to the Scribes and Pharisees because they sit in Moses chair But then Christ should have wronged the Roman Governors in whom he acknowledged kingly power by paying tribute and by submitting himself to be judged by them Their sitting then in Moses chair doeth not imply kingly power but their power in expounding the law of Moses And it is as weak an inference to say that Christ is not King of his Church Because he would not divide the inheritance between the two brethren or because he came to save the world not to judge it For dividing of inheritances belonging not to Christs spiritual kingdom neither was it the end of Christs comming to judge that is to condemn the world for the Greek word signifieth both but to save it for his name was Jesus a Saviour because he came to save his people from their sins And no less weak is this reason The time of Christs preaching is called regeneration therefore it is no kingdom Regeneration is not the time but the fruit and effect of Christs preaching and so far is regeneration from being inconsistent with Christs Kingdom that our Saviour tells us in plain tearms except we be regenerate we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Iohn 3. In his two and fortty chapter he broacheth a strange wheemsie concerning the blessed Trinity in saying That God who hath been represented that is personated thrice to wit by Moses by Christ and by the Apostles may properly enough be said to be three Persons as represented by the Apostles the holy Spirit by which they spake is God as represented by Christ the Son is that God as represented by Moses and the high Priests the Father is that God Hence the names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the signification of the Godhead are never used in the old Testament for they are Persons that is they have their names from representing which could not be till divers men had represented Gods Person c. Here is strange stuffe For first The word Person in the Trinity was never taken by Divines for a Visard a personating or representation but for a peculiar way of subsisting therefore by the Greek Church the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used till wanton and idle wits began to â—aise differences about that word and then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used answering to the Latine word Persona and is defined thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by Iustin Martyr and Damâ—sâ—en an eternal or unbeginning manner of an eternal existing so that in the same essence there is a threefold way of subsisting The Fathers existence is from himself the Sons from the Father the Spirits from both so in man there is the soul the intellect and will these three are but one essence yet differently subsisting the soul of it self the intellect from the soul and the wilâ— from both Secondly if personating or representing makes the persons in the Trinity it will follow that there have been and are more then three persons nay I may truly say innumerable for God hath been represented not onely by Moses but by Iosuah also and his successors by Aaron the high Priest and all his successors by all Judges also and Kings who are therefore called gods there must be then as many persons as there have been personatings or representations and in this respect the Trinity may be called a Legion or rather innumerable persons Thirdly Why should God be called the Holy Spiâ—â—â— as he was represented by the Apostles rather then by being personated by Moses or by Christ his reason is because the Apostles spoke by the Spirit I pray did not Moses and Christ speak by the same Spirit St. Peter saith that the holy men of old spake as the Spirit moved them Or why is God by him called Father as he was represented by Moses rather then as he was represented by Christ Was there more Paternity in Moses then in any other man or in Christ who by Isaiah is called the everlasting Father Or why is he called Father as personated by the high Priests Fâ—uâ—thly It is untrue what he saith that the nâ—â—es of Father Son and Holy Ghost are never used in the old Testament For Psal. 89. which contains not only a prophesie of Solomâ—n but also of Christ it is thus written He shall cry unto me thou art my Father Psal. 89. 26. and Isa. 9. he is called the everlasting Father So Psal 2. Christ is called Son Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And Isa. 9. For unto us a Son is given So the third Person or Spirit is mentioned The Spirit of God moved upon the Waters Gen. 1. Now that this was no winde as some have thought is plain because air was created afterwards and this Spirit is said to move or by moving to cherish the waters but the winde is an enemy to the waters both in regard of its siccity and impâ—tuosity neither is the winde ever called the Spirit of God as we have shewed already So Ioel. â— I will pour my Spirit upon all flesh And Zach â—â— I will pour upon the house of David and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication But he saith that these names are not used in the signification of the God-head but he is deceived for when the child Christ is called the everlasting Father by Isaiah this cannot be in signification of his humanity for how can a little child be an everlasting Father but in respect of his God-head He saith Cap. 42. If the Supreme King have not his regal power in this world by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers This is not to be doubted but the Supreme King hath his regal power in this world for this cause he tells his Apostles after his resurrection That all power was given to him in heaven and in earth therefore he sends them abroad into all nations of this world teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them Matth. 28. If then he hath regal power in the world why should not his Officers be obeyed 'T is true Christs Kingdom is not of this world will it therefore follow that it is not in this world For if in this world he subdueth the nations to his Scepter by the sword of his word if he leads captivity captive if he giveth gifts unto men if he prescribe laws and punisheth the offendors shall we not say he hath Kingly power in this world if the Kings and Potentates of the earth have submitted their scepters to his Heraulds have received his yoak and have placed his cross upon their crowns in sign of subjection is he not their Supreme King whose dominion here is called the Kingdom of grace his other Kingdom in the next world shal be the kingdom of glory which M. Hobs confounds with this of grace as for the coercive or commanding power of Ministers which he
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
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
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
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
Adam had not sinned he had had an eternal life on earth And hence he infers That life eternal which Christ hath obtained for his Saints shall be on earth because the Apostle saith as in Adam all dye even so in Christ shall all be made alive for else the comparison were not proper The comparison is not between the two places of heaven and earth but between the two persons of Adam and Christ and between the two lives the one earthly which Adam lost by introducing mortality and the other heavenly which Christ hath purchased by overcoming mortality and as this place fails him so doth that other Psal. 133. 3. Upon Sion God commanded the blessing even life for evermore And Rev. 21. 2. I Iohn saw the holy City New Jerusalem comming down from God out of heaven And Acts 1. 11. This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven shall so come as you have seen him go up into heaven And Mat. 22. In the resurrection they are as the Angels of God in heaven for they neither marry nor are given in marriage What sober minded man will conclude from these places that our eternal hapiness shall be on earth and not in heaven For when David speaks of life for evermore in Sion he means a lasting happiness which accompanies concord among brethren for the Hebrew word Holam in Scripture signifieth a continuance for some time but not eternity In Exod. 21. 6. The servant whose ear was bored is said to serve his master for ever that is so long as he liveth and not everlastingly Samuel is said to appear before the Lord and there to abide for ever 1 Sam. 1. 22. Will any infer hence that Samuel was to continue in his office for all eternity The Perpetuus Dictator at Rome continued not for ever though he is called perpetual So then life for evermore in Sion is a long continuing happiness and yet Sion in Scripture is divers times taken for heaven where is onely true and eternal life As impertinent is that place which he alledgeth Rev. 2. 7. To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God This saith he was the tree of Adams eternal life but this life was to have been on earth But he is quite out of the way for the Paradise mentioned here is that which Christ speaks of to the good thief Thou shalt be this day with me in Paradise that is in heaven for earthly Paradise was destroyed by the flood and so was the tree of Life which might for some time have prolonged Adams age by supplying the decay of the radical moysture but could not have continued it for ever only our blessed Saviour the true tree of life here mention'd can protract our life into eternity now that Paradise was destroyed by the flood is plain by Moses Gen. 6. saying that the flood rose higher fifteen cubits then the highest mountains Besides if Paradise had been to continue what need was there to build an Ark for Noah and his family seeing they could have been saved in Paradise and so the other creatures likewise And whereas he saith That the New Jerusalem when Christ comes again shall come down to Gods people from heaven and not they go up to it from earth Is ridiculous for Rev. 21. 2. by the New Ierusalem coming down from God is meant the Church of Christ whose original calling protection and happiness is from God so that this is not a proper but a tropical discent The Church is called Ierusalem there and elsewhere because she is or ought to be the City of Peace and as Ierusalem of old was the place of Gods worship and of his peculiar presence so is the Church now which is called new as having cast off the old man and old ceremonies is renewed in the spirit of her minde and is regenerate by water and the spirit So he sheweth his vanity when he proves out of Acts 1. 11. That Christ shall come down to govern his people eternally here and not take them up to govern them in heaven For in that place there is no mention of his government here on earth nor of the eternity thereof but onely that he shall return after the same manner that he went up that is to say gloriously riding on the clouds and attended by Angels Now if any man would know the reason or end of Christs second coming he shall finde in Daniel 2. Mat. 25. and other places of Scripture that it is not to erect an earthly Kingdom which shall continue for ever but as the Apostle saith to render vengeance to the wicked and to us that are afflicted peace Or as it is in our Creed to judge the quick and the dead so then he shall not return as an earthly Prince to set up his throne here on earth which is his foot-stool but as a Judge in his circuit who having condemned some and absolved others returns again to the place of his residence But he says cap. 38. That there is neither Scripture nor Reason to prove that after the resurrection men are to live eternally in heaven What then will he say to these passages Mat. 5. Great is your reward in heaven Christ would have said great is your reward on earth if he had purposed to erect an earthly kingdom So Mat. 6. we are advised to lay up our treasures not on earth but in heaven this were to no purpose if we were to live eternally on earth not in heaven So Ioh. 14. I go to prepare a place for you that where I am there you may be I pray was it not to heaven that Christ went to prepare that place is not heaven his Fathers house where there are many mantions Earth is never called his house nor are the Saints said here to have an house or habitation but to sojourn as in Tents Heaven is the house where we must dwell if we will beleeve St. Paul who was caught up into this house who speaks not by hearsay but by knowledge for we know saith he that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens 2 Cor. 5. 1. Why did St. Paul desire to be dissolved and be with Christ Phil. 1. if he was to enjoy Christ upon earth onely he should rather have desired to be dissolved that Christ might be with him on earth then he to be with Christ in heaven Enoch was translated and Elijah was caught up into heaven to assure us of our right and habitation there for this cause our Saviour opened heaven at his Baptism and after his Resurrection ascended thither to take possession thereof for us and it is fit that where the Head is there the body should be where the King keeps his residence thither his servants should repair Where should the children dwell but in their Fathers house now
our Saviour did acknowledge by paying tribute and counselling to give to Caesar that which were Caesars He cap. 42 will not have excommunication to be a punishment but onely a denouncing of punishment that Christ shall inflict at the day of Judgement But I say that excommunication is not a bare denouncing but a real suffering of punishment and of such a punishment as is most grievous to wit a â— paration from Gods people and the benefits which they enjoy for if the Abstenti in the Prinâ—itive Church held it a great punishment to be debarred from the Sacrament for a whÃle how much more grievous is it to be cut off from the mystical body of Christ and to be excluded from the Communion of the Saints and of all the priviledges which they do now and shall hereafter enjoy He denieth cap. 42. that there is any spiritual Common-wealth among men in this world This he gronnds upon two reasons 1. because it is the same thing with the Kingdom of Christ which is not of this world Secondly There are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual These reasons are very weak For first because a spiritual Common-wealth and Christs Kingdom are the same it will follow that there is a spiritual Common-wealth amongst men which is the Kingdom of grace here where Christ raigneth in the hearts of his faithful people which though it be not of this world yet it is in this world as I have shewed already And of this Kingdom our Saviour speaks when he saith The Kingdom of God is within you Luke 17. 21 Which consisteth in righteousness peace and joy in the holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. Secondly To say that Christ hath not here a spiritual Common-wealth because mens bodies are not spiritual is ridiculous for Christs subjects here are spiritual though their bodies be corporeal because they are animated regulated directed by the spirit They are regenerated by the spirit John 3. They walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8. The spirit helpeth their inâ—irmities and teacheth them to pray Rom. 8. The holy spirit dwelleth in them 2 Tim. 1. 14. God hath given them of his spirit 1 John 4. 13. They are sealed with the spirit of promise Ephes. 1. 13. They have the fruits of the spirit which are love joy peace long-suffering c. Gal. 5. 22. Therefore Christs subjects though they are here cloathed with flesh yet are called spiritual Gal 6. 1. Yoâ— which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness These are distinguished froâ— carnal or natural men 1 Cor 3. 1. I could not speak to you brethren as to spiritual men but as to carnal So 1 Cor. 2. 14 15. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God but he that is spiritual discerneth all things So their seed is spiritual 1. Cor. 9. 11. Their meat and drink is spiritual 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. Their songs are spiritual Eph. 5. 19. Their house is spiritual a Pet. 2. 5. And their sacrifice is spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 5. Can we say then that Christs Kingdom or Common-wealth as he calls it is not spiritual He cap. 42 â— will not have the members of a Common-weath to depend one of another but to cohere together They depend onely saith he on the Soveraign which is the soul on the Common-wealth But there is a dependence as well as a coherence in a dead body there is a coherence of members but no dependence in a living body there are both though the body depend on the soul it will not therefore follow that the members do not depend one of another for the hands and feet depend on the stomack to be â—ed by it and it depends on them to be defended provided and carried by them the like may be said of the other members So in a Common-wealthâ— the Soveraign depends on the people for assistance maintenance and defence they depend on him for counsel government and peace The members of the Common-wealth depend on the Clothyer for cloaths on the Husbandman for food on the Physition for health on the Divine for instruction on the Lawyer for counsel c. And these depend on each other Heresie saith he cap. 42. is nothing else but a private opinion obstinately maintained contrary to the opinion which the publick person bath commanded to be taught Hence an opinion publickly appointed to be taught cannot be heresie nor the Princes that authorise them hereticks It seems then by this definition that Arianiâ—m was onely an heresie whilâ—t it was maintained by Arius a private person but when it was anthorised publickly by the Arian Princes it was no more an heresie and so now not Arius but Athanasius that opposed it must be called an heretick by Mr. Hobbs contrary to the judgment of all learned men and the Church of God hitherto The great Turk and the Mahumetans who profess at this day the same damnable doctrine of Arius are not hereticks but the Christians within his dominions who are of another opinion these are your hereticks Mr. Hobbs by this your definition you may call Christ and his Apostles hereticks for they held doctrines contary to the traditions and opinions of the Scribes and Pharisees who as you say sat in Moyses chair It is not the person private or publick that makes an heretick but it is the doctrine repugnant to Gods word and the articles of our faith maintained obstinately for siniâ—trous ends as lucre honor c. that makes heresie a private man may maintain an opinion in Philosophy contrary to the opinion of the Prince and yet no heretick in this because he holds nothing against our Christian faith his opinion may be erroneous but not heretical In his three and forty chapter he tels us That the faith of Christians ever since Christs time hath had for foundation the reputation of Pastors and Authority of Christian Soveraigns This is to build our faith upon a sandy foundation which with every blast will be overtâ—rned the authority and reputation of men are but arms of flesh and broken reeds to rely upon these may be motives to induceus to give our assent as the testimony of that woman John 4. induced many of the Samaritans of that City to beleeve on Christ But the foundation of their faith was Christ himself who bestowed that gift upon them as he doeth upon us And how can mans reputation or authority be the foundation of that which exceeds all humane reason and capacity but such is faith Besides faith it self is the ground of our justification and salvation for we are both justified and saved by faith but if man be the ground of our faith he must also be the ground of our jâ—stification and saluation and so Christ died rose in vain But the Apostle sheweth us the true foundation of our faith in these words For other foundation canâ—no man lay them that is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11.
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
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
The end moveth the efficient 22. The end presupposeth the means 23. A voluntary cause is free and indifferent so is not the natural cause 24. The matter is capable of forms 25. The The form is the cause of distinction and determination 26. The generical unity is less then the specifical and this then the numerical 27. Identity is founded upon unity c. Many more I could set down but these are sufficient to let us see how much Mr. Hobbs is deceived in saying Metaphysick is repugnant to natural reason He tells us cap. 46. That every part of the universe is body and that which is not body is no part of the universe If he speaks of integral parts I grant what he saith but if he means by parts that which we call essential to wit matter and form I deny them to be bodies His drift is to infer that souls are bodies because parts but I deny them to be parts no more then the vital and animal spirits are parts of the arteries and nerves that contain them or wine a part of the vessel that holds it Spirits are contained in the world but are no parts of it But when he saith That that which is no part of the universe is nothing and consequently no where He will make God to be nothing and no where for I hope he will not make him a part of the universe nor will he make him corporeal He carps at Aristotle for defining heaviness to be an endeavour to go to the center of the earth Aristotle doth not make this a definition but a description of heaviness for indeed the essential forms of inanimate things are not easily to be found by man in this life in which our best science is but ignorance therefore the Phylosopherâ— differ so much in this very thing of gravity and levity some holding them to be forms of the elements and causes of motion others hold them to be passive principles onely of motion and that the mover is the generator which hath lest an impression in light and heavy bodies to asâ—end and descend some hold gravity and levity to be substances others but accidents but however the peripateticks have gone as far as reason and the light of nature can direct them God will not in this world have us to know all things our cleerest light here is but a glimmering but if this description of Aristotles please not Mr. Hobbs he should have done well to have given us a better and then we will turn his disciples but its more easie to carp then mend or immitate Carpere vel noli nostra vel aede tuaâ— So he laughs at Phylosophers for saying stones or metals have a desire or can discern the place they would be at as man doth But he laughs at his own shaddow for Phylosophers grant that in inanimate things there is a natural appetite to move towards their own place which is nothing else but an inclination or disposition which he cannot deny except he will deny nature it self but that stones can discern as man does is his own dream not the saying of Phylosophers for they teach the contrary to wit that this natural desire or aptitude is without all knowledge or discerning by this he shews how little he is acquainted with their writings Phylosophers tell us that in condensed matter there is less quantity then before and rarefied when more Upon this he asks cap. 46. If there can be matter that hath not some determined quantity or if a body were made without any quantity at all I answer no for the quantity is an inseparable conâ— comitant of matter so that it increaseth decreaseth as the matter doth A body can be no more without quantity then fire without heaâ— Experience teacheth us that as any thing shrinks and thickneth it decreaseth in quantity and so it increaseth as it is extended and rarified He carps at the souls infusion at the cause of sense at the cause of willing at occult qualities and at some other peripatetick tenets at which he onely shews his teeth not being able to bite them save onely that he calls this vain Phylosophy affirming the â—ame out of Stâ—Pauls words but indeed St. Paul never called Phylosophical truths vâ—in for so he should condemn divinity to which Phylosophy is subservient besides truth cannot be repugnant to truth and Phylosophy is one of Gods special gifts by which even the Gentiles were brought to the knowledge of God and made inexcusable there are vain opinions among some professors of Phylosophy as there are among some Divines must therefore Phylosophy or Divinity be condemned as vain he that speaks against Phylosophy doeth both bewray his ignorance and malice in disparaging men for making use of those arms which God hath given us to fight withall against the enemies of truth and to destroy the field of good corn because the envious man hath sown some tears among them To speak against Phylosophy is to speak against the light of reason which God hath kindled in our mindes But he calls it cap. 42. vain Phylosophy to say that God is no cause at all of injustice To free God from injustice is not vain Phylosophy but true Divinity whereas the opinion of Mr. Hobbs is the heresie of the Libertines who made God the author of sin or of the Manichees and Valentimans who held that God made sin But I would know how can the fountain of justice be in any sort the cause of injustice or can he be the author of sin that is the punisher of sin that makes laws against it that invites upon promise of reward all men from it how can he be free from hypocrisie that grieves and is angry for sinful actions whereof he is the cause himself How can he hate injustice if he be the cause of it he must needs love his own work and consequently sinful actions How can God deface his own work by sin or his own image in man How can it be otherwise but man must delight in sin without remorse when he knows that God is any wise the cause thereof Therefore to make God at all the cause of injustice is in effect to make him no God It stands then well with Philosophy and Divinity also to say God is not at all the author of sin he permits it indeed for his glory for the exercise of his servants and the condemnation of the obstinate sinners but is no more the cause of it then the rider is the cause of that lameness in his horse which proceeds from his own unruliness or the Sun the cause of stinke which ariseth of putrifaction Again this which he cals vain Philosophy is it which brings us to the knowledge of divine and humane things which perfects the will by uniting it to goodness and the intellect by uniting it to truth It 's ridiculous what he saith of Good and Evil to wit That it is not the appetite of privat men but the law which is the
calls him the miracle of nature his works the gift of God and a principal organ of God for enriching the world with so much excellent learning and that they are ungrate wretches who do not acknowledge it but will rail against him â—or it P. Martyr sheweth that Aristotles pains were profitable his artisice great his industry excellent and his rules most notable Zanchie saith that he is of all Philosophers the most excellent and that his method is most clear 〈◊〉 calls him with admiration a man of men the onely Eagle of Philosophy whose stile is fraughted with Attick eloquence and that they who write or speak against him are dunces silly people and such whose books are fit for nothing but for the fire Scaliger calls such barbarous wits Rats Kites Crows Ravens Owles and Bats To conclude I would have Mr. Hobbs take notice that I have no quarrel against him but against his tenets I honor his worth and learning but dislike his opinions I know not his person but I know and respect his parts if there be any thing amiss in these my Animadversions for we are all apt to mistake I shall thank him if he will set me right and inform me better for I never had so great an opinion of my self as not to yeeld to reason and such as are able to convince my understanding The God of truth direct us all into the way of truth Amen FINIS The Contents of each Chapter controverted INTRODUCTION THe world was not made by art or nature Lifeâ— is not the motion of the limbs Chap. 1. The object causeth sensation not sense Fancy and sense different Colour figured nothing Sensible qualities are not motions Motion produceth not motion Outward and inward senses distinct Fancy not the same in waking and dreaming men Chap. 2. A natural appetite in things inanimate but without knowledge Imagination is not decaying sense Memory and imagination different Chap. 3. Things future have a being Prophesie is not guessing No absurdity to say the soul is all in all and all in every part To be born no act of the minde Some faculties are not acquired Universalities are not names Truth in things as well as in names Geometry not the oÌ„nely Science Chap. 3 4. Phylosophy how Pedantry Chap. 5. Many things infused besides bodies Extension how a body Colour is in bodies and sound in the air A living creature is generical The nature of a thing is its definition Tropes and figures are not absurd speeches Chap. 6. Animal and voluntary not the same Contempt and hatred not the same Superstition and Religion not the same Faith and Imagination not the same The will is a rational appetite Chap. 7. Belief is not opinion To have faith in to trust to and to beleeve a man not the same What is to beleeve in God Our belief is not in the Church Chap. 8. Devils Demoniacks and mad-men not the same Schoole terms and Suarez intelligible Chap. 10. Pitty is not dishonour Lasting good fortune is no sign of Gods favour Ambition is not honorable nor covetousness Injustice with power is not honourable Goodness no less honorable then greatness Chap. 11. Felicity consisteth not in desire Chap. 12. Felicity is in injoying Phylosophy a supporter of the Church The want of it the cause of confusion and contradictions Chap. 15. All men are not equal by nature Some are naturally fit for service Some for Dominion Inequality necessary Chap. 16. Christ did not personate God Chap. 18. Covenants are not bare words nor do all depend on the sword Princes may but should not be injurious to their subjects Men indy injure themselves Injury Iniquity and Injustice the same thing Chap. 20. Kings and Tyrants different how Samuel describeth a King Moses a Tyrant Chap. 21. David did injury to Uriah How he offended against God onely Freedom is not the same under a Monarchy and Democracy Aristotles reason why under Democracy there is more liberty then under a Monarchy Chap. 28. Mr. Hobbs contradicts himself concerning the power which Subjects give to their Soveraigns Pride is no cause of submission to government but of Rebellion rather Chap. 49. The danger of acting against conscience is no presumption but a duty to judge of good and evil Faith is not attained by reason and study but by infusion and inspiration Faith is a miracle An account may be given of inspired faith Prophesie and Faith not the same Faith may stand with civil obedience Princes are subject to their own laws How every private man hath a property in his good Chap. 31. The subjects of hope love and fear often confounded God is not a name of relation Natural reason and the word of God different Reason must be subject to faith Our natural reason cannot purchase justice peace and religion Natural reason is sometimes contrary to Gods word Divine dreams are of force to win belief Chap. 33. How Moses's words are to be understood concerning his own Sepulcher And the Canaanite in Abraham's time being in the land Gen. 12. Chap. 34. Spirits are real parts of the universe though not corporeal Why substances are so called The spirit that moved on the waters was not a winde The word Ghost what it signifieth Aerial bodies not visible delusions may be seen by many at once How spirits are in a place Angels are not fancies or dreams Why called gods Why they appeared in mans shape The Dove and fiery tongues were not Angels Why Angels are distinguished by names How evil Angels suffer by fire How we shall be like the Angels in the resurrection Faith excludes reason Chap. 31. Divers places of Scripture mis-alleadged by Mr. Hobbs for his earthly kingdom and refuted What Holam is and Paradise and the new Jerusalem There is reason and authority to prove our happiness in heaven Divers places of Scripture expounded to this purpose and Mr. Hobbs his texts brought to the contrary refuted The souls immortality proved by Scripture Chap. 38. Christ proves as well the souls immortality as the resurrection of the body to the Saduces The souls immortality proved by Scripoure A place in Job explained The opinion of Christs earthly kingdom and the souls sleep are old heresies Hell is in the lower parts of the earth How the Prophetical speeches concerning Christs Kingdom are to be understood We shall ascend higher then Gods foot-stool Chap 41. Christ hath not been all this while since his resurrection without a Kingdom Differring of punishments and rewards here no argument that Christ hath no Kingdom What it is to sit in Moses's chair Other places of Scripture expounded Chap. 42. The blessed Trinity vindicated and proved out of the old Testament Christs Kingdom is in this world though not of this world Dissimulation in religion condemned The Apostles made laws and had power to command Disobedience a great sin Minister and servant the same thing Princes why shepherds their baptism doth not authorise them to preach Urim and Thumâ—im given to Aaron not to Moses The Romans had the legislative power over the Iews Excommunication a punishment Christs Kingdom is spiritual though the subjects are cloathed with flesh In Common-wealths there is a dependance as well as a coherence Heresie what it is and who be Hereticks Chap. 45. Our faith depends not upon mans reputation and authority Chap. 44. Devils and Fantasims or Idols are not the same Christs Kingdom here is the Kingdom of Grace The soul how immortal The wicked live eternally The tree of life Life sometimes called death The soul how taken in Scripture The Scripture is plain for the souls immortality Ghost-walking what it is Eternal torments no dark doctrine Christs Transfiguration was not the Kingdom of God Solomons words Eccles. 12. 7. and Eccles. 3. 21. concerning the soul expounded And Eccles. 3. 19. Enoch's translation Better be dead then live in misery Abraham's soul is alive actually That the torments of the wicked are eternal proved Man shall not be in the same condition after the resurrection that Adam was after his fall Chap. 45. Devils which Christ cast out were not diseases Angels and Mens souls are not corporeal spirits Christs temptation in the desart was real and no vision Exorcisms useful in the Church how Many possessed in these latter times It was Satan and not a treacherous intention that entered into Judas Chap. 46. Mr. Hobbs taxed for his exorbitant speeches against Aristotle and the other Phylosophers Men are not frighted from obedience by separated essences Graces are inspired or poured into us Inspiration excludeth not obedience to the laws The tearms definitive and circumscriptive distinguished The soul is all in every part of the body Incorporeal substances capable of torment Metaphysick not repugnant to natural reason proved by divers maximes Quantity increaseth and decreaseth with the matter What St. Paul means by vain Phylosophy God is no wales the author of injustice or sin The appetite of the State and of private men is not the same Aristotle vindicated from calling kingly or any other government but popular tyrannical How these words of Aristotle are to be understood Men should not govern but the laws Mr. Hobbs his new Tenent rejected Chap. 47. Romanists and Presbyterians do not hold that the Kingdom of glory is in this world Pontifex Maximus at Rome above the civil State Aristotle Phylosophy and School-Divinity vindicated Mr. Hobbs is censured for slighting Aristotle who is highly commended and his obtrectators reproved by divers eminent Protestant writers FINIS Part 1â— cap. 1. Part. 1. cap. â— Part 1. cap. 3. Part 1. cap. 3. 4. Part 1. cap. 5. Part 1. cap. 6. Part 1. cap. 8. Part 1. cap. 10. Part 1. cap. 11. Part. 1. cap. 12. Part. 1. cap. 15. Part. 1. cap. 16. Part 2. cap. 18. Part 2. cap. 21. Part 2. cap. 21. Part. 1. cap. 21. Part 2. cap. 28. Part. 2. cap. 29. Cap. 31. Part 3. cap. 32. cap. 34. cap. 38. cap. 41 cap. 4â— Cap. 44.