Leviathan Drawn out with A HOOK: OR ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr HOBBS HIS LEVIATHAN. Together with some OBSERVATIONS UPON Sir WALTER RALEIGH'S History of the WORLD. LONDON, Printed by Tho. Newcomb, for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-Lane. 1653. LEVIATHAN drawn out with a HOOK. OR ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr HOBBS HIS LEVIATHAN. By ALEX. ROSSE. LONDON, Printed by Tho. Newcomb, for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-Lane. 1653. To the Right Worshipful FRANCIS LUCY Esq SIR, THe Giant Goliath so affrighted the whole host of Israel, by the vast bulk of his body, the weight and large dimensions of his spear and armour, with his defying and bragging words, that none of all that Army durst encounter him. Only David a Shepherd by profession, in stature low, in years young, the least of all his brethren, and of meanest account among the people, took the boldness to enter the lists with that uncircumcised Philistim. So I a spiritual shepherd by profession, the least of the Tribe of Levi, little in my own eyes, and of small account in the world, observing how all the host of learned men in this Land look upon, but adventure not to buckle with Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan, Nec quisquam ex agmine tanto audet adire viurm, manibusve inducere caestus. I say, being animated by some lovers of the truth, have this Summer set aside for a while my other studies, to peruse this book, and to detect some of his chief Tenets, which though erroneous and dangerous, are swallowed down by some young Sciolists without nauseating; which to me is an argument of great distemper in the minds and affections of men, who with the Israelites loathing the Manna of true philosophy and Divinity, covet after the quails of new errors, or rather old in a new guise, which in the end will poison them. Me thinks I see Religion and learning, Divinity and true philosophy, devotion and piety, for which this Islaud hath been glorious for many generations, saying as the voice that the Christians heard in Jerusalem immediately before the destruction thereof, Migremus hinc. These are the Palladia, and as it were the Tutelar gods, by which this British Empire hath so long stood, which if they forsake us, what are we else but a prey to our enemies: God grant we may not complain of their departure, as Aenaeas did of his Trojan gods, Excessere omnes aditis, arisque relictis Dii quibus imperium hoc steterat. For do we not see how Athism strives to justle out Religion, how ignorance is crawling up into the chair of learning; how piety is affronted by profaneness; and devotion by irreverance; how divinity is assaulted by heretical opinions; and solid philosophy by dreams and fanatical whimsies. I doubt not but I shall be blamed by some for encountering this Champion of Malmsbury, as David was for venturing upon that Champion of Gath; but I will answer them in David's words. 1 Sam. 17. 29. What have I now done, is there not a cause? Goliath defied the whole host of Israel, and Mr. Hobbs defyeth the whole host of learned men; esteeming his Leviathan as formidable and unconquerable, as that in Job 41. 16. of whose Majesty the mighty are afraid, and for fear they faint in themselves; but this Leviathan is not so; For a Hook may be cast into his nose, and his jaws may be pierced with an angle, Job 40. 21. Sir, this piece (which makes its addresses to you, as to one truly judicious, pious, and a lover of solid learning) is but small; so was David, who notwithstanding foiled Goliath; the Ichneumon is but a small rat, yet it can kill the great Crocodile; in est sua gratia parvis, small things have their magnitude, though not of bulk, yet of virtue; there is more nourishment in a small lark, then in a great kite or raven; and so there is more lustre in a small Diamond than a whole quarry of other stones; as in a little Bee, so in this little Book there may be much spirit; ingentes animos angusto in corpore gestat. But how small soever it be, it hath drawn out Leviathan with an Hook, which it presents to you; and so do I by it, my thankful acknowledgements for all your favours; praying for an increase of all happiness on yourself, your religious Lady, and your hopeful son my scholar with the rest of your Family: which is the hearty desire of Your most humble Servant ALEX: ROSSE. To the Reader. GOod Reader, David encountered with a Lion and a Bear; Daniel conversed among Lions; Paul fought with Beasts at Ephesus; Hercules skirmished with an Erymanthian Bear, a Nemaean Lion, a Lernaean Hydra; Aenaeas drew his sword against the shadows of centaurs, Harpies, Gorgon's, and chimaeras; but I have to do with a strange monster, called Leviathan, which some out of David, Psa. 104. think to be a Whale; the Prophet Isaiah calls him a piercing and crooked Serpent; Job saith, [He is a beast with fearful teeth, with scales strong as shields, with a heart as strong as the neither millstone, out of his mouth leap sparks of fire, and smoke out of his nostrils.] Lastly, some there are that take him for the devil, and indeed it may be so●; for he is said in Job, to be [a King over all the children of pride.] I hope Mr. Hobbs is none of his subjects, and yet his book is much inflated with pride against learning● and learned men. But in my opinion this paper Leviathan is like that beast in the Revelation, [which opened his mouth into blasphemy against God, and his Tabernacle, and against them that dwell in heaven.] Rev. ●3. 6. Against God, in saying, [he made the world by nature, and by consequence of necessity, whereas he made it indeed voluntarily and freely. 2. In making the three Persons of the Trinity rather names then substances. 3. In making Christ only to personate God the Son. 4. In making God the author of sin. 5. In making him coporeal, and part of the the universe.] Against his Tabernacle, that is, against his Church, [in labouring to overthrow her faith, knowledge, miracles, and ordinances.] Against them that dwell in heaven, that is, the Angels and separated souls, [in making the one but fancies and dreams, and the others mortal, and not capable hereafter of any other happiness then earthly.] He tells us besides, [that faith is not by inspiration, or infusion, but by study and industry, that to believe in God, is not to trust in his Person, but to confess the doctrine. That our belief is in the Church; that they were not devils, but madmen which confessed Christ; that covetousness and ambition, and injustice with power are honourable, that tyrants and good Princes are all one; that a man may sin against his conscience; that men should not render a reason or account of their faith; that Princes are not subject to their own laws; that private men have no property in their goods; that our natural reason is the word of God; that divine dreams cannot win belief; that it was a wind, not the holy Spirit which in the Creation moved on the waters; that the dove and fierytongues may be called Angels; that Christ hath no spiritual kingdom here on earth; that he did not cast out devils, but only cured madness; that Satan did not enter into Judas; that we may dissemble in matter of religion; that we may disobey Christ and his Apostles without sin] Such, and much more like stuff and smoke, doth this [Leviathan send out of his nostrils, as out of a boiling pot or caldron, Job 41. 〈◊〉. This is the sperma caete, or spawn which this whale casteth out; a whale, I say, that hath not swallowed up Jonah the prophet, but Cerinthus the heretic, and vomited up the condemned opinions of the old heretics; and chiefly the Anthropomorphits, Sabellians, Nestorians, Saduceans, Arabeans, Tacians or Eucratites, manichees, Mahometans and others: for in holding life eternal to be only on earth, he is a Cerinthian and Mahometan: in giving to God corporiety he is an Anthropomorphit, Manichean, Tertullianist and Audaean: in holding the three Persons to be distinct names and essences represented by Moses, Christ, and the Apostles, he is a Sabellian, Montanist, Aetian, and Priscillianist: in saying, that Christ personated God the Son, he is a Nestorian giving him two personalities, for no person can personate himself: ●id denying spirits he is a Saducean: in making the soul to rest with the body till the resurrection, he is an Arabian: in making the soul of man corporeal he is a Luciferian: by putting a period to hell torments he is an Originist: by teaching dissimulation in religion he is a Tacian or Encratit: in making God the cause of injustice or sin, he is a Manichee: in slighting Christ's miracles, he is a Jew: and in making our natural reason the word of God, he is Socinian: In discovering of these errors, I quarrel not with Mr. Hobbs, but with his book; which not only I, but many more, who are both learned, and judicious, men, look upon as a piece dangerous both to Government and Religion. All the hurt I wish him is, true illumination, a sanctified heart, and Christian sobriety; that he may retract what is amiss. And so I bid him and thee farewell. A. R. In doctissimum marinae belluae domitorem all. ROSSEUM. ALcides clava Lernaeum perculit hydram; Sed tu Ros calamo monstra marina d●mas. Quantum Leviathan superavit viribus hydram, Tantum Ros superas Amphytrioniadem. D. C. The Preface. BEing desired by some of my friends a while ago to peruse Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan, and deliver my opinion of it. I have done accordingly; I find him a man of excellent parts, and in this book much gold, and withal much dross; he hath mingled his wine with too much water, and imbittered his pottage with too much Coloquintida: there are some of his positions which may prove of dangerous consequence, to green heads, and immature judgements, who look no farther than the superficies, or outside of things, thinking all to be gold that glisters, and all wholesome food that is pleasing to the taste; under green grass lurch oftentimes snakes and serpents, such as Eurydice perceive not, till they be stung to death; I have therefore (not to wrong Mr. Hobbs, but to vindicate the truth, (for in Republica libera oportet linguas esse liberas) adventured upon his Leviathan; which I do not find so fierce and t●rrible as he in Job, that people should be cast down at the sight of him; this may be drawn out with a Hook, and held even with a single bridle: I will only touch such passages, (and not all, but some) as deserve Animadversions, wherein I will be both brief and modest, aiming rather at verity, than victory, though he slights all learned men, as Job's Leviathan doth all human strength, and prideth himself too much in his scales. LEVIATHAN Drawn out with an HOOK. OR ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr HOBB's Book, Called LEVIATHAN. By ALEXANDER ROSS. IN His introduction he calls Nature [The art whereby God hath made and governs the World.] God made not the world by Nature, for Nature had no being till God made it; and when he made it, it was neither the exemplary, nor adjuvant cause of the creation; the world could not be made by that which had no being till it was made; and when it was made, it was nothing else but the form and matter of things; the one being the active, the other the passive nature, and both but parts of the universe; if again by nature (that we may make a favourable construction of his phrase) he meaneth the ordinary power of God; the world was not made thus: by his ordinary power he governs it, but by his extraordinary power he made it, which power is never called natural, but miraculous; neither again is Nature Art, as he calls it, though both be principles, because Nature is an internal, Art an external principle; I say external in respect of essence, though it may be internal in regard of site, albeit Art, as it is an habit, and in the mind of the Artificer is altogether external, but take it for the effect of Art, it may be internal in the thing made by Art; as may be seen in the motions of a watch. He gives us a bad definition of life, when he saith: [Life is but the motion of limbs] for life is not motion, but the cause of motion: there may be life in the limbs when there is no motion, as in sleep, and in histerical women, and there may be motion in the limbs without life, as when they are moved violently by some external mover, and there is life where there be no limbs at all, as in the soul; and there is motion, where there is no life at all, as in a wooden leg. In the first chapter Part 1● cap. 1. he tells us, [That the cause of sense is the external object, which presseth the organ either immediately, as in the taste and touch, [or immediately as in the other senses]. The object indeed is the cause both material and efficient of sensation, but not of sense; that is, of the act of seeing, but not of the faculty, the soul is the cause of this; neither doth the object press immediately upon the organ of taste or touch, but ●mediately, for the organ of taste is the nervous part of the tongue, the medium is the spongy flesh, and salival humidity, for the dry tongue tasteth not: the organ of tact is the nerve, the medium is the flesh and skin, called Epidemis. But when he says that [seeming or fancy is that which men call sense.] He makes deception and sense one thing, for quod videtur non est; what seems to be hath no being; therefore in Euripides, mad Orestes is counselled by his sister to be quiet; because saith she, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, thou seest none of those things which thou supposeth thou seeth or knowest; sense then is not fancy, for what we fancy we see not, but seem to see, and what we truly see, we fancy not; this the Desciples of Christ knew; (Mat. 14. 26.) when seeing him walk on the water, they said, it is a fancy, for so it is in the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; that is a sight not real, but imaginary. When he speaks of the sensible qualities, he mentions among the rest [colour figured] but what is that; the thing coloured may be figured, but that colour should have any figure passeth all understanding: nor speaks he like a Philosopher, when he saith that [all sensible qualities are but several motions] Then it must follow, that colours, heat, cold, siccity, humidity, &c. are motions, but this is to speak against sense as well as reason, which showeth motions and colours to be distinct entities; a●d when he saith that [motion produceth nothing but motion] He is deceived● for motion produceth heat, neither is motion produced by motion, but by the mover: the motion of heaven was produced by God, not by any antecedent motion. [The appearance (saith he) of the sensible qualities to us is fancy, the same waking that dreaming] this is to confound the work of imagination, with that of the outward senses, whereas the outward and inward senses are distinguished both in their organs and operations: Fancy then is the work of the imagination, not of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, or tact, neither can I yield that the fancy is the same waking that dreaming, except he means of madmen and fools; but in those whose brains are not cracked, the fancy receiveth its species immediately from the common and outward senses whilst they are awaked, than it worketh orderly, and is regulated by the will; whereas in sleep the fancy receiveth the remainders, and as it were the footsteps of the species from the memory, where they are reserved; so that then the work of imagination is disordered, and no ways guided by the will. In his second chapter Part. 1. cap. ●. he saith, [That the Schools ascribe appetite and knowledge to things inanimate ab●urdly.] It seems he is not well versed in the Schools; for though they ascribe a natural appetite, or inbred propensity in things inanimate to preserve themselves, yet they ascribe no knowledge to them, but in plain terms affirm, that this appetite is without knowledge: now that there is in things inanimate a natural appetite or inclination, is so far from being absurd, that to affirm the contrary were most absurd: for from whence is it that heavy bodies move downward, light bodies upward, but from this natural appetite and inclination? There would be no generation, if there were not in the matter an appetite to the form; neither could there be motion or action, if there were not an appetite of entities in possibility, to become entities in act. [Imagination (saith he) is nothing but decaying sense, and the sense fading is called memory, so that imagination and memory are but one thing.] This is a riddle which Oedipus himself cannot unriddle: doth the strength of imagination consist in decaying of sense? It must follow, that dying men must have strongest fancies, for then sense decays: but if sense be the generical essence of imagination; how can the one increase upon the others decay: doubtless they like Hyppocrate's twins, live and die together; so that if sense decay, imagination must needs decay, for as he confesseth, cap. 1. [There is no conception in the mind, which was not at first begotten upon the organs of sense] Now that imagination and memory are not the same thing is apparent, by their different organs and operations, the one is in the fore part, the other in the back part of the head, and for the most part where the imagination is strongest, the memory is weakest; and where this is strongest that is weakest. In his third chapter Part 1. cap. 3. he saith, [That things to come have no being at all, the future being but a fiction of the mind] Have future Eclipses no being then? Sure they have as much being in the intellect, as past Eclipses in the memory; neither are they mere fictions; for that is properly a fiction which never was, is, nor shall be, as centaurs, chimaeras, &c. Had the coming of Christ no being in the mind of Abraham, whereas he saw that day and rejoiced? Was the coming of the Messiah in the flesh a mere fiction in the minds and hopes of the Patriarchs and Prophets? Is faith a fiction, or the resurrection of the flesh, which is the object of a Christian man's belief, the life of his hope, and the supporter of his soul in affliction; and doubtless in the mind of God all things are present, and no fiction at all. I like not his phrase, when he calls prophesy, guessing: for he saith, [That the best prophet naturally, is the best guesser] guessing is conjecturing, but prophecies are certain: did Isaiah only guess when he prophesied that a virgin should conceive and bear a Son? God's people were in a very sad and incertain condition, if prophesying were but guessing. He saith, [That it is an absurd speech, and taken upon credit (without any signification at all) from deceived Philosophers; to wit, that any thing is all in this place, and all in another place at the same time.] Whether is it more absurd to say, that God is all in this great (All,) and all in every part; or to say, that he is divided into so many parcels, as there be places in which he is, so that one part of him is in this place, an other in the other place, seeing he cannot be all in two places at once: and is it not less absurd to say, that all the soul is in each member, then to divide the soul into so many parcels, as there be members. [There is no other act (saith he) of man's mind naturally planted in him, but to be born a man, and to live with the use of his five senses.] To be born a man, is no act, but a passion; neither is it at all the act of the mind, but of the man: and to live with the use of the five senses, is no more the act of a man, then of a beast. And whereas he saith, that [all other faculties are acquired] He must conclude, that the faculties of the understanding and will are acquired, and consequently the soul itself; for these differ not essentially from the soul. So when he saith, [There is nothing in the world universal but names.] He will make all predications of universalities to be merely nominal, not real: So that Peter is not really a man; nor Bucephalus a horse; nor the elm a tree, but only in name, which is as much as nothing: so all sciences which handle universalities are but nominal, and consequently no real entities are handled in metaphysic, physic, and mathematic, but bare names, seeing these sciences have for their objects universalities: So when he makes. [Truth the attribute of speech not of things.] He excludes all entities, for verity and entity are reciprocal; and it is ridiculous to think there is not truth in things as well as in words, for entity can be no more without truth, than the fire without heat, or the Sun without light. And when he saith, that [Geometry is the only science which God hath left into man] He is injurious to arithmetic, whose principles are no less certain, firm, indemonstrable, and evident, than those of Geometry. He inveighs much against book learning, but in this he speaks without book, Part 1. cap. 3. 4. for he calls, in derision, school knowledge [Pedantry.] Pedantry is that knowledge which is taught to young scholars; and indeed the best books are read to them, and they are instructed in the knowledge of the best things, both in divine and human literature: being fit that new vessels be seasoned with the best liquour. Quo ●emel est imbuta, &c. So the precepts of divinity and philosophy to this profound Rabbi, whose learning passeth all understanding, are but Pedantry; but in speaking against the Schools, he fouls his own nest: for whence had he the knowledge which he now rejects, but out of them; as for his own supposed learning which he hath without them, it is such, as will never be thought worthy to be called Pedantry, nor shall it ever be honoured to be taught in Schools; nor shall Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Thomas, and other eminent men need to fear lest Mr. Hobbs' whimsies and dreams, thrust their solid and grave learning out of doors. He accounteth these subsequent assersions, Part 1. cap. 5. absurd; namely, [That faith is infused or inspired, when nothing can be poured or breathed into any thing but body, and that extension is body, &c.] I would know how saith being a gift from without, and not born with us, should enter into us? If not by inspiration or infusion? And if nothing can be poured or breathed but body; then it must follow that Adam's soul was a body, for it was breathed into Adam; and that the Holy Ghost is a body, for he is said to be poured upon all flesh by the prophets, Joel and Zachariah: but if by the spirit be understood spiritual virtues or graces, than in Mr. Hobbs his judgement this will be counted an absurd assertion; but I hope he hath more Religion in him, then to think the Holy Scripture speaks absurdly; neither is there any absurdity in calling extension a body, seeing not a substantial, but a mathematical body is meant, to distinguish it from superficies and line. He [will not have colour to be in the body, nor sound in the air.] Where then is colour? which is its subject? is it in a spirit? I know no other subject in which it can be inherent, except one of these two: If there be any there, name it; and if sound be not in the air, how come we to hear it. He should do well to prove his new assertions, as well as to deny the old: so he holds it absurd to say, [That a living creature is a genus, or general thing] But the contrary is plain, for this proposition [man is a living creature] were absurd, because identical, if living creature were not a general, but a particular thing; it must also follow that a horse were not a living creature, or that a man and a horse were the same particular thing, seeing he admits of no general thing: any one may see here, whether the ancient and wise Philosophers, or this new Misosopher be most guilty of absurdities; neither is it absurd to say, [That the nature of a thing is its definition.] Seeing man, the thing defined, is the same with rational creature which is his definition. Nor is there absurdity in this speech, [man command is his will.] seeing there is no other commanding faculty in man but his will; neither are Metaphors, Tropes, and other Rhetorical figures absurd speeches; except he will accuse the Holy Ghost of absurdity, who useth them so frequently in scripture: and if these words, [Hypostatical, Transubstantiate, &c.] be absurd words, let him impart better, and more significant terms, and we shall think him, though not a good Philosopher, yet a good Grammarian. In his sixth chapter Part 1. cap. 6. he makes [animal and voluntary motion the same;] but absurdly, for the motion of spirits is voluntary, not animal; and the motion of men in their sleep is animal, not voluntary; for many in their sleep speak those words, and perform those actions, of which they are both ashamed and afraid when they are awakened: if to speak were an animal motion, as he saith, than beasts could speak for they are animals. He saith [That which we neither desire nor hate, we are said to contemn.] But this is not so, for I neither desire nor hate the Kingdom of Persia, and yet I contemn it not; whatsoever I hate, I contemn, but I contemn many things which I hare not. When he distinguisheth Religion from Superstition I hear the voice of Leviathan, not of a Christian; For, saith he, [Fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or from tales publ●ckly allow● is Religion, not allowed Superstition, and when the power imagined is truly such as we imagine, true Religion.] It seems then both Religion and Superstition are grounded upon tales and imagination, only they differ in this, that tales publicly allowed beget Religion, not allowed Superstition: but what will he say of the Gentiles, among them tales were publicly allowed, were they therefore religious, and not superstitious; and is Religion grounded upon fiction or imagination, even true Religion? I thought that faith and not imagination had been the substance and ground of things not seen; that the just live by faith, not by imagination, that by faith we are saved; by faith we are justified; by faith we overcome the world; not by fancy, fiction, or imagination: We must mend the Creed, if Mr. Hobbs his religion be true; and instead of saying I believe in God, we must say, I imagine, or feign in my mind an invisible power. In this also he contradicts himself, for if the power be invisible, how can it be imagined, seeing (as he saith before) imagination [is only of things perceived by the sense, and it is so called from the image made in seeing. He will not have the will to be [a rational appetite, because then there could be no voluntary acts against reason.] But the School doctrine stands firm, that the will is a rational appetite, and that there can be no voluntary acts against reason, because the object of the will is a known good; for we cannot will or affect what we know not, and knowledge in man is never without reason, which regulates the will; besides each man in willing, aims at an end which cannot be attained withous its medium, nor this ordered without reason, either true or apparent: (Part 1. cap. 7.) He seems to make faith and opinion the same thing, when he saith, [That in belief are two opinions, one of the saying of the man, the other of his vert●e] but in this he makes the Christian man's happiness very incertain, and builds it upon a tottering foundation, for opinion is merely conjectural, and of probabilities only; whereas faith makes its object certain, end withal he makes these phrases the same; [To have faith in, to trust to, and to believe a man] but Saint Austin and the Church ever since have made these distinct phrases; for credere Deo, is to believe that God is true; credere Deum, is to believe there is a God, which wicked men and evil Angels may do; but credere in Deum is to love God, and to rely 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 believe in God, as it is in the Creed is meant no● trust in the person, but confession of the doctrine.] If so, than the Devil may as boldly, and with as great comfort say the Creed, as any Christian; for he believes and trembles, ●aith Saint James, 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 believe in the Church; saying, [Our belief, faith, and trust is in the Church, whose words we take, and acqui●sse therein] but the Apostles in their Creed have taught us otherways; namely, That we believe the Catholic Church; but we believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, and in the H●ly Ghost. He makes Devils, demoniacs, and madmen to signify in Scripture the same thing; Part 1. cap. 8. 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 madmen confessed him.] And shortly after. [I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief, that demoniacs were any other thing but madmen.] Yes, there be divers things that make it necessary for him to believe, 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 believe. Now the Church always took these for distinct creatures; to wit, Devils, demoniacs, and madmen. 3. The honour of Christ; for wherein was the power of his Divinity seen, if these were ordinary madmen, seeing madness is curable by physic, and every common Physician. It tended more to Christ's honour, that the Devil, whose Kingdom he came to destroy, should confess, he divinity, than that madmen should acknowledge it. 4. Christ came to call Jews and Gentiles by working of miracles; but to cast out Devils, and to cure demoniacs was a greater miracle then to cure madmen. 5. The New Testament distinguisheth demoniacs from madmen; for these are called demoniacs, not mad, and Saint Paul is termed mad by the Athenians, and not a demoniac: so Devils are never called madmen in Scripture, nor madmen called Devils: besides, as all madmen are not demoniacs, so all demoniacs are not madmen; for the Devil entered into Judas Iscariot, he became a demoniac, or possessed by the Devil, and yet he was no madman: but, I doubt me, Mr. Hobbs is mad himself, in thinking all learned men to be mad except himself; he thinks the schoolmen 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 physicians, as to Divines, for their terms of 〈◊〉 ●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, blind men must not accuse the Sun of obscurity, because they cannot see him; neither are the words of Suarez, which he allegeth 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. ●. That the first cause worketh not necessarily upon the second, but voluntarily. If this dish please not Mr. Hobbs his palate; he must blame his mouth which is out of taste, and not the meat which is both wholesome and savoury. In his tenth chapter Part 1. cap. 10. he uttereth strange Paradoxes. [1. That to pity is to dishonour. 2. That good Fortune, if lasting, is a sign of God's favour. 3. That covetousness of great riches, and ambition of great honours are honourable. 4. That an unjust action, so it be joined with power, is honourable, for honour consisteth only 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. Pity is rather honour than dishonour; for when a father pitieth his child, a King his subject, or a Master his servant, do they dishonour them. When we desire God to pity us, do we desire him to dishonour us? him whom we dishonour we pity not, and whom we pity we dishonour not; pity proceeds of love dishonour of hatred. 2. If lasting good fortune be a sign of God's favour, it seems then that the Turks are highly in God's 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 God's favour. 3. Who ever afore Mr. Hobbs made ambition honourable, and covetousness, which Saint Paul calls the root of all evil. Can sin be honourable, which brought shame and dishonour upon mankind: in respect of sin, man did not abide in honour, but became like the beasts that perish. If ambition of great honours be honourable, then were the evil Angels and Adam most honourable, 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 honourable. Midas coveted great riches when he wished all might be gold he touched, therefore in this he was most honourable: but if it be honour to offend God, to transgress his law, to incur his displeasure, and suffer eternal pains; let them who list enjoy this honour, I will have none of it; non equidem tali me digner honore. 4. He makes [unjust actions joined 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 thieves are hanged, but great robberies are honoured. He spoke it with grief, when a cruel tyrant ruled, or rather misruled the Empire. But otherways, where there is government, unjust actions are punished, not honoured; and if it were not so, Kingdoms would be nothing else but dens of thieves, remota justitia quid aliud sunt regna, quam magna latrocinia. All principalities would be tyrannies; and indeed where there is greatest power, there should be most justice; if Princes will be like God, who is optimus maximus, in whom greatness and goodness have me● together; to whom much power is given, of him much justice is required, in maxima fortuna minima licentia est. It is abominable then to make injustice with power honourable; for honour is the reward of virtue: was Achab's unjust seizing of Naboth's vineyard honourable? Or are the actions of highway robbers, armed with power, to be honoured? Sure, not in any Christian commonwealth where Themis reigns, and Astrea hath not again forsaken the earth; but perhaps injustice may sit as a Queen, and be honourable in Leviathan's republic. [ubi prosperum ac felix scelus virtus vocatur, spontibus parent boni. Jus est in armis opprimit leges timor.] There honour may consist according to Mr. Hobbs his doctrine, in the opinion only of power, without respect had to virtue and goodness; and so because the evil Angels are called principalities and powers, they deserve most honour. But in other commonwealths were Leviathan reigns not, I find that goodness is as much honoured as greatness; piety, justice, temperance, prudence, learning, and other endowments, are had in no less honour than the greatest power that is. Demetrius Phalereus had more slatues (to wit, 306.) at Athens erected to him for his eloquence, than ever any of their most powerful Commanders for their greatness: the Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and other emient men, are honoured at this day for their goodness, not for greatness. Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, Cicer●, are in esteem for their learning, not for their power: and with me Diogenes in his tub, is in greater honour, than Alexander in his throne. We honour God not so much for his greatness, (for so the Devil honours him) as for his goodness; and the child honoureth his parents, not out of fear of their greatness, as out of love to their goodness. Honour then doth not merely consist in the opinion of power: As for the Poets, commending their Gods for their thefts and adulteries, and some barbarous Gentiles honouring theft and piracy: I must confess that Mr. Hobbs is here reduced to hard shifts, for supporting his irreligious Paradox, or Cacodox rather; for by the same means he may maintain that honour is due to garlic, onions, Crocodiles, Dogs, Cats, &c. because the Egyptians worshipped these. What wonder is it, if thieves and pirates honour each other; but the civilised Gentiles were so far from honouring theft and piracy, that they made severe laws against theft, and inflicted condign punishment upon the guilty: As for the Poets commending the thefts and adulteries of their gods, they are not to be understood literally but mystically, as I have showed elsewhere, in Mystagog. Poetico. In his eleventh chapter, Part 1. cap. 11. he tells us, [That felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another] desire is an inclination of the will, to obtain the good things we want, or to be rid of the evil with which we are oppressed: but in neither of these consisteth felicity; for he cannot be happy which wants the good which should satisfy him, or is possessed of the evil which oppresseth him: in heaven only is true felicity, because as Saint Austin saith, we shall desire nothing that is absent: if desire be happiness, than is the covetous man most happy, for he is still desiring more wealth. In true happiness, there is love, but neither faith nor hope, which are the companions of desire: besides, he makes man in worse condition than the beasts; for he saith in his twelfth chapter, [That the felicity of beasts consisteth in the enjoying of their quotidian food.] And yet man's happiness consisteth only in desire, which is against sense and reason, for a hungry man ca●not be happy in desiring, but in enjoying of food: it is not therefore the sight, nor desire but the enjoyment of the object which will make us happy, Mars videt hanc, vis●●que cupit, potiturque cupita. In his twelve chapter Part. 1. cap. 12. he saith, [That many revolted from the Church of Rome, because the Schoolmen brought in philosophy, and Aristotle's doctrine into Religion; whence arose contradictions and absurdities, as brought the Clergy into a reputation of ignorance.] It is strange that Philosophy should make the Clergy reputed ignorant, whereas it contains the knowledge both of divine and human things: and it is one of the chief blessing● of Almighty God, bestowed upon mankind, by which his image lost in Adam is repaired; for the understanding is enlightened by the speculative, and the will is regulated by the practical parts thereof: and Philosophy is so far from causing people's revolt from that Church; that on the contrary, it is one of the main supporters and pilla●s thereof: I am afraid that it was not Philosophy which brought a reputation of ignorance upon that Church, but rather their want of it, which also will occasion much ignorance, stupidity, and darkness in our Church: And I pray you good Mr. Hobbs, what hurt hath Divinity received from Philosophy, or Aristotle's doctrine. Hath it caused contradictions, and absurdities; (as you say) sure, you are wide●ly mistaken: for by Philosophy contradictions and absurdities are avoided, into which those ignorant souls do fall, who want it, as we find at this time by woeful experience, there being more absurd and contradictory opinions among the peo●ple of this Nation, now, in a few years since Aristotle's doctrine hath been discouraged, than were all the time hitherto since Christianity was embraced. And what wonder is it if they that walk in darkness stumble: How should we come to know the heavens, the earth, the seas, the fire, the air, the beasts, fishes, and fowls, the herbs, trees, plants, precious stones, all which physical bodies, with divers others are mentioned in Scripture: besides, Spirits, Angels, and other Metaphysical entities: without Philosophy, how should we define, divide, dispute, speak or write methodically or syllogistically without this. I will say nothing of the benefit we receive by moral, political, and ●●conomical philosophy: How shall we dispute against heretics, and refel their subtle arguments without it. Justin Martyr, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers, fought against the Gentles, Jews, and heretics, with this sword, and beat them with their own weapons; therefore to condemn Philosophy, is to condemn the minister and handmaid of divinity; between which there can be no more repugnancy, than there is between the principal and subordinate cause, between two lights, two truths, or between the body and the soul. In his fifteenth chapter, Part. 1. cap. 15. [He will have all men equal by nature, and that Aristotle was mistaken, in saying, that wise men were more fit to command, and that others whose bodies are strong, and judgements weak, fitter to serve: This (he saith) is against reason and experience; for there are few so foolish, that had not rather govern themselves, then be governed. Answ. Though all men be equal by nature, in regard of the essential perfection of the soul, yet, in respect of accidental perfections, we find the contrary; for some are by nature blind, some deaf, some dumb, some lame and deformed, some dull, foolish and stupid. I would know then, whether a fool whose body is strong & judgement weak be naturally apter to command, or to serve? And whether he who is of a weak body, and of a strong judgement, is not fitted by nature rather to command then to serve? Mr. Hobbs saith, [That there are few so foolish, which had not rather govern themselves, then be governed.] But I say that whosoever is not fit for government, is a notorious fool, if he will rather govern then be governed, let him think what he will. Had Phaeton been a wise man, he would not have affected the government of his father's chariot: Magna petis Phaeton, & quae non viribus illis munera conveniunt. On the contrary, wise men have chosen rather to be Dgoverned by others, then to govern others; and Christ, the wisdom of the Father, would rather be a servant than a King. Doubtless, in the state of innocency, there should have been naturally a subordination and subjection, as of children to their parents, of wives to their husbands, and of inferiors to their superiors; for there should have been no more equality then among men, on earth● than there was, and is in heaven among Angels, and in hell among Devils; yea, there is naturally subjection among beasts, rex unus apibus, dux unus gregibus. To say then that there is no inequality by nature, is to say, that there is no order in nature which cannot be without subordination; surely, in the state of corrupted nature, to say that all are equal, is to say, that none have sinned, for sin brought in servitude and subjection, so that the effect is no less natural than the cause. Again, whatsoever is necessary, is also natural; but inequality and subordination among men, who will live together is necessary, and therefore natural; we see also, that the body is naturally subject and subordinate to the soul; animae imperio corporis, servitio utimur. To be brief, seeing among men, there are many defects and imperfections, wants and infirmities, and that naturally; there must be also naturally an inequality and subjection, by which these defects may be supplied; which could not be if all men were equal by nature: Therefore, not Aristotle, but Mr. Hobbs speaks against reason and experience. I like not his phrase, Part. 1. cap. 16. when he saith, [That God was personated first by Moses, then by Christ the Son of man.] For they that differ in personality may persononate each other, but Christ the Son of man differs not in personality from God, seeing in him the divinity, and humanity make up but one person; and though the Father and Son in the Trinity are distinct persons; yet the Son cannot personate the Father; because their nature is numerically one and the same; neither is it true what he saith, concerning covenants, Part 2. cap. 18. [That they are but words and breath, and have no force to oblige but from the sword.] For covenants are real consents of two or more persons, now consent is an act of the soul, and not a bare word or breath; the words that are uttered, are but the symbols and signs of the mind: there be also many mental, and employed or tacit covenants made without words; and many covenants that have no dependence on the sword; as those that are made between God and man. Abraham and Noah had been but in a bad condition, if the covenants that God made with them had been but bare words and breath. When he saith, Part 2. cap. 18. [That whatsoever the Prince doth, can be no injury to the subject, nor ought he to be accused by any of them of injustice; for he that doth any thing by authority from another, doth therein no injury to him by whose authority he acteth.] This doctrine will hardly down with free born people, who choose to themselves Princes, not to tyrannize over them, but like good shepherds, or fathers of their Country, to rule them; the people were not mad to give their power so to Princes, as to be their slaves; or to think that tyrannical cruelties and oppressions are not injuries to the subject, or that tyrants must not be accused of injustice, for although the Prince acteth by the people's authority in things lawful, yet in his lawless exorbitancies, he acteth by his own tyrannising power, not by the people's authority; for they be authors of his lawful power, yet they are no ways authors of his exorbitancies: and it is ridiculous when he saith, [No man can do injury to himself, and that the Prince may commit iniquity but not injustice or injury.] For it's too apparent, that most men are too injurious to themselves, nemo laeditur nisi à seipso, O, Israel, thy destruction is of thyself: And I would fain know what true difference there is between injustice and iniquity, or injury, for jus and aequum signify the same thing in Latin, whence we borrow the words injustice, injury, iniquity: I know some put a difference between jus and aequum, but to little purpose; for doubtless, every injury is unjust, and each unjust act is an injury, and an iniquity either against God or man; he is also injurious to good Princes, when he makes no difference between them and tyrants, Part 2. cap. 20. [between despotical and paternal dominions, making tyrants and sovereigns by institution all one in rights and consequences.] This is to put no difference between the Father and Butcher of his country, between the Shepherd and the wolf, between sharing and flaying of the sheep. A King governs, and is governed by laws; a tyrant hath no law but his will; jus est in armis, opprimit leges timor. This his absurd assertion he would patronise by Scripture, which describeth to us, 1 Sam. 8. 11, 12. verses, the manner of Kings; namely, to take your sons and daughters to drive his chariot, &c. To take your fields and vineyards, &c. But in that he mistakes himself; for in that chapter the Scriptures describes unto us, not the qualities of Kings, but of tyrants, such as the neighbouring Nations had, which dwelled about Judea: but if he will see the qualities of a good King, and such as the Lord would chose; let him read the 17. chapter of Deuteronomy, there he shall find a King that must be regulated by the law of God, and not by his own will. So in his twenty one chapter, Part 2. cap. 21. he will make us believe, that David did no injury to Uriah, When he killed him; [because the right to do what he pleased, was given him by Uriah himself, but the injury was done to God, who prohibited all iniquity; which distinction David confirmed, when he saith, to thee only have I sinned.] He may as well say, that the right to do what David pleased was given him by God, and therefore no injury in killing Uriah was offered to God, which contradicts his assertion, but indeed neither assertion is true, for neither God nor Uriah gave right to David, to do what he pleased, to say that God gives to sinful men right to act what they please, is to make God the author of sin; and to say that Uriah gave right to David to kill him, is to make him accessary to his own murder: And to say, that a Tyrant doth not wrong the innocent, when he murders him causlessly, is to put no difference between an unjust Tyrant, and a just Judge, when he executes a Malefactor deservingly: now when David saith, To thee only have I sinned: he speaketh so, because God only knew his intention, that he meant to murder Uriah: when he placed him in the forefront of the army. He saith, [That whether a commonwealth be monarchical or popular, Part 2. cap. 21. the freedom is still the same] This I deny, for in an absolute monarchy there is no liberty but mere slavery; such is the condition of those who live under the Turk, the Muscovit, Prester John: and the Magol; in other governments there is more or less liberty, according to the condition of the times, and people, and the disposition of the Governors; for there was more liberty under Augustus, Titus, Antoninus, Aurelius, and other Monarchs then under many Popular States; Fallitur egregio quisquis sub principe credit servitum; numquam libertas gratior extat quam sub rege pio. And under Democracy there is at some times more liberty then at others; to say then, that the freedom under a Monarchy and Popular government is the same, is as much, as if I should say, a child is as free under a rigid and cruel Schoolmaster, as under an indulgent Mother: Where there is continual fear, there can be no liberty; and such is the condition of those that live under Tyrants. He slights Aristotle's opinion concerning Democracy, Part. 1. cap. 21. for saying there is more liberty there, then in any other government; yet he refels none of Aristotle's reasons: which are these. 1. In Democracy all the Citizens have a vote in choosing of their Magistrates. 2: All have a right to govern as well as to be governed. 3. Magistrates, for the most part, are chosen by lot, rather than by suffrages. 4. They are not chosen for their wealth. 5. Nor is the same man chosen often into the Supreme Office. 6. Nor may he stay too long in his Office. 7. That Judges are chosen out of all degrees and orders of the people. 8. That the Supreme Senate, which is chosen out of all the people, hath the chief authority over the commonwealth. 9: That public officers have their allowance and maintenance. 10. That the meanest trades of the people are not excluded from public offices and honours. 11. By often changing of Supreme officers, way is made for the advancing of many, and occasion of abusing the Supreme power is taken away. For these reasons Aristotle held there was under Democracy more liberty, then under Monarchy. In his twenty eight chapter Part 2. cap. 28. he tells us, [That the Subject did not give to the sovereign the right of punishing, and that this right is not grounded on any concession or gift of the Subjects.] These words are plainly contradictory to what he said before, cap. 28. Namely, [That the Subject is the author of all the actions and judgements of the sovereign] And again, [Every particular man is author of all the sovereign doth; and consequently he that complaineth of injury from his sovereign, complaineth of that whereof he himself is author; and therefore David had right to do what he pleased, given him by Uriah; for which cause he did Uriah no injury to kill him] Here is a plain contradiction. The subject giveth right to the Prince to do what he pleaseth, even to murder him; and yet giveth no power to punish him. Is it likely that any subject, is so mad, as to covenant with his Prince, that he shall have right to murder him, without cause? and yet when he hath just cause, he shall have no power to punish him. Chap. 28. He saith, [That man's pride compelled him to submit himself to Government] This is a Paradox; for man's pride made him rebel against Government, but not submit to it. Before man grew proud, he submitted himself to be governed by God, so did the Apostate Angels; but their pride made them affect equality with God, and consequently, rebel, and refuse to obey and to be governed: it is not pride then, but humility, that makes man submit to government: For pride loves to be still uppermost, as the word showeth, superbire quasi superire, So proud Atraeus in Seneca, (Thes. Act. 5.) Equalis astris gradior & cunctos super, altum superbo vertice attingens polum: so the proud man, by the Psalmist is compared to a high Cedar in Lebanus, and proud Nebuchadnezar, in Daniel, to an exceeding tall tree, whose top reached to Heaven. Lucifer in isaiah 14. 14. saith, I will assend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. We know that pride hath been the cause of so much troubles and wars in the world, because proud men will not submit to government: nec ferre potest Caesárve priorem, Pompeiúsve parem; Caesar will not submit to be governed by Pompey, nor Pompey by Caesar: Mr. Hobbs might have observed this in the naming of Leviathan, which he allegeth; for as Job saith, he seeth every high thing below him, and is King of all the children of pride: and so he acknowledgeth himself, in the beginning of the next chapter, that men for want of humility will not suffer the rude and cumbersome points of their present greatness to be taken off. In his twenty ninth chapter, Part. 2. cap. 29. amongst the diseases of a commonwealth, which he saith proceed from the poison of seditious doctrines, he reckons this for one, [Th●● whatsoever a man doth against his conscience is sin.] The Christian schools and pulpits never held this, for a disease or seditious doctrine till now; I believe Mr. Hobbs his doctrine is rather seditious, for if it be no sin to act against the conscience, people may rebel when they please without sin, though they know that rebellion is against the conscience; for the Apostle tells us, that we must be subject to the higher powers, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake●Rom. 13. 5. It is the curb of conscience tha● restrains men from rebellion, there is no outward source or law so powerful, as that inward law ●● the conscience; no castle so impregnable as this; hic murus ahaencus esto. There is no Judge so sever● no Torturer so cruel, as an accusing conscience● this Saul, Judas, Orestes, and too many more knew, who would rather be their own executioners, then endure the continual tortures, and be tormented with the firebrands of those snaky hired Furies, whose residence is in an evil conscience. Hear what a Heathen can say in this case● Juvenal. Sat. 13. — cur ta●●en hos tu Evasisse putes: quos diri conscia facti, Mens habet attonilos, & caec● verbere pulsat Occultum quátient● animum t●rtore flagellum? Paena autem vehemens, ac multo saevior illis Quas & Ceditius gravis invenit aut Rhadamanthus: Nocte dieque suum gestare in pectore testem. To the same purpose, Persius. Pers. Sat. 3. Anne magis Siculi gemuerunt aera juvenci, Aut magis auratis pendens laquearibus ensis; Purpureas subter cervices teruit; imus, Imus praecipites, quam si sibi dicat & intus Palleat infaelix, quod proxima nesciat uxor. He then that can act against his conscience without sin, or remorse; is one of those the Apostle speaks of, whose conscience is seared with a hot iron: and he must needs be miserable, that despiseth the testimony of this witness, saith Seneca. The Apostle who was no teacher of sedition, assures us that they shall not escape the judgement of God, who do the same things they condemn in others, Rom. 2. 3. that is who act against their conscience; and saith plainly, that to him who esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean, Rom. 14. 14. Therefore that which is no sin in itself, may be sin to him whose conscience saith it is sin. Hence the schools teach us, that he who acts against an erroneous conscience sinneth, for by this he is convinced that he hath a will to sin, and that he can sin deliberately. Besides, he that acteth against his conscience, acteth against the law of God, to which he thinks his conscience conformable. St. Paul pleadeth before the council, Acts 23. 1. That he had lived in all good conscience; and in this testimony of his conscience was his rejoicing, 2 Cor. 1. 12. and wisheth Timothy to hold saith and a good conscience, which some putting away, that is, acting against it, concerning faith have made shipwreck. 1 Tim. 1. 19 and in the same chapter showeth, that the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned; for these three are inseparable companions: now whereas Mr. Hobbs saith, [That this doctrine dependeth on the presumption of him who makes himself judge of good and evil.] I say it is no presumption, but a duty imposed on every man to judge of good and evil, seeing he hath both the light of nature, and of Scripture to direct him; and the Apostle showeth, [that the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law to themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts excusing or else accusing each other, Rom. 2. 14, 15.] Chapter 29. He will not have faith [to be attained by inspiration or infusion, but by study, and reason.] and shortly after he saith, [That faith is no miracle, but brought to pass by education, discipline, correction, and other natural ways, &c.] That peter's saith was not revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by the Father of Christ who is in Heaven is plain by our saviour's own words, Mat. 16. 16. And he thanks his heavenly Father for hiding the mysteries of faith from the prudent, and and revealing them to babes, Mat 11. 25. For if faith comes by study, reason, discipline, and education, doubtless the wise Philosophers, and not the ignorant Fishers had believed in Christ; but we find it other ways: that not many learned (as the Apostle saith) not many wise, but God hath chosen the fools and ignorants of this world to confound the wise and learned; and so Christ faith, That none can come to him except the Father draw him, John 16. And St. Paul saith, Rom. 12. God hath distributed to every man the measure of faith, and confesseth that he obtained this mercy of God, to be faithful, 1 Cor. 7. And he saith, that we are saved by grace through faith, not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, Eph. 2. And indeed if faith came by reason or study, we may by study attain salvation, justification, and life eternal; for the Scripture tells us, That we are saved by faith, and by faith we are justified, and the just live by faith, and that this hath been the constant doctrine of the Church from the beginning, is plain to be seen in the writings of the Fathers, general and provincial counsels. Now whereas he saith, [That faith is no miracle.] I say it is a miracle, in that it is a supernatural gift, so inconsistent with natural reason, that a holy and ancient Father said, there were three miracles in Christ's Incarnation; to wit, the union of the divinity and humanity. 2. Of maternity and virginity. 3. Of faith and the heart of man; but he cannot see [Why any man should render a reason of his faith, or why every Christian should not be also a prophet, or why any man should take the law of his Country, rather than his own inspiration, for the rule of his action] None of these inconveniences will follow, though faith come by inspiration: For 1. why may not any man give a reason, that is, render an account as well of an inspired, as of an acquired faith: St. Paul was inspired, and yet he gives an account of his faith to the Jews, Acts 22. and to Agrippa, Acts 26. 2. What necessity is there, that every Christian should be a prophet, who hath an inspired faith? Is faith and prophecy one and the same gift, Balaam could prophesy and yet was no believer; and many in the Primitive Church, believed, and yet could not prophesy. Nor 3ly, is there any reason why he who is inspired should refuse to be ruled by the law of his Country, except that law be repugnant to the true faith with which he is inspired; for Christ and his Apostles rejected not the civil law of the Romans, but were in outward things ruled by it; though they were inspired. Hence than it appears that these truths are not pernicious opinions, nor do they proceed from the tongues and pens of unlearned Divines, ● as Mr. Hobbs saith, but they are manifest truths, held by the most learned Doctors of the Church in all ages. Chap. 29. He [will not have the sovereign to be subject to his own laws, because than he should be subject to himself, and to set the laws above the sovereign, were to set a judge above him, &c.] If a man can subdue himself, he must be subject to himself, and as there is no conquest so honourable, so there is no subjection so profitable as this, Fortior est qui se quam qui fortissima vincit maenia, Cicero tells Caesar that he had subdued many fierce Nations, and conquered divers potent Kingdoms, but in restoring of Marcellus he had overcome himself, which was a conquest, that made him not like the most excellent men, but rather like to God himself. Latius regnes avidum d●●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 honourable for a King, as to keep his word, and to observe the laws, which he not only 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 commonwealth 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 aught to beat rule, because without it no King nor● commonwealth 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 itself is but a dead letter, therefore the common saying of that good Emperor Aurelius was: Rex viva Lex: No commonwealth 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 humanos● edicta valent, ac vita regentis; therefore the counsel of Pitta●us was good, Let not them break the law who make the Law; par●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 country's 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 Prince's right in cases of necessity, but only 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 Cap. 31. he makes a needless distinction between the objects of love, hope, and fear, showing, [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 God's 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. Part 3. cap. 32. 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 God's word is infallible, so is not our natural reason, which faileth in many things. God's 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 God's 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 man's wisdom, but by the Holy● Ghost, 1 Cor. 2. 13. How comes it I say, that the Scripture speaks thus in vilifying 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 dissuade Christ from going up to Jerusalem, 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 talon 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 only must our reason be subdued to faith; but every imagination in us must be cast down, and every high thing that exalteth itself 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 employed in the purchase of justice, peace, and true religion.] If reason could procure or purchase these blessings, the Gentiles of old, the Jews and Mahume●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 ●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 God's word.] By the same means he may prove that Aristotle's logic, or Hippocrate's Aphorisms are the undoubted word of God; for in them is nothing contrary to it. But was not Peter's reason contrary to God's word, when he would have dissuaded Christ from suffering; whereas all the prophets had spoken, that Christ ought to have suffered those things, and to enter into his glory; Luke 24. 26. And no less weak is his argument (cap. 32.) by which he will prove, that divine dreams [are not of force to win belief from any man, that knows dreams are for the most part natural, and may proceed from former thoughts, &c.] He may as well infer, that the penmen of the Holy Scriptures are not of force to win belief from us, seeing the prophet saith, All men are liars: what if it had said, that men for the most part are liars; there had been less reason to have inferred that the penmen of Scriptures were such, and yet Mr. Hobbs will infer, that because dreams are for the most part natural; therefore divine dreams are of no credit, that such dreams are of force sufficient to win belief, is plain by the dreams of Joseph; Jacob's son, and Joseph the husband of Mary: with divers others in Scripture. (cap. 33.) He is troubled that Moses before his death should write that he died, & that his sepulchre was not known to this day, but in this he troubles himself needlessly; for he writes of his death and sepulchre by anticipation, which is an usual way of writing, amongst some, besides the Jewish tradition is, that Josua wrote that last chapter of Deuteronomy, long after the death of Moses. (Cap. 33.) So he is troubled about the words of Moses, Gen. 12. 6. which are, And the Canaanite was then in the land; Hence he infers, that Moses wrote not that book, but one who wrote when the Canaanite was not in the land, for Moses died before he came to it: but I say, that if the Canaanite was not in the land, when he wrote these words, The Canaanite was then in the land; he wrote a lie; but indeed Moses wrote the History, and writes no ways absurdly, in showing that the Canaanite was then in the land, but purposely to let us see the condition of God's children in this life, who though they have right to all they enjoy, yet the wicked keep them under, and they live in fear still of their enemies, as Abraham did of the Canaanites, who domineered in that land which Abraham received from God, and at the same time he received it; such like exceptions he makes against some other writers of the old Testament, but they are of no moment or validity, therefore I will spend no paper nor time in their refuration. In his thirty fourth chapter cap. 34. he tells us, [That there is no real part of the universe, which is not also a body, and that bodies are called substances, because subject to various accidents, and that an incorporeal substance, is as if a man should say, an incorporeal body.] If there were no real parts of the universe but bodies, than the universe were not universe, but an imperfect system, as d●ficien● in the most noble of all created entities● to wit, incorporeal substances; but God made the world perfect, consisting both of material and immaterial substances; such are Angels and men's souls, which are neither corporeal in their being, nor operation; for if they were corporeal, they must be mortal and corruptible, and compounded at least of matter and form, they must be also quantitative, local by circumscription, and movable by physical motion; all which are absurd: and if a substance be the same that a body is, than he must make God corporeal, for he is a substance: now to say that a thing is called substance, because subject to changes, is vain; for substances are so called, because they subsist by themselves, and not in another entity, as accidents do: besides, accidents may be called subjects, because one accident may be the subject of another, as the superficies of a wall is the subject of colours; but accidents can never be called substances, for they cannot subsist of themselve●. By the spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1. 2. [He will have to be meant a wind, because if God himself were understood, than motion must be attributed to him and place.] I know in this he follows Tertullian's opinion; but the Church hath constantly held that there is meant, not a wind, but the spirit of God; by which place they both prove the mystery of the Trinity; the first person being expressed by the word Elo●●m, the second by the word Berisheth, or Beginning, and the third by the word Ruah, or Spirit; they also by the same place prove the dignity and power of baptism, in the waters of which Sacrament the Spirit moveth as in the beginning; and indeed it is childish to think that a wind should be there meant, for what use could there be of a wind then, before the creatures were produced. And whereas he is afraid to ascribe motion and place to God, it seems he hath not well observed the Scripture phrase, which ordinarily speaketh of God, Anthropopathos, as if he were a man; therefore he is said sometimes to speak, to see, to hear, to descend, to laugh, to be angry, to greet, to rejoice; and in this History of the Creation, he is said, to speak, to bless, to walk in the Garden, to examine Adam, to condemn the Serpent, &c. Now whereas Mr. Hobbs saith, that the spirit here mentioned, is the same that is spoken of, Gen. 8. 1. I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth: He is mistaken, and misalledgeth the words; for thus it is written, And God made a wind to pass over the Earth; for wind in Scripture is never called the Spirit of God. The spirit then that dried up the waters of the flood, was the same that afterwards divided the red Sea for Moses and the Israelites to pass through; to wit, a drying wind which God had raised: He saith, [The word Ghost signifieth nothing but the imaginary inhabitants of the brain.] But there he is also mistaken, for it signifieth a real immaterial substance, which we call from the Latin word, Spirit; and so it was always used by the Saxons, and at this day, Gheest and Gheist in low and high Dutch do signify the same thing or spirit. Cap. 34. When Christ walked on the waters, the Disciples thought they had seen a spirit or phantasm, which Mr. Hobbs will have [to be an aerial body.] But I wonder who ever saw an aerial body; the two grosser Elements are visible to us, but not the two superior, by reason of their subtlety and purity. And he is deceived also in saying, [That the delusions of the brain are not common to many at once.] For I have observed that divers men together have seen imaginary castles, temples, armed men, and such like apparitions in the clouds. Now Spirits or Angels have been seen not in their own substances, which are invisible, but in the bodies of men which they assumed; and to say, as he doth, that because spirits are in no place circumscriptively, therefore they are nowhere, is inconsequent; for though they have no dimensions answering to the dimensions of place, yet they have their vbi, to which they are consigned. Cap. 34. He saith, [That concerning the creation of Angels, nothing is delivered in the Scriptures.] What then means the Apostle in his Epistle to the Collossians by things invisible, thrones, dominations, and powers, which he saith, were created? Were not these Angels? But I wonder not that he denies the creation of Angels, for he doth plainly deny their existence, saying (cap. 34.) they are [but visions, apparitions, images in the fancy, accidents of the brain.] But when the Holy Scripture calleth Angels Messengers, watchmen, ministering spirits, the host of heaven, &c. doth it mean only our fancies and dreams? Are those celestial servants of God, the comforters and protecters of good men, the gatherers together of the elect in the last day, but imaginations? Was that a fancy or an Angel who comforted Hagar in the desert? Was the Angel Gabriel that appeared to Mary but an accident of her brain? Were not the Israelites well guarded from their enemies, when they had no Angels, but fancies to guard them? It seems that Abraham and Lot entertained not Angels, but dreams and fancies in their houses; and Abraham washed the feet of fancies, and for them killed his fat calf: and Jacob wrestled all night with a fancy; as Turnus did, in the Poet, with the shadow of AEnaeas. Were those fancies or real substances, that St. Jude speaks of, who kept not their first estate, but left their habitation, and are now reserved in chains under darkness for the judgement of the great day: and when Christ saith we shall be like the Angels, doth he mean that in heaven we shall be like fancies and dreams? I doubt me, Mr. Hobbs is possessed with too many such Angels: He is extremely extravagant in his discourse for the Angels, which but now he would have to be dreams, visions, and fancies, he will have to be God himself. (cap. 34.) [Because the same apparition is called, not only an Angel, but God, Gen. 16.] Here is a goodly argument: Angels are sometimes called God, therefore they are God indeed: by the same reason he may infer, that Judges and earthly Princes, are gods indeed, because they are called so. The Idols of the Gentiles are called gods, are they therefore Gods indeed: Angels are sometimes called Elohim, or gods; not only for the excellency of their nature, but likewise for their employment, in representing the person and authority of God in their embassies: that Angel, who Gen. 31. 13. calls himself the God of Bethel is thought to be our blessed Saviour, who appeared sometimes to the Patriarchs and other holy men, before his incarnation: and it was this Angel that spoke with Moses in the bush, and in the cloud; and not the cloud itself; as Mr. Hobbs thinks, for he is deceived in thinking that the cloudy pillar spoke with Moses. He says, [It is not the shape, but the use that makes them Angels.] indeed the shape of men was most usual and most useful in the Angels, for contracting familiarity with men; for which cause the Angel of the Covenunt in the fullness of time became man: for what can be so kindly to man, as to be instructed, directed, and defended by man, or by Angels in man's shape: He saith, [That the Dove and fiery tongues, in being signs of God's special presence may be called Angels.] But I say no; for it is not the signification of God's presence, but the delivering by speech God's will or message, that makes an Angel or Messenger; for when were dumb Ambassadors ever employed? If every sign of God's presence were an Angel, we should have as many Angels, as there be Ceremonies and Sacraments in the Church: yea, every creature were an Angel, for each creature testifieth and representeth to us a deity, and so every Star, yea, every Fly, and every Herb should be an Angel, praesentemque docet quae libet herba Deum: if he can tell us that the fiery tongues, or Dove, did ever deliver any message in Scripture, (which the poet's fable of Dodonas Doves) than I will call them Angels. He saith again, [That God needeth not to distinguish his celestial servants by names.] Will he hence infer that therefore they have no names; he may as well say, that God needeth not to distinguish men by names, or to call the stars by their names, Psal. 147. Angels are distinguished by names, not for him, but for our weak memories: God needs no such distinctions, but we who are of weak apprehensions. Cap. 34. He faith, [That fire is no punishment to impatible creatures, such as are all things incorporeal.] That the Devil shall be punished with eternal fire and his Angels, is plain by our saviour's words, Mat. 25. It follows therefore they are patible creatures, though immaterial: that there is a patability in immaterial substances, is manifest by our own souls, which are affected with the passions of joy and grief, as the body is in a joyful or in ● painful condition; there are also some passions which are called immanent, and immaterial, such is the passion of understanding; for the soul suffereth when it understandeth. Now how the evil spirits in hell suffer by fire is not known unto us, but to God; neither is their suffering natural, but altogether supernatural, and by the power of God, who can as easily make fire work on spirits, as on the bush which burned, but consumed not: as St. Austin showeth, de civit dei, lib. 21. cap. 10. When Christ saith, that in the resurrection we shall be like the Angels of God which are in heaven. Mr. Hobbs inferreth, (cap. 34.) [That because men then shall be corporeal, therefore the Angels are such.] This is not to show that we shall be like the Angels, as Christ saith, but that the Angels shall be like us: neither is it Christ's scope to show there, Mat. 22. 30. that we shall be like the Angels in every thing; but only in this, that we shall be like them in chastity; for there shall be no marrying, because no need of posterity, man being then immortal. He confesseth at last, (cap. 34.) [That though in the Old Testament Angels were but fancies; yet some places of the New Testament have extorted from his feeble reason; a belief that Angels are substantial and permanent.] That faith which is extorted from a feeble reason must needs be very feeble: but indeed true faith is strongest, where reason is feeblest, per didi●ti rationem tene fidem, saith St. Austin, He that will lay hold on faith must abandon reason, which is the son of the bond woman, born after the flesh, but faith is the child of promise, and true heir of the Kingdom. In his thirty eighth chapter he saith, [That if Adam had not sinned, he had had an eternal life on earth.] And hence he infers, [That life eternal which Christ hath obtained for his Saints shall be: on earth: because the Apostle saith, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, for else the comparison were not proper.] The comparison is not between the two places of heaven and earth, but between the two persons of Adam and Christ, and between the two lives, the one earthly which Adam lost by introducing mortality, and the other heavenly which Christ hath purchased by overcoming mortality: and as this place fails him, so doth that other, Psal. 133. 3. Upon Zion God commanded the blessing, even life for evermore. And Rev. 21. 2. I John saw the holy City, New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. And Acts 1. 11. This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come as you have seen him go up into heaven. And Mat. 22. In the resurrection they are as the Angels of God in heaven, for they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. What sober minded man will conclude from these places, that our eternal happiness shall be on earth, and not in heaven? For when David speaks of life for evermore in Zion, he means a lasting happiness which accompanies concord among brethren: for the Hebrew word Holam in Scripture, signifieth a continuance for some time, but not eternity: In Exod. 21. 6. The servant whose ear was bored, is said to serve his master for ever, that is, so long as he liveth, and not everlastingly. Samuel is said to appear before the Lord, and there to abide for ever, 1 Sam. 1. 22. Will any infer hence that Samuel was to continue in his office for all eternity: The Perpetuus Dictator at Rome continued not for ever, though he is called perpetual: So than life for evermore in Zion is a long continuing happiness; and yet Zion in Scripture is divers times taken for heaven, where is only true and eternal life: As impertinent is that place which he allegeth, Rev. 2. 7. To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. This saith he, [was the tree of Adam's eternal life, but this life was to have been on earth.] But he is quite out of the way; for the Paradise mentioned here, is that which Christ speaks of to the good thief, Thou shalt be this day with me in Paradise, that is in heaven: for earthly Paradise was destroyed by the flood, and so was the tree of Life, which might for some time have prolonged Adam's age, by supplying the decay of the radical moisture, but could not have continued it for ever: only our blessed Saviour the true tree of life here mentioned can protract our life into eternity: now that Paradise was destroyed by the flood is plain by Moses, Gen. 6. saying, that the flood rose higher fifteen cubits, than the highest mountains. Besides, if Paradise had been to continue what need was there to build an Ark for Noah: and his family, seeing they could have been saved in Paradise, and so the other creatures likewise: And whereas he saith, [That the New Jerusalem when Christ comes again; shall come down to God's people from heaven, and not they go up to it from earth.] Is ridiculous; for Rev. 21. 2. by the New Jerusalem coming down from God, is meant the Church of Christ, whose original calling, protection, and happiness is from God, so that this is not a proper, but a tropical descent. The Church is called Jerusalem there, and elsewhere, because she is, or aught to be the City of Peace, and as Jerusalem of old was the place of God's worship, and of his peculiar presence, so is the Church now; which is called new, as having cast off the old man, and old ceremonies, is renewed in the spirit of her mind; and is regenerate by water and the spirit So he showeth his vanity, when he proves out of Acts 1. 11. [That Christ shall come down to govern his people eternally here, and not take them up to govern them in heaven.] For in that place there is no mention of his government here on earth, nor of the eternity thereof; but only that he shall return after the same manner that he went up, that is to say, gloriously, riding on the clouds, and attended by Angels: Now if any man would know the reason or end of Christ's second coming, he shall find in Daniel 2. Mat. 25. and other places of Scripture; that it is not to erect an earthly Kingdom, which shall continue for ever, but as the Apostle saith, to render vengeance to the wicked, and to us that are afflicted, peace. Or as it is in our Creed, to judge the quick and the dead; so than he shall not return as an earthly Prince, to set up his throne here on earth, which is his footstool, but as a Judge in his circuit, who having condemned some, and absolved others, returns again to the place of his residence. But he says, (cap. 38.) [That there is neither Scripture nor Reason to prove that after the resurrection, men are to live eternally in heaven.] What then will he say to these passages, Mat. 5. Great is your reward in heaven; Christ would have said, great is your reward on earth, if he had purposed to erect an earthly kingdom. So Mat. 6. we are advised to lay up our treasures, not on earth, but in heaven: this were to no purpose, if we were to live eternally on earth, not in heaven. So Ioh. 14. I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there you may be. I pray was it not to heaven that Christ went to prepare that place: is not heaven his father's house, where there are many mantions? Earth is never called his house, nor are the Saints said here to have an house or habitation, but to sojourn as in Tents: Heaven is the house where we must dwell, if we will believe St. Paul who was caught up into this house, who speaks not by hearsay, but by knowledge: [for we know, saith he, that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens, 2 Cor. 5. 1.] Why did St. Paul desire to be dissolved and be with Christ, Phil. 1. if he was to enjoy Christ upon earth only: he should rather have desired to be dissolved, that Christ might be with him on earth, than he to be with Christ in heaven: Enoch was translated, and Elijah was caught up into heaven, to assure us of our right and habitation there, for this cause our Saviour opened heaven at his Baptism, and after his Resurrection ascended thither, to take possession thereof for us; and it is fit, that where the Head is, there the body should be; where the King keeps his residence, thither his servants should repair. Where should the children dwell, but in their father's house: now that is heaven; therefore we are taught to lift up our eyes thither, and to pray, Our Father which art in Heaven. Here then Mr. Hobbs hath both authority and reason against his earthly happiness, which ●avours too much of Mabumets' earthly Paradise. It is childish what he saith, (cap. 38.) That the earthly kingdom of the Saints [shall be called a new knigdom of heaven, because our King shall then be God, whose Throne is in heaven.] I would know of Mr. Hobbs; Whether our King, Christ Jesus be not God now, as well as after the resurrection, and whether his Throne be not now in heaven, as well as it shall be then. If so, why may not each earthly kingdom now be called the Kingdom of heaven, seeing our King is God, and his Throne is in heaven: perhaps he will t●ll us that Christ is God, but not King as yet; but I say, in that he is God, he is also King of all the earth, as David witnesseth, Psal. 47. 7. And we find in the Apocalypse, that the●● is written upon his garment King of Kings; and therefore he confesseth before his earthly Judge that he was born to be a King. And when he was hanging on the Cross he was King of the Jews. To no purpose also doth he allege that of St. John, cap. 3. v. 13. [No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man that is in heaven.] To prove that man shall ascend to his happiness no higher than God's footstool, the earth: because no man hath ascended into the highest heaven before Christ, will it therefore follow, that no man shall ascend after him; or because no man hath ascended by his own power, but Christ only: therefore no man shall ascend by the power of Christ thither: he were as good infer, that no man before Christ overcame death by his own power, therefore no man after him shall overcome death by Christ's power; and consequently there shall be no resurrection. But if we ascend not higher than the earth, the Apostle hath deluded us, in saying. That we shall be caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall be ever with the Lord: he should have said rather, that the Lord shall be ever with us. What good will our {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Burgiship, or devisation do us in heaven, if we shall never go thither, what comfort can we take in the society and company of Angels, or they of ours, if we shall never cohabit together in heaven. He will not have (cap. 38.) the resurrection of the body to be proved out of Christ's words to the S●dduces: I am the God of Abraham, &c. for he is not a God of the dead, out of the living● for they all live to him, Luke 20, 37, 38. His reason is, because the words are to be understood only of the immortality of the soul: But I say these words prove both the soul's immortality and the body's resurrection; for if Abraham's soul had been dead, how could God have been his God: that is, his Protector, Comforter, Saviour? Here is the soul's immortality. And if Abraham's body had been eternally dead, how could God have been the God of Abraham; for Abraham's soul is not Abraham, but a part; now God is not the God of a part, but of the whole man: therefore St. Luke saith, They all live to God; the departed Saints than are no more dead to God, than our children when they are asleep, are dead to us: Therefore Christ saith of Lazarus, being four days dead, that he was asleep; so our departed friends are dead to us, but asleep to God: and indeed the soul's immortality, and body's resurrection are so linked together, that who denieth or affirmeth the one, denyeth or affirmeth the other; neither had Christ's answer satisfied the Sadduces, had it not proved as well the resurrection of the body, as the immortality of the soul; for they denied both. [It is not (saith he) apparent in Scripture, that man's soul is in his own nature eternal.] That the soul is immortal, is apparent by these Scriptures, Eccles. 12. 7. The spirit shall return to God that gave it. If it dyeth, how can it return to God? It returns rather to nothing: So Matth. 10. 28. Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. If the soul cannot be killed when the body is destroyed, how comes it to die? So Matth. 22. 32. God is the God of Abraham, &c. not of the dead but of the living. So Phil. 1. 23. Paul desireth to be dissolved, and to be with Christ. When he is dissolved, his body could not be with Christ; it is his soul then; which to be with Christ, is to live with Christ. So 1 Pet. 3. 19 Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison. What did he preach to dead spirits? So Revel. 6. 9 The souls cry under the Altar, and 7. 9 They are clothed in white, with palms in their hands; those phrases do not speak of dead souls. But he would fain prove out of Job 14. 7. That life immortal beginneth not in man, till the resurrection. But this place will advantage him nothing: for we say the same with Job, That a tree being cast down will bud again, and that man riseth not till the heavens be no more; that is, till the resurrection, when the heavens shall be dissolved with fire, as St. Peter saith; so that life immortal beginneth not in man till then; if by man he means the whole man. But hence is no argument that can be drawn against the immortality of the soul: for though man die and consume, yet the soul dieth not; no more than the soul eateth, drinketh sleepeth, walketh, &c. for these are the actions of the man, not of the soul. Because Mr. Hobbs (cap. 38.) thinks [this doctrine will appear to most men a novelty, he will maintain nothing in it, but attend the end of that dispute of the sword, by which all sorts of doctrine are to be approved or rejected.] He need not trouble himself about the novelty of this doctrine; for it is no● new, but as old as Cerinthus the heretic, who lived about ninety years after Christ; he was one of the first that maintained the conceit of Christ's earthly kingdom; who notwithstanding told Pilate, that, his kingdom was not of this world. About one hundred forty five years after Christ, the Papuzean her●ticks, being the spawn of the Cataphrygians, whose father was Montanus, held the town called Pepuza in upper Phrygia, to be the new Jerusalem, mentioned, Heb. 12. and Rev. 21. Where Christ was to reign eternally, whereas Cerinthus his reign was to last but a thousand years; whose Sectaries were a●te wards called Chiliasts, or Millennaries. As for the other branch of his opinion concerning the souls sleep or death, and its resurrection or vivification in the last day, that is also no novelty; but an old heresy maintained by the Arabian heretics about two hundred and seventeen years after Christ; these were called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, mortal souls: The Psychopanvychits of this age, come somewhat near 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, cap. 38. 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 descent or going down; Core went down to hell; the rich glutton in hell lifted up his eyes towards Abraham. The ●eart is said to rise the out of bottomless ●it and yet stands with reason, that the place of the damned should be as remote from heaven, as may be, which can be nowhere, 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 show that it is beneath us; and this visible world. Because the Prophets in the old Testament by allegorical terms describe the happiness of Christ's 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 chariots, of eating and drinking, and all kind 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 heresy of Cerinthus, which the Fathers of the Church hath long since exploded; as being too gross and carnal, and such as none will believe 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 than his footstool, seemeth not suitable 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. John tells us, that Christ hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, Rev. 1. 6. It will not then be unsuitable to his dignity, if we ascend higher than his footstool. In his forty one chapter cap. 41 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 than 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 years since by his Apostles and their successors subdue so many nations to his obedience, by that sharp two edged sword of his mouth; and yet all this while have no kingdom; could Alexander in three years' space subdue so many kingdoms: 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 rewards● 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 Christ's K●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 Joab, 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 Job with death, for the murdering 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 thovand 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 to the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sit in Moses chair.] But than Christ should have wronged the Roman Governors, in whom he acknowledged kingly power, by paying tribute, and by submitting himself to be judged by them. Their sitting then in Moses chair doth not imply kingly power; but their power in expounding the law of Moses. And it is as weak an inference to say, that Christ is not King of his Church, [Because he would not divide the inheritance, between the two brethren, or because he came to save the world, not to judge it;] For dividing of inheritances belonging not to Christ's spiritual kingdom; neither was it the end of Christ's coming to judge, that is to condemn the world, for the Greek word signifieth both, but to save it; for his name was Jesus a Saviour, because he came to save his people from their sins. And no less weak is this reason: [The time of Christ's preaching is called regeneration, therefore it is no kingdom.] Regeneration is not the time, but the fruit and effect of Christ's preaching: and so far is regeneration from being inconsistent with Christ's Kingdom; that our Saviour tells us in plain terms; except we be regenerate we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3. In his two and fortty chapter cap. 4●: he broacheth a strange whimsy concerning the blessed Trinity, in saying, [That God who hath been represented (that is personated) thrice, to wit, by Moses, by Christ, and by the Apostles, may properly enough be said to be three Persons, as represented by the Apostles, the holy Spirit by which they spoke is God, as represented by Christ, the Son is that God, as represented by Moses and the high Priests, the Father is that God. Hence the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the signification of the Godhead, are never used in the old Testament; for they are Persons, that is, they have their names from representing, which could not be, till divers men had represented God's Person, &c.] Here is strange stuff: For first, The word Person in the Trinity, was never taken by Divines for a wizard, a personating, or representation, but for a peculiar way of subsisting; therefore by the Greek Church the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used, till wanton and idle wits began to ●aise differences about that word; and then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used answering to the Latin word, Persona, and is defined thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by Justin Martyr and Dam●s●en; an eternal or unbeginning manner of an eternal existing; so that in the same essence there is a threefold way of subsisting: The father's existence is from himself, the Sons from the Father, the Spirits from both: so in man, there is the soul, the intellect and will; these three are but one essence, yet differently subsisting; the soul of itself, the intellect from the soul, and the wil● from both. Secondly, if personating, or representing makes the persons in the Trinity, it will follow, that there have been and are more than three persons, nay, I may truly say innumerable, for God hath been represented, not only by Moses, but by Josuah also and his successors; by Aaron the high Priest, and all his successors; by all Judges also and Kings, who are therefore called gods: there must be then as many persons, as there have been personatings or representations; and in this respect the Trinity may be called a Legion, or rather innumerable persons. Thirdly, Why should God be called the Holy Spi●●●, as he was represented by the Apostles, rather than by being personated by Moses, or by Christ; his reason is, because the Apostles spoke by the Spirit: I pray, did not Moses and Christ speak by the same Spirit. St. Peter saith, that the holy men of old spoke as the Spirit moved them. Or why is God by him called Father, as he was represented by Moses, rather than as he was represented by Christ? Was there more Paternity in Moses, then in any other man, or in Christ, who by Isaiah is called the everlasting Father? Or why is he called Father, as personated by the high Priests. F●u●thly, It is untrue what he saith, that the n●●es of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are never used in the old Testament. For Psal. 89. which contains not only a prophecy of Solom●n, but also of Christ, it is thus written: He shall cry unto me, thou art my Father, Psal. 89. 26. and Isa. 9 he is called the everlasting Father. So Psal: 2. Christ is called Son. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: And Isa. 9 For unto us a Son is given. So the third Person or Spirit is mentioned; The Spirit of God moved upon the Waters, Gen. 1. Now that this was no wind, as some have thought, is plain; because air was created afterwards, and this Spirit is said to move, or by moving to cherish the waters: but the wind is an enemy to the waters; both in regard of its siccity, and imp●tuosity; neither is the wind ever called the Spirit of God, as we have showed already. So Ioel. ●. I will pour my Spirit upon all flesh: And Zach, ●●. I will pour upon the house of David and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication. But he saith, that these names are not used in the signification of the godhead, but he is deceived; for when the child Christ is called the everlasting Father by Isaiah, this cannot be in signification of his humanity; for how can a little child be an everlasting Father, but in respect of his godhead. He saith, (Cap. 42.) [If the Supreme King have not his regal power in this world, by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers.] This is not to be doubted, but the Supreme King hath his regal power in this world; for this cause he tells his Apostles after his resurrection, That all power was given to him in heaven and in earth; therefore he sends them abroad into all nations of this world, teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them, Matth. 28. If then he hath regal power in the world, why should not his Officers be obeyed. 'Tis true, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; will it therefore follow, that it is not in this world? For if in this world he subdueth the nations to his sceptre by the sword of his word, if he leads captivity captive, if he giveth gifts unto men, if he prescribe laws, and punisheth the offenders, shall we not say he hath Kingly power in this world: if the Kings and Potentates of the earth, have submitted their sceptres to his heralds, have received his yoke, and have placed his cross upon their crowns in sign of subjection, is he not their Supreme King, whose dominion here is called the Kingdom of grace: his other Kingdom in the next world, shall be the kingdom of glory, which M. Hobbs confounds with this of grace: as for the coercive or commanding power of Ministers which he speaks against; I must needs confess, there is not so much, as some could take upon them; yet to deny all coercive power, is to deny the commission which this great King, Luke 14. gave to his servants, that they should compel those in the highways to come to his supper. And albeit ministers are called fishermen, and not hunters; yet fishermen use some force in drawing their fish to the shore: and indeed, none can come to me, saith Christ, except the Father draw him: as for his doctrine of dissimulation in matters of Religion, both with God and man; I dare not assent thereto, for God, who is the God of truth, loveth truth in the inward parts, he that is not with him, is against him, who gathereth not with him scattereth. Linen and Woolin in the same garment, different seeds in the same ground, an ox and an ass at the same plough are not pleasing to him. Pulcra est concordia cordis & oris. If to think one think and speak another did argue Catalin to be an evil-man; shall it not argue the like in a Christian. Aliud in lingua promptum, ali●d in pectore clausum habere. When he ●ells us (cap. 42.) [That Christ's commission to his Disciples and Apostles, was to proclaim his Kingdom, not present but to come.] He is mistaken; for the Apostles commission was to proclaim that the Kingdom of heaven was at hand● {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in the perfect tense, shows that it was already come, or at hand, Mat. 3. and 4. And he showeth, Luke 17. 21. That the Kingdom of God was within them: And Luke 11. 20. That the kingdom of God was come upon them: If then this kingdom of Christ was not to come till after the resurrection, how could it be said to be then at hand? Whereas already there are 1652 years: past, besides, what are to come. When he saith, (cap. 42.) ● [That the Apostles had no power to make la●s, but to persuade; that they did counsel and advise, but not command; that their precepts were invitations and callings; not commands, that they might be without sin dissobeyed:] And much more to this purpose, he ●peaks absurdly; for how can he make precepts to be counsels and not commands. Is not praecipio and mando all one. Are not the ten Commandments ten precepts? Are they to be called counsels? did not the Apostles make laws, and enjoin them to be observed, Acts 15. St. Paul doth not counsel, but command the Thessalonians to work with their own hands, 1 Thes. 4. 11. He hopes they will do the things he commands them, 2 Thes. 3. 4. Timothy is to command as well as to teach, 1 Tim. 4. 11. He must command the rich men of this world, 1 Tim. 6. 17. The Apostle puts a difference between counsel and command; when he saith● that concerning virgins he had no command; but gives his counsel in that case, 1 Cor. 7. 25. Now that Christ and his Apostles may be disobeyed without sin, is a sinful opinion; for Christ tells us, that if he had not come and spoken to the Jews, they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin, John 15. 24. St John writes to his brethren, that they might not sin, 1 John 2. 1. to wit. if they obey and observe, what he writes; otherwise, they must needs sin. Disobedience is not only a sin, but as Samuel saith, it is as heinous as the sin of witchcraft or idolatry. He makes a needless difference (cap. 42.) between a minister and a servant, [That servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them, whereas ministers are obliged only by their undertaking.] But indeed these words, servant and minister are promiscuously used; for if servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them; then ministers are servants, for this obligation lieth upon them. And if ministers are obliged by their undertaking, than servants are ministers, for what they undertake they are obliged to perform. Christ, Mat. 20. 26, and 27. useth the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for the same thing. And so he is called sometimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and sometimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and this word Diaconus is given sometimes to the meanest servant, sometimes to the Magistrate, as Rom. 13. sometimes to Preachers, sometimes to Church Officers called Deacons. Ambassadors are called also by this name, and they are said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to serve or to be Deacons. He will have (Chap. 42.) [Prince's to be called Shepherds or Pastors, because they are to teach the people.] But indeed they are called Pastors from feeding, not from teaching, neither is it the office of a King to preach or administer the Sacraments● No man taketh upon him (saith the Apostle) this honour, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was: he should have said, As Moses was, if he had been called to perform the Pr●ests Office: Therefore Christian sovereigns are not instituted to teach by virtue of their baptism, as he saith; for baptism is a Sacrament of our regeneration and of our admission to be members of Christ's body● by it Princes and Subjects are washed from sin, but not instituted to preach; the Emperor hath no more power to perform the Priests office● or to preach by virtue of his baptism, than his meanest subject, And if the King's baptism doth not authorise him to ●ach at all, much less [to teach what doctrine he will, and to exercise absolute Power over his subjects] as Mr. Hobbs saith: For absolute power is in God only; they are tyrants, not lawful Princes, that will claim abs●lute power over their subjects● And if it be Baptism that investeth Princes with power over their subjects● what power hath the Turk the Persian, the Magor, the King of China● the great Cham over their Subjects, who were never baptsed: and to allow Prince's power to teach what they will, is to make them absolute lords, not only over our bodies and goods, but over our souls also, and to en●lave our understandings to their wills. When he saith, (cap. 42.) In that Urim and Thummim was given to the high Priest, it was given to the civil sovereign; for such next under God was the high Priest in the commonwealth of Israel.] He contradicts himself; for this high Priest to whom Urim and Thummim was given first, was Aaron, whom not long before he subjected to Moses, cap. 40. where he saith, [That not Aaron; bu● Moses alone had next under God the sovereignty over the Israelites, and that not only in causes of civil policy, but also of religion.] Here we see how he makes and unmakes the sovereignty of Princes; and not only doth he make Moses for his time, but also the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in his chair, (that is to ●ay, expounded his law) supreme civil sovereigns, whereas the legislative power, and civil sovereignty was in the Romans by right of conquest; which our Saviour did acknowledge by paying tribute, and counselling to give to Caesar, that which were Caesar's. He (cap. 42) [will not have excommunication to be a punishment, but only a denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict at the day of Judgement.] But I say that excommunication is not a bare denouncing, but a real suffering of punishment, and of such a punishment as is most grievous; to wit, a ● paration from God's people, and the benefits which they enjoy: for if the Abstenti in the Prin●itive Church, held it a great punishment to be debarred from the Sacrament for a whíle; how much more grievous is it to be cut off from the mystical body of Christ, and to be excluded from the Communion of the Saints, and of all the privileges which they do now, and shall hereafter enjoy. He denieth (cap. 42.) [that there is any spiritual commonwealth among men in this world.] This he gronnds upon two reasons; [1. because it is the same thing with the Kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world. Secondly, There are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual.] These reasons are very weak: For first, because a spiritual commonwealth and Christ's Kingdom are the same, it will follow, that there is a spiritual commonwealth amongst men, which is the Kingdom of grace here, where Christ reigneth in the hearts of his faithful people; which though it be not of this world, yet it is in this world; as I have showed already: And of this Kingdom our Saviour speaks, when he saith, The Kingdom of God is within you; Luke, 17. 21 Which consisteth in righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. Secondly, To say that Christ hath not here a spiritual commonwealth, because men's bodies are not spiritual, is ridiculous; for Christ's subjects here are spiritual, though their bodies be corporeal, because they are animated, regulated, directed by the spirit. They are regenerated by the spirit, John 3. They walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, Rom. 8. The spirit helpeth their in●irmities, and teacheth them to pray, Rom. 8. The holy spirit dwelleth in them, 2 Tim. 1. 14. God hath given them of his spirit, 1 John 4. 13. They are sealed with the spirit of promise, Ephes. 1. 13. They have the fruits of the spirit, which are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, &c. Gal. 5. 22. Therefore Christ's subjects, though they are here clothed with flesh yet are called spiritual: gall 6. 1. Yo● which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness. These are distinguished fro● carnal or natural men. 1 Cor 3. 1. I could not speak to you brethren as to spiritual men, but as to carnal. So 1 Cor. 2. 14, 15. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God; but he that is spiritual discerneth all things. So their seed is spiritual, 1. Cor. 9 11. Their meat and drink is spiritual, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. Their songs are spiritual, Eph. 5. 19 Their house is spiritual, a Pet. 2. 5. And their sacrifice is spiritual, 1 Pet. 2. 5. Can we say then that Christ's Kingdom or commonwealth, as he calls it, is not spiritual? He (cap. 42. ●) [will not have the members of a commonwealth to depend one of another, but to cohere together. They depend only (saith he) on the sovereign, which is the soul on the commonwealth.] But there is a dependence, as well as a coherence; in a dead body there is a coherence of members, but no dependence; in a living body, there are both: though the body depend on the soul, it will not therefore follow, that the members do not depend one of another: for the hands and feet depend on the stomach, to be ●ed by it, and it depends on them, to be defended, provided, and carried by them; the like may be said of the other members. So in a Common-wealth● the sovereign depends on the people for assistance, maintenance and defence; they depend on him for counsel, government, and peace. The members of the commonwealth depend on the Clothyer for clothes, on the Husbandman for food, on the physician for health, on the Divine for instruction, on the Lawyer for counsel, &c. And these depend on each other. Heresy (saith he) (cap. 42.) [is nothing else but a private opinion; obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the public person bathe commanded to be taught. Hence an opinion publicly appointed to be taught, cannot be heresy, nor the Princes that authorise them, heretics.] It seems then by this definition, that Ariani●m was only an heresy, whil●t it was maintained by Arius a private person; but when it was anthorised publicly by the Arian Princes, it was no more an heresy: and so now, not Arius, but Athanasius that opposed it must be called an heretic, by Mr. Hobbs, contrary to the judgement of all learned men, and the Church of God hitherto. The great Turk, and the Mahometans, who profess at this day the same damnable doctrine of Arius, are not heretics, but the Christians within his dominions, who are of another opinion, these are your heretics Mr. Hobbs; by this your definition, you may call Christ and his Apostles heretics, for they held doctrines contrary to the traditions and opinions of the Scribes and Pharisees, who (as you say) sat in Moses' chair. It is not the person private or public that makes an heretic, but it is the doctrine, repugnant to God's word, and the articles of our faith, maintained obstinately for sini●trous ends, as lucre, honour, &c. that makes heresy: a private man may maintain an opinion in Philosophy contrary to the opinion of the Prince, and yet no heretic in this, because he holds nothing against our Christian faith, his opinion may be erroneous but not heretical. In his three and forty chapter he tells us, [That the faith of Christians ever since Christ's time, hath had for foundation, the reputation of Pastors and Authority of Christian sovereigns.] This is to build our faith upon a sandy foundation, which with every blast will be overt●rned; the authority and reputation of men are but arms of flesh, and broken reeds to rely upon; these may be motives to induceus to give our assent, as the testimony of that woman, John 4. induced many of the Samaritans of that City to believe on Christ? But the foundation of their faith was Christ himself; who bestowed that gift upon them, as he doth upon us. And how can man's reputation or authority be the foundation of that which exceeds all human reason and capacity; but such is faith: Besides, faith itself is the ground of our justification and salvation; for we are both justified and saved by faith; but if man be the ground of our faith, he must also be the ground of our j●stification and salvation; and so Christ died & rose in vain. But the Apostle showeth us the true foundation of our faith in these words: For other foundation can●no man lay, them that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 3. 11. Christ therefore as he is revealed to us in his word, is the foundation of our faith: besides, By faith we are the sons of God, saith the Apostle, Gal. 3. But we were in a bad condition if ourfiliation depended on the authority of Princes, or reputation of Pastors. In his forty fourth chapter Cap. 44. he expounds these words of Matth. 9 34. Belzebub the Prince of Devils, that is, [He hath principality over fantasins that appear in the air.] So that he makes [Demons phantasms, or spirits of illusion to signify allegorically the same thing.] But I do not read that Devils in Scripture are called phantasms, or phantasms named Devils: when the Disciples, Mat. 14. saw Jesus walking on the sea, they thought they had seen a phantasm; did they mean the devil by this word? So when Christ, Mat. 4. was tempted of the devil, is it meant that he was tempted by a phantasm? Devils are spirits and real substancet, and not phantasms or fictions of the brain, as we showed be●ore of Angels, I deny not but Satan may represent to the outward sense, as well as to the inward or imagination, divers shapes of things to delude men; which shapes may be called phantasms, as that which Suidas calls a diabolical phantasm {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; which indeed was but a deluding shadow or phantasm, and not the Devil himself; who is an invisible spirit: therefore although there be in the heathen Poets fabulous doctrines concerning Demons, we must not hence infer with Mr. Hobbs, [That Demons are but idols or phantasms of the brain, without any real nature of their own, distinct from human fancy.] For so he may as well infer, that God is but a fancy; because the Poets have delivered many ●abulous doctrines concerning the gods. He that afflicted Job, tempted Christ, bu●●etted Paul, and hath been from the beginning an enemy to the woman's seed, is more than a phantasm or idol of the brain. Cap. 44. After Mr. Hobbs hath toiled himself in vain, to prove that Christ hath no kingdom in this world, at last is content to allow Christ the kingdom of grace, which is as much as we desire; for we know that the kingdom of glory is not yet come; Christ then is King of his Church militant here, and reigneth in the hearts of his faithful, and performs all the offices of a King, even in this world, by prescribing laws, by ruling, defending, rewarding, punishing, though not in so ample a manner, as hereafter; he also conquereth and subdueth the enemies of his Church, though not fully till the consummation of the world: He also enlargeth the territories and bounds of his Kingdom, that he might fulfil the prophecies, and make good his father's gift. Psal. 2. I have given thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. This is that kingdom, which is in the new Testament so often called the kingdom of God, and of heaven; this is that kingdom which in the resurrection Christ will deliver up to God his Father, 1 Cor. 15. He cannot yet digest (cap. 44●) the soul's immortality, for three reasons. [First, because the tree of life was to preserve man immortal. Secondly, what needed Christ's sacrifice to recover man's immortality, if he hath not lost it: Thirdly, must the wicked and heathen also enjoy eternal life.] I answer, The tree of life was to preserve man immortal, but not the soul which is immortal by nature, as being a spirit, and not subject to corruption, as bodies which are compounded of corruptible materials, and of contrary elements. Secondly, Christ's sacrifice was to recover man's immortality, but not the souls which was not lost; now as a part cannot be the whole, nor the whole a part; so neither can the soul ●be man, nor man the soul. Thirdly, eternal life which the wicked enjoy, is a life of misery, and such as they would be willing to exchange for death, neither is it more strange that wicked men should enjoy eternal life, then wicked Angels; both enjoying this immortality, as a due punishment for their sins: now whereas he saith, [That eternal life was not essential to human nature, but consequent to the virtue of the tree of life.] I grant, that man is not naturally immortal, yet the soul of man is; but I deny that life eternal was a consequent to the virtue of any tree; for no tree can be capable of such a virtue; neither was the tree of life any other than a Sacrament of man's immortality, if he had pesevered in his obedience; therefore God debarred him, because of his transgression, from it; in that he would not have his Sacraments abused by profane hands. But he tells us, [That when everlasting death is called everlasting life in torments, it is a figure never used but in this very case.] I answer, That this figure is used in other cases; as when Christ saith, Let the dead go bury the dead; there natural life is called death: So when the Apostle ●aith, We were dead in our sins and trespasses: he used the same figure in another case; for there the delight we have in sin is called death; this figure is used in the law in another case, for captives, slaves, prisoners, and such like miserable men, are said to be civilly dead: St. Paul in another case useth this figure, when he saith, I am crucified; that is, dead to the world; to wit, in his affections; and so they who include themselves in a monastery, are said to be dead to the world. But he saith, that this doctrine of the soul's imnortality [is founded only on some of the obscurer places of the new Testament.] I pray, what obscurity is there in this place, Thou shalt be this night with me in Paradise? What was to be with Christ in Paradise, not the good thiess body, than it must needs be his soul? So when Christ preached to the spirits in prison, what were these spirits? Shadows only, or fancies, such as Virgil speaks of: Umbrae ibant tenues, simulachraque luce carentum. Bodies they could not be, they must needs then be souls: So when Christ saith, That body and soul shall be cast into hell fire, there cannot be meant, as Mr. Hobbs expounds it, body and life; for than Christ should speak nonsense, when he saith; Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, Mat. 10. 28. That is, fear not them that can take away the life of the body, but are not able to take away the life of the life. But he objecteth, [That the soul in Scripture is taken sometimes for the whosle man, or living creature.] I grant it is so taken sometimes Synecdochically; will it therefore ●ollow that it is never taken properly? So this word flesh is sometimes tropically used for the whole man, is therefore never used properly. He tells us, (cap. 44.) [That this window gives entrance to the dark doctrine of eternal torments, of purgatory, of walking ghosts, and exorcisms.] The doctrine of eternal torments is not so dark, as he takes it; it is in plain terms set down in Scripture, to be an eternal separation from God, everlasting fire, everlasting shame, and contempt, &c. Neither is it a doctrine either erroneous or dangerous, that we should for fear of teaching it, deny the soul's immortality; suppose also, that the doctrine of pugatory, walking ghosts and exorcisms were erroneous, and grounded on the soul's immortality; must we deny this for for fear of these errors? Must we deny the Scriptures, because they have been windows to give entrance to divers heresies? What doctrine is so sound, orthodox, and true, which is not abused by wanton, luxurious and pernicious wits? As for ghost walking, that has no relation to the soul's immortality; for if by ghost he meant the soul; that walked usually among the Gentiles, till the body was buried a hundred years, as Vrigil saith: Centum errant annos, and then it rested in the grave with the body, as Mr. Hobbs would have it; So Virgil speaks of the soul of Polidorus, Aen. 3. Animamque sepulcro condimus; and of Deiph●bus, magna manes t●r voce vocavi, Aen. 6. His soul was called upon by Anaeas to come to his grave. Again, this ghost walking was neither of the soul, nor of the body, but of the shadow, image, fancy, or similitude of the body. So Aen. 4, Omnibus um●bra locis adero, saith Queen Dido. So on her death bed she speaks, Magna mei sub terras ibit imago So the shadow and similitude of Creusa appeared to Aenaeas, Infelix simulachrum, Atque ipsius umbra Creusae, Aen. 2. So Lucretius out of Ennius, who were no great friends to the soul's immortality, held that neither the soul nor the body went to hell, but only the shadows or similitudes of men. Et si preterea tamen esse Acberusia templa Ennius aeternis exponit versibus, edens, Quo neque permanent animae, neque corpora nosira: Sed quaedam simulachra modis pallentia miris. Lucr. l. 1. When Christ saith, Mar. 9 1. There be some that stand here who shall not taste of death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power. This Kingdom Mr. Hobbs [will have to be spoken of Christ's transfiguration.] I know some of the Ancients were of this opinion; but it is very improbable that Christ should call a vision, the Kingdom of God; and a Kingdom with power: therefore it is more likely, that he meant the kingdom of grace, or of his Church, which began to spread after his resurrection, with power, when at the preaching of fishermen the world began to submit to the sceptre of Christ: which some that stood there, that is, the Apostles saw, before they tasted of death: who are called some, in respect of the people, who also stood there, as may be seen, Mark 8. 34. Again, whereas Christ's kingdom began at his resurrection. Mr. Hobbs demands [a reason, why Christians ever since pray, thy kingdom come.] The reason is, because that kingdom we pray for, is not yet come, to wit, the kingdom of Glory; nor is the kingdom of Grace totally come, or in its full plenitude, because all nations are not as yet subdued to Christ's sceptre. He gives us (cap. 44.) a pretty interpretation of Solomon's words, Eccles. 12. 7. The spirit shall return to God that gave it, [That is (saith he) God only knows (but not man●) what becomes of man's spirit when he expireth.] This interpretation is somewhat far fe●ched: which if it be allowed, the word of God will prove no better than a nose of wax. When Luke 8. 55. the ruler's daughter being dead, it is said, her spirit returned to her again; the meaning must be● according to Mr. Hobbs his interpretation, that her spirit did not indeed return, but only she knew (and none but she) what became of it: So Zach. 1. 16. Thus saith the Lord, I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: The meaning is, that Jerusalem only knew, what was become of God. Besides, when Solomon saith, The dust shall return to the earth, and the spirit shall return unto God: I would know, whether the dust truly, returns to the earth? if it returns, why doth not the soul truly return to God? Seeing with the same breath, the same phrase is uttered by Solomon: as for the question Solomon makes, Eccles. 3. 21. Who knoweth that the spirit of man goeth upward, and that the spirit of the beast goeth downward; doth not sound so in the Hebrew; but thus: Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward: and so both the French and our last English translations have it, and so have the Latin Geneva version: The Septuagints read it thus: Who hath seen the spirit of man: and the Geneva translation hath; who have observed the spirit. So that Solomon questioneth not the immortality of the soul, but showeth the difficulty of knowing the nature thereof; or the manner how it leaves the body, and mounteth upward towards heaven, the place of its original. He proves (cap. 44.) [there is no natural immortality of the soul by Solomon, Eccles. 3. 19 That which befalleth the sons of man, befalleth beasts, as the one dyeth, so dyeth the other, they have all one breath, and a man hath no pre-eminence a 'bove a beast.] In these words Solomon doth not speak of the soul at all; but of the body only, as may be seen in the words immediately following. All go into one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. I hope the believes better of Solomon, then to make him speak so brutishly, as though man's divine soul were made of dust, and resolved into dust again: or as if there were no difference between man's soul and the breath of beasts. In respect then of our animal nature, or corporeal part, we eat, drink, sleep, breath, and die like the beasts, but this concerns nothing at all the reasonable soul of man, by which he is ● specifically different from beasts. He saith, [That Enoch's translation makes as much for the immortality of the body as of the soul.] I deny it not, and therefore infer, That if it makes for the immortality of the body, much more makes it for the immortality of the soul; therefore this place of Gen. 5. 24. Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him; is alleged by Divines, to prove man's immortality after the resurrection. Again he saith, [That this is a hard saying of Solomons; Better is he that hath not yet been, than they who have been, if the soul be immortal.] But I say, that this saying is no ways hard; for better it is to have no being morally, then to have a miserable being: therefore the immortality of a wicked man's soul adds to his unhapiness. For this cause Christ saith of Judas, That it had been good for him, if he had never been born. Besides, when Christ tells us, That God is the God of Abraham, &c. and therefore Abraham was then alive; Mr. Hobbs saith, [That Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were then alive by promise, not actually.] but I would fain know when did God make such a promise to Abraham, that his soul should live immortally, and that he should be raised to immortality in the last day. Again, how can one be said to live by promise, who is actually dead; How is God the God of the living, if they whose God he is be not living, but actually dead; for a dead man to live by promise is a bull. Cap. 44. [He cannot find, that any man shall live in torments everlastingly.] What doth he say to that place, Rev. 20. 10. Where the beast and false prophet are tormented with the Devil day and night for ever and ever. Do not they live in torments everlastingly, that live in everlasting shame and contempt: but such is the condition of the wicked, Dan. 12 2. They shall be punished with everlasting destruction, or perdition, 2 Thes. 1. 9 But [it seems hard to him, that God the Father of mercies should punish without any end of time, &c. If God were not the Father of justice, as well as of mercy, it would go hard with good men; but it is just with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, saith the Apostle: And to you that are troubled, peace with us, 2 Thess. 1. 6, 7. God who is offended is eternal, the desires of wicked men to sin are eternal, Voluissent roprobi sine fine vivere, ut possent sine fine peccare. The reward of the godly is eternal; why then should not the torments of wicked men be eternal? But I will answer him, as St. Austin answereth the Originists. Tant● errat perversius quanto videtur de Deo sentire clementius, Their error must heeds be too pernicious, that maketh God too gracious. Again, to what end did God prepare an everlasting fire, if the wicked be not everlastingly tormented in it? But to this he answers: [That there never may want wicked men to be tormented in them, though not every, nor any one eternally; for the wicked being left in the estate they were in after Adam's sin, may at the resurrection live as they did, marry, and give in marriage and engender perpetually, for there is no place of Scripture to the contrary.] When the Scripture speaks of wicked men's eternal torments, it never speaks of any redemption thence, and Mr. Hobbs confesseth, that the Reprobates, who die in their sins, shall have no redeemer, they must then remain there for ever; except they had a Redeemer to help them ou● thence. Besides, I showed that the false prophet is tormented for ever, and we read, Rev. 4. That if any one man shall worship the beast, the smoke of his torment shall ascend for evermore. As for leaving the wicked in the estate they were in after Adam's fall, is a doctrine well beseeming the school of Mahomet, not of Christ: it seems also by this doctrine, that at the resurrection shall be the revolution of the Platonic year, when all things shall be acted in this world, as they were in the beginning: After Adam's fall, men did marry, build, plant, tread, eat, drink, and solace themselves with divers delights, if the wicked shall do the same after the resurrection, they shall be in as good a condition, as the Musalmans in Mahumet's Paradise, or the Gentiles in the Elysian fields. — quae gra●●a currûm Armor●●que fuit vivis, quae cura nitentes Pascere sequos eadem sequitur tellure repostos. Virg. AEn. 6. If this doctrine of yours be admitted, who will for bear wickedness and profanness, knowing that he shall be after this life in the same condition Adam was after his fall, who will not be content rather to embrace that condition, after the hath glutted himself here with the pleasures of sin; then to endure all miseries and persecution, deny himself, and take up the cross of Christ, to enjoy unknown happiness which the eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard of: But when you say that there is no Scripture contrary to marriage after the resurrection; I would know whether there be any Scripture for it. Why may not Judas Iscariot marry with some Prince's daughter, and by this means obtain a crown, you can allege me no Scripture against it; but I can allege you Scripture against marriage; In the resurrection, saith Christ, men neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are like the Angels of God, that is, without copulation as they are. Now St. Matthew speaks not there of the resurrection of the just only, but of the resurrection in general; and so doth St. Luke● though you would have him speak only of the resurrection of just men: for all men shall rise to life eternal; all men in their celibat shall be like the Angels: as men shall and may be called the children of the resurrection, and consequently of God: as all men, even the Devils, are the sons of God by creation: for as he gave to all men a being in the creation, so he will give to all men a new being in the resurrection. To be brief, that the punishment of wicked men shall be eternal, is plain by this argument; they only are pardoned who repent; the wicked after this life cannot repent, therefore they cannot be pardoned: besides our Saviour tells us, that he who speaketh against the Hol● Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come: if then there be no remission of sin, there can be no relaxation of punishment, for the one depends upon the other. In his 45 Chap. he undertakes to show, That those evil spirits or Devils which Christ cast outof the possessed, were not such, but diseases. Sure if this opinion be true, than Christ did no great matter in curing of ordinary diseases. But the Scripture tells us, that He came to destroy death, and him who hath the power of death, which is the devil, that the prophecy in Paradise might be fulfilled, The seed of the woman shall tread down the serpent's head. These were strange diseases that could speak to, & question Christ, Art thou come to torment us before our time? and could beseech him to have leave to enter into the Herd of Swine. Our Saviour did not know so much as Mr. Hobbs. that Devils were but diseases, when he gave commission to his Disciples, Matth. 10. and Luke 9 not only to cure diseases, but also to cast out Devils. And Matth. 4.24. Christ not only cured divers diseases and torments, and healed such as were lunatic, and had the palsy, but those also which were possessed with Devils; by which we see Diseases and Devils are different things. But he saith, That the addressing of Christ's. command to madness or lunacy, is no more improper than was his rebuking of the Fever, or the wind and Sea. I answer, It's true, Christ's speaking to those inanimate things, was only to show the power and efficacy of his Word; so in the Creation God is introduced by Moses as if he had spoken to the creatures; but it were very absurd to think that diseases should speak and discourse with Christ; should question and beseech him, and acknowledge his Divinity, as these Devils did. But he proceeds and says, That he hath not observed out of Scripture, that any man was ever possessed with any other corporeal spirit but that of his own. That some men have been possessed with other spirits besides their own, is plain by many places of Scripture; but whether these spirits were corporeal or incorporeal, is not the question, though neither Divinity nor Philosophy doth acknowledge any corporeal spirits properly: The Wind indeed is sometimes called a Spirit, and so is the Sun, but the word Spirit is there used improperly, and in a large sense; so are these subtle vapou●s in the Nerves and Arteries called Animal and vital Spirits by the Physicians, though indeed they be bodies. Now that Spirits properly so called● such as Angels and men's souls cannot be corporeal, is plain, because they have not quantity, nor are in a place by circumscription, nor move Physically. Many Angels may be in the same ub●, a legion of spirits, that is 6500 may be in the same man; and yet Mr Hobbs cannot observe, that ever any man hath been possessed with any other spirit then that of his own. Besides, if Spirits were corporeal, their bodies must be either homogenial or heterogenial. Not Homogenial; for different operations, such as are in Angels, require different organs. Not Heterogenial; ●or so we must make Angels and the souls of men to be composed of different and contrary entities, and consequently subject to dissolution and corruption. All which are gross absurdities. Again, Angels can pass through gross bodies without penetration of dimensions, which show they have not quantity, and consequently are immaterial: For the purest body that is cannot pass through another, but the other body must yield & give place. Lastly, if there were not incorporeal spirits, the world would be imperfect, as being destitute of incorporeal substances, which with the corporcall make up the Universe, and complete it. He saith (Chap. 45) [That Christ went himself into the wilderness, and that this carrying of him up and down from the wilderness to the City, and from thence into a mountain, was a vision.] I know he went of himself to be tempted, he being no ways forced, but of his own accord undertook to buckle with Satan our Arch-enemy, that we might the more boldly enter with him. Yet the Scripture ●aith, That he was led by the spirit; but I cannot admit that this temptation of Christ was but a vision: for than we shall have small comfort by Christ's temptation, if it were not real but imaginary, or in a vision; and if we shall admit this to be a vision, we may suspect the rest of his sufferings to be but visions, to the great dishonour of our Saviour and his Evangelists who wrote his History, and also to the discomfort of all God's children. But how came Mr Hobbs to be so wise as to know this to be a vision, of which the Evangelists make such an exact historical narration? When in Scripture any thing is done in a dream or vision, the dream or vision is mentioned; as the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, Matth. 2. Peter saw a sheet let down from heaven in a vision, Acts 10. The wise men were warned by the angel in a dream, Matth. 2. Paul saw the man of Macedonia in a vision, Acts 11. The Lord spoke to Paul in a vision, Acts 18. but in this temptation of Christ there is no mention of any vision, therefore we conclude it was real; and in saying so, we need not fear that either Christ was possessed, or carried away violently by the devil, as Mr. Hobbs would infer; because our sawiour for our comfort and salvation, suffered himself to be both tempted and carried by the devil, as afterward he permitted himself to be apprehended, and scourged, and crucified by the devil's Instruments. And albeit Satan could not from that high mountain show to the Lord all the kingdoms of the world, yet he could point to the understanding their places and situation. He is offended (cap. 45.) [That the use of exorcism hath hitherto so prevailed in the Church by the doctrine of incorporeal spirits.] Incorporeal spirits are no more the cause of exorcisms, then corporeal substances are: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is but to adjure, and adjuration is used as well against men as spirits; the high Priest did not think that Christ when he stood before him was an incorporeal spirit, yet he adjureth or exorciseth him by the living God, Mat. 26. He tells us, [That there were many demoniacs in the Primitive Church, and few madmen; whereas now there are many madmen, and few demoniacs, which proceeds not from the change of nature, but of names.] That the use of exorcism hath so prevailed in the Church, should administer cause of comfort, not of grief; in that our Saviour hath not left his Church destitute of helps and arms against the devil, who takes delight to torment men here, by possessing their bodies, and to torment them hereafter, by insinuating into their souls, enticing them to consent to all kind of iniquity, that so he may bring them, with himself, into eternal misery. Now our Saviour was the chief exorcist himself, for he by his power and word cast ou● devils, this gift he bestowed on his Apostles, that they should cast ou● devils in his name; and therefore the Disciples after they were sent abroad by Christ, and had returned, rejoiced that the devils were subject to them: and this gift of exorcism was bestowed sometimes on wicked men, as we may see Mat. 7. of those, who in the last day will say to Christ, We have cast out devils in thy name. And we read Acts 19 of the 7. sons of Scaeva, who took upon them to exorcise evil spirits in the name of the Lord Jesus, because Paul had practised exorcism with such good success. We see how the spirit of divination by Paul's command in the name of Jesus Christ came out of the damosel, Acts 16. Exorcism then is a gift of God, not temporary to continue only in the Apostles, but lasting, and to remain in the Church till the end of the world; otherwise we should be in a sad condition: if when Satan possesseth any of her members, there were no remedy against him; ●ut we have remedies left us, to wit, ●asting and prayer, for our Saviour tells us, that there is a kind of devil which is not cast out but by prayer and fasting, Mat. 16. Now that there are some possessed in these latter days, is apparent by divers histories, that mention strange effects of people possessed, which are more than natural, and at which physicians are amazed; for as their diseases are preternatural, so be their cures; Melanc●●●●n his Epistles tells us of a woman in his time, who lived in Saxome, she being possessed by the devil, in her fits would speak Greek and Latin sentences, which she never before had heard. She foretold the Sa●on war in these words, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ● {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is, There will be tribulation upon the earth, and wrath in this peopl●. He mentions another demoniac, who by the prayers of the congregation was freed from the devil, which at certain times used to torment her; I could allegde many examples of modern demoniacs out of Del Rio, Wierus, Bodin, Zacuta, ●●ularts memorable histories, and others, which physic could not cure, but were cured by Christian exorcisms, that is, by prayers, fastings, and alms of the Congregation, demons a nobis adjurantur & t●rquentur: spiritualibus flagris & orationis flagellis exire coguntu●. We adjure and torment the devils: our spiritual whips & scourging prayers force them to go o●t, saith Lactantiae. I know some superstitious ceremonies have been and are still used in exorcisms, which I allow not: but I do not like Mr. Hobbs his slighting of Christ's miracles, and his Apostles, when he tells us, [That demoniacs were many in the primitive Church, and few madmen, whereas now there are many madmen and few demoniacs, which proceed not from the change of nature. Is not this to extenuate Christ's miracles, who came to destroy the works of the devil, and to cast out the prince of this world. And is it not likewise to make the Evangelists impostors, in publishing those cures for miraculous which were not, and calling ordinary and natural diseases by the terms of devils and evil spirits? He will not (cap. 45.) have it Satan that entered into Judas, though St. Luke writes so, [But an hostile and traitorous intention of selling Christ, for as by the holy Ghost are meant frequently graces and good inclinations, so by entering of Satan may be understood wicked cogitations.] To Mr. Hobbs Satan is any thing, so he may not be a spirit or incorporeal substances. Sometimes he is but a fancy, shadow, dream, or apparition: sometimes is madness, palsy, lunacy, or any other melady; here he is a traitorous intention; but indeed there was more than a traitorous intention that entered into Judas at last: the intention to betray Christ was put into the heart of Judas by Satan, John 13. 2. But when he had received the sop, Satan himself entered into him; and as St. Austin on that place saith, took full possession of him, John 13. 27. And though I should yield, that sometimes the holy Ghost is put for the graces of the spirit, yet it will not follow, that Satan is used in Scripture for any evil suggestion or intention: Again, Satan doth not presently intrude himself into any man, but first prepares his way by his Harbingers, that is, suggestions and evil thoughts, which having made the soul fit for him, he enters and takes possession, and thus he dealt with Judas: Again, I would know of Mr. Hobbs, whether it was Satan in the Serpent, or only a treacherous intention, that moved him to speak and seduce Eve? Lastly, why should we take his bare word for Gospel, and prefer this his whimsy to the belief of the whole Church, and the stream of all interpreters? In his forty sixth chapter he spurns at all learning except his own, and that with such a magisterial spirit, and so supercilious scorn, as if Aristotle, Plato, Zenn, the peripatetics, academics, Stoics, colleges, schools, Universities, Synagogues, and all the wise men of Europe, Asia, and Africa hitherto, were scarce worthy to carry his books: With him [logic is but captions of words, Aristotle's metaphysics are absurd, his politics repugnant to government his ethics ignorant, the Natural philosophy of the schools is a dream, rather than a science, set forth in senseless and insignificant language; Aristotle's Philosophy is vain.] and many such like expressions; which shows how little he hath of the spirit of humility and modesty: I find not too much learning, but too much pride makes some men mad: true learning is always joined with humility; the deepest rivers, saith Seneca, make the least sound; the Cypress tree is tall but fruitless; the appletree is low but fruitful; and the more it's laden the more it stoops: that man that slights all but himself, will be slighted of all but himself; intemperance in words argue impotency of mind; and as the Court saith, He is an unjust man that prefers his own wit to all others. [Homine imperito nihil quid quam injustius, qui nisi quod ipse facit, nil rectum putat.] He cannot but fowl his own hands that ca●●eth dirt in the face of his betters. Every wise man will employ his eyes at home; will look upon the wallet that hangs at his own back; will descend into himself, and then he shall see how small cause he hath to despise other men's gifts, when he considereth the defects of his own: [Tecum babita, & disces quam sit tibi curta supellex.] He that thinks to rear up the imaginary tower of his own fame upon the ruins of other men's, will find he builds upon a sandy foundation, and indeed makes castles in the air. St. Austin's counsel is good in this case; He that will build high, must lay his foundation low; [Si vis magnam fabricam construere celsitudinis, de fundamento prius incipe humilitatis.] Hercules cannot be pulled down by pygmies; nor can the rocks be shaken, though the frothy waves beat against them. Eminent men like solid trees, the more they are shaken, the stronger they grow, saith Seneca, [Quid miraris bonos viros, ut confirmentur concuti? Non est arbour solidane● fortis, nisi in quam frequens ventus incursat, ipsa enim vexatiene constringitur, & radices certius figit.] We are bound to acknowledge, with thankfulness, the pains and industry of those brave men, which have intiched us with such monuments of learning, which the Universities of the world have received, and do to this day cherish and maintain with such applause; and not to require them with scorn and contempt: this is ingratitude in the highest degree: I wish therefore that Mr. Hobbs had used more solidity in his arguments, and less impotency in his expressions against those eminent lights of learning, and not with Leviathan [to cast against them smoke out of his nostrils, as out of aseething Pot or cauldron.] To use the word of God in Job; for I doubt me, Mr. Hobbs will never be brought in competition with Aristotle; but now let us receive his accusation against Aristotle's Philosophy. He saith, (cap. 46.) [That this doctrine of separated essences will fright men from obeying the laws of their Country.] I should think rather that this doctrine would fright men from disobeying the laws; for if God commands obedience to the laws, and subjection to the higher powers, is it likely that he will permit spirits to walk to dissuade men from obedience? Or will the spirits of those holy men, who taught subjection to Magistrates whilst they were alive, teach the contrary when they are dead? Again, wise men have urged obedience to their laws, upon the doctrine of separated spirits: so did Moses by showing his laws came from God, who is a separated essence: so did Lyc●rgus, Solon, Numa, Mohomet and others. But saith he, [Upon this ground, faith, wisdom, and other virtues are sometimes poured into a man, and blown into him from heaven, as if the virtuous and their virtues could be asunder.] That ●aith, wisdom, & other graces are sometimes poured into or upon men, is no paradox in divinity, seeing God's word which cannot lie assureth us thereof; I will pour my spirit upon all flesh, Joel 2. I will pour upon the house of David the spirit of grace and supplication. Zech. 12. God poured his gifts upon the Gentiles, Acts 10. And so the Scripture useth the word, blowing or breathing; or inspiring, which is all● one thing: all Scripture is by divine inspiration, 2 Tim 3. 16. Men spoke in old time, as they were inspired; or blown into by the holy Ghost, 2. Pet. 1. 21. And I pray, what dangerous or absurd doctrine is it to say, bec●use men's souls are 〈◊〉 tall and immat●rial, God inspireth from heaven● his gifts into them; but indeed the soul's immortality is not the ground why God inspireth his graces, for than he would inspire the most wicked souls that are with his graces, for they are also immortal; the ground then of this inspiration is his own good pleasure, being a free dispenser of his gifts, neither needs he fear, that we by this doctrine will make the virtuous and their virtues to be asunder; for the virtues of virtuous men are not theirs till they be bestowed. Again, he saith: [Who will endeavour to obey the laws, if he expects obedience to be poured into him.] I reply, who will expect obedience to be poured into him, if he endeavour to obey the law. Again, obedience is an act of the will; now acts are not infused but habits. Besides, I answer him with Thomas; every good man yields obedience to Magistrates, because he is bound thereto by the law of nature, where we see inferior movers obey the motion of the superior, and likewise by the law of God, which teacheth him to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magistrates, Tit. 3. 1. To submit himself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be the King as supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by Him, 1 Pet. 2. 13. A good man hath faith and he knows that faith in Christ includes obedience, for Christ himself taught obedience, both By precept and practice: he is also a just man, and justice requires that he should give to every man his due, but obedience is due to superiors; obedience then needs no inspiration, but such reasons; now if any will maintain erroneous opinions, as he allegeth upon the doctrine of the soul's immortality, who can help it? Men may build stubble and hay upon the best foundation, which is Christ Jesus as the Apostle showeth. Shall we deny the soul's immortality, because of some errors grounded thereon; then by the same reason deny the Scripture, deny Christ himself. He laughs (cap. 45.) at the words circumscriptive and definitive used in the schools, which he saith [are insignificant words, for the circumscription of a thing, is nothing else but the defining of its place.] Here he showeth his ignorance in the school terms; for though circumscribing be the defining of a thing, yet the defining or confining is not the circumscribing thereof; Angels are in a place or rather space definitive, because they are so confined to one ubi, that they cannot at the same instant be in another, yet without any circumscription of parts, to the parts of the superficies in the ambient body or place; for in a spirit there are no parts, therefore no circumscription, though there is a confining or definition to the ubi: when we say, that all the soul is in every part of the body; he asks, [Whether God is served with such absurdities.] He should first prove this to be an absurdity, and then inform us, whether this tenet of the soul's indivisibility, be any part of God's worship; but indeed it is no more absurd to say, that the soul is all in every part of the body; then to say, that the Sun or moon is all in every man's eye; for one pa●t of the Sun is not in my eye, and another part in your eye; but all the Sun is in my eye, and all the Sun is in millions of eyes at the same instant of time. He would have us tell him, [How an incorporeal substance is capable of torment and pain in hell fire.] The ●●●stion is not how, but whether or not the soul be cap●ble of pain; if you doubt of this, put your finger in the fire, and tell me if your soul be not capable of pain or grief, which is a torment. I showed before out of Austin, that God hath a way to torment souls in fire, though unknown to us; neither can we tell, how the soul goeth hence without the body into heaven; only we can tell him, that when our bodies return to dust, our souls return to God that gave them, Eccles. 12. As for the schoolmen at which he carps, I deny not but there are, in some men's opinions, many needless questions, and subtleties, so there are likewise among them many excellent passages, and useful distinctions; in this life there is no perfection; where gold is there is dross; and the best corn is not without chaff; he is a fool that will re●use to drink wine, because there be lees in the barrel. He saith, (cap. 46.) [That what is written in the metaphysics, is for the most part repugnant to natural reason.] He should have given us some in●●ances that we might have answered him, but to speak of things in general, is to say nothing: yet that the Reader may perceive both the use of metaphysics, and how consonant that knowledge is to natural reason, I will set down here a few Metaphysical maxims. 1. One entity hath but one specifical essence. 2. The essence receiveth not augmentation nor diminution. 3. As every thing desireth to preserve its entity, so it doth its unity. 4. Unity is before multitude. 5. Truth is consonant to truth. 6. Every entity is good. 7. Beauty excites affection. 8. Evil is not appetible. 9 Every thing compounded is dissoluble. 10. whatsoever is compounded hath parts and principles. 11. In an universe is contained all particulars. 12. The whole is greater than the parts. 13. The first entity is simply infinite. 14. The abstract is before the concrete. 15. The measure is before the thing measured. 16. The subject is the matter of its accident. 17. The cause is before the effect. 18. Nothing can be its own cause. 19 As the essence so the knowledge of the effect depends from the cause. 20. The proximate cause being put, the effect follows. 21. The end moveth the efficient. 22. The end presupposeth the means. 23. A voluntary cause is free and indifferent, so is not the natural cause. 24. The matter is capable of forms. 25. The The form is the cause of distinction and determination. 26. The generical unity is less than the specifical, and this then the numerical. 27. Identity is founded upon unity, &c. Many more I could set down, but these are sufficient to let us see how much Mr. Hobbs is deceived, in saying, metaphysic is repugnant to natural reason. He tells us, (cap. 46.) [That every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body, is no part of the universe.] If he speaks of integral parts, I grant what he saith; but if he means by parts that which we call essential; to wit, matter and form, I deny them to be bodies. His drift is to infer that souls are bodies, because parts; but I deny them to be parts, no more than the vital and animal spirits are parts of the arteries and nerves that contain them; or wine a part of the vessel that holds it. Spirits are contained in the world, but are no parts of it. But when he saith, [That that which is no part of the universe is nothing, and consequently nowhere.] He will make God to be nothing, and nowhere; for I hope he will not make him a part of the universe, nor will he make him corporeal. He carps at Aristotle [for defining heaviness to be an endeavour to go to the centre of the earth.] Aristotle doth not make this a definition, but a description of heaviness; for indeed the essential forms of inanimate things are not easily to be found by man in this life, in which our best science is but ignorance; therefore the Phylosopher● differ so much in this very thing, of gravity and levity, some holding them to be forms of the elements, and causes of motion; others hold them to be passive principles only of motion, and that the mover is the generator, which hath lest an impression in light and heavy bodies to as●end and descend: some hold gravity and levity to be substances, others but accidents; but however the peripatetics have gone as far as reason and the light of nature can direct them. God will not in this world have us to know all things: our clearest light here is but a glimmering: but if this description of Aristotle's please not Mr. Hobbs, he should have done well to have given us a better, and then we will turn his disciples: but its more easy to carp, then mend or imitate: Carpere vel noli nostra, vel aede tua●.] So he laughs at philosophers for saying, stones or metals have a desire, or can discern the place they would be at, as man doth.] But he laughs at his own shadow, for philosophers grant, that in inanimate things, there is a natural appetite to move towards their own place, which is nothing else but an inclination or disposition, which he cannot deny, except he will deny nature itself: but that stones can discern as man does, is his own dream, not the saying of philosophers, for they teach the contrary; to wit, that this natural desire or aptitude is without all knowledge or discerning: by this he shows, how little he is acquainted with their writings. Philosophers tell us, that in condensed matter, there is less quantity than before, and rarefied when more. Upon this he asks, (cap. 46.) [If there can be matter that hath not some determined quantity, or if a body were made without any quantity at all.] I answer no; for the quantity is an inseparable con● comitant of matter, so that it increaseth & decreaseth as the matter doth. A body can be no more without quantity, than fire without hea●. Experience teacheth us, that as any thing shrinks, and thickneth, it decreaseth in quantity, and so it increaseth as it is extended and rarified: He carps at the soul's infusion, at the cause of sense, at the cause of willing, at occult qualities, and at some other peripatetic tenets, at which he only shows his teeth: not being able to bite them; save only that he calls this vain philosophy, affirming the ●ame out of St●Pauls words; but indeed St. Paul never called philosophical truth's v●in, for so he should condemn divinity, to which philosophy is subservient: besides, truth cannot be repugnant to truth; and philosophy is one of God's special gifts, by which even the Gentiles were brought to the knowledge of God, and made inexcusable; there are vain opinions among some professors of philosophy, as there are among some Divines: must therefore philosophy or Divinity be condemned as vain: he that speaks against philosophy doth both bewray his ignorance and malice; in disparaging men for making use of those arms which God hath given us to fight withal against the enemies of truth; and to destroy the field of good corn, because the envious man hath sown some tears among them. To speak against philosophy, is to speak against the light of reason, which God hath kindled in our minds. But he calls it (cap. 42.) [vain philosophy to say that God is no cause at all of injustice.] To free God from injustice, is not vain philosophy, but true Divinity; whereas the opinion of Mr. Hobbs is the heresy of the Libertines, who made God the author of sin; or of the Manichees and valentimen, who held, that God made sin. But I would know, how can the fountain of justice be in any sort the cause of injustice: or can he be the author of sin, that is the punisher of sin; that makes laws against it, that invites upon promise of reward all men from it: how can he be free from hypocrisy, that grieves and is angry for sinful actions, whereof he is the cause himself? How can he hate injustice, if he be the cause of it; he must needs love his own work, and consequently sinful actions? How can God deface his own work by sin, or his own image in man? How can it be otherwise but man must delight in sin without remorse, when he knows that God is any wise the cause thereof? Therefore to make God at all the cause of injustice, is in effect to make him no God. It stands then well with Philosophy and Divinity also to say, God is not at all the author of sin; he permits it indeed for his glory, for the exercise of his servants, and the condemnation of the obstinate sinners; but is no more the cause of it, than the rider is the cause of that lameness in his horse, which proceeds from his own unruliness; or the Sun the cause of stink, which ariseth of putrefaction. Again, this which he calls vain Philosophy, is it which brings us to the knowledge of divine and human things, which perfects the will by uniting it to goodness, and the intellect by uniting it to truth. It's ridiculous what he saith of Good and Evil, to wit, [That it is not the appetite of private men, but the law, which is the will and appetite of the State, that is the measure of good and evil.] He makes here two different appetites, the one of the State, which is the Law, and the other of private men; but I say the appetite both of State and private men, is one and the same: For if it had not been the appetite of private men to have a Law, how could there have been any? Can a King make a law by himself without his people which consisteth of private men. Again, if not the appetite of private men but the law of the State is the measure of good, what shall we say of Daniels private appetite to worship the God of heaven, and the public law of Nabuchadnezzar in worshipping his idol? Was that law of the Jewish State which condemned Christ, the measure of good? Or the Roman law in persecuting the Christians? But he cannot yet leave barking at Aristotle, saying, [That men have learned from his civil Philosophy to call all manner of commonwealths but the popular, tyranny; and all Kings they call tyrants.] Either he is very ignorant in Aristotle's Policicks, or very malicious: For Aristotle both in his Ethi●ks, lib. 8. cap. 10. and in his politics, lib. 3. cap. 5. is so far from calling Kings tyrants, and all Commonwealths but the popular tyranny, that he distinguisheth the Kingly from the tyrannical government, where in plain terms he saith, That the Kingly is of all governments the best, and the Tyannicall of all worst, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is the worst, saith Aristotle, which is opposite to the best, therefore tyranny being {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a trangression from Kingly government, and opposite to it, must needs be worst; he shows there that King's aim at the public good, but Tyrants merely at their own benefit. A King governs according to the Laws, a Tyrant domineers according to his will. Neither again doth he call all governments but the popular, tyranny, for he saith, that aristocracy is one of the good governments because it aims at {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the common utility If it doth not degenerate into Oligarchy, when a few of the richer sort will domineer and turn all the public good to their own profit: and so he saith that Politia, or popular government is good if it degenerate not into democracy, when the poorer sort (whereof there is the greater number) take upon them to invade the estates of the richer men, and convert them to their own use. By this we see how much Aristotle is wronged, and how far he is from calling any lawful government tyranny, or King's Tyrants, whereas he shows that a Tyrant is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, one that will not be accountable for his government, but will do what he pleaseth be it right or wrong, which is far from the practice of Kingly government, which he compares to the government of a Father over his children. He hath not yet done with Aristotle, (Cap. 46.) but accuseth him for saying, That in a well ordered commonwealth not men should govern, but the laws, upon this he infers, [That every man who can write and read, finds himself governed by them he fears and believes can kill or hurt him when he obeyeth not.] I pray what contradiction is there here? In a well governed commonwealth men should obey the laws; In an ill governed commonwealth men are forced out of fear to obey Tyrants. Aristotle speaks to a● good not of a bad government, and showeth what should be done, not what is done. Again, Aristotle showeth that we should rather obey good laws then bad governors, and good governors rather than bad laws, Polit. lib. 3. c. 7. so that he will have us obey all, but withal tells us, that he who obeyeth bad laws, or bad governors, may be a good subject, but not a good man. Besides, his reasons are good why we should rather obey the law then the man, because the Law is the Rule by which he should govern. Secondly, because the law is impartial, and not subject to affections as men are, whom pa●●ions do so carry away, that either they understand not what is just, or if they do, they follow it not, yet he denieth n●t but in some cases the man is rather to be obeyed then the law; to wit, when the law is ob●cure and intricate, or when it is too severe and rigid. In such cases the governor that can interpret and mitigate the Law, is to be obeyed. What he speaks (cap. 46.) against private spirits, and forcing of men's consciences, I am not against, but his quarrel against the schoolmen for their barbarous terms, is needless and witless; for Philosophers have liberty to use such terms as may make them intelligible: And it is usual in all Arts and professions both liberal and mechanical: consult with Physi●ians, chemists, and Mathematicians, and you will find it so. For fictitious miracles I approve them not; but who can tell what is fictitious what not, of things done many hundred years ago. As for the Antipodes, which some of the Fathers denied, I have in that point cleared them elsewhere; as likewise, I showed the vanity of that whimzicall opinion of the earth's motion, at large in that book called, The new Planet no Planet, and in that I writ in Latin against Lanberg●s concerning his Pythagorical chimaera. If any would have further satisfaction in that point, let them read what is written there; for I purpose not to boil Coleworts twice. And whereas Mr. Hobbs saith, That it appears every day more and more, that years and days are determined by motions of the earth.] It may be so in his fancy; but in the judgement of wise men it appears less and l●sse, and that it is the sun, not the Earth, who like a Giant rejoiceth to run his course. In his 47. chapter he goeth about to overthrow Christ's Kingdom in this world, as being an invention of the Romanists and Presbyterians to uphold their own greatn●●s. To this purpose he brings in many controverted doctrines of the Church of Rome, as the Pope's power, succession and infallibility, the Clergies privileges, their single life, auricular confessions, Purgatory, Canonization, Transubstantiation, &c. which have been ventilated and canvased pro and con by many learned men, and therefore I need not spend more paper about them. But whatever the benefit or pretence was which the Church of Rome had by maintaining that Christ had a Kingdom in this world, Mr Hobbs must be forced to acknowledge that Christ hath a Kingdom here already on earth, which began after his resurrection, or else he must deny God's word: and his own too; for he confessed before that Christ's kingdom here was the Kingdom of grace. But to say that any, either Romanist or Presbyterian, doth hold Christ's kingdom here to be the kingdom of glory, as Mr Hobbs seemed in the beginning of this chapter to intimate, is to me altogether unknown, and I believe to him also. For he will find in their Writings, that the kingdom of glory is to be in Heaven after the general Resurrection. Again, I would know how Christ's kingdom on earth can be a Roman invention to uphold their greatness, whereas this doctrine was preached by Christ himself, by the Apostles and their suceessors, when they were under persecution, and had no greatness to uphold but their greatness in afflictions; then did they find that they were Kings & Priests to God, or as St. Peter calls them, a royal Priesthood. But by the way I must let him see his error in saying, [That Pontifex maximus was an Officer subject to the civil State.] This is not so, but the civil State was subject to him, as Festus showeth in these words, Pontifex maximus Iudex & Arbiter rerum divinarun atque humanarum est. He is Judge and Arbitrator both of Divine and Human things. So Tully confirms the same in his oration he made to the Pontifices for his house. Majores nostri vos & religionibus deorum immortalium & reipublicae summae praeesse voluerunt. They had, saith he, not only the chief charge of Religion, but also of the State. And shortly after, Omnis Reipub. dignitas, omnium salus, vita, l●bertas, arae, foci, Dii penates, bona fortunae, domicilia, vestrae sapientiae, fidei, potestatique commissa & credita esse videntur. To their trust & power was committed not only Religion, but also all things that concerned the commonwealth. So Dionysius, lib. 2. shewech that those Pontifices were nullius potestati obnoxii, subject to no power, nor were they to give an account of their actions either to the senate or the People. They had the same honours which they were wont to give to their Kings, and more, for no man had the honour to be carried in a Chariot to the Capitol, but only the Pontifex; therefore this office and honour was so great, that N●●a himself would be Pontifex, and so were divers Consuls. Julius Caesar, and the Emperors after him, discharged that Office themselves, as holding it unfit that it should be subject to any civil power, but that it should be incorporated in the supreme civil office. Lastly he tells us (Chap. 47.) [That Aristotle's metaphysics, ethics, and politics, the ●rivolous distinctio●s, barbarious terms and ●bsoure, language of the Schoolmen, serve to keep these errors from being detected●] But in this he is as much deceived, as in his other Tenets; for next to the Scripture, Aristotle's philosophy and School Divinity have been the greatest helps our men have had to detect those errors of our Adversaries which he hath mentioned. Our Modern Divines have made great use of these in handling their controversies, as may be seen easily by those that read them. As for School Divines, which he so much slights; because, it seems, he is little acquainted with them; we have reason to es●eem well of their pains who with such dexterity a●d method have gathered together into brief sums and systems, the vast scattered and dispersed body of Divinity; and by that, short and witty distinctions in very significant and fit terms, though not Ciceronian, have dissolved many hard and knotty doubts. If the Civilians think themselves bound to Justinian, who reduced the vast and disordered volumes of the Law into short Institutions, Digests, and the Code; why should not Divines thank Lombard, Aquin●●, and other schoolmen ●o● their pains in contracting the voluminous works of the Greek and Latin Fathers into short and compendious methodical disputations. In his Review he pleads for this discourse [As not being contrary either to the word of God, or good manners, or to the disturbance of the public Trunquillity] How far this plea of his will extend and hold good, may be seen in the particulars of this my Answer. But I findnow the reason why he hath so much inveighed against Aristotle, it seems he stands in his way, and keeps him back from attaining the honour of being read in the Universities; he ●old us before (Chap. 46) ● [That seeing Aristotl● is only read there, that therefore this study is not to be called Philosophy, but Aristotelity.] Now he says. [That this his discourse may be profitably printed, and more profitably taught in the Universities.] Can you blame him now for grumbling at Aristotle, whose brightness doth so much dazzle his weak light, that he cannot be seen in the colleges [Suum cuique pulchrum.] I know Apes and Crows think their own brood ●airest; who then can blame Mr. Hobbs for having so good a conceit of his Leviathan, who perhaps thinks [That by his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning; that out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.] Job 41. But I doubt me for all this he will come short of his expectation, and miss of his mark; it will not be an easy matter for Mr. Hobbs to just●e Aristotle out of the Universities, nor to make Malmsbury so famous as Stagira, though his Leviathan were as strong as jobs, [who esteemeth Iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.] What is a Pigmy to encounter with Hercules? Shall the Beetle thrust the Eagle out of his Nest? There is no wise man will exchange the light of the Sun with that of a Candle. The Jews have a fabulous Tradition, that Leviathan is of so vast a body, that he encompasseth the whole earth, and pursueth the Sun in his course, labouring to put out his light; de te fabula narretur, I think Mr. Hobbs hath the like conceit of his Leviathan, that it shall be dispersed over all the world, and shall extinguish Aristotle the light of learning: But I think the Fable of one Elias a Jew will be fitter for him, he writes that Leviathan is a great Fish, laid up long since in Pickle, to be food for the just in the kingdom of the Messia here on earth. Mr. Hobbs expecteth such a kingdom, therefore I think he cannot employ his Leviathan better than to salt it against that day, that he with the other subjects of that imaginary kingdom may feast and make good cheer therewith. But in good earnest I wish Mr. Hobbs had been more modest than to ●light so scornfully Aristotle and so many other eminent lights of learning; this was not the way to get reputation to his book among wise men. I will let him see the judgement not of all, but of a few, and those the primest men of this Age for learning and understanding concerning Aristotle and his obtrectators. Aristotelem nonnúlli mures è pistrina vexare ado●ti sunt a●ios omittam nugaces, quorum exclamationes vide●s in libellis Scaliger Exercit, 307. Barbara ingenia levissim●s momentis impelluntu● ad divini & incomparabilis herois obtrectationem; du● namque sunt aquilae solae in natura rerum: altera bellics laudis, altera literariae, illa potentiae, haec sàpièntiae, Caesar & Aristoteles; unicus Poeticae Syrenophaenix V●gilius, quibus obstr●punt & obclangunt inepti milvi, corvi, vultures etiam noctuae atque vespertilliones, Scal. Exe●c. 194. Aristo●eles res naturàles ac divin●s dialecticamque mirum in modum excoluit, ammaliumque vitam, mores ac structuram incredibili sagacitate persecutiss est, qui cum in singulis disciplinis scripserit quod probaretur, error tamen conspicuus in tot saeculis in illius scriptis deprehendi non potuit. Cardan. de subtle. l. 16. Plurimum interest reipub. ut Aristoteles conservetur, & extet in Scholis, ac versetur in manibus discentium; nam profecto sine hoc authore non solum non retineri pur● philosophia, sed ne quidem justa docendi aut discendi ratio ulla poterit. Melancthon Epist. ad Eccium Cancellarium Bavaricum. Aristotelis oratio propria & pura est, it a abundat quibusdam suis luminibus, ut Cicero eam dixerit, similem esse flumini aurum vehenti, & interdum ita dulcis est ut nihil possit cogitari dulcius, Melancthon in responsi●ne pro Hermolao. Aristoteles philosophorum, ne Platone quidem juxta, M. Tullum excepto, citra controversiam omnium doctissimus. Erasmus in Epistola Johanni Maro. Visum est Aristotelem totius philosophiae principem & consummatorem tibi dicare ut in hujus penetralibus assidue versans, si quid deest orbi disciplinarum absolvas, &c. non injuria M. Tullius haudquaquam stupidus ing●niorum astimator hunc unum appellat aureum flumen, aptius mea sententia dicturus, totius sapientiae ditissimum quendam mundum, &c. tam opulentus tam inestimabilis thesaurus urbis in totum perierat, nisi per Lucium Syllam fuisset ab orco reductus quo vel unico beneficio ●ir ille semet ab invidioso convicio vindicare paterat, quo contumeliosis versibus sibi foelix dictus est, non reipublicae. N●m Aristotelis lucubrationibus in lucem revocatis, non uni tantum urbi, sed universo orbi foelix dici promeruit. Idem ibid. Quae Plato & al●i confusè, imperfectè, per fabularum in volucra & metaphorarum ●losculos tradidissent, ea Aristoteles naturae miraculum primus humano generi tradidit sub forma methodi dextrae regulatae, & plenae, &c. Praecepta in plenum co●pus & s●stema methodicè, pul●hre, ●om●gence conformavit, qu●t Dei do●um in h●mine isto ●gnoscendum grato a●imo fuerat non li●idis affectibus arridendum, &c. Keckermanus praecog. Logic. Tract, 2. ut formam ita etiam materiam rerum Philosophicarum Aristoteli singulari Dei organo acceptam feremus. Ex hoc enim uberrimo fonte hauserunt philosophi reliqui qui●quid posteris tradiderunt, &c. u● merito ingratissimi dicendi sunt, qui hunc authorem vel petulanter insectantur, vel juventuti odiosum reddere con●ntur. Idem l. 2. Praecog. Philos. Aristoteles dictus est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quod perfectionem boni notat, nullam enim philosophiae partem attigit, quam, non perfectè tractarit. Idem. Quis dicat Aristotelem inutiliter laborasse, cum tanto artificio traderet rationem syllogismi demonstrativi, &c. atqui Aristoteles optimam navavit operam: suis enim illis praeclarissimis regulis ostendit, sal●em quo esset collimandum, si quis aliquid constanter probare vellet & f●miter. Petr. Martyr de justificatione. Methodus Aristotelis omnium philosophorum exce●sentissuni, pulcherrima sanae & naturae consentanea est, artiumque omnium quae ratione & via tractantur ordini persimilis. A communibus enim rerum initiis, ad proximas cujusque causas progreditur, &c. Zanchius l. 1. c. 1. de Operibus Dei. Quidam sunt qui vaesana amentia, philosophiae, ejusque authoribus bellum indicere ausi; sunt illos intelligo qui cum ali●s veteres plerosque omnes, tum Aristotelem, maxime, summum, bone Deus, virum, & unicam philosophiae aquilam, omni calumn●arum genere vexare, odiumque illi & invidiam apud minus catos cautosque homines conflare conati sunt, &c. Ingens est quae ingentem hunc errorem fovet turba: turba tamen profecto est tantum, & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, qui nec Sophiae, nec Gratiis litarunt, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quas qu●dem vel melior institutio defecit, vel spes meliora consequendi, &c. Licentia est haec ab animi impotentia summa profecta, qua isti calumniatores Aristotelis passim usi sunt: quorum libri si non famosi libelli potius sunt appellandi vel eo nomine dignissimi me judice sunt qui fiant {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quid quaeso aliud aut sentire aut dicere possis de iis quos effrenata maledicendi libido eo evexiit ut summo & facundissimo philosopho cujus oratioadeo pura, casta, elegans ac saepe etiam venustai●̄ Atticarum plena est, ut facile quemvis è Graecis oratoribus possit provocare ignorationem, &c. objicere sustinuerint ô insignem prodigorum nominis sui confidentiam! itanè in tam erudito saeculo talia monstra reperiri potuerunt. Quid est tam sanctum quod audaculis isti contaminare non ausint, tanta est vanorum hominum vanitas & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} judicium meum est, nullam esse pestem humano g●neri perniciosiorem, &c. Casaubonus Praesat. in Aristotelem. If I should allege all that hath been said by the great lights● of learning in all ages since Aristotle, in his commendations, I should make a large book; but these few will suffice, to let Mr Hobbs see, how he doth struggle not only against Aristotle, but against the most eminent men of all times; and withal, that it is not the Church of, Romo alone, that makes use of Aristotle's works, but likewise the Protestant Church: Therefore I have alleged the chief learned of the Protestants to justify the Prince of Philosophers; whose testimonies I need not turn into English, for Mr. Hobbs understands well enough the language they write in: only they that understand not the latin may take notice, that Scaliger calls Aristotle, the incomparable hero of learning, and the divine Eagle of knowledge. Cardan saith, That he excelled in all learning with incredible sagacity, without any conspicuous error. Melanctho● saith, that Aristotle is so needful for a commonwealth, that he should be carefully preserved and read in the schools and universities, for without him no learning or method can be had; he saith, his language is so sweet, that nothing is sweeter. Erasmus acknowledgeth him to be the Prince and Perfecter of Philosophy, and the golden River, or rather a world of Wisdom; and that his works are a rich inestimable treasure; and laments, that the greatest parts of his books are lost, and praiseth L. Sylla for preserving these few we now enjoy. Keckerman calls him, the miracle of nature, his works the gift of God, and a principal organ of God for enriching the world with so much excellent learning, and that they are ungrate wretches who do not acknowledge it, but will rail against him ●or it. P. Martyr showeth that Aristotle's pains were profitable, his artisice great, his industry excellent, and his rules most notable. Zanchie saith, that he is of all Philosophers the most excellent, and that his method is most clear. 〈◊〉 calls him with admiration, a man of men the only Eagle of Philosophy, whose stile is fraughted with Attic eloquence; and that they who write or speak against him are dunces, silly people, and such whose books are fit for nothing, but for the fire: Scaliger calls such, barbarous wits, Rats, Kites, Crows, Ravens, owls, and Bats: To conclude. I would have Mr. Hobbs take notice, that I have no quarrel against him, but against his tenets; I honour his worth and learning, but dislike his opinions; I know not his person, but I know and respect his parts; if there be any thing amiss in these my Animadversions; (for we are all apt to mistake) I shall thank him if he will set me right, and inform me better: for I never had so great an opinion of myself, as not to yield to reason, and such as are able to convince my understanding: The God of truth direct us all into the way of truth. Amen. FINIS The Contents of each Chapter controverted. INTRODUCTION. THe world was not made by art or nature. Life● is not the motion of the limbs. Chap. 1. The object causeth sensation, not sense. Fancy and sense different. Colour figured nothing. Sensible qualities are not motions. Motion produceth not motion. Outward and inward senses distinct. Fancy not the same in waking and dreaming men. Chap. 2. A natural appetite in things inanimate, but without knowledge. Imagination is not decaying sense. Memory and imagination different. Chap. 3. Things future have a being. Prophecy is not guessing. No absurdity to say the soul is all in all, and all in every part. To be born, no act of the mind. Some faculties are not acquired. Universalities are not names. Truth in things, as well as in names. Geometry not the onnely Science. Chap. 3, 4. Philosophy how Pedantry. Chap. 5. Many things infused besides bodies. Extension how a body. Colour is in bodies, and sound in the air. A living creature is generical. The nature of a thing is its definition. Tropes and figures are not absurd speeches. Chap. 6. Animal and voluntary not the same. Contempt and hatred not the same. Superstition and Religion not the same. Faith and Imagination not the same. The will is a rational appetite. Chap. 7. Belief is not opinion. To have faith in, to trust to, and to believe a man, not the same. What is to believe in God. Our belief is not in the Church. Chap. 8. Devils, demoniacs and madmen not the same. School terms and Suarez intelligible. Chap. 10. Pity is not dishonour. Lasting good fortune is no sign of God's favour. Ambition is not honourable, nor covetousness. Injustice with power is not honourable: Goodness no less honourable than greatness. Chap. 11. Felicity consisteth not in desire Chap. 12. Felicity is in enjoying. Philosophy a supporter of the Church. The want of it the cause of confusion and contradictions. Chap. 15. All men are not equal by nature: Some are naturally fit for service; Some for Dominion: Inequality necessary. Chap. 16. Christ did not personate God. Chap. 18. Covenants are not bare words, nor do all depend on the sword. Prince's may, but should not be injurious to their subjects. Men indy injure themselves. Injury, Iniquity and Injustice the same thing. Chap. 20. Kings and Tyrants different, how. Samuel describeth a King; Moses a Tyrant. Chap. 21. David did injury to Uriah. How he offended against God only. Freedom is not the same under a Monarchy and Democracy. Aristotle's reason, why under Democracy, there is more liberty, then under a Monarchy. Chap. 28. Mr. Hobbs contradicts himself, concerning the power which Subjects give to their sovereigns. Pride is no cause of submission to government, but of Rebellion rather. Chap. 49. The danger of acting against conscience is no presumption, but a duty to judge of good and evil. Faith is not attained by reason and study, but by infusion and inspiration. Faith is a miracle. An account may be given of inspired faith. Prophecy and Faith not the same. Faith may stand with civil obedience. Princes are subject to their own laws. How every private man hath a property in his good. Chap. 31. The subjects of hope, love, and fear often confounded. God is not a name of relation. Natural reason, and the word of God different. Reason must be subject to faith. Our natural reason cannot purchase justice, peace, and religion. Natural reason is sometimes contrary to God's word. Divine dreams are of force to win belief. Chap. 33. How Moses' words are to be understood, concerning his own sepulchre; And the Canaanite in Abraham's time being in the land, Gen. 12. Chap. 34. Spirits are real parts of the universe, though not corporeal. Why substances are so called, The spirit that moved on the waters was not a wind. The word Ghost, what it signifieth. Aerial bodies not visible delusions, may be seen by many at once. How spirits are in a place. Angels are not fancies or dreams. Why called gods. Why they appeared in man's shape. The Dove and fiery tongues were not Angels. Why Angels are distinguished by names. How evil Angels suffer by fire. How we shall be like the Angels in the resurrection. Faith excludes reason. Chap. 31. Divers places of Scripture misalleadged by Mr. Hobbs for his earthly kingdom, and refuted. What Holam is, and Paradise, and the new Jerusalem. There is reason and authority to prove our happiness in heaven. Divers places of Scripture expounded to this purpose, and Mr. Hobbs his texts brought to the contrary, refuted. The soul's immortality proved by Scripture. Chap. 38. Christ proves as well the soul's immortality, as the resurrection of the body to the Saduces. The soul's immortality proved by Scripoure. A place in Job explained. The opinion of Christ's earthly kingdom, and the souls sleep are old heresies. Hell is in the lower parts of the earth. How the Prophetical speeches concerning Christ's Kingdom are to be understood. We shall ascend higher than God's footstool. Chap 41. Christ hath not been all this while since his resurrection without a Kingdom. Differing of punishments and rewards here, no argument that Christ hath no Kingdom. What it is to sit in Moses' chair. Other places of Scripture expounded. Chap. 42. The blessed Trinity vindicated, and proved out of the old Testament. Christ's Kingdom is in this world, though not of this world. Dissimulation in religion condemned. The Apostles made laws, and had power to command. Disobedience a great sin. Minister and servant the same thing Princes why shepherds; their baptism doth not authorise them to preach. Urim and Thum●im given to Aaron, not to Moses. The Romans had the legislative power over the Jews. Excommunication a punishment. Christ's Kingdom is spiritual, though the subjects are clothed with flesh. In commonwealths there is a dependence, as well as a coherence. Heresy, what it is, and who be heretics. Chap. 45. Our faith depends not upon man's reputation and authority. Chap. 44. Devils and Fantasims, or Idols are not the same. Christ's Kingdom here is the Kingdom of Grace. The soul how immortal. The wicked live eternally. The tree of life. Life sometimes called death. The soul how taken in Scripture. The Scripture is plain for the soul's immortality. Ghost-walking what it is. Eternal torments no dark doctrine. Christ's Transfiguration was not the Kingdom of God. Solomon's words Eccles. 12. 7. and Eccles. 3. 21. concerning the soul, expounded. And Eccles. 3. 19 Enoch's translation. Better be dead, then live in misery. Abraham's soul is alive actually. That the torments of the wicked are eternal, proved. Man shall not be in the same condition after the resurrection, that Adam was after his fall. Chap. 45. Devils which Christ cast out were not diseases. Angels and men's souls are not corporeal spirits. Christ's temptation in the desert was real, and no vision. Exorcisms useful in the Church how. Many possessed in these latter times. It was Satan, and not a treacherous intention that entered into Judas. Chap. 46. Mr. Hobbs taxed for his exorbitant speeches against Aristotle and the other philosophers. Men are not frighted from obedience by separated essences. Grace's are inspired or poured into us. Inspiration excludeth not obedience to the laws. The terms definitive and circumscriptive distinguished. The soul is all in every part of the body. Incorporeal substances capable of torment. Metaphysic not repugnant to natural reason, proved by divers maxims. Quantity increaseth and decreaseth with the matter. What St. Paul means by vain philosophy. God is no wales the author of injustice, or sin. The appetite of the State and of private men is not the same. Aristotle vindicated from calling kingly, or any other government, but popular tyrannical. How these words of Aristotle are to be understood, Men should not govern, but the laws. Mr. Hobbs his new Tenent rejected. Chap. 47. Romanists and Presbyterians do not hold that the Kingdom of glory is in this world. Pontifex Maximus at Rome above the civil State. Aristotle, philosophy, and School-Divinity vindicated. Mr. Hobbs is censured for slighting Aristotle, who is highly commended, and his obtrectators reproved by divers eminent Protestant writers. FINIS