speaks against I must needs confess there is not so much as some could take upon them yet to deny all coercive power is to deny the commission which this great King Luke 14. gave to his servants that they should compel those in the high-waies to come to his supper And albeit ministers are called fisher-men and not hunters yet fisher-men use some force in drawing their fish to the shore and indeed none can come to me saith Christ except the Father draw him as for his doctrine of dissimulation in matters of Religion both with God and man I dare not assent thereto for God who is the God of truth loveth truth in the inward parts he that is not with him is against him who gathereth not with him scattereth Linnin and Woolin in the same garment different seeds in the same ground an ox and an ass at the same plough are not pleasing to him Pulcra est concordia cordis oris If to think one think and speak another did argue Catalin to be an evil-man shall it not argue the like in a Christian Aliud in lingua promptum aliâ—d in pectore clausum habere When he â—ells us cap. 42. That Christs commission to his Disciples and Apostles was to proclaim his Kingdom not present but to come He is mistaken for the Apostles commission was to proclaim that the Kingdom of heaven was at handâ— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the perfect tense shews that it was already come or at hand Mat. 3. and 4. And he sheweth Luke 17. 21. That the Kingdom of God was within them And Luke 11. 20. That the kingdom of God was come upon them If then this kingdom of Christ was not to come till after the resurrection how could it be said to be then at hand Whereas already there are 1652 years past besides what are to come When he saith cap. 42. â— That the Apostles had no power to make laâ—s but to perswade that they did counsel and advise but not command that their precepts were invitations and callings not commands that they might be without sin dissobeyed And much more to this purpose he â—peaks absurdly for how can he make precepts to be counsels and not commands Is not praecipio and mando all one Are not the ten Commandments ten precepts Are they to be called counsels did not the Apostles make laws and enjoyn them to be observed Acts 15. St. Paul doth not counsel but command the Thessalonians to work with their own hands 1 Thes. 4. 11. He hopes they will do the things he commands them 2 Thes. 3. 4. Timothy is to command as well as to teach 1 Tim. 4. 11. He must command the rich men of this world 1 Tim. 6. 17. The Apostle puts a difference between counsel and command when he saithâ— that concerning virgins he had no command but gives his counsel in that case 1 Cor. 7. 25. Now that Christ and his Apostles may be disobeyed without sin is a sinful opinion for Christ tels us that if he had not come and spoken to the Jews they had not had sin but now they have no cloke for their sin John 15. 24. St John writes to his brethren that they might not sin 1 John 2. 1. to wit if they obey and observe what he writes otherwise they must needs sin Disobedience is not onely a sin but as Samuel saith it is as hainous as the sin of witchcraft or idolatry He makes a needless difference cap. 42. between a minister and a servant That servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them whereas ministers are obliged onely by their undertaking But indeed these words servant and minister are promiscuously used for if servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them then ministers are servants for this obligation lieth upon them And if ministers are obliged by their undertaking then servants are ministers for what they undertake they are obliged to perform Christ Mat. 20. 26 and 27. useth the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for the same thing And so he is called somtimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and somtimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and this word Diaconus is given sometimes to the meanest servant sometimes to the Magistrate as Rom. 13. somtimes to Preachers somtimes to Church Officers called Deacons Ambassadors are called also by this name and they are said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to serve or to be Deacons He will have Chap. 42. Princes to be called Shepherds or Pastors because they are to teach the people But indeed they are called Pastors from feeding not from teaching neither is it the office of a King to preach or administer the Sacramentsâ— No man taketh upon him saith the Apostle this honor but he that is called of God as Aaron was he should have said As Moses was if he had been called to perform the Prâ—ests Office Therefore Christian Soveraigns are not instituted to teach by vertue of their Baptisme as he saith for Baptisme is a Sacrament of our regeneration and of our admission to be members of Christs bodyâ— by it Princes and Subjects are washed from sin but not instituted to preach the Emperour hath no more power to perform the Priests officeâ— or to preach by vertue of his Baptisme then his meanest subject And if the Kings Baptisme doth not authorize him to â—ach at all much lesse to teach what doctrine he will and to exercise absolute Power over his subjects as Mr. Hobbs saith For absolute power is in God onely they are tyrants not lawfull Princes that will claim absâ—lute power over their subjectsâ— And if it be Baptism that investeth Princes with power over their subjectsâ— what power hath the Turk the Persian the Magor the King of Chinaâ— the great Cham over their Subjects who were never baptsed and to allow Princes power to teach what they will is to make them absolute lords not onely over our bodies and goods but over our souls also and to enâ—lave our understandings to their wills When he saith cap. 42. In that Urim and Thummim was given to the high Priest it was given to the civil Soveraign for such next under God was the high Priest in the Common-wealth of Israel He contradicts himself for this high Priest to whom Urim and Thummim was given first was Aaron whom not long before he subjected to Moyses cap. 40. where he saith That not Aaron buâ— Moyses alone had next under God the Soveraignity over the Israelites and that not onely in causes of civil policy but also of religion Here we see how he makes and unmakes the Soveraignity of Princes and not onely doeth he make Moyses for his time but also the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in his chair that is to â—ay expounded his law supreme civil Soveraigns whereas the legislative power and civil Soveraignity was in the Romans by right of conquest which
whilst they were alive teach the contrary when they are dead Again wise men have urged obedience to their laws upon the doctrine of separated spirits so did Moses by shewing his laws came from God who is a separated essence so did Lycâ—rgus Solon Numa Mohomet and others But saith he Upon this ground faith wisdom and other vertues are sometimes poured into a man and blown into him from heaven as if the vertuous and their vertues could be asunder That â—aith wisdom other graces are sometimes poured into or upon men is no paradox in divinity seeing Gods word which cannot lie assureth us thereof I will pour my spirit upon all flesh Joel 2. I will pour upon the house of David the spirit of grace and supplication Zech. 12. God poured his gifts upon the Gentiles Acts 10. And so the Scripture useth the word blowing or breathing or inspiring which is allâ— one thing all Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim 3. 16. Men spoke in old time as they were inspired or blown into by the holy Ghost 2. Pet. 1. 21. And I pray what dangerous or absurd doctrine is it to say becâ—use mens souls are 〈◊〉 tal and immatâ—rial God inspireth from heavenâ— his gifts into them but indeed the souls immortality is not the ground why God inspireth his graces for then he would inspire the most wicked souls that are with his graces for they are also immortal the ground then of this inspiration is his own good pleasure being a free dispenser of his gifts neither needs he fear that we by this doctrine will make the vertuous and their vertues to be asunder for the vertues of vertuous men are not theirs till they be bestowed Again he saith Who will endeavour to obey the laws if he expects obedience to be poured into him I reply who will expect obedience to be poured into him if he endeavour to obey the law Again obedience is an act of the will now acts are not infused but habits Besides I answer him with Thomas every good man yeelds obedience to Magistrates because he is bound thereto by the law of nature where we see inferiour movers obey the motion of the superiour and likewise by the law of God which teacheth him to be subject to principalities and powers and to obey magistrates Tit. 3. 1. To submit himself to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be the King as supreme or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by Him 1 Pet. 2. 13. A good man hath faith and he knows that faith in Christ includes obedience for Christ himself taught obedience both By precept and practise he is also a just man and justice requires that he should give to every man his due but obedience is due to superiours obedience then needs no inspiration but such reasons now if any will maintain erroneous opinions as he alledgeth upon the doctrine of the souls immortality who can help it Men may build stuble and hay upon the best foundation which is Christ Jesus as the Apostle sheweth Shall we deny the souls immortality because of some errors grounded thereon then by the same reason deny the Scripture deny Christ himself He laughs cap. 45. at the words circumscriptive and definitive used in the schooles which he saith are insignificant words for the circumscription of a thing is nothing else but the defining of its place Here he sheweth his ignorance in the school termes for though circumscribing be the defining of a thing yet the defining or confining is not the circumscribing thereof Angels are in a place or rather space definitive because they are so confined to one ubi that they cannot at the same instant be in another yet without any circumscription of parts to the parts of the superficies in the ambient body or place for in a spirit there are no parts therefore no circumscription though there is a confining or definition to the ubi when we say that all the soul is in every part of the body he asks Whether God is served with such absurdities He should first prove this to be an absurdity and then inform us whether this tenet of the souls indivisibility be any part of Gods worship but indeed it is no more absurd to say that the soul is all in every part of the body then to say that the Sun or moon is all in every mans eye for one paâ—t of the Sun is not in my eye and another part in your eye but all the Sun is in my eye and all the Sun is in millions of eyes at the same instant of time He would have us tell him How an incorporeal substance is capable of torment and pain in hell fire The â—â—â—stion is not how but whether or not the soul be capâ—ble of pain if you doubt of this put your finger in the fire and tell me if your soul be not capable of pain or grief which is a torment I shewed before out of Austin that God hath a way to torment souls in fire though unknown to us neither can we tell how the soul goeth hence without the body into heaven onely we can tell him that when our bodies return to dust our souls return to God that gave them Eccles. 12. As for the School-men at which he carps I deny not but there are in some mens opinions many needless questions and subtilties so there are likewise among them many excellent passages and useful distinctions in this life there is no perfection where gold is there is dross and the best corn is not without chaff he is a fool that will reâ—use to drink wine because there be lees in the barrel He saith cap. 46. That what is written in the Metaphysicks is for the most part repugnant to natural reason He should have given us some inâ—â—ances that we might have answered him but to speak of things in general is to say nothing yet that the Reader may perceive both the use of Metaphysicks and how consonant that knowledge is to natural reason I will set down here a few Metaphysical maximes 1. One entity hath but one specifical essence 2. The essence receiveth not augmentation nor diminution 3. As every thing desireth to preserve its entity so it doth its unity 4. Unity is before multitude 5. Truth is consonant to truth 6. Every entity is good 7. Beauty excites affection 8. Evil is not appetible 9. Every thing compounded is dissoluble 10. whatsoever is compounded hath parts and principles 11. In an universe is contained all particulars 12. The whole is greater then the parts 13. The first entity is simply infinite 14. The abstract is before the concret 15. The measure is before the thing measured 16. The subject is the matter of its accident 17. The cause is before the effect 18. Nothing can be its own cause 19. As the essence so the knowledge of the effect depends from the cause 20. The proximate cause being put the effect follows 21.
The end moveth the efficient 22. The end presupposeth the means 23. A voluntary cause is free and indifferent so is not the natural cause 24. The matter is capable of forms 25. The The form is the cause of distinction and determination 26. The generical unity is less then the specifical and this then the numerical 27. Identity is founded upon unity c. Many more I could set down but these are sufficient to let us see how much Mr. Hobbs is deceived in saying Metaphysick is repugnant to natural reason He tells us cap. 46. That every part of the universe is body and that which is not body is no part of the universe If he speaks of integral parts I grant what he saith but if he means by parts that which we call essential to wit matter and form I deny them to be bodies His drift is to infer that souls are bodies because parts but I deny them to be parts no more then the vital and animal spirits are parts of the arteries and nerves that contain them or wine a part of the vessel that holds it Spirits are contained in the world but are no parts of it But when he saith That that which is no part of the universe is nothing and consequently no where He will make God to be nothing and no where for I hope he will not make him a part of the universe nor will he make him corporeal He carps at Aristotle for defining heaviness to be an endeavour to go to the center of the earth Aristotle doth not make this a definition but a description of heaviness for indeed the essential forms of inanimate things are not easily to be found by man in this life in which our best science is but ignorance therefore the Phylosopherâ— differ so much in this very thing of gravity and levity some holding them to be forms of the elements and causes of motion others hold them to be passive principles onely of motion and that the mover is the generator which hath lest an impression in light and heavy bodies to asâ—end and descend some hold gravity and levity to be substances others but accidents but however the peripateticks have gone as far as reason and the light of nature can direct them God will not in this world have us to know all things our cleerest light here is but a glimmering but if this description of Aristotles please not Mr. Hobbs he should have done well to have given us a better and then we will turn his disciples but its more easie to carp then mend or immitate Carpere vel noli nostra vel aede tuaâ— So he laughs at Phylosophers for saying stones or metals have a desire or can discern the place they would be at as man doth But he laughs at his own shaddow for Phylosophers grant that in inanimate things there is a natural appetite to move towards their own place which is nothing else but an inclination or disposition which he cannot deny except he will deny nature it self but that stones can discern as man does is his own dream not the saying of Phylosophers for they teach the contrary to wit that this natural desire or aptitude is without all knowledge or discerning by this he shews how little he is acquainted with their writings Phylosophers tell us that in condensed matter there is less quantity then before and rarefied when more Upon this he asks cap. 46. If there can be matter that hath not some determined quantity or if a body were made without any quantity at all I answer no for the quantity is an inseparable conâ— comitant of matter so that it increaseth decreaseth as the matter doth A body can be no more without quantity then fire without heaâ— Experience teacheth us that as any thing shrinks and thickneth it decreaseth in quantity and so it increaseth as it is extended and rarified He carps at the souls infusion at the cause of sense at the cause of willing at occult qualities and at some other peripatetick tenets at which he onely shews his teeth not being able to bite them save onely that he calls this vain Phylosophy affirming the â—ame out of Stâ—Pauls words but indeed St. Paul never called Phylosophical truths vâ—in for so he should condemn divinity to which Phylosophy is subservient besides truth cannot be repugnant to truth and Phylosophy is one of Gods special gifts by which even the Gentiles were brought to the knowledge of God and made inexcusable there are vain opinions among some professors of Phylosophy as there are among some Divines must therefore Phylosophy or Divinity be condemned as vain he that speaks against Phylosophy doeth both bewray his ignorance and malice in disparaging men for making use of those arms which God hath given us to fight withall against the enemies of truth and to destroy the field of good corn because the envious man hath sown some tears among them To speak against Phylosophy is to speak against the light of reason which God hath kindled in our mindes But he calls it cap. 42. vain Phylosophy to say that God is no cause at all of injustice To free God from injustice is not vain Phylosophy but true Divinity whereas the opinion of Mr. Hobbs is the heresie of the Libertines who made God the author of sin or of the Manichees and Valentimans who held that God made sin But I would know how can the fountain of justice be in any sort the cause of injustice or can he be the author of sin that is the punisher of sin that makes laws against it that invites upon promise of reward all men from it how can he be free from hypocrisie that grieves and is angry for sinful actions whereof he is the cause himself How can he hate injustice if he be the cause of it he must needs love his own work and consequently sinful actions How can God deface his own work by sin or his own image in man How can it be otherwise but man must delight in sin without remorse when he knows that God is any wise the cause thereof Therefore to make God at all the cause of injustice is in effect to make him no God It stands then well with Philosophy and Divinity also to say God is not at all the author of sin he permits it indeed for his glory for the exercise of his servants and the condemnation of the obstinate sinners but is no more the cause of it then the rider is the cause of that lameness in his horse which proceeds from his own unruliness or the Sun the cause of stinke which ariseth of putrifaction Again this which he cals vain Philosophy is it which brings us to the knowledge of divine and humane things which perfects the will by uniting it to goodness and the intellect by uniting it to truth It 's ridiculous what he saith of Good and Evil to wit That it is not the appetite of privat men but the law which is the