr'd that the three Persons in the Trinity are three divine Substances that is three Gods The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not use because Face and Vizard are neither of them honourable Attributes of God nor explicative of the meaning of the Greek Church Therefore the Latin and consequently the English Church renders Hypostasis every where in Athanasius his Creed by Person But the word Hypostatical Vnion is rightly retained and used by Divines as being the Union of two Hypostases that is of two Substances or Natures in the Person of Christ. But seeing they also hold the Soul of our Saviour to be a Substance which though separated from his Body subsisted nevertheless in it self and consequently before it was separated from his Body upon the Cross was a distinct Nature from his Body how will they avoid this Objection That then Christ had three Natures three Hypostases without granting that his Resurrection was a new vivification and not a return of his Soul out of Heaven into the Grave The contrary is not determined by the Church Thus far in explication of the words that occur in this Controversie Now I return again to his Lordship's Discourse J. D. When they have taken away all incorporeal Spirits what do they leave God himself to be He who is the Fountain of all Being from whom and in whom all Creatures have their Being must needs have a real Being of his own And what real Being can God have among Bodies and Accidents for they have left nothing else in the Universe Then T. H. may move the same Question of God which he did of Devils I would gladly know in what Classis of Entities the Bishop ranketh God Infinite Being and participated Being are not of the same nature Yet to speak according to humane apprehension apprehension and comprehension differ much T. H. confesseth that natural Reason doth dictate to us that God is Infinite yet natural Reason cannot comprehend the Infiniteness of God I place him among incorporeal Substances or Spirits because he hath been pleased to place himself in that rank God is a Spirit Of which place T. H. giveth his opinion that it is unintelligible and all others of the same nature and fall not under humane understanding They who deny all incorporeal Substances can understand nothing by God but either Nature not Naturam naturantem that is a real Author of Nature but Naturam naturatam that is the orderly
of the Jus Divinum of Bishops a thing which before the Reformation here was never allowed them by the Pope Two Jus Divinums cannot stand together in one Kingdom In the last place he mislikes that the Church should Excommunicate by Authority of the King that is to say by Authority of the Head of the Church But he tells not why He might as well mislike that the Magistrates of the Realm should execute their Offices by the Authority of the Head of the Realm His Lordship was in a great error if he thought such incroachments would add any thing to the Wealth Dignity Reverence or Continuance of his Order They are Pastors of Pastors but yet they are the Sheep of him that is on earth their soveraign Pastor and he again a Sheep of that supream Pastor which is in Heaven And if they did their pastoral Office both by Life and Doctrine as they ought to do there could never arise any dangerous Rebellion in the Land But if the people see once any ambition in their Teachers they will sooner learn that than any other Doctrine and from Ambition proceeds Rebellion J. D. It may be some of T. H. his Disciples desire to know what hopes of Heavenly joyes they have upon their Masters Principles They may hear them without any great contentment There is no mention in Scripture nor ground in reason of the Coelum Empyraeum that is the Heaven of the Blessed where the Saints shall live eternally with God And again I have not found any Text that can probably be drawn to prove any Ascention of the Saints into Heaven that is to say into any Coelum Empyraeum But he concludeth positively that Salvation shall be upon earth when God shall Raign at the coming of Christ in Jerusalem And again In short the Kingdom of God is a civil Kingdom c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Glory All the Hobbians can hope for is to be restored to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall So saith T.H. himself From whence may be inferred that the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned As for the beatifical vision he defineth it to be a word unintelligible T. H. This Coelum Empyraeum for which he pretendeth so much zeal where is it in the Scripture where in the Book of Common Prayer where in the Canons where in the Homilies of the Church of England or in any part of our Religion What has a Christian to do with such Language Nor do I remember it in Aristotle Perhaps it may be in some Schoolman or Commentator on Aristotle and his Lordship makes it in English the Heaven of the Blessed as if Empyraeum signified That which belongs to the Blessed St. Austin says better that after the day of Judgment all that is not Heaven shall be Hell Then for Beatifical vision how can any man understand it that knows from the Scripture that no man ever saw or can see God Perhaps his Lordship thinks that the happiness of the Life to come is not real but a Vision As for that which I say Lev. pag. 345. I have answered to it already J. D. But considering his other Principles I do not marvel much at his extravagance in this point To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum or Heaven of the Blessed serve in his judgment who maketh the blessed Angels that are the Inhabitants of that happy Mansion to be either Idols of the brain that is in plain English nothing or thin subtil fluid bodies destroying the Angelical nature The universe being the aggregate of all bodies there is no real part thereof that is not also body And elsewhere Every part of the Vniverse is Body and that which is not Body is no part of the Vniverse And because the Vniverse is all that which is no part of it is nothing and consequently no where How By this Doctrine he maketh not only the Angels but God himself to be nothing Neither doth he salve it at all by supposing erroneously Angels to be corporeal Spirits and by attributing the name of incorporeal Spirit to God as being a name of more honour in whom we consider not what Attribute best expresseth his nature which is incomprehensible but what best expresseth our desire to honour him Though we be not able to comprehend perfectly what God is yet we are able perfectly to comprehend what God is not that is he is not imperfect and therefore he is not finite and consequently he is not corporeal This were a trim way to honour God indeed to honour him with a lye If this that he say here be true That every part of the Vniverse is a Body and whatsoever is not a Body is nothing Then by this Doctrine if God be not a Body God is nothing not an incorporeal Spirit but one of the Idols of the Brain a meer nothing though they think they dance under a Net and have the blind of Gods incomprehensibility between them and discovery T. H. This of Incorporeal substance he urged before and there I answered it I wonder he so often rolls the same stone He is like Sysiphus in the Poets Hell that there rolls a heavy stone up a hill which no sooner he brings to day-light then it slips down again to the bottom and serves him so perpetually For so his Lordship rolls this and other questions with much adoe till they come to the light of Scripture and then they vanish and he vexing sweating and railing goes to 't again to as little purpose as before From that I say of the Universe he infers that I make God to be nothing But infers it absurdly He might indeed have inferr'd that I make him a Corporeal but yet a pure Spirit I mean by the Universe the Aggregate of all things that have being in themselves and so do all men else And because God has a being it follows that he is either the whole Universe or part of it Nor does his Lordship go about to disprove it but only seems to wonder at it J. D. To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum serve in his Judgment who denyeth the immortality of the Soul The Doctrine is now and hath been a long time far otherwise namely that every man hath eternity of life by nature in as much as his Soul is immortal Who supposeth that when a man dyeth there remaineth nothing of him but his Carkase who maketh the word Soul in holy Scripture to signifie always either the Life or the Living Creature And expoundeth the casting of Body and Soul into Hell-fire to be the casting of Body and Life into Hell-fire Who maketh this Orthodox truth that the Souls of men are Substances distinct from their Bodies to be an error contracted by the contagion of the Demonology of the Greeks and a window that gives entrance to the dark Doctrine of eternal torments Who expoundeth these words
Attributes And the words God and Deity are of different signification Damascene a Father of the Church expounding the Nicene Creed denies plainly that the Deity was incarnate but all true Christians hold that God was incarnate Therefore God and the Deity signifie divers things and therefore Eternal and Eternity are not the same no more than a wise man and his wisdom are the same Nor God and his justice the same thing and universally 't is false that the Attribute in the Abstract is the same with the Substance to which it is attributed Also it is universally true of God that the Attribute in the Concrete and the substance to which it is attributed is not the same thing I come now to his next Period or Paragraph wherein he would fain prove that by denying Incorporeal Substance I take away Gods Existence The words he cites here are mine To say an Angel or Spirit is an Incorporeal Substance is to say in effect there is no Angel nor Spirit at all It is true also that to say that God is an Incorporeal Substance is to say in effect there is no God at all What alledges he against it but the School-Divinity which I have already answered Scripture he can bring none because the word Incorporeal is not found in Scripture But the Bishop trusting to his Aristotelean and Scholastick Learning hath hitherto made no use of Scripture save only of these Texts Who hath planted a Vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock and Rev. 4.11 Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory honour and power for thou hast created all things and for thy pleasure they were created thereby to prove that the right of God to govern and punish mankind is not derived from his Omnipotence Let us now see how he proves Incorporeity by his own Reason without Scripture Either God he saith is Incorporeal or Finite He knows I deny both and say he is Corporeal and Infinite against which he offers no proof but only according to his custom of disputing calls it the root of Atheism and interrogates me what real thing is left in the world if God be Incorporeal but Body and Accidents I say there is nothing left but Corporeal Substance For I have denyed as he knew that there is any reality in accidents and nevertheless maintain Gods Existence and that he is a most pure and most simple Corporeal Spirit Here his Lordship catching nothing removes to the eternity of the Trinity which these my grounds he says destroy How so I say the Trinity and the Persons thereof are that one pure simple and eternal Corporeal Spirit and why does this destroy the Trinity more than if I had called it Incorporeal He labours here and seeketh somewhat to refresh himself in the word Person by the same grounds he saith every King has as many Persons as there be Justices of Peace in his Kingdom and God Almighty hath as many Persons as there be Kings why not For I never said that all those Kings were that God and yet God giveth that name to the Kings of the earth For the signification of the word Person I shall expound it by and by in another place Here ends his Lordships School Argument now let me come with my Scripture Argument St. Paul concerning Christ Col. 2.9 saith thus In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily This place Athanasius a great and zealous Doctor in the Nicene Councel and vehement enemy of Arius the Heretick who allowed Christ to be no otherwise God then as men of excellent piety were so called expoundeth thus The fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in him Bodily Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Realiter So there is one Father for Corporality and that God was in Christ in such manner as Body is in Body Again there were in the primitive Church a sort of Hereticks who maintained that Jesus Christ had not a true real Body but was onely a Phantasm or Spright such as the Latins called Spectra Against the head of this Sect whose name I think was Apelles Tertullian wrote a Book now extant amongst his other Works intituled De Carne Christi wherein after he had spoken of the nature of Phantasms and shewed that they had nothing of reality in them he concludeth with these words whatsoever is not Body is Nothing So here is on my side a plain Text of Scripture and two ancient and learned Fathers nor was this Doctrine of Tertullian condemned in the Council of Nice but the division of the Divine Substance into God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost For these words God has no parts were added for explication of the word Consubstantial at the request of the dissenting Fathers and are farther explained both in Athanasius his Creed in these words not three Gods but one God and by the constant Attribute ever since of the Individual Trinity The same words nevertheless do condemn the Anthropomorphites also For though there appeared no Christians that professed that God had an Organical Body and consequently that the Persons were three Individuals yet the Gentiles were all Anthropomorphites and there condemned by those words God has no parts And thus I have answered his accusation concerning the Eternity and Existence of the Divine Substance and made appear that in truth the question between us is whether God be a Phantasme id est an Idol of the Fancy which St. Paul saith is nothing or a Corporeal Spirit that is to say something that has Magnitude In this place I think it not amiss leaving for a little while this Theological dispute to examine the signification of those words which have occasioned so much diversity of opinion in this kind of Doctrine The word Substance in Greek Hypostasis Hypostan Hypostamenon signifie the same thing namely a Ground a Base any thing that has Existence or Subsistence in it self any thing that upholdeth that which else would fall in which sence God is properly the Hypostasis Base and Substance that upholdeth all the world having Subsistence not only in himself but from himself whereas other Substances have their subsistence only in themselves not from themselves But Metaphorically Faith is called a Substance Heb. 11.1 because it is the foundation or Base of our Hope for Faith failing our Hope falls And 2 Cor. 9.4 St. Paul having boasted of the liberal promise of the Corinthians towards the Macedonians calls that promise the ground the Hypostasis of that his boasting And Heb. 1.3 Christ is called the Image of the Substance the Hypostasis of his Father and for the proper and adequate signification of the word Hypostasis the Greek Fathers did always oppose it to Apparition or Phantasme as when a man seeth his face in the water his real face is called the Hypostasis of the phantastick face in the water So also in
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 advantagious promise annexed to them Do this and thou shalt live And Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the words of this Law to do them T. H. Of the Sacraments I said no more than that they are Signs or Commemorations He finds fault that I add not Seals Confirmations and that they confer grace First I would have asked him if a Seal be any thing else besides a Sign whereby to remember somewhat as that we have promised accepted acknowledged given undertaken somewhat Are not other Signs though without a Seal of force sufficient to convince me or oblige me A Writing obligatory or Release signed only with a mans name is as Obligatory as a Bond signed and sealed if it be sufficiently proved though peradventure it may require a longer Process to obtain a Sentence but his Lordship I think knew better than I do the force of Bonds and Bills yet I know this that in the Court of Heaven there is no such difference between saying signing and sealing as his Lordship seemeth here to pretend I am Baptized for a Commemoration that I have enrolled my self I take the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Commemorate that Christ's Body was broken and his Blood shed for my redemption What is there more intimated concerning the nature of these Sacraments either in the Scripture or in the Book of Common-Prayer Have Bread and Wine and Water in their own Nature any other Quality than they had before the Consecration It is true that the Consecration gives these bodies a new Relation as being a giving and dedicating of them to God that is to say a making of them Holy not a changing of their Quality But as some silly young men returning from France affect a broken English to be thought perfect in the French language so his Lordship I think to seem a perfect understander of the unintelligible language of the Schoolmen pretends an ignorance of his Mother Tongue He talks here of Command and Counsel as if he were no English man nor knew any difference between their significations What English man when he commandeth says more than Do this yet he looks to be obeyed if obedience be due unto him But when he says Do this and thou shalt have such or such a Reward he encourages him or advises him or 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 Soveraigns are the supream Pastors and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak from God except such as God speaketh to in these dayes supernaturally What is now become of the promised infallibility And it is from the Civil Soveraign 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 Soveraigns to be Jure divino of all other Pastors Jure civili He addeth neither is there any Judge of Heresie among Subjects but their own civil Soveraign 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 dammage 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 dammage rather redoundeth to the Church Neither is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject that obeyeth the Laws of his own Soveraign of any effect Where is now their power of binding and loosing T. H. Here his Lordship condemneth first my too much kindness to the Pastors of the Church as if I ascribed Infallibility to every particular Minister or at least to the Assembly of the Pastors of a particular Church But he mistakes me I never meant to flatter them so much I say only that the Ceremony of Consecration and Imposition of hands belongs to them and that also no otherwise than as given them by the Laws of the Common-wealth The Bishop Consecrates but the King both makes him Bishop and gives him his Authority The Head of the Church not only gives the power of Consecration Dedication and Benediction but may also exercise the Act himself if he please Solomon did it and the Book of Canons says That the King of England has all the Right that any good King of Israel had It might have added that any other King or soveraign Assembly had in their own Dominions I deny That any Pastor or any Assembly of Pastors in any particular Church or all the Churches on earth though united are Infallible Yet I say the Pastors of a Christian Church assembled are in all such points as are necessary to Salvation But about what points are necessary to Salvation he and I differ For I in the 43d chapter of my Leviathan have proved that this Article Jesus is the Christ is the unum necessarium the only Article necessary to Salvation to which his Lordship hath not offered any Objection And he it seems would have necessary to Salvation every Doctrine he himself thought so Doubtless in this Article Jesus is the Christ every Church is infallible for else it were no Church Then he says I overthrow this again by saying that Christian Soveraigns are the Supream Pastors that is Heads of their own Churches That they have their Authority Jure Divino That all other Pastors have it Jure Civili How came any Bishop to have Authority over me but by Letters Patents from the King I remember a Parliament wherein a Bishop who was both a good Preacher and a good Man was blamed for a Book he had a little before Published in maintenance
condition he might have found some Ancients who are therefore called the merciful Doctors to have joyned with him though still he should have wanted the suffrage of the Catholick Church T. H. Why does not his Lordship cite some place of Scripture here to prove that all the Reprobates which are dead live eternally in torment We read indeed That everlasting Torments were prepared for the Devil and his Angels whose natures also are everlasting and that the Beast and the false Prophet shall be tormented everlastingly but not that every Reprobate shall be so They shall indeed be cast into the same fire but the Scripture says plainly enough that they shall be both Body and Soul destroyed there If I had said that the Devils themselves should be restored to a better condition his Lordship would have been so kind as to have put me into the number of the Merciful Doctors Truly if I had had any Warrant for the possibility of their being less enemies to the Church of God than they have been I would have been as merciful to them as any Doctor of them all As it is I am more merciful than the Bishop J. D. But his shooting is not at rovers but altogether at randome without either President or Partner All that eternal fire all those torments which he acknowledgeth is but this That after the Resurrection the Reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his Posterity were in after the sin committed saving that God promised a Redeemer to Adam and not to them Adding that they shall live as they did formerly Marry and give in Marriage and consequently engender Children perpetually after the Resurrection as they did before which he calleth an immortallity of the kind but not of the persons of men It is to be presumed that in those their second lives knowing certainly from T. H. that there is no hope of Redemption for them from corporal death upon their well-doing nor fear of any Torments after death for their ill-doing they will pass their times here as pleasantly as they can This is all the Damnation which T. H. fancieth T. H. This he has urged once before and I answered to it That the whole Paragraph was to prove that for any Text of Scripture to the contrary men might after the Resurrection live as Adam did on earth and that notwithstanding the Text of St. Luke chap. 20. verse 34 35 36. Marry and propagate But that they shall do so is no assertion of mine His Lordship knew I held that after the Resurrection there shall be at all no wicked men but the Elect all that are have been and hereafter shall be shall live on earth But St. Peter says there shall then be a new Heaven and a new Earth J. D. In summ I leave it to the free judgment of the understanding Reader by these few instances which follow to judge what the Hobbian Principles are in point of Religion Ex ungue leonem First that no man needs to put himself to any hazzard for his Faith but may safely comply with the times And for their Faith it is internal and invisible They have the licence that Naaman had and need not put themselves into danger for it Secondly he alloweth Subjects being commanded by their Soveraign to deny Christ. Profession with the Tongue is but an external thing and no more than any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedience And wherein a Christian holding firmly in his heart the Faith of Christ hath the same liberty which the Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman c. Who by bowing before the Idol Rimmon denyed the true God as much in effect as if he had done it with his Lips Alas why did St. Peter Weep so bitterly for denying his Master out of fear of his Life or Members It seems he was not acquainted with these Hobbian Principles And in the same place he layeth down this general Conclusion This we may say that whatsoever a Subject is compelled to in obedience to his Soveraign and doth it not in order to his own mind but in order to the Laws of his Country that action is not his but his Soveraign's nor is it he that in this case denyeth Christ before men but his Governor and the Law of his Country His instance in a Mahometan commanded by a Christian Prince to be present at Divine Service is a weak mistake springing from his gross ignorance in Case-Divinity not knowing to distinguish between an erroneous Conscience as the Mahometans is and a Conscience rightly informed T. H. In these his two first instances I confess his Lordship does not much be lye me But neither does he confute me Also I confess my ignorance in his Case-Divinity which is grounded upon the Doctrine of the School-men Who to decide Cases of Conscience take in not only the Scriptures but also the Decrees of the Popes of Rome for the advancing of the Dominion of the Roman Church over Consciences whereas the true decision of Cases of Consciences ought to be grounded only on Scripture or natural Equity I never allowed the denying of Christ with the Tongue in all men but expresly say the contrary Lev. pag. 362. in these words For an unlearned man that is in the power of an Idolatrous King or State if commanded on pain of death to worship before an Idol he detesteth the Idol in his heart he doth well though if he had the fortitude to suffer death rather than worship it he should do better But if a Pastor who as Christ's messenger has undertaken to teach Christ's Doctrine to all Nations should do the same it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian mens Consciences but a perfidious forsaking of his charge Therefore St. Peter in denying Christ sinned as being an Apostle And 't is sin in every man that should now take upon him to preach against the power of the Pope to leave his Commission unexecuted for fear of the fire but in a meer Traveller not so The three Children and Daniel were worthy Champions of the true Religion But God requireth not of every man to be a Champion As for his Lordship's words of complying with the times they are not mine but his own spightful Paraphrase J. D. Thirdly if this be not enough he giveth licence to a Christian to commit Idolatry or at least to do an Idolatrous act for fear of death or corporal danger To pray unto a King voluntarily for fair weather or for any thing which God only can do for us is divine Worship and Idolatry On the other side if a King compel a man to it by the terror of death or other great corporal punishment it is not Idolatry His reason is because it is not a sign that he doth inwardly honour him as a God but that he is desirous to save himself from death or from a miserable life It seemeth T. H. thinketh there is no divine Worship but internal And that it is
asked the Corinthians Is Christ divided He did not think they thought him impossible to be considered as having hands and feet but that they might think him according to the manner of the Gentiles one of the Sons of God as Arius did but not the only begotten Son of God And thus also it is expounded in the Creed of Athanasius who was present in that Council by these words Not confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substances that is to say that God is not divided into three Persons as man is divided into Peter James and John nor are the three persons one and the same person 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 Animal into Man and Beast they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Species and when they again divide the Species Man into Peter and John they call these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partes individuae And by this confounding the division of the substance with the distinction of words divers men have been led into the Error of attributing to God a Name which is not the name of any substance at all viz. Incorporeal By these words God has no parts thus explained together with the part of the Creed which was at that time agreed on many of those Heresies which were antecedent to that first General Council were condemned as that of Manes who appeared about thirty years before the Reign of Constantine by the first Article I believe in one God though in other words it seems to me to remain still in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which so ascribeth a Liberty of the Will to Men as that their Will and Purpose to commit sin should not proceed from the Cause of all things God but originally from themselves or from the Devil It may seem perhaps to some that by the same words the Anthropomorphites also were then Condemned And certainly if by Parts were meant not persons Individual but Pieces they were Condemned For Face Arms Feet and the like are pieces But this cannot be for the Anthropomorphites appeared not till the time of Valens the Emperor which was after the Council of Nice between forty and fifty years and was not condemned till the second General Council at Constantinople Now for the Punishment of Hereticks ordained by Constantine we read of none but that Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops and other Preachers if they refused to subscribe to this Faith or taught the contrary Doctrine were for the first Fault Deprived of their Offices and for the second Banished And thus did Heresie which at first was the name of private Opinion and no Crime by vertue of a Law of the Emperor made only for the Peace of the Church become a Crime in a Pastor and punishable with Deprivation first and next with Banishment After this part of the Creed was thus established there arose presently many new Heresies partly about the Interpretation of it and partly about the Holy Ghost of which the Nicene Council had not determined Concerning the part established there arose Disputes about the Nature of Christ and the word Hypostasis id est Substance for of Persons there was yet no mention made the Creed being written in Greek in which Language there is no word that answereth to the Latine word Persona And the Union as the Fathers called it of the Humane and Divine Nature in Christ Hypostatical caused Eutyches and after him Dioscorus to affirm there was but one Nature in Christ thinking that whensoever two things are united they are one And this was condemned as Arianism in the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus Others because they thought two living and rational Substances such as are God and Man must needs be also two Hypostases maintained that Christ had two Hypostases But these were two Heresies condemned together Then concerning the Holy Ghost Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople and some others denied the Divinity thereof And whereas about seventy years before the Nicene Council there had been holden a Provincial Council at Carthage wherein it was Decreed that those Christians which in the Persecutions had denyed the Faith of Christ should not be received again into the Church unless they were again baptized This also was condemned though the President in that Council were that most sincere and pious Christian Cyprian And at last the Creed was made up entire as we have it in the Calcedonian Council by addition of these words And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord and Giver of Life who proceedeth from the Father and the Son Who with the Father the Son together is Worshipped and Glorified Who spake by the Prophets And I believe one Catholick Apostolick Church I acknowledge one Baptism for the Remission of Sins And I look for the Resurrection of the Dead and the Life of the World to come In this addition are condemned first the Nestorians and others in these words Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified And secondly the Doctrine of the Council of Carthage in these words I believe one Baptism for the Remission of Sins For one Baptism is not there put as opposite to several sorts or manners of Baptism but to the iteration of it St. Cyprian was a better Christian than to allow any Baptism that was not in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost In the General Confession of Faith contained in the Creed called the Nicene Creed there is no mention of Hypostasis nor of Hypostatical Union nor of Corporeal nor of Incorporeal nor of Parts the understanding of which words being not required of the Vulgar but only of the Pastors whose disagreement else might trouble the Church nor were such Points necessary to Salvation but set abroach for ostentation of Learning or else to dazle men with design to lead them towards some ends of their own The Changes of prevalence in the Empire between the Catholicks and the Arians and how the great Athanasius the most fierce of the Catholicks was banished by Constantine and afterwards restored and again banished I let pass only it is to be remembred that Athanasius is suppos'd to have made his Creed then when banished he was in Rome Liberius being Pope by whom as is most likely the word Hypostasis as it was in Athanasius's Creed was disliked For the Roman Church could never be brought to receive it but instead thereof used their own word Persona But the first and last words of that Creed the Church of Rome refused not For they make every Article not only those of the body of the Creed but all the Definitions of the Nicene Fathers to be such as a man cannot be saved unless he believe them all stedfastly though made only for Peace sake and to unite the minds of the Clergy whose Disputes were like to trouble the Peace of the Empire After these four first
can be the cause of that A. Why the setting of the Bow at liberty B. If the Bow had been crooked before it was bent and a string tied to both ends and then cut asunder the Bow would not have stir'd Where lies the difference A. The Bow bent has a Spring unbent it has none how crooked soever B. What mean you by Spring A. An endeavour of restitution to it's former posture B. I understand Spring as well as I do endeavour A. I mean a Prnciple or beginning of Motion in a contrary way to that of the force which bent it B. But the beginning of Motion is also Motion how insensible soever it be And you know that nothing can give a beginning of Motion to it self What is it therefore that gives the Bow which you say you are sure was at rest when it stood bent its first endeavour to return to its former posture A. It was he that bent it B. That cannot be For he gave it an endeavour to come forward and the Bow endeavours to go backward A. Well grant that endeavour be Motion and Motion in the Bow unbent how do you derive from thence that being set at liberty it must return to its former posture B. Thus There being within the Bow a swift though invisible Motion of all the parts and consequently of the whole the bending causeth that Motion which was along the Bow that was beaten out when it was hot into that length to operate a cross the length in every part of it and the more by how much it is more bent and consequently endeavours to unbend it all the while it stands bent And therefore when the force which kept it bent is removed it must of necessity return to the posture it had before A. But has that endeavour no effect at all before the impediment be removed For if endeavour be Motion and every Motion have some effect more or less methinks this endavour should in time produce something B. So it does For in time in a long time the course of this internal Motion will lie along the Bow not according to the former but to the new acquired posture And then it will be as uneasie to return it to its former posture as it was before to bend it A. That 's true For Bows long bent lose their appetite to restitution long custom becoming nature But from this internal reciprocation of the parts how do you infer the Hardness of the whole Body B. If you apply force to any single part of such a body you must needs disorder the Motion of the next parts to it before it yield and there disordered the Motion of the next again must also be disordered and consequently no one part can yield without force sufficient to disorder all But then the whole body must also yield Now when a body is of such a nature as no single part can be removed without removing the whole men say that body is Hard. A. Why does the Fire melt divers Hard bodies and yet not all B. The hardest bodies are those wherein the Motion of the parts are the most swift and yet in the least circles Wherefore if the Fire the Motion of whose parts are swift and in greater circiles he made so swift as to be strong enough to master the Motion of the parts of the Hard body it will make those parts to move in a greater compass and thereby weaken their resistance that is to say Soften them which is a degree of liquefaction And when the Moton is so weakened as that the parts lose their coherence by the force of their own weight then we count the body melted A. Why are the Hardest things the most brittle insomuch that what force soever is enough to bend them is enough also to break them B. In bending a Hard body as for example a Rod of Iron you do not inlarge the space of the internal Motion of the parts of Iron as the Fire does but you master and interrupt the Motion and that chiefly in one place In which place the Motion that makes the Iron Hard being once overcome the prosecution of that bending must needs suddenly master the Motions of the parts next unto it being almost mastered before A. I have seen a small piece of glass the figure whereof is this AABC Which piece of glass if you bend toward the top as in C the whole body will shatter asunder into a Million of pieces and be like to so much dust I would fain see you give a probable reason of that B. I have seen the Experiment The making of the glass is thus They dip an Iron Rod into the molten glass that stands in a Vessel within the Furnace Upon which Iron Rod taken out there will hang a drop of molten but tough Mettal of the figure you have described which they let fall into the water So that the main drop comes first to the water and after it the tail which though streight whilst it hung on the end of the Rod yet by falling into the water becomes crooked Now you know the making of it you may consider what must be the consequence of it Because the main drop A comes first to the water it is therefore first quenched and consequently that the Motion of the parts of that drop which by the Fire were made to be moved in a larger compass is by the water made to shrink into lesser circles towards the other end B but with the same or not much less swiftness A. Why so B. If you take any long piece of Iron Glass or other uniform and continued body and having Heated one end thereof you hold the other end in your hand and so quench it suddenly though before you held it easily enough yet now it will burn your fingers A. It will so B. You see then how the Motion of the parts from A toward C is made more violent and in less compass by quenching the other parts first Besides the whole Motion that was in all the parts of the main drop A is now united in the small end BC. And this I take to be the cause why that small part BC is so exceeding stiff Seeing also this Motion in every small part of the glass is not only circular but proceeds also all along the glass from A to B the whole Motion compounded will be such as the Motion of Spinning any Soft matter unto Thread and will dispose the whole body of the glass in Threads which in other Hard bodies are called the grain Therefore if you bend this body for example in C which to do will require more force then a man would think that has not tryed those threads of Glass must needs be all bent at the same time and stand so till by the breaking of the Glass at C they be all at once set at liberty And then all at once being suddenly unbent like so many brittle and over-bent Bows their Strings breaking be shivered
in pieces A. 'T is like enough to be so And if nature have betrayed her self in any thing I think it is in this and in that other experience of the Cross-bow which strongly and evidently demonstrates the internal reciprocation of the Motion which you suppose to be in the internal parts of every Hard body And I have observed somewhat in Looking-glasses which much confirms that there is some such Motion in the internal parts of Glass as you have supposed for the cause of Hardness For let the Glass be AB and let the Object at C be a Candle and the Eye at D. Now by divers Reflections and Refractions in the two superficies of the Glass if the Lines of Vision be very oblique you shall see many images of the Candle as E F G in such order and position as is here described But if you remove your Eye to C and the Candle to D they will appear in a situation manifestly different from this Which you will yet more plainly perceive if the Looking-Glass be coloured as I have observed in Red and Blew Glasses and could never conceive any probable cause of it till now you tell me of this secret Motion of the parts across the grain of the Glass acquired by cooling it this or that way B. There be very many kinds of Hard bodies Metals Stones and other kinds in the bowels of the Earth that have been there ever sence the beginning of the World and I believe also many different sorts of Juices that may be made Hard But for one general cause of Hardness it can be no other then such an internal Motion of parts as I have already described whatsoever may be the cause of the several concomitant qualities of their Hardness in particular A. We see water Hardened every Frosty day It 's likely therefore you may give a pribable cause of Ice What is the cause of Freezing of the Ocean towards the Poles of the Earth B. You know the Sun being always between the Tropicks and as we have supposed always casting off the Air and the Earth likewise casting it off from it's self there must needs on both sides be a great Stream of Air towards the Poles shaving the superficies of the Earth and Sea in the Northern and Southern Climates This shaving of the Earth and Sea by the Stream of Air must needs contract and make to shrink those little Circles of the internal parts of Earth and Water and consequently Harden them first at the superficies into a thin skin which is the first Ice and afterwards the same Motion continuing and the first Ice co-operating the Ice becomes thicker And this I conceive to be the cause of the Freezing of the Ocean A. If that be the cause I need not ask how a Bottle of water is made to Freeze in warm weather with Snow or Ice mingled with Salt For when the Bottle is in the midst of it the Wind that goeth out both of the Salt and of the Ice as they dissolve must needs shave the superficies of the Bottle and the Bottle work accordingly on the water without it and so give it first a thin skin and at last thicken it into a solid piece of Ice But how comes it to pass that water does not use to Freeze in a deep Pit B. A deep Pit is a very thick Bottle and such as the Air cannot come at but only at the top or where the Earth is very loose and spungy A. Why will not Wine Freeze as well as Water B. So it will when the Frost is great enough But the internal Motion of the parts of Wine and other Heating Liquors is in greater Circles and stronger then the Motion of the parts of water and therefore less easily to be Frozen especally quite through because those parts that have the strongest Motion retire to the center of the Vessel CHAP. VI. Problems of Rain Wind and other WEATHER A. WHat is the original cause of Rain and how is it generated B. The motion of the Air such as I have described to you already tending to the dis-union of the parts of the Air must needs cause a continual endeavour there being no possibility of Vacuum of whatsoever fluid parts there are upon the face of the Earth and Sea to supply the place which would else be empty This makes the water and also very small and loose parts of the Earth and Sea to rise and mingle themselves with the Air and to become mist and Clouds Of which the greatest quantity arise there where there is most water namely from the large parts of the Ocean which are the South Sea the Indian Sea and the Sea that divideth Europe and Africa from America over which the Sun for the greatest part of the year is perpendicular and consequently raiseth a greater quantity of water Which afterwards gathered into Clouds falls down in Rain A. If the Sun can thus draw up the water though but in small drops why can it not as easily hold it up B. It is likely it would also hold them up if they did not grow greater by meeting together nor were carried away by the Air towards the Poles A. What makes them gather together B. It is not improbable that they are carried against Hills and there stopt till more overtake them And when they are carried towards the North or South where the force of the Sun is more oblique and thereby weaker they descend gently by their own weight And because they tend all to the center of the Earth they must needs be united in their way for want of room and so grow bigger And then it Rains A. What is the reason it Rains so seldom but Snows so often upon very high Mountains B. Because perhaps when the water is drawn up higher then the highest Mountains where the course of the Air between the Aequator and the Poles is free from stopping the Stream of the Air Freezeth it into Snow And 't is in those places only where the Hills shelter it from that Stream that it falls in Rain A. Why is there so little Rain in Egypt and yet so much in other parts nearer the Aequinoctial as to make the Nile overflow the Countrey B. The cause of the falling of Rain I told you was the the stopping and consequently the collection of Clouds about great Mountains especially when the Sun is near the Aequinoctial and thereby draws up the water more potently and from greater Seas If you consider therefore that the Mountains in which are the springs of Nile lye near the Aequinoctial and are exceeding great and near the Indian Sea you will not think it strange there should be great store of Snow This as it melts makes the Rain of Nile to rise which in April and May going on toward Egypt arrived there about the time of the Solstice and overflow the Countrey A. Why should not the Nile then overflow that Countrey twice a year For it comes twice
For Example let the wall be AB a point given E a Gun CE that carries the Bullet Perpendicularly to F and another Gun DE that carries the like Bullet with the same swiftness Oblique to G In what proportion will their Forces be upon the Wall B. The force of the stroke Perpendicular from E to F will be greater then the Oblique force from E to G in the proportion of the line EG to the line EF. A. How can the difference be so much Can the Bullet lose so much of its force in the way from E to G B. No we will suppose it loseth nothing of its swiftness But the cause is That their swiftness being equal the one is longer in coming to the wall then the other in Proportion of Time as EG to EF. For though their swiftness be the same considered in themselves yet the swiftness of their approach to the wall is greater in EF then in EG in proportion of the lines themselves A. When a Bullet enters not but rebounds from the wall does it make the same Angle going off which it did falling on as the Sun-beams do B. If you measure the Angles close by the wall there difference will not be ensible otherwise it will be great enough For the Motion of the Bullet grows continually weaker But it is not so with the Sun-beams which press continually and equally A. What is the cause of Reflection When a body can go no further on it has lost its Motion Whence then comes the Motion by which it reboundeth B. This Motion of rebounding or reflecting proceedeth from the resistance There is a difference to be considered between the Reflection of Light and of a Bullet answerable to their different Motions pressing and striking For the action which makes Reflection of Light is the Pressure of the Air upon the Reflecting Body caused by the Sun or other shining body and is but a contrary endeavour as if two men should press with their breasts upon the two ends of a Staff though they did not remove one another yet they would find in themselves a great disposition to press backward upon whatsoever is behind them though not a total going out of their places Such is the way of Reflecting Light Now when the falling on of the Sun-beams is Oblique the action of them is nevertheless Perpendicular to the Superficies it falls on And therefore the Reflecting Body by resisting turneth back that Motion Perpendicularly as from F to E but taketh nothing from the force that goes on parallel in the line of EH because the Motion never presses And thus of the two Motions from F to E and from E to H is a compounded Motion in the line FH which maketh an Angle in BG equal to the Angle FGE But in Percussion which is the Motion of the Bullet against a wall the Bullet no sooner goeth off then it loseth of its swiftness and inclineth to the Earth by its weight So that the Angles made in falling on and going off cannot be equal unless they be measured close to the point where the stroke is made A. If a man set a Board upright upon its edge though it may very easily be cast down with a little Pressure of ones finger yet a Bullet from a Musquet shall not throw it down but go through it What is the cause of that B. In pressing with your finger you spend time to throw it down For the Motion you give to the part you touch is communicated to every other part before it fall For the whole cannot fall till every part be moved But the stroke of a Bullet is so swift as it breaks through before the Motion of the part it hits can be communicated to all the other parts that must fall with it A. The stroke of a Hammer will drive a Nail a great way into a piece of Wood on a sudden What weight laid upon the head of a Nail and in how much time will do the same It is a question I have heard propounded amonst Naturalists B. The different manner of the operation of weight from the operation of a stroke makes it uncalculable The suddenness of the stroke upon one point of the wood takes away the time of resistance from the rest Therefore the Nail enters so far as it does But the weight not only gives them time but also augments the resistance but how much and in how much time is I think impossible to determine A. What is the difference between Reflection and Recoiling B. Any Reflection may and not unproperly be called recoiling but not contrariwise every Recoiling Reflection Reflection is always made by the Re-action of a Body prest or stricken but Recoiling not always The Recoiling of a Gun is not caused by its own pressing upon the Gun-powder but by the force of the Powder it self inflamed and moved every way alike A. I had thought it had been by the sudden re-entring of the Air after the flame and Bullet were gone out For it is impossible that so much room as is left empty by the discharging of the Gun should be so suddenly filled with the Air that entereth at the Touch-hole B. The flame is nothing but the Powder it self which scattered into its smallest parts seems of greater bulk by much then in truth it is because they shine And as the parts scatter more and more so still more Air gets between them entring not only at the Touch-hole but also at the mouh of the Gun which two ways being opposite it will be much too weak to make the Gun Recoil A. I have heard that a great Gun charged too much or too little will Shoot not above nor below but besides the mark and charged with one certain charge between both will hit it B. How that should be I cannot imagine For when all things in the cause are equal the effects cannot be unnequal As soon as Fire is given and before the Bullet be out the Gun begins to Recoil If then there be any unevenness or rub in the ground more on one side then on the other it shall shoot besides the mark whether too much or too little or justly charged because if the line wherein the Gun Recoileth decline the way of the Bullet will also decline to the contrary side of the mark Therefore I can imagine no cause of this event but either in the ground it Recoils on or in the unequal weight of the parts of the Breech A. How comes Refractin B. When the action is in a line Perpendicular to the superficies of the Body wrought upon there will be no Refraction at all The action will proceed still in the same straight Line whether it be Pression as in Light or in Percussion as in the shooting of a Bullet But when the Pression is Oblique then will the Refraction be that way which the Nature of the Bodies through which the Action proceeds shall determin H. How is light Refracted B. If it