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.
truth in things as well as in words for entity can be no more without truth then the fire without heat or the Sun without light And when he saith that Geometry is the only science which God hath left into man He is injurious to Arithmatick whose principles are no less certain firm indemonstrable and evident then those of Geometry He enveighs much against book learning but in this he speaks without book for he calls in derision school knowledge Pedantry Pedantry is that knowledge which is taught to young Scollers and indeed the best books are read to them and they are instructed in the knowledge of the best things both in divine and humane litterature being fit that new vessels be seasoned with the best liquor Quo â—emel est imbuta c. So the preceps of divinity and philosophy to this profound Rabbi whose learning passeth all understanding are but Pedantry but in speaking against the Schools he fouls his own nest for whence had he the knowledge which he now rejects but out of them as for his own supposed learning which he hath without them it is such as will never be thought worthy to be called Pedantry nor shall it ever be honoured to be taught in Schools nor shall Aristotle Plato Cicero Thomas and other eminent men need to fear lest Mr. Hobbs's whimsies and dreams thrust their solid and grave learning out of doors He accounteth these subsequent assersions absurd namely That faith is infused or inspired when nothing can be poured or breathed into any thing but body and that extention is body c. I would know how saith being a gift from without and not born with us should enter into us If not by inspiration or infusion And if nothing can be poured or breathed but body then it must follow that Adam's soul was a body for it was breathed into Adam and that the Holy Ghost is a body for he is said to be poured upon all flesh by the prophets Ioel and Zachariah but if by the spirit be understood spiritual vertues or graces then in Mr. Hobbs his judgment this will be counted an absurd assertion but I hope he hath more Religion in him then to think the Holy Scripture speaks absurdly neither is there any absurdity in calling extension a body seeing not a substantial but a mathematical body is meant to distinguish it from superficies and line He will not have colour to be in the body nor sound in the air Where then is colour which is its subject is it in a spirit I know no other subject in which it can be inherent except one of these two If there be any there name it and if sound be not in the air how come we to hear it He should do well to prove his new assertions as wel as to deny the old so he holds it absurd to say That a living creature is a genus or general thing But the contrary is plain for this proposition man is a living creature were absurd because identical if living creature were not a general but a particular thing it must also follow that a horse were not a living creature or that a man and a horse were the same particular thing seeing he admits of no general thing any one may see here whether the ancient and wise Philosophers or this new Misosopher be most guilty of absurdities neither is it absurd to say That the nature of a thing is its definition Seeing man the thing defined is the same with rational creature which is his definition Nor is there absurdity in this speech Mans command is his will seeing there is no other commanding faculty in man but his will neither are Metaphors Tropes and other Rhetorical figures absurd speeches except he will accuse the Holy Ghost of absurdity who useth them so frequently in scripture and if these words Hypostatical Transubstantiate c. be absurd words let him impart better and more significant terms and we shall think him though not a good Philosopher yet a good Grammarian In his sixth chapter he makes animal and voluntary motion the same but absurdly for the motion of spirits is voluntary not animal and the motion of men in their sleep is animal not voluntary for many in their sleep speak those words and perform those actions of which they are both ashamed and afraid when they are awakened if to speak were an animal motion as he saith then beasts could speak for they are animals He saith That which we neither desire nor hate we are said to contemn But this is not so for I neither desire nor hate the Kingdom of Persia and yet I contemn it not whatsoever I hate I contemn but I contemn many things which I hare not When he distinguisheth Religion from Superstition I hear the voice of Leviathan not of a Christian For saith he Fear of power invisible feigned by the minde or from tales publâ—ckly allowâ— is Religion not allowed Superstition and when the power imagined is truly such as we imagine true Religion It seems then both Religion and Superstition are grounded upon tales and imagination onely they differ in this that tales publickly allowed beget Religion not allowed Superstition but what will he say of the Gentiles among them tales were publickly allowed were they therefore religious and not superstitious and is Religion grounded upon fiction or imagination even true Religion I thought that faith and not imagination had been the substance and ground of things not seen that the just live by faith not by imagination that by faith we are saved by faith we are justified by faith we overcom the world not by fancy fiction or imagination We must mend the Creed if Mr. Hobbs his religion be true and insteed of saying I beleeve in God we must say I imagine or feign in my minde an invisible power In this also he contradicts himself for if the power be invisible how can it be imagined seeing as he saith before imagination is onely of things perceived by the sense and it is so called from the image made in seeing He will not have the will to be a rational appetite because then there could be no voluntary acts against reason But the School doctrine stands firm that the will is a rational appetite and that there can be no voluntary acts against reason because the object of the will is a known good for we cannot will or affect what we know not and knowledge in man is never without reason which regulates the will besides each man in willing aimes at an end which cannot be attained withous its medium nor this ordered without reason either true or apparent Part 1. cap. 7. He seems to make faith and opinion the same thing when he saith That in belief are two opinions one of the saying of the man the other of his vertâ—e but in this he makes the Christian mans happiness very incertain and builds it upon a tottering foundation for opinion is meerly
in her fits would speak Greek and Latin sentences which she never before had heard She foretold the Saâ—on war in these words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} â— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is There will be tribulation upon the earth and wrath in this peoplâ— He mentions another Demoniack who by the prayers of the congregation was freed from the devil which at certain times used to torment her I could allegde many examples of modern Demoniacks out of Del Rio Wierus Bodin Zacuta â—â—ularts memorable histories and others which physick could not cure but were cured by Christian exorcisms that is by prayers fastings and almes of the Congregation Demones a nobis adjurantur tâ—rquentur spiritualibus flagris orationis flagellis exire coguntuâ— We adjure and torment the devils our spiritual whips scourging prayers force them to go oâ—t saith Lactantiae I know some superstitious ceremonies have been and are still used in exorcisms which I allow not but I do not like Mr. Hobbs his slighting of Christs miracles and his Apostles when he tels us That Demoniacks were many in the primitive Church and few mad-men whereas now there are many mad-men and few Demoniacks which proceed not from the change of nature Is not this to extenuate Christs miracles who came to destroy the works of the devil and to cast out the prince of this world And is it not likewise to make the Evangelists imposters in publishing those cures for miraculous which were not and calling ordinary and natural diseases by the termes of devils and evil spirits He will not cap. 45. have it Satan that entred into Iudas though St. Luke writes so But an hostile and trayterous intention of selling Christ for as by the holy Ghost are meant frequently graces and good inclinations so by entring of Satan may be understood wicked cogitations To Mr. Hobbs Satan is any thing so he may not be a spirit or incorporeal substances Sometimes he is but a fancy shaddow dream or apparition sometimes is madness palsy lunacy or any other melady here he is a traytorous intention but indeed there was more then a trayterous intention that entred into Iudas at last the intention to betray Christ was put into the heart of Iudas by Satan John 13. 2. But when he had received the sop Satan himself entered into him and as St. Austin on that place saith took full possession of him John 13. 27. And though I should yeeld that sometimes the holy Ghost is put for the graces of the spirit yet it will not follow that Satan is used in Scripture for any evil suggestion or intention Again Satan doth not presently intrude himself into any man but first prepares his way by his Harbingers that is suggestions and evil thoughts which having made the soul fit for him he enters and takes possession and thus he dealt with Iudas Again I would know of Mr. Hobbs whether it was Satan in the Serpent or onely a treacherous intention that moved him to speak and seduce Eve Lastly why should we take his bare word for Gospel and prefer this his whimsie to the belief of the whole Church and the stream of all interpreters In his forty sixth chapter he spurnes at all learning except his own and that with such a magisterial spirit and so supercilious scorn as if Aristotle Plato Zenn the Peripateticks Academicks Stoicks Colledges Schooles Universities Synagogues and all the wise men of Europe Asia and Affrick hitherto were scarce worthy to carry his books With him Logick is but captions of words Aristotles Metaphisicks are absurd his politicks repugnant to government his Ethicks ignorant the Natural Phylosophy of the Schooles is a dream rather then a science set forth in senseless and insignificant language Aristotles Philosophy is vain and many such like expressions which shews how little he hath of the spirit of humility and modesty I finde not too much learning but too much pride makes some men mad true learning is alwaies joyned with humility the deepest rivers saith Seneca make the least sound the Cypress tree is tall but fruitless the Apple-tree is low but fruitful and the more it s laden the more it stoops that man that slights all but himself will be slighted of all but himself intemperance in words argue impotency of minde and as the Court saith He is an unjust man that prefers his own wit to all others Homine imperito nihil quid quam injustius qui nisi quod ipse facit nil rectum putat He cannot but fowle his own hands that caâ—â—eth dirt in the face of his betters Every wise man will employ his eyes at home will look upon the wallet that hangs at his own back will descend into himself and then he shall see how small cause he hath to despise other mens gifts when he considereth the defects of his own Tecum babita disces quam sit tibi curta supellex He that thinks to rear up the imaginary tower of his own fame upon the ruins of other mens will finde he builds upon a sandy foundation and indeed makes castles in the air St. Austins counsel is good in this case He that will build high must lay his foundation low Si vis magnam fabricam construere celsitudinis de fundamento prius incipe humilitatis Hercules cannot be pulled down by pigmies nor can the rocks be shaken though the frothy waves beat against them Eminent men like solid trees the more they are shaken the stronger they grow saith Seneca Quid miraris bonos viros ut confirmentur concuti Non est arbor solidaneâ— fortis nisi in quam frequens ventus incursat ipsa enim vexatiene constringitur radices certius figit We are bound to acknowledge with thankfulness the paines and industry of those brave men which have intiched us with such monuments of learning which the Universities of the world have received and do to this day cherish and maintain with such applause and not to require them with scorn and contempt this is ingratitude in the highest degree I wish therefore that Mr. Hobbs had used more solidity in his arguments and less impotency in his expressions against those eminent lights of learning and not with Leviathan to cast against them smoak out of his nostrils as out of aseething Pot or Caldron To use the word of God in Iob for I doubt me Mr. Hobbs will never be brought in competition with Aristotle but now let us receive his accusation against Aristotles Philosophy He saith cap. 46. That this doctrine of separated essences will fright men from obeying the laws of their Country I should think rather that this doctrine would fright men from disobeying the laws for if God commands obedience to the laws and subjection to the higher powers is it likely that he will permit spirits to walk to disswade men from obedience Or will the spirits of those holy men who taught subjection to Magistrates
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
like the most excellent men but rather like to God himself Latius regnes avidum dâ—â—ando spiritum quam si Lybiam remotis Gadibus jungas c. What availed it Alexander to conquer the world and not to conquer himself to be a slave to his vices and not subject to his laws And I pray why should not a Prince be as well subject to his own laws as to his oaths covenants and promises there is nothing so honorable for a King as to keep his word and to observe the laws which he not onely made but by oath and promise tied himself to obey And surely this is the very law of nature which as Mr. Hobbs saith is divine and cannot by any man or common-wealth be abrogated Neither is there any inconvenience to set the law as a Judge above the Prince for as Aristotle tells us Polit. l. 3. c. 11. The law where it is plain and perspicuous ought to beat rule because without it no King norâ— Common-wealth can govern And secondly Because the law is just not subject to partiality passion and affection as Princes and other men are and indeed Princes should be so far from disobeying their own laws that they should be the life and soul of the law which of it self is but a dead letter therefore the common saying of that good Emperor Aurelius was Rex viva Lex No Common-wealth can be happy or continue long but where the Prince is as well subject to the law as the People his example will move them to obedience Nec sic inflectere sensus humanosâ— edicta valent ac vita regentis therefore the counsel of Pittaâ—us was good Let not them break the law who make the Law parâ—to legi quisquis legem sanxerit Cap. 29. He is angry with those who say That every private man hath a property in his goods Among the Turks indeed no private man hath any property at all under Christian Princes private men live more happily who enjoy a property yet not simply absolute if we consider that the Prince hath a right to our goods in cases of necessity as in his own and Countries defence and such like cases in this regard no man is born for himself nor hath any man an absolute property in his own life which he ought when occasion urgeth lay down for his Country Dulce decorum pro patria mori therefore Plato saith well That our Country requires a share in our birth the property then of the subject excludeth not the Princes right in cases of necessity but onely his arbitrary power Hence are these sayings Omnia rex imperio possidet singuli dominio Again Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet ad singulos proprietas The power here spoke of is meant of his just lawful not of his arbitrary tyrannical power In his thirty one chapter he makes a needless distinction between the objects of love hope and fear shewing That love hath reference to goodness hope and fear to power the subject of praise is goodness the subject of magnifying and blessing is power David knoweth no such distinction who in the 18. Psalm he loves God for his strength or power and in another Psalm he fears him for his mercy or goodness There is saith he mercy with thee therefore shalt thou be feared So he makes Gods goodness and not his power the object of his hope or belief Psal. 27. I hoped to see the goodness of God in the land of the living so likewise he praiseth God for his strength or power as well as for his goodness Praise him saith he for his mighty acts praise him for his excellent greatness Psal. 150. and in divers Psalms he magnifyeth God for his salvation as well as for his power Now when he saith that this name God is his own name of relation to us he is deceived for this is no name of relation at all his names of relation to us are Creator Redeemer Father Lord King Master c. In his third Part and Chap. 1. He saith That our natural reason is the undoubted word of God But I doubt Leviathan himself for all his great strength and power cannot make this good for Gods word is infallible so is not our natural reason which faileth in many things Gods word saith That a Virgin did conceive and bear a Son That God became man That our bodies shall rise again out of the dust but our natural reason saith this is impossible therefore when St. Paul preached the resurrection to the Athenians who wanted not natural reason enough they thought he had been mad How comes it that the Apostle saith The natural man understandeth not the things of Gods spirit And Christ tells Peter That flesh and blood that is natural reason had not revealed the mystery of his Divinity to him but his Father in Heaven and St. Paul saith That he received not the Gospel of man nor was he taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. And that he was not taught by mans wisdom but by the Holyâ— Ghost 1 Cor. 2. 13. How comes it I say that the Scripture speaks thus in villifying natural reason if it be the infallible word of God yea what need was there of any written word at all if our natural reason be that infallible word doubtless Adam by his fall lost much of his knowledge and natural reason Peter made use of his natural reason when he undertook to disswade Christ from going up to Ierusalem and there to suffer and die but Christ tells him that he favoured the things that be of men but not of God Mat. 16. 23. Our natural reason saith he cap. 32. Is a talent not to be folded up in the napkin of an implicit faith This I grant but I hope he will permit that our natural reason be subject to an explicit faith without which it is impossible to please God and not onely must our reason be subdued to faith but every imagination in us must be cast down and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God and every thought must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ 2. Cor 10. 5. And whereas he saith cap 32. That our reason must be imployed in the purchase of justice peace and true religion If reason could procure or purchase these blessings the Gentiles of old the Jews and Mahumeâ—ans of latter years might have had them as well as we for in natural reason they are not inferior to us every one of these following the dictates of reason think they have the true Religion as for justice and peace they can never be purchased by reason but by â—aith therefore saith the Apostle being justified by faith we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord but his reason by which he would prove that our natural reason is the undoubted word of God is very feeble for saith he There is nothing contrary to it in
not so dark as he takes it it is in plain termes set down in Scripture to be an eternal separation from God everlasting fire everlasting shame and contempt c. Neither is it a doctrine either erroneous or dangerous that we should for fear of teaching it deny the souls immortality suppose also that the doctrine of pugatory walking ghosts and exorcisms were erroneous and grounded on the souls immortality must we deny this for for fear of these errors Must we deny the Scriptures because they have been windows to give entrance to divers heresies What doctrine is so sound orthodox and true which is not abused by wanton luxurious and pernitious wits As for ghost walking that has no relation to the souls immortality for if by ghost he meant the soul that walked usually among the Gentiles till the body was buried a hundred years as Vrigil saith Centum errant annos and then it rested in the grave with the body as Mr. Hobbs would have it So Virgil speaks of the soul of Polidorus Aen. 3. Animamque sepulcro condimus and of Deiphâ—bus magna manes tâ—r voce vocavi Aen. 6. His soul was called upon by Anaeas to come to his grave Again this ghost walking was neither of the soul nor of the body but of the shaddow image phancy or similitude of the body So Aen. 4 Omnibus umâ—bra locis adero saith Queen Dido So on her death bed she speaks Magna mei sub terras ibit imago So the shaddow and similitude of Creusa appeared to Aenaeas Infelix simulachrum Atque ipsius umbra Creusae Aen. 2. So Lucretius out of Ennius who were no great friends to the souls immortality held that neither the soul nor the body went to hell but onely the shaddows or similitudes of men Et si preterea tamen esse Acberusia templa Ennius aeternis exponit versibus edens Quo neque permanent animae neque corpora nosira Sed quaedam simulachra modis pallentia miris Lucr. l. 1. When Christ saith Mar. 9. 1. There be som that stand here who shall not tast of death till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power This Kingdom Mr. Hobbs will have to be spoken of Christs transfiguration I know some of the Ancients were of this opinion but it is very improbable that Christ should call a vision the Kingdom of God and a Kingdom with power therefore it is more likely that he meant the kingdom of grace or of his Church which began to spread after his resurrection with power when at the preaching of fisher-men the world began to submit to the scepter of Christ which some that stood there that is the Apostles saw before they tasted of death who are called some in respect of the people who also stood there as may be seen Mark 8. 34. Again whereas Christs kingdom began at his resurrection Mr. Hobbs demands a reason why Christians ever since pray thy kingdom come The reason is because that kingdom we pray for is not yet come to wit the kingdom of Glory nor is the kingdom of Grace totally come or in its full plenitude because all nations are not as yet subdued to Christs Scepter He gives us cap. 44. a pretty interpretation of Solomons words Eccles. 12. 7. The spirit shall return to God that gave it That is saith he God onely knows but not manâ— what becomes of mans spirit when he expireth This interpretation is somewhat far feâ—ched which if it be allowed the word of God will prove no better then a nose of wax When Luke 8. 55. the rulers daughter being dead it is said her spirit returned to her again the meaning must beâ— according to Mr. Hobbs his interpretation that her spirit did not indeed return but onely she knew and none but she what became of it So Zach. 1. 16. Thus saith the Lord I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies The meaning is that Jerusalem onely knew what was become of God Besides when Solomon saith The dust shall return to the earth and the spirit shall return unto God I would know whether the dust truely returns to the earth if it returns why doth not the soul truly return to God Seeing with the same breath the same phrase is uttered by Solomon as for the question Solomon makes Eccles. 3. 21. Who knoweth that the spirit of man goeth upward and that the spirit of the beast goeth downward doth not sound so in the Hebrew but thus Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward and so both the French and our last English translations have it and so have the Latin Geneva version The Septuagints read it thus Who hath seen the spirit of man and the Geneva translation hath who have observed the spirit So that Solomon questioneth not the immortality of the soul but sheweth the difficulty of knowing the nature thereof or the manner how it leaves the body and mounteth upward towards heaven the place of its original He proves cap. 44. there is no natural immortality of the soul by Solomon Eccles. 3. 19. That which befalleth the sons of man befalleth beasts as the one dyeth so dyeth the other they have all one breath and a man hath no preheminence a bove a beast In these words Solomon doth not speak of the soul at all but of the body onely as may bee seen in the words immediately following All go into one place all are of the dust and all turn to dust again I hope the beleeves better of Solomon then to make him speak so brutishly as though mans divine soul were made of dust and resolved into dust again or as if there were no difference between mans soul and the breath of beasts In respect then of our animal nature or corporeal part we eat drink sleep breath and dye like the beasts but this concerns nothing at all the reasonable soul of man by which he is â— specifically different from beasts He saith That Enoch's translation makes as much for the immortality of the body as of the soul I deny it not and therefore infer That if it makes for the immortality of the body much more makes it for the immortality of the soul therefore this place of Gen. 5. 24. Enoch walked with God and he was not for God took him is alledged by Divines to prove mans immortality after the resurrection Again he saith That this is a hard saying of Solomons Better is he that hath not yet been then they who have been if the soul be immortal But I say that this saying is no waies hard for better it is to have no being morally then to have a miserable beeing therefore the immortality of a wicked mans soul adds to his unhapiness For this cause Christ saith of Iudas That it had been good for him if he had never been born Besides when Christ tels us That God is the God of Abraham c. and therefore Abraham was then alive Mr. Hobbs saith That Abraham Isaac
Christ therefore as he is revealed to us in his word is the foundation of our faith besides By faith we are the sons of God saith the Apostle Gal. 3. But we were in a bad condition if ourfiliation depended on the authority of Princes or reputation of Pastors In his forty fourth chapter he expounds these words of Matth. 9. 34. Belzebub the Prince of Devils that is He hath principality over fantasins that appear in the air So that he makes Demons fantasms or spirits of illusion to signifie allegorically the same thing But I do not read that Devils in Scripture are called fantasms or fantasms named Devils when the Disciples Mat. 14. saw Jesus walking on the sea they thought they had seen a fantasm did they mean the devil by this word So when Christ Mat. 4. was tempted of the devil is it meant that he was tempted by a fantasm Devils are spirits and real substancet and not phantasms or fictions of the brain as we shewed beâ—ore of Angels I deny not but Satan may represent to the outward sense as well as to the inward or imagination divers shapes of things to delude men which shapes may be called fantasms as that which Suidas calls a diabolical fantasm {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which indeed was but a deluding shadow or fantasm and not the Devil himself who is an invisible spirit therefore although there be in the heathen Poets fabulous doctrines concerning Demons we must not hence infer with Mr. Hobbs That Demons are but idols or fantasms of the brain without any real nature of their own distinct from human fancy For so he may as wel infer that God is but a fancy because the Poets have delivered many â—abulous doctrines concerning the gods He that afflicted Job tempted Christ buâ—â—etted Paul and hath been from the beginning an enemy to the womans seed is more then a fantasm or idol of the brain Cap. 44. After Mr. Hobbs hath toyled himself in vain to prove that Christ hath no kingdom in this world at last is content to allow Christ the kingdom of grace which is as much as we desire for we know that the kingdom of glory is not yet come Christ then is King of his Church militant here and raigneth in the hearts of his faithful and performs all the offices of a King even in this world by prescribing laws by ruling defending rewarding punishing though not in so ample a maner as hereafter he also conquereth and subdueth the enemies of his Church though not fully till the consummation of the world He also enlargeth the territories and bounds of his Kingdom that he might fulfil the prophesies and make good his Fathers gift Psal. 2. I have given thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the ends of the earth for thy possession This is that kingdom which is in the new Testament so often called the kingdom of God and of heaven this is that kingdom which in the resurrection Christ will deliver up to God his Father 1 Cor. 15. He cannot yet digest cap. 44â— the souls immortality for three reasons First because the tree of life was to preserve man immortal Secondly what needed Christs sacrifice to recover mans immortality if he hath not lost it Thirdly must the wicked and heathen also enjoy eternal life I answer The tree of life was to preserve man immortal but not the soul which is immortal by nature as being a spirit and not subject to corruption as bodies which are compounded of corruptible materials and of contrary elements Secondly Christs sacrifice was to recover mans immortality but not the souls which was not lost now as a part cannot be the whole nor the whole a part so neither can the soul â—be man nor man the soul Thirdly eternal life which the wicked enjoy is a life of misery and such as they would be willing to exchange for death neither is it more strange that wicked men should enjoy eternal life then wicked Angels both enjoying this immortality as a due punishment for their sins now whereas he saith That eternal life was not essential to humane nature but consequent to the vertue of the tree of life I grant that man is not naturally immortal yet the soul of man is but I deny that life eternal was a consequent to the vertue of any tree for no tree can be capable of such a vertue neither was the tree of life any other then a Sacrament of mans immortality if he had pesevered in his obedience therefore God debarred him because of his transgression from it in that he would not have his Sacraments abused by profane hands But he tells us That when everlasting death is called everlasting life in torments it is a figure never used but in this very case I answer That this figure is used in other cases as when Christ saith Let the dead go bury the dead there natural life is called death So when the Apostle â—aith We were dead in our sins and trespasses he used the same figure in another case for there the delight we have in sin is called death this figure is used in the law in another case for captives slaves prisoners and such like miserable men are said to be civily dead St. Paul in another case useth this figure when he saith I am crucified that is dead to the world to wit in his affections and so they who include themselves in a monastery are said to be dead to the world But he saith that this doctrine of the souls imnortality is founded onely on some of the obscurer places of the new Testament I pray what obscurity is there in this place Thou shalt be this night with me in Paradise What was to be with Christ in Paradise not the good thiess body then it must needs be his soul So when Christ preached to the spirits in prison what were these spirits Shaddows onely or fancies such as Virgil speaks of Umbrae ibant tenues simulachraque luce carentum Bodies they could not be they must needs then be souls So when Christ saith That body and soul shall be cast into hell fire there cannot be meant as Mr. Hobbs expounds it body and life for then Christ should speak non-sence when he saith Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul Mat. 10. 28. That is fear not them that can take away the life of the body but are not able to take away the life of the life But he objecteth That the soul in Scripture is taken sometimes for the whosle man or living creature I grant it is so taken sometimes Synecdochically will it therefore â—ollow that it is never taken properly So this word flesh is sometimes tropically used for the whole man is therfore never used properly He tells us cap. 44. That this window gives entrance to the dark doctrine of eternal torments of purgatory of walking ghosts and exorcisms The doctrine of eternal torments is