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 beeing till God made it; and when he made it, it was neither the exemplary, nor adjuvant cause of the creation; the world could [Page 2] not be made by that which had no beeing 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 minde 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 chapterPart 1 [...] cap. 1. he tells us, [That the cause of sense is the external object, which presseth the organ either immediately, as in the tast and touch, [or imediately 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 [Page 3] the cause of this; neither doth the object press immediately upon the organ of tast or touch, but [...]mediately, for the organ of tast is the nervous part of the tongue, the medium is the spungy 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 fansie is that which men call sense.] He makes deception and sense one thing, for quod videtur non est; what seems to be hath no beeing; therefore in Euripi­des, mad Orestes is counselled by his sister to be quiet; because saith she, [...], 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 [...]; 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 wel as reason, which sheweth 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 apparence (saith he) of the sensible [Page 4] 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 yeeld that the fancy is the same waking that dreaming, ex­cept he means of madmen and fools; but in those whose brains are not crackt, the fancy receiveth its species immediately from the common and outward senses whilest they are awaked, then 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 disordred, and no waies guided by the will.

In his second chapterPart. 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 [Page 5] 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 dye together; so that if sense decay, imaginati­on must needs decay, for as he confesseth, cap. 1. [There is no conception in the minde, 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 chapterPart 1. cap. 3. he saith, [That things to come have no being at all, the future beeing but a fiction of the mind] Have future Eclipses no beeing then? Sure they have as much beeing in the intellect, as past Eclipses in the me­mory; neither are they meer fictions; for that is properly a fiction which never was, is, nor shall be, as Centaures, Chimera's, &c. Had the coming of Christ no being in the minde of Abraham, where­as he saw that day and rejoyced? Was the co­ming of the Messias in the flesh a meer fiction in the mindes and hopes of the Patriarchs and Pro­phets? Is faith a fiction, or the resurrection of the flesh, which is the object of a Christian mans be­lief, the life of his hope, and the supporter of his soul in affliction; and doubtless in the minde of God all things are present, and no fiction at all. [Page 6] I like not his phrase, when he calls prophesie, guessing: for he saith, [That the best prophet natu­rally, is the best guesser] guessing is conjecturing, but prophesies are certain: did Isaiah onely guess when he prophesied that a virgin should conceive and bear a Son? Gods 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 mans minde 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 minde, 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 it self; 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 meerly nominal, not real: So that Peter is not really a man; nor Bucephalus a horse; nor the Elme a tree, but onely in name, [Page 7] which is as much as nothing: so all sciences which handle universalities are but nominal, and consequently no real entities are handled in Meta­physick, Physick, and Mathematick, 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, then the fire without heat, or the Sun without light. And when he saith, that [Geome­try is the only science which God hath left into man] He is injurious to Arithmatick, whose principles are no less certain, firm, indemonstrable, and evident, then those of Geometry.

He enveighs much against book learn­ing, but in this he speaks without book,Part 1. cap. 3. 4. for he calls, in derision, school knowledge [Pedantry.] Pedantry is that knowledge which is taught to young Scollers; and indeed the best books are read to them, and they are instructed in the knowledge of the best things, both in di­vine and humane litterature: being fit that new vessels be seasoned with the best liquor. Quo [...]emel est imbuta, &c. So the preceps of divinity and philosophy to this profound Rabbi, whose lear­ning passeth all understanding, are but Pedantry; but in speaking against the Schools, he fouls his own nest: for whence had he the knowledge which he now rejects, but out of them; as for his own supposed learning which he hath without them, it is such, as will never be thought worthy to be called Pedantry, nor shall it ever be honoured to be taught in Schools; nor shall Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Thomas, and other eminent men need to fear lest Mr. Hobbs's whimsies and [Page 8] 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 ex­tention is body, &c.] I would know how saith be­ing a gift from without, and not born with us, should enter into us? If not by inspiration or in­fusion? And if nothing can be poured or breathed but body; then it must follow that Adam's soul was a body, for it was breathed into Adam; and that the Holy Ghost is a body, for he is said to be poured upon all flesh by the prophets, Ioel and Zachariah: but if by the spirit be understood spi­ritual vertues or graces, then in Mr. Hobbs his judgment this will be counted an absurd asserti­on; but I hope he hath more Religion in him, then to think the Holy Scripture speaks absurd­ly; neither is there any absurdity in calling ex­tension a body, seeing not a substantial, but a mathematical body is meant, to distinguish it from superficies and line.

He [will not have colour to be in the body, nor sound in the air.] Where then is colour? which is its subject? is it in a spirit? I know no other subject in which it can be inherent, except one of these two: If there be any there, name it; and if sound be not in the air, how come we to hear it. He should do well to prove his new assertions, as wel as to deny the old: so he holds it absurd to say, [That a living creature is a genus, or general thing] But the contrary is plain, for this proposition [man is a living creature] were absurd, because identical, if living creature were not a general, but a particu­lar thing; it must also follow that a horse were not a living creature, or that a man and a horse were [Page 9] the same particular thing, seeing he admits of no general thing: any one may see here, whether the ancient and wise Philosophers, or this new Misosopher be most guilty of absurdities; neither is it absurd to say, [That the nature of a thing is its definition.] Seeing man, the thing defined, is the same with rational creature which is his definiti­on. Nor is there absurdity in this speech, [Mans command is his will.] seeing there is no other com­manding faculty in man but his will; neither are Metaphors, Tropes, and other Rhetorical figures absurd speeches; except he will accuse the Holy Ghost of absurdity, who useth them so frequent­ly in scripture: and if these words, [Hypostatical, Transubstantiate, &c.] be absurd words, let him im­part better, and more significant terms, and we shall think him, though not a good Philosopher, yet a good Grammarian.

In his sixth chapterPart 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, then beasts could speak for they are animals. He saith [That which we neither desire nor hate, we are said to contemn.] But this is not so, for I neither desire nor hate the Kingdom of Persia, and yet I contemn it not; whatsoever I hate, I contemn, but I contemn ma­ny things which I hare not.

When he distinguisheth Religion from Supersti­tion I hear the voice of Leviathan, not of a Chri­stian; For, saith he, [Fear of power invisible, feign­ed by the minde, or from tales publ [...]ckly allow [...] is Re­ligion, [Page 10] not allowed Superstition, and when the power imagined is truly such as we imagine, true Religion.] It seems then both Religion and Superstition are grounded upon tales and imagination, onely they differ in this, that tales publickly allowed beget Religion, not allowed Superstition: but what will he say of the Gentiles, among them tales were publickly allowed, were they therefore re­ligious, and not superstitious; and is Religion grounded upon fiction or imagination, even true Religion? I thought that faith and not imagina­tion had been the substance and ground of things not seen; that the just live by faith, not by ima­gination, that by faith we are saved; by faith we are justified; by faith we overcom the world; not by fancy, fiction, or imagination: We must mend the Creed, if Mr. Hobbs his religion be true; and insteed of saying I beleeve in God, we must say, I imagine, or feign in my minde an invisible power. In this also he contradicts himself, for if the power be invisible, how can it be imagi­ned, seeing (as he saith before) imagination [is onely of things perceived by the sense, and it is so cal­led from the image made in seeing.

He will not have the will to be [a rational appe­tite, because then there could be no voluntary acts against reason.] But the School doctrine stands firm, that the will is a rational appetite, and that there can be no voluntary acts against reason, because the object of the will is a known good; for we can­not will or affect what we know not, and know­ledge in man is never without reason, which re­gulates the will; besides each man in willing, aimes at an end which cannot be attained with­ous its medium, nor this ordered without reason, either true or apparent: (Part 1. cap. 7.) He seems to make faith and opinion the same thing, [Page 11] 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 mans happiness ve­ry incertain, and builds it upon a tottering foun­dation, for opinion is meerly conjectural, and of probabilities onely; whereas faith makes its ob­ject certain, end withal he makes these phrases the same; [To have faith in, to trust to, and to beleeve a man] but Saint Austin and the Church ever since have made these distinct phrases; for credere Deo, is to beleeve that God is true; credere Deum, is to beleeve there is a God, which wicked men and evil Angels may do; but credere in Deum is to love God, and to relie on him, and to put our trust in him, which none do but good men; there­fore Mr: Hobbs is injurious to Christianity, when he saith, [That to beleeve in God, as it is in the Creed is meant no [...] trust in the person, but confession of the doctrine.] If so, then the Devil may as bold­ly, and with as great comfort say the Creed, as any Christian; for he beleeves and trembles, [...]aith Saint Iames, and we know these evil spirits con­fessed Christ to be the Son of God: and he is no less injurious to God, when he will have us be­leeve in the Church; saying, [Our belief, faith, and trust is in the Church, whose words we take, and ac­qui [...]sse therein] but the Apostles in their Creed have taught us otherwaies; namely, That we beleeve the Catholick Church; but we beleeve in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, and in the H [...]ly Ghost.

He makes Devils, Demoniacks, and Mad-men to signifie 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 mad-men confessed him.] And shortly af­ter. [Page 12] [I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief, that Demoniacks were any other thing but mad-men.] Yes, there be divers things that make it necessary for him to beleeve, that these were distinct. 1. The letter of the text, from which we should not digress, except we were urged by an inconvenience, which is not here. 2. The Au­thority of the Church, in which he saith he doth beleeve. Now the Church alwaies took these for distinct creatures; to wit, Devils, Demoniacks, and Mad-men. 3. The honour of Christ; for wherein was the power of his Divinity seen, if these were ordinary Mad-men, seeing madness is curable by physick, and every common Physician. It tended more to Christ's honour, that the De­vil, whose Kingdom he came to destroy, should confess, he divinity, then that mad-men should acknowledge it. 4. Christ came to call Jews and Gentiles by working of miracles; but to cast out Devils, and to cure Demoniacks was a greater miracle then to cure mad-men. 5. The New Te­stament distinguisheth Demoniacks from mad-men; for these are called Demoniacks, not mad, and Saint Paul is termed mad by the Athenians, and not a Demoniack: so Devils are never called mad-men in Scripture, nor madmen called Devils: besides, as all mad-men are not Demoniacks, so all Demoniacks are not mad-men; for the Devil entered into Iudas Iscariot, he became a demoni­ack, or possessed by the Devil, and yet he was no mad-man: but, I doubt me, Mr. Hobbs is mad himself, in thinking all learned men to be mad except himself; he thinks the School-men mad, because their terms cannot be translated, or are not intelligible in vulgar languages; by this he may as well ascribe madness to Lawyers, and Physitians, as to Divines, for their terms of [...] [...]t cannot be well translated, nor can vulgar ca­pacities [Page 13] easily understand them, nor is it much material whether they do or not; Church and State can subsist well enough, though the vulgar sort understand not the terms of School divinity; & if these terms are not intelligible by dull heads and shallow brains; the fault is in themselves, not in the terms; for quicquid recipitur ad modum reci­pientis recipitur, non ad modum recepti, Blinde men must not accuse the Sun of obscurity, because they cannot see him; neither are the words of Suarez, which he alledgeth for an example, so ob­scure as he would make them, for to an intelligent man the words are very plain: to wit, [That the first cause hath no necessary influence upon the second, by reason of subordination, which is a help to their working] Here be two things remark­able. 1. That the second causes work by reason of subordination to the first cause. [...]. That the first cause worketh not necessarily upon the se­cond, but voluntarily. If this dish please not Mr. Hobbs his pallat; he must blame his mouth which is out of tast, and not the meat which is both wholesom and savory.

In his tenth chapterPart 1. cap. 10. he uttereth strange Paradoxes. [1. That to pitty is to disho­nour. 2. That good Fortune, if lasting, is a sign of Gods favour. 3. That covetousness of great riches, and ambition of great honours are honou­rable. 4. That an unjust action, so it be joyned with power, is honorable, for honour consisteth onely in the opinion of power; therefore the heathen gods are ho­noured by the Poets for their thefts and adulteries: and at first among men, piracy and theft were counted no dishonour] 1. Pitty is rather honour then disho­nour; for when a father pittieth his child, a King his subject, or a Master his servant, do they dishonour them. When we desire God to pitty us, do we desire him to dishonour us? him whom [Page 14] we dishonour we pitty not, and whom we pitty we dishonour not; pitty proceeds of love disho­nour of hatred. 2. If lasting good fortune be a sign of Gods favour, it seems then that the Turks are highly in Gods favour, for their good fortune hath continued these many hundreth years. Whether was poor and starved Lazarus, or that rich glutton, who fared dilitiously every day, highest in Gods favour. 3. Who ever afore Mr. Hobbs made ambition honourable, and covetous­ness, which Saint Paul calls the root of all evil. Can sin be honorable, which brought shame and dishonour upon mankinde: in respect of sin, man did not abide in honour, but became like the beasts that perish. If ambition of great honors be honorable, then were the evil Angels and A­dam most honorable, when they affected to be like God himself, which is the greatest and high­est honour that can be: then were Caligula, Do­mitian, Heliogabalus, and others who affected di­vine honours, most honorable. Midas coveted great riches when he wished all might be gold he touched, therefore in this he was most honora­ble: but if it be honour to offend God, to trans­gress his law, to incur his displeasure, and suffer eternal pains; let them who list injoy this ho­nour, I will have none of it; non equidem tali me digner honore. 4. He makes [unjust actions joyned with power, honourable.] Then unjust actions with­out power deserve no honour; it is even as Sene­ca complaineth in his time, parva furta puniuntur, magna in triumphis aguntur. Petty theeves are han­ged, but great robberies are honoured. He spoke it with grief, when a cruel tyrant ruled, or ra­ther misruled the Empire. But otherwaies, where there is government, unjust actions are pu­nished, not honoured; and if it were not so, [Page 15] Kingdoms would be nothing else but dens of theeves, 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 honorable; for honour is the reward of vertue: was Achab's unjust seasing of Naboths Vinyard honorable? Or are the actions of highway robbers, armed with power, to be honoured? Sure, not in any Chri­stian Common-wealth where Themis raigns, and Astrea hath not again forsaken the earth; but per­haps injustice may sit as a Queen, and be hono­rable in Leviathan's Republick. [Vbi 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 opiniou onely of power, without respect had to vertue and goodness; and so because the evil Angels are called principalities and powers, they deserve most honour. But in other Com­mon-wealths were Leviathan raigns not, I finde that goodness is as much honoured as greatness; piety, justice, temperance, prudence, learning, and other endowments, are had in no less honour then the greatest power that is. Demetrius Phalereus had more slatues (to wit, 306.) at Athens erected to him for his eloquence, then ever any of their most powerful Commanders for theirgreatness: the Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and other emi­ent men, are honored at this day for their good­ness, not for greatness. Homer, Aristotle, Virgil, Ci­cer [...], are in esteem for their learning, not for their [Page 16] power: and with me Diogines in his tub, is in greater honour, then 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 honoreth his parents, not out of fear of their greatness, as out of love to their good­ness. Honor then doth not meerly 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 Garlick, Onyons, Crocodiles, Dogs, Cats, &c. be­cause the Egyptians worshiped these. What wonder is it, if theeves and Pirats honour each other; but the civilised Gentiles were so far from honouring theft and piracy, that they made se­vere lawes 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 shewed 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 satisfie him, or is possessed of the evil which oppresseth him: in heaven onely is true felicity, because as Saint Austin saith, we shall desire nothing that is absent: if desire be happiness, then is the covetous man most happy, [Page 17] 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 then the beasts; for he saith in his twelfth chapter, [That the feli­city of beasts consisteth in the injoying of their quotidian food.] And yet mans happiness consisteth onely in desire, which is against sense and reason, for a hungry man ca [...]not be happy in desiring, but in injoying of food: it is not therefore the sight, nor desire but the injoyment of the object which will make us happy, Mars videt hanc, vis [...]que cu­pit, potiturque cupita.

In his twelf chapterPart. 1. cap. 12. he saith, [That ma­ny revolted from the Church of Rome, be­cause the Schoolmen brought in Philisophy, and Aristotles 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 humane things: and it is one of the chief blessing [...] of Almighty God, bestowed upon mankinde, by which his image lost in Adam is repaired; for the understanding is enlightned by the speculative, and the will is regulated by the practical parts thereof: and Philosophy is so far from causing peoples 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 Aristotles doctrine. Hath it caused contradictions, and [Page 18] 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 finde at this time by woful experience, there being more absurd and contradictory opinions among the peo [...]ple of this Nation, now, in a few years since Aristotles doctrine hath been discouraged, then were all the time hitherto since Christianity was imbraced. 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, aud fowls, the hearbs, trees, plants, pretious 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 Phylosophy: How shall we dispute against Hereticks, and re­fel their subtil arguments without it. Iustin Mar­tyr, and many other Greek and Latin Fathers, fought against the Gentles, Jews, and Hereticks, 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, then 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 [Page 19] strong, and judgments weake, 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 finde 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 & judgment weak be naturally apter to command, or to serve? And whether he who is of a weak body, and of a strong judgment, 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 fathers charriot: 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 then 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 inferiours to their superiours; 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 [Page 20] 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 then 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 supplyed; 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 signes of the mind: there be also many mental, and imply­ed [Page 21] or tacite covenants made without words; and many covenants that have no dependance 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 tyrannise 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 peoples authority in things lawful, yet in his lawless exorbitancies, he acteth by his own tyrannising power, not by the peoples authority; for they be authors of his lawful po­wer, yet they are no waies 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 its too apparent, that most men are too injurious to themselves, nemo laeditur nisi à seipso, O, Israel, thy destruction is of thy self: And I would fain know what true difference there is between injustice and iniquity, or injury, for jus and aequum signi­fie the same thing in latine, 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, [Page 22] 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 dominons, making tyrants and Soveraigns by institution all one in rights and con­sequences.] This is to put no difference between the Father and Butcher of his Countrey, be­tween the Shepherd and the woolf, between sha­ring and fleaing 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 charriot, &c. To take your fields and Vinyards, &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 dwelt about Iudea: 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 finde 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 beleeve, 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 onely 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 [Page 23] 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 murther: And to say, that a Tyrant doth not wronge the innocent, when he murthers him causlessly, is to put no difference between an unjust Tyrant, aud a just Judge, when he executes a Malefactor deservingly: now when David saith, To thee onely have I sinned: he speak­eth so, because God onely knew his intention, that he meant to murther Uriah: when he placed him in the forefront of the army.

He saith, [That whether a Common-wealth 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 meer slavery; such is the condition of those who live under the Turk, the Muscovit, Prester Iohn: 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.

[Page 24] 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 chosing 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 then 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 Common-wealth. 9: That publick officers have their al­lowance and maintenance. 10. That the mea­nest trades of the people are not excluded from publick 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 chapterPart 2. cap. 28. he tels us, [That the Subject did not give to the Sove­raign 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 judg­ments of the Soveraign] And again, [Every parti­cular man is author of all the Soveraign doth; and conse­quently he that complaineth of injury from his Sove­raign, complaineth of that whereof he himself is author; and therefore David had right to do what he pleased, [Page 25] 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 murther 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 murther him, without cause? and yet when he hath just cause, he shall have no power to punish him.

Chap. 28. He saith, [That mans pride compelled him to submit himself to Government] This is a Pa­radox; for mans 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 sheweth, 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 Isay 14. 14. saith, I will assend above the hight 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 alledgeth; for as Iob saith, he seeth every high thing below him, [Page 26] 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 combersom points of their present greatness to be taken off.

In his twenty ninth chapter,Part. 2. cap. 29. amongst the diseases of a Common-wealth, which he saith proceed from the poyson 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 beleeve 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 tels us, that we must be subject to the higher powers, not onely 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 sorce or law so powerful, as that inward law [...] the conscience; no castle so inpregnable as this; hic murus ahaencus esto. There is no Judge so sever [...] no Torturer so cruel, as an accusing conscience [...] this Saul, Iudas, Orestes, and too many more knew, who would rather be their own executioners, then endure the continual tortures, and be tor­mented with the fire-brands of those snaky hi­red Furies, whose residence is in an evil consci­ence. Hear what a Heathen can say in this case [...]

To the same purpose, Persius.

He then that can act against his conscience with­out sin, or remorse; is one of those the Apostle speakes 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 judgment 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 it self, may be sin to him whose consci­ence saith it is sin. Hence the Schooles 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 Councel, Acts 23. 1. That he had lived in all good conscience; and in this testimony of his conscience was his rejoycing, 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 shipwrack. 1 Tim. 1. 19. and in the same chapter sheweth, [Page 28] that the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith un­fained; 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 sheweth, [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 shew 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 waies, &c.] That Pe­ters saith was not revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by the Father of Christ who is in Hea­ven is plain by our Saviours 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 beleeved in Christ; but we find it other waies: 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 [Page 29] 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 our selves; 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 Councels. 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 Christs 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 then 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 Jewes, 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 prophesie one and the same gift, Ba­laam could prophesie and yet was no beleever; and many in the Primitive Church, beleeved, and yet could not prophesie. Nor 3ly, is there any reason why he who is inspired should refuse to be [Page 30] 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 then 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 Soveraign to be subject to his own laws, because then he should be sub­ject to himself, and to set the laws above the Soveraign, were to set a Iudge above him, &c.] If a man can subdue himself, he must be subject to himself, and as there is no conquest so honorable, 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 overcom 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 honorable for a King, as to keep his word, and to observe the laws, which he not onely made, but by oath and promise tied himself to obey. And surely this is the very law of nature, which as Mr. Hobbs saith, [is divine, and cannot by any man or common-wealth be abrogated.] Neither is [Page 31] there any inconvenience to set the law as a Judge above the Prince; for as Aristotle tells us, Polit. l. 3. c. 11. The law where it is plain and perspi­cuous ought to beat rule, because without it no King nor [...] Common-wealth can govern. And secondly, Because the law is just, not subject to partiality, passion and affection, as Princes and other men are; and indeed Princes should be so far from disobeying their own laws, that they should be the life and soul of the law, which of it self is but a dead letter, therefore the common saying of that good Emperor Aurelius was: Rex viva Lex: No Common-wealth can be happy or continue long, but where the Prince is as well subject to the law as the People; his example will move them to obedience; Nec sic inflectere sensus 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 Countries defence, and such like cases, in this regard no man is born for himself, nor hath any man an absolute pro­perty in his own life, which he ought when oc­casion urgeth, lay down for his Country: Dulce & decorum pro patria mori; therefore Plato saith well, That our Country requires a share in our birth; the property then of the subject exclu­deth not the Princes right in cases of necessity, but onely his arbitrary power. Hence are these [Page 32] 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 chapterCap. 31. he makes a needless distinction between the objects of love, hope, and fear, shewing, [That love hath re­ference to goodness; hope and fear to power; the sub­ject of praise is goodness, the subject of magnifying and blessing is power.] David knoweth no such distin­ction, who in the 18. Psalm he loves God for his strength or power, and in another Psalm, he fears him for his mercy, or goodness, There is (saith he) mercy with thee, therefore shalt thou be feared: So he makes Gods goodness, and not his power the object of his hope or belief; Psal. 27. I hoped to see the goodness of God in the land of the living; so likewise he praiseth God for his strength or po­wer, as well as for his goodness: Praise him, saith he, for his mighty acts, praise him for his excel­lent greatness, Psal. 150. and in divers Psalms he magnifyeth God for his salvation, as well as for his power. Now when he saith, that this name (God) [is his own name of relation to us,] he is de­ceived; for this is no name of relation at all; his names of relation to us, are, Creator, Redee­mer, Father, Lord, King, Master, &c.

In his third Part and Chap. 1.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 Gods word is infallible, so is not our natural reason, which faileth in many things. Gods word saith, That a Virgin did conceive and bear a Son; That God became man; That our bodies shall rise again out of the dust; but our natural reason saith, this is impossible: therefore [Page 33] when St. Paul preached the resurrection to the Athenians, who wanted not natural reason enough, they thought he had been mad. How comes it that the Apostle saith; The natural man understan­deth not the things of Gods spirit; And Christ tells Peter, That flesh and blood, (that is) natural reason had not revealed the mystery of his Divi­nity to him, but his Father in Heaven; and St. Paul saith, That he received not the Gospel of man, nor was he taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal. 1. 12. And that he was not taught by mans wisdom, but by the Holy [...] Ghost, 1 Cor. 2. 13. How comes it I say, that the Scrip­ture speaks thus in villifying natural reason, if it be the infallible word of God; yea, what need was there of any written word at all if our na­tural reason be that infallible word: doubtless Adam by his fall lost much of his knowledge and natural reason; Peter made use of his natural rea­son, when he undertook to disswade Christ from going up to Ierusalem, and there to suffer and die; but Christ tells him that he favoured the things that be of men, but not of God, Mat. 16. 23. Our natural reason, saith he, cap. 32. [Is a talent not to be folded up in the napkin of an implicit faith.] This I grant; but I hope he will permit, that our na­tural reason, be subject to an explicit faith, without which it is impossible to please God; and not onely must our reason be subdued to faith; but every imagination in us must be cast down, and every high thing that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God, and every thought must be brought into captivity, to the obedience of Christ, 2. Cor: 10. 5. And whereas he saith, cap: 32. [That our reason must be imployed in the purchase of justice, peace, and true religion.] If reason could procure or pur­chase these blessings, the Gentiles of old, the Jews and Mahume [...]ans of latter years might have had [Page 34] 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 Gods word.] By the same means he may prove that Aristotle's Logick, or Hippocrate's Aphorisms are the undoubted word of God; for in them is nothing contrary to it. But was not Peter's reason contrary to Gods word, when he would have disswaded Christ from suf­fering; whereas all the prophets had spoken, that Christ ought to have suffered those things, and to enter into his glory; Luke 24. 26.

And no less weak is his argument (cap. 32.) by which he will prove, that divine dreams [are not of force to win belief from any man, that knows dreams are for the most part natural, and may proceed from former thoughts, &c.] He may as well infer, that the pen-men of the Holy Scriptures are not of force to win belief from us, seeing the pro­phet saith, All men are lyers: what if it had said, that men for the most part are lyers; there had been less reason to have inferred that the pen-men of Scriptures were such, and yet Mr. Hobbs will infer, that because dreams are for the most part natural; therefore divine dreams are of no cre­dit, that such dreams are of force sufficient to win belief, is plain by the dreams of Ioseph; Ia­cob's son, and Ioseph the husband of Mary: with divers others in Scripture. (cap. 33.) He is troubled that Moses before his death should write [Page 35] that he died, & that his Sepulcher was not known to this day, but in this he troubles himself need­lessly; for he writes of his death and sepulcher by anticipation, which is an usual way of writing, amongst some, besides the Jewish tradition is, that Iosua wrote that last chapter of Deuteronomy, long after the death of Moses. (Cap. 33.) So he is troubled about the words of Moses, Gen. 12. 6. which are, And the Canaanite was then in the land; Hence he infers, that Moses wrot not that book, but one who wrot when the Canaanite was not in the land, for Moses dyed before he came to it: but I say, that if the Canaanite was not in the land, when he wrot these words, The Canaanite was then in the land; he wrot a lye; but indeed Moses wrot the History, and writes no waies ab­surdly, in showing that the Canaanite was then in the land, but purposely to let us see the condition of Gods children in this life, who though they have right to all they enjoy, yet the wicked keep them under, and they live in fear still of their enemies, as Abraham did of the Canaanites, who domineered in that land which Abraham received from God, and at the same time he receiv'd it; such like exceptions he makes against some other wri­ters of the old Testament, but they are of no mo­ment or validity, therefore I will spend no paper nor time in their refuration.

In his thirty fourth chaptercap. 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, then the universe were not universe, but an imperfect system, as d [...] ­ficien [...] in the most noble of all created entities [...] [Page 36] to wit, incorporeal substances; but God made the world perfect, consisting both of material and immaterial substances; such are Angels and Mens souls, which are neither corporeal in their bee­ing, nor operation; for if they were corporeal, they must be mortal and corruptible, and com­pounded at least of matter and form, they must be also quantitative, local by circumscription, and movable by physical motion; all which are absurd: and if a substance be the same that a bo­dy is, then he must make God corporeal, for he is a substance: now to say that a thing is called substance, because subject to changes, is vain; for substances are so called, because they subsist by themselves, and not in another entity, as acci­dents do: besides, accidents may be called sub­jects, because one accident may be the subject of another, as the superficies of a wall is the subject of colours; but accidents can never be cal­led substances, for they cannot subsist of them­selve [...].

By the spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1. 2. [He will have to be meant a winde, because if God himself were understood, then motion must be attributed to him and place.] I know in this he follows Tertullian's opinion; but the Church hath constantly held that there is meant, not a winde, but the spirit of God; by which place they both prove the mystery of the Trinity; the first person being expressed by the word 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 winde should be there meant, for what use could there be of a [Page 37] winde then, before the creatures were produced. And wheras he is afraid to ascribe motion and place to God, it seems he hath not well observed the Scripture phrase, which ordinarily speaketh of God, Anthropopathos, as if he were a man; therefore he is said sometimes to speak, to see, to hear, to discend, to laugh, to be angry, to greet, to rejoyce; and in this History of the Creation, he is said, to speak, to bless, to walk in the Gar­den, to examine Adam, to condemn the Ser­pent, &c. Now whereas Mr. Hobbs saith, that the spirit here mentioned, is the same that is spoken of, Gen. 8. 1. I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth: He is mistaken, and misalledgeth the words; for thus it is written, And God made a winde to pass o­ver the Earth; for winde in Scripture is never cal­led the Spirit of God. The spirit then that dri­ed up the waters of the flood, was the same that afterwards divided the red Sea for Moses and the Israelites to pass through; to wit, a drying winde which God had raised: He saith, [The word Ghost signifieth nothing but the imaginary inhabitants of the brain.] But there he is also mistaken, for it signi­fieth a real immaterial substance, which we call from the Latin word, Spirit; and so it was alwaies used by the Saxons, and at this day, Gheest and Gheist in low and high Dutch do signifie the same thing or spirit.

Cap. 34. When Christ walked on the waters, the Disciples thought they had seen a spirit or fan­tasm, which Mr. Hobbs will have [to be an aerial body.] But I wonder who ever saw an aerial body; the two grosser Elements are visible to us, but not the two superior, by reason of their subtilty and purity. And he is deceived also in saying, [That the delusions of the brain are not common to many at once.] For I have observed that divers men toge­ther [Page 38] 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 no where, is inconsequent; for though they have no de­mentions answering to the demensions of place, yet they have their vbi, to which they are con­sined.

Cap. 34. He saith, [That concerning the creation of Angels, nothing is delivered in the Scriptures.] What then means the Apostle in his Epistle to the Collossians by things invisible, thrones, do­minations, and powers, which he saith, were crea­ted? Were not these Angels? But I wonder not that he denies the creation of Angels, for he doeth plainly deny their existence, saying (cap. 34.) they are [but visions, apparitions, images in the fancy, accidents of the brain.] But when the Holy Scripture calleth Angels Messengers, watch­men, ministring spirits, the hoast of heaven, &c. Doeth it mean onely our fancies and dreams? Are those celestial servants of God, the comfor­ters and protecters of good men, the gatherers together of the elect in the last day, but imagi­nations? Was that a fancy or an Angel who com­forted Hagar in the desert? Was the Angel Gabriel that appeared to Mary but an accident of her brain? Were not the Israelites well guarded from their enemies, when they had no Angels, but fancies to guard them? It seems that Abraham and Lot entertained not Angels, but dreams and fancies in their houses; and Abraham washed the feet of fancies, and for them killed his fat calf: and Iacob wrestled all night with a fancy; as Turnus [Page 39] did, in the Poet, with the shaddow of AEnaeas. Were those fancies or real substances, that St. Iude speaks of, who kept not their first estate, but left their habitation, and are now reserved in chains under darkness for the judgement of the great day: and when Christ saith wee shall be like the Angels, doeth he mean that in heaven we shall be like fancies and dreams? I doubt me, Mr. Hobbs is possessed with too many such Angels: He is extreamly extravagant in his discourse for the Angels, which but now he would have to be dreams, visions, and fancies, he will have to be God himself. (cap. 34.) [Because the same appariti­on is called, not onely an Angel, but God, Gen. 16.] Here is a goodly argument: Angels are somtimes called God, therefore they are God indeed: by the same reason he may infer, that Judges and earthly Princes, are gods indeed, because they are called so. The Idols of the Gentiles are cal­led gods, are they therefore Gods indeed: An­gels are sometimes called Elohim, or gods; not only for the excellency of their nature, but likewise for their imployment, in representing the person and authority of God in their embassies: that An­gel, who Gen. 31. 13. calls himself the God of Be­thel is thought to be our blessed Saviour, who ap­peared sometimes to the Patriarchs and other ho­ly men, before his incarnation: and it was this Angel that spake with Moses in the bush, and in the cloud; and not the cloud it self; as Mr. Hobbs thinks, for he is deceived in thinking that the cloudy piller spoke with Moses. He says, [It is not the shape, but the use that makes them Angels.] indeed the shape of men was most usual and most useful in the Angels, for contracting familiarity with men; for which cause the Angel of the Co­venunt in the fulness of time became man: for [Page 40] what can be so kindly to man, as to be instructed, directed, and defended by man, or by Angels in mans shape: He saith, [That the Dove and fiery tongues, in being signes of Gods special presence may be called Angels.] But I say no; for it is not the sig­nification of Gods presence, but the delivering by speech Gods will or message, that makes an Angel or Messenger; for when were dumb Am­bassadors ever imployed? If every sign of Gods presence were an Angel, we should have as many Angels, as there be Ceremonies and Sacraments in the Church: yea, every creature were an An­gel, for each creature testifieth and representeth to us a Diety, and so every Star, yea, every Fly, and every Herb should be an Angel, praesentemque docet quae libet herba Deum: if he can tell us that the fiery tougues, or Dove, did ever deliver any message in Scripture, (which the Poets fable of Dodonas Doves) then I will call them Angels. He saith again, [That God needeth not to distinguish his celestial servants by names.] Will he hence infer that therefore they have no names; he may as well say, that God needeth not to distinguish men by names, or to call the stars by their names, Psal. 147. Angels are distinguished by names, not for him, but for our weak memories: God needs no such distinctions, but we who are of weak appre­hensions.

Cap. 34. He faith, [That fire is no punishment to impatible creatures, such as are all things incorporeal.] That the Devil shall be punished with eternal fire and his Angels, is plain by our Saviours words, Mat. 25. It follows therefore they are patible creatures, though immaterial: that there is a pa­tability in immaterial substances, is manifest by our own souls, which are affected with the passi­ons of joy and grief, as the body is in a joyful or [Page 41] 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 sheweth, de civit dei, lib. 21. cap. 10. When Christ saith, that in the resurrection we shal be like the Angels of God which are in heaven. Mr. Hobbs inferreth, (cap. 34.) [That because men then shall be corporeal, therefore the Angels are such.] This is not to shew that we shall be like the An­gels, as Christ saith, but that the Angels shall be like us: neither is it Christs scope to shew there, Mat. 22. 30. that we shall be like the Angels in every thing; but onely in this, that we shall be like them in chastity; for there shall be no mar­rying, because no need of posterity, man being then immortal. He confesseth at last, (cap. 34.) [That though in the Old Testament Angels were but fancies; yet some places of the New Testament have extorted from his feeble reason; a belief that Angels are substantial and permanent.] That faith which is extorted from a feeble reason must needs be very feeble: but indeed true faith is strongest, where reason is feeblest, per 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 [Page 42] which Christ hath obtained for his Saints shall be: on earth: because the Apostle saith, as in Adam all dye, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, for else the comparison were not proper.] The comparison is not between the two places of heaven and earth, but between the two persons of Adam and Christ, and between the two lives, the one earthly which Adam lost by introducing mortality, and the o­ther heavenly which Christ hath purchased by o­vercoming mortality: and as this place fails him, so doth that other, Psal. 133. 3. Upon Sion God commanded the blessing, even life for evermore. And Rev. 21. 2. I Iohn saw the holy City, New Jeru­salem comming down from God out of heaven. And Acts 1. 11. This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come as you have seen him go up into heaven. And Mat. 22. In the resurrection they are as the Angels of God in heaven, for they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. What sober minded man will conclude from these pla­ces, that our eternal hapiness shall be on earth, and not in heaven? For when David speaks of life for evermore in Sion, he means a lasting hap­piness which accompanies concord among bre­thren: for the Hebrew word Holam in Scripture, signifieth a continuance for some time, but not eternity: In Exod. 21. 6. The servant whose ear was bored, is said to serve his master for ever, that is, so long as he liveth, and not everlasting­ly. Samuel is said to appear before the Lord, and there to abide for ever, 1 Sam. 1. 22. Will any infer hence that Samuel was to continue in his office for all eternity: The Perpetuus Dictator at Rome continued not for ever, though he is called perpetual: So then life for evermore in Sion is a long continuing happiness; and yet Sion in Scrip­ture is divers times taken for heaven, where is [Page 43] onely true and eternal life: As impertinent is that place which he alledgeth, Rev. 2. 7. To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. This saith he, [was the tree of Adams eternal life, but this life was to have been on earth.] But he is quite out of the way; for the Paradise mentioned here, is that which Christ speaks of to the good thief, Thou shalt be this day with me in Paradise, that is in heaven: for earthly Paradise was de­stroyed by the flood, and so was the tree of Life, which might for some time have prolonged Adams age, by supplying the decay of the radical moysture, but could not have continued it for ever: only our blessed Saviour the true tree of life here mention'd can protract our life into eternity: now that Paradise was destroyed by the flood is plain by Moses, Gen. 6. saying, that the flood rose higher fifteen cubits, then the highest mountains. Besides, if Paradise had been to continue what need was there to build an Ark for Noah: and his family, seeing they could have been saved in Paradise, and so the other creatures likewise: And whereas he saith, [That the New Jerusalem when Christ comes again; shall come down to Gods peo­ple from heaven, and not they go up to it from earth.] Is ridiculous; for Rev. 21. 2. by the New Ierusa­lem coming down from God, is meant the Church of Christ, whose original calling, protection, and happiness is from God, so that this is not a proper, but a tropical discent. The Church is called Ie­rusalem there, and elsewhere, because she is, or ought to be the City of Peace, and as Ierusalem of old was the place of Gods worship, and of his peculiar presence, so is the Church now; which is called new, as having cast off the old man, and old ceremonies, is renewed in the spirit of her [Page 44] minde; and is regenerate by water and the spirit So he sheweth his vanity, when he proves out of Acts 1. 11. [That Christ shall come down to go­vern his people eternally here, and not take them up to govern them in heaven.] For in that place there is no mention of his government here on earth, nor of the eternity thereof; but onely that he shall return after the same manner that he went up, that is to say, gloriously, riding on the clouds, and attended by Angels: Now if any man would know the reason or end of Christs second coming, he shall finde in Daniel 2. Mat. 25. and other places of Scripture; that it is not to erect an earthly Kingdom, which shall continue for ever, but as the Apostle saith, to render vengeance to the wicked, and to us that are afflicted, peace. Or as it is in our Creed, to judge the quick and the dead; so then he shall not return as an earthly Prince, to set up his throne here on earth, which is his foot-stool, but as a Judge in his circuit, who having condemned some, and absolved others, returns again to the place of his resi­dence.

But he says, (cap. 38.) [That there is neither Scripture nor Reason to prove that after the resurrecti­on, men are to live eternally in heaven.] What then will he say to these passages, Mat. 5. Great is your reward in heaven; Christ would have said, great is your reward on earth, if he had purposed to erect an earthly kingdom. So Mat. 6. we are advi­sed to lay up our treasures, not on earth, but in heaven: this were to no purpose, if we were to live eternally on earth, not in heaven. So Ioh. 14. I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there you may be. I pray was it not to heaven that Christ went to prepare that place: is not heaven his Fathers house, where there are many manti­ons? [Page 45] Earth is never called his house, nor are the Saints said here to have an house or habitation, but to sojourn as in Tents: Heaven is the house where we must dwell, if we will beleeve St. Paul who was caught up into this house, who speaks not by hearsay, but by knowledge: [for we know, saith he, that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a buil­ding of God, an house not made with hands e­ternal in the heavens, 2 Cor. 5. 1.] Why did St. Paul desire to be dissolved and be with Christ, Phil. 1. if he was to enjoy Christ upon earth onely: he should rather have desired to be dissolved, that Christ might be with him on earth, then he to be with Christ in heaven: Enoch was translated, and Elijah was caught up into heaven, to assure us of our right and habitation there, for this cause our Saviour opened heaven at his Baptism, and after his Resurrection ascended thither, to take possession thereof for us; and it is fit, that where the Head is, there the body should be; where the King keeps his residence, thither his servants should repair. Where should the chil­dren dwell, but in their Fathers house: now 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, [Page 46] 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 Apocalyps, 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 alledge that of St. Iohn, 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 then Gods foot-stool, 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 one­ly: 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 overcom death by Christs power; and consequently there shal be no resurrection. But if we ascend not higher then the earth, the Apostle hath deluded us, in saying. That we shall be caught up together in the cloudes, 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 [...] 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.

[Page 47] He will not have (cap. 38.) the resurrection of the body to be proved out of Christs 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 onely of the im­mortality of the soul: But I say these words prove both the souls immortality and the bodies 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 souls 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 then are no more dead to God, then our children when they are asleep, are dead to us: Therefore Christ saith of Lazarus, being four daies dead, that he was asleep; so our departed friends are dead to us, but asleep to God: and indeed the souls immortality, and bodies 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 mans 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 [Page 48] is destroyed, how comes it to dye? 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 Iob 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 Iob, 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 dye and consume, yet the soul dieth not; no more then 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 heretick, who lived about ninety years after Christ; he was one of the first that maintained the conceit of Christs earthly kingdom; who notwithstanding told [Page 49] 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 Ierusalem, mentioned, Heb. 12. and Rev. 21. Where Christ was to raign eternally, whereas Cerinthus his raign was to last but a thou­sand years; whose Sectaries were a [...]te wards cal­led Chiliasts, or Millinaries. 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 heresie maintained by the Arabian hereticks a­bout two hundred and seventeen years after Christ; these were called [...], that is, mortall soules: The Psychopanvychits of this age, come somewhat neer these Arabians; for though they hold not the death or dissolution of the soul; yet they say it sleeps with the body in the grave: this error therefore Mr. Hobbs is no no­velty, yet we are beholding to you, that you will maintain nothing in it, till the sword establish it, and then you will be content to approve of it; But what if the sword should dethrone Christ and set up Mahumet? Must that sword be o­beyed?

Concerning the place of hell, and the nature of hell fire,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 discent 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 [Page 50] 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 no where, but in the bowels of the earth. The names of [...] in Greek, and infernus in Lutine intimate so much; the exactest description we have of hell; is in Isa. 30. 33. Tophet is ordained of old, &c. he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire, and much wood, the breath of the Lord like a stream of Brimston doth kindle it. The Angels are said to be cast down to hell, 2. Pet. 2. 4. And Christ descended into hell; all which shew that it is beneath us; and this visible world.

Because the Prophets in the old Testament by allegorical terms describe the happiness of Christs Church under the Gospel; therefore Mr. Hobbs will needs (cap. 38.) have these phrases to be understood of an earthly kingdom after the resur­rection; but the Prophets speak of pleasant ri­vers and fields, of woods and groves, of horses and charriots, of eating and drinking, and all kinde of earthly delights; which if Mr. Hobbs understand literally, I shall think his opinion re­lisheth too much of the Alcoran; and that he re­viveth again the heresie of Cerinthus, which the Fathers of the Church hath long since exploded; as being too gross and carnal, and such as none will beleeve but carnal men: Nulla modo ista possunt, nisi a carnalibus credi, as St. Austin saith, l. 20. de civit. c. 7. The kingdom of God consisteth not in meat and drink, saith the Apostle; the words that they speak are spirit and truth; and are spi­ritually to be understood: if we shall be like the Angels after the resurrection, as our Saviour as­sures us, what other delights can we have then, but such as they enjoy now; why should not [Page 51] heaven be the place of our abode as well as theirs; they need not the earth to reside in now, neither shall we then. But he saith, [That the sub­jects of God should have any place higher then his foot-stool, seemeth not sutable to the dignity of a King.] It may be so Mr. Hobbs, of you speak of earthly Kings, who pride themselves in their supposed greatness, and stand upon punctilios: but it is not so with the King of heaven, who made no scruple to wash his servants seet; and to tell them, that they should sit with him upon twelve thrones, to jude the twelve tribes of Israel. And assures us, that he will grant to him who overcometh, to sit down with him in his throne; even, as I (saith he) also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne, Rev. 1. 21. And St. Iohn tells us, that Christ hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, Rev. 1. 6. It will not then be unsutable to his dignity, if we ascend higher then his footstool.

In his forty one chaptercap. 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 then other people? And is not Christ highly wronged, who having conquered a king­dom with his blood, and having got the victory over all his enemies; is notwithstanding now 1652. years without his kingdom; and must be without it till the general resurrection. How can this stand, that he should so many yeers since by his Apostles and their successors subdue so many nations to his obedience, by that sharpe two edg­ed sword of his mouth; and yet all this while [Page 52] have no kingdom; could Alexander in three yeers space subdue so many kindoms: and Christ after so many hundred years be without his kingdom; what is become of his rod of Iron, by which he was to rule the stubborn Gentiles? How can this stand, that he ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave liberal gifts to men; yea, like­wise hath prescribed divers laws ordinances, hath distributed divers 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 Christs 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 Ioab, Shimei, and the sons of Barzillai according to their works, but left that to his son Solomon, both to reward Barzil­lai's sons for their good service to David in his af­fliction, and to punish Iob with death, for the murthering of Abner and Amasa; and likewise Shimei, for his railling against the king. There is a time for all things; even for punishments and rewards; and if the differing of these do argue no king, he may then as well say, that God him­self [Page 53] is no King, who differred the drowning of the world one thouand six hundred years. And the punishing of the Amorites four hundred years. And so doth put off the rewarding of men till the world to come. But he tells us, [That Christ a­scribed kingly power to the Scribes and Pharisees, be­cause they sit in Moses chair.] But then Christ should have wronged the Roman Governors, in whom he acknowledged kingly power, by paying tribute, and by submitting himself to be judged by them. Their sitting then in Moses chair doeth not imply kingly power; but their power in expounding the law of Moses. And it is as weak an inference to say, that Christ is not King of his Church, [Because he would not divide the inheritance, between the two brethren, or because he came to save the world, not to judge it;] For dividing of inheritances be­longing not to Christs spiritual kingdom; nei­ther was it the end of Christs comming to judge, that is to condemn the world, for the Greek word signifieth both, but to save it; for his name was Jesus a Saviour, because he came to save his people from their sins. And no less weak is this reason: [The time of Christs preaching is called rege­neration, therefore it is no kingdom.] Regeneration is not the time, but the fruit and effect of Christs preaching: and so far is regeneration from being inconsistent with Christs Kingdom; that our Sa­viour tells us in plain tearms; except we be rege­nerate we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, Iohn 3.

In his two and fortty chaptercap. 4 [...]: he broa­cheth a strange wheemsie concerning the blessed Trinity, in saying, [That God who hath been represented (that is personated) thrice, to wit, by Moses, by Christ, and by the Apostles, may properly enough be said to be three Persons, as represented by [Page 54] the Apostles, the holy Spirit by which they spake is God, as represented by Christ, the Son is that God, as represented by Moses and the high Priests, the Fa­ther is that God. Hence the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the signification of the Godhead, are never used in the old Testament; for they are Per­sons, that is, they have their names from representing, which could not be, till divers men had represented Gods Person, &c.] Here is strange stuffe: For first, The word Person in the Trinity, was never taken by Divines for a Visard, a personating, or repre­sentation, but for a peculiar way of subsisting; therefore by the Greek Church the word [...] was used, till wanton and idle wits began to [...]aise differences about that word; and then [...] was used answering to the Latine word, Persona, and is defined thus, [...] by Iustin 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 Fathers existence is from himself, the Sons from the Father, the Spi­rits from both: so in man, there is the soul, the intellect and will; these three are but one essence, yet differently subsisting; the soul of it self, the intellect from the soul, and the wil [...] from both. Secondly, if personating, or representing makes the persons in the Trinity, it will follow, that there have been and are more then three Pesons, nay, I may truly say innumerable, for God hath been represented, not onely by Moses, but by Io­suah also and his successors; by Aaron the high Priest, and all his successors; by all Judges also and Kings, who are therefore called gods: there must be then as many persons, as there have been personatings or representations; and in this re­spect the Trinity may be called a Legion, or ra­ther [Page 55] innumerable persons. Thirdly, Why should God be called the Holy Spi [...], as he was represen­ted by the Apostles, rather then by being perso­nated by Moses, or by Christ; his reason is, be­cause the Apostles spoke by the Spirit: I pray, did not Moses and Christ speak by the same Spirit. St. Peter saith, that the holy men of old spake as the Spirit moved them. Or why is God by him called Father, as he was represented by Moses, ra­ther then as he was represented by Christ? Was there more Paternity in Moses, then in any other man, or in Christ, who by Isaiah is called the e­verlasting Father? Or why is he called Father, as personated by the high Priests. 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 prophesie 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 winde, as some have thought, is plain; be­cause air was created afterwards, and this Spirit is said to move, or by moving to cherish the waters: but the winde is an enemy to the wa­ters; both in regard of its siccity, and imp [...]tuo­sity; neither is the winde ever called the Spirit of God, as we have shewed 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 God-head, but he is deceived; [Page 56] for when the child Christ is called the everlasting Father by Isaiah, this cannot be in signification of his humanity; for how can a little child be an everlasting Father, but in respect of his God-head.

He saith, (Cap. 42.) [If the Supreme King have not his regal power in this world, by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers.] This is not to be doubted, but the Supreme King hath his regal power in this world; for this cause he tells his Apostles after his resurrection, That all power was given to him in heaven and in earth; there­fore he sends them abroad into all nations of this world, teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them, Matth. 28. If then he hath regal power in the world, why should not his Officers be obeyed. 'Tis true, Christs King­dom is not of this world; will it therefore fol­low, that it is not in this world? For if in this world he subdueth the nations to his Scepter by the sword of his word, if he leads captivity cap­tive, if he giveth gifts unto men, if he prescribe laws, and punisheth the offendors, shall we not say he hath Kingly power in this world: if the Kings and Potentates of the earth, have submit­ted their scepters to his Heraulds, have received his yoak, and have placed his cross upon their crowns in sign of subjection, is he not their Su­preme King, whose dominion here is called the Kingdom of grace: his other Kingdom in the next world, shal be the kingdom of glory, which M. Hobs confounds with this of grace: as for the coercive or commanding power of Ministers which he 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, [Page 57] that they should compel those in the high­waies to come to his supper. And albeit mini­sters are called fisher-men, and not hunters; yet fisher-men 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. Linnin 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 Christs 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 [...] [...], in the perfect tense, shews that it was al­ready come, or at hand, Mat. 3. and 4. And he sheweth, 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 perswade; that they did counsel and advise, but not command; that their precepts were invitations and callings; not commands, that they might be without [Page 58] 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 en­joyn 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 tels us, that if he had not come and spoken to the Jews, they had not had sin, but now they have no cloke 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 onely a sin, but as Samuel saith, it is as hainous 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 onely 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, then servants are [Page 59] ministers, for what they undertake they are ob­liged to perform. Christ, Mat. 20. 26, and 27. useth the words [...] for the same thing. And so he is called somtimes [...], and somtimes [...], and this word Diaconus is given some­times to the meanest servant, sometimes to the Magistrate, as Rom. 13. somtimes to Preachers, som­times to Church Officers called Deacons. Ambas­sadors are called also by this name, and they are said [...] to serve or to be Deacons.

He will have (Chap. 42.) [Princes 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 honor, 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 Soveraigns are not in­stituted to teach by vertue of their Baptisme, as he saith; for Baptisme is a Sacrament of our rege­neration and of our admission to be members of Christs body [...] by it Princes and Subjects are wa­shed from sin, but not instituted to preach; the Emperour hath no more power to perform the Priests office [...] or to preach by vertue of his Bap­tisme, then his meanest subject, And if the Kings Baptisme doth not authorize him to [...]ach at all, much lesse [to teach what doctrine he will, and to exer­cise absolute Power over his subjects] as Mr. Hobbs saith: For absolute power is in God onely; they are tyrants, not lawfull 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 th [...] Per­sian, the Magor, the King of China [...] the great [Page 60] Cham over their Subjects, who were never bap­tsed: and to allow Princes power to teach what they will, is to make them absolute lords, not onely 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 Soveraign; for such next under God was the high Priest in the Common-wealth 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 Moyses, cap. 40. where he saith, [That not Aaron; bu [...] Moyses alone had next under God the Soveraignity over the Israe­lites, and that not onely in causes of civil policy, but also of religion.] Here we see how he makes and unmakes the Soveraignity of Princes; and not onely doeth he make Moyses for his time, but also the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in his chair, (that is to [...]ay, expounded his law) supreme ci­vil Soveraigns, whereas the legislative power, and civil Soveraignity 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 Caesars.

He (cap. 42) [will not have excommunication to be a punishment, but onely a denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict at the day of Judgement.] But I say that excommunication is not a bare denoun­cing, but a real suffering of punishment, and of such a punishment as is most grievous; to wit, a [...] paration from Gods 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 [Page 61] mystical body of Christ, and to be excluded from the Communion of the Saints, and of all the priviledges which they do now, and shall hereafter enjoy.

He denieth (cap. 42.) [that there is any spiritual Common-wealth among men in this world.] This he gronnds upon two reasons; [1. because it is the same thing with the Kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world. Secondly, There are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual.] These reasons are very weak: For first, because a spiritual Common-wealth and Christs Kingdom are the same, it will follow, that there is a spiritual Common-wealth amongst men, which is the Kingdom of grace here, where Christ raigneth in the hearts of his faithful peo­ple; which though it be not of this world, yet it is in this world; as I have shewed already: And of this Kingdom our Saviour speaks, when he saith, The Kingdom of God is within you; Luke, 17. 21 Which consisteth in righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. Secondly, To say that Christ hath not here a spiritual Common-wealth, because mens bodies are not spiritual, is ridiculous; for Christs subjects here are spiritual, though their bodies be corporeal, because they are animated, regulated, directed by the spirit. They are regenerated by the spirit, John 3. They walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, Rom. 8. The spirit helpeth their 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 Christs subjects, though they are here cloathed with flesh yet are called spiritual: Gal 6. 1. Yo [...] which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] 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 Christs Kingdom or Common-wealth, as he calls it, is not spiritual?

He (cap. 42. [...]) [will not have the members of a Common-weath to depend one of another, but to cohere together. They depend onely (saith he) on the Sove­raign, which is the soul on the Common-wealth.] But there is a dependence, as well as a coherence; in a dead body there is a coherence of members, but no dependence; in a living body, there are both: though the body depend on the soul, it will not therefore follow, that the members do not depend one of another: for the hands and feet depend on the stomack, to be [...]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 Soveraign depends on the people for assistance, maintenance and defence; they depend on him for counsel, government, and peace. The mem­bers of the Common-wealth depend on the Clo­thyer for cloaths, on the Husbandman for food, on the Physition for health, on the Divine for instruction, on the Lawyer for counsel, &c. And these depend on each other.

Heresie (saith he) (cap. 42.) [is nothing else but a private opinion; obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the publick person bath commanded [Page 63] to be taught. Hence an opinion publickly appointed to be taught, cannot be heresie, nor the Princes that autho­rise them, hereticks.] It seems then by this defini­tion, that Ariani [...]m was onely an heresie, whil [...]t it was maintained by Arius a private person; but when it was anthorised publickly by the Arian Princes, it was no more an heresie: and so now, not Arius, but Athanasius that opposed it must be called an heretick, by Mr. Hobbs, contrary to the judgment of all learned men, and the Church of God hitherto. The great Turk, and the Mahu­metans, who profess at this day the same damna­ble doctrine of Arius, are not hereticks, but the Christians within his dominions, who are of ano­ther opinion, these are your hereticks Mr. Hobbs; by this your definition, you may call Christ and his Apostles hereticks, for they held doctrines contary to the traditions and opinions of the Scribes and Pharisees, who (as you say) sat in Moyses chair. It is not the person private or pub­lick that makes an heretick, but it is the doctrine, repugnant to Gods word, and the articles of our faith, maintained obstinately for sini [...]trous ends, as lucre, honor, &c. that makes heresie: a pri­vate man may maintain an opinion in Philosophy contrary to the opinion of the Prince, and yet no heretick in this, because he holds nothing a­gainst our Christian faith, his opinion may be erroneous but not heretical.

In his three and forty chapter he tels us, [That the faith of Christians ever since Christs time, hath had for foundation, the reputation of Pastors and Au­thority of Christian Soveraigns.] This is to build our faith upon a sandy foundation, which with every blast will be overt [...]rned; the authority and reputation of men are but arms of flesh, and broken reeds to rely upon; these may be motives [Page 64] to induceus to give our assent, as the testimony of that woman, John 4. induced many of the Sa­maritans of that City to beleeve on Christ? But the foundation of their faith was Christ himself; who bestowed that gift upon them, as he doeth upon us. And how can mans reputation or authority be the foundation of that which ex­ceeds all humane reason and capacity; but such is faith: Besides, faith it self is the ground of our justification and salvation; for we are both justi­fied and saved by faith; but if man be the ground of our faith, he must also be the ground of our j [...]stification and saluation; and so Christ died & rose in vain. But the Apostle sheweth us the true foun­dation of our faith in these words: For other foundation 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 chapterCap. 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 fantasms, or spirits of illusion to signifie allegorically the same thing.] But I do not read that Devils in Scripture are called fantasms, or fantasms named Devils: when the Disciples, Mat. 14. saw Jesus walking on the sea, they thought they had seen a fantasm; did they mean the devil by this word? So when Christ, Mat. 4. was tem­pted of the devil, is it meant that he was tempted by a fantasm? Devils are spirits and real sub­stancet, and not phantasms or fictions of the brain, as we shewed be [...]ore of Angels, I deny not but [Page 65] Satan may represent to the outward sense, as well as to the inward or imagination, divers shapes of things to delude men; which shapes may be cal­led fantasms, as that which Suidas calls a diaboli­cal fantasm [...]; which indeed was but a deluding shadow or fantasm, and not the Devil himself; who is an invisible spirit: therefore although there be in the heathen Poets fabulous doctrines concerning Demons, we must not hence infer with Mr. Hobbs, [That Demons are but idols or fantasms of the brain, without any real nature of their own, distinct from human fancy.] For so he may as wel infer, that God is but a fancy; be­cause the Poets have delivered many [...]abulous do­ctrines concerning the gods. He that afflicted Job, tempted Christ, bu [...]etted Paul, and hath been from the beginning an enemy to the wo­mans seed, is more then a fantasm or idol of the brain.

Cap. 44. After Mr. Hobbs hath toyled himself in vain, to prove that Christ hath no kingdom in this world, at last is content to allow Christ the kingdom of grace, which is as much as we de­sire; for we know that the kingdom of glory is not yet come; Christ then is King of his Church militant here, and raigneth in the hearts of his faithful, and performs all the offices of a King, even in this world, by prescribing laws, by ru­ling, defending, rewarding, punishing, though not in so ample a maner, as hereafter; he also conquereth and subdueth the enemies of his Church, though not fully till the consummation of the world: He also enlargeth the territo­ries and bounds of his Kingdom, that he might fulfil the prophesies, and make good his Fathers gift. Psal. 2. I have given thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. [Page 66] 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 souls im­mortality, for three reasons. [First, because the tree of life was to preserve man immortal. Secondly, what needed Christs sacrifice to recover mans immorta­lity, if he hath not lost it: Thirdly, must the wicked and heathen also enjoy eternal life.] I answer, The tree of life was to preserve man immortal, but not the soul which is immortal by nature, as be­ing a spirit, and not subject to corruption, as bo­dies which are compounded of corruptible mate­rials, and of contrary elements. Secondly, Christs sacrifice was to recover mans immortality, but not the souls which was not lost; now as a part cannot be the whole, nor the whole a part; so neither can the soul [...]be man, nor man the soul. Thirdly, eternal life which the wicked enjoy, is a life of misery, and such as they would be willing to exchange for death, neither is it more strange that wicked men should enjoy eternal life, then wicked Angels; both enjoying this immortality, as a due punishment for their sins: now whereas he saith, [That eternal life was not essential to humane nature, but consequent to the vertue of the tree of life.] I grant, that man is not naturally immortal, yet the soul of man is; but I deny that life eternal was a consequent to the vertue of any tree; for no tree can be capable of such a vertue; neither was the tree of life any other then a Sacrament of mans immortality, if he had pesevered in his obedience; therefore God debarred him, be­cause of his transgression, from it; in that he would not have his Sacraments abused by profane [Page 67] 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 civily dead: St. Paul in another case useth this figure, when he saith, I am crucified; that is, dead to the world; to wit, in his affections; and so they who include themselves in a monastery, are said to be dead to the world. But he saith, that this doctrine of the souls imnortality [is founded onely on some of the obscurer places of the new Testament.] I pray, what obscurity is there in this place, Thou shalt be this night with me in Para­dise? What was to be with Christ in Paradise, not the good thiess body, then it must needs be his soul? So when Christ preached to the spirits in pri­son, what were these spirits? Shaddows onely, or fancies, such as Virgil speaks of: Umbrae ibant te­nues, simulachraque luce carentum. Bodies they could not be, they must needs then be souls: So when Christ saith, That body and soul shall be cast in­to hell fire, there cannot be meant, as Mr. Hobbs expounds it, body and life; for then Christ should speak non-sence, when he saith; Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, Mat. 10. 28. That is, fear not them that can take away the life of the body, but are not able to take away the life of the life. But he objecteth, [That the soul in Scripture is taken sometimes for the whosle man, or living creature.] I grant it is so taken [Page 68] 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 therfore never used properly.

He tells us, (cap. 44.) [That this window gives entrance to the dark doctrine of eternal torments, of purgatory, of walking ghosts, and exorcisms.] The doctrine of eternal torments is not so dark, as he takes it; it is in plain termes 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 souls immortality; suppose also, that the do­ctrine of pugatory, walking ghosts and exorcisms were erroneous, and grounded on the souls 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 pernitious wits? As for ghost wal­king, that has no relation to the souls 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 shaddow, image, phancy, 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 [Page 69] So the shaddow 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 souls immortality, held that neither the soul nor the body went to hell, but onely the shaddows or similitudes of men.

When Christ saith, Mar. 9. 1. There be som that stand here who shall not tast of death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power. This Kingdom Mr. Hobbs [will have to be spoken of Christs 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 fisher-men the world began to submit to the scep­ter 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 Christs 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 Christs Scepter.

He gives us (cap. 44.) a pretty interpretation [Page 90] of Solomons words, Eccles. 12. 7. The spirit shall re­turn to God that gave it, [That is (saith he) God onely knows (but not man [...]) what becomes of mans spirit when he expireth.] This interpretation is somewhat far fe [...]ched: which if it be allowed, the word of God will prove no better then a nose of wax. When Luke 8. 55. the rulers 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 onely 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 onely 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 truely, 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 sheweth 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 [Page 91] 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 preheminence a bove a beast.] In these words Solomon doth not speak of the soul at all; but of the body onely, as may bee 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 beleeves better of Solomon, then to make him speak so brutishly, as though mans di­vine soul were made of dust, and resolved into dust again: or as if there were no difference be­tween mans soul and the breath of beasts. In re­spect then of our animal nature, or corporeal part, we eat, drink, sleep, breath, and dye 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 alledged by Divines, to prove mans immortality after the resurrection. Again he saith, [That this is a hard saying of Solomons; Better is he that hath not yet been, then they who have been, if the soul be immortal.] But I say, that this saying is no waies hard; for better it is to have no being morally, then to have a miserable beeing: therefore the immor­tality of a wicked mans soul adds to his unhapi­ness. For this cause Christ saith of Iudas, That it had been good for him, if he had never been born. Besides, when Christ tels 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 [Page 72] would fain know when did God make such a pro­mise to Abraham, that his soul should live immor­tally, and that he should be raised to immortality in the last day. Again, how can one be said to live by promise, who is actually dead; How is God the God of the living, if they whose God he is be not living, but actually dead; for a dead man to live by promise is a bull.

Cap. 44. [He cannot finde, that any man shall live in torments everlastingly.] What doth he say to that place, Rev. 20. 10. Where the beast and false prophet are tormented with the Devil day and night for ever and ever. Do not they live in torments ever­lastingly, that live in everlasting shame and con­tempt: but such is the condition of the wicked, Dan. 12 2. They shall be punished with everlasting destruction, or perdition, 2 Thes. 1. 9. But [it seems hard to him, that God the Father of mercies should punish without any end of time, &c. If God were not the Father of justice, as well as of mercy, it would go hard with good men; but it is just with God to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you, saith the Apostle: And to you that are troubled, peace with us, 2 Thess. 1. 6, 7. God who is offended is eter­nal, the desires of wicked men to sin are eternal, Voluissent roprobi sine fine vivere, ut possent sine fine peccare. The reward of the godly is eternal; why then should not the torments of wicked men be eternal? But I will answer him, as St. Austin answereth the Originists. Tant [...] errat perversius quanto videtur de Deo sentire clementius, Their error must heeds be too pernitious, that maketh God too gratious. Again, to what end did God pre­pare an everlasting fire, if the wicked be not e­verlastingly tormented in it? But to this he an­swers: [That there never may want wicked men to be tormented in them, though not every, nor any one [Page 73] eternally; for the wicked being left in the estate they were in after Adam's sin, may at the resurrection live as they did, marry, and give in marriage and engender perpetually, for there is no place of Scripture to the contrary.] When the Scripture speaks of wicked mens eternal torments, it never speaks of any redemption thence, and Mr. Hobbs confesseth, that the Reprobates, who dye in their sins, shall have no redeemer, they must then remain there for ever; except they had a Redeemer to help them ou [...] thence. Besides, I shewed that the false prophet is tormented for ever, and we read, Rev. 4. That if any one man shall worship the beast, the smoke of his torment shall ascend for evermore. As for leaving the wicked in the estate they were in after Adams fall, is a doctrine well beseeming the school of Mahomet, not of Christ: it seems also by this doctrine, that at the resurre­ction shall be the revolution of the Platonick year, when all things shall be acted in this world, as they were in the beginning: After Adam's fall, men did marry, build, plant, tread, eat, drink, and solace themselves with divers delights, if the wicked shall do the same after the resurrection, they shall be in as good a condition, as the Mu­salmans in Mahumets Paradise, or the Gentiles in the Elysian fields.

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 [Page 74] with the pleasures of sin; then to endure all mi­series and persecution, deny himself, and take up the cross of Christ, to enjoy unknown happi­ness which the eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard of: But when you say that there is no Scripture contrary to marriage after the resurrecti­on; I would know whether there be any Scrip­ture for it. Why may not Iudas Iscariot marry with some Princes daughter, and by this means obtain a crown, you can alledge me no Scripture against it; but I can alledge you Scripture against marriage; In the resurrection, saith Christ, men nei­ther marry, nor are given in marriage; but are like the Angels of God, that is, without copulation as they are. Now St. Matthew speaks not there of the resurrection of the just onely, but of the re­surrection in general; and so doth St. Luke [...] though you would have him speak onely of the resurrection of just men: for all men shall rise to life eternal; all men in their celibat shall be like the Angels: as men shall and may be cal­led the children of the resurrection, and con­sequently of God: as all men, even the Devils, are the sons of God by creation: for as he gave to all men a beeing in the creation, so he will give to all men a new beeing in the resurrection. To be brief, that the punishment of wicked men shall be eternal, is plain by this argument; they only are pardoned who repent; the wicked after this life cannot repent, therefore they cannot be pardoned: besides our Saviour tels us, that he who speaketh against the 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 shew, That those [Page 75] evil spirits or Devils w^ch Christ cast outof the possessed, were not such, but diseases. Sure if this opinion be true, then Christ did no great matter in curing of ordinary diseases. But the Scripture tels us, that He came to destroy death, and him who hath the power of death, which is the Devill, that the prophesie in Paradise might be fulfilled, The seed of the woman shall tread down the Serpents head. These were strange diseases that could speak to, & question Christ, Art thou come to torment us before our time? and could beseech him to have leave to enter into the Herd of Swine. Our Saviour did not know so much as Mr. Hobbs. that Devils were but dis­eases, when he gave commission to his Disciples, Matth. 10. and Luke 9. not onely to cure diseases, but also to cast out Devils. And Matth. 4.24. Christ not onely cured divers diseases and tor­ments, and healed such as were lunatick, and had the palsie, but those also which were possessed with Devils; by which we see Diseases and De­vils are different things. But he saith, That the ad­dressing of Christs. command to madness or lunacy, is no more improper then was his rebuking of the Fever, or the wind and Sea. I answer, It's true, Christs spea­king to those inanimate things, was onely to shew the power and efficacie of his Word; so in the Creation God is introduced by Moses as if he had spoken to the creatures; but it were very absurd to think that diseases should speak and discourse with Christ; should question and beseech him, and acknowledge his Divinity, as these Devils did. But he proceeds and says, That he hath not observed out of Scripture, that any man was ever pos­sessed with any other corporeal spirit but that of his own. That some men have been possessed with other spirits besides their own, is plain by many places of Scripture; but whether these spirits were cor­poreall [Page 76] or incorporeall, is not the question, though neither Divinity nor Philosophy doth ac­knowledge any corporeall spirits properly: The Wind indeed is sometimes called a Spirit, and so is the Sun, but the word Spirit is there used impro­perly, and in a large sense; so are these subtile va­pou [...]s in the Nerves and Arteries called Animal and Vitall Spirits by the Physicians, though in­deed they be bodies. Now that Spirits properly so called [...] such as Angels and Mens souls cannot be corporeall, is plain, because they have not quantity, nor are in a place by circumscription, nor move Physically. Many Angels may be in the same 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 corporeall, their bodies must be either Homogeniall or Heterogeniall. 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 grosse absurdities. Again, An­gels can passe through gresse bodies without pene­tration of dimensions, which shew they have not quantity, and consequently are immateriall: For the purest body that is cannot passe through ano­ther, but the other body must yeeld & give place. Lastly, if there were not incorporeall spirits, the world would be imperfect, as being destitute of Incorporeall substances, which with the corpo­rcall make up the Universe, and compleat it.

He saith (Chap. 45) [That Christ went himself in­to the wilderness, and that this carrying of him up and down from the wildernesse to the City, and from thence [Page 77] into a mountain, was a vision.] I know he went of himself to be tempted, he being no wayes forced, but of his own accord undertook to buckle with Satan our Arch-enemy, that we might the more boldly enter with him. Yet the Scripture [...]aith, That he was led by the spirit; but I cannot admit that this temtation of Christ was but a vision: for then we shall have smal comfort by Christs temta­tion, if it were not reall but imaginary, or in a vi­sion; and if we shall admit this to be a vision, we may suspect the rest of his sufferings to be but vi­sions, to the great dishonor of our Saviour and his Evangelists who wrot his History, and also to the discomfort of all Gods children. But how came Mr Hobbs to be so wise as to know this to be a vision, of which the Evangelists make such an exact historicall narration? When in Scripture any thing is done in a dream or vision, the dream or vision is mentioned; as the Angell ap­peared to Joseph in a dream, Matth. 2. Peter saw a sheet let down from heaven in a vision, Acts 10. The wise men were warned by the Angell in a dream, Matth. 2. Paul saw the man of Macedonia in a vision, Acts 11. The Lord spake to Paul in a vision, Acts 18. but in this temtation of Christ there is no mention of any vision, therefore we conclude it was reall; and in saying so, we need not fear that either Christ was possessed, or car­ried away violently by the devill, as Mr. Hobbs would infer; because our Savviour for our com­fort and salvation, suffered himselfe to be both tempted and carried by the devill, as afterward he permitted himself to be apprehended, and scourged, and crucified by the devils Instruments. And albeit Satan could not from that high moun­tain shew to the Lord all the kingdomes of the world, yet he could point to the understanding their places and situation.

[Page 78]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: [...] is but to adjure, and adjuration is used as well against men as spi­rits; the high Priest did not think that Christ when he stood before him was an incorporeal spi­rit, yet he adjureth or exorciseth him by the li­ving God, Mat. 26. He tells us, [That there were many Demoniacks in the Primitive Church, and few mad-men; whereas now there are many mad-men, and few Demoniacks, which proceeds not from the change of nature, but of names.] That the use of exor­cism hath so prevailed in the Church, should ad­minister cause of comfort, not of grief; in that our Saviour hath not left his Church destitute of helps and arms against the devil, who takes de­light to torment men here, by possessing their bo­dies, and to torment them hereafter, by insinua­ting into their souls, inticing them to consent to all kinde of iniquity, that so he may bring them, with himself, into eternal misery. Now our Savi­our was the chief exorcist himself, for he by his power and word cast 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, rejoyced that the devils were subject to them: and this gift of exorcism was be­stowed sometimes on wicked men, as we may see Mat. 7. of those, who in the last day will say to Christ, We have cast out devils in thy name. And we read Acts 19. of the 7. sons of Scaeva, who took upon them to exorcise evil spirits in the name of the Lord Jesus, because Paul had practised exor­cism with such good success. We see how the spi­rit [Page 79] of divination by Paul's command in the name of Jesus Christ came out of the damosel, Acts 16. Exorcism then is a gift of God, not temporary to continue onely in the Apostles, but lasting, and to remain in the Church till the end of the world; otherwise we should be in a sad condition: if when Satan possesseth any of her members, there were no remedy against him; [...]ut we have reme­dies left us, to wit, [...]asting and prayer, for our Saviour tells us, that there is a kinde of devil which is not cast out but by prayer and fasting, Mat. 16. Now that there are some possessed in these latter daies, is apparent by divers histories, that mention strange effects of people possessed, which are more then natural, and at which Phy­sitions are amazed; for as their diseases are pre­ternatural, so be their cures; 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, [...] [...] [...] that is, There will be tribulation upon the earth, and wrath in this peopl [...]. He mentions another De­moniack, who by the prayers of the congregati­on was freed from the devil, which at certain times used to torment her; I could allegde many examples of modern Demoniacks out of Del Rio, Wierus, Bodin, Zacuta, [...]ularts memorable histo­ries, and others, which physick could not cure, but were cured by Christian exorcisms, that is, by prayers, fastings, and almes of the Congregation, Demones a nobis adjurantur & 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, [Page 80] saith Lactantiae. I know some superstitious cere­monies have been and are still used in exorcisms, which I allow not: but I do not like Mr. Hobbs his slighting of Christs miracles, and his Apostles, when he tels us, [That Demoniacks were many in the primitive Church, and few mad-men, whereas now there are many mad-men and few Demoniacks, which proceed not from the change of nature. Is not this to extenuate Christs miracles, who came to destroy the works of the devil, and to cast out the prince of this world. And is it not likewise to make the Evangelists imposters, in publishing those cures for miraculous which were not, and calling ordinary and natural diseases by the termes of devils and evil spirits?

He will not (cap. 45.) have it Satan that en­tred into Iudas, though St. Luke writes so, [But an hostile and trayterous intention of selling Christ, for as by the holy Ghost are meant frequently graces and good inclinations, so by entring of Satan may be un­derstood wicked cogitations.] To Mr. Hobbs Satan is any thing, so he may not be a spirit or incorporeal substances. Sometimes he is but a fancy, shad­dow, dream, or apparition: sometimes is mad­ness, palsy, lunacy, or any other melady; here he is a traytorous intention; but indeed there was more then a trayterous intention that en­tred into Iudas at last: the intention to betray Christ was put into the heart of Iudas by Satan, John 13. 2. But when he had received the sop, Sa­tan himself entered into him; and as St. Austin on that place saith, took full possession of him, John 13. 27. And though I should yeeld, that sometimes the holy Ghost is put for the graces of the spirit, yet it will not follow, that Satan is used in Scripture for any evil suggestion or inten­tion: Again, Satan doth not presently intrude [Page 81] himself into any man, but first prepares his way by his Harbingers, that is, suggestions and evil thoughts, which having made the soul fit for him, he enters and takes possession, and thus he dealt with Iudas: Again, I would know of Mr. Hobbs, whether it was Satan in the Serpent, or onely a treacherous intention, that moved him to speak and seduce Eve? Lastly, why should we take his bare word for Gospel, and prefer this his whim­sie to the belief of the whole Church, and the stream of all interpreters?

In his forty sixth chapter he spurnes at all lear­ning except his own, and that with such a magi­sterial spirit, and so supercilious scorn, as if Ari­stotle, Plato, Zenn, the Peripateticks, Academicks, Stoicks, Colledges, Schooles, Universities, Sy­nagogues, and all the wise men of Europe, Asia, and Affrick hitherto, were scarce worthy to car­ry his books: With him [Logick is but captions of words, Aristotles Metaphisicks are absurd, his politicks repugnant to government his Ethicks ignorant, the Na­tural Phylosophy of the Schooles is a dream, rather then a science, set forth in senseless and insignificant lan­guage; Aristotles Philosophy is vain.] and many such like expressions; which shews how little he hath of the spirit of humility and modesty: I finde not too much learning, but too much pride makes some men mad: true learning is alwaies joyned with humility; the deepest rivers, saith Seneca, make the least sound; the Cypress tree is tall but fruitless; the Apple-tree is low but fruitful; and the more its laden the more it stoops: that man that slights all but himself, will be slighted of all but himself; intemperance in words argue impotency of minde; and as the Court saith, He is an unjust man that prefers his own wit to all others. [Homine imperito nihil quid [Page 82] quam injustius, qui nisi quod ipse facit, nil rectum putat.] He cannot but fowle 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 mens gifts, when he con­sidereth the defects of his own: [Tecum babita, & disces quam sit tibi curta supellex.] He that thinks to rear up the imaginary tower of his own fame upon the ruins of other mens, will finde he builds upon a sandy foundation, and indeed makes castles in the air. St. Austins counsel is good in this case; He that will build high, must lay his foundation low; [Si vis magnam fabricam constru­ere celsitudinis, de fundamento prius incipe humilita­tis.] Hercules cannot be pulled down by pigmies; nor can the rocks be shaken, though the frothy waves beat against them. Eminent men like solid trees, the more they are shaken, the stronger they grow, saith Seneca, [Quid miraris bonos viros, ut confirmentur concuti? Non est arbor solidane [...] fortis, nisi in quam frequens ventus incursat, ipsa enim vexati­ene constringitur, & radices certius figit.] We are bound to acknowledge, with thankfulness, the paines and industry of those brave men, which have intiched us with such monuments of lear­ning, which the Universities of the world have received, and do to this day cherish and maintain with such applause; and not to require them with scorn and contempt: this is ingratitude in the highest degree: I wish therefore that Mr. Hobbs had used more solidity in his arguments, and less impotency in his expressions against those eminent lights of learning, and not with Levia­than [to cast against them smoak out of his nostrils, as out of aseething Pot or Caldron.] To use the word [Page 83] of God in Iob; for I doubt me, Mr. Hobbs will never be brought in competition with Aristotle; but now let us receive his accusation against Ari­stotles Philosophy.

He saith, (cap. 46.) [That this doctrine of sepa­rated essences will fright men from obeying the laws of their Country.] I should think rather that this do­ctrine would fright men from disobeying the laws; for if God commands obedience to the laws, and subjection to the higher powers, is it likely that he will permit spirits to walk to dis­swade men from obedience? Or will the spirits of those holy men, who taught subjection to Magi­strates whilst they were alive, teach the contrary when they are dead? Again, wise men have urged obedience to their laws, upon the doctrine of se­parated spirits: so did Moses by shewing his laws came from God, who is a separated essence: so did Lyc [...]rgus, Solon, Numa, Mohomet and o­thers. But saith he, [Upon this ground, faith, wis­dom, and other vertues are sometimes poured into a man, and blown into him from heaven, as if the vertuous and their vertues could be asunder.] That [...]aith, wisdom, & other graces are sometimes poured into or upon men, is no paradox in divinity, seeing Gods word which cannot lie assureth us thereof; I will pour my spirit upon all flesh, Joel 2. I will pour upon the house of David the spirit of grace and supplication. Zech. 12. God poured his gifts upon the Gentiles, Acts 10. And so the Scripture useth the word, blowing or breathing; or inspiring, which is 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 mens souls are [...] tal and immat [...]rial, God inspireth from heaven [...] [Page 84] his gifts into them; but indeed the souls immor­tality is not the ground why God inspireth his graces, for then he would inspire the most wicked souls that are with his graces, for they are also immortal; the ground then of this inspiration is his own good pleasure, being a free dispenser of his gifts, neither needs he fear, that we by this doctrine will make the vertuous and their vertues to be asunder; for the vertues of vertuous men are not theirs till they be bestowed. Again, he saith: [Who will endeavour to obey the laws, if he expects obedience to be poured into him.] I reply, who will expect obedience to be poured into him, if he endeavour to obey the law. Again, obedi­ence is an act of the will; now acts are not infu­sed but habits. Besides, I answer him with Tho­mas; every good man yeelds obedience to Magi­strates, because he is bound thereto by the law of nature, where we see inferiour movers obey the motion of the superiour, and likewise by the law of God, which teacheth him to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey magi­strates, Tit. 3. 1. To submit himself to every ordi­nance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be the King as supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by Him, 1 Pet. 2. 13. A good man hath faith and he knows that faith in Christ includes obedi­ence, for Christ himself taught obedience, both By precept and practise: he is also a just man, and justice requires that he should give to every man his due, but obedience is due to superiours; obedience then needs no inspiration, but such rea­sons; now if any will maintain erroneous opinions, as he alledgeth upon the doctrine of the souls immortality, who can help it? Men may build stuble and hay upon the best foundation, which is Christ Jesus as the Apostle sheweth. Shall we deny the [Page 85] souls immortality, because of some errors groun­ded thereon; then by the same reason deny the Scripture, deny Christ himself.

He laughs (cap. 45.) at the words circumscriptive and definitive used in the schooles, which he saith [are insignificant words, for the circumscription of a thing, is nothing else but the defining of its place.] Here he sheweth his ignorance in the school termes; for though circumscribing be the defi­ning of a thing, yet the defining or confining is not the circumscribing thereof; Angels are in a place or rather space definitive, because they are so confined to one ubi, that they cannot at the same instant be in another, yet without any cir­cumscription of parts, to the parts of the super­ficies in the ambient body or place; for in a spi­rit there are no parts, therefore no circumscrip­tion, though there is a confining or definition to the ubi: when we say, that all the soul is in eve­ry part of the body; he asks, [Whether God is served with such absurdities.] He should first prove this to be an absurdity, and then inform us, whe­ther this tenet of the souls indivisibility, be any part of Gods worship; but indeed it is no more absurd to say, that the soul is all in every part of the body; then to say, that the Sun or moon is all in every mans eye; for one 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 shewed before out of Austin, that God hath a way [Page 86] to torment souls in fire, though unknown to us; neither can we tell, how the soul goeth hence without the body into heaven; onely we can tell him, that when our bodies return to dust, our souls return to God that gave them, Eccles. 12. As for the School-men at which he carps, I deny not but there are, in some mens opinions, many need­less questions, and subtilties, so there are like­wise among them many excellent passages, and useful distinctions; in this life there is no perfe­ction; where gold is there is dross; and the best corn is not without chaff; he is a fool that will re [...]use to drink wine, because there be lees in the barrel.

He saith, (cap. 46.) [That what is written in the Metaphysicks, is for the most part repugnant to natural reason.] He should have given us some 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 Metaphy­sicks, and how consonant that knowledge is to natural reason, I will set down here a few Meta­physical maximes. 1. One entity hath but one specifical essence. 2. The essence receiveth not augmentation nor diminution. 3. As every thing desireth to preserve its entity, so it doth its unity. 4. Unity is before multitude. 5. Truth is consonant to truth. 6. Every entity is good. 7. Beauty excites affection. 8. Evil is not ap­petible. 9. Every thing compounded is dissolu­ble. 10. whatsoever is compounded hath parts and principles. 11. In an universe is contained all particulars. 12. The whole is greater then the parts. 13. The first entity is simply infinite. 14. The abstract is before the concret. 15. The measure is before the thing measured. 16. The subject is the matter of its accident. 17. The [Page 87] 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 then the specifical, and this then the numerical. 27. I­dentity is founded upon unity, &c. Many more I could set down, but these are sufficient to let us see how much Mr. Hobbs is deceived, in saying, Metaphysick is repugnant to natural rea­son.

He tells us, (cap. 46.) [That every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body, is no part of the universe.] If he speaks of integral parts, I grant what he saith; but if he means by parts that which we call essential; to wit, matter and form, I deny them to be bodies. His drift is to infer that souls are bodies, because parts; but I deny them to be parts, no more then the vital and ani­mal spirits are parts of the arteries and nerves that contain them; or wine a part of the vessel that holds it. Spirits are contained in the world, but are no parts of it. But when he saith, [That that which is no part of the universe is nothing, and conse­quently no where.] He will make God to be no­thing, and no where; for I hope he will not make him a part of the universe, nor will he make him corporeal. He carps at Aristotle [for defining heaviness to be an endeavour to go to the center of the earth.] Aristotle doth not make this a definition, but a description of heaviness; for indeed the essential forms of inanimate things are not easily [Page 88] 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 onely 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 peripateticks have gone as far as rea­son and the light of nature can direct them. God will not in this world have us to know all things: our cleerest light here is but a glimmering: but if this description of Aristotles please not Mr. Hobbs, he should have done well to have given us a bet­ter, and then we will turn his disciples: but its more easie to carp, then mend or immitate: Car­pere vel noli nostra, vel aede tua [...].] So he laughs at Phylosophers for saying, stones or metals have a de­sire, or can discern the place they would be at, as man doth.] But he laughs at his own shaddow, for Phylosophers grant, that in inanimate things, there is a natural appetite to move towards their own place, which is nothing else but an inclina­tion or disposition, which he cannot deny, ex­cept he will deny nature it self: but that stones can discern as man does, is his own dream, not the saying of Phylosophers, for they teach the contrary; to wit, that this natural desire or ap­titude is without all knowledge or discerning: by this he shews, how little he is acquainted with their writings.

Phylosophers tell us, that in condensed matter, there is less quantity then before, and rarefied when more. Upon this he asks, (cap. 46.) [If there can be matter that hath not some determined quan­tity, [Page 89] 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, then 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 souls infusion, at the cause of sense, at the cause of willing, at occult qualities, and at some other peripatetick tenets, at which he onely shews his teeth: not being able to bite them; save onely that he calls this vain Phylosophy, af­firming the [...]ame out of St [...] Pauls words; but in­deed St. Paul never called Phylosophical truths v [...]in, for so he should condemn divinity, to which Phylosophy is subservient: besides, truth cannot be repugnant to truth; and Phylosophy is one of Gods special gifts, by which even the Gentiles were brought to the knowledge of God, and made inexcusable; there are vain opinions a­mong some professors of Phylosophy, as there are among some Divines: must therefore Phylosophy or Divinity be condemned as vain: he that speaks against Phylosophy doeth both bewray his igno­rance and malice; in disparaging men for making use of those arms which God hath given us to fight withall against the enemies of truth; and to destroy the field of good corn, because the en­vious man hath sown some tears among them. To speak against Phylosophy, is to speak against the light of reason, which God hath kindled in our mindes.

But he calls it (cap. 42.) [vain Phylosophy to say that God is no cause at all of injustice.] To free God from injustice, is not vain Phylosophy, but true Divinity; whereas the opinion of Mr. Hobbs is [Page 86] [...] [Page 87] [...] [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90] the heresie of the Libertines, who made God the author of sin; or of the Manichees and Valenti­mans, who held, that God made sin. But I would know, how can the fountain of justice be in any sort the cause of injustice: or can he be the author of sin, that is the punisher of sin; that makes laws against it, that invites upon promise of reward all men from it: how can he be free from hypocrisie, that grieves and is angry for sinful acti­ons, whereof he is the cause himself? How can he hate injustice, if he be the cause of it; he must needs love his own work, and consequently sinful actions? How can God deface his own work by sin, or his own image in man? How can it be otherwise but man must delight in sin with­out remorse, when he knows that God is any wise the cause thereof? Therefore to make God at all the cause of injustice, is in effect to make him no God. It stands then well with Philoso­phy and Divinity also to say, God is not at all the author of sin; he permits it indeed for his glory, for the exercise of his servants, and the condem­nation of the obstinate sinners; but is no more the cause of it, then the rider is the cause of that lameness in his horse, which proceeds from his own unruliness; or the Sun the cause of stinke, which ariseth of putrifaction. Again, this which he cals vain Philosophy, is it which brings us to the knowledge of divine and humane things, which perfects the will by uniting it to goodness, and the intellect by uniting it to truth.

It's ridiculous what he saith of Good and Evil, to wit, [That it is not the appetite of privat men, but the law, which is the will and appetite of the State, that is the measure of good and evill.] He makes here two different appetites, the one of the State, which is the Law, and the other of private men; [Page 91] but I say the appetite both of State and privat men, is one and the same: For if it had not been the appetite of privat 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 privat men. Again, if not the appetite of privat men but the law of the State is the measure of good, what shall we say of Daniels privat appe­tite to worship the God of heaven, and the pub­lick law of Nebuchadnezzar in worshipping his I­doll? 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 civill Philosophy to call all manner of Common-wealths but the popular, tyranny; and all Kings they call tyrants.] Either he is very ignorant in Aristotles Policicks, or very malicious: For Aristotle both in his Ethi [...]ks, lib. 8. cap. 10. and in his Politicks, lib. 3. cap. 5. is so farre from calling Kings tyrants, and all Commonwealths but the popular tyranny, that he distinguisheth the Kingly from the Tyrannicall government, where in plain terms he saith, That the Kingly is of all governments the best, and the Tyannicall of all worst, [...], that is the worst, saith Aristotle, which is opposite to the best, there­fore tyranny being [...], a trangression from Kingly government, and opposite to it, must needs be worst; he shews there that Kings aim at the publick good, but Tyrants meerly at their own benefit. A King governs according to the Laws, a Tyrant dominiers according to his will. Neither again doth he call all governments but the popular, tyranny, for he saith, that Aristo­cracie is one of the good governments because it [Page 92] aims at [...], the common utility If it doth not degenerate into Oligarchy, when a few of the richer sort will dominier and turn all the publick good to their own profit: and so he saith that Politia, or popular government is good if it degenerate not into Democracie, 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 lawfull goverment ty­ranny, or Kings Tyrants, whereas he shews that a Tyrant is [...], one that will not be ac­countable for his government, but will doe what he pleaseth be it right or wrong, which is farre 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 Common-wealth not men should govern, but [...]he laws, upon this he inferres, [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 Common-wealth men should obey the laws; In an ill governed Com­mon-wealth men are forced out of fear to obey Tyrants. Aristotle speakes to a [...] good not of a bad government, and sheweth what should be done, not what is done. Again, Aristotle sheweth that we should rather obey good laws then bad gover­nors, and good governors rather then bad laws, Polit. lib. 3. c. 7. so that he will have us obey all, but withall 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 [Page 93] should rather obey the law then the man, because the Law is the Rule by which he should govern. Secondly, because the law is impartiall, 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 privat spirits, and forcing of mens consciences, I am not against, but his quarrell against the School-men for their barbarous termes, is needlesse and witlesse; for Philosophers have liberty to use such terms as may make them intelligible: And it is usuall in all Arts and professions both Liberall and Mecha­nicall: consult with Physi [...]ians, Chymists, 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 agoe. As for the Antipodes, which some of the Fathers denied, I have in that poynt cleared them elsewhere; as likwise, I shewed the vanity of that whimzicall opi­nion of the earths 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 Chymera. 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 dayes are determined by motions of the earth.] It may be so in his fancy; but in the judgement of wise men it appeas lesse and l [...]sse, and that it is the Sunne, [Page 94] not the Earth, who like a Giant rejoyceth to run his course.

In his 47. chapter he goeth about to overthrow Christs 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 Popes power, succession and infallibi­lity, the Clergies priviledges, 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 Gods word: and his own too; for he confes­sed before that Christs Kingdome here was the Kingdom of grace. But to say that any, either Romanist or Presbyterian, doth hold Christs King­dome here to be the Kingdome of glory, as Mr Hobs 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 generall Resurrection. Again, I would know how Christs kingdom on earth can be a Roman invention to uphold their greatnesse, whereas this doctrine was preached by Christ himself, by the Apostles and their suceessors, when they were under persecution, and had no great­nesse 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 Royall Priest­hood. [Page 95] But by the way I must let him see his error in saying, [That Pontifex maximus was an Officer subject to the Civill State.] This is not so, but the Civill State was subject to him, as Festus shew­eth 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 Common-wealth. 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 Senat or the People. They had the same honours which they were wont to give to their Kings, and more, for no man had the honor to be carried in a Chariot to the Capi­toll, but onely the Pontifex; therefore this office and honor was so great, that N [...]a himself would be Pontifex, and so were divers Consuls. Iulius Caesar, and the Emperours after him, discharged that Office themselves, as holding it unfit that it should be subject to any Civill power, but that it should be incorporated in the supreme civil office.

Lastly he tells us (Chap. 47.) [That Aristotles Metaphysicks, Ethicks, and Politicks, 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 [Page 96] other Tenets; for next to the Scripture, Aristotles Phylosophy and School Divinity have been the grearest 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 cōtroversies, 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 Iustinian, who reduced the vast and disordered volumes of the Law into short In­stitutions, Digests, and the Code; why should not Divines thank Lumbard, Aquin [...], and other School-men [...]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 publick Trunquilli­ty] How far this plea of his wil 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 onely 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 [Page 97] him now for grumbling at Aristotle, whose bright­ness doth so much dazle his weak light, that he cannot be seen in the Colledges [Suum cui (que) 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 eye-lids of the morning; that out of his mouth goe burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.] Iob 41. But I doubt me for all this he will come short of his expectation, and misse of his mark; it will not be an easie 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 Iobs, [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 Iewes 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 imploy his Leviathan better then 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 then to [Page 98] [...]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 [...] nam (que) 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 dia­lecticam (que) mirum in modum excoluit, ammalium (que) 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 Subtil. 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, [Page 99] 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 [...], 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, [Page 100] pulcherrima sanae & naturae consentanea est, ar­tium (que) omnium quae ratione & via tractantur ordini persimilis. A communibus enim rerum initiis, ad proxi­mas cujus (que) causas progreditur, &c. Zanchius l. 1. c. 1. de Operibus Dei.

Quidam sunt qui vaesana amentia, philosophiae, ejus (que) authoribus bellum indicere ausi; sunt illos intelligo qui cum ali [...]s veteres pleros (que) omnes, tum Aristotelem, maxi­me, summum, bone Deus, virum, & unicam philosophiae aquilam, omni calumn [...]arum genere vexare, odium (que) illi & invidiam apud minus catos cautos (que) homines conflare conati sunt, &c. Ingens est quae ingentem hunc errorem fovet turba: turba tamen profecto est tantum, & [...], qui nec Sophiae, nec Gratiis litarunt, [...], 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 [...], 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 & [...] judicium meum est, nullam esse pe­stem humano g [...]neri perniciosiorem, &c. Casaubonus Praesat. in Aristotelem.

If I should alledge 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 [Page 101] Hobbs see, how he doth struggle not onely 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 Aristotles works, but likewise the Protestant Church: Therefore I have alledged the chief learned of the Protestants to justifie the Prince of Philosophers; whose te­stimonies I need not turn into English, for Mr. Hobbs understands well enough the language they write in: onely they that understand not the la­tin may take notice, that Scaliger calls Aristotle, the incomparable Heroe 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 Common-wealth, that he should be carefully preserved and read in the schooles 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 sheweth that Aristotles pains were profitable, his artisice great, his industry excellent, and his rules most notable. Zanchie saith, that he is of all Phi­losophers the most excellent, and that his me­thod is most clear. [...] calls him with ad­miration, [Page 102] a man of men the onely Eagle of Phi­losophy, whose stile is fraughted with Attick elo­quence; and that they who write or speak against him are dunces, silly people, and such whose books are fit for nothing, but for the fire: Scali­ger calls such, barbarous wits, Rats, Kites, Crows, Ravens, Owles, and Bats:

To conclude. I would have Mr. Hobbs take notice, that I have no quarrel against him, but against his tenets; I honor his worth and learning, but dislike his opinions; I know not his person, but I know and respect his parts; if there be any thing amiss in these my Animadversions; (for we are all apt to mistake) I shall thank him if he will set me right, and inform me better: for I ne­ver had so great an opinion of my self, as not to yeeld to reason, and such as are able to convince my understanding: The God of truth direct us all into the way of truth.

Amen.