conjectural and of probabilities onely whereas faith makes its object certain end withal he makes these phrases the same To have faith in to trust to and to beleeve a man but Saint Austin and the Church ever since have made these distinct phrases for credere Deo is to beleeve that God is true credere Deum is to beleeve there is a God which wicked men and evil Angels may do but credere in Deum is to love God and to relie on him and to put our trust in him which none do but good men therefore Mr: Hobbs is injurious to Christianity when he saith That to beleeve in God as it is in the Creed is meant noâ— trust in the person but confession of the doctrine If so then the Devil may as boldly and with as great comfort say the Creed as any Christian for he beleeves and trembles â—aith Saint Iames and we know these evil spirits confessed Christ to be the Son of God and he is no less injurious to God when he will have us beleeve in the Church saying Our belief faith and trust is in the Church whose words we take and acquiâ—sse therein but the Apostles in their Creed have taught us otherwaies namely That we beleeve the Catholick Church but we beleeve in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ and in the Hâ—ly Ghost He makes Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men to signifie in Scripture the same thing for thus he writes Whereas many of those Devils are said to confess Christ Is it not necessary to interpret those places otherwise then that those mad-men confessed him And shortly after I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief that Demoniacks were any other thing but mad-men Yes there be divers things that make it necessary for him to beleeve that these were distinct 1. The letter of the text from which we should not digress except we were urged by an inconvenience which is not here 2. The Authority of the Church in which he saith he doth beleeve Now the Church alwaies took these for distinct creatures to wit Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men 3. The honour of Christ for wherein was the power of his Divinity seen if these were ordinary Mad-men seeing madness is curable by physick and every common Physician It tended more to Christ's honour that the Devil whose Kingdom he came to destroy should confess he divinity then that mad-men should acknowledge it 4. Christ came to call Jews and Gentiles by working of miracles but to cast out Devils and to cure Demoniacks was a greater miracle then to cure mad-men 5. The New Testament distinguisheth Demoniacks from mad-men for these are called Demoniacks not mad and Saint Paul is termed mad by the Athenians and not a Demoniack so Devils are never called mad-men in Scripture nor madmen called Devils besides as all mad-men are not Demoniacks so all Demoniacks are not mad-men for the Devil entered into Iudas Iscariot he became a demoniack or possessed by the Devil and yet he was no mad-man but I doubt me Mr. Hobbs is mad himself in thinking all learned men to be mad except himself he thinks the School-men mad because their terms cannot be translated or are not intelligible in vulgar languages by this he may as well ascribe madness to Lawyers and Physitians as to Divines for their terms of 〈◊〉 â—t cannot be well translated nor can vulgar capacities easily understand them nor is it much material whether they do or not Church and State can subsist well enough though the vulgar sort understand not the terms of School divinity if these terms are not intelligible by dull heads and shallow brains the fault is in themselves not in the terms for quicquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur non ad modum recepti Blinde men must not accuse the Sun of obscurity because they cannot see him neither are the words of Suarez which he alledgeth for an example so obscure as he would make them for to an intelligent man the words are very plain to wit That the first cause hath no necessary influence upon the second by reason of subordination which is a help to their working Here be two things remarkable 1. That the second causes work by reason of subordination to the first cause â— That the first cause worketh not necessarily upon the second but voluntarily If this dish please not Mr. Hobbs his pallat he must blame his mouth which is out of tast and not the meat which is both wholesom and savory In his tenth chapter he uttereth strange Paradoxes 1. That to pitty is to dishonour 2. That good Fortune if lasting is a sign of Gods favour 3. That covetousness of great riches and ambition of great honours are honourable 4. That an unjust action so it be joyned with power is honorable for honour consisteth onely in the opinion of power therefore the heathen gods are honoured by the Poets for their thefts and adulteries and at first among men piracy and theft were counted no dishonour 1. Pitty is rather honour then dishonour for when a father pittieth his child a King his subject or a Master his servant do they dishonour them When we desire God to pitty us do we desire him to dishonour us him whom we dishonour we pitty not and whom we pitty we dishonour not pitty proceeds of love dishonour of hatred 2. If lasting good fortune be a sign of Gods favour it seems then that the Turks are highly in Gods favour for their good fortune hath continued these many hundreth years Whether was poor and starved Lazarus or that rich glutton who fared dilitiously every day highest in Gods favour 3. Who ever afore Mr. Hobbs made ambition honourable and covetousness which Saint Paul calls the root of all evil Can sin be honorable which brought shame and dishonour upon mankinde in respect of sin man did not abide in honour but became like the beasts that perish If ambition of great honors be honorable then were the evil Angels and Adam most honorable when they affected to be like God himself which is the greatest and highest honour that can be then were Caligula Domitian Heliogabalus and others who affected divine honours most honorable Midas coveted great riches when he wished all might be gold he touched therefore in this he was most honorable but if it be honour to offend God to transgress his law to incur his displeasure and suffer eternal pains let them who list injoy this honour I will have none of it non equidem tali me digner honore 4. He makes unjust actions joyned with power honourable Then unjust actions without power deserve no honour it is even as Seneca complaineth in his time parva furta puniuntur magna in triumphis aguntur Petty theeves are hanged but great robberies are honoured He spoke it with grief when a cruel tyrant ruled or rather misruled the Empire But otherwaies where there is government unjust actions are punished not
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
have I sinned He may as well say that the right to do what David pleased was given him by God and therefore no injury in killing Uriah was offered to God which contradicts his assertion but indeed neither assertion is true for neither God nor Uriah gave right to David to do what he pleased to say that God gives to sinful men right to act what they please is to make God the author of sin and to say that Uriah gave right to David to kill him is to make him accessary to his own murther And to say that a Tyrant doth not wronge the innocent when he murthers him causlessly is to put no difference between an unjust Tyrant and a just Judge when he executes a Malefactor deservingly now when David saith To thee onely have I sinned he speaketh so because God onely knew his intention that he meant to murther Uriah when he placed him in the forefront of the army He saith That whether a Common-wealth be monarchical or popular the freedom is still the same This I deny for in an absolute monarchy there is no liberty but meer slavery such is the condition of those who live under the Turk the Muscovit Prester Iohn and the Magol in other governments there is more or less liberty according to the condition of the times and people and the disposition of the Governors for there was more liberty under Augustus Titus Antoninus Aurelius and other Monarchs then under many Popular States Fallitur egregio quisquis sub principe credit servitum numquam libertas gratior extat quam sub rege pio And under Democracy there is at some times more liberty then at others to say then that the freedom under a Monarchy and Popular government is the same is as much as if I should say a child is as free under a rigid and cruel Schoolmaster as under an indulgent Mother Where there is continual fear there can be no liberty and such is the condition of those that live under Tyrants He slights Aristotle's opinion concerning Democracy for saying there is more liberty there then in any other government yet he refels none of Aristotle's reasons which are these 1. In Democracy all the Citizens have a vote in chosing of their Magistrates 2 All have a right to govern as well as to be governed 3. Magistrates for the most part are chosen by lot rather then by suffrages 4. They are not chosen for their wealth 5. Nor is the same man chosen often into the Supreme Office 6. Nor may he stay too long in his Office 7. That Judges are chosen out of all degrees and orders of the people 8. That the Supreme Senate which is chosen out of all the people hath the chief authority over the Common-wealth 9 That publick officers have their allowance and maintenance 10. That the meanest trades of the people are not excluded from publick offices and honours 11. By often changing of Supreme officers way is made for the advancing of many and occasion of abusing the Supreme power is taken away For these reasons Aristotle held there was under Democracy more liberty then under Monarchy In his twenty eight chapter he tels us That the Subject did not give to the Soveraign the right of punishing and that this right is not grounded on any concession or gift of the Subjects These words are plainly contradictory to what he said before cap. 28. Namely That the Subject is the author of all the actions and judgments of the Soveraign And again Every particular man is author of all the Soveraign doth and consequently he that complaineth of injury from his Soveraign complaineth of that whereof he himself is author and therefore David had right to do what he pleased given him by Uriah for which cause he did Uriah no injury to kill him Here is a plain contradiction The subject giveth right to the Prince to do what he pleaseth even to murther him and yet giveth no power to punish him Is it likely that any subject is so mad as to covenant with his Prince that he shall have right to murther him without cause and yet when he hath just cause he shall have no power to punish him Chap. 28. He saith That mans pride compelled him to submit himself to Government This is a Paradox for mans pride made him rebel against Government but not submit to it Before man grew proud he submitted himself to be governed by God so did the Apostate Angels but their pride made them affect equality with God and consequently rebel and refuse to obey and to be governed it is not pride then but humility that makes man submit to government For pride loves to be still uppermost as the word sheweth superbire quasi superire So proud Atraeus in Seneca Thes. Act. 5. Equalis astris gradior cunctos super altum superbo vertice attingens polum so the proud man by the Psalmist is compared to a high Cedar in Lebanus and proud Nebuchadnezar in Daniel to an exceeding tall tree whose top reached to Heaven Lucifer in Isay 14. 14. saith I will assend above the hight of the clouds I will be like the most High We know that pride hath been the cause of so much troubles and wars in the world because proud men will not submit to government nec ferre potest Caesárve priorem Pompeiúsve parem Caesar will not submit to be governed by Pompey nor Pompey by Caesar Mr. Hobbs might have observed this in the naming of Leviathan which he alledgeth for as Iob saith he seeth every high thing below him and is King of all the children of pride and so he acknowledgeth himself in the beginning of the next chapter that men for want of humility will not suffer the rude and combersom points of their present greatness to be taken off In his twenty ninth chapter amongst the diseases of a Common-wealth which he saith proceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines he reckons this for one Thâ—â— whatsoever a man doth against his conscience is sin The Christian schools and pulpits never held this for a disease or seditious doctrine till now I beleeve Mr. Hobbs his doctrine is rather seditious for if it be no sin to act against the conscience people may rebel when they please without sin though they know that rebellion is against the conscience for the Apostle tels us that we must be subject to the higher powers not onely for wrath but also for conscience sakeâ—Rom 13. 5. It is the curb of conscience thaâ— restrains men from rebellion there is no outward sorce or law so powerful as that inward law â—â— the conscience no castle so inpregnable as this hic murus ahaencus esto There is no Judge so severâ— no Torturer so cruel as an accusing conscienceâ— this Saul Iudas Orestes and too many more knew who would rather be their own executioners then endure the continual tortures and be tormented with the fire-brands of those
to the Scribes and Pharisees because they sit in Moses chair But then Christ should have wronged the Roman Governors in whom he acknowledged kingly power by paying tribute and by submitting himself to be judged by them Their sitting then in Moses chair doeth not imply kingly power but their power in expounding the law of Moses And it is as weak an inference to say that Christ is not King of his Church Because he would not divide the inheritance between the two brethren or because he came to save the world not to judge it For dividing of inheritances belonging not to Christs spiritual kingdom neither was it the end of Christs comming to judge that is to condemn the world for the Greek word signifieth both but to save it for his name was Jesus a Saviour because he came to save his people from their sins And no less weak is this reason The time of Christs preaching is called regeneration therefore it is no kingdom Regeneration is not the time but the fruit and effect of Christs preaching and so far is regeneration from being inconsistent with Christs Kingdom that our Saviour tells us in plain tearms except we be regenerate we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Iohn 3. In his two and fortty chapter he broacheth a strange wheemsie concerning the blessed Trinity in saying That God who hath been represented that is personated thrice to wit by Moses by Christ and by the Apostles may properly enough be said to be three Persons as represented by the Apostles the holy Spirit by which they spake is God as represented by Christ the Son is that God as represented by Moses and the high Priests the Father is that God Hence the names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the signification of the Godhead are never used in the old Testament for they are Persons that is they have their names from representing which could not be till divers men had represented Gods Person c. Here is strange stuffe For first The word Person in the Trinity was never taken by Divines for a Visard a personating or representation but for a peculiar way of subsisting therefore by the Greek Church the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used till wanton and idle wits began to â—aise differences about that word and then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used answering to the Latine word Persona and is defined thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by Iustin Martyr and Damâ—sâ—en an eternal or unbeginning manner of an eternal existing so that in the same essence there is a threefold way of subsisting The Fathers existence is from himself the Sons from the Father the Spirits from both so in man there is the soul the intellect and will these three are but one essence yet differently subsisting the soul of it self the intellect from the soul and the wilâ— from both Secondly if personating or representing makes the persons in the Trinity it will follow that there have been and are more then three persons nay I may truly say innumerable for God hath been represented not onely by Moses but by Iosuah also and his successors by Aaron the high Priest and all his successors by all Judges also and Kings who are therefore called gods there must be then as many persons as there have been personatings or representations and in this respect the Trinity may be called a Legion or rather innumerable persons Thirdly Why should God be called the Holy Spiâ—â—â— as he was represented by the Apostles rather then by being personated by Moses or by Christ his reason is because the Apostles spoke by the Spirit I pray did not Moses and Christ speak by the same Spirit St. Peter saith that the holy men of old spake as the Spirit moved them Or why is God by him called Father as he was represented by Moses rather then as he was represented by Christ Was there more Paternity in Moses then in any other man or in Christ who by Isaiah is called the everlasting Father Or why is he called Father as personated by the high Priests Fâ—uâ—thly It is untrue what he saith that the nâ—â—es of Father Son and Holy Ghost are never used in the old Testament For Psal. 89. which contains not only a prophesie of Solomâ—n but also of Christ it is thus written He shall cry unto me thou art my Father Psal. 89. 26. and Isa. 9. he is called the everlasting Father So Psal 2. Christ is called Son Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And Isa. 9. For unto us a Son is given So the third Person or Spirit is mentioned The Spirit of God moved upon the Waters Gen. 1. Now that this was no winde as some have thought is plain because air was created afterwards and this Spirit is said to move or by moving to cherish the waters but the winde is an enemy to the waters both in regard of its siccity and impâ—tuosity neither is the winde ever called the Spirit of God as we have shewed already So Ioel. â— I will pour my Spirit upon all flesh And Zach â—â— I will pour upon the house of David and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication But he saith that these names are not used in the signification of the God-head but he is deceived for when the child Christ is called the everlasting Father by Isaiah this cannot be in signification of his humanity for how can a little child be an everlasting Father but in respect of his God-head He saith Cap. 42. If the Supreme King have not his regal power in this world by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers This is not to be doubted but the Supreme King hath his regal power in this world for this cause he tells his Apostles after his resurrection That all power was given to him in heaven and in earth therefore he sends them abroad into all nations of this world teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them Matth. 28. If then he hath regal power in the world why should not his Officers be obeyed 'T is true Christs Kingdom is not of this world will it therefore follow that it is not in this world For if in this world he subdueth the nations to his Scepter by the sword of his word if he leads captivity captive if he giveth gifts unto men if he prescribe laws and punisheth the offendors shall we not say he hath Kingly power in this world if the Kings and Potentates of the earth have submitted their scepters to his Heraulds have received his yoak and have placed his cross upon their crowns in sign of subjection is he not their Supreme King whose dominion here is called the Kingdom of grace his other Kingdom in the next world shal be the kingdom of glory which M. Hobs confounds with this of grace as for the coercive or commanding power of Ministers which he
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