conjectural and of probabilities onely whereas faith makes its object certain end withal he makes these phrases the same To have faith in to trust to and to beleeve a man but Saint Austin and the Church ever since have made these distinct phrases for credere Deo is to beleeve that God is true credere Deum is to beleeve there is a God which wicked men and evil Angels may do but credere in Deum is to love God and to relie on him and to put our trust in him which none do but good men therefore Mr: Hobbs is injurious to Christianity when he saith That to beleeve in God as it is in the Creed is meant noâ— trust in the person but confession of the doctrine If so then the Devil may as boldly and with as great comfort say the Creed as any Christian for he beleeves and trembles â—aith Saint Iames and we know these evil spirits confessed Christ to be the Son of God and he is no less injurious to God when he will have us beleeve in the Church saying Our belief faith and trust is in the Church whose words we take and acquiâ—sse therein but the Apostles in their Creed have taught us otherwaies namely That we beleeve the Catholick Church but we beleeve in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ and in the Hâ—ly Ghost He makes Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men to signifie in Scripture the same thing for thus he writes Whereas many of those Devils are said to confess Christ Is it not necessary to interpret those places otherwise then that those mad-men confessed him And shortly after I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief that Demoniacks were any other thing but mad-men Yes there be divers things that make it necessary for him to beleeve that these were distinct 1. The letter of the text from which we should not digress except we were urged by an inconvenience which is not here 2. The Authority of the Church in which he saith he doth beleeve Now the Church alwaies took these for distinct creatures to wit Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men 3. The honour of Christ for wherein was the power of his Divinity seen if these were ordinary Mad-men seeing madness is curable by physick and every common Physician It tended more to Christ's honour that the Devil whose Kingdom he came to destroy should confess he divinity then that mad-men should acknowledge it 4. Christ came to call Jews and Gentiles by working of miracles but to cast out Devils and to cure Demoniacks was a greater miracle then to cure mad-men 5. The New Testament distinguisheth Demoniacks from mad-men for these are called Demoniacks not mad and Saint Paul is termed mad by the Athenians and not a Demoniack so Devils are never called mad-men in Scripture nor madmen called Devils besides as all mad-men are not Demoniacks so all Demoniacks are not mad-men for the Devil entered into Iudas Iscariot he became a demoniack or possessed by the Devil and yet he was no mad-man but I doubt me Mr. Hobbs is mad himself in thinking all learned men to be mad except himself he thinks the School-men mad because their terms cannot be translated or are not intelligible in vulgar languages by this he may as well ascribe madness to Lawyers and Physitians as to Divines for their terms of 〈◊〉 â—t cannot be well translated nor can vulgar capacities easily understand them nor is it much material whether they do or not Church and State can subsist well enough though the vulgar sort understand not the terms of School divinity if these terms are not intelligible by dull heads and shallow brains the fault is in themselves not in the terms for quicquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur non ad modum recepti Blinde men must not accuse the Sun of obscurity because they cannot see him neither are the words of Suarez which he alledgeth for an example so obscure as he would make them for to an intelligent man the words are very plain to wit That the first cause hath no necessary influence upon the second by reason of subordination which is a help to their working Here be two things remarkable 1. That the second causes work by reason of subordination to the first cause â— That the first cause worketh not necessarily upon the second but voluntarily If this dish please not Mr. Hobbs his pallat he must blame his mouth which is out of tast and not the meat which is both wholesom and savory In his tenth chapter he uttereth strange Paradoxes 1. That to pitty is to dishonour 2. That good Fortune if lasting is a sign of Gods favour 3. That covetousness of great riches and ambition of great honours are honourable 4. That an unjust action so it be joyned with power is honorable for honour consisteth onely in the opinion of power therefore the heathen gods are honoured by the Poets for their thefts and adulteries and at first among men piracy and theft were counted no dishonour 1. Pitty is rather honour then dishonour for when a father pittieth his child a King his subject or a Master his servant do they dishonour them When we desire God to pitty us do we desire him to dishonour us him whom we dishonour we pitty not and whom we pitty we dishonour not pitty proceeds of love dishonour of hatred 2. If lasting good fortune be a sign of Gods favour it seems then that the Turks are highly in Gods favour for their good fortune hath continued these many hundreth years Whether was poor and starved Lazarus or that rich glutton who fared dilitiously every day highest in Gods favour 3. Who ever afore Mr. Hobbs made ambition honourable and covetousness which Saint Paul calls the root of all evil Can sin be honorable which brought shame and dishonour upon mankinde in respect of sin man did not abide in honour but became like the beasts that perish If ambition of great honors be honorable then were the evil Angels and Adam most honorable when they affected to be like God himself which is the greatest and highest honour that can be then were Caligula Domitian Heliogabalus and others who affected divine honours most honorable Midas coveted great riches when he wished all might be gold he touched therefore in this he was most honorable but if it be honour to offend God to transgress his law to incur his displeasure and suffer eternal pains let them who list injoy this honour I will have none of it non equidem tali me digner honore 4. He makes unjust actions joyned with power honourable Then unjust actions without power deserve no honour it is even as Seneca complaineth in his time parva furta puniuntur magna in triumphis aguntur Petty theeves are hanged but great robberies are honoured He spoke it with grief when a cruel tyrant ruled or rather misruled the Empire But otherwaies where there is government unjust actions are punished not
like the most excellent men but rather like to God himself Latius regnes avidum dâ—â—ando spiritum quam si Lybiam remotis Gadibus jungas c. What availed it Alexander to conquer the world and not to conquer himself to be a slave to his vices and not subject to his laws And I pray why should not a Prince be as well subject to his own laws as to his oaths covenants and promises there is nothing so honorable for a King as to keep his word and to observe the laws which he not onely made but by oath and promise tied himself to obey And surely this is the very law of nature which as Mr. Hobbs saith is divine and cannot by any man or common-wealth be abrogated Neither is there any inconvenience to set the law as a Judge above the Prince for as Aristotle tells us Polit. l. 3. c. 11. The law where it is plain and perspicuous ought to beat rule because without it no King norâ— Common-wealth can govern And secondly Because the law is just not subject to partiality passion and affection as Princes and other men are and indeed Princes should be so far from disobeying their own laws that they should be the life and soul of the law which of it self is but a dead letter therefore the common saying of that good Emperor Aurelius was Rex viva Lex No Common-wealth can be happy or continue long but where the Prince is as well subject to the law as the People his example will move them to obedience Nec sic inflectere sensus humanosâ— edicta valent ac vita regentis therefore the counsel of Pittaâ—us was good Let not them break the law who make the Law parâ—to legi quisquis legem sanxerit Cap. 29. He is angry with those who say That every private man hath a property in his goods Among the Turks indeed no private man hath any property at all under Christian Princes private men live more happily who enjoy a property yet not simply absolute if we consider that the Prince hath a right to our goods in cases of necessity as in his own and Countries defence and such like cases in this regard no man is born for himself nor hath any man an absolute property in his own life which he ought when occasion urgeth lay down for his Country Dulce decorum pro patria mori therefore Plato saith well That our Country requires a share in our birth the property then of the subject excludeth not the Princes right in cases of necessity but onely his arbitrary power Hence are these sayings Omnia rex imperio possidet singuli dominio Again Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet ad singulos proprietas The power here spoke of is meant of his just lawful not of his arbitrary tyrannical power In his thirty one chapter he makes a needless distinction between the objects of love hope and fear shewing That love hath reference to goodness hope and fear to power the subject of praise is goodness the subject of magnifying and blessing is power David knoweth no such distinction who in the 18. Psalm he loves God for his strength or power and in another Psalm he fears him for his mercy or goodness There is saith he mercy with thee therefore shalt thou be feared So he makes Gods goodness and not his power the object of his hope or belief Psal. 27. I hoped to see the goodness of God in the land of the living so likewise he praiseth God for his strength or power as well as for his goodness Praise him saith he for his mighty acts praise him for his excellent greatness Psal. 150. and in divers Psalms he magnifyeth God for his salvation as well as for his power Now when he saith that this name God is his own name of relation to us he is deceived for this is no name of relation at all his names of relation to us are Creator Redeemer Father Lord King Master c. In his third Part and Chap. 1. He saith That our natural reason is the undoubted word of God But I doubt Leviathan himself for all his great strength and power cannot make this good for Gods word is infallible so is not our natural reason which faileth in many things Gods word saith That a Virgin did conceive and bear a Son That God became man That our bodies shall rise again out of the dust but our natural reason saith this is impossible therefore when St. Paul preached the resurrection to the Athenians who wanted not natural reason enough they thought he had been mad How comes it that the Apostle saith The natural man understandeth not the things of Gods spirit And Christ tells Peter That flesh and blood that is natural reason had not revealed the mystery of his Divinity to him but his Father in Heaven and St. Paul saith That he received not the Gospel of man nor was he taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. And that he was not taught by mans wisdom but by the Holyâ— Ghost 1 Cor. 2. 13. How comes it I say that the Scripture speaks thus in villifying natural reason if it be the infallible word of God yea what need was there of any written word at all if our natural reason be that infallible word doubtless Adam by his fall lost much of his knowledge and natural reason Peter made use of his natural reason when he undertook to disswade Christ from going up to Ierusalem and there to suffer and die but Christ tells him that he favoured the things that be of men but not of God Mat. 16. 23. Our natural reason saith he cap. 32. Is a talent not to be folded up in the napkin of an implicit faith This I grant but I hope he will permit that our natural reason be subject to an explicit faith without which it is impossible to please God and not onely must our reason be subdued to faith but every imagination in us must be cast down and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God and every thought must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ 2. Cor 10. 5. And whereas he saith cap 32. That our reason must be imployed in the purchase of justice peace and true religion If reason could procure or purchase these blessings the Gentiles of old the Jews and Mahumeâ—ans of latter years might have had them as well as we for in natural reason they are not inferior to us every one of these following the dictates of reason think they have the true Religion as for justice and peace they can never be purchased by reason but by â—aith therefore saith the Apostle being justified by faith we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord but his reason by which he would prove that our natural reason is the undoubted word of God is very feeble for saith he There is nothing contrary to it in
the Arabian hereticks about two hundred and seventeen years after Christ these were called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is mortall soules The Psychopanvychits of this age come somewhat neer these Arabians for though they hold not the death or dissolution of the soul yet they say it sleeps with the body in the grave this error therefore Mr. Hobbs is no novelty yet we are beholding to you that you will maintain nothing in it till the sword establish it and then you will be content to approve of it But what if the sword should dethrone Christ and set up Mahumet Must that sword be obeyed Concerning the place of hell and the nature of hell fire I will not dispute with you seeing the Scripture doth not punctually set down and in proper terms either the one or the other yet we may collect by some passages of holy writ that hell is in the lower parts of the world for when it speaks of hell it still names a discent or going down Core went down to hell the rich glutton in hell lifted up his eyes towards Abraham The â—eart is said to rise the out of bottomless â—it and yet stands with reason that the place of the damned should be as remote from heaven as may be which can be no where but in the bowels of the earth The names of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Greek and infernus in Lutine intimate so much the exactest description we have of hell is in Isa. 30. 33. Tophet is ordained of old c. he hath made it deep and large the pile thereof is fire and much wood the breath of the Lord like a stream of Brimston doth kindle it The Angels are said to be cast down to hell 2. Pet. 2. 4. And Christ descended into hell all which shew that it is beneath us and this visible world Because the Prophets in the old Testament by allegorical terms describe the happiness of Christs Church under the Gospel therefore Mr. Hobbs will needs cap. 38. have these phrases to be understood of an earthly kingdom after the resurrection but the Prophets speak of pleasant rivers and fields of woods and groves of horses and charriots of eating and drinking and all kinde of earthly delights which if Mr. Hobbs understand literally I shall think his opinion relisheth too much of the Alcoran and that he reviveth again the heresie of Cerinthus which the Fathers of the Church hath long since exploded as being too gross and carnal and such as none will beleeve but carnal men Nulla modo ista possunt nisi a carnalibus credi as St. Austin saith l. 20. de civit c. 7. The kingdom of God consisteth not in meat and drink saith the Apostle the words that they speak are spirit and truth and are spiritually to be understood if we shall be like the Angels after the resurrection as our Saviour assures us what other delights can we have then but such as they enjoy now why should not heaven be the place of our abode as well as theirs they need not the earth to reside in now neither shall we then But he saith That the subjects of God should have any place higher then his foot-stool seemeth not sutable to the dignity of a King It may be so Mr. Hobbs of you speak of earthly Kings who pride themselves in their supposed greatness and stand upon punctilios but it is not so with the King of heaven who made no scruple to wash his servants feet and to tell them that they should sit with him upon twelve thrones to jude the twelve tribes of Israel And assures us that he will grant to him who overcometh to sit down with him in his throne even as I saith he also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne Rev. 1. 21. And St. Iohn tells us that Christ hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father Rev. 1. 6. It will not then be unsutable to his dignity if we ascend higher then his footstool In his forty one chapter he tells us That the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin till the general resurrection What hath Christ been all this while a King without a Kingdom or hath his Church been all this time a people without a King sheep without a Shepherd a body without a head Are Christians in a worse condition then other people And is not Christ highly wronged who having conquered a kingdom with his blood and having got the victory over all his enemies is notwithstanding now 1652. years without his kingdom and must be without it till the general resurrection How can this stand that he should so many yeers since by his Apostles and their successors subdue so many nations to his obedience by that sharpe two edged sword of his mouth and yet all this while have no kingdom could Alexander in three yeers space subdue so many kindoms and Christ after so many hundred years be without his kingdom what is become of his rod of Iron by which he was to rule the stubborn Gentiles How can this stand that he ascended up on high led captivity captive and gave liberal gifts to men yea likewise hath prescribed divers laws ordinances hath distributed divers rewardsâ— and inflicted divers punishments and yet is no King he confesseth to Pilate that he was even at that time a King when he stood before him ready to suffer death for his subjects but withal acknowledgeth that his kingdom was not of this world and therefore refuseth to be an earthly king When Satan profferred him all the kingdoms of the world Matth. 4. And when the Jews sought to make him King he absented himself If he was a King in his humiliation shall he now be no King in his glory and exaltation Now Mr. Hobbs gives us a reason cap. 41. why Christs Kâ—ngdom begins not till the resurrection Because then he shall reward every man according to his work and this is to excute the office of a King This is a feeble reason for a King may be a King though he differ the rewards or punishments which his subjects have deserved Shall we say that David was not king because he did not reward Ioab Shimei and the sons of Barzillai according to their works but left that to his son Solomon both to reward Barzillai's sons for their good service to David in his affliction and to punish Iob with death for the murthering of Abner and Amasa and likewise Shimei for his railling against the king There is a time for all things even for punishments and rewards and if the differing of these do argue no king he may then as well say that God himself is no King who differred the drowning of the world one thouand six hundred years And the punishing of the Amorites four hundred years And so doth put off the rewarding of men till the world to come But he tells us That Christ ascribed kingly power