but by divine revelation therefore he who taught it had divine revelation I must not spend time in particulars look upon all the Prophecies in the whole Book of God so many as their time is expired we find them all fufilled the Prophecies made to Abraham of the children of Israels long captivity in Aegypt and their extraction thence and plantation in the land of Canaan of all the great transactions of the highest affairs of the world The erection and destruction of all the great Monarchies which were punctually foretold and accomplished and foretold long before could these be foretold by any other way than by divine revelation Certainly it could not be nor can the wit of man think how it should be done Jaddus the high Priest shewed Alexander his own story foretold by Daniel Let us consider how the Prophets long before prophesied of Christ how the Prophet Isaiah writ like an antedated Evangelist differing only in these words shall and did only in the time Let us consider how not only those great and remarkable passges of his birth his miracles his death his resurrection but even such little things as the piercing of his side the parting of his garment casting lots for his vesture his burial were foretold hundreds of yeares before Let Mr. Hobbs or any other heathen tell me how these could be foretold without divine revelation But perhaps he will say as before these were not true books nor prophecies but fained since Christianity No even the Jewes themselves yet remaining in the world do consent unto them and are preserved by God a glorious witness of these truths who are the greatest enemies of Christianity CHAP. XXII SECT III. The former assertion further proved from the piety of the doctrines taught in the scripturâ—s and excellency of the matter contained in them The power of the word of God and efficacy of Scripture above the reach of Philoophie BUt then consider the doctrines taught here they are so full of religious piety to God so full of such excellent moral conversation betwixt men that the wit of man could not invent them there must needs be divine revelation in them there was never any thing delivered by men meer men without divine revelation that had not imperfections in it he who reads the Philosophers may find it I do not love to rake their Dunghills and shew their filth but the duties taught in this book are so divine and so like God from whence they came that they are able to make a man absolutely good if practised Wherefore as a tree may be known by its fruits as the heart of man by his language so these Books may be known to be Gods by the heavenliness of the matters delivered in them which have such a power of sanctity in them as is able to make such as receive them of a more Godly disposition than other men yea than themselves at other times before they received these doctrines I could treat of a strange Metamorphosis in Saul to Paul who was a persecutor a destroyer and when converted with this doctrine accounted it joy to suffer and be persecuted for this cause As also of King David who to hide the shame of his adultery committed Murther and slept securely in his sin yet when awakened from that stupidity he was in and taught his state by the Prophet Nathan he cares for no shame of this world so God be pleased cares for nothing but the shame of his sin and made his penitence for it to be chaunted out in all ages for all Churches in the 51. Psalm Se that there is a strange power and force in the word of God to turn men to godliness which no other hath And the great and mighty effects wrought by this scripture do fully evince it to be divine having divine power annexed to them Thus having shewed that the doctrines contained in scripture are fit for a man to believe they are divine and by divine revelation yea that they could not proceed from a pen which was not guided and assisted by the holy spirit we therefore may have assurance that they were such I shall come next to shew how we may be further assured from the manner of their delivery CHAP. XXII SECT IV. The second Argument from the difference of the Style of the Scriptures from the books of Philosophers The propositions and conclusions in Scripture not so much deduced from reason as asserted from the Majesty of God not disputing or endeavouring to perswade but commanding to do The rewards and punishments proposed in scripture of eternal truth impossible to be propounded or given but by God himself LEt a man look upon all the doctrines of the Philosophers concerning God his essence his attributes concerning the Creation we shall find that they laboured still to prove what they spoke and by reason to convince mans understanding Only I must confess Trismegistus in his Pomander makes his discourse which is most divine to be revelation and four ought I know it may be so much of it but otherwise they all go upon ratiocination and the reason is because such things ought not to be assented to which are not either proved or revealed by God which is the most invincible evidence that any truth can have But now Moses and those holy writers inspired by God in their compiling those holy Books only affirm this and this without arguing the reasons of it because they were divine not humane words likewise in all those moral duties which concern men they are writ with the majesty of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Do this or this not disputing as Plato and Aristotle how it conduceth to the present happiness but exacting obedience It is true when the Prophets disputed with the Gentiles or Apostles with Jewes or Gentiles who believed not their report they confuted the one by reason or out of their own authors and the other out of the former Scriptures because all proofs must be made ex concessis and out of such premisses they would confirm these Conclusions God exacted a belief and this he doth with the greatest arguments and most forcing that are possible by Praemium and Poena reward and punishment but such as never King or Emperour either did or was able to propose by eternal happiness or misery which nothing can doe but God alone And this is done to those who will receive or not receive his word Well the words contained here are delivered with such an exaction as never man proposed the same truths in and required with such promises as never man did meet with nor could perform we must needs therefore be assured they are divine CHAP. XXII SECT V. The third Argument from the sanctity and integrity of the persons who delivered these truths The miraculous conduct of the Children of Israel by Moses The objection of his assertation of dominion answered The predictions of the Prophets not possible without a divine revelation The truth and
Doctrine repugnant to peace can be no more true then peace and concord can be against the Law of Nature This I say did not become him for he hath delivered it for a Maxime in Politicks That by the Law of Nature every man only considers himself and is at war with all the world besides and hath right to do what he will with it But peace and concord are artificial things introduced by the wit of man for his greater security So that if truth and peace agree no better then peace and the Law of Nature as he hath stated it it is little or not at all But the truth is that truth of Doctrine bring all peace peace with God by subjecting our wills to his Sacred Revelations in the regulation of our actions peace with men by that blessed Doctrine of Charity by which we are commanded as much as in us lies to have peace with all men peace in our own souls by subduing those carnal sensual rebellious affections which are in man to the obedience to reason So that without doubt truth doth naturally produce peace but is not therefore regulated by it SECT VI. The former expression of regulating all Doctrines by peace further examined and censured Divine Truths and Doctrines not regulated by peace In Politicks this expression not improper THat properly regulates another which directs and shews the way by which that other should walk or else is the Rule by which it should be drawn So we say he is regulated by this Law who is directed and commanded by it to do this or that And this hath the same signification in moral as in natural things A Square which the Carpenter useth for the direction of his work regulates that work and the same doth a Law but that in the indagation of any Divine Truth as of Divine Attributes the nature of Faith of Prayer and the like that a man should square it out by peace or that he should regulate them by it is a strange assertion Nay it is so in Mathematical truths and Physical also If a man should enquire whether the Sun be bigger than the earth must he regulate his examination by the rule of peace Or if he enquire in Nature whether a first matter or Atomes be the foundation the principle of the World out of which it is made must this be compared and guided by the consent it hath with peace It is true had he confined his truths to politick truths it might have good acceptance because the end of Politicks is the governing man in peace and happiness but he is so far from that as he points principally at Divine truths as will appear in the prosâ—cution of which it cannot be a rule much less a sole and only rule as he seems to make it SECT VII Mr. Hobbs his expression of new truths censured Truth always the same the object of Truth sometimes obscure New Truths and new Lights phrases equally affected IT is true that in a Commonwealth whereby the negligence and unskilfulness of Governors and Teachers false Doctrines are by time generally received the contrary truths may be generally offensive yet the most sudden and rough busling in of a truth that can be doâ—s never break the peace but only sometimes awake the war I think with him that it is through the negligence and unskilfulness of Governors and Teachers that false Doctrines are received But I do not approve that phrase of a New Truth there is no such thing but of particulars that this fire burns is new but that fire will burn combustibâ—e matter when applyed to it is an eternal truth of which sorts of truth he seems to write This kind of speech seems to concur with that lately affected language of new lights when there is no new light but always Divine Graces lighted Spiritual and Humane Intellect Natural Truths The truths are the same and the lights the same by which we discern them but the objects may lye in darkness and not be discerned till their proper light be brought to them SECT VIII His Assertion of the busling in of truth awakes the War examined and shewed to be repugnant to his former Conclusions THe next phrase to be considered is This busling in of Truth dâ—th not break the Peace but awake the War â—It seems then when men live in peace they are at war but only lye asleep when I should think that the unquiet disposition of war could never let it sleep and the quiet sweet disposition of peace makes it look like sleep But he gives reason for it for saith he Those men who are so remisly governed that they dare take up Arms to defend or introduce an Opinion are still in War and their condition not Peace but a cessation of Arms for fear of one another and they live as it were in the Precincts of Battel continually This was wittily expressed by him but he did not remember that the Covenant in the institution put them in a state of peace when now he placeth peace only in the mannagement of that Government which if it be there 's another reason from hence to be added to what went before that the Supreme ought to Covenant with his Subjects concerning his Government which is obstinately denied by him SECT IX Doctrines among Christians not to be introduced by force Cessation of Arms not the height of Peace Remisness in matter of Opinion not the only cause of Mutiny or Rebellion COnsider those that are so remisly governed as they dare take up Arms to defend or introduce an Opinion This should not concern Christians whose Opinions and Doctrines must not be introduced by Arms of Steel and force but of reason and sufferings and as our Great Master our blessed Saviour planted it with his death so must we cherish and water it with our own not others blood It is not to be sowed or reaped by Swords but sufferings and the reason of those sufferings But be it of what opinion it will this Argument doth not become him because he makes war to be the natural state of all mankind which if it be it will return unless you take the very nature away in which it is rooted otherwise it only suppresses the outward acts of violence or war but not extinguisheth the being of it Again he makes his peace obtained by the Covenant in the Soveraigns Institution to be nothing else but a cessation of Arms for fear men should not else enjoy their conveniencies or well being Now then if this be the height of any peace they who are governed thus remisly as he speaks are in as good a state of peace as any others are I grant that remisness of Government is an occasion that loose people are incited to foster discontents and malicious people encouraged to take up Arms. But this may be imputed to all remisness as well as that of Opinions and ought not to be bounded by it SECT X. Mr. Hobbs his fallacies in arguing discovered
that paragraph he concluded it unjust in the defence of another man to resist the sword of the Common-wealth But saith he in case a great many men together have already resisted the soveraign power unjustly or committed some capital crime for which every one of them expecteth death whether have they not the libertie then to joyne together and assist and defend one another Certainly they have for they but defend their lives which the guilty may as well do as the innocent Let the Reader consider here what a justification this was of those men who bore unjust armes at that time when he writ this book in English It is true he allows the first rising to be unjust but all that damnable prosecution of that war even that act which I never think upon but with horror the murther of king Charles the first was lawful by him for when they had drawn their swords in rebellion their lives were forfeited and then all the future prosecution was just because in defence of their lives I but page 113. where I am at the bottom of that paragraph he gives a fair pretence for what he speaks which is The offer of pardon taketh from them to whom it is offered the plea of felf defence and maketh their perseverance in assisting or defending the rest unlawful A goodly piece of nicetie I if a soveraign do not give his subjects pardon for their rebellâ—on they may continue on and only the first act is unjust all other murthers rapines iniquities of men are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of unjust actions as if one sin preceding wâ—ich causeth the following might also justifie them and for offering pardon he knows they have answered that that cannot serve them as long as there is power in the offended partie to make his revenge and justifie his proceeding against them and unless they take away that there is no security for them These things I thought to have passed by but being so abominable it was necessary to lay hold upon them at the least with this animadversion And now I pass over twenty more and leap to his 26. Chap. 148. CHAP. XXII SECT I. Mr. Hobs his endeavour to render the Christian religion suspected Of the assurance we have of revelations The difference of assurance from the object from the acts Assurance from science from opinion from faith The assurance of faith greater than that of science The assurance we have of the truth of Christian religion by divine revelation from the things themselves revealed from the manner of their delivery and the persons who delivered them to us The particulars of the creation described by Moses not possible to be known without divine revelation An argument from reason to confirm the former assertion WHich Chap. is entitled of Civil laws but treats of all laws and divers distinctions of them but in this page about the middle of the page he enters into a discourse of divine positive laws which he distinguisheth from natural laws that the one are eternal I will cavil at nothing that is he means always consisting with men to whom they are given the other had a beginning the one are universal to all men that have humane nature but he saith the positive are instituted in time and to particular persons or nations and declared for such by those whom God hâ—th authorised to declare them But saith he this authority of man to declare what be these positive laws of God how can it be known God may command a man by a supernatural way to deliver laws to other men But because it is of the essence of laws that he who is to be obliged be assured of the authority of him that declareth it which we cannot naturally take notice to be from God I transcribe all this because the reader by it should understand from what ground he raiseth two questions which he answering unchristianly will require a better satisfaction from my pen. The questions are these How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer and how can he be bound to obey them Two noble questions to be disputed against heathens and because upon all occasions he takes advantage to make himself seem such whether he be or no God knows I shall endeavour to refute him But withall give the reader this caution that throughout his Book he violently forceth himself to such disputes as may render Christian religion suspected as if he had an ambition to make this Bable shall I say or impious treatise of his to be authentick for what necessity had he here to raise those doubts It had been enough for him and his whole design to shew that the holy Bible had manifested those positive laws to us and never to have raised such scruples whereby a man may doubt as it seems he doth whether these laws are divine or not Consider therefore his answer for the first question how a man can be assured of the revelation of another without a revelation particularly to himself it is evidently impossible and I answer it is possiible we will try it out and first let us consider this leading term for this discourse which is assuted how a man can be assured the power of that word must be explained There is a diversity of assurances Mathematical physical moral all which have their several force and differ only by degrees In the first kind we are assured that two and two make four and the like in the second that fire will burn whose nature doth if not hindred break out into the act in the third that when I see a debauched man stay with a company of drunkards along time at a Tavern I can be assured that they will be inflamed with drink so likewise when a pious man hears the bell tole to prayers he will go to Church Thus our assurance is vaâ—ied according to the object which it is busied about But there is another diversity drawn from the difference of this act which produceth assurance as thus there is an assurance from science from opinion from faith The certainty of science is drawn from the certainty of the medium by which it is proved and is exceeding great by some esteemed greater than that of faith at the least of a greater evidence although for my part I am not of that mind for it being a most clear and absolute truth that God is infinitely verax as well as verus true speaking as well as true being and faith I mean divine faith being an adhesion to what God speaks it is not possible to be a falsehood then there is the greatest argumentative evidence that can be of the truth of such a proposition which God hath delivered but I will not involve my self in niceties That which is proper to my immediate discourse is that science is from natural opperations of natur I causes faith divine faith from supernatural from God which must be more certain in
one day judge us men according to our works then he trembles at the apprehension of it and that causeth him to seek out which way he may please him and stop the fury of his wrath from falling upon him and act accordingly Thus wisdom is begun but afterwards this same man out of these beginnings proceeds to search out Gods will and believe it to trust and rely upon his promises to be enamoured with God and delighted with his excellencies with following Acts far exceed in the worship of God and his Honour that first of fear only so that although the fear of God may introduce and begin Religion yet unless a man go further it is not Religion nor that it is can that Text prove but he hath another Text which I wonder what he can do with it to this purpose which is SECT IV. How that Text the Fool hath said in his Heart there is no God can be applied to his purpose THat the Fool hath said in his heart there is no God certainly if he said so in his heart he could not fear God but that because he thinks there is no God he could not fear him therefore should Religion consist in fear he that thinks there is no such thing cannot oppose be angry with or hate God doth Religion therefore consist in these and yet there is less consequence in it if a man will consider his proposition to be proved hence it is not that fear is the Religion paid to God but to invisible powers many a man who did not think there was a supream God governing all did think that there were invisible powers to which they paid their Religious Duties as most of them to Sâ—medei and Heroes and good Genâ—i and the like so that men may have Religion who say in their hearts there is no God that is such as he is generally conceived to be an infinitely able and wise Creator and Governor yea some that thought there was a God who had infinitam virtutem by which he governed the world yet would not allow him infinitam potentiam to make it out of nothing of which nature I conceive Aristotle to be so that although he and others may think there is no such God as we conceive yet they might have Religion to such as they conceived to have some peices of these Divine excellencies so that that seems to me an objection but weakly answered by him CAP. IV. ANd I pass to a fourth Objection made at the bottom of the same page which is out of the sixteenth Cap. of the same Leviathan when having treated of persons and what things may be personated he at the last affirms etiam Dei veri the true God may be personated as he was first by Moses who governed not his people but Gods saying thus saith the Lord I have discoursed at large upon this expression of his in the 30. Cap. of my first Notes upon his Leviathaâ— Sect. 11. and those which follow it would have become him to have given at the least some observations upon what I said but he hath not and I must refer an Impartial Reader to that but I must observe that this clause is left out in his Latine Edition and instead thereof put that the true Gods person is and hath been born for in his proper person he created the world this is put instead of Moses his bearing his Person Good Reader see how he hath amended the matter did God in Creating the World bear the Person of God It is a Phrase unheard of in any Divinity Writer he that bears the person of any man or thing must be another from that thing which he bears but in this he destroys his bearing the person of God when he affirms he did it in his own in propriâ personâ in his own proper person so that his alteration is to the worse but I return from whence I came to Moses again in which I referr'd the Reader to my former discourse so far that he affirms the Son to be as it seems the Second Person in the Trinity after Moses and that of the Holy Ghost all which I have spoke of at large and now let us review his answer to this Objection it may be the Candor of his Exposition will take away the scandal of his Assertion and that begins in the last line of that Page and so follows on in the next and is this SECT II. His Question of our Catechisme Examined VIdetur Author hoc loco the Author seems in this place to explain the doctrine of Trinity although he do not name the Trinity I stop here he hath outgone himself in his English Leviathan for I did not so far dive into his thoughts when I spoke of Moses representing God but one how that could be understood but now it seems abominable that Moses should be placed as a person in the Trinity well let us see his answer further in this place that saith he he Authour did labour to explain the Trinity was piaâ— voâ—untas but erronea explicatio it was a pious desire but in erroneous explication surely it is a pious desire â—n any man to endeavour to explain any Divine truth out certainly it cannot be imagined that a man of his parts and learning could be so overseen in so high â— Point of Divinity as to think that such a person ought to pass for the father but that he would steal â— discredit of that great and most universally received truth by interposing such a cloud before it for saith he Moses because he after some manner seems to bear the person of God as do all Christian Kings he seems to make him one person of the Trinity valde negligenter this was exceeding negligently done and pittiful repentance for such a crime to blaspheme God and call man God for so must each person in the Trinity be no it looks not like repentance but a vain excuse which near upon amounts to a justification but he proceeds If saith he he had said that God in his proper person had made the world in the person of his Son had redeemâ—d mankind in the person of the holy Ghoâ—t had sanctified his Church he had said no more then is in the Catechisme put out by the Church certainly he is much out in this â—aâ—ing for the Catechisme of the Church of England has no such saying as God in propriâ personâ God in his proper person did make the world this expression propriâ personâ is not there nor I think in any confession of any Christian Church to be used for the Father all three are proper Persons no one more then other neither doth the Catechism use that very phrase Person in that whole answer for it is thus I believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world not that he made it in propriâ personâ for it was the work of the whole Trinity and the God who is the whole Trinity is the Almighty
it with the whole Multitude as one party to the Covenant or he must make a several Covenant with every man with the whole as one party it is impossible because as yet they are not one person I will not put down his reason against his second branch because I shall not need to dispute against that having shewed the possibility of the first But I will begin with his division and deny that it is necessary that the Covenant should be made with the whole as one party or with every particular severally for there is a Medium participationis which is more reasonable than either for without doubt the Fathers of Families were Natural Governours from the beginning of the World and they had by the Law of Nature Absolute Government over their Families these when they find themselves not able in little distinct bodies to defend themselves may treat amongst themselves how by an Union they may make themselves strong against forreign and domestique dangers and to that end erect a Supream over themselves and this certainly hath a greater shew of Reason then any of his thoughts that every person who hath no Judgment nor Authority should be introduced to make a Covenant for so high concernments Therefore that division was not good which did not comprehend the totum divisum Then for his Argument that he could not Covenant with the whole as one person because as yet they were not a person I answer first that they neither are nor in truth will ever be one person but because by his unimaginable conceipt they are after their Covenant represented so by him I will answer to himself That first this Company meet together then they consult upon that great work of choosing a Soveraign the business is concluded upon by both parties Soveraign and People first they engage for their Patrs then he may Covenant for his and this is no otherwise then is apparent in all contracts one must speak first and after another so in marriage first one speaks and then the other and in all bargains which yet are conditional until the second word confirms the contract Nor is it possible as I have said to think that men would so deliver themselves to anothers will from whom they have no promise or the least verbal engagement to govern them justly and prudently What he speaks against this Covenant with the several persons I let go thinking it impossible CHAP. VI. SECT I. The difference between the Soveraign's making a Covenant and taking his Authority upon a Covenant A Soveraign may Covenant to Govern justly and yet not forfeit his Soveraignty if he breaks that Covenant AND I pass to another Argument by which he would prove That a Soveraign can make no Covenant which begins towards the bottom of his 89. pag. thus besides if any one or more of them pretend a breach of the Covenant made by the Soveraign at his Institution and others or one other of his Subjects or himself alone pretend there was no such breach there is in this case no Judge to decide the Controversie First I blame him here for putting no difference betwixt Covenanting in raking his Authority and taking it upon Covenant The first may be and without question must be in any Institution of Government the second cannot be discreetly done by any for it would leave a mighty gap to lâ—t in Treasons Observe it in all contracts Titius lets Land to Semprâ—nius he hath diverse Covenants for to observe which he may implead Semprâ—nius for and yet never a one to forfeit his Estate come more closly The Subject in this Institution of his Contracts is to perform all obedience yet although he offend in many things there be few such as exempt him from the just protection of the King from further injuries then that Legally exacts how much more must it needs be that the King should lose the total obedience of the Subject though he should break his Covenant and unless such a Clause were put into his Covenant there was no pretence of reason for it and it were as much against Reason to put such a Clause into his Covenant I have delivered my opinion of this before The King of Heaven will Judge him severely for his breach of Covenant to whom he must be left That which follows is true If there should be such a Covenant and no Judge to determine it would return to the Sword again and every man recovereth the right of Protecting himself by his own shrength contrary to the design of the Institution This is true but I do not approve what follows It is therefore in vain to grant Soveraignty by precedent Covenant to grant a Covenant in the Institution of Soveraignty is most right to wit that he will Govern his People Legally and Justly or the like without doing of which no person is fit to be Soveraign but to Covenant to lose his Soveraignty if he do otherwise which he seems to understand generally by this word Covenant is absolutely naught and unfit because it must needs produce Confusions and Distractions in the Government for the People upon any hardship they suffer though never so just will repine against their Superiours and blame them and upon any surmise of faultiness in them would be ready upon such pretence to desire and endeavour a Change of Government be it Monarchical or Aristocratical SECT II The Impiety of Mr. Hobbs his assertion that Covenants have no force but from the Vindicative Power of the Sword Discovered THen what follows is wicked in my Judgment The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant that is upon Condition proceedeth from want of understanding this easie truth That Covenants being but words and breath have no force to oblige contain or protect any man but what it hath from the Publick Sword that is from the united hands of that man or assembly of men that hath the Soveraignty and whose actions are avowed by them all and performed by the strength of them all in him united This speech hath some semblance of truth with iâ— if he had confuted the World into Atheisme who think there is no God noe reward or punishment hereafter and perhaps it might find some entertainment amongst men given over to base sensuality sordid worldly people who have no sense of honour or vertue because such men value no contract which consists not with their unhappy Condition but with men which believe there is a God who governs heaven and earth and will judge all one day which sure the generality of men do with men that have felt any sting of Conscience and have felt the happiness of nil conscire tibi this breath of theirs hath such power with God that in things of such high nature as this is what they covenant on earth is confirmed in heaven and is so esteemed by them and because it is so esteemed millions of men do and have thought it better for them to forsake all worldly
to her self or for her child without the Fathers leave SECT IX No Law impowring the woman to expose her child The Law of Nature favourable to Infants Power or ability cannot give the character of Justice to unjust actions The consequences of Mr. Hobbs his conclusions discovered and the contrary asserted The Mother gets no dominion over the Child by not exposing it NExt let us consider what power the Mother hath to expose her child Id potest quod jure potest she hath no power but by some Law which gives her that power I am confident he cannot find any National Law which gives the Woman authority to act any such thing or if he could what would it avail him because he disputes of such who are not imbodied into a Commonwealth much less can he pretend to the Law of Nature which dictates nothing more clearly then the Love of Parents to their children I but he will say she hath power that is she is able to do it If such a malicious disposition were discovered the Husband hath power to restrain it But suppose such a horrid wickedness may be in the Woman and a power yea an opportunity of acting it doth she gain dominion because she doth it not by that reason Wives may have dominion over their Husbands Children over their Parents Servants over their Masters Subjects over their Kings for all these have or may have power though no right to murder or slay the other which is very odious to the consideration of any man who thinks upon either Oeconomicks or Politicks nay there is none of those more abhorring to nature then the Mothers exposing her child I therefore conclude against that member of his distinction that although a Mother may be so impious as to expose her child yet because she hath no right to do it she gains no right of dominion by not doing it SECT X. Mr. Hobbs his deviation from the matter proposed Children exposed and nourished by others owe not filial duties to them that nourish them preservation not so great a benefit as being Romulus his respect to them that nourished him not filial duty but gratitude and kindness HE proceeds upon that supposal But if she expose it and another find and nourish it the dominion is in him that nourisheth it First good Reader consider with me what this is to his purpose The question raised was betwixt the Father and Mother of a Family who should have the dominion over their child now it is betwixt the Mother who brought a child into the world and a stranger who nourisheth it If the Wife have it as I have shewed the Husband hath it because he hath dominion over the Wife therefore of whatsoever likewise is subject to her dominion Now he produceth an instance where neither hath it Then saith he the dominion is in him that nourisheth it I shall answer it If there be such Monsters who for fear or for that Tyrant daughter of fear shame shall expose their child as sure there are without doubt they do as much as in them lies put off all their Parental interest and devest themselves of all filial duties belonging to them and it is as undoubted a truth that for that time which they are so nourished and relieved yea indeed all the daies of their life they owe and ought to pay great kindness and respect to such deliverers though not filial because the benefit is exceeding great which they have received from theâ— Patrons but not so great as from their Fathers for the Parent gives him his very being the other but his preservation Now as the being of man or any thing is the fountain of all the good which can come to that man so must the gift of that exceed all other else his Physitian may be his Father his Cook or his Apothecary which conduce to his preservation But suppose he should be exposed not by his Parents but by any other means as Romulus although preserved and educated by Faustulus and Lupa and owed them a mighty kindness for that preservation yet this kindness when he came to be a man ceased to be filial duty towards them such as was due if proceeding from a Paternal dominion over him and rather became a great kindness and benignity towards them SECT XI Mr. Hobbs his reasons of the former assertions weighed and refuted Obedience where it crosses first due to the Parent The weaknese of Mr. Hobbs's inferences noted Hâ—s conclusion censured Oecominical Laws must be submitted to National HE adds For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved because preservation of life being the end for which one becomes subject to another every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in whâ—se power it is to save or destroy him I answer preservation as the Philosopher speaks is continuâ—tâ—â— creatiâ—â—r generatio so that the very being of any thing is the substance which is preserved and that must needs be more excellent then such an acciâ—ent as preservation It is true a châ—ld ought to obey him who hath nourished him but not in such a degree as to a Parental relation when that obedience shall cross the obedience to the Parents Preservation of life is the end saith he for which one man becomes subject unto another But consider what preservation that is with that which is to come upon this ground the unvanquished man submits himself to the Conquerour that he may protect his future being and preserve him from future danger but this subjection is not to him who hath preserved him but to him who will preserve him or if this subjection be due yet not such nor contrary to that of his Parents But I must not tire my self nor my Reader with such needless discourses upon errors which fall of themselves without any dispute only entreat the Reader in perusing them to consider his inferences how they depend one upon another and that will be light enough to shew him the weakness of them He goes on If the Mâ—ther be the Fathers subject the Child is in the Fathers power c. It is not worth the transcribing he now runs from Parents barely under the Law of Nature to such as are in setled Common-wealths to all which one answer will serve that they must be according to the National and peculiar Laws belonging to that Commonwealth for Oeconomical Laws must submit to National The next learned note of his is He that hath dominion over the Child hath dominion also over the children of that Chiâ—d I must confess a most true and excellent observation and such as he will hear of hereafter and so I let it pass for this present The next conclusion he enters upon is the right of succession to Paternal dominion which he saith proceedeth in the same manner as doth the right of succession to Monarchy of which he had spoke in the precedent Chapter I will dispute nothing about this The Customes and Laws of every Nation
uncertain and deviating from his matter HIs third instance So when we speak freely it is not the liberty of voice or pronuntiation but of the man whom no Law had obliged to speak otherwise then he did First I think he is mistaken much in the sense of this phrase free speech for we shall find it two ways used in our common conversation of men with men sometimes in a virtuous sense as he did preach freely deliver the truth without fear of men for that bondage of fear is a great captivity sometimes in a worse sense when we use to say such a man is one of a free conversation he speaks freely not that he speaks things as no Law hath forbid to speak otherwise but without consideration he gives no Law to his own tongue one as we otherwise phrase him sometimes without fear or wit and it is within an inch of sauciness Now freedom of speâ—ch doth not relate only to the outward Laws but to the ability sometimes of Language and yet I may add he was to blame when he denied the use of it concerning the bodily pronuntiation for we use to say he is free from stammering and for stammering he hath an impediment in his speech Let the Reader forgive me for medling with such trifles as these are which in this place I do because he may observe how crude and indigested his discourse is and how uncertain even his illustrations are which ought to be of a clearer evidence But now I come to his Lastly which indeed I guess to be the work he aimed at and this only a Preamble to the Liberty of Subjects which indeed it concerns not SECT V. Of freedom and liberty again These two contrary to his former acception of the words now distinguished by Mr. Hobbs The word will taken in a double sense equally with understanding by the Philosophers The common notion justified against Mr. Hobbs The subjectum quod and the subjectum quo of liberty in the will A twofold act of the will confounded by Mr. Hobbs explained and asserted God only can do what ever he has inclination to LAstly saith he from the use of the word Free-will no liberty can be enforced of the will desire or inclination but the liberty of the man which consisteth in this that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will desire or inclination to do What from the use of this word Free-will no liberty can be inferred of the will desire or inclination I wonder why by his discourse because it is no body which he conceives to be the only free thing but that hath been refuted other things are as free as bodies according to his conceit of freedom because other things produce alteration and may be impeded in their operations But perhaps he puts a difference here betwixt freedom and liberty which before he conjoyned and conceives that the freedom of the will which may not be stopt or hindred in its operations is a distinct thing from its liberty of doing or not doing of electing this or refusing that And although he allows the first that it is free without stop to operate but hath no liberty to operate or not operate or to refuse one and chuse another this I apprehend to be his meaning as will appear presently his whole discourse pointing at it To understand which let the Reader consider with me that this word will is taken two ways for a faculty in the Soul by which it produceth divers acts as to will or nill chuse or refuse And secondly for the prime act of this faculty which is to will for so Philosophers do with the understanding Intellectus is the faculty by which a man understands any thing and the prime act of the understanding or indeed the chief habit by which it understands any thing The habitus principiorum is called Intellectus Thus sometimes the same name is applied to the faculty and the chief operation of the faculty I speak this because he more then once abuseth this notion with some derision but however until we can learn more significant terms to express our notions by we must be content with such as are in use Now consider here he takes will for the act or the operation of the faculty not the faculty it self that is evident because he expounds it as if they were one by desire and inclination Now those two desire and inclination are actual motions or at the least tendencies to motions Now saith he of these there is no liberty but the liberty of the man It is true the man is the subjectum quod or the Soul of man in which the faculty of the will is but the will is the faculty which is the subjectum quo the immediate subject by which the man is free and by this faculty the man is enabled to work this act of willing freely But yet consider with me a little that the will being the instrument which man useth to obtain his happiness hath a twofold act one respects the end which is happiness the other the means by which this happiness is to be obtained The first is natural and necessary as natural as for the eye to see colours for the fire to burn There cannot be a man who would not be happy he may be mistaken in the thing so as to count this or that to be happiness which is not but he would be happy The second which is conversant about the means is Election and that act is free for a man to chuse or not chuse to chuse one and refuse another Now concerning the second there is abundance of liberty concerning the first he might confound will desire and inclination but concerning the second he may will or rationally desire that which he hath no inclination to yea is averse to in his natural inclination and therefore in that regard they were very ill joyned together and it was a Gambal of him and what follows is most odious to all reason and experience for explaining himself what he meant by the liberty of man which saith he consisteth in this that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will desire or inclination to do Consider this strange proposition Was there ever any man of such a liberty such a power that he finds no stop in doing what he hath a will to do The greatest Emperour that ever was could never say so they have stops in themselves their own reasons and consciences forbid them to do many things they would do their short and weak arms stop them from doing many things they are inclined to do only God is capable of this liberty whose infinite wisdom can find out all things and infinite goodness desires nothing but what is most excellent and infinite power can do all what he hath an inclination to It was therefore a most strange speech and I cannot but wonder how such things can pass amongst reasonable men for Philosophy and being in I think it
it self â—y faith made more certain to us opinion is only probable which may be other and this probability either relates to science as it is probable such causes will produce such effects or such effects proceed from such causes or else it relates to faith and it is then when a good honest man speaks any thing it is by faith probable to be true but yet it may be otherwise only divine faith admitts of no falsehood in its self and requires no doubting or hesitation in us Now although this assurance of opinion and probability be the least yet it yields us such an assurance as we build the greatest moral and politick actions which are practised amongst us upon it As when a man is dead his hand and seale pâ—sseth away his estate witnesses are dead likewise these are probable arguments only but being the greatest that the subject question can 〈◊〉 the greatest matters must be regulated by such probable arguments I can say the like of oathes they have neither a Physical certainty nor do they produce a divine faith but yet when we have hand and seal and Oath Mr. Hobbs will not say I think that we have no assurance How then can he say that we have no assurance that these are divine revelations which are delivered in the Bible for that is the sence of the question which he proposeth but that we have great assurance is that which I affirm I shall not here meddle with School nicetyes nor with any thing about infused faith but only the acquired faith which we have of these truths Many learned men have debated this question with great variety of Learning which may be perused in their Comments upon the 3. of the sentences Dist. 24. as likewise many times in Prolog and 22. of Aquinas question 1. as also in Imasâ—â—undae with many particular treatises to that purpose I turn the reader to these places which with ease he may peruse and find amongst them what he reads not with me who intend to deliver such things here as they have scarce touched upon My arguments shall be drawn first from the things delivered in this book Then from the manner of the delivery and Thirdly from the persons who delivered these things in all which I shall not meddle with those particular Books or Chapters of Books which are controverted betwixt us and the Church of Rome I think it incomparably handled by my much honoured and truly Reverend Brother Iohn Lord Bishop of Durham but my design is to shew that the bulke of Christianity and our faith is delivered in such a manner in respect of the things delivered of the manner of the delivery and of the persons who delivered them that it is most rational for a man to assure himself that these were divine revelations if it be not absolutely impossible that they should be other I will begin with the things delivered and first with the beginning of the Bible the first book of Moses the 1. Chap. of Genesis where we find the Creation so delivered as it was not possible for man to do it without revelation Men might and men have by reason even Philosophers guessed and proved that the world was created but to say when and set it down in such a method as that a man may find the year in which it was done this was never undertaken by any nor could any man do it but by divine revelation Yet you may think that Adam being made a perfect man might know the instant when he first appeared in the world and communicate that to Seth and he downward but could Adam without revelation know that he was made of earth Nay could Adam without revelation know how Evah was taken out of him or all the works of God which were wrought in the 6. dayes before he was made this could not be this story of the Creation must need be a revelation no man of himself could search it out But I am afraid Mr. Hobbs will say it is false no Christian ever said it was so but I suppose my self to have to do with an heathen not an Atheist but a Theist at the best Well then it is most reasonable for any man to think this story to be true because it is rational for a man to think that since God will and must be worshipped by men and it is impossible for men to know what worship is proper to be given him unless he tells them It is then most reasonable for a man to think that God will prescribe how that worship is to be performed and therefore caused this whole book to be writ for mens instruction and in it sets down this work of his creation to shew man the foundation of all his duty from whence it is derived that he owes God his being soul and Body that he should be humble who was taken out of the dust and to dust he must return that he that made him can destroy him and the like which God being pretended to do no where else it is most reasonable to think it is done here CHAP. XXII SECT II. The doctrine of the new Testament and particularly the incarnation of our blessed Saviour and the manner of it not possible to be known without a revelation The truth of the incarnation evicted from the miraculous Life and Actions of our blessed Saviour and the prophecies of the Old Testament and especially of Isaias The Iewes witnesses of the truth of the Books of the Old Testament SO then this being a truth fit for a man to know it being impossible for man to know it without a revelatiâ—n a man may justly be assured that it was revealed by God and so I will pass to the New Testament where we will consider the conception of the blessed Virgin as related there and so not pâ—ssible to be recorded but from a divine revelation Men might be assured from the Prophets who writ before of it that there should be such a thing and that it should be about that time but that it should happen now and that this should be the Virgin which should be the mother of our Saviour that none could tell but by revelation no not she her self It is true when she found her self with child she might wonder how that should come about since she knew not man as she answered the Angel who foretold it to her Luke the 1. and the 24. but that it should be so contrived and perfected as it was by the overshadowing of the Highest this she could not have known but by a revelation But I doubt Mr. Hobbs will answer this was not so his wicked wit seems to imagine such a thing I will prove it theâ—efore by the glorious fruit of her womb which shewed it self to arise from such a stock and living and dying as he did he could â—ot be less than descended from such a supernatural generation Well then he was so conceived as is taught and this could not be taught
certainty of their predictions objected ANd so I come to the persons who delivered these truths to us who will give us as full assurance as any thing else of the certainty The persons were of most eminent integrity and affirmed that these writings were delivered them from God I will begin with the first Moses a man who approved his conversation with God and Gods approbation of him by most certain signs first by those mighty wonders which he wrought in Aegypt before Pharaoh upon him and his in their journey afterwards by his wonderful conduct of the Children of Israel through the wilderness the like of which was never known The bringing water out of the rock feeding that mighty Host with bread and flesh the miraculous stopping the mouths of Korah c. why should we imagine that this man should lye and say he received this law from God when he did not Yes to make himself King among them Indeed the rebells last spoke of did object that but God confuted it by a miraculous destroying them and we see although whilst he lived he went betwixt God and them delivering prayers to God for them and bringing Gods will to them yet we find not that he acquired any high matters for himself the Priesthood which was to be a perpetual dignity he put Aaron into the Politique government he bequeathâ—d to Josuah and we do not find him contriving more than an ordinary proportion for his Children which shews that he had no self end in any thing he did Nay we may read in the 32. of Exodus 10. when Moses interceded with God for favour to the Children of Israel God made him answer let me alone that my wrâ—th may wax hot against them and that I may consume them and I will make of thee a great Nation Nevertheless Moses was not bribed with this for his own interest to forsake Gods glory but presently after presseth God for his own honour to have pitty upon the Israelites as you may read vers 11. c. where methinks he did like Abraham offer his whole posterity to Gods glory and honour which sheweth that Moses had no sinister ends in his actions but only the glory of God which certainly could not rise out of such a proud lye as to take upon him divine revelations where there were none Nâ—xt let us consider the Prophets they were men that adventured their lives and suffered miseries for those truths they foretold and â—aught yea they were sure of it and they who followed their counsels according to these revelations which God made to them it was well with them and mischief followed them who did otherwise Those things which they foretold did come to pass accordingly both concerning the Jewes and all other nations yea the whole world why should not we be assured that these things came from God which they say were revealed by him since we see them true in all those works which they forespoke of CHAP. XXII SECT VI. Of the doctrine of the Apostles the efficacy of their preaching The power of â—ongues their sufferings and patience not possible but from divine inspiration A further assertion of the same argument à posteriori such effect not producible but from a divine law IF we descend to the Apostles we shall find they were a sort of men of mean extraction and education how could it be possible that they unless by revelation should attain to such an efficacy of preaching as to be able to convince the whole world and preach this divine Philosophy How came they by the power of Tongues to be able to travel through the world and preach to every man in his own language but by the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost Why would they undertake the work through such cruel persecutions foretold them that they should be as sheep amongst wolves but that it was a duty enjoyned them from the Holy Ghost and they were sure that he who promised it would make good their reward in heaven hereafter for here they were to have miseries Truly I know not what can be opposed against this but that both from the matters delivered rom the manner that they are delivered by and from the persons who delivered them we have as great an assurance that these truths were revealed to them by God as can be wrought by humane faith Yea but let us consider further and it is scientifical à posteriâ—ri from the effect to the cause for if it be not possible that these effects should come from any cause but God as indeed I think it not possible then it is demonstrated that these must be revelations and we have a mighty assurance of them CHAP. XXII SECT VII Another argument ad hominem Mr. Hobbs his assurance of his being born at Malmsbury not comparable to this of the verity of the holy scriptures Some doubts of the place of Mr. Hobbs his birth from the erring of his doctrines from Christianity The attestation of the Gospel from the sufferings of the Saints and Martyrs The encrease and continuance of it in despite of persecution The Scriptures not possible to be written by bad men in regard their design is to destroy the Kingdom of Satan Good men would not obtrude a Lye upon the world Faith resolved into divine revelation The rest is a preparation to this faith and conclusion of this point LEt Mr. Hobbs tell me what assurance he hath of any thing He saith in the beginning of this Book that he is Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury I think he is as sure of this as of any thing but I am much surer and so may any man be that this Scripture was writ by divine revelation than he can be of that first for his place that he was of Malmsbury which is a town in Wiltshire where Christianity is professed where men are assured of the Scriptures that they are by divine revelation How should it breed such a monster who would bring all their hopes of heaven their faith in Gods promises to be dubious as if they were not promised But he is Thomas Hobbs how knows he that perhaps his mother told him so and the midwife I know not whether after he came to the years of discretion he ever talked with them but if he did it is but a weak Testimony in respect of ours which was and is affirmed by such divine and incomparable persons as the Apostles and Prophets were His Mother and the Midwife although true persons yet were apt to be deceived and it may be he was a supposititious Child how oft have such things been done when contrariwise these men who have delivered infalible truths many ages before they came to pass cannot be conceived to have any Error I but perhaps he will say he is like his father in his countenance in his speech certainly not so like as these truths are to that incomparable essence which we call God than which nothing more fully expressed these divine perfections
unless it was his personal word I but his Christening is registred in the Church Book of Malmsbury a good legal evidence and perhaps he enjoyed his fathers estate by this I know not but certainly there is a possibility of Error in it because the Church Book may be counteâ—feited and many a man hath intruded into other mens estates by unjust means but our evidence is recorded may I say or ingraven in these volumes which have been attested in every age since the first writing with the Blood of many martyrs which can be affirmed of no Church Book in the world worms and Cankers may eat them and thieves may break through and steal them and counterfeit them but these are subject to no corruption but by the providence of God have been and will be preserved so long as the world stands and endures So I think evidently that it appears that we have as full an assurance that these Scriptures are Divine as men can have of any thing in this world which they receive by hear-say Nay let us go further examine whether we have not a Demonstration from the effect to the cause we know such a man was our friend by his voice when he speaks another by his style as the report is of Sr. Thomas Moore with Erasmus aut Erasmus aut Diabolus Yea Critiques every where discerne Authors by their Styles may not we think you discern God by these heavenly writings which are more than humane When we hear a man discoursing of high points in Philosophy learnedly we know such an effect cannot proceed from a Country-education at the Cart and Plough it requires â—nother study and industry When the Scripture teacheth us things higher than the natural wit of man 〈◊〉 reach to as I have shewed it must needs come from a higher strain than our natural Condition could deliver to us I will conclude with one word The Scriptures must be writ by good or ill men ill men could not do it it reacheth those doctrines which destroy the Devil and his Kingdom all evil if good men writ it they would not 〈◊〉 to say thâ—y were inâ—pired by God when they were not they would not deliver such things for assâ—â—â—d â—ruths which none could know but God if God did not teach it them Upon these invincible Grounds I think I may say that we have a mighty assurance that these are divine revelations which he wickedly aâ—â—irms we have no assurance of But it may be objâ—cted if the demonstration be so evâ—dent why do not all men receive it for the understanding is made after such a manner as the Eye when you shew it colours the Eye must see them so shew by demonstration a truth to the understanding it must needs assent For my part I do not apprehend that man hath liberty in his understanding to accept or refuse truths which are laid open to iâ— neither do I think that which is called liberum arbitrium is only a freedom of the will but a result out of them both however it is not in the understanding alone nor is this belief of our that these things are revealed only an act of the understanding but of the will which refuseth to heare the voice of the Charmer charme he never so wisely Sometimes a malitious Will wâ—ll not permit a man to study and think of these arguments which the more he studyeth the more he will approve sometimes when he hath studyed them it will make him seek further and being not delighted with that reason which is proposed it will not be satisfied with it so that there is a submission to these reasons offered which is necessary to our assent to them And certainly that is much by such arguments as shew the happiness-men have in being under Gods Government for then men will seek what and wherein â—e will bless them and when he finds that these Scriptures and these only are rational for a man to think are his own dictates he will willingly submit to them 〈…〉 when a proud manâ—â—all think that he and he only is faber not fortuna only but of his own happiness and that he need not seck to God for assistance then he slighâ—s all these discourses and listens not to them But still a man may say it seems that resolution of our faith is into this way of arguing I answer noâ— our faith is resolved into the divine revelations that God hath said this or that this is but a preparation for that foundation when a wise and vertuous man tells me any thing I believe it for the esteem of him and that is my last resolution of that faith because such a man speaks it but before this I must be prepared for this with an acquaintance that this is such a man and I must know he speaketh it These preparatory Acts are neceâ—â—ary for the introduction of that Act of faith in him but faith in him is the foundation of my belief in that sentence it is evidently so in this Case we believe these divine truths absolutely and the last resolution of them is into this that God hath revealed them but yet it may be enquired whether these Arguments be necessary to our assent to these divine principles or not Certainly to a man who should be converted from Paganisme Vt prudenter credat that he be not carryed about with winds of Doctrine it is fit he should have these or some other equivalent Arguments to induce him to them But to a man born in the Church and bred up in the Christian religion it is comfortable to his faith when he finds it attended with such invincible reasons and he is able to understand them But if not simplicity of faith and obedience to God will be blessed by him It will not be expected that I should engage in more niceties of this kind I hope it appears that we have assurance of these divine revelations It was therefore not only a bold but impious and wicked affirmation of him to say it is evidently impossible for a man to be assured of the revelation to another without a revelation particularly made to himself But he proceeds to answer some seeming proofes brought to affirm the assurance of these revelations I will put them down in order and examine his answer The first is drawn from miracles and is thus set down in the place last cited CHAP. XXII SECT VIII Mr. Hobbs his answer to the first proof retorted Miracies defined FOR though a man may be induced to believe such revelation from the Miracles they see him do that is the first Objection he answers Miracles are marvellous works but that which is marvellous to one may not be so to another This answer of his to speak ad hominem doth not become him as I shewed in my first piece page 1â—9 He had said that Concerning the worlds magnitude and bâ—ginning he was content with that doctrine which the Scripture perswaded and the fame of these miracles
Parents asserted HE proceeds As also unbelief is not a breach of any of his Laws but a rejection of them all This was witty and a good way of arguing contrariorum eadem est ratio contraries do illustrate one the other But consider Reader is not the rejection of a Law a breach of a Law Suppose a man should think as some have that no supreme hath power â—o make Laws for life and death he steals and by the Law concerning Thievery is to be executed doth his rejection of that Law make his felony no breach of that law which is against it Certainly it is the greatest breach it tears the Law in pieces and is the greatest violation of it that may be To this purpose our Saviour most clearly John 3. 18. He who believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God So that according to Mr. Hobbs his Tenent here is a condemnation but no just one because not for the breach of some Law There muâ—â— be therefore some divine Law exacting faith which this infidelity doth break But then Mr. Hobbs would reply to our Saviour that faith is a gift and why dost thou puniâ—h me for the want of that which is only a gift Read the 19 verse and our Saviour doth answer him And this is the condemnation that light is come into the World and men love darkness rather than light the light is the light of faith and Gods graces which he gives to men by which they may apprehend divine truths which yet they do not because they love darkness rather than light love not this light of faith which discovers to them the obliquity of their sinful worldly desires So that it is apparent that although God gives this light his grace yet men preferring the world before it it is unprofitable This was the case of these Jews which our Saviour spoke to Iohn 5 44 How can ye believe which reciâ—ve honour from one another and seek not the honour which cometh from God So that mens preferring worldly things before the things of God causeth them not to receive or make use of Gods revelations But Mr. Hobbs hath Scripture for what he writes Gen. 17. 10. This is the Covenant which thou shalt observe between me and thee and thy seed after thee Now saith he Abrahams seed had not this revelation nor were yet in being yet they are a party to the covenant and bound to obey what Abraham should declare to â—hem for Gods Law It is true what he saith that Abrahams seed had not the revelation nor were yet in being yet they are a party in this Covenant But what can be deduced further from this than that which is the ordinary condition of contracts A man gives his estate to another and to his posterits for ever upon a condition that they shall pay such and such acknowledgments which if they perform that estate shall be theirs but if not the contract shall be void Yes saith Mr. Hobbs there is more they are bound to obey whatsoever Abraham should declare for Gods Law I see nothing in these words which enforce any such thing but only the observation of circumcision thiâ— God calls his Covenant being a sign thereof and this Covenant consisteth in this that God would be Abrahams God and his seeds after him and that he would give them the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession The meaning of all which was that he would in near and dear respects favour and protect them as you may read in the 7 and 8 verses of that Chapter So that here in this is no more implyed but that if they observe circumcision God would bless them there is no mention of accepting for Gods Laws whatsoever Abraham should deliver and therefore he might have spared his following discourse which saith he they could not be but in virtue of the obedience they owed to their Parents who if they be subject to no other earthly power as here in the case of Abraham have soveraign power over their Children and servants This I say might have been spared for if the Covenant went no further than I have expreâ—â—ed as without doubt it did not there needs no soveraign power to be forced to it But I am of his mind that they who are Parents where is no other established soveraignty have that supreme power over their children and servants which one conclusion will confute the whole body of his Politiques as I intend to shew hereafter CHAP. XXII SECT XVII The obedience of Abrahams Family to Gods Laws depended upon that to him as Father of the Family Mr. Hobbs his consequences drawn from this proposition not rightly deduced His constant varying from the English translation observed and censured Reason against former deductions The intire obedience of the Israelites to the dictates of Moses rather from the conference of his divine inspiration as a Prophet than his soveraign power The Authority of scripture depends not upon the declaration of the soveraign The worshippers of Baal not excused from the command of the King of Israel The reasons of Mr. Hobbs his former assertion disproved The commands of the soveraign justly opposed when contrary to the Christian faith Mr. Hobbs his Atheistical conclusions censured BUt he hath another piece of Scripture which you may read Gen 18. 18 19. Again where God saith to Abraham In thee shall all Nations of the Earth be blessed for I know thou wilt command thy Children and thy house after thee to keep the way of the Lord and to observe righteousness and judgment It is manifest the obedience of his family who had no revelation depended on their former obligation to obey their Soveraign Thus far Mr. Hobbs I answer 't is true that this obedience of Abrahams family to himself depends upon their filial obedience to him as their Father and his commanding them depends upon his soveraign power over them as their Father But what can it be collected hence that if Abraham had commanded dishonest things i. e. such actions as were against any will of God revealed any other way to them that they should have obeyed him Certainly no nay the contrary is here intimated for therefore God promised to bless him and his posterity because he did know that Abraham would command them vertuous things to keep the way of the Lord. But mark here Mr. Hobbs still varyes from the English lection and that to the worse for it is not what he writes to keep but he will command them and they shall keep the way of the Lord. So that the sense is because God foresaw his fatherly care and their filial duty in these righteous actions he would bless them He prosecutes this conclusion with another Scripture thus At mount Sinai Moses only went up to God the people were forbidden to approach on pain of death yet were they bound to obey all that Moses declared unto them for Gods Law
it be fit for me to act according to these Laws The Law made in Queen Maries days which shed so much innocent blood it was fit for every man in that time to suffer rather than to conspire with them And therefore he must be judge himself what is vertuous for him to do and that Law is not a rule to guide him saâ—ely by Let this suffice for the first proposition The second is And the Judge is the legislator who is alwaiâ—s representative of the Common-wealth What an impossible Judge for such doubts is here delivered Make the legislator what you will King or Senate or what you please â—he queâ—ion to be determined may be whether it is fit for Titius at this hour or instant to act according to this Civil law concerning which the scruple ariseth whether it be not against the Divine law the duty is instant now required It is not possible for this man to obtain leave to enquire of the legislator or if he could is it not probable that the legislator may not be at leisure to answer such doubts It cannot be therefore that the legislator can be a proper Judge of such questions Titius alone must do it himself neither indeed is it possible for any legislator to foresee all such particular scruples which may arise out of general rules and therefore there is a necessity for every man to be judge of good and evil concerning his own particular actions what he should do But he reduceth great mishaps and ill consequences which follow upon this doctrine which must be examined From this false doctrine saith he men are disposed to debate with themselves and dispute the commands of the Common wealth And why not good Reader There is no man that hath reason with him when he studyeth a Law-book or indeed any other besides the holy Scripture but he considers whether that law or discourse be agreeing to the principles of Faith and Reason whether it be consonant with equity if a maâ— have not his judgement free to himself how comes it about that Mr. Hobbs hopes to prevail with his discourse against all the laws in the Christian World but that he himself thinks there is a freedome of judgement left amongst men to determine by their reason what is good or evil But then he adds And afterwards to obey or disobey them as in their private judgment they shall think fit whereby the Common-wealth is distracted and weakned Certainly every man living will obey or disobey as he thinks fit and this is done by vertuous and good men without distracting or weakning the Common-wealth For if a vertuous man find the Civil law contradicting Gods law either in Nature or Scripture he cannot think it good moraliter for him to act according to its direction But his opposing of an established law shall be with submission to the penalty not contending martially against it for the accommodation of this present contented being which is his doctrine and by this means the Common-wealth will suffer no distraction but rather confirmation and establishment when a mans private evil shall be patiently endured rather than the peace of a kingdom shall be disquieted I speak no more of this because the sence is much the same with that doctrine which he censured next and condemns CHAP. XXIII SECT IV. Mr. Hobbs his proposition everted Conscience defined and distinguished Of conclusions secondarily or remotely deduced from the first principles No conscience properly and strictly erroneous but being such according to the vulgar acception of the phrase however obliges The case put upon the misinterpretation of Scripture supposed to prohibite swearing though for the confirmation of a truth and the error asserted to be obliging Two objections answered and the proposition fully cleared our Saviours command of not swearing at all examined and elucidated Of promissory or assertory Oaths The paragraph and question concluded ANother Doctrine repugnant to Civil Society is That whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience is sin and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself Judge of good and evil Certainly the proposition is true whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience is sin for Conscience includes in its Name and Nature Science so that there can be no Conscience without there be a knowledg of the condition and circumstances to which his Conscience is applyed I would be loth to involve my self into many intricate Questions But intreat the Reader to consider that Conscience is the conclusion of a practical Syllogisme in which the Major is either the Act of a principal law of Nature or some general rule equivalent to it To understand this observe that there are two innate qualities in man which the Philosophers call Habitus Principiorum habits of principles which do so evidence themselves that no rational man doth hear such truths clearly delivered but he presently assents to them that which is about speculative things they term intellectus because it is in the prime operation of the understanding of which Nature are these That the whole is greater than a part two and two make four There is no man that heareth such propositions clearly delivered who doth not presently assent to them There is another quality which is called by them Synteresis which is the habit by which we readily assent to practical things as in the other to speculative of which Nature are these That good is desirable evil to be eschewed God is to be obeyed in his commands and the like Now there is no man ho as soon as he hears these Axiomes clearly delivered but doth without ambiguity presently yield an assent to them Out of these principles when a man makes true collections and deductions that conclusion is Conscience as thus All evil is to be eschewed Adultery is evil Therefore Adultery is to be eschewed Such a man who thus argues acts against his Conscience when he commits Adultery But not only so when a conclusion is immediately deduced out of Synteresis but that which is more remotely deduced out of it as take the conclusion of the former syllogisme â— Adultery is to be eschewed This particular Act with this forbidden Woman is Adultery Therefore this is to be eschewed Sure he who commits that sin acts against his Conscience and so as far as any man can go with right arguing so far his Conscience obligeth him Now if we would argue from strong reason a man may say there is no such thing as an erroneous Conscience because if it be not Science it cannot be Conscience which upposeth Science and a right drawing out the Conclusion which proceeds from these evident principles and then most certainly Mr. Hobbs must be in the wrong who affirms that it is not sin to act against his Conscience But let us take Conscience as in the usual way it is taken not for the conclusion of a direct and certain arguing from these known and evident principles of which before but for that conclusion which any