honoured and if it were not so Kingdoms would be nothing else but dens of theeves remota justitia quid aliud sunt regna quam magna latrocinia All principalities would be tyrannies and indeed where there is greatest power there should be most justice if Princes will be like God who is optimus maximus in whom greatness and goodness have meâ— together to whom much power is given of him much justice is required in maxima fortuna minima licentia est It is abominable then to make injustice with power honorable for honour is the reward of vertue was Achab's unjust seasing of Naboths Vinyard honorable Or are the actions of highway robbers armed with power to be honoured Sure not in any Christian Common-wealth where Themis raigns and Astrea hath not again forsaken the earth but perhaps injustice may sit as a Queen and be honorable in Leviathan's Republick Vbi prosperum ac felix scelus virtus vocatur spontibus parent boni Jus est in armis opprimit leges timor There honour may consist according to Mr. Hobbs his doctrine in the opinion onely of power without respect had to vertue and goodness and so because the evil Angels are called principalities and powers they deserve most honour But in other Common-wealths were Leviathan raigns not I finde that goodness is as much honoured as greatness piety justice temperance prudence learning and other endowments are had in no less honour then the greatest power that is Demetrius Phalereus had more slatues to wit 306. at Athens erected to him for his eloquence then ever any of their most powerful Commanders for theirgreatness the Apostles Martyrs Confessors and other emient men are honored at this day for their goodness not for greatness Homer Aristotle Virgil Cicerâ— are in esteem for their learning not for their power and with me Diogines in his tub is in greater honour then Alexander in his throne We honour God not so much for his greatness for so the Devil honours him as for his goodness and the child honoreth his parents not out of fear of their greatness as out of love to their goodness Honor then doth not meerly consist in the opinion of power As for the Poets commending their Gods for their thefts and adulteries and some barbarous Gentiles honouring theft and piracy I must confess that Mr. Hobbs is here reduced to hard shifts for supporting his irreligious Paradox or Cacodox rather for by the same means he may maintain that honour is due to Garlick Onyons Crocodiles Dogs Cats c. because the Egyptians worshiped these What wonder is it if theeves and Pirats honour each other but the civilised Gentiles were so far from honouring theft and piracy that they made severe lawes against theft and inflicted condign punishment upon the guilty As for the Poets commending the thefts and adulteries of their gods they are not to be understood literally but mystically as I have shewed elsewhere in Mystagog Poetico In his eleventh chapter he tells us That felicity is a continual progress of the desire from one object to another desire is an inclination of the will to obtain the good things we want or to be rid of the evil with which we are oppressed but in neither of these consisteth felicity for he cannot be happy which wants the good which should satisfie him or is possessed of the evil which oppresseth him in heaven onely is true felicity because as Saint Austin saith we shall desire nothing that is absent if desire be happiness then is the covetous man most happy for he is still desiring more wealth In true happiness there is love but neither faith nor hope which are the companions of desire besides he makes man in worse condition then the beasts for he saith in his twelfth chapter That the felicity of beasts consisteth in the injoying of their quotidian food And yet mans happiness consisteth onely in desire which is against sense and reason for a hungry man caâ—not be happy in desiring but in injoying of food it is not therefore the sight nor desire but the injoyment of the object which will make us happy Mars videt hanc visâ—â—que cupit potiturque cupita In his twelf chapter he saith That many revolted from the Church of Rome because the Schoolmen brought in Philisophy and Aristotles doctrine into Religion whence arose contradictions and absurdities as brought the Clergy into a reputation of ignorance It is strange that Philosophy should make the Clergy reputed ignorant whereas it contains the knowledge both of divine and humane things and it is one of the chief blessingâ— of Almighty God bestowed upon mankinde by which his image lost in Adam is repaired for the understanding is enlightned by the speculative and the will is regulated by the practical parts thereof and Philosophy is so far from causing peoples revolt from that Church that on the contrary it is one of the main supporters and pillaâ—s thereof I am afraid that it was not Philosophy which brought a reputation of ignorance upon that Church but rather their want of it which also will occasion much ignorance stupidity and darkness in our Church And I pray you good Mr. Hobbs what hurt hath Divinity received from Philosophy or Aristotles doctrine Hath it caused contradictions and absurdities as you say sure you are wideâ—ly mistaken for by Philosophy contradictions and absurdities are avoided into which those ignorant souls do fall who want it as we finde at this time by woful experience there being more absurd and contradictory opinions among the peoâ—ple of this Nation now in a few years since Aristotles doctrine hath been discouraged then were all the time hitherto since Christianity was imbraced And what wonder is it if they that walk in darkness stumble How should we come to know the heavens the earth the seas the fire the air the beasts fishes and fowls the hearbs trees plants pretious stones all which physical bodies with divers others are mentioned in Scripture besides Spirits Angels and other Metaphysical entities without Philosophy how should we define divide dispute speak or write methodically or syllogistically without this I will say nothing of the benefit we receive by moral political and â—â—conomical Phylosophy How shall we dispute against Hereticks and refel their subtil arguments without it Iustin Martyr and many other Greek and Latin Fathers fought against the Gentles Jews and Hereticks with this sword and beat them with their own weapons therefore to condemn Philosophy is to condemn the minister and handmaid of divinity between which there can be no more repugnancy then there is between the principal and subordinate cause between two lights two truths or between the body and the soul In his fifteenth chapter He will have all men equal by nature and that Aristotle was mistaken in saying that wise men were more fit to command and that others whose bodies are strong and judgments weake fitter to serve This he saith is against
that it was a winde not the holy Spirit which in the Creation moved on the waters that the dove and fierytongues may be called Angels that Christ hath no spiritual kingdom here on earth that he did not cast out devils but onely cured madness that Satan did not enter into Iudas that we may dissemble in matter of religion that we may disobey Christ and his Apostles without sin Such and much more like stuff and smoke doth this Leviathan send out of his nostrils as out of a boyling pot or caldron Job 41. 〈◊〉 This is the sperma caete or spawn which this whale casteth out a whale I say that hath not swallowed up Ionah the prophet but Cerinthus the heretick and vomited up the condemned opinions of the old hereticks and chiefly the Anthropomorphits Sabellians Nestorians Saduceans Arabeans Tacians or Eucratits Manichies Mahumetans and others for in holding life eternal to be onely on earth he is a Cerinthian and Mahumetan in giving to God corporiety he is an Anthropomorphit Manichean Tertullianist and Audaean in holding the three Persons to be distinct names and essences represented by Moses Christ and the Apostles he is a Sabellian Montanist Aetian and Priscillianist in saying that Christ personated God the Son he is a Nestorian giving him two personalities for no person can personate himself â—id denying spirits he is a Saducean in making the soul to rest with the body till the resurrection he is an Arabian in making the soul of man corporeal he is a Luciferian by putting a period to hell torments he is an Originist by teaching dissimulation in religion he is a Tacian or Encratit in making God the cause of injustice or sin he is a Manichee in slighting Christs miracles he is a Iew and in making our natural reason the word of God he is Socinian In discovering of these errors I quarrel not with Mr. Hobbs but with his book which not onely I but many more who are both learned and judicious men look upon as a piece dangerous both to Government and Religion All the hurt I wish him is true illumination a sanctified heart and Christian sobriety that he may retract what is amiss And so I bid him and thee farewel A. R. In doctissimum marinae belluae domitorem AL ROSSEUM ALcides clava Lernaeum perculit hydram Sed tu Ros calamo monstra marina dâ—mas Quantum Leviathan superavit viribus hydram Tantum Ros superas Amphytrioniadem D. C. The Preface BEing desired by some of my friends a while ago to peruse Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan and deliver my opinion of it I have done accordingly I finde him a man of excellent parts and in this book much gold and withal much dross he hath mingled his wine with too much water and imbittered his pottage with too much Coloquintida there are some of his positions which may prove of dangerous consequence to green heads and immature judgments who look no farther then the superficies or outside of things thinking all to be gold that glisters and all wholesome food that is pleasing to the tast under green grass lurch oftentimes snakes and serpents such as Euridice perceive not till they be stung to death I have therefore not to wrong Mr. Hobbs but to vindicate the truth for in Republica libera oportet linguas esse liberas adventured upon his Leviathan which I do not finde so fierce and tâ—rrible as he in Job that people should be cast down at the sight of him this may be drawn out with a Hook and held even with a single bridle I will onely touch such passages and not all but some as deserve Animadversions wherein I will be both brief and modest aiming rather at verity then victory though he slights all learned men as Iob's Leviathan doth all humane strength and prideth himself too much in his scales LEVIATHAN Drawn out with an HOOK OR ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr HOBB's Book Called LEVIATHAN By ALEXANDER ROSS IN His introduction he calls Nature The art whereby God hath made and governs the World God made not the world by Nature for Nature had no beeing till God made it and when he made it it was neither the exemplary nor adjuvant cause of the creation the world could not be made by that which had no beeing till it was made and when it was made it was nothing else but the form and matter of things the one being the active the other the passive nature and both but parts of the universe if again by nature that we may make a favourable construction of his phrase he meaneth the ordinary power of God the world was not made thus by his ordinary power he governs it but by his extraordinary power he made it which power is never called natural but miraculous neither again is Nature Art as he calls it though both be principles because Nature is an internal Art an external principle I say external in respect of essence though it may be internal in regard of site albeit Art as it is an habit and in the minde of the Artificer is altogether external but take it for the effect of Art it may be internal in the thing made by Art as may be seen in the motions of a watch He gives us a bad definition of life when he saith Life is but the motion of limbs for life is not motion but the cause of motion there may be life in the limbs when there is no motion as in sleep and in histerical women and there may be motion in the limbs without life as when they are moved violently by some external mover and there is life where there be no limbs at all as in the soul and there is motion where there is no life at all as in a wooden leg. In the first chapter he tells us That the cause of sense is the external object which presseth the organ either immediately as in the tast and touch or imediately as in the other senses The object indeed is the cause both material and efficient of sensation but not of sense that is of the act of seeing but not of the faculty the soul is the cause of this neither doth the object press immediately upon the organ of tast or touch but â—mediately for the organ of tast is the nervous part of the tongue the medium is the spungy flesh and salival humidity for the dry tongue tasteth not the organ of tact is the nerve the medium is the flesh and skin called Epidemis But when he says that seeming or fansie is that which men call sense He makes deception and sense one thing for quod videtur non est what seems to be hath no beeing therefore in Euripides mad Orestes is counselled by his sister to be quiet because saith she {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} thou seest none of those things which thou supposeth thou seeth or knowest sense then is not fancy for what we fancy we see not but seem to see
reason and experience for there are few so foolish that had not rather govern themselves then be governed Answ. Though all men be equal by nature in regard of the essential perfection of the soul yet in respect of accidental perfections we finde the contrary for some are by nature blind some deaf some dumb some lame and deformed some dull foolish and stupid I would know then whether a fool whose body is strong judgment weak be naturally apter to command or to serve And whether he who is of a weak body and of a strong judgment is not fitted by nature rather to command then to serve Mr. Hobbs saith That there are few so foolish which had not rather govern themselves then be governed But I say that whosoever is not fit for government is a notorious fool if he will rather govern then be governed let him think what he will Had Phaeton been a wise man he would not have affected the government of his fathers charriot Magna petis Phaeton quae non viribus illis munera conveniunt On the contrary wise men have chosen rather to be Dgoverned by others then to govern others and Christ the wisdom of the Father would rather be a servant then a King Doubtless in the state of innocency there should have been naturally a subordination and subjection as of children to their parents of wives to their husbands and of inferiours to their superiours for there should have been no more equality then among men on earth◠than there was and is in heaven among Angels and in hell among Devils yea there is naturally subjection among beasts rex unus apibus dux unus gregibus To say then that there is no inequality by nature is to say that there is no order in nature which cannot be without subordination surely in the state of corrupted nature to say that all are equal is to say that none have sinned for sin brought in servitude and subjection so that the effect is no less natural then the cause Again whatsoever is necessary is also natural but inequality and subordination among men who will live together is necessary and therefore natural we see also that the body is naturally subject and subordinate to the soul animae imperio corporis servitio utimur To be brief seeing among men there are many defects and imperfections wants and infirmities and that naturally there must be also naturally an inequality and subjection by which these defects may be supplyed which could not be if all men were equal by nature Therefore not Aristotle but Mr. Hobbs speaks against reason and experience I like not his phrase when he saith That God was personated first by Moses then by Christ the Son of man For they that differ in personality may persononate each other but Christ the Son of man differs not in personality from God seeing in him the divinity and humanity make up but one person and though the Father and Son in the Trinity are distinct persons yet the Son cannot personate the Father because their nature is numerically one and the same neither is it true what he saith concerning covenants Part 2. cap. 18. That they are but words and breath and have no force to oblige but from the sword For covenants are real consents of two or more persons now consent is an act of the soul and not a bare word or breath the words that are uttered are but the symbols and signes of the mind there be also many mental and implyed or tacite covenants made without words and many covenants that have no dependance on the sword as those that are made between God and man Abraham and Noah had been but in a bad condition if the covenants that God made with them had been but bare words and breath When he saith That whatsoever the Prince doth can be no injury to the subject nor ought he to be accused by any of them of injustice for he that doth any thing by authority from another doth therein no injury to him by whose authority he acteth This doctrine will hardly down with free born people who choose to themselves Princes not to tyrannise over them but like good shepherds or fathers of their Country to rule them the people were not mad to give their power so to Princes as to be their slaves or to think that tyrannical cruelties and oppressions are not injuries to the subject or that tyrants must not be accused of injustice for although the Prince acteth by the peoples authority in things lawful yet in his lawless exorbitancies he acteth by his own tyrannising power not by the peoples authority for they be authors of his lawful power yet they are no waies authors of his exorbitancies and it is ridiculous when he saith No man can do injury to himself and that the Prince may commit iniquity but not injustice or injury For it s too apparent that most men are too injurious to themselves nemo laeditur nisi à seipso O Israel thy destruction is of thy self And I would fain know what true difference there is between injustice and iniquity or injury for jus and aequum signifie the same thing in latine whence we borrow the words injustice injury iniquity I know some put a difference between jus and aequum but to little purpose for doubtless every injury is unjust and each unjust act is an injury and an iniquity either against God or man he is also injurious to good Princes when he makes no difference between them and tyrants Part 2. cap. 20. between despotical and paternal dominons making tyrants and Soveraigns by institution all one in rights and consequences This is to put no difference between the Father and Butcher of his Countrey between the Shepherd and the woolf between sharing and fleaing of the sheep A King governs and is governed by laws a tyrant hath no law but his will jus est in armis opprimit leges timor This his absurd assertion he would patronise by Scripture which describeth to us 1 Sam. 8. 11 12. verses the manner of Kings namely to take your sons and daughters to drive his charriot c. To take your fields and Vinyards c. But in that he mistakes himself for in that chapter the Scriptures describes unto us not the qualities of Kings but of tyrants such as the neighbouring Nations had which dwelt about Iudea but if he will see the qualities of a good King and such as the Lord would chose let him read the 17. chapter of Deuteronomy there he shall finde a King that must be regulated by the law of God and not by his own will So in his twenty one chapter he will make us beleeve that David did no injury to Uriah When he killed him because the right to do what he pleased was given him by Uriah himself but the injury was done to God who prohibited all iniquity which distinction David confirmed when he saith to thee onely
to the creatures but it were very absurd to think that diseases should speak and discourse with Christ should question and beseech him and acknowledge his Divinity as these Devils did But he proceeds and says That he hath not observed out of Scripture that any man was ever possessed with any other corporeal spirit but that of his own That some men have been possessed with other spirits besides their own is plain by many places of Scripture but whether these spirits were corporeall or incorporeall is not the question though neither Divinity nor Philosophy doth acknowledge any corporeall spirits properly The Wind indeed is sometimes called a Spirit and so is the Sun but the word Spirit is there used improperly and in a large sense so are these subtile vapouâ—s in the Nerves and Arteries called Animal and Vitall Spirits by the Physicians though indeed they be bodies Now that Spirits properly so calledâ— such as Angels and Mens souls cannot be corporeall is plain because they have not quantity nor are in a place by circumscription nor move Physically Many Angels may be in the same ubâ— a legion of spirits that is 6500 may be in the same man and yet Mr Hobbs cannot observe that ever any man hath been possessed with any other spirit then that of his own Besides if Spirits were corporeall their bodies must be either Homogeniall or Heterogeniall Not Homogenial for different operations such as are in Angels require different organs Not Heterogenial â—or so we must make Angels and the souls of men to be composed of different and contrary entities and consequently subject to dissolution and corruption All which are grosse absurdities Again Angels can passe through gresse bodies without penetration of dimensions which shew they have not quantity and consequently are immateriall For the purest body that is cannot passe through another but the other body must yeeld give place Lastly if there were not incorporeall spirits the world would be imperfect as being destitute of Incorporeall substances which with the corporcall make up the Universe and compleat it He saith Chap. 45 That Christ went himself into the wilderness and that this carrying of him up and down from the wildernesse to the City and from thence into a mountain was a vision I know he went of himself to be tempted he being no wayes forced but of his own accord undertook to buckle with Satan our Arch-enemy that we might the more boldly enter with him Yet the Scripture â—aith That he was led by the spirit but I cannot admit that this temtation of Christ was but a vision for then we shall have smal comfort by Christs temtation if it were not reall but imaginary or in a vision and if we shall admit this to be a vision we may suspect the rest of his sufferings to be but visions to the great dishonor of our Saviour and his Evangelists who wrot his History and also to the discomfort of all Gods children But how came Mr Hobbs to be so wise as to know this to be a vision of which the Evangelists make such an exact historicall narration When in Scripture any thing is done in a dream or vision the dream or vision is mentioned as the Angell appeared to Joseph in a dream Matth. 2. Peter saw a sheet let down from heaven in a vision Acts 10. The wise men were warned by the Angell in a dream Matth. 2. Paul saw the man of Macedonia in a vision Acts 11. The Lord spake to Paul in a vision Acts 18. but in this temtation of Christ there is no mention of any vision therefore we conclude it was reall and in saying so we need not fear that either Christ was possessed or carried away violently by the devill as Mr. Hobbs would infer because our Savviour for our comfort and salvation suffered himselfe to be both tempted and carried by the devill as afterward he permitted himself to be apprehended and scourged and crucified by the devils Instruments And albeit Satan could not from that high mountain shew to the Lord all the kingdomes of the world yet he could point to the understanding their places and situation He is offended cap. 45. That the use of exorcism hath hitherto so prevailed in the Church by the doctrine of incorporeal spirits Incorporeal spirits are no more the cause of exorcisms then corporeal substances are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is but to adjure and adjuration is used as well against men as spirits the high Priest did not think that Christ when he stood before him was an incorporeal spirit yet he adjureth or exorciseth him by the living God Mat. 26. He tells us That there were many Demoniacks in the Primitive Church and few mad-men whereas now there are many mad-men and few Demoniacks which proceeds not from the change of nature but of names That the use of exorcism hath so prevailed in the Church should administer cause of comfort not of grief in that our Saviour hath not left his Church destitute of helps and arms against the devil who takes delight to torment men here by possessing their bodies and to torment them hereafter by insinuating into their souls inticing them to consent to all kinde of iniquity that so he may bring them with himself into eternal misery Now our Saviour was the chief exorcist himself for he by his power and word cast ouâ— devils this gift he bestowed on his Apostles that they should cast ouâ— devils in his name and therefore the Disciples after they were sent abroad by Christ and had returned rejoyced that the devils were subject to them and this gift of exorcism was bestowed sometimes on wicked men as we may see Mat. 7. of those who in the last day will say to Christ We have cast out devils in thy name And we read Acts 19. of the 7. sons of Scaeva who took upon them to exorcise evil spirits in the name of the Lord Jesus because Paul had practised exorcism with such good success We see how the spirit of divination by Paul's command in the name of Jesus Christ came out of the damosel Acts 16. Exorcism then is a gift of God not temporary to continue onely in the Apostles but lasting and to remain in the Church till the end of the world otherwise we should be in a sad condition if when Satan possesseth any of her members there were no remedy against him â—ut we have remedies left us to wit â—asting and prayer for our Saviour tells us that there is a kinde of devil which is not cast out but by prayer and fasting Mat. 16. Now that there are some possessed in these latter daies is apparent by divers histories that mention strange effects of people possessed which are more then natural and at which Physitions are amazed for as their diseases are preternatural so be their cures Melancâ—â—â—â—n his Epistles tells us of a woman in his time who lived in Saxome she being possessed by the devil
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