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
Gods word By the same means he may prove that Aristotle's Logick or Hippocrate's Aphorisms are the undoubted word of God for in them is nothing contrary to it But was not Peter's reason contrary to Gods word when he would have disswaded Christ from suffering whereas all the prophets had spoken that Christ ought to have suffered those things and to enter into his glory Luke 24. 26. And no less weak is his argument cap. 32. by which he will prove that divine dreams are not of force to win belief from any man that knows dreams are for the most part natural and may proceed from former thoughts c. He may as well infer that the pen-men of the Holy Scriptures are not of force to win belief from us seeing the prophet saith All men are lyers what if it had said that men for the most part are lyers there had been less reason to have inferred that the pen-men of Scriptures were such and yet Mr. Hobbs will infer that because dreams are for the most part natural therefore divine dreams are of no credit that such dreams are of force sufficient to win belief is plain by the dreams of Ioseph Iacob's son and Ioseph the husband of Mary with divers others in Scripture cap. 33. He is troubled that Moses before his death should write that he died that his Sepulcher was not known to this day but in this he troubles himself needlessly for he writes of his death and sepulcher by anticipation which is an usual way of writing amongst some besides the Jewish tradition is that Iosua wrote that last chapter of Deuteronomy long after the death of Moses Cap. 33. So he is troubled about the words of Moses Gen. 12. 6. which are And the Canaanite was then in the land Hence he infers that Moses wrot not that book but one who wrot when the Canaanite was not in the land for Moses dyed before he came to it but I say that if the Canaanite was not in the land when he wrot these words The Canaanite was then in the land he wrot a lye but indeed Moses wrot the History and writes no waies absurdly in showing that the Canaanite was then in the land but purposely to let us see the condition of Gods children in this life who though they have right to all they enjoy yet the wicked keep them under and they live in fear still of their enemies as Abraham did of the Canaanites who domineered in that land which Abraham received from God and at the same time he receiv'd it such like exceptions he makes against some other writers of the old Testament but they are of no moment or validity therefore I will spend no paper nor time in their refuration In his thirty fourth chapter he tells us That there is no real part of the universe which is not also a body and that bodies are called substances because subject to various accidents and that an incorporeal substance is as if a man should say an incorporeal body If there were no real parts of the universe but bodies then the universe were not universe but an imperfect system as dâ—ficienâ— in the most noble of all created entitiesâ— to wit incorporeal substances but God made the world perfect consisting both of material and immaterial substances such are Angels and Mens souls which are neither corporeal in their beeing nor operation for if they were corporeal they must be mortal and corruptible and compounded at least of matter and form they must be also quantitative local by circumscription and movable by physical motion all which are absurd and if a substance be the same that a body is then he must make God corporeal for he is a substance now to say that a thing is called substance because subject to changes is vain for substances are so called because they subsist by themselves and not in another entity as accidents do besides accidents may be called subjects because one accident may be the subject of another as the superficies of a wall is the subject of colours but accidents can never be called substances for they cannot subsist of themselveâ— By the spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters Gen. 1. 2. He will have to be meant a winde because if God himself were understood then motion must be attributed to him and place I know in this he follows Tertullian's opinion but the Church hath constantly held that there is meant not a winde but the spirit of God by which place they both prove the mystery of the Trinity the first person being expressed by the word Eloâ—â—m the second by the word Berisheth or Beginning and the third by the word Ruah or Spirit they also by the same place prove the dignity and power of baptism in the waters of which Sacrament the Spirit moveth as in the beginning and indeed it is childish to think that a winde should be there meant for what use could there be of a winde then before the creatures were produced And wheras he is afraid to ascribe motion and place to God it seems he hath not well observed the Scripture phrase which ordinarily speaketh of God Anthropopathos as if he were a man therefore he is said sometimes to speak to see to hear to discend to laugh to be angry to greet to rejoyce and in this History of the Creation he is said to speak to bless to walk in the Garden to examine Adam to condemn the Serpent c. Now whereas Mr. Hobbs saith that the spirit here mentioned is the same that is spoken of Gen. 8. 1. I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth He is mistaken and misalledgeth the words for thus it is written And God made a winde to pass over the Earth for winde in Scripture is never called the Spirit of God The spirit then that dried up the waters of the flood was the same that afterwards divided the red Sea for Moses and the Israelites to pass through to wit a drying winde which God had raised He saith The word Ghost signifieth nothing but the imaginary inhabitants of the brain But there he is also mistaken for it signifieth a real immaterial substance which we call from the Latin word Spirit and so it was alwaies used by the Saxons and at this day Gheest and Gheist in low and high Dutch do signifie the same thing or spirit Cap. 34. When Christ walked on the waters the Disciples thought they had seen a spirit or fantasm which Mr. Hobbs will have to be an aerial body But I wonder who ever saw an aerial body the two grosser Elements are visible to us but not the two superior by reason of their subtilty and purity And he is deceived also in saying That the delusions of the brain are not common to many at once For I have observed that divers men together have seen imaginary castles temples armed men and such like apparitions in the clouds Now Spirits or Angels have been
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
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
seen not in their own substances which are invisible but in the bodies of men which they assumed and to say as he doth that because spirits are in no place circumscriptively therefore they are no where is inconsequent for though they have no dementions answering to the demensions of place yet they have their vbi to which they are consined Cap. 34. He saith That concerning the creation of Angels nothing is delivered in the Scriptures What then means the Apostle in his Epistle to the Collossians by things invisible thrones dominations and powers which he saith were created Were not these Angels But I wonder not that he denies the creation of Angels for he doeth plainly deny their existence saying cap. 34. they are but visions apparitions images in the fancy accidents of the brain But when the Holy Scripture calleth Angels Messengers watchmen ministring spirits the hoast of heaven c. Doeth it mean onely our fancies and dreams Are those celestial servants of God the comforters and protecters of good men the gatherers together of the elect in the last day but imaginations Was that a fancy or an Angel who comforted Hagar in the desert Was the Angel Gabriel that appeared to Mary but an accident of her brain Were not the Israelites well guarded from their enemies when they had no Angels but fancies to guard them It seems that Abraham and Lot entertained not Angels but dreams and fancies in their houses and Abraham washed the feet of fancies and for them killed his fat calf and Iacob wrestled all night with a fancy as Turnus did in the Poet with the shaddow of AEnaeas Were those fancies or real substances that St. Iude speaks of who kept not their first estate but left their habitation and are now reserved in chains under darkness for the judgement of the great day and when Christ saith wee shall be like the Angels doeth he mean that in heaven we shall be like fancies and dreams I doubt me Mr. Hobbs is possessed with too many such Angels He is extreamly extravagant in his discourse for the Angels which but now he would have to be dreams visions and fancies he will have to be God himself cap. 34. Because the same apparition is called not onely an Angel but God Gen. 16. Here is a goodly argument Angels are somtimes called God therefore they are God indeed by the same reason he may infer that Judges and earthly Princes are gods indeed because they are called so The Idols of the Gentiles are called gods are they therefore Gods indeed Angels are sometimes called Elohim or gods not only for the excellency of their nature but likewise for their imployment in representing the person and authority of God in their embassies that Angel who Gen. 31. 13. calls himself the God of Bethel is thought to be our blessed Saviour who appeared sometimes to the Patriarchs and other holy men before his incarnation and it was this Angel that spake with Moses in the bush and in the cloud and not the cloud it self as Mr. Hobbs thinks for he is deceived in thinking that the cloudy piller spoke with Moses He says It is not the shape but the use that makes them Angels indeed the shape of men was most usual and most useful in the Angels for contracting familiarity with men for which cause the Angel of the Covenunt in the fulness of time became man for what can be so kindly to man as to be instructed directed and defended by man or by Angels in mans shape He saith That the Dove and fiery tongues in being signes of Gods special presence may be called Angels But I say no for it is not the signification of Gods presence but the delivering by speech Gods will or message that makes an Angel or Messenger for when were dumb Ambassadors ever imployed If every sign of Gods presence were an Angel we should have as many Angels as there be Ceremonies and Sacraments in the Church yea every creature were an Angel for each creature testifieth and representeth to us a Diety and so every Star yea every Fly and every Herb should be an Angel praesentemque docet quae libet herba Deum if he can tell us that the fiery tongues or Dove did ever deliver any message in Scripture which the Poets fable of Dodonas Doves then I will call them Angels He saith again That God needeth not to distinguish his celestial servants by names Will he hence infer that therefore they have no names he may as well say that God needeth not to distinguish men by names or to call the stars by their names Psal. 147. Angels are distinguished by names not for him but for our weak memories God needs no such distinctions but we who are of weak apprehensions Cap. 34. He faith That fire is no punishment to impatible creatures such as are all things incorporeal That the Devil shall be punished with eternal fire and his Angels is plain by our Saviours words Mat. 25. It follows therefore they are patible creatures though immaterial that there is a patability in immaterial substances is manifest by our own souls which are affected with the passions of joy and grief as the body is in a joyful or in â— painful condition there are also some passions which are called immanent and immaterial such is the passion of understanding for the soul suffereth when it understandeth Now how the evil spirits in hell suffer by fire is not known unto us but to God neither is their suffering natural but altogether supernatural and by the power of God who can as easily make fire work on spirits as on the bush which burned but consumed not as St. Austin sheweth de civit dei lib. 21. cap. 10. When Christ saith that in the resurrection we shal be like the Angels of God which are in heaven Mr. Hobbs inferreth cap. 34. That because men then shall be corporeal therefore the Angels are such This is not to shew that we shall be like the Angels as Christ saith but that the Angels shall be like us neither is it Christs scope to shew there Mat. 22. 30. that we shall be like the Angels in every thing but onely in this that we shall be like them in chastity for there shall be no marrying because no need of posterity man being then immortal He confesseth at last cap. 34. That though in the Old Testament Angels were but fancies yet some places of the New Testament have extorted from his feeble reason a belief that Angels are substantial and permanent That faith which is extorted from a feeble reason must needs be very feeble but indeed true faith is strongest where reason is feeblest per didiâ—ti rationem tene fidem saith St. Austin He that will lay hold on faith must abandon reason which is the son of the bond woman born after the flesh but faith is the child of promise and true heir of the Kingdom In his thirty eighth chapter he saith That if
and Jacob were then alive by promise not actually but I would fain know when did God make such a promise to Abraham that his soul should live immortally and that he should be raised to immortality in the last day Again how can one be said to live by promise who is actually dead How is God the God of the living if they whose God he is be not living but actually dead for a dead man to live by promise is a bull Cap. 44. He cannot finde that any man shall live in torments everlastingly What doth he say to that place Rev. 20. 10. Where the beast and false prophet are tormented with the Devil day and night for ever and ever Do not they live in torments everlastingly that live in everlasting shame and contempt but such is the condition of the wicked Dan. 12 2. They shall be punished with everlasting destruction or perdition 2 Thes. 1. 9. But it seems hard to him that God the Father of mercies should punish without any end of time c. If God were not the Father of justice as well as of mercy it would go hard with good men but it is just with God to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you saith the Apostle And to you that are troubled peace with us 2 Thess. 1. 6 7. God who is offended is eternal the desires of wicked men to sin are eternal Voluissent roprobi sine fine vivere ut possent sine fine peccare The reward of the godly is eternal why then should not the torments of wicked men be eternal But I will answer him as St. Austin answereth the Originists Tantâ— errat perversius quanto videtur de Deo sentire clementius Their error must heeds be too pernitious that maketh God too gratious Again to what end did God prepare an everlasting fire if the wicked be not everlastingly tormented in it But to this he answers That there never may want wicked men to be tormented in them though not every nor any one eternally for the wicked being left in the estate they were in after Adam's sin may at the resurrection live as they did marry and give in marriage and engender perpetually for there is no place of Scripture to the contrary When the Scripture speaks of wicked mens eternal torments it never speaks of any redemption thence and Mr. Hobbs confesseth that the Reprobates who dye in their sins shall have no redeemer they must then remain there for ever except they had a Redeemer to help them ouâ— thence Besides I shewed that the false prophet is tormented for ever and we read Rev. 4. That if any one man shall worship the beast the smoke of his torment shall ascend for evermore As for leaving the wicked in the estate they were in after Adams fall is a doctrine well beseeming the school of Mahomet not of Christ it seems also by this doctrine that at the resurrection shall be the revolution of the Platonick year when all things shall be acted in this world as they were in the beginning After Adam's fall men did marry build plant tread eat drink and solace themselves with divers delights if the wicked shall do the same after the resurrection they shall be in as good a condition as the Musalmans in Mahumets Paradise or the Gentiles in the Elysian fields quae graâ—â—a currûm Armorâ—â—que fuit vivis quae cura nitentes Pascere sequos eadem sequitur tellure repostos Virg. AEn. 6. If this doctrine of yours be admitted who will for bear wickedness and profanness knowing that he shall be after this life in the same condition Adam was after his fall who will not be content rather to embrace that condition after the hath glutted himself here with the pleasures of sin then to endure all miseries and persecution deny himself and take up the cross of Christ to enjoy unknown happiness which the eye hath not seen nor the ear heard of But when you say that there is no Scripture contrary to marriage after the resurrection I would know whether there be any Scripture for it Why may not Iudas Iscariot marry with some Princes daughter and by this means obtain a crown you can alledge me no Scripture against it but I can alledge you Scripture against marriage In the resurrection saith Christ men neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the Angels of God that is without copulation as they are Now St. Matthew speaks not there of the resurrection of the just onely but of the resurrection in general and so doth St. Lukeâ— though you would have him speak onely of the resurrection of just men for all men shall rise to life eternal all men in their celibat shall be like the Angels as men shall and may be called the children of the resurrection and consequently of God as all men even the Devils are the sons of God by creation for as he gave to all men a beeing in the creation so he will give to all men a new beeing in the resurrection To be brief that the punishment of wicked men shall be eternal is plain by this argument they only are pardoned who repent the wicked after this life cannot repent therefore they cannot be pardoned besides our Saviour tels us that he who speaketh against the Holâ— Ghost shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come if then there be no remission of sin there can be no relaxation of punishment for the one depends upon the other In his 45 Chap. he undertakes to shew That those evil spirits or Devils wch Christ cast outof the possessed were not such but diseases Sure if this opinion be true then Christ did no great matter in curing of ordinary diseases But the Scripture tels us that He came to destroy death and him who hath the power of death which is the Devill that the prophesie in Paradise might be fulfilled The seed of the woman shall tread down the Serpents head These were strange diseases that could speak to question Christ Art thou come to torment us before our time and could beseech him to have leave to enter into the Herd of Swine Our Saviour did not know so much as Mr. Hobbs that Devils were but diseases when he gave commission to his Disciples Matth. 10. and Luke 9. not onely to cure diseases but also to cast out Devils And Matth. 4.24 Christ not onely cured divers diseases and torments and healed such as were lunatick and had the palsie but those also which were possessed with Devils by which we see Diseases and Devils are different things But he saith That the addressing of Christs command to madness or lunacy is no more improper then was his rebuking of the Fever or the wind and Sea I answer It 's true Christs speaking to those inanimate things was onely to shew the power and efficacie of his Word so in the Creation God is introduced by Moses as if he had spoken
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
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